[PB PM]

Got to play with some Fuji X cameras yesterday, and I was very impressed. Sadly they didn't have a demo X-T1 (still selling out as fast as they arrive apparently). The EVF's in the newer models really are much better than the early cameras, and I really like the position of the viewfinder on the rangefinder style cameras. Finally a camera where my nose isn't being smushed into the rear LCD (I'm left eye dominant)! Single point, fixed subject, AF is very snappy, as quick if not quicker than the D800. Having to push a button to switch AF points is kind of strange, but I got used to it. The buttons and UI are intuitive and easy to use. I have been strongly considering moving to the Fuji X mount system lately, but I would love to try them out in the real world rather than just the camera store. I say that because most of the camera stores around here have very bright uniform lighting, that could hide the possible real world AF pitfalls I've read about in reviews.

If I do move to Fuji I think I'd go with two EX-2 bodies (again love the rangefinder VF position), either the 10-24mm F4 or the 14mm F2.8, 35mm F1.4, 60mm macro and the 55-200mm, or leave the telephoto until the 80-400mm comes out next year. I've also considered keeping the D800, 24-70mm f2.8, 105mm F2.8 VR and the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Then I would add one Fuji body and a couple of primes to replace the aging D700 and other lenses.

I also played with a Sony A7 with the cheap kit lens (plastic fantastic 28-70mm variable aperture). While the camera is solid, it simply does not match the feel and build of the Fuji cameras. Like the Fuji, the A7's EVF and AF are impressive, at least in the well lit camera shop. The camera is comfortable to hold for EVF use, but the controls are extremely cramped and I don't exactly have big hands. I practically had to take my right hand off the grip to use the rear control dial. The UI is not very intuitive, I had to get the salesman to show me how to use it, and that was just to get it from auto area AF to single point. Having to dive into menus, rather than having a direct access AF button is, IMO, a no no. Setting the F stop, aperture and ISO was simple enough, but other basic tasks were kind of frustrating. Having to cycle through the display settings to get a quick access menu is a little odd, since it isn't very quick to access I know Sony is working with a small camera body, which limits button placement, but some of this stuff just makes the camera frustrating to use. Maybe it would be quicker if the Fn buttons are setup? I've never had such a poor UI experience, and I've used cameras from almost all of the other major manufactures (Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji). Lets put it this way, I've never had to ask a camera salesman how to complete a basic task like that before. Not a very good first impression as a result. It's kind of sad, because in terms of performance A7 seems to be a decent camera.

[Eugene]

I came to a similar conclusion about th A7 series a while back. I'd rather the extra buttons have labels for default functionality like switching focus or metering modes. I don't recall what the function buttons do out of the box, but I do remember having to do way too much menu diving.

My favorite MILCs up till now remain the Panasonics. They have a pocket camera replacement, a catch-all camera and an SLR mimic which excels at video.

[PB PM]

I agree, Panasonic makes some very good cameras, that give you as much or little control as you want. Even the full auto (iAuto) modes work well compared to some other big name brand camera companies (points at Nikon/Canon). While I've only extensively used older models (GH-1 and GF-2), I found them highly flexible in terms of controls and functionality. Of course back then the EVF's/LCD suffered from a lot of lag, which the newer models do not. If they made an APS-C model with the dynamic range and ISO performance of modern DSLR's I'd get one. Sadly Panasonic is sticking with M4/3s, which has 4:3 aspect ratio (which I do not like working with, and when you use other ratios you are tossing away MP), and a lack of dynamic range. Of course, I realize the super compact size of those cameras is the biggest draw for many users, but to each their own. Even moving to Fuji with a modern APS-C sensor would be giving up a lot compared to my Nikon bodies (in terms of total performance), but I think I could live with it, given the weight differences and the lower insurance cost. That and I simply love the design of the Fuji cameras. There are rumors that Fuji is working on a 24MP sensor for the next generation of X-mount cameras, so I might wait and see what that brings in terms of performance.

