Random Camera Idea

[pluton]

The Df is thicker than the old film cameras because it has the rear LCD behind the sensor.

Yes, but wouldn't that account only for the DSLR thickness penalty aft of the sensor? 
There is also the electric motor that cocks the shutter to squeeze in.
Battery/SD card fits where the film went
Shrink the electronics enough, and it all fits including an LCD screen.

[Les Olson]

The Df is thicker than the old film cameras because it has the rear LCD behind the sensor.

The Leica M10 is half a millimetre thicker than the M7 (139 x 80 x 38.5 vs 138 x 79.5 x 38), and it has a rear LCD.  The FM3 is 58mm deep at the lens mount and also 38mm deep further out, so I don't see why a digital FM would need to be thicker than the real one.  Film bodies are wider than they need to be to hold their innards because greater width made it easier to keep the film flat, and in the case of Leica because wider means a more accurate rangefinder, so there is spare space within those dimensions.

[David H. Hartman]

The Nikon Df thickness is probably a matter of the cost of minituriaztion rather than a lack of technology to make it thinner. That's my guess anyway.

Dave

[OCD]

A camera without an AF motor and no LCD would be the size of the D5300 with the rear LCD removed ...

A D5300 styled FX camera would be cool if you ask me, keep the flippy screen too.

David, I agree the Df is the closest Nikon camera to this concept.  My recent musings is a result of going NEF only with my D750 and I was surprised to find how liberating it is to shoot this way, just focusing on taking pictures, and leaving the image processing for on the computer.  For me, it's no more work to process a NEF than a JPEG and actually processing NEF's is easier, more features are available in the software.  That got me to thinking about a RAW-only camera with a simplified feature set to get the size down, and the controls simplified or like a film camera, Frank's FM-D idea.  I agree...this probably won't ever happen, although there is a chance in regards to what Pluton is describing for a mirrorless camera, you never know.

In the meantime...any reason why Nikon would not have produced a D5xx style FX camera?  I also can live without the screw-drive for AF...I only use AF-S or AF-P lenses. 

[John Geerts]

I was surprised to find how liberating it is to shoot this way, just focusing on taking pictures, and leaving the image processing for on the computer.  For me, it's no more work to process a NEF than a JPEG and actually processing NEF's is easier, more features are available in the software. 

Actually I use the Fuji S5 Pro and the Nikon Df  in that way. Never use a jpg (with none of my camera's). All manual set, and developing the RAW's on the computer - with the necessary different tools available.

Both camera's have a completely different processing workflow as the RAF file of the Fuji S5 cannot be read by all processors, so it takes an extra step to develop into a .Tif for further development.

[David H. Hartman]

I would very much like to see Nikon place a U1, U2, U3, U4, in a menu. It could be access in various ways one of which might be pressing the Info Button twice and selecting one of the four. It would not include a setting on dial on the outside of the camera. It would include both a pair of Custom and Shooting Menus plus a package of settings like exposure mode, exposure compensation and be similar to user settings found on other cameras. This would not clutter the control exterior of the camera and be the default but be optional in the menu brought up with the info button.

What it would mean to me was I'd set U1 and start shooting. There will always be many settings in a dSLR as they are much more complicated than an fSLR but it could still be much easier than my system which is a bit of a hack and leaves a number of settings I like included out.

Dave

[Roland Vink]

In the meantime...any reason why Nikon would not have produced a D5xx style FX camera?

I assume you mean D5xxx ... the D5xx style FX camera is the D850

It does seem a little strange that the FX cameras have fixed or tilting screens only, not the more flexible fully articulated screen of the D5xxx. Maybe the articulated screen is more fragile?

It's quite possible the successor to the D610 (D650?) will be aimed more at entry-level photographers, more like an FX D5xxx, with the D750 taking the place of the FX D7xxx. There was a suggestion the D610 successor would not support AI metering (similar to D7500), would they remove the AF motor also? It would certainly have a flippy screen of some sort as it is a popular feature.

[OCD]

Ooops, yes.  I meant like D5xxx....I've had a d5100 and currently have a D5300, and really enjoy the form factor and size/weight of these cameras.  It would be a really good idea in my estimation if Nikon replaced the D610 with a D650 that was modeled after the D5600.  I think...that could be a popular little FX camera, especially with the 1.8G primes and lenses like the 24-85mm VR and 18-35mm and the new 70-300mm AF-P FX lens.

