Nikon rangefinder?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another technical aspect of the rumor that is rubbish: The rumor-monger says it would have an electronic split-image rangefinder set at 45°. Nikon has made enough rangefinders and reflexes not to throw away half of the accuracy of a rangefinder by setting it at a 45° angle. Maybe a focus-confirmation LED or enlarged image, but not an angled rangefinder.

 

Another thing to question: The SP had an inner bayonet for 50mm lens and an outer one for other focal lengths, if I'm not mistaken. I doubt Nikon would duplicate that 'feature,' but would probably make only the outer bayonet; an adapter could take a 50mm.

 

If it's a compact body and will take SP lenses, avoiding the need of a mirror housing, then you need a very big adapter to mount F lenses--and you lose the advantage of the compact body and lack of mirror. I believe the SP lens opening is much smaller than that of the F lens, so few if any F lenses could be used. Does anyone know--did Nikon ever offer an adapter to mount the reflex lenses on the S series? I don't think so.

 

Electronic frame lines to allow use of zoom lenses? The range of the zooms would have to be pretty restricted because of the limits of the finder, something like 35mm-135mm. And if the camera is to be aware of the focal length of the zoom, then the F to SP adapter would have to be electronically connected to the camera. If you're doing all that, you've lost the size and simplicity of a rangefinder; you might as well go with the D300.

 

Summary: If you put together the assumptions posited by the dpreview rumorist, you get a tremendous hodgepodge. It would lose both the features that made it interesting, viz size and weight. The SP didn't survive; there aren't a lot of lenses out there waiting to get used on a digital version of it; a replacement would be extremely expensive to design and construct and would require a new lens line. Therefore the question: How large is the market? Isn't that market already in Leica's hands? After all, Epson made a few bucks off it and then backed off.

 

And on the other side of the speculation: Would Nikon make a camera to take Leica lenses? They're not about to build anything that would allow people to find out that Leica's optics really are that much better than what they've been using.

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sdai]

Would Nikon make a camera to take Leica lenses? They're not about to build anything that would allow people to find out that Leica's optics really are that much better than what they've been using.

 

Exactly, Howard ... I've forwarded the rumor thread to some folks in Canon and Nikon and some said they laughed into tears.

 

Now I have some Nikon roadmaps to share with friends ... responsibly.

 

Nikon (from now on) will maintain two DSLR lineups, one FX and the other DX, each will have their own flagship model, and FX will NOT be treated as a higher tier product lineup when compared to DX. Comparable FX and DX models will share most major specs and parts. except the sensor size.

 

That means ...

 

1. D3 is the current flagship of FX lineup, there's no D3x in the near future ... if you shoot Nikon and want full frame then just buy it.

 

2. D300 is the current flagship of DX lineup, D200 will stay current but as a lower model in the DX lineup.

 

3. Nikon will develop a consumer grade full frame DSLR but that's no immediate plan of introduction to the market.

 

...

 

I hope this answers "a Nikon expert's" question if he happens to read the Leica forum as well. Now remember, Nikon's production cycle is two years.

[ho_co]

Simon--

That all makes complete sense.

 

Nikon has apparently achieved the lowest-noise sensor on the market with a smaller number of much larger pixels. Unless technology has changed greatly, doubling the number of pixels will do little to picture quality except increase the noise level. Then one of the present benefits of the D3 would be lost in its successor.

 

But I don't see how the DX camera could be anything but a little brother to the D3. No matter how Nikon pitches the DX, there's always the question, "Wouldn't you rather have full frame?" lingering over the selection. And if they do release a full-frame consumer camera, wouldn't that just make the question harder to answer?

 

And shame on you for referring to "FX format"! That's nothing but Nikon gibberish for "full frame"!

 

--HC

[sdai]

And shame on you for referring to "FX format"! That's nothing but Nikon gibberish for "full frame"!

 

Actually, the new FX branding is an integral part of Nikon's carefully tailored marketing strategy, they don't want to dwarf the DX products ... it's just most people don't get it.

 

Quite frankly, it's really not fair to all the Nikon loyalist if they abandon DX ... people paid top dollars buying their otherwise very high quality DX lenses in the past 5-7 years, due to their own misstep and stubbornness refusing to adopt a third party's full frame sensor ... partly due to cost reasons, adding some vanity fair hoping to gain some bragging rights about their "own" sensors.

 

Now it develops into a whole new strategy ... based on the info I was fed with ... Nikon mainly sees the advantage of FF in dynamic range and high ISO performance so they picture the D3 as an option to professionals who have special requirements in those areas.