Oh, the other problem I had with Panasonic is that once a camera is replaced it is almost impossible to get replacement OEM batteries, at least in Canada. That's a big downside, since they have a habit of making a new battery for each camera released.* We had the same problem with Panasonic cordless phones a few years back. While third party batteries do work, I've yet to find ones that work as well as and last as long as OEM ones do (cameras or phones).

*Unless some of the current generation models are reusing older ones now.

[Matsu]

PMPB are you left or right left eye dominant? Which eye is open? Unless you use a 35 - 70 range lens, put your right eye to the finder, and just let the left de-focus (keeping both eyes open) doesn't your nose still get into the back of the camera? I know that works for some people.

You know, I'm convinced that some camera company could make a tidy profit with a series of semi custom left-handed bodies. Even a few righties would buy them depending on their eye dominance and or left/right hand strength and dexterity. So long as you make it a mirror image, the way most people's brains work, the controls will fall just as easily. When it comes to moving fingers we innately (subconsciously) process not left to right or right to left but from thumb to pinky or pinky to thumb. A consequence of this is it's pretty easy to pick up movements that follow a mirror image from one hand to the other - think of typing. The harder adaptation would be the twist of zoom and focus rings.

It might cost more, but it would be worth it to some. Demand for a limited supply would probably support higher prices, both new and resale.

Or, another solution would be to make the body a box and have the grip attach to either the left or right sides. Like a smaller Hassleblad shape, for instance, though the Hasslebalds only attach at the right.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu PMPB are you left or right left eye dominant? Which eye is open? Unless you use a 35 - 70 range lens, put your right eye to the finder, and just let the left de-focus (keeping both eyes open) doesn't your nose still get into the back of the camera? I know that works for some people.

I always use my left eye when shooting, because my right eye is a little bit weaker and gets fatigued much faster. Normally it's not on issue, because I have monocular vision, but if I use my right eye to the viewfinder it gets tired quickly. Using a centered SLR viewfinder my nose ends up smack dab in the middle of the LCD. When I used the Fuji rangefinder style body my nose ended up near the left edge of the body. The eye cup came out just enough to keep it from being uncomfortable.

Oddly enough I am right handed, so the grip on camera is not an issue.

[Matsu]

Do you only see out of one eye at a time? That's extremely rare. I know one other person whose optic nerves or neural pathways are wired like that. She has normal vision in each eye independently, but doesn't actually see stereoscopically. Her brain basically lets her see the feed from either one eye or the other, it doesn't combine them. She can't see 3-d movies or those weird 3-d pattern illusions where you stare at a page until your eyes defocus and the image pops up from the page. When she was a kid, doctors from all over came to study her. Kinda cool.

[PB PM]

Your friends eye's work the same way mine do. No 3D movies, and reduced depth perception. In some ways our eyes work more like a camera than people with binocular vision.

[Matsu]

I look through my left as well, but because I can't really squint my right eye properly, and I wear glasses. Sometimes, when I wear contacts, I try using the right eye for the both eyes open method. I can keep my nose clear of the camera - and it's a pretty good sized nose for holding up glasses - but I have to angle my face that my left eye is looking up the side of the lens - makes for weird double vision and a hard to discern frame edges. Might work with smaller cameras though. Weirdly enough, glasses or no, using my left eye, blinking is not a requirement. I can easily look through the finder with both eyes open and just shift my gaze from left to right eye. With glasses on, I press my cheek-bone into the bottom left corner of the LCD screen. This braces the camera and keeps my glasses from getting all bent out of shape. I can see the whole frame this way. With contacts, I just stick my whole eye in the finder. In either case, nose ends up just behind the mode dial and focus lock switch, not on the actual LCD.

Yes, I had to hold a couple of cameras up to my eye just now to make sure I described it accurately. You my friend might have an advantage if you don't need to blink to look through the finder easily from either eye, but not sure how switching from one to other impacts you? Does it just cause fatigue, basically? From time to time I get frustrated by sweaty/fogged up glasses that I think about getting Lasik, glasses really are the biggest PITA in this whole thing, but I'm not crazy about having some guy slice off a layer of my eye, laser it, and then put the layer back. Creepiest thing ever.

[PB PM]

Yes the issue with using my right eye is primarily fatigue, and once that happens I start to get semi-burred double vision. Very strange, and not so good if I have to drive home after shooting.

