NikonGear'23

Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: OCD on November 10, 2017, 20:49:57

Title: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 10, 2017, 20:49:57
I had this random thought regarding a new Nikon camera: 

A small FX camera that shoots only RAW files.  Has basic controls for exposure and metering, similar to a film camera.  In other words, when you use this camera, all you care about is getting the exposure correct, just like the good 'ol days.  Then dump the NEF files into the image editing program of your choice and develop the "digital negative" (i.e NEF file).  It would also be cool if Nikon upped their game with image editing software to dump this file into, where you could perhaps choose Nikon Picture Controls to "develop" the image. 

This idea too far out?  I'd see this camera looking similar to a Nikon film camera from the days of yore, nice retro styling.

Just a random musing for your entertainment. 
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 10, 2017, 22:28:38
I've wanted a small, high quality dSLR with stuff like the screwdriver focus motor removed. Something about the size and weight of a Nikon F3 with a viewfinder as good and an easily replaced focus screen. If it had an interchangeable prism like the F3 there could be an F3 like version and an F3HP like version. It would be designed for AI, AIS, AF, AF-D, AF-S ... G & E type lenses but only AF-S and later would auto focus.

Small, dense (not light, not heavy).
I'm sure it could be done.
I'm sure it never will be.

Dave Hartman
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Frank Fremerey on November 10, 2017, 22:35:06
I had this random thought regarding a new Nikon camera: 

A small FX camera that shoots only RAW files.  Has basic controls for exposure and metering, similar to a film camera.  In other words, when you use this camera, all you care about is getting the exposure correct, just like the good 'ol days.  Then dump the NEF files into the image editing program of your choice and develop the "digital negative" (i.e NEF file).  It would also be cool if Nikon upped their game with image editing software to dump this file into, where you could perhaps choose Nikon Picture Controls to "develop" the image. 
This idea too far out?  I'd see this camera looking similar to a Nikon film camera from the days of yore, nice retro styling.
Just a random musing for your entertainment. 

I propose this idea for many years. I call it FM-D

The closest we ever came to that point is the Leica Type 262: https://www.dpreview.com/news/1245580748/leica-launches-m-d-typ-262-full-production-digital-rangefinder-with-no-rear-screen
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Frank Fremerey on November 10, 2017, 22:39:42
BUT, and I have thought about this long:

Does not make much difference or help in any way. With a dependable camera like the D850 I simply do not use the display anyway (except for showing shots to people who ask me), just dump the RAWs and do not care about the results. I can see the results before I take the shot and I know exactly the camera does as announced and expected. The camera does not add or substract anything...

JUST
LIKE
THE
GOOD
OLD
DAYS

... that were not as good as they might seem to our memory anyway, we were just younger ;-)
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Akira on November 10, 2017, 23:05:44
Leica M-D seems to be the one you describe...
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: arthurking83 on November 11, 2017, 02:50:10
Sounds like a Df to me.

...
A small FX camera that shoots only RAW files.  ....

I'm not quite sure how to read that part tho.
Why can't you set your current camera(or a Df) to just shoot raw files?
There's no reason to shoot NEF + jpg at the same time.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: CS on November 11, 2017, 04:30:57
Sounds like a Df to me.

I'm not quite sure how to read that part tho.
Why can't you set your current camera(or a Df) to just shoot raw files?
There's no reason to shoot NEF + jpg at the same time.

Even further, while one can shoot straight NEF, why restrict others form shooting either or both????


Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Hugh_3170 on November 11, 2017, 05:08:35
Me too!

Sounds like a Df to me.
...................................................

Quite so - no need to be so restrictive.  If one provides NEF only, then someone else will winge that JPG or combined options are not available.

...............................................
Why can't you set your current camera(or a Df) to just shoot raw files?
There's no reason to shoot NEF + jpg at the same time.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 11, 2017, 06:29:00
I don't shoot NEF + JPG any more but I'm sure there are reasons why some want or need this option. A couple of examples might be for immediate upload for an editor or client.

Dave
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 12, 2017, 02:54:00
My musing was a digital camera that works like a film camera.  Frank's original idea of the FM-D is what I'm also thinking, and having the features that David described.  Nikon calls the NEF image file a "digital negative."  So...the idea would be a FX camera that looks and feels like a FM.  I'd be okay with an LCD screen, the controls would be basic, like a film camera.   

