Rumors : Nikon coming to Micro formats?

[mexxmillion]

jsut saw the thread on Dpreview and sharing it.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=33522153
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/16/i...n-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera.aspx

Recent Nikon patents for at least 5 (FIVE) new lenses having 17mm image diagonal indicates that Nikon will be soon joining the "Micro System" competition, and their system will be moderately smaller than u4/3, but still significantly larger than point-n-shoot. For those of you who ignore/detest "rumor" sites-- you can click on the "official" US Patent links supplied in the following URL.

http://nikonrumors.com/...y-nikon-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera.aspx

A 17mm image diagonal is about 3/4 the size of u4/3 (which has a 21.6mm image diagonal), and has a multiplication factor of 2.5 to get 35mm equivalent. See table near bottom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_sizes

This is slightly larger than what I was asking for in an LX4, but the difference is that this camera would not have a retractable lens (which I would have preferred) but rather interchangable lenses. But I guess someone was listening-- or at least thinking along the same lines as I was 4 months ago:

http://forums.dpreview.com/...ms/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=32051973

New Nikon lenses, in 35mm equivalent terms:

35mm 2.8
45mm 1.4
22-105mm 2.8-5.6 (perfecto!)
26-270mm 2.8-5.9 (excellent!)
75-270mm 4.0-5.6

 

[nightpiper]

i say not likely Nikon goes this route. If interchangeable lens, then its a big headache to manufacture 3 types of lenses & market the 3 different types. So u get FX lenses, DX lenses & mDX lenses?

Also if sensor smaller than the current 4/3 2x crop, means many many people will be skeptical with the noise & IQ, a steeper uphill task to market for Nikon.

It cud be for something else, maybe Nikon wants to increase the sensor size of P&S & its all fix lens mega zoom type. So as consumers from P&S, sensor larger than current models but smaller then 2x crop will be easier to market, consumers compares down instead of up & straight away says its better, less marketing effort for Nikon too.

 

[Evilmerlin]

I agree with Nightpiper. Needing to maintain 3 different format for lenses is going to be a nightmare for their logistics.

 

[aryanto]

Love it. Let's them come. the more the merrier, and the fanboy who say bad things about m4/3 will be stumped

 

[bousozoku]

Is it a surprise?

Olympus has developed several ideas and taken them to market and the others laughed at first and then, they implemented their own versions.

Of course, if they wanted to be smart, they'd cooperate on a new lens mount but they won't do that. You have to wonder if Sigma, Tamron, etc. will scramble to create new lenses, especially if there are several lens mounts, but even if there is only one.

 

[Bridgerock]

Do hope Sigma,and Tamron will make m4/3 lenses. That will help to increase the interest in this new format.

 

[adorable]

Last time people said DSLR will never have video. :bsmilie:
Last time people thought 64KB RAM is enough. :bsmilie:

 

[lamester]

Last time people said DSLR will never have video. :bsmilie:
Last time people thought 64KB RAM is enough. :bsmilie:

QFT.


ROFLMAO nice

 

[Synergyworld]

Last time policemen wear shorts. :sweatsm:

Last time people said DSLR will never have video. :bsmilie:
Last time people thought 64KB RAM is enough. :bsmilie:

 

[azul123]

Last time policemen wear shorts. :sweatsm:

Good one!

:bsmilie:

../azul123

 

[nightpiper]

Is it a surprise?

Olympus has developed several ideas and taken them to market and the others laughed at first and then, they implemented their own versions.

Of course, if they wanted to be smart, they'd cooperate on a new lens mount but they won't do that. You have to wonder if Sigma, Tamron, etc. will scramble to create new lenses, especially if there are several lens mounts, but even if there is only one.

Actually its the consumers laughing at Oly's ideas at 1st, those other co. r watching very carefully to see if its sellable. If markets shares pick up, they jump in with their ver to kill off competition. So its actually a matter of who can sell more goods rather than who is more innovative. Juz look at IBM & Kodak & u'll get the idea. Who has the biggest market share in the camera world? What did they innovate? These qns shud draw a very clear pic of what i'm saying

 

[elgkh]

Actually its the consumers laughing at Oly's ideas at 1st, those other co. r watching very carefully to see if its sellable. If markets shares pick up, they jump in with their ver to kill off competition. So its actually a matter of who can sell more goods rather than who is more innovative. Juz look at IBM & Kodak & u'll get the idea. Who has the biggest market share in the camera world? What did they innovate? These qns shud draw a very clear pic of what i'm saying

I agree. The other manufacturers would have noticed the demand for m4/3rds by now. Given the resources of Nikon, it is entirely possible for them to launch and market a whole new sub system by themselves. A 2.5 crop factor sensor will also be small enough to differentiate from APS-C, but still much bigger than normal P&S sensors.

 

[bousozoku]

I agree. The other manufacturers would have noticed the demand for m4/3rds by now. Given the resources of Nikon, it is entirely possible for them to launch and market a whole new sub system by themselves. A 2.5 crop factor sensor will also be small enough to differentiate from APS-C, but still much bigger than normal P&S sensors.

Why do you think that they would go to a smaller sensor when they've been promoting APS-C sized sensors for so long?

 

[elgkh]

Why do you think that they would go to a smaller sensor when they've been promoting APS-C sized sensors for so long?

I can think of 2 possible reasons,

1. A smaller sensor will mean even smaller lenses than m4/3rd, it might be possible to have a truly pocketable system with good image quality. The current m4/3rd bodies are not down to compact size yet, even with the smaller lenses.

2. From a sales point of view, users will have to buy another whole set of bodies and lenses when they want to upgrade to the DX. Kinda like now, when they upgrade from DX to FX. Additionally, those users who downgrade will need to buy everything all over again.

The above is based on nothing more than the fact that a large proportion of DSLR users buy them for the better image quality, do not buy other lenses, and are not too happy with the bulk and size.

I could well be wrong though.

 

[microcosm]

Love it. Let's them come. the more the merrier, and the fanboy who say bad things about m4/3 will be stumped

Can you get spidey to do the honors... I was thinking of increasing the damage. ha ha ha...

Is it a surprise?

Olympus has developed several ideas and taken them to market and the others laughed at first and then, they implemented their own versions.

Of course, if they wanted to be smart, they'd cooperate on a new lens mount but they won't do that. You have to wonder if Sigma, Tamron, etc. will scramble to create new lenses, especially if there are several lens mounts, but even if there is only one.

As sensors are getting more developed, Sigma and Tamron will be very hard pressed to improve their elements making standards. They are good build lenses only for the body but not lenses and coatings... very interesting to see what they can come out with, but no, I don't think they can get it right... even with their primes they can screw it up, I don't have faith in them, then and now... I have given them 20 years and they still screw it up.

Do hope Sigma,and Tamron will make m4/3 lenses. That will help to increase the interest in this new format.

Good to see them "scramble", but personally, they will never earn a place in my dry cab.

Last time people said DSLR will never have video.
Last time people thought 64KB RAM is enough.

ROFLMAO.

Last time policemen wear shorts. :sweatsm:

Its a decision they regretted. The weather demands shorts... ha ha ha...

 

[spidey89]

I can think of 2 possible reasons,

1. A smaller sensor will mean even smaller lenses than m4/3rd, it might be possible to have a truly pocketable system with good image quality. The current m4/3rd bodies are not down to compact size