[Matsu]

Fuji do appear to be filling out the lens roadmap rather quickly. I hadn't looked in a while, so I did a quick google. Almost as complete as m4/3, and will be by next year. It'll be interesting to see their take on the photo-journo pair (24-70 and 70-200 equivalents), which are 16-55 and 50-140 in X mount. According to their newest road map, coming late this year and early next, along with a 90mm f/2 and a super tele of some kind and you've got almost everything you need in the system.

I tried to do as fair a representation of the size potential of m4/3 and FujiX lens-body packages at the wide-normal end, and then I threw an FX camera just to see. I couldn't spec exactly equivalent lenses, so I used the closest they had on www.camerasize.com In the case of the Nikon Df, I used the 16-85VR as a place holder for the 24-85VR because those two lenses are almost the same size, the FX lens is actually a smidge shorter, lighter. The X kit and m4/3 kit are pretty close in relative aperture equivalence: f/2.8-4 vs f/2.8 constant. For any given field of view, f/4 on APSC giving about the same depth as f/2.8 on 4/3rds. So, basically any shot you get with one, should be roughly possible with the other. Hell, at f/3.5-4.5, a 24-85VR on FX compares rather well both for exposure and size, :

[Matsu]

I've been getting into lighting a bit, and in my reading noticed that two relatively popular gurus of the internet's "lighting, how-to" community have recently switched to Fuji X cameras as well. Both Arias and Hobby. The X100 has some fast sync tricks thanks to its leaf shutter, but I don't know if the X system cameras have any special shutter timing tricks built into the sensor or focal plane. Photographers of the "I like to set it myself" mindset seem quite attracted to what Fuji's X offers.

Even though those guys both follow an essentially full manual flash control methodology, it seems a bit odd that they're leaving behind DSLR systems just at the time when reliable/controllable off camera flash automation and radio control has come to Nikon and Canon. Canon has it's own proprietary radio control now, and LPA has steadily increased the functionality and feature set of it's Control TL package for both systems. In my most recent chat with them, they told me that I can now use my Nikon radios on off-brand cameras with remote power control (but no TTL). Basically, if I move the transmitter onto any brand hotshot the centre pin will give me proper flash sync and the radio itself will allow remote manual power level control. Kinda cool, but a digression. Remote TTL flash automation is not really found much outside Nikon/Canon, but that's perhaps very niche usage and not enough to hold some people to larger formats. Remote power control is already there, and HSS and hyper sync will come. So, maybe this is just my round about way of talking about cameras while saying, hey, sensor size may not be that important after all, and if you really like the X cams, you should get one - and of course tell us about all the details too.

I did a few tests today of my D800 with a Ray Flash set very low and at a fast sync speed on the camera. The detail is off the scale ridiculous if you feed it just enough light for the subject to be at the edge of the feather, it both fills and opens pores without blasting them away - an interesting trick. The key now is how to mix in just enough to avoid the tell-tale halo in favour of the modelling of the other lights and ambient, which is not easy, but awesome if you get it right. There's no real case you can make for any more detail, but I want to try out a D810 all the same.

[PB PM]

Bob Arias and David Hobby left Canon and Nikon because they wanted smaller, lighter cameras without giving up too much (aka going smaller than APS-C). Fuji X or Sony NEX camera were the only real choices out there when they made that move. Samsung isn't offering anything better, and really isn't worth paying attention to, they just don't get the needs of many photographers, beyond those of happy snap Instagram types (not bashing Instagram or happy snappers ). Both Sony and Fuji systems, X100 series aside, have interior flash sync speeds to Nikon and Canon's higher end offerings. There are no tricks for getting faster sync speeds with X series cameras, to get beyond rather low 1/180s sync speed, and reading comments on Fuji user forms backs that up. Considering that ISO200 is the lowest (non-jpeg) value for Fuji X cameras, that could be somewhat limiting for those wanting to work with wide apertures in bright conditions. I think Arias/Hobby use the X100s for a lot of flash work for that very reason.

