leica does it .... nikon still asleep?

[Frank Fremerey]

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!

[Hugh_3170]

Frank, isn't it just called a Df?         

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

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.

[MFloyd]

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:


D610 and Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 (focus stacking with 12 images)

[Les Olson]

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. 

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[JohnBrew]

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.

[pluton]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

No LCD? Is there an accessory Polaroid back available?

Dave who is quite confused.

[David H. Hartman]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

Dave. Then simply the concept of the FM-D is not your cup of tea.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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?