NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on June 19, 2016, 09:56:20
-
https://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-D
see? After the Model 60 ... pure collectors item ... the M-D!
I think Nikon misses a real market opportunity here!
FM-D ... simplicity ... RAW only ... no display ... life style ...
Pure shooting ... ISO and time on body ... aperture on lens
no thing else ... no Df style backdoors and second user interface.
price? A tad north of 2000 Euros would be perfect for sales to every
hipster in the whole wide world. And it is a serious photographic tool.
All other elements like they are in the FM-2 ... please no S no A no P!
Nikon. I am talking to you for many many years now. Now do it!
-
Frank, isn't it just called a Df? ;D ;D ;D
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I must admit that I really enjoyed using my FM2n, FE2, and FM3a (or was it really the FE3m, LOL), so I can understand how others might wish there was a "D" version of these delightful cameras from the past.
However, one can look backwards too much and the rear screen and information available to the image creation process is something that the new paradigm does really well.
I for one do not want to go back to the past. I have no problem with the continuance of the rangefinder in the Leicas, but silly I think to dumb the body so far down by tearing out the rear screen and all that it has to offer. That said, I wonder how many of these machines will ever be used as serious image capturing tools? Perhaps it is remarkable that they even come with a sensor at all, given that many will never get off the collectors shelves or out of their cupboards.
-
Hmm... Difficult question. The last film camera I bought new, was the Leica M6 with one single lens, the Summicron 50mm f/2. This was largely a search, from my side, for more simplicity, less intrusive photography. But it didn't quite worked out and I never became a "street photographer": the "fault" being on my side, not the camera. So I stayed with big, technical cameras, probably because I couldn't get rid off my engineering background. I noticed, though, that I did not scared people by pointing a single digit D camera with a big lens; to the contrary. What it means to me (and this is not a generic statement), big technical cameras suit me better, and the acquisition of this M6 - in some Henri Cartier-Bresson quest - proved to be a wrong choice for me. I still have the M6, but rather as the splendid illustration of mechanical art:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5836/23285766316_05c45ad730_k.jpg)
D610 and Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 (focus stacking with 12 images)
-
https://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-D
see? After the Model 60 ... pure collectors item ... the M-D!
I think Nikon misses a real market opportunity here!
FM-D ... simplicity ... RAW only ... no display ... life style ...
Pure shooting ... ISO and time on body ... aperture on lens
no thing else ...
There are three problems for Nikon with doing this.
Not that I don't agree with you about wanting an FM-D - except it must be B&W only. And that is Problem 1: everyone wants pure shooting, but no two people can agree on exactly what that means.
And it is not that I don't enjoy my FM3, but I don't see many other photographers doing the same. And that is Problem 2: I just do not think it is true that lots of people truly want pure shooting like you get with an FM2, because if they did, they would be out there getting it right now. Why pay $/euros 2000 for a facsimile FM2 experience when you can get the real thing for $/euros 250?
Problem 3 is that although the FM2 and FM3 are relatively cheap, they are more expensive than most film cameras - not much less than they cost new. The price is relatively high because there are not a lot of them for sale because relatively few were sold new, because pure shooting has always been a minority taste. The FM2 was a commercial success because its production run was so long, but Nikon was burned by the FM3 and the planned set of small/light manual focus primes to go with it that they had to cancel because so few people bought the only one they made: the 45mm f/2.8P (which is why it also is expensive now). The FM-D would not have a long production run, so it would be a major commercial risk.
-
I just bought a "like new" FM-2 after selling my last one fully worn down in 2004.
I bought 360 "chemical Sensors" (10 rolls of Fujichrome) too to start with ... nice, but, why not take the old design, put a digital back in place and use the old front?
The back is detachable for data and 250-shot-magazine
... nowadays gorrila glass to put in front of the sensor ist readily available for easy cleaning
-
I just bought a "like new" FM-2
... nowadays gorrila glass to put in front of the sensor ist readily available for easy cleaning
Good for you, Frank. Enjoy.
The gorilla glass in front of the sensor is a wonderful idea.
-
To eliminate the rear display screen makes the M-D even more of a collector's item than the standard issue Leicas.