[Roland Vink]

The FX line needs a more compact standard zoom than the 24-85VR which is quite bulky. An AF-P 24-70/3.5-4.5 would be an ideal companion for the AF-P 70-300, especially with matching 67mm filter size so you only need one set of filters.

[OCD]

The FX line needs a more compact standard zoom than the 24-85VR which is quite bulky. An AF-P 24-70/3.5-4.5 would be an ideal companion for the AF-P 70-300, especially with matching 67mm filter size so you only need one set of filters.

I agree! 

[David H. Hartman]

The FX line needs a more compact standard zoom than the 24-85VR which is quite bulky. An AF-P 24-70/3.5-4.5 would be an ideal companion for the AF-P 70-300, especially with matching 67mm filter size so you only need one set of filters.

I'd  like an AF-S 24-70/4.0E ED w/o VR w/ a Nano coated surface. Why without VR? VR adds bulk. I'm  afraid this is a dream lens never to be.

I think Roland's spec of f/3.5-4.5 has a better chance so I'll go with an AF-S 24-70/3.5-4.5E ED VR w/ a Nano coated surface. I'm not hoping for a kit lens. I hope if the lenss is a high quality mid priced lens with the bulk contained better than the 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR. I'm hoping the smaller aperture can result in a lens with fewer and smaller elements [compared to the 24-70/2.8 VR]. A lens priced at between 2/5ths and 1/2 the price of the 24-70/2.8 VR would be great. Until then my AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor will solder on. It's small and discreet and I find it good enough for my D800.

Dave Hartman

I'll have to clean up the typos and other errors when I get to a computer.

[Roland Vink]

I agree, I'd really prefer a lens with an aperture ring and without VR, but that's not going to happen, I tried to think of something realistic... Hopefully they don't come out with an FX version of the telescoping DX 18-55 which is f/5.6 at the long end.

[Les Olson]

There are two Nikon AF-P lenses that come in versions with and without VR.  The weight differences are 10g and 15g. Eliminating VR from a new AF-P FX mid-range zoom is not likely to save size and weight. 

The 24-85 weighs 465g and costs $500 - 1/4 of the 24-70/2.8E.  Asking for a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens of good quality is unrealistic.

And what is the point of a small-ish aperture zoom on an FX camera? 

[David H. Hartman]

There are two Nikon AF-P lenses that come in versions with and without VR.  The weight differences are 10g and 15g. Eliminating VR from a new AF-P FX mid-range zoom is not likely to save size and weight. 

The 24-85 weighs 465g and costs $500 - 1/4 of the 24-70/2.8E.  Asking for a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens of good quality is unrealistic.

And what is the point of a small-ish aperture zoom on an FX camera?

The AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR is priced at $2,196.95 so 2/5ths would be about $899.95 and 1/2 would be about $1,199.95. 

Why a smaller aperture zoom? AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR is not small and it's not discreet. It draws attention. While I'm not desiring a lens that feels like frozen smoke a lighter lens would be desirable. The 24-70/2.8 VR weighs in at 2.35 lb (1070 g). That's a good chunk of glass to carry especially if out with friends or family. It's an events lens where the f/2.8 aperture is needed.

One might carry the AF-S 24-70/4.0E ED VR I'd like and an AF-S 70-200/4.0G ED VR or maybe just the AF-S 24-70/4.0E ED VR by itself.

Anyway just a bit of dreaming.

Dave Hartman

[fixed a typo in the wished for price range]

[OCD]

The 24-85mm VR is 465g.  Not too bad.  The heaviest lens I use on the D750 is 385g (58mm f/1.4)....so...I'd be on board for a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 that's about the same size/weight as the 58mm.  That would be slick.  That all said, it seems doubtful since the 24-85mm serves the same purpose.  It's too bad Nikon does not make a 24-70mm f/4 VR...I think that would be ideal....but that seems doubtful too as Nikon does not like to "cannibalize" sales of other items, in this case the 24-120mm f/4 VR.  (Perhaps a 24-70mm f/4 would make a nice standard lens for a FX mirrorless camera?)