Random Camera Idea

[arthurking83]

....  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.

[Les Olson]

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. 

[OCD]

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.

[arthurking83]

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.

[OCD]

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.

[Kenneth Rich]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

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