 

Nothing more, nothing less ... you've demanded it for more than 5 years, now you've got it.

[ho_co]

I'm not saying they should abandon DX. I'm just saying that it's going to be the little brother, no matter how the marketing department pitches it.

 

After all, the D3 switches over to DX mode when you use DX lenses; so the DX cameras will always lack at least that feature of the full-format cameras.

 

Everyone I know using Canon's non-full frame cameras would prefer the full-frame instead, and I think Canon is right to pitch the cameras that way. I think that's how the Nikon cameras will also be perceived. The counter salesman will opine, "Well, the D300 is good and might be good enough for some, but it's not a D3."

 

Rule of sales: Always sell up.

 

--HC

[sdai]

After all, the D3 switches over to DX mode when you use DX lenses; so the DX cameras will always lack at least that feature of the full-format cameras.

 

D3's DX mode only offers a pathetic 5.1MP, and theoratically, D3's 12MP FF resolution can not match the D300's 12MP DX resolution.

 

The counter salesman will opine, "Well, the D300 is good and might be good enough for some, but it's not a D3."

 

Rule of sales: Always sell up.

 

I can't see any reason why I would disagree with you on this ... exactly why I'll stick to Canon.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And shame on you for referring to "FX format"! That's nothing but Nikon gibberish for "full frame"!

… with “full frame” being Canon gibberish for 36 x 24 mm (or now Hasselblad gibberish for 48 x 36 mm). I try to avoid the ambiguous term “full frame” whenever possible.

[jaapv]

… with “full frame” being Canon gibberish for 36 x 24 mm (or now Hasselblad gibberish for 48 x 36 mm). I try to avoid the ambiguous term “full frame” whenever possible.

 

 

I couldn't agree more. Full Frame means the capturing medium is the size of the print. So a digital view camera would be about the minimum for Full Frame.

24x36 has been known as the `Miniature Format` for most of photographic history....

 

Canon has some difficulty competing with Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Sigma in the extreme wide-angle segment. Surprising as it may seem, this is not a situation that lends itself to a quick fix. As an example, Leica needed 15 years and a lot of expertise from Minolta and Sigma to catch up (and overtake) in the field of zoom lenses.

But Canon does own their private chip factory and Cmos sensors, which are a bit less expensive to produce than CCD's anyway. So the obvious solution is to produce camera's with a larger chip, needing less short lenses.

This has, of course, to be marketed. So imagine this poor marketing executive sitting in his office on the 95th floor in Tokyo. He has to find a catch-phrase. He doesn't know the first thing about camera's but he does know about selling products. The above has been explained to him by a technical executive, but it does not add up to a positive twist to his advertising campaign. A bright young underling, who has read a Readers Digest about Ansel Adams, remembers the words: Full Frame. It sounds even better than "more megapixels"!! They cook up a 100 million dollar campaign to ram this down the collective throats of an unsuspecting public, and there you are: Full-Frame is the hallmark of a quality camera! The guy is probably a vice-president now.

 

(I wrote something similar in RFF some years ago - I'll get out the asbestos overall I bought back then )

[billh]

..... theoratically, D3's 12MP FF resolution can not match the D300's 12MP DX resolution.

 

Why? I don't understand this. I thought 12MP on a full frame would give better results (less noise and higher DR) then 12MP in a 1.5x sensor.

[stunsworth]

Bill, the smaller sensor has the same number of pixels, but they're packed closer together. So if you use say a 50mm lens on both, the smaller sensor can record finer detail.

 

Noise of course is a different matter.

[jaapv]

That, Steve, is limited by the resolving power of the lens. As soon as the smallest resolvable point of a lens is of a diameter that covers two pixels, you lose half the resolution. That happens to those 12 MP cigarette-pack P&S cameras. Disregarding a number of degrading effects of smaller, more densily packed pixels here as well. So at the very least the smaller sensor requires the better lens. If one crunches the numbers, postulating the optimum lens ( and the offerings of the major makers are very close to that) the ideal resolution for an APS sensor is about 8 MP, a 1.3 sensor about 10 MP and a 24x36 sensor about 16 MP. Surprise - exactly the numbers ( give or take a few MP) the current crop of cameras have.

[ChrisC]

… with “full frame” being Canon gibberish for 36 x 24 mm .... I try to avoid the ambiguous term “full frame”.....

 

Michael - Exactly. The wretched 'full frame' appropriation by Canon's marketing drive nearly annoys me as much as that filthy affectatious term 'soccer' to describe the world's game - FOOTBALL; the game played with feet and ball. And no, I don't think Elvis was any kind of king either.

