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...

[Granville]

Nice trick Rick

[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 )

[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.

[Lance B]

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

[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).

[Steve Axford]

Perhaps the extra cost on the mirrorless cameras at present is paying for development of the new systems required, like new focussing and EVF systems? Theses, like all similar things, will drop in price after the development process reaches maturity. Perhaps Nikon and Canon plan to wait for that crossover point to slowly move away from SLRs. Perhaps they are smart, by making whatever money they can now and planning to make a big jump when the technology becomes impossible to ignore? Perhaps they plan to rely on their marketing power? I don't know their intentions, but it is very hard to imagine that such a complex mechanical device as a moving mirror can survive in what can easily be a purely electronic environment. Electronics is still advancing at a much higher rate than mechanical technology, so the pressures to abandon the SLR will be increasing quite quickly. Already I am finding that the Sony A7R2 is a much better camera for macro than a Canon 5D Mk3 and many of the reasons why would also apply to Nikon. I think this is also true for landscape, though a complete range of lenses is lacking at present, but it isn't true for sport or wildlife (not yet at least).

[arthurking83]

Perhaps the extra cost on the mirrorless cameras at present is paying for development of the new systems required, like new focussing and EVF systems? Theses, like all similar things, will drop in price after the development process reaches maturity. Perhaps Nikon and Canon plan to wait for that crossover point to slowly move away from SLRs.

I'm sure I already said that .. and it makes sense.
Remember the millions of potential customers don't care if it's SLR or mirrorless .. as long as it's .. cheap/the right size(which SLR designs can also be up to a point) .. and so on.

.... but it is very hard to imagine that such a complex mechanical device as a moving mirror can survive in what can easily be a purely electronic environment. ......

I have to be honest, I can't see that the basic version of the mirror system is really all that 'complex'.
Reason I say this is that I have one sitting on my desk, waiting to be installed one day soon
(I plan on doing the sensor filter replacement at the same time, hence the 'one day soon' caveat)

From what I've briefly observed on the very simple D70s mirror assembly it's really not all that much more complex than a door!
The entire mirror and shutter assembly is a single (plastic) unit, very light weight just with many complicated electrical ribbon strips hanging off it, looking very rustafarian!
The D70s uses a pentamirror viewfinder mechanism which keeps it much cheaper than a more expensive pentaprism design.
So, in just quickly looking at what the D70s assembly comprises of .. it looks quite cheaply made .. and to make.

The question is, what is the cost of a electronic display unit(of half decent pixel quality with an allowance for decent refresh rates) ... relative to the cost of the mirror assembly.

I can't imagine that a very high quality EVF display unit would be cheap to manufacture .. and then of course ensure that it's going to be durable as well(that is, production allowances for duds).

Remember that an EVF is basically an LCD and they are notorious for defective pixels .. mirrors aren't!
So no matter what manufacturing processes they have in place, there will always be LCD displays with defective pixels coming straight off the line .. they have to be accounted for in the manufacturing cost.
On a much lower (effective) resolution PC or TV monitor a dead pixel or two will effectively make no difference.
But on a super high res EVF(2.4m pixels in a 10x10mm square surface area is about as super high res as we consumers get access too!) .. one dead pixel and I dare say the EVF display unit is unusable.
I can't imagine anyone being happy with a bright red dead pixel whilst viewing it through a magnified dioptre too!

ps. had I been smarter, I (and my son) could have easily lived with the small speck of damaged mirror surface on the D70s when he brought it back from his camp trip. He tried quickly to clean it but nothing happened and speck remained.
I thought, as he did, it was a speck of dust/dirt and tried to clean it too .. until in cleaning it it smeared! .. but the smearing wasn't the dust speck it was the mirrored surface coming off!
Obviously the mirrored surface has a 'lifetime' as well or that (more likely) the D70s has been well abused(by me) over the years.
This is why I have a new replacement mirror box waiting to be fitted to the D70s ... funny thing(and it is an ancient 2004-2006 model camera now) .. but the mirror box is complete with pentaprism, lens mount, shutter, many electronic peripherals and servo motors .... and cost me a whopping AU$32(US$20). The next cheapest(also being the only other one available tho) was AU$80.
At that kind of money for the entire assembly, and most likely a few handlers must have made some profit along the retail chain ... I really can't imagine the cost of one of these low end assemblies to be more than about $10-20 or so. I'd dearly love to find out what the cost of a replacement EVF display unit would be.

[Steve Axford]

You work with computers, don't you? Would you design any computer system which depended on a mechanical device, if you could avoid it.

Your argument that EVF's will have defective pixels and mirrors don't just doesn't make much sense. The sensor in a camera has defective pixels, yet we have chucked film in its favour. My eyes have defective pixels, lots of them, but provided the software is good enough it makes little difference until you start having a really significant portion of defective pixels.