The idea would be to "develop" the "digital negative" or NEF file on the image editing program of your choice, and although it would be nice if Nikon had such a program, it would not be a requirement.  The idea of a Nikon program for image editing would be nice if you like Nikon's Picture Control settings, otherwise any editor should do.

As David said...won't ever happen, but I think it would be fun.  It would be a "niche" camera, and if you need more robust features like shooting JPEGS, then there are already plenty of choices available.

: )
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 12, 2017, 02:56:01
p.s.  A compromise for JPEG needs would be to have wi-fi/bluetooth in the camera so you could upload a JPEG to your smartphone....ah well, this is all daydream anyhow.

Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Les Olson on November 12, 2017, 10:13:41
My musing was a digital camera that works like a film camera. 

If you want a camera that works like a film camera, why wait?  An FM2 costs $250. If you want AF, an F100 costs the same.

What does digital offer as far as the actual photography goes?  The only thing I can think of is the ability to change ISO shot by shot and over a much wider range. 

If you use less than about 200 rolls of 35mm film a year the cost is less than digital when the much lower up front cost of the camera is included.  If you use medium format, film is much cheaper, however much you use. 
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 12, 2017, 16:30:44
If you want a camera that works like a film camera, why wait?  An FM2 costs $250. If you want AF, an F100 costs the same.

What does digital offer as far as the actual photography goes?  The only thing I can think of is the ability to change ISO shot by shot and over a much wider range. 

If you use less than about 200 rolls of 35mm film a year the cost is less than digital when the much lower up front cost of the camera is included.  If you use medium format, film is much cheaper, however much you use.

 :)
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 12, 2017, 23:19:54
What does digital offer as far as the actual photography goes?

>:(   >:(   >:(

Let's see...

I don't need a Polaroid camera to check the lighting and composition (or a back and a loupe).

I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.

Slides are like JPG(s) without the compression artifacts. What you see is what you get w/ black, unrecoverable shadows.

To get it in a computer it has to be scanned or copied with a dSLR.

True that a film camera is almost free but then you pay every time you use it. It's like a Toll Road where you stop and toss or hand over your money (if they still do that?). I haven't been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in decades. I wasn't even old enough to drive.

I bought a Nikon F100. Worst camera I ever bought. Really! It lacks one custom function I need that the Nikon F5 has. I never should have bought it. I must have shot all of six rolls before I went permanently back to shooting an F5 and a FE2 and or FM2n.

Kodak not only took away the "greens of summer" but also real TX-135 and replaced it with 400-TX (or something like that). Mean mother. 

>:(   >:(   >:(

Dave Hartman
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 12, 2017, 23:26:15
Sounds like a Df to me.

The Nikon Df never lit my fire.

Dave Hartman

Come on Df, light my fire
Come on Df, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire, yeah!


--Apologies to Jim Morison
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Ann on November 13, 2017, 00:51:45
>>>>I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.
>>>>>

Actually, anyone with a Patterson or Jobo tank, and a dark closet in which to load it, can develop colour film in the kitchen sink.
An ordinary bucket provides a water-jacket to maintain temperature.

I know .  .  . because I have done it!

 :)


Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 13, 2017, 01:12:41
Actually, anyone with a Patterson or Jobo tank, and a dark closet in which to load it, can develop colour film in the kitchen sink.
An ordinary bucket provides a water-jacket to maintain temperature.

Been there done that: the results were fine but it was a PITA. I enjoy printing B&W.

I was spoiled when I could drop my Kodachrome by midnight in Hollywood and pick up my slides, in Glendale, CA by noon twelve hours later.

Dave who will never shoot color film again.

I own a Jobo if it still works?
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: charlie on November 13, 2017, 04:11:07
Been there done that: the results were fine but it was a PITA. I enjoy printing B&W.

I was spoiled when I could drop my Kodachrome by midnight in Hollywood and pick up my slides, in Glendale, CA by noon twelve hours later.

Dave who will never shoot color film again.

I own a Jobo if it still works?

I shot color film today and I'll be dropping it off in Glendale later this week!
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Les Olson on November 13, 2017, 09:39:33

Let's see...

I don't need a Polaroid camera to check the lighting and composition (or a back and a loupe).

I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.

Slides are like JPG(s) without the compression artifacts. What you see is what you get w/ black, unrecoverable shadows.

To get it in a computer it has to be scanned or copied with a dSLR.

True that a film camera is almost free but then you pay every time you use it. It's like a Toll Road where you stop and toss or hand over your money (if they still do that?). I haven't been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in decades. I wasn't even old enough to drive.


