Nikon Announce the NQR

[ricktas]

Nikon Pte. Ltd. is pleased to announce the release of the N-QR, a full frame format mirrorless camera that packs the incredible performance of the D5, Nikon’s flagship FX-format model, into a mirrorless body, using Nikon's patented full frame mirrorless system : http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-02

The N-QR incorporates the same powerful 153-point AF system as the D5, ensuring precise subject acquisition even during high-speed continuous shooting at approx. 10 fps. It supports 4K UHD movies, meeting the demands of multimedia professionals, while the new EXPEED 5 image-processing engine enables it to deliver high-quality images and movies and realizes a wide sensitivity range from ISO 100 to 51200, expandable to Hi 5 (ISO 1640000 equivalent).

The N-QR combines the agility of the DX system with superior usability. It employs a touch-screen, tilting monitor, and features SnapBridge support, which enhances the value of your images via constant wireless connection with a smart device.

The NQ-R also incorporates the worlds first 'Pano-Drive' tripod mounting system. Using a servo motor in the base of the NQ-R, the camera can be set to rotate automatically after each frame, panning through a set number of degrees between each frame capture. The Pano-Drive menu allows the photographer to select how many frames are to be taken, and how much the Pano-Drive rotates the camera after each frame, in degrees. Once set, a press of the shutter button will see the N-QR automatically take the set number of frames, whilst rotating the camera around the nodal point, fully automatically. For video, the panning motion will be smooth, as the camera can track the subject using the AF system, ensuring panning captures exactly what the photographer wants.

A release date has not been set, but based on recent releases, expect to see the Nikon N-QR full frame mirrorless camera on the shelves soon.

[Glenda]

Certainly not before time - it seems Nikon and Canon were being left behind in the mirrorless race. Hopefully it will get great reviews, have few teething problems and be affordable. Getting older I am definitely considering the switch to mirrorless, the biggest drawback being the cost of getting a whole new system.

[Lance B]

April fools joke, Rick?

[Filter]

Went into NQR & they know nothing about these...

[arthurking83]

Went into NQR & they know nothing about these...

Damned! .. I ended up in the wrong store .. somehow I took a wrong turn and ended up in a Reject Shop instead!
(although they did have a lot of mirrorless stuff in there )

[Granville]

Nice trick Rick

[ricktas]

NQR = Not Quite Real!

[feathers]

Well you got me

[Steve Axford]

I wonder about the joke. It raises some interesting questions - like why don't they? Sure there are still some problems with mirrorless, like the EVF, but it's hard to see that it's not going to be the future. It's a simpler camera that theory says will produce better results for the same price.

[arthurking83]

I wonder about the joke. It raises some interesting questions - like why don't they? .....

The main reason they don't is (probably) ROI .. return on investment.

Why spend all this money on a device that may not ever fully return as much profit for the model line up, as the current models do?

If you have a peek at the low end of the market D3300/1300D type cameras, they are still approximately $100 cheaper than the cheapest 'current' model mirrorless cameras.
When the prices are in the 400-500 range, that $100 represents at fair percentage of the price .. and allows $100 worth of accessories.
So even tho the more complicated to build SLR type cameras are cheaper and in theory more expensive to build, the simpler (and in theory less expensive) to build mirrorless cameras still retail at higher points.
The assumption can only be that the SLR manufacturer's ability to manufacture those complicated mirror contraptions is so well advanced and matured that there seems to be no need to invest money in newer tech .. keep chugging along until a breakthrough tech in mirrorless comes along that changes the equation.

The reality is that for the major majority of camera purchasers, whether the camera is mirrorless or SLR has no bearing on their choice.
These are the millions of consumers that most companies target .. not us enthusiast types that nitpick over every last detail and feature!

I can't understand why it's taking so long for proper hybrid type EVF/OVF cameras such as Canon's recent Patent release.
That's what I want. Pure EVF probably isn't as a long term prospect.

I like the idea of an EVF, but still have personal preferences that lean more towards OVF quality viewfinders. Have yet to meet an EVF that looks nice.
I like the idea of having all those uber cool features such as instant magnified focus points and so on in an EVF, but would still prefer the every day use of a no power draining OVF.

Flick a switch and EVF would be great for those times when an EVF's additional features would be handy to have access too .... etc.

I'd love to see/experience the quality of the EVF in the new Leica SL tho.


ps. I hope that 19mm/4 PC-E patent in Rick's link turns into a real product too.

[Steve Axford]

The main reason they don't is (probably) ROI .. return on investment.