Aside from dramatically lower noise per ISO value, the great operational advantage of the digital still camera is the ability to check exposure immediately after the frame is shot. For a working photographer to throw that out is unwise.
The reason Nikon hasn't made a FM-D is that, at least up until now, they haven't been able to shrink the mechanism and the electronics small enough at a low enough cost. Sony A7's are close, but at the cost of eliminating the optical finder.
-
No LCD? Is there an accessory Polaroid back available?
Dave who is quite confused.
-
Years ago I shot Tri-X 135 and 120 with complete confidence. I used a Pentax Digital Spotmeter almost exclusively and used a simplified zone system. My developer was D-76 1:2 and my film speed was EI200. I exposed for the shadows and developed N-1. I did not develop for the highlights as that is quite impractical for roll films. I felt no need for Polaroids and only bracketed towards over exposure if I was uncertain how much practical film speed I'd loose in shadows lit with blueish light when using orange and red filters. For 4x5 I usually shot Super-XX 4142 and an EI of 100 and developed in HC-110 B. I sometimes developed for the highlights. Otherwise for all format I used variable paper grades avoiding grades 0 and 1.
Now I'm wondering if I should try using the Pentax spot meter to expose for the highlights and "develop" for the shadows. I wonder if anyone is doing this. I still do not think I'd care for a camera that shot only B&W and had no LCD and histogram. I would like to reduce my reliance on chimping. Any thoughts on this?
Dave Hartman
-
A comment from the side line: the thread title implies there is a "correct" decision that the named company should take and - obviously - haven't. This is a questionable assumption to put it mildly.
-
It is more of a marketing proposal.
The Df is a photographic tool for people like you and many of the other rather advaced photographers here.
The FM-D would be that too but it would certainly be a huge selling life style product too.
What I said in earlier discussions of same subject: I do not see any necessity for a mirrorbox inside the FM-D.
A Fuji XPro2 quality Electronic Finder would do it for me.
-
Developing a radically new camera is something that can take years. Thus if there is any decion taken that has happened long ago.
Churning out updated Dxyyy from D(x-1)yyy apparently can be done by robotic designers, so that's another kettle of fish.
-
I would want an optical viewfinder with a pentaprism. I'd want the quality of viewfinder the Nikon F3 had and I'd want an F3 non-red dot type focus screen. Why not a digital back and winder for the F3 (other than it would have no chance as a viable, profitable product)?
Dave
I'd still want an LCD and Histogram.
-
Dave. Then simply the concept of the FM-D is not your cup of tea.
-
Many years ago the idea of a "digital film cassette" was the hottest topic. What happened to that concept might have a bearing on the present discussion here?
-
The company developing the digital film was not able to pull that off.
Yet. Now that I have a FM-2 with film again and use it I really really appreciate the simplicity of the design.
Digitizing would mean to retain this simplicity and gain:
1. Not having to wind the film after every shot
2. Not being limited by the 36 slides on a roll
3. Change ISO without changing film
4. Having the result as NEF to work without chemistry intermediate
I do not need more.
I retain the ignorance of results till I open the files on a computer later
Shooting experience is detached from development.
The inner picture... the inner tension... all that is gained back from the old days... wonderful.
-
Hi,
just start a Kickstarter campaign for a digital F3-Upgrade. But wait a Moment for getting me a F3. ;)
Harald
-
Dave, I have used both incident and spot meters with digital and they work fine....just like they did with film. And, thanks to the digital camera's LCD and histogram display, I can check that the meter works fine right there in the field, without having to discover an error 24 or 48 hours later.
-
Many years ago the idea of a "digital film cassette" was the hottest topic. What happened to that concept might have a bearing on the present discussion here?
Well, yes, that was either a scam or an April Fool's Day joke. But the underlying principle is alive and well: you can use film or digital backs on the newest Hasselblad (though not the newest Mamiya), and you can use digital backs as well as sheet film on view cameras. So nothing happened to the concept of a camera that could use film or digital, except that interchangeable backs never made it to 35mm cameras that had never had interchangeable backs.
-
So nothing happened to the concept of a camera that could use film or digital, except that interchangeable backs never made it to 35mm cameras that had never had interchangeable backs.