I can't imagine what they were thinking, but I see Pirelli got someone else to photograph the 2018 calendar, so I don't need a Polaroid to check lighting either.  And it is true that it takes time to develop and scan film, but it's not like I would otherwise be spending that time working on a cure for cancer.  And, sure, if I had to shoot tethered so photo editors in New York could see immediately the pictures I take in Paris only digital would do, but I just don't get a lot of call for that.

And even if I did, none of those things are advantages of digital in the actual taking of a photograph, they are advantages to one kind of photography business

The idea that there is no per-image cost with a digital camera is wrong.  The per-image cost is the purchase price, less whatever you sell it for when you upgrade, divided by the number of images you have taken.  Of course, with digital the marginal cost of one extra image is zero and the more images you take the lower the per-image cost, while with film the per-image cost is the same however many rolls you use.  So professionals are much better off with digital. The cut-off for 35mm is roughly 200 rolls a year, assuming you do your own developing.  Since you can buy a medium format film camera for $300 and digital medium format costs $25,000, for medium format there is no plausible level of use at which film is not cheaper. 

I am bemused by the idea that when it comes to Photoshop it is sensible to have ongoing payments but no up-front payment, but when it comes to the camera a high up-front payment and no ongoing payment is much more sensible.

Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 13, 2017, 12:07:55
I am bemused by the idea that when it comes to Photoshop it is sensible to have ongoing payments but no up-front payment, but when it comes to the camera a high up-front payment and no ongoing payment is much more sensible.

I'm not at all bemused by the rent to *never* own Adobe subscription plan. I might go for an open end lease if the terms were favorable.

Dave who has no more to say at this time.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Erik Lund on November 13, 2017, 12:37:58
Leica M-D seems to be the one you describe...
Exactly my thoughts as well,,,
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Les Olson on November 13, 2017, 13:57:26
Exactly my thoughts as well,,,

The M-D matches the design brief in that it does not have things that are not strictly necessary to take pictures, but what it has is the best (unless you think that lenses wider than 28mm or longer than 135mm are necessary). 

But people who want an FM-D don't have $6000 (body only) in mind.  The FM2 cost $364 at introduction in 1982, and the FM3 was $820 in 2001 - equivalent to $950 and $1150 today, so both were cheaper than a D7500.  The price is important: there is an element of wabi sabi aesthetic in the FM-D - a strong element in using film - and Leica prices do not fit.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Roland Vink on November 13, 2017, 20:42:44
I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.
Where is the sense of anticipation? The nice surprise at seeing holiday pictures for the first time, maybe weeks or months after they were taken. It was always cool to finally get the slides back and have a little show, to see how they turned out. Sometimes digital is too instant, you get a better appreciation of the picture when there is a bit of space between shooting and viewing...
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 14, 2017, 01:13:58
Well, shoot.  My intent was not to create an argument between digital and film.  Apples and Oranges.  The idea is that a RAW only camera would be like a film camera in the regard that the capturing of the image and the processing of the image are completely separated.  When I shoot JPEG I am capturing the image and processing the image at the same time, which for me is too many variables to keep track of (what can I say?  this may have zero impact on others, probably does, heh), and so in that sense shooting RAW is liberating.  The idea of a basic full frame RAW only camera where the only features are exposure, metering, and focus system sounds liberating to me.  I'll have a LCD screen too and wi-fi/bluetooth while I'm at it, lol.  But I think this is the same thinking Frank already had in mind with his FM-D concept, which I think would be cool...but like David said, will never happen.   Just a musing...nothing more. 

Back to reality.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 14, 2017, 02:00:05
Where is the sense of anticipation?

I don't know where I put it. There are many things I can't find these days.

I shot B&W metered with a Pentax Digital  Spotmeter  with confidence. I used a simplified Zone System. I also shot Kodachrome with confidence. I used Nikon's classic center-weighted metering. I looked at the scene.  The scale was too long. I bracketed. The middle exposure was best. The shadows were hopelessly black. I was confident the shots where headed for the dust bin before I tripped the shutter  and I was right, damn it. The B&W had the DR I craved. The Kodachrome gave me the greens of summer but only if I was wise and use a bit of rstaint.

No, I'll never shoot color/colour film again.

Dave who owns nine Nikon film SLR(s) and only needs three.

