Nikon D5

[pluton]

  I would love to have EVF capabilities like peak focusing without giving up my OVF.  Being able to switch between the two with the push of a button would be entirely doable but would take some very clever engineering.

Fuji did it on a US$1600 body.  I think that on a US $7000 body, the engineering staff at Nikon could make something nice.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I think the problem with hybrid viewfinders is that neither the OVF nor the EVF side is likely to look as bright or contrasty as dedicated viewfinders. Fuji has stated the reason for not bringing out an X-Pro1 update (so far) is because XT-1 users are used to the new EVF which they haven't been able to match in a hybrid viewfinder.

Given Nikon's history with interchangeable viewfinders I think the natural way of making the D5/D6 ... stand out would be by offering interchangeable viewfinders. It would make the camera more general purpose with the video side gaining more flexibility and neither OVF nor EVF quality would be compromised in any way, apart from slight increase in size due to the mechanical interface. What's more it would make it possible to offer more HP or less HP versions.

[pluton]

A snap-in EVF would be very good.  A snap-in right angle [optical]finder would be welcome also.
I never use my right angle finder because attaching it is a nightmare of unscrewing, screwing in, and small parts to hold and lose.

[pw-pix]

Later pics show it's really just the eyepiece and bezel that come off.
I'm wondering it it might support the mounting of something like a Hoodman Loupe for video use.

[Erik Lund]

I agree, that's most likely just a slide on interface, no contacts or anything to suggest other.

[stenrasmussen]

I cannot see other options for this solution than an pure optical add-on (like a 90° ocular).
Still think it's a shame that no EVF option is presented...Nikon could have pulled it off if they wanted.

[ColinM]

The speculation about a detachable VF sounds interesting.
The trouble is, on these "leaked images" at least, the moulding around the prism looks quite continuous, with no obvious edges.....


and


As Bjorn says, maybe we shouldn't speculate too much - It will be here when it's actually finished, then the real-world tests can begin.

[Erik Lund]

It's quite clear...

[stenrasmussen]

Accordimg to my dealer this is like Canon's 1D series. Meeeh...

[Erik Lund]

Yes it looks just like 1D III

[Roland Vink]

Would an EVF even be useful for this type of camera? As a camera built for speed I would guess any lag from an EVF could be a problem - for action you need to see things instantly. Also an EVF would also drain battery power much faster - although these cameras have big batteries so it would last a lot longer than most other mirrorless cameras.
EVF for the D810 or other high-res camera makes more sense where absolute precision in focusing is required.

[Akira]

Would an EVF even be useful for this type of camera? As a camera built for speed I would guess any lag from an EVF could be a problem - for action you need to see things instantly. Also an EVF would also drain battery power much faster - although these cameras have big batteries so it would last a lot longer than most other mirrorless cameras.
EVF for the D810 or other high-res camera makes more sense where absolute precision in focusing is required.

I agree.  Also, a responsive live view requires very high refresh rate which affects the image quality in terms of dynamic range and noise.  The live view of even the current models of Nikon is notoriously slow, but this should not be because of the inferior technology but because of the lower refresh rate for the still image quality.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

D810 is made compact and economical - with interchangeable viewfinders it would not be compact nor economical (especially if the EVF is really cutting edge, which could cost many thousands just for the viewfinder). If it has a fixed EVF then it would upset those who want OVF (certainly myself).  A D5 doesn't aim to be inexpensive nor compact, so interchangeable viewfinders would have been conceivable (looks like only the eyepiece area is removable, I don't know why they would do that) and they could make a high res variant of the body ("D5X") based on the same chassis and using the same viewfinders. The viewfinder options could separate it sufficiently from the D810 so that it would sell in acceptable numbers. There could be numerous options for the viewfinder.

For video purposes which I assume to be common application for a D5, an EVF would be useful and it could give the camera an edge to  compete with Canon's Cinema EOS products.

Personally I don't want an EVF for still photography and I don't do much video, but I would like everyone to be offered something. And there have certainly been requests for Nikon to make an  FX/DX camera with EVF. If it is an accessory, only those who need it would have to pay for it.

[bjornthun]

I think that a version of the D810 with an EVF, in addition to the existing one, would make the most sense. It should be priced like a Sony A7R or Sony A7R II. Such a camera would have kept me in the Nikon camp. (I've now moved to Sony.)

Canon has video bodies with EOS mount that are designed and built specifically for video, that's why I call them video bodies rather than camera bodies. There is also one that looks more like a DSLR but is for video. Canon has also made cine versions of several of their lenses. I suppose the would be a market for "Cine-Nikkor 14-24mm T2.9". And what about a "Cine-Nikkor 58mm T/1.5". Nikon certainly has the lenses that would attract interest for Cine and video use. I assume you all recognise the AF-S 14-24/2.8 and AF-S 58/1.4 lightly disguised.

[Akira]

Cine lenses need not only geard forcus and aperture rings but also the attachment compatibility in front of the lens.  The 14-24 would lose its wideangle advantage to accomodate the standard.