For me, the lower sync speed is not an issue, since I hardly ever use flashes or other external lighting equipment. I like to use flash for fill in portraits, but as a main light source I really do prefer natural light, and tend to use HDR instead for three reasons:

1) I've had a terrible time getting a handle on how to get the kind of light I want, without buying tons of extra flashes and light modifiers. Many hours of practice has yet to yield results I'm even remotely happy with.
2) That extra equipment is simply too much of a hassle for remote locations, taking one camera bag full of stuff to any given location is enough. I'm a one man show, no paid help.
3) Other than the odd time I shoot objects in a DYI light tent, I don't do any studio style work.

[Matsu]

It's a bit of a pain to figure out on the fly. I try to use a least amount that I can get away with. Something that barely registers above what the ambient setting would be. TTL remotes can really help with that within the x-sync envelope of the camera, but it's an adjustment to get your brain thinking in TTL.

In part thanks to the web presence that each of them enjoys, and in part because both of them are hustlers who probably asked the right people, I also happen to think Hobby and Arias are being consulted with and courted in some fashion to evangelize, if not directly hired to help market product. A little corporate favour here and there in exchange for development/feedback related work. I don't think they're getting paid huge sums, but an invite to various consulting sessions, some advance produce for testing, maybe a free tester... whatever can go some way to building presence and credibility. Hobby accidentally leaked some pics from the new 24MP X-trans sensor on his flickr feed, you don't get that kind of access without some kind of corporate or marketing relationship. On some level it's working. To read the web, you'd think there's some explosion of mirror less sales. There isn't, but there might be if they keep plugging away at it.

Canon, Nikon, and Leica do the whole industry celeb thing too, but each is more formal and pretentious than the next. Canon has their explorers of light thing, and the whole sporting event pro-location support, as does NPS, Leica will as often look forward as it will backward for ambassadors to feature is very polished coffee table books for rich dentists. Of the old guard, Nikon actually kinda sucks at this, but has a reasonable knowledge base of articles, and McNally... The old guys aren't really doing anything to reach new people.

I personally know a Panasonic m4/3 tester. He's a teacher in a big photography program, a fashion shooter, and primarily a Nikon and medium format user. Nikon never gives him a thing, despite the fact that he's in a position to directly influence purchasing decisions for a each new generation of photographers, sometimes they don't even fix his cameras correctly. Panasonic sought him out. He's not famous. In purely photographic terms neither are folks like Hobby or Arias, they make a living and have a web presence as teachers; they shouldn't be confused with elite photographers, but they're worth reaching out to.

[PB PM]

Regarding the likes of Hobby and Arias, yes I'm sure they are "brand ambassador" types. I believe Arias used to be one for Canon, so I seems unlikely that he would have made the move without a similar offer from Fuji.

Personally I try not to pay too much attention to the brand ambassador types (Scott Kelby, Arias, Joe McNally, Moose Peterson) simply because I find everything they do is over the top and over hyped. I do like some of the work they produce, but it doesn't reflect how and what I tend to shoot. I like to hunt down the regular guy, local photographer type, who offer a good solid user review of a system. If the system works for a normal person who doesn't have a team of 5-10 people working for them, then I know it will be more applicable to my usage.

[Matsu]

I'm the perfect guy to give some advice here, my relative lack of proficiency is exactly what you need.

I would say give the Flex TT system a try. I have no team, but if I can get into a room early and pop two lights up, so can you. There's a bit of a learning curve, a small one, but they can get you set up fast. Use opposite corners, and it's enough light to have a cross lighting pattern in any room, from virtually any position. You can pop a third light on camera, dialed down for fill, and you're in good shape. I originally made the mistake of buying an SB900, which I quickly sold. I hear they actually work well off-camera with the cut-off disabled. Myself, I didn't trust it after it burned me shooting tables at a reception, so I sold it, but maybe you can just beat them up and not worry about burning it. Or...