Please send FREE time! (tm)
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 14, 2017, 02:32:32
OCD,

The closest you're likely come to what you want is a Nikon Df. Set it to shoot NEF only, turn off image review and use a bit if restraint. That's close isn't it?

Best,

Dave

Restraint? Don't cheat and turn on image review.  :)
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: pluton on November 14, 2017, 02:41:27
In my opinion, the Df was an attempt at an FM-D, except they didn't have the electronics miniaturized to the scale that would have allowed a true FM-sized body.  Assuming that the ongoing size-shrinking of microprocessors continues, a real FM-sized DSLR may be possible in a few years.  They could do it now as mirrorless.  Maybe someday we'll have a choice of either, both at FM size.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 14, 2017, 03:22:42
+1
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Roland Vink on November 14, 2017, 03:54:09
In my opinion, the Df was an attempt at an FM-D, except they didn't have the electronics miniaturized to the scale that would have allowed a true FM-sized body.  Assuming that the ongoing size-shrinking of microprocessors continues, a real FM-sized DSLR may be possible in a few years.  They could do it now as mirrorless.  Maybe someday we'll have a choice of either, both at FM size.
The Df is thicker than the old film cameras because it has the rear LCD behind the sensor. The LCD could probably be made thinner today, but it will never be as slim as the FM. Without the LCD, you would only have the sensor, which is about the same depth as a sheet of film and the film pressure plate, so it would be possible to make a DSLR the size of the FM.

Removing the built-in screw-drive AF motor would reduce the size/weight further. I was a little surprised the Df had it - support for AFS makes sense since takes no space in the camera (apart from requiring a bigger battery) and would make it compatible with the latest lenses. I half expected it to not support screw-drive AF since it seemed to be designed for manual focus, and screw-drive AF lenses are not so common these days. It seems the Df was instead designed for compatibility with as many lenses as possible.

A camera without an AF motor and no LCD would be the size of the D5300 with the rear LCD removed ... how about a camera with a detachable LCD, so instead of swivelling it around like the D5300 you could unplug it completely (with more traditional controls of course...)
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 14, 2017, 04:28:35
Removing the built-in screw-drive AF motor would reduce the size/weight further. I was a little surprised the Df had it...

In the interest of a smaller high quality dSLR I'd ditch the screw driver system. Most of my AF lenses are AF/AF-D but I  wouldn't complain.

The rear LCD surely adds thickness but close in size should be acceptable. Again I'd like a digital Nikon F3/F3HP. I think it's possible today. Again I don't think it will happen.

I carry a Nikon D800 with me most of the time. I usually don't have time to use it. Frank makes a point: the D850 is very useable but there is one fly in the ointment. The D850 should have easily interchangeable focus screens including K, E and B types suitable for fast lenses.

The D2H had interchangeable focus screens and reasonablely descent ones.  Why not the D850:and others?

Dave
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: pluton on November 14, 2017, 07:07:18
The Df is thicker than the old film cameras because it has the rear LCD behind the sensor.
Yes, but wouldn't that account only for the DSLR thickness penalty aft of the sensor? 
There is also the electric motor that cocks the shutter to squeeze in.
Battery/SD card fits where the film went
Shrink the electronics enough, and it all fits including an LCD screen.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Les Olson on November 14, 2017, 08:30:39
The Df is thicker than the old film cameras because it has the rear LCD behind the sensor.

The Leica M10 is half a millimetre thicker than the M7 (139 x 80 x 38.5 vs 138 x 79.5 x 38), and it has a rear LCD.  The FM3 is 58mm deep at the lens mount and also 38mm deep further out, so I don't see why a digital FM would need to be thicker than the real one.  Film bodies are wider than they need to be to hold their innards because greater width made it easier to keep the film flat, and in the case of Leica because wider means a more accurate rangefinder, so there is spare space within those dimensions.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 14, 2017, 08:31:31
The Nikon Df thickness is probably a matter of the cost of minituriaztion rather than a lack of technology to make it thinner. That's my guess anyway.

Dave
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 14, 2017, 16:54:57
A camera without an AF motor and no LCD would be the size of the D5300 with the rear LCD removed ...

A D5300 styled FX camera would be cool if you ask me, keep the flippy screen too.