Yes, but the Nikon F, F2, F3, F4 and F5 all have interchangeable backs. The FM/FE family of camera all have interchangeable backs. They aren't like a Hasselblad A-12 but an image sensor could replace the pressure plate on any of these. I think the best candidates would be the F3 and FM/FE family. It could be done. In the case of the F3 it was done and it could be done again. I don't think there is a chance it will be done. I don't think there is a market.
Dave
-
...Now that I have a FM-2 with film again and use it I really really appreciate the simplicity of the design...
I understand the feeling of simplicity. I get that feeling from a Nikon F3, FE2 or FM2n. I used these camera in manual mode ignoring the aperture preferred option. I did use TTL Flash with the FE2 and I would use Auto Flash which we dinosaurs once called Auto Thyristor Flash with the others. For macro flash I used full manual flash with a Minolta Flash Meter III. I set the image scale, e.g. 1:2. I set the flash power. Focused on the meter's receptor and fired an open flash. I had an exposure compensation table in the film memo holder if needed. I set the aperture and went out to hunt. The exposure was perfect.
Anyway in a glance you can see all the settings you need: ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture. Come to think of it I generally used manual exposure with my F5. I set the custom settings to my liking and didn't change them for years. It wasn't until the Nikon D300s that I started to use Matrix Metering and Aperture Preferred. With the F5 I used center weighted metering will slide and the Pentax Digital Spotmeter for B&W. My use of the AF-ON button harkens back to the Nikon F and Nikkormat. You focus once and then grip the lens to lock focus and shoot until the lens to subject distance changes and then you focus again.
For those who like the idea of a camera without an LCD just don't use it. Don't chimp. Set the custom settings up once and don't change them. Use manual exposure mode with center-weighted metering or use a hand held light meter. You can do this with any current Nikon DSLR. Just don't peak! :)
Dave
Wait! I must have used Aperture Preferred with the FE2(s) using center-weighted for slides and the exposure lock. I used center-weighted a lot with slides. I haven't shot film since 2005.
The last roll of film I shot with my F5 I tried to chimp after taking a few shots. I was out of CF cards at a cousin's wedding. I put the F5 away and never developed the film.
I would really like to get my darkroom up and running. It needs a sewer line. It's 3.5x7 meters (11.5x23') as I recall. It has two 4x5" enlargers. I like printing B&W.
-
"Do not chimp" ... yea. I do not use my display often.
I use my display when it comes to professional shooting esp to get the OK from someone who pays my bill
Mistakes happen and as a professional I have to deliver anyway. That is what the display is for and that is good.
Referring back to #15. I want the camera not to offer these options.
If you are out in the field you have no choice but to walk. If you are in your home in the city you can walk or cycle or
take the tram or bus or car.
Call me weak. I want to intentinally cut myself from all those options by using a tool that simply does not have them.
Another example. Bjørn's "one camera, one lens" days. I always do it. I choose one camera one lens at home and
I find it is a relief to make the best of the tools at hand. The FM-D with Pentaprism and Mirror would be a more
consequent step in that direction.
-
One camera, one lens?
Can I use a zoom? Would an AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D be OK? If not can I shoot with a AF-S 20/1.8G ED and just crop the livin' ...
I've used a 25-50/4.0 AIS by day and a 50/1.8 AI by night where the lenses stayed on my FE2 and only changed near sunset. I find it easier to use two lenses. My bad?
I did once shoot Tri-X only for months on end. I could not afford film except I had one or two 100' rolls of Tri-X in bulk. That really helped me learn to previsualize. I guess I shot a little Super-XX in 4x5" but that's B&W and one learns to see the colors of your subject not as colors but as they will appear in a print in your darkroom.
If shooting B&W where that is the intended final product I recommend using a monochrome Picture Control. For me at least that changes my mind set to B&W. I use a yellow filter effect with my PC. I can change that in post or change to color but setting a B&W PC changes the way I think as I shoot.
Anyway I'm off to bed. It a quarter after three here. ::)
-
Goood night, Dave. I am in the office and a huge pile of work on my desk...
-
Why not a digital back and winder for the F3
Sounds like something Kodak could have done already:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm