FullFrame Sensor in D7000 body?

[RRRoger]

Do you think Nikon will come out with a D7000fx?
Using mostly off the shelf parts, my dream camera would be:

1. The D7000 is the perfect size camera for me.
2. I would like an affordable D3s, so use that Sensor.
3. Two SDHC™/SDXC™ UHS-I Memory Card Slots
4. One or more Expeed 3 Processors.
5. One Gigabyte of on-board memory.
6. Latest Focus system
7. Articulating LCD screen.
8. 100% ViewFinder
9. 11fps at 1/8000s
10. HD1080 at 24, 25, 50, & 60fps.
11. Video recording for at least 29 minutes.
12. Adjustable AMP for Audio recording & playback.
13. Locking mode dial

Not off the shelf improvements:
14. On-Board GPS.
15. Remote for controlling Video as well as Stills.

[ricktas]

It is probably not possible, the mirror/sensor housing is in all likely-hood not large enough to hold a FF sensor, mirror etc. So a FF body is always going to be a bit larger.

[RRRoger]

It is probably not possible, the mirror/sensor housing is in all likely-hood not large enough to hold a FF sensor, mirror etc. So a FF body is always going to be a bit larger.

There should be plenty of room if the mirror box were removed ala Nikon 1,

[ricktas]

There should be plenty of room if the mirror box were removed ala Nikon 1,

But then it would not be a D7000fx, would it!

[Lance B]

No, Nikon will not have an FX D7000 as it is a DX body and would require a complete overhaul to make the mirror box bigger etc, just to name one major alteration. What they might do is use the D7000 (Pentax K-5) sensor in a D300/D300s body as this is a pro body for DX with all the pro body hardware etc. The D300/D300s is a basically a D700 but with a DX sensor.

They will introduce a D700 (named D800 or whatever) with a sensor that has a similar DR and high ISO advantage over previous DX (APS C) sensors but in an FX (FF) sensored camera.

The D7000 is also a semi pro body and therefore will stay that way and the D700/D300/D300s are the pro oriented bodies of FX and DX respectively.

[RRRoger]

I think a FullFrame camera would sell better than a D800 or D4.

I think a smaller D3s based camera would be better for many of us, and

that it would outsell (at $1995) the D700 and D3s put together.

[arthurking83]

If the D7100 is the replacement for the D7000 somewhere down the line, I think it'll be at least a D8000 era camera where we may see an Fx sensor in an APS-c sized body.

The D300/D700 body type is where Fx will probably stay for a while based on price/performance/profit ratios.

D7000 body shell(not just the mirror box assembly) is probably too narrow to house all the electronics and power requirements. More so that size requirements tho is price point and marketing perspective.
Where do you price it, and which model of the current line up do you sacrifice(in sales terms) to produce this one?

Don't fall into the trap of gear headedness for the sake of gear headedness. Just be thankful that your current gear exists and get out and use it efficiently.

[Lance B]

I think a FullFrame camera would sell better than a D800 or D4.

These are/will be FF cameras. I guess what you're trying to say is that a FF D7000 camera would sell better than a D800 of D4?

I think a smaller D3s based camera would be better for many of us, and

that it would outsell (at $1995) the D700 and D3s put together.

That may be so, but they have to be able to make it for that price and I sincerely doubt that they could without sacrificing too much to make it worthwhile. The fact is, they would have to alter the mirror box to suit a larger mirror to allow for a FF sensor and this would be too costly, IMO. The D700 type camera is about as low as you're going to get pricewise for a FF camera.

[Bennymiata]

This discussion is very interesting to me.
I've often thought why are FF digital cameras so big and heavy, when 35mm film cameras from the 60's and 70's were so relatively petite in comparison?
The image size is identical, and obviously the mirror box etc should be about the same size, so why are the cameras so different in size, and why can't they put a FF sensor into something of a similar size to the SLR's of the 60's?
Today's batteries are around the same size as a 35mm roll of film, and these old cameras also had electronics, although nowhere near as complex as today's cameras, but surely they could put today's electronics in a similar volume to the all the mechanics of an old camera.

I guess they make them that large, so they also look impressive and can charge lots of $$$ for them......

[RRRoger]

I guess they make them that large, so they also look impressive and can charge lots of $$$ for them......

Exactly! That is why "SuperSized" Americans have bought so many Bloated SUVs and OverSized pickups.

However, You do need a minimum Sensor to lens depth and enough room for the larger mirror box of a FullFrame.
Other than that the larger body allows room for a larger top, back, and bottom LCD, bigger battery, bigger flash cards and more of them,
and more room for other stuff inside too.

So, if you want a compact, you will have to give up something to minimize the size.
And, the D7000 has the minimum features I want.
1. Good size, weight, and build.
2. Good battery life
3. Lots of control buttons
4. top LCD
5 Dual cards
6. Latest AF system that could be improved more.

Otherwise I would have chose the D5100 body to modify because it is already a little deeper and has the articulating screen that I like so much.
But, it does not have enough room for all the stuff I want on and in it.
And, even the D7000 will either have to be slightly larger to accommodate the D3s FullFrame mirror box or it will have to be eliminated, which I prefer.

[Boo53]

But then it would not be a D7000fx, would it!

Then it would be a Sony a77

[RRRoger]

Then it would be a Sony a77

1. The a77 is DX
2. The only advantages I see of the 24mp Sensor are higher resolution and 1.5 crop for reach,
everything else about it is a disadvantage compared to the D3s Sensor

[ricktas]

Sensor size is the reason FF camera's are larger. A larger sensor needs a larger mirror, with all the room for the mirror to move up and down.digital_sensor-sizes.png

Looking at those sizes, it is obvious why a FF sensor needs a bigger mirror and area for mirror movement. Yes, 35mm film allowed for smaller bodies but it did not include all the electronics of the Digital SLR. The Battery for a Pro-level FF camera is about 3-4 times the size of the one in a prosumer DSLR body, and allows for a lot more shots per charge. The Nikon D3 battery is capable of around 3000 shots per charge. D7000, 1050 shots per charge. There are a huge range of reasons that the manufacturers make their Pro level camera bodies larger.

Some things to consider:

* Bigger Sensor
* Bigger Mirror and housing
* Often bigger batteries.
* Often built in battery grip

Could they build a smaller FF camera, probably yes, but would that be called a D7000 variation, probably not. If Nikon (or another manufacturer) went this path, it would be given a completely different nomenclature.

[RRRoger]

A smaller D800 would be OK with me.

Nikon seems to have passed on the D700s.
Problem with the D800 is the Sensor size will probably be of much higher MegaPixel, and that could compromise High ISO and speed.
It will almost surely cost a lot more than a D7000fx too.

[swifty]

I think a smaller FX would certainly be possible, particularly if they wanted to omit some of the whiz bang power hungry features. With time and continued miniaturisation, we probably can get to the old 135 film SLR sizes.
But using mostly off-the-shelf D7000 parts would likely not be possible since its made for DX.

[Lance B]

The thing often overlooked is that they make FF sensored camera large due also for the rigours of pro use.

As Rick says, the mirror used in a FF camera is at least as large as the sensor and this mirror has to be able to flip up out of the way and therefore the depth of the body front to rear as well as the height will need to incorporate the mirror swing. The pentaprism is also big as well and the associated levers and damping etc all gop to add to the size and bulk of the camera. Due to the fact that they are pro type cameras, they have larger batteries for rapid frame rates, enough power to run high speed and memory hungry electronics, faster more accurate AF and other niceties that you get in a pro spec camera. The fact that the mirror etc is large, and that they have rapid frane rates also means that the damping and build quality of these mechanisms are large and heavy and this all adds up to the bulk of a FF DSLR.

The thing is, they are also built tougher as well. They are built tough to put up with the rigours of pro use as they are apt to be thrown around by journo's and wedding photogs going about their business day to day, especially with the big pro spec lenses attached, so the chasis holding the lens mount area is probably a lot tougher as well. They need to last a long time in this type of environment and therefore are built with this in mind. These cameras chasis's are thicker and stronger, the plastics are thicker and stronger, the electronics more robust and protected, there is better weather sealing, tougher buttons and switch gear etc.

So, there will not be a FF camera built small and light until FF sensor prices become low enough that they can compete at the price level of an APS C DSLR. Why? Because the market for a FF DSLR built small and light is a small market and can't be justified at current pricing levels as you would get much more bang for your buck with a up market semi pro highly specced APS C DSLR rather than you would with a FF DSLR built down to a price in order to compete with a highly specced APS C semi pro DSLR.

Now, you may think that there is a market for a low spec FF DSLR, but I think that you are wrong and that Nikon and Canon know this as well. The advantages of APS C outweighs the advantages for FF in most of the market that you talking about and that market is the amateur and even advanced amateur, especially in the long lens department where a 200mm lens on FF is essentially a 300mm lens on APS C and a 400mm lens is essentially a 600mm lens, so there are cost advantages there which is why this market exists. The amateur and advanced amateur would not bear having to pay the price for a 300mm instead of a 500mm lens let alone lug one around for the day.

So, in order for there to be a small, lightweight APS C DSLR, two things have to happen. Firstly, the sensor price of FF needs to come down dramatically and this will then facilitate the second part of the requirement which will then deflate the need for FF sensors to only be the realm of pro specced cameras where they have to make them rugged, have high speed electronics, large memory, large batteries and other pro spec requirements and can thus charge the high price for them that 99% of people will not pay for and therefore is no market for.

One will not happen without the other regardless of what you may want or think.

[I @ M]

And above all else, Nikon are a company that exists purely for the sake of making and selling products in return for ( hopefully ) a profit at the end of the year.
They are not in business to pander to the needs wants of a minority.

[Lance B]

And above all else, Nikon are a company that exists purely for the sake of making and selling products in return for ( hopefully ) a profit at the end of the year.
They are not in business to pander to the needs wants of a minority.

Exactly.