David, I agree the Df is the closest Nikon camera to this concept.  My recent musings is a result of going NEF only with my D750 and I was surprised to find how liberating it is to shoot this way, just focusing on taking pictures, and leaving the image processing for on the computer.  For me, it's no more work to process a NEF than a JPEG and actually processing NEF's is easier, more features are available in the software.  That got me to thinking about a RAW-only camera with a simplified feature set to get the size down, and the controls simplified or like a film camera, Frank's FM-D idea.  I agree...this probably won't ever happen, although there is a chance in regards to what Pluton is describing for a mirrorless camera, you never know.

In the meantime...any reason why Nikon would not have produced a D5xx style FX camera?  I also can live without the screw-drive for AF...I only use AF-S or AF-P lenses. 

Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: John Geerts on November 14, 2017, 17:20:33
I was surprised to find how liberating it is to shoot this way, just focusing on taking pictures, and leaving the image processing for on the computer.  For me, it's no more work to process a NEF than a JPEG and actually processing NEF's is easier, more features are available in the software. 
Actually I use the Fuji S5 Pro and the Nikon Df  in that way. Never use a jpg (with none of my camera's). All manual set, and developing the RAW's on the computer - with the necessary different tools available.

Both camera's have a completely different processing workflow as the RAF file of the Fuji S5 cannot be read by all processors, so it takes an extra step to develop into a .Tif for further development.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 14, 2017, 20:32:07
I would very much like to see Nikon place a U1, U2, U3, U4, in a menu. It could be access in various ways one of which might be pressing the Info Button twice and selecting one of the four. It would not include a setting on dial on the outside of the camera. It would include both a pair of Custom and Shooting Menus plus a package of settings like exposure mode, exposure compensation and be similar to user settings found on other cameras. This would not clutter the control exterior of the camera and be the default but be optional in the menu brought up with the info button.

What it would mean to me was I'd set U1 and start shooting. There will always be many settings in a dSLR as they are much more complicated than an fSLR but it could still be much easier than my system which is a bit of a hack and leaves a number of settings I like included out.

Dave
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Roland Vink on November 14, 2017, 20:40:56
In the meantime...any reason why Nikon would not have produced a D5xx style FX camera?
I assume you mean D5xxx ... the D5xx style FX camera is the D850 :)

It does seem a little strange that the FX cameras have fixed or tilting screens only, not the more flexible fully articulated screen of the D5xxx. Maybe the articulated screen is more fragile?

It's quite possible the successor to the D610 (D650?) will be aimed more at entry-level photographers, more like an FX D5xxx, with the D750 taking the place of the FX D7xxx. There was a suggestion the D610 successor would not support AI metering (similar to D7500), would they remove the AF motor also? It would certainly have a flippy screen of some sort as it is a popular feature.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 14, 2017, 20:52:02
Ooops, yes.  I meant like D5xxx....I've had a d5100 and currently have a D5300, and really enjoy the form factor and size/weight of these cameras.  It would be a really good idea in my estimation if Nikon replaced the D610 with a D650 that was modeled after the D5600.  I think...that could be a popular little FX camera, especially with the 1.8G primes and lenses like the 24-85mm VR and 18-35mm and the new 70-300mm AF-P FX lens.

Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Roland Vink on November 14, 2017, 21:23:26
The FX line needs a more compact standard zoom than the 24-85VR which is quite bulky. An AF-P 24-70/3.5-4.5 would be an ideal companion for the AF-P 70-300, especially with matching 67mm filter size so you only need one set of filters.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 14, 2017, 23:34:14
The FX line needs a more compact standard zoom than the 24-85VR which is quite bulky. An AF-P 24-70/3.5-4.5 would be an ideal companion for the AF-P 70-300, especially with matching 67mm filter size so you only need one set of filters.

I agree! 
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 15, 2017, 04:58:02
The FX line needs a more compact standard zoom than the 24-85VR which is quite bulky. An AF-P 24-70/3.5-4.5 would be an ideal companion for the AF-P 70-300, especially with matching 67mm filter size so you only need one set of filters.

I'd  like an AF-S 24-70/4.0E ED w/o VR w/ a Nano coated surface. Why without VR? VR adds bulk. I'm  afraid this is a dream lens never to be.

I think Roland's spec of f/3.5-4.5 has a better chance so I'll go with an AF-S 24-70/3.5-4.5E ED VR w/ a Nano coated surface. I'm not hoping for a kit lens. I hope if the lenss is a high quality mid priced lens with the bulk contained better than the 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR. I'm hoping the smaller aperture can result in a lens with fewer and smaller elements [compared to the 24-70/2.8 VR]. A lens priced at between 2/5ths and 1/2 the price of the 24-70/2.8 VR would be great. Until then my AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor will solder on. It's small and discreet and I find it good enough for my D800.