 

I..... I'm just saying that it's going to be the little brother, no matter how the marketing department pitches it....... The counter salesman will opine, "Well, the D300 is good and might be good enough for some, but it's not a D3.".....

 

Howard - Some salesperson may well pitch that way, but they would be just as wrong as if they were discrediting the M8 for not having a larger chip, more pixels, or SLR viewing. The D300 is more camera than most purchasers need but we live in unenlightened times with regard to what six, as opposed to [say] eighteen megapixels can achieve at output. I can think of many commercial circumstances where the D300 [or for that matter a 'lesser' camera] would be a superior choice over the forthcoming D3, for the kind of reasons that M8 users are familiar with. However, in the commercial environment the up-to-date knowledge of a photographer can play second fiddle to a client viewing images 16 times too big on an uncalibrated monitor whilst in possession of too little knowledge.

 

I have read the contributions to this thread with interest, but disagree with those who use Leica M8 body design as a gold standard when discounting the possible development of a digital Nikon rangefinder. The Leica/Kodak collaboration has shown that the optical advantages of rangefinder lenses can be maintained when in close proximity to the sensor, and that was a huge breakthrough. But the M8 body is a half century old design which served it's film customers well, in this digital it is now ripe for re-development. I am optimistic that a second age for the rangefinder camera is possible if a body design re-think was championed by Nikon [or Canon], I suspect there is a far greater market than the M8 or it's updates can tap into. Time will tell.

 

.................. Chris

[ArtZ]

I have read the contributions to this thread with interest, but disagree with those who use Leica M8 body design as a gold standard when discounting the possible development of a digital Nikon rangefinder. The Leica/Kodak collaboration has shown that the optical advantages of rangefinder lenses can be maintained when in close proximity to the sensor, and that was a huge breakthrough. But the M8 body is a half century old design which served it's film customers well, in this digital it is now ripe for re-development. I am optimistic that a second age for the rangefinder camera is possible if a body design re-think was championed by Nikon [or Canon], I suspect there is a far greater market than the M8 or it's updates can tap into. Time will tell.

 

Chris, I do agree with you. I don't know if Nikon will make a digital rangefinder (that's not the point) but I think the "M8 adventure" have proved there's a market and some companies (like Cosina) will be interested in developing that market.

 

Epson launched the R-D1s, Leica followed with the M8 so why Nikon (or Canon) wouldn't do the same? Besides the camera market needs to be renewed. The pixel number is not longer a selling argument. Comsumers want quality (less noise and better optics -Sony and Panasonic best selling arguments are Zeiss/Leica lenses). The market tendance is now on high ISO (with less noise), face recognition and new design. Leica's M8 and Epson's R-D1s have shown the "retro" look and the relative small size (camera and lenses) are also good selling arguments; but also people are ready to pay a very high price for this kind of camera!

 

I don't see why other companies will discard these selling arguments.

.

[Olsen]

Exactly, Howard ... I've forwarded the rumor thread to some folks in Canon and Nikon and some said they laughed into tears.

 

Now I have some Nikon roadmaps to share with friends ... responsibly.

 

Nikon (from now on) will maintain two DSLR lineups, one FX and the other DX, each will have their own flagship model, and FX will NOT be treated as a higher tier product lineup when compared to DX. Comparable FX and DX models will share most major specs and parts. except the sensor size.

 

That means ...

 

1. D3 is the current flagship of FX lineup, there's no D3x in the near future ... if you shoot Nikon and want full frame then just buy it.

 

2. D300 is the current flagship of DX lineup, D200 will stay current but as a lower model in the DX lineup.

 

3. Nikon will develop a consumer grade full frame DSLR but that's no immediate plan of introduction to the market.

 

...

 

I hope this answers "a Nikon expert's" question if he happens to read the Leica forum as well. Now remember, Nikon's production cycle is two years.

 

The D3 will only stay as a flag ship for a few months. A full frame Nikon D-SLR with 20 + mill. pixels/10,000 $ monster are on it's way, just a few months down the road. This is well known today.

 

Sure, Nikon got plans about making a consumer grade - simpler/cheaper full frame, a 5D competitor. When it will be launched is a bit more uncertain. Probably this time next year.

[billh]

Bill, the smaller sensor has the same number of pixels, but they're packed closer together. So if you use say a 50mm lens on both, the smaller sensor can record finer detail.

 

Noise of course is a different matter.

