Random Camera Idea

[OCD]

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. 

[David H. Hartman]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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 ;-)

[Akira]

Leica M-D seems to be the one you describe...

[arthurking83]

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.

[CS]

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?

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

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

[OCD]

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.

: )

[OCD]

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.

[Les Olson]

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. 

[OCD]

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.

 

[David H. Hartman]

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

[David H. Hartman]

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