Nikon's patent applications for mirrorless camera system?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Nov 5, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    interchangeable lens camera

    Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

    For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    mirrorless system. go to:
    Bruce, Nov 5, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    So savage, Mr Duck. Thank you for the funny pictures. ;-)

    It is normal that patent applications give away no more information
    than is strictly needed for the specific application. Primitive
    sketches are the order of the day.

    The sketches were submitted with Nikon's patent application
    #2010-250149. There is a link to an article (in Japanese) about this
    application on the Nikon Rumors page. The application covers a novel
    lens mount.

    The Nikon Rumors article contains links to previous articles that also
    appear to be related to Nikon's mirrorless system, including a lens
    mount shutter (to keep dust off the sensor) and a novel approach to
    providing an electronic viewfinder (EVF). I apologise in advance for
    the fact that all these articles contain primitive sketches. ;-)
    Bruce, Nov 5, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    peter Guest

    Don't take blustering Brucie's statements too seriously.
    peter, Nov 5, 2010
  4. Bruce

    peter Guest

    I call that smart business.

    BTW I am still waiting for answers to prior questions.
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
  5. Bruce

    Rich Guest

    I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    bankrupted GM.
    Do they have anything to do with cameras?
    Rich, Nov 7, 2010
  6. Bruce

    peter Guest

    In context, more than some of your comments. Read them again
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
  7. Bruce

    peter Guest

    asked and answered.
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
  8. Bruce

    peter Guest

    Most likely a combination of management arrogance, a culture of "B"
    school projections, stagnated innovation, coupled with UAW not wanting
    to give back.
    peter, Nov 11, 2010
  9. Let's not forget GM's decision to come to all of those agreements with the
    UAW over all of those years. They played a bigger part in it than the UAW
    with all of the poor management decisions they made. They forgot the most
    important thing about the business - to build a good car that people want.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 11, 2010
  10. There is, as you say, much more to it than the UAW. For many years, the
    chairmen running GM were "bean counters". There was no engineering blood in
    them, no love for cars. For far too long, GM wasn't building amny cars that
    stood up to the competitor's. There were the niche cars like the Corvette
    but not many volume sellers were up to par. They did good business selling
    trucks like the Suburban and their pickups but they relied far too heavily
    on those profits.

    A lot of Americans would travel in Europe and remark about the great cars GM
    sold over there but not here. Why they seemed to sell better cars in Europe
    than here was a bit of a mystery. Now that they've gotten some religion,
    we're seeing more of the Euro-designed cars here. Who would ave ever
    thought that we'd see a great car from Buick again? Now we have two very
    fine cars, the Lacrosse and Regal. They're fine because they're Opels.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 11, 2010
  11. I really don't know how much of a barrel GM or the other makers were over.
    But GM should have stayed in control of the course of their business and not
    let a union determine that course.
    Yes, there were some good cars but GM lagged far behind their competitor's
    overall. When you can look at Toyota, Nissin, and Honda and see that just
    about every car they produced was good, at the top or close to the top of
    their respective class, it makes GM loko outright poor. GM could never
    produce a compact that came close to the quality of the Japanese makes or
    VW. And to this day with the possible exception of the Chevy cobalt
    replacement, they still haven't produced a good compact. Although GM has
    given us great Vettes and some trucks, they also gave us the Vega, Citation,
    Monza, Chevette, Cavalier, Sunbird, those awful 1st generation minivans, and
    on and on. Let;s forget those cookie cutter boxes they made in the 80's.
    That has begun to change. With the new Buick Lacrosse and Regal, they have
    finally put a very good sedan on the road even if they got it from the
    Germans. I think it's about time they brought in their Euro cars, they were
    always better than most of the cars that were sold only in the US market.
    Chevy made a big stride with the current Malibu and the rest of their lineup
    is taking shape. Chrysler had some home runs like the 300C and the jeeps.
    ford has been more consistent, IMO, in producing better cars than the other
    two American makers. They also managed to keep their business afloat
    without a government handout. That's better mangement than GM or Chrysler
    has had.
    As good as tha Lumina was to you, can you honestly say that it was the equal
    of a Camry or Accord? Not even close, IMO. The Japanses cars were so much
    more refined.
    I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler 300C!
    Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 15, 2010
  12. Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and high
    MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back in the
    day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not too shabby.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 16, 2010
  13. You'd be hard pressed to power a two-ton car with a four cylinder engine.
    Some of the weight would be excised with smaller and lighter components but
    you're not going to get a car of that size with it's solid build to move
    with a four cylinder engine like it does with a V8. BTW, when did I say
    that I considered my car a toy? I've got the resources to buy one, I work
    hard for my money. The pollution levels for current cars is very low
    compared to older ones. What's your beef?
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 16, 2010
  14. Bruce

    Wilba Guest

    The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship - they
    got a million miles to the galleon.
    Wilba, Nov 16, 2010
  15. ;-)

    Not if they got picked upon in Teredo land.......
    John McWilliams, Nov 16, 2010
  16. Bruce

    peter Guest

    Last time I looked, nobody fed gasoline to horses, or camels.
    peter, Nov 16, 2010
  17. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    Uh, what makes anybody think that a four cylinder engine is necessarily
    small or low powered?
    J. Clarke, Nov 17, 2010
  18. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, but try to cross a desert on a horse without bringing any horse fuel
    and you'll be disabused of the notion that they do not use fuel. You're
    conflating "gasoline" with "fuel".
    J. Clarke, Nov 17, 2010
  19. Bruce

    peter Guest

    You need a horse bricker. Works similar to the camel bricker.
    peter, Nov 17, 2010
  20. Bruce

    Wilba Guest

    Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database? Thanks!
    Wilba, Nov 17, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.