Buy SB800s, you can get two for less than the price of an SB910. You can beat the crap out of the 800s, they can take it, the guide number is even a little higher than the 900/910. If you keep them on a TT5, you just leave them in TTL mode and never have to touch the menu system, though it's really not as clunky as some people pretend it is. You should be able to get these for $250 or less. TT5's can be found for $150 used. So for 400-450, you've got a radio controlled TTL speedlight with HSS and hypersync. You need two, so $900. You also need a transmitter and AC3, so at least another 200 there, and if you have a third flash, I'd get that for on-camera fill. Not cheap, but doable for about $1300-1500 depending on how carefully you shop. Nothing in this price range will give you TTL or a reliable 1/500s x-sync - basically double the power of a regular speedlight.

I used this set up and it works well for getting a nice light. Set the camera to manual and your flashes to TTL and you can move around and shoot with good results, and mix in manual as the room fills in. So, for your off-camera lights, you can lock down a power setting, and know exactly what kind of light is filling the room, and still have your on camera flash on TTL so you can get closer or farther without your fill going crazy. I really think this is as good as it gets for one person working alone. I'm now in a position to try four and five light set-ups, but i think I will just stick with two plus fill for the sake of speed. I might gang two flashes on each stand for extra power though.

[PB PM]

Yes, the SB-800 is a beast, I bought one of the last ones available new from a local dealer just after the SB-900 came out. I also have an SB-700, which seems keep going even after the SB-800 stops popping from overheating. At this point I have no interest in buying more flashes or radio triggers, unless I get work that requires it. Right now flashes get used for the odd personal project and family portraits. I can hardly justify even those two considering how much use they get.

I have followed lots of advice about using those flash units, both on camera and with CLS, on light stands, not, and through an umbrella. I started with TTL and it just didn't work most of the time. I've also used them in manual, using every possible power setting to try and hardly ever get what I want. I've spent around 50-60 hours messing around with them for various things, but still not happy with what I get in general. I follow tutorials and yet it just does not work, either getting too much light or not even close to enough. There were times that I was tempted to throw the flashes across the room, but considering how much they cost I thought better of it. I've simply come to the conclusion that flash/unnatural light just is not my forte.

I can work with natural light and see how it works with my images, but flash, I just cannot get my head around how to prevent shadows in places I don't want them, or bright spots in the frame due to positioning the flashes around a room to evenly light the entire space. Maybe I'm expecting too much from just two off camera flashes? Keep in mind most of my non-portrait flash usage has been for real-estate shots. I just find it much easier and faster to use HDR.

[Matsu]

Diffusion and flat angles will keep shadows in check, particularly With multiple people in the shot. Trying for perfect Rembrandt lighting in a moving scenario is too ambitious. The cross lighting pattern makes sense because the lights won't fight each other. One will provide separation from the background, the other will provide light and modelling to the subjects. Even if your subjects or your angle to them turns 90 degrees, you've still got light coming in from opposite sides wrapping the subject. Here's where fill from camera comes in handy. The other thing is to run close to ambient where you can. Crank the ISO to get you close to the no flash exposure. This guarantees that the light you see in the room will primarily determine how things look, and your flashes will merely fill and accent. In TTL mode set a fast enough sync speed, say 1/250, and an ISO that gives you the aperture you want for the room, then dial down the flash. -3ev. It will barely register, but you have some room to walk it up the scale after a test shot.

Imagine a typical window light portrait. Easy. You can just fill with an on camera flash, and throw a single light up in a back corner opposite to separate the person from the background. The ambient will provide all the modelling so you can see what's happening and adjust. The camera mount will fill, and the background light will accent. Neither of your flashes will make annoying shadows.

You can turn them up by dialing less flash exposure compensation until you get to an amount of fill and accent that you like. Then stop. But you are in TTL, so the manual changes you make tot eh camera settings will tell the flashes to react somewhat counter-intuitively. If you close down the aperture, the flashes will automatically power up, so you have to turn them down further. If you're already at -3ev, there's nowhere left to go. The shutter speed won't affect them. So, and this is important, it's a good idea to start the recipe somewhere in the middle of the sensitivity range. It took me a long time to get this, but this is why the high ISO performance of modern cameras is a revelation. If you started at ISO 400, you can dial down the TTL flashes with ISO sensitivity... to 200... 100... 50. Three stops. The ambient from the window is going down, but you can drop from 1/250, to 1/125, to 1/60, two stops, to bring things back in line. If you have that extra bit of HSS, you might have started at 1/500 and so you have three stops of adjust meant there too.