Dave Hartman

I'll have to clean up the typos and other errors when I get to a computer.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Roland Vink on November 15, 2017, 07:46:01
I agree, I'd really prefer a lens with an aperture ring and without VR, but that's not going to happen, I tried to think of something realistic... Hopefully they don't come out with an FX version of the telescoping DX 18-55 which is f/5.6 at the long end.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Les Olson on November 15, 2017, 09:21:37
There are two Nikon AF-P lenses that come in versions with and without VR.  The weight differences are 10g and 15g. Eliminating VR from a new AF-P FX mid-range zoom is not likely to save size and weight. 

The 24-85 weighs 465g and costs $500 - 1/4 of the 24-70/2.8E.  Asking for a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens of good quality is unrealistic.

And what is the point of a small-ish aperture zoom on an FX camera? 
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 15, 2017, 12:35:23
There are two Nikon AF-P lenses that come in versions with and without VR.  The weight differences are 10g and 15g. Eliminating VR from a new AF-P FX mid-range zoom is not likely to save size and weight. 

The 24-85 weighs 465g and costs $500 - 1/4 of the 24-70/2.8E.  Asking for a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens of good quality is unrealistic.

And what is the point of a small-ish aperture zoom on an FX camera?

The AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR is priced at $2,196.95 so 2/5ths would be about $899.95 and 1/2 would be about $1,199.95. 

Why a smaller aperture zoom? AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR is not small and it's not discreet. It draws attention. While I'm not desiring a lens that feels like frozen smoke a lighter lens would be desirable. The 24-70/2.8 VR weighs in at 2.35 lb (1070 g). That's a good chunk of glass to carry especially if out with friends or family. It's an events lens where the f/2.8 aperture is needed.

One might carry the AF-S 24-70/4.0E ED VR I'd like and an AF-S 70-200/4.0G ED VR or maybe just the AF-S 24-70/4.0E ED VR by itself.

Anyway just a bit of dreaming.

Dave Hartman

[fixed a typo in the wished for price range]
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 15, 2017, 19:47:29
The 24-85mm VR is 465g.  Not too bad.  The heaviest lens I use on the D750 is 385g (58mm f/1.4)....so...I'd be on board for a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 that's about the same size/weight as the 58mm.  That would be slick.  That all said, it seems doubtful since the 24-85mm serves the same purpose.  It's too bad Nikon does not make a 24-70mm f/4 VR...I think that would be ideal....but that seems doubtful too as Nikon does not like to "cannibalize" sales of other items, in this case the 24-120mm f/4 VR.  (Perhaps a 24-70mm f/4 would make a nice standard lens for a FX mirrorless camera?)
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: arthurking83 on November 16, 2017, 08:41:30
....  The idea is that a RAW only camera would be like a film camera in the regard that the capturing of the image and the processing of the image are completely separated.  When I shoot JPEG I am capturing the image and processing the image at the same time, which for me is too many variables to keep track of (what can I say?  this may have zero impact on others, probably does, heh), and so in that sense shooting RAW is liberating.  The idea of a basic full frame RAW only camera where the only features are exposure, metering, and focus system sounds liberating to me.  I'll have a LCD screen too and wi-fi/bluetooth while I'm at it, lol.  ....

I still don't get it(sort of).
I'm sure I understand what it is you want, but what I don't get is why you just don't use your camera in that way?
On the whole that's how I use my cameras.
Only time I've shot jpg was to test it. Maybe 10 images across 4 camera models in about 200K images.
While you're always stuck with Nikon's Picture Controls if you use Nikon software to view the raw files, it is a flexible system in that it's just a starting point for processing that image.
But it's the same with all other raw file editors, that they have their own 'Picture Controls'(ie. tone curve) to begin with.

as for bluetooth and wifi and suchlike in camera, I only have a D5500 with those features and tested them a while ago and didn't like them(or what they could do).
I would like a bluetooth system that actually worked like a bluetooth system tho(ie. simply for wireless remote and or GPS). But Nikon's(and most other dedicated still type cameras) idea of bluetooth is pretty much useless.
I use a bluetooth dongle on my D800E simply for my GPS logger.