Why spend all this money on a device that may not ever fully return as much profit for the model line up, as the current models do?

Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in 20 years, or even 10 years time. The mirror assembly must be very expensive and it has certain other real disadvantages (eg accurate focussing and extra space required in the light path. Perhaps the resistance to EVFs is mainly from us oldies and when the youngsters move in SLRs will be a bit like film cameras, interesting but historical.

[arthurking83]

Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in .....

Really makes no difference what my thoughts are .. but to answer the question, No!

But what's hard to argue against is what the reality is. And that is, at the lowest end of the ILC camera spectrum the SLR design is still cheaper to buy.
And the theory of it, and expectation is that it should be reversed but it's clearly not the case.

The other notable anomaly about the situation is that the m4/3rds cameras at the cheaper end of the market use a significantly smaller sensor than the APS-C models at the cheaper end too.
You would expect that the smaller sensor would add to the theoretical price advantage of the mirrorless cameras too .. but again we don't see it.

Us oldies don't generally buy D3300/1300D type cameras, so our resistance to EVFs wouldn't really have any bearing on what the manufacturer decides is the best design type for that product range(where production costs are vital).

[ricktas]

Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in 20 years, or even 10 years time.

Changes happen in everything. My guess is in 20-30 years we wont be using mirrorless either as the dominant camera. Digital is moving so fast (not just digital photography) that what we will likely be using has not even been invented yet. But there has never been a perfect camera or system, and I do not believe mirrorless is, and no doubt whatever comes next wont be perfect either.

[dunnart]

Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in 20 years, or even 10 years time. rical.

No I don't. I think the world is looking for small and convenient these days. Lots of folks only look at their photos on a computer screen, so fine resolution isn't that important. As I get older, I feel the weight of my sir gear. I'm prepared to lug it around, but many wouldn't be - and in 15 years, I may not be able to either

[I @ M]

Sure there are still some problems with mirrorless, like the EVF, but it's hard to see that it's not going to be the future. It's a simpler camera that theory says will produce better results for the same price.

Get real Lance. I have never, until now, raised any argument for mirrorless, so to say I " always seem to be trying to convince us that they are the "answer"" is quite ridiculous.

The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.

[jim]

The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.

The first quoted post is on this thread, so doesn't really contradict the second. Unless you take "now" to mean "this instant".

[Steve Axford]

[QUOTE=I @ M;1350649]The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.[/

My thought process is that if I write several things within this thread, they should generally be taken together. I believe that most others would also follow this convention.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say you necessarily, Steve.

Since I am the sole poster who is suggesting that mirrorless would be the way of the future - who else could you mean?

[Lance B]

[QUOTE=Steve Axford;1350703]

The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.[/

My thought process is that if I write several things within this thread, they should generally be taken together. I believe that most others would also follow this convention.

- - - Updated - - -



Since I am the sole poster who is suggesting that mirrorless would be the way of the future - who else could you mean?

The general trend for the mirrorless advocates and disciples of the new religion is that mirrorless will take over the world and that to want anything else is just being a dinosaur. You have been very much pushing the mirrorless barrow in this thread and you make the comment that OVF will be completely replaced in the future and I just don't see that happening or as it being necessary simply because we can have the best of both worlds with an OVF and live-view that emulates EVF. I also don't think that it has to be an "either - or" argument.

[Steve Axford]

[QUOTE=Lance B;1350723]

The general trend for the mirrorless advocates and disciples of the new religion is that mirrorless will take over the world and that to want anything else is just being a dinosaur. You have been very much pushing the mirrorless barrow in this thread and you make the comment that OVF will be completely replaced in the future and I just don't see that happening or as it being necessary simply because we can have the best of both worlds with an OVF and live-view that emulates EVF. I also don't think that it has to be an "either - or" argument.

Could I ask how you see that a mechanical mirror assembly will survive in a device that can easily by purely electronic? Mirrorless is not a technology, but simply the removal of the mirror assembly and then using anything else. To me, and many others, including Arthur (please correct me if I am wrong here, Arthur), this makes a lot of sense. The technology and implementation still has a little way to go, particularly the human interface, but a mechanical device which solved a problem for film cameras is very unlikely to survive for long in the digital era where there is a digital solution to the problem. To assert that I am making this a religion is a bit over the top, don't you think? I learnt many years ago not to get emotionally tied to any hardware or software.

[Lance B]

Well, the results shouldn't be any different. The rest of it is about human interaction with the camera.