And, if you were a little more comfortable, you might not start at -3ev on the flash, because you actually want the flashes to register a little, you if you started at -1.7, you have some room to walk the flashes down without turning the camera sensitivity too far down, so the shutter speed doesn't have to drop more than two stops.

If you use you sensitivity to set the general range of ambient exposure, even speed lights, with a little help, have enough adjustment to give a 3-4 stop ratio at close range.

[PB PM]

First review of the Sigma DP Quattro I've seen so far, comes from the guys at The Camera Store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ktvDUyTyU

As I suspected months ago, the reviewer said the handling, grip, of the camera is terrible. Better high ISO than previous Sigma cameras, but other than that still slow as a dog, and useless for anything but still life shooting.

[Eugene]

Check out NikonRumors... Hnngghh... What?

[PB PM]

A new camera sounds reasonable, when you consider that Nikon had three cameras in that space ($2000-$3400) before (Df/D800/D800E). It seems reasonable that Nikon might offer a 24MP model with a D810 style body. If Nikon made such a camera available sooner, I would never have bought the D800.

It is also possible that the D610 replacement is getting a $600 price hike, and some higher end features (51 point AF/faster Frame rate etc), which wouldn't surprise me in the least. Why? The D610 was a stop gap measure to make the D600 oil/dust issue disappear. Sure it didn't work, but Nikon tried. That said the rumors sound more like a camera targeted at movie shooters, aka the rumored flippy screen.

[Matsu]

The should do a D5300 sized full frame camera, with a flippy-floppy screen, and a fast live-view mode.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by PB PM A new camera sounds reasonable, when you consider that Nikon had three cameras in that space ($2000-$3400) before (Df/D800/D800E).

Nikon clearly thinks they've tamed moire in software enough for the consolidation of D800/D800E back into the D810. The Df is also mostly in its own world. I see D610 and D810 and not a whole lot of room in between. I could see a 24mp camera in a D810 body with higher FPS...a true D700 replacement, but that's not what's being described here. We'll see I guess.

Also with the exception 4:2:2 output via HDMI, Nikon has show basically zero interest in professional video so I'm even more skeptical of this being a focus for the camera.

So it's just a D600/610 replacement while the D610 stays in production...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Eugene So it's just a D600/610 replacement while the D610 stays in production...

Possibly, but Photokina’s a big show and I hold out hope that Nikon will unveil something a good deal more interesting than that. Let’s see.

Another player to watch will be Leica: “We have been quite shy about the M and, therefore, a lot of people are still wondering whether an M and rangefinder photography are still relevant. One of the first things I want to do is make sure we give that message to more people and introduce more people to rangefinder photography.”

Possibly also a Canon 7D Mark II? It’s been long enough coming!

[Matsu]

Funny comment in that interview - once you use an M it's hard to go back to using a DSLR. Leica also makes DSLRs... Pretty sexy ones: the S series.

I'd like to see nikon make the smallest FX DSLR they can make with a good AF module and a good viewfinder. They have the lenses for it: four f/1.8 primes.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu Funny comment in that interview - once you use an M it's hard to go back to using a DSLR. Leica also makes DSLRs... Pretty sexy ones: the S series.

Yeah, a funny and slightly daft comment. And not the only one from this new Heward guy. However, I like the sound of the Leica M getting a bit of a push. New M cameras and lenses may help too, as long as the price isn’t nuts.

Of course what I’d like – a Leica M-E-E (an economy version of the M-E ) – may not be Heward’s idea of the future of Leica.

Originally Posted by Matsu II'd like to see nikon make the smallest FX DSLR they can make with a good AF module and a good viewfinder. They have the lenses for it: four f/1.8 primes.

That would be a useful addition to the range, certainly. And I feel this camera could be really quite a lot smaller than the D610. I’ve been using my FM2 for a small project lately, and it’s just amazing how much smaller and easier to carry it is than my D800. People also seem to care about it a lot less.