I would have liked a Df, and would have got one too, if not for the unergonomic body shape(for my hand). Even the D5500 grip is just too slim for my (right)hand.
Body is very slim tho. The thinnest section of the D5500 body is only 31.25mm where the grip then widens to house the battery(and also make for an uncomfortable method of holding the camera) ... so a slimmer bodied Nikon would be easily achieved.
But the mount still protrudes out a fair amount anyhow. The D5500 grip depth is the same as the depth of the mount

In terms of size tho .. if you compare the FM with a Df, other than the height difference between the two bodies, not much has changed. the Df is only 1.5mm wider and 5.5mm deeper than the FM.
The height difference is 110mm for the Df and 89.5mm for the FM .. a massive 20mm difference.

The D5500 is actually more interesting if you disregard the commonly quoted size specs.
While it has a bit more depth, that additional depth is just the flash housing(hood part). But if you measure the actual body dimension from rear of LCD screen to front of lens mount surface, it's an insignificant amount shallower than the FM. (@ 60.3mm).
So as already said, Nikon could easily re-do a Df(II??) without really trying, and make it a bit slimmer and save that additional 6mm from annoying so many folks! :p
The question would be if Nikon could rearrange the built in AF motor, or make it AF-S only .. to save some body depth. Would it be worth the effort.
Now that we know that the Df didn't sell as well as Nikon hoped for, and that a DfII is unlikely .. we'll probably never know.

As for just shooting raw mode and using the exposure, focus and metering features only .. there is no reason why you can't do that now.
Other than my D5500 now, all my previous cameras have this weird, confusing exposure mode called P. What it does and why is a total mystery to me. It's been there for the last 13 years now, and never once has it bothered me that it's there.
I ignore it, and it doesn't bother me, and we both survive in a symbiotic, mutually exclusive, relationship that will continue even with my next (D850 type) camera purchase. ;)

In terms of body size the one thing I found interesting in recent times is the A7R camera bodies.
A7r was a camera I went to a store to try on for size(one of my priorities is hand held ergonomics) .. and it just didn't fit in my hand(too small) grip too shallow and body too low(nowhere for small finger to rest). I get cramps in my camera hand holding small devices, irrespective of weight. D300 and D800 even tho heavier by a long margin is more comfy for me than the D70s or D5500 for more than about 30mins or so.
So A7 bodies were introduced with ridiculously low body dimensions, for the purpose of marketing advantage. Fair enough people think smaller is better and they're all the more happier for it.
But look at the size specs for the A7III. Body depth has increased over the A7II by a massive(comparatively) 40 and 20% respectively!
A7(48mm) and A7II(60.3mm) suddenly blew out to 73.7mm for the A7III.
The important point to note is that the Df is a massive 66.5mm by way of comparison.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Les Olson on November 16, 2017, 08:54:38
I'd be on board for a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 that's about the same size/weight as the 58mm. 

Can't be done without compromising build quality, because lower build quality is what saves a lot of weight.   The 16-35 f/4 is 680g and the 17-35 f/2.8 is 745g, so dropping one stop does not save you all that much weight, all other things being equal. 

The DX 18-xxx lenses are 420g for the 105, 490g for the 140, 565g for the 200 and 830g for the 300, so the weight gains from lowering the zoom range are not that great either, all other things being equal (the 18-55 is very light because of lower build quality).  Extrapolating from that and the 710g of the 24-120/4 a 24-70/4 would be around 500g if it had the same build and optical quality as the 24-120. If the same build and optical quality as the 24-70/2.8 is wanted the weight saving would be much less - nearer the 10% difference of the 16-35 vs 17-35 pair.

The Sony f/4 mid-range zoom is a lot lighter than the f/2.8 equivalent, but it does not have to be a retrofocus design at the wide end.  Where a retrofocus design is needed, in the 16-35 pair, the weight difference is smaller (680g vs 518).  For the same reason, the difference for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 is large: 1540g vs 850g. 
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 16, 2017, 16:34:15
Arthur, than you for your reply.  Good stuff. 

I currently do use my D750 set to NEF only. This is a recent change and lead to my "musing" on a NEF only camera, which won't happen.  My musing was meant to be a kind of "thought exercise" I suppose.  The D750 has the wi-fi feature which connects to the WMU app on my iPhone.  What I found out is that even if I am shooting NEF only on the D750, I can still connect to my iPhone, use the WMU app, and download a JPEG image.  So...if I need a quick JPEG to share with someone (rare occurrence admittedly) I can still shoot NEF only and use the WMU app with my iPhone.  Pretty easy, although I agree with you that it could be a lot better in regards to Bluetooth (which the D750 does not have).  If I need to share more images in quick fashion I shoot Raw + JPEG, and the only time I'd bother with this is when I'm traveling and would not be processing the NEF files until I returned home.