It makes lots of sense to put money into developing new and better EVF's as the same devices are used in many other things (like virtual reality) and economies of scale will bring down the price. Any new developments in camera mirror technology and the associated focusing hardware will have to rely on cameras alone for their funding. That spells their death if nothing else. Remember the CMOS took over from (I've forgotten which chip technology). CMOS was inferior in so many ways, but the mass market ensured that it would win. The same applies to mirrorless. It will win because of the shear number of devices that use it vs the very limited market for SLRs.

[arthurking83]

If I were to argue anything(which, BTW, I'm not arguing at all here) .. I would always argue in favour of an electronic display as ultimately being the best option for the future.
I think you've mistaken my replies as arguments!

You asked the question .. why? .. (this or that) and I'm simply adding possible answers.

Why don't Nikon or Canon develop a mirrorless camera .. well they both have as far as I know.
Why don't they wholesale replace SLR designs with mirrorless types .. I think the answer is obvious(from what we can ascertain) .. that it'll add to the cost of development relative to what they currently offer.
I gave the lowest end of the market as examples simply because the theory of an EVF system being lower has yet to transpire!
But even at the top end of the market, it's easy to assume that the reason they don't switch design types is most likely due to emerging tech .. I did post a link to Canon's latest patent design.

My personal preference is for a true hybrid design as OVF will still have an advantage over an electronic display(eg. in terms of ultimate dynamic range to the eye).
For landscapes, this is my preference.
Battery life! .. EVF's use up far too much power for all day use .. etc.

...... The sensor in a camera has defective pixels, yet we have chucked film in its favour. .....

You've just listed the major issue with an electronic device outputting to another electronic device.
If too many pixels become defective both on the sensor and the display .. the camera would be horrid to look through when trying to compose your photograph.
If the defective pixel locations coincide on both electronic devices, you additive viewing issues.

Dead pixels on a sensor can be dealt with easily for the final image in PP .. that's been a redundant issue from about day one.
You can't really deal with defective pixels in a live view/real time situation .. and mapping those dead pixels does nothing for the viewing experience in some situations.
Dead pixels on your sensor is not the same thing as dead pixels on your monitor.
Imagine a clump of dead pixels on your PC monitor .. would you just put up with them? Most folks purchase brand name monitors because there is usually a defective pixel assurance.
You can't fix them in any way .. the only solution is to replace the monitor.

Mirror surface technology is pretty mature to the point that you can safely say that (clumsy cleaning practises aside) .. they are pretty durable and I dare say manufacturing processes would produce high yield rates. And while I don't know this, I'm sure I'm safe in claiming that the yield rate would be far higher than for very high res LCD/OLED production.
And I'm sure that yield rates are what is the issue would be for the current reality of price comparisons between the low end of the camera market.
In an ideal world where all production processes yield 100% success rates .. for sure his res displays in camera would make them much cheaper.

It's the same for the sensor market. The larger sensors additional cost is not due just to the larger size of the silicon .. it's the yield rate of that sensor + the reduced number of devices for each silicon wafer that makes larger sensors more costly. The yield rate is a significant component to the equation.

I think that the introduction of Live View is possibly just enough EVF for some DSLR users fro those times when they need the advantage of a digital display.
And I have to stress here, I am a massive fan of the potential of an EVF system over a OVF system!!!
But, as far as I've seen, the disadvantages of the EVF are still too great to completely remove the OVF from the equation of a camera .. DSLR or otherwise.
For those times as you said like macro when absolutely perfect focus is needed, or the lens aperture is just way too small for any light to pass through to the OVF .. Lv mode is plenty as a form of compensation.
So my thoughts are that CaNikon probably see things in a similar way to my thoughts for now .. so they probably have the belief that there is no need to change anything .. YET!

if they simply follow the current manufacturers(of MIL cameras) it makes it harder for them to then take the lead in any significant way.
They can introduce a higher res EVF on any give model, but then so can the other manufacturer in their next model iteration.
If they perfect a better way(eg. this hybrid system Canon has recently released in patent form) it gives them a significant advantage down the track.

So the advantage (from CaNikon's point of view) would be that whatever Sony/Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji can give you, so can they. But what those other MIL only cameras can't give you .. CaNikon can!

I don't think that mirrorless cameras are the answer .. or only answer.

[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.

[Steve Axford]

If I were to argue anything(which, BTW, I'm not arguing at all here) .. I would always argue in favour of an electronic display as ultimately being the best option for the future.
I think you've mistaken my replies as arguments!

You asked the question .. why? .. (this or that) and I'm simply adding possible answers.