Maybe Nikon should be brave and drop as many legacy features as possible (e.g. the built-in autofocus motor) in a small FX SLR. Dump the flash, the 10-pin port. An attention-grabbing statement would be to dump the hotshoe. (Would certainly get Matsu’s attention. ) Let ’em use PC sockets!

[Dorian Gray]

Canon announced its latest financial results a while ago, as discussed by Thom Hogan here. Now Nikon has, and they appear a good deal worse than Canon’s: SLR unit sales are down by about 30 % versus Canon’s ~20 % decline.

Against these sharp declines, it’s kind of amazing to me that Canon and especially Nikon continue to iterate the same old products with no discernible guile or gumption, but maybe that’s why I’m an armchair commentator and not a business magnate.

Still, would it kill Nikon to try something new? Or barring that, release a genuinely impressive D300S replacement? There is surely still a sizeable and price-insensitive market for the latter, even if it would do nothing for the long-term future of the company. (For the long-term future, they’re going to have to employ someone with an ounce of imagination.)

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray . That would be a useful addition to the range, certainly. And I feel this camera could be really quite a lot smaller than the D610. I’ve been using my FM2 for a small project lately, and it’s just amazing how much smaller and easier to carry it is than my D800. People also seem to care about it a lot less. Maybe Nikon should be brave and drop as many legacy features as possible (e.g. the built-in autofocus motor) in a small FX SLR. Dump the flash, the 10-pin port. An attention-grabbing statement would be to dump the hotshoe. (Would certainly get Matsu’s attention. ) Let ’em use PC sockets!

Dumping AF would kill it for all but the extreme niche user. The Df was heavily critiqued for not having video, if Nikon dropped the hotshoe and AF there would be a revolution. Not in a good way either, you'd see comments like, "Nikon has jumped the shark," or "they don't get what the user base wants," etc. Dumping the hotshot would not make a big size difference anyway, nor would the ability to drive AF-S lenses. Could they drop the screw drive AF? Yup. Would it make much difference? Nope, the motor isn't very large, if you look at a tear down. Ten pin socket? Df already dropped it. No IR sensor either, just a PC sync port. The FE/FM bodies were small because they don't need a big battery to function. That is one of the biggest size limiters for DSLRs. That and the rear LCD assembly, the optical viewfinder and mirror box. The FE/FM got around that by not having 100% coverage viewfinders (FE 92%). Other size issues? No need for a processor, PMU, and all the electronics to make the camera functional. Comparing the size of a digital camera to a fully mechanical one is almost pointless, until we can miniaturize electronics more, while retaining the processing power.

[Eugene]

He didn't suggest dumping AF, just dumping the screw motor for AF-D lenses as they have already done on everything below the D7x00.

Also PB PM, have you seen an iPhone logicboard? I doubt Nikon and Canon have really put as much effort as they could into electronics packaging. The iPhone also needs extra hardware like LTE capable antenna, LTE radios, up to 64GB of NAND, etc.

[Dorian Gray]

I didn’t say dump autofocus; I just said dump the built-in autofocus motor. Support AF-S lenses only.

Each item you mention is not large on its own, but together they add up to a fair chunk of weight and volume.

The Df is neither fish nor foul. Lacking video is the least of its problems, though yes, some people criticised that omission. The people who would have been interested in a proper “pure photography” camera (like me) would not care about lack of video. But they do care that the Df is an imposter! It turns out there are a few unexpected people interested in the Df, and it’s those people (plus those who never had any notion of buying it) that complain about the lack of video.

It’s ironic that Nikon missed the mark so widely with the Df that the lack of video gets any attention at all, in my opinion.

SLR electronics can be made smaller if there is a desire to do it. It just requires a bit of integration. So far there has been next to no effort to reduce the size of full-frame SLRs, because many buyers equate large size with good (especially in the core American and European markets). But look at a Leica M: it has basically the same electronics as an SLR, but is far smaller, almost as small as the film cameras before it.



Edit: Eugene got there first. The iPhone logic board is a good example of what’s possible, though who knows if getting it quite that small is possible without selling hundreds of millions of devices. But reducing the size of the electronics to the point they fit in existing nooks and crannies in the camera should be possible.