I agree with you on the D5500.  I have a D5300, and before that had a D5100.  I really enjoy the size/shape/weight/flippy screen of these cameras.  I have the new AF-P lenses for this system, and call it my "zoom rig."  It's a real lightweight solution, which is mostly used for travel.  I think it would be cool if Nikon made a FX camera in the same form factor as the D5600.  Not sure why they've not already done so.

In any event, I have no complaints.  I enjoy the cameras I have and they do all I need, and then some.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: arthurking83 on November 16, 2017, 21:18:54
Declaration: As a non pro .. I can't ever imagine(for myself) a need to quickly share images from camera.
So even in a situation whereby you want to share images prior to getting home, you still don't necessarily need to shoot NEF + JPEG.
Just shoot NEF, and use in camera editing/converting to share the images you want into JPEGs(on the basis that you're not sharing every image captured).

On a technical note too tho. For a manufacturer to remove the ability to shoot jpg in camera actually makes no sense.
The raw format necessitates the use of various jpg files anyhow(for various viewing purposes) .. and those jpg files are easily extracted from the raw file.

What never made sense to me(personally) was the ability to shoot a format like TIFF .. where I can't imagine anyone using that format directly off camera(due to the enormous space requirement for the files.

Until a new image format is implemented that the camera makers deem to be worthy of replacing jpg images within the raw files .. I suspect that the in camera jpg format will be a part of camera features for a while to come yet!
I'd like to see a more open, less proprietary format at least as an option for capture .. whether that's DNG or some other non Adobe format type.(ie. replacing TIFF as an option)

I know that the NEF raw format is based on the tiff format, so it may be easy to convert the nef file into a tiff .. so the theory is .. why not?
(they really should be asking the question .. why .. tho! ;))

But from a technical standpoint, to view the raw file a raster image of some type is required when the raw codec is decompressed and arranged into a collection of pixels that you see on your screen.
On a PC/laptop, the power needs are probably less important.
On a camera tho, using CPU cycles to constantly decompress the raw file would waste battery power compared to that same process in a laptop/desktop .. so the embedded jpg files are viewed directly(as is my understanding of how the camera operates).
That's why the raw file contains about 4 embedded jpg files within it's collection of data.
Some of those jpg files are easily extracted, and will render with the Picture Control tone style that was used in camera at the time of that shot.

I think that's why I'm questioning your 'Idead' in a sense ..
Not so much to come across as 'the contrarian' .. but from a simple technical standpoint .. that it makes less sense for a camera to have raw file capture as the only option for storage when almost all the raw formats require the use of jpg files for quick viewing on the camera itself.
If the camera itself had no screen, then the raw format wouldn't require a method for reviewing the images at all .. hence the need for the jpg images contained within the raw file wouldn't be required .. yadda yadda ..

But! .. a camera without a review screen wouldn't offer any warning to the user/operator that the card is corrupted and images are being trashed as they are transferred to the card.
(been there.. done that)
So any non LCD/review screen camera model would be a major disadvantage at some point in the operators life.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: OCD on November 17, 2017, 01:01:15
No worries Arthur.  FWIW, I never said I did not want the LCD screen.  Like one of David's previous posts in this thread, I prefer shooting digital and all the benefits that entails.  No doubt, digital cameras require JPEG functionality, if nothing else to view the LCD, but more so for practicality because JPEG is a universal file type.  As mentioned, I'm quite happy with my current camera.  Life is good.  Although, I'm not the first, nor will I be the last to wish for a small, simple and practical FX camera from Nikon (and small lenses like a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5).  In the meantime, I set up my current camera the way I like and am quite satisfied and happy.

I will wait and see if Pluton's idea in regards to Nikon making a smaller FX mirrorless camera comes to pass, that might be just what the doctor ordered. 

Probably....time to put this thread to bed.

Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: Kenneth Rich on November 17, 2017, 17:03:20
A wonderful benefit I will gain from Nikon creating a full frame mirrorless will be that it will give Df whiners something/somewhere else to complain.
Title: Re: Random Camera Idea
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 17, 2017, 21:08:37
A wonderful benefit I will gain from Nikon creating a full frame mirrorless will be that it will give Df whiners something/somewhere else to complain.

-1