Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!) (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t751843-nikons-mirrorless-a-disaster-in-the-making-diminutive.html)

RichA 07-23-2011 01:45 AM

Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106


PeterN 07-23-2011 12:50 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
On 7/22/2011 9:45 PM, RichA wrote:
> Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
> it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
> vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
> Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
> command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
>
> http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106
>


Another negative comment from the OP about something that doesn't even
exist.
Wattsamatta, bored on the unemployment line?

--
Peter

Robert Coe 07-23-2011 01:54 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
: Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
: it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
: vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
: Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
: command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
:
: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106

Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens. To shrink
the lens, you have to shrink the sensor. And who's going to buy a tiny camera
with a huge lens? Therefore the sensor in the mirrorless will be smaller,
probably a lot smaller, whether you like it or not.

But you knew that, surely. It can't have escaped your notice that FF lenses
are, on average, larger than those for crop cameras. And that lenses for crop
cameras are still pretty large. (Try hefting a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS if you
don't believe that.) IOW, you're no dummy. Right? ;^)

Bob

Alan Lichtenstein 07-23-2011 02:26 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
RichA wrote:
> Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
> it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
> vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
> Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
> command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
>
> http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106
>


IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.

I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
they should.

PeterN 07-23-2011 03:03 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
On 7/23/2011 10:26 AM, Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

>
> I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
> enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
> perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
> earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
> they should.


In the past Nikon has been fairly conservative in its product line.
There is little indication that policy has changed. As for the rumor,
discuss it to your hearts content. I prefer photo art and technique,
using existing products.



--
Peter

Robert Coe 07-23-2011 04:56 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@erols.com> wrote:
: RichA wrote:
: > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
: > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
: > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
: > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
: > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
: >
: > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106
: >
:
: IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
: mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
: has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
: aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
: would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
: heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
: reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
: again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
: introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
: major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
: E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
: camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
: current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
:
: I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
: enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
: perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
: earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
: they should.

The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.

Bob

Alan Lichtenstein 07-23-2011 05:07 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@erols.com> wrote:
> : RichA wrote:
> : > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
> : > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
> : > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
> : > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
> : > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
> : >
> : > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106
> : >
> :
> : IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
> : mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
> : has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
> : aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
> : would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
> : heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
> : reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
> : again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
> : introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
> : major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
> : E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
> : camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
> : current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
> :
> : I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
> : enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
> : perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
> : earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
> : they should.
>
> The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
> for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
> probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
> is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
> where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.
>
> Bob

That may be true, and if so, given the fact that this market is likely
small, Nikon won't get a significant ROI for this model, and will just
have an entry in a market for no other purpose than to have an entry. I
agree that Nikon didn't get where they are by making a lot of 'stupid'
business decisions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the
finished product that hits the market will be, if in fact, the rumors
are true. the next question is, "What is Canon doing with respect to
this market?"

PeterN 07-23-2011 07:52 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
On 7/23/2011 3:29 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
>> it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
>> vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
>> Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
>> command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
>>
>> http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106
>>

>
> Gasp!
> How dare they consider a compact design for a compact system?
>


Your comment reminded me of the time a car salesman said:
"If you want an economy car, your going to have to pay more for it."

Yep! He wasn't joking.


--
Peter

Robert Coe 07-23-2011 08:03 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:43 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@erols.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@erols.com> wrote:
: > : RichA wrote:
: > : > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
: > : > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
: > : > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
: > : > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
: > : > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
: > : >
: > : > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/pi...px/#more-21106
: > : >
: > :
: > : IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
: > : mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
: > : has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
: > : aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
: > : would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
: > : heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
: > : reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
: > : again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
: > : introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
: > : major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
: > : E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
: > : camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
: > : current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
: > :
: > : I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
: > : enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
: > : perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
: > : earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
: > : they should.
: >
: > The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
: > for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
: > probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
: > is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
: > where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.
: >
: > Bob
: That may be true, and if so, given the fact that this market is likely
: small, Nikon won't get a significant ROI for this model, and will just
: have an entry in a market for no other purpose than to have an entry. I
: agree that Nikon didn't get where they are by making a lot of 'stupid'
: business decisions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the
: finished product that hits the market will be, if in fact, the rumors
: are true. the next question is, "What is Canon doing with respect to
: this market?"

Jockeying for position. If they think their offering is better than Nikon's,
they may want Nikon to announce first. If not, or it they're afraid the market
is small, they may try to go first and make a big splash before Nikon has a
chance to grab market share.

Obviously you're convinced that the market for this camera is small. Since I
have no idea how big it is, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

Bob

nospam 07-23-2011 08:20 PM

Re: Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)
 
In article <fuil27t54hsvqukhnv2l6esb9657iilfv6@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
<bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
> considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens.


actually it does, since you don't need a retrofocus design so that the
mirror can clear the rear element.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.