Why don't Nikon or Canon develop a mirrorless camera .. well they both have as far as I know.
Why don't they wholesale replace SLR designs with mirrorless types .. I think the answer is obvious(from what we can ascertain) .. that it'll add to the cost of development relative to what they currently offer.
I gave the lowest end of the market as examples simply because the theory of an EVF system being lower has yet to transpire!
But even at the top end of the market, it's easy to assume that the reason they don't switch design types is most likely due to emerging tech .. I did post a link to Canon's latest patent design.

My personal preference is for a true hybrid design as OVF will still have an advantage over an electronic display(eg. in terms of ultimate dynamic range to the eye).
For landscapes, this is my preference.
Battery life! .. EVF's use up far too much power for all day use .. etc.


You've just listed the major issue with an electronic device outputting to another electronic device.
If too many pixels become defective both on the sensor and the display .. the camera would be horrid to look through when trying to compose your photograph.
If the defective pixel locations coincide on both electronic devices, you additive viewing issues.

Dead pixels on a sensor can be dealt with easily for the final image in PP .. that's been a redundant issue from about day one.
You can't really deal with defective pixels in a live view/real time situation .. and mapping those dead pixels does nothing for the viewing experience in some situations.
Dead pixels on your sensor is not the same thing as dead pixels on your monitor.
Imagine a clump of dead pixels on your PC monitor .. would you just put up with them? Most folks purchase brand name monitors because there is usually a defective pixel assurance.
You can't fix them in any way .. the only solution is to replace the monitor.

Mirror surface technology is pretty mature to the point that you can safely say that (clumsy cleaning practises aside) .. they are pretty durable and I dare say manufacturing processes would produce high yield rates. And while I don't know this, I'm sure I'm safe in claiming that the yield rate would be far higher than for very high res LCD/OLED production.
And I'm sure that yield rates are what is the issue would be for the current reality of price comparisons between the low end of the camera market.
In an ideal world where all production processes yield 100% success rates .. for sure his res displays in camera would make them much cheaper.

It's the same for the sensor market. The larger sensors additional cost is not due just to the larger size of the silicon .. it's the yield rate of that sensor + the reduced number of devices for each silicon wafer that makes larger sensors more costly. The yield rate is a significant component to the equation.

I think that the introduction of Live View is possibly just enough EVF for some DSLR users fro those times when they need the advantage of a digital display.
And I have to stress here, I am a massive fan of the potential of an EVF system over a OVF system!!!
But, as far as I've seen, the disadvantages of the EVF are still too great to completely remove the OVF from the equation of a camera .. DSLR or otherwise.
For those times as you said like macro when absolutely perfect focus is needed, or the lens aperture is just way too small for any light to pass through to the OVF .. Lv mode is plenty as a form of compensation.
So my thoughts are that CaNikon probably see things in a similar way to my thoughts for now .. so they probably have the belief that there is no need to change anything .. YET!

if they simply follow the current manufacturers(of MIL cameras) it makes it harder for them to then take the lead in any significant way.
They can introduce a higher res EVF on any give model, but then so can the other manufacturer in their next model iteration.
If they perfect a better way(eg. this hybrid system Canon has recently released in patent form) it gives them a significant advantage down the track.

So the advantage (from CaNikon's point of view) would be that whatever Sony/Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji can give you, so can they. But what those other MIL only cameras can't give you .. CaNikon can!

I don't think that mirrorless cameras are the answer .. or only answer.

For someone who is not arguing, you do seem to be biased strongly in one direction, at least going by your arguments????? Time will tell, and maybe CaNikon will be able to jump across at just the right time. For what I do it is already no contest. I also work a lot with film makers and for them it is also no contest, but for different reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I'll bet it is mirrorless, since mirrorless means just that - mirror less, ie without a mirror. Mirror less just means anything without a mirror.

[Lance B]

I wonder about the mirrorless advocates, those that have purchased them always seem to be trying to convince us that they are the "answer" and "the best thing since sliced bread", but normal OVF DSLR's are still outselling the mirrorless hand over fist, mirrorless is just not making headway into normal OVF DSLR sales. If the majority of people really liked them better, they would be flocking to them in droves, but they aren't, most still opt for the standard OVF DSLR system. Personally, I would rather have my current form of DSLR as it has the OVF and when I require it, a mirrorless system when I use Live-view, ie the best of both worlds. Live-view could be better implemented, one which emulates a mirrorless system more closely and if I ever feel the need to use a mirrorless sytem, then I can use Live-view giving me a hybrid system, OVF and EVF. However, I have tried a few mirrorless cameras and I'm sorry, they just don't cut it for me. We can argue the toss all day, but with the current state of play, mirrorless is not up to the standard that would make me swap and as far as I can see, it will be a long time before they are. When they are, then I'll swap, but until then, I wish the mirrorless advocates would stop trying to convince me they are, because they aren't. That is all I am going to say on the matter.