I only describe the tiny SLR as one idea Nikon could try rather than iterating the same thing for a decade while sales plummet. Certainly to me there is little reason for an FX SLR between the D610 and D810 if it doesn’t have something decisively different about it.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Eugene He didn't suggest dumping AF, just dumping the screw motor for AF-D lenses as they have already done on everything below the D7x00.

Dropping the AF screw has almost no impact on size and weight in the modern cameras. The motor weighs a whooping 10g and takes up virtually no space at all. There is room for the screw drive in even entry level Dxxxx bodies, it's just not there to push users of such lenses to higher end models. Not really worth dropping until the day comes there there are no screw driven lenses left in Nikon's lens lineup. There are still some important lenses that are only available with a screw driven motor (14mm F2.8, 20mm F2.8, 24mm f2.8, 105mm F2 DC and 135mm F2 DC, 180mm F2.8, 200mm macro), so until those are updated, the screw drive needs to be there in $1000+ camera bodies. Removing the screw drive, you are killing a possibly very attractive camera to users of said equipment. In fact, I suspect the camera Dorian is talking about would be attractive to the owners of a good number of those very lenses.

Also PB PM, have you seen an iPhone logicboard? I doubt Nikon and Canon have really put as much effort as they could into electronics packaging. The iPhone also needs extra hardware like LTE capable antenna, LTE radios, up to 64GB of NAND, etc.

Yes, I've operated on an old iPhone 4, to replace the home button. Have you looked at the motherboard of a modern DSLR? Not any bigger, it cannot be. If anything it is smaller. If the board was any bigger there would be no room for the lens mount, internal battery etc. Nikon cameras use similar low power ARM processors as phones, so there isn't an issue component size. It's mostly the other boards that are required to link all the physical buttons, dials, LCD's, speakers, removable batteries, USB ports, HDMI outputs, mic in, sound out, SD/CF card, battery grips, flashes, PC sync cables etc. Those are all things that phone designers simply don't have to deal with. If the camera had only a touch screen with no physical buttons, no card slots and no room for add-ons (flashes, cable releases, microphones, video out etc), sure it could be smaller, but how usable would the camera be?

Could Canon/Nikon improve the packing size of some of the electronics? Sure. Would it have a huge impact on size? Not that much really. The size of the camera more limited by one thing above all else, the sensor and the required electronic and mechanical components for it to function. Analog cameras could be smaller, because all they needed was the physical space for the comments for the shutter and film. Digital bodies require components attached around sensor, shutter, mirror, AF sub-mirror mechanisms, which all takes up space. The larger the sensor, the more physical space there will need to be for those parts to be there, since they need to be placed around the sensor. Those are kept near the sensor, because the shorter the distance between the sensor, AD converter, and buffer the faster it the camera function. Mirrorless designs have solved some of those problems, but there are still limits. The Sony A series mirrorless bodies are about FE/FM sized, because they don't have as many physical restraints as DSLR.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray But look at a Leica M: it has basically the same electronics as an SLR, but is far smaller, almost as small as the film cameras before it.

Totally different beast, and kind of a flawed argument. Leica's M series cameras do not have the all the additional components of a SLR to work around. The Leica has a much smaller system to work with in the first place. No need for a mirror box, or a larger flange distance, and no auto focus system of any kind. Not to mention that Leica cameras use tiny batteries, a single card slots and have almost no input/output attachments.

I also disagree that making the camera smaller solves a real problem that photographers have. To me there are far better ways to deal with the weight of the camera, like using carbon fibre frames rather than magnesium alloy. That would do a more to reduce weight than anything else. Of course the real weight and size problem comes from using glass lens elements, and until that issue is solved the real weight problem will remain.

Honestly, if the camera bothers the people you are shooting, maybe the issue isn't the size of the camera? Maybe the real issue is that you are taking photos of them against their will? Crazy notion, I know. There will always be people that will be bothered by being photographed against their will, crazy I know. Google Glass isn't as large or noticeable as a D810 or D4 with pro glass, yet somehow owners of said devices got the nickname, "glasshole." Go figure.