 

What is it that gives the medium format digitals such high image quality? Simply size, as it was with film? Do you (anyone) know what the comparable MP rating would be in a 1Ds or D3 (full frame - sorry if that annoys anyone, but it is the description we have come to know and use) to have the equivalent mp per mm or whatever area they use? I can see the resolution difference between my 16mp 1Ds2 and 8mp 1D2, but I wonder if nudging the 1Ds2 40 21mp will make any noticeable difference.

 

What are tradeoffs in cramming a lot of small pixels into an area, verses using fewer but larger pixels?

 

It would seem there is not a lot of mileage left in higher mp ratings, and that the future improvements in image quality will be found elsewhere, like if high quality high ISO images.

 

Film was easier to understand!

[newyorkone]

the Nikon SP was recreated in 2005

it was sold Japan only for around US$5k a copy

you see them on ebay on occasion

 

 

Nikon Rangefinder SP

 

5K for that??? no thanks.

 

Minolta CLE looks better and it's not even close to any M.

[giordano]

What are tradeoffs in cramming a lot of small pixels into an area, verses using fewer but larger pixels?

 

With current technology (and any future technology?), the number of photons captured by each element on the sensor during the exposure increases with the area of the element, while the inherent noise in the electronics does not (or increases more slowly). Hence, larger pixels mean less noise, especially in low light.

 

It would seem there is not a lot of mileage left in higher mp ratings, and that the future improvements in image quality will be found elsewhere, like if high quality high ISO images.

 

Setting aside trivial:rolleyes: issues like noise, ISO, processing power and storage, surely the more pixels the better. If the pixel pitch is much smaller than the resolving power of the best lens, moiré ceases to be a problem, and the effects of interpolating the discrete R,G, and B signals into three-colour pixels are academic. So roll on the 500 megapixel full-frame sensor - or is that already running into the constraints imposed by the wavelength of visible light?

 

Film was easier to understand!

 

Photography has always been a struggle against the laws of physics.

[ptomsu]

The optimal resolution for FF sensors should be in the range between 20 - 26 MP, given the ability of high end optics do generate the necessary resolution, definitely not achievable with cheap lenses.

 

Going as high in MP an a FF size sensor means some other limitations today, like "lower" ISO (like only 3200) without noticeable noise.

 

So what can be done instead? Increas the sensor size and try to develop a new lens lineup which can cope with the sensor size and requested resolutions - like Hasselblad did by inventing the 48mm FF sensor in tehir H3s. Now you can be inventive and think about many different sensor sizes and lens size combinations which would be accepted by the market.

 

Does Nikon have this chance? Not really because they want to stay with their current glass and mount. Same for Canon.

 

What about Leica R? They have everything open, since their R concept is ages old and outdated in terms of needs for real digital and AF and IS future. So they need to come up with a complete new DSLR lens set - why then not change the mount (make it bigger) and also introduce a new sensor size (larger thean 35mm FF). Then the get all - higher resolution, which meets the resolution their glass can produce plus also higher ISO levels combined with high resolution. If I would be responsible for a future product development in this area this would be my conclusions and if money would be availabel this would be what is developed.

 

And finally outperform all other competitors in a year from now :-)

 

Just my 5c.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

Increas the sensor size and try to develop a new lens lineup which can cope with the sensor size and requested resolutions - like Hasselblad did by inventing the 48mm FF sensor in tehir H3s.

Or rather, buying the 48x36mm CCD available from Kodak. Which, incidentally, is the same sensor as the one used in the H2D. Hasselblad did some innovative stuff, but that doesn’t include the choice of sensor, which was just logical.

[lars_bergquist]

First, the ergonomics of Nikon's S cameras was even worse than that of the Contax RF cameras they imitated. You had to use your index finger for both focusing and firing, moving it from that silly knurled wheel to the shutter release, whilst with a Contax you could focus with your second finger, which was faster. This apart from the harebrained idea of using different focusing systems for 50mm lenses and other focal lengths, which revealed that the designers did not understand the concept of a system camera. Barnack did.

 

Second, the R system has a heritage of mostly excellent lenses. Their owners would not take well to the suggestion that these have to be scrapped. Simple market self-preservation thus dictates considerable back-compatibility. And this precludes using a sensor larger than the image circle of the existing lenses, which have been designed for the 43mm diagonal of the 24x36 format. It would seem that a rectangular sensor making the most efficient use of this circle would be 30x30mm, i.e. a square format. Squeezing in the larger mirror behind R lenses with an existing backfocus is another matter. The pixel pitch of the M8 and DMR would in that case give us about 28 megapixels. More pixels would mean smaller pixels, meaning more noise, ceteris paribus.

 

The old man from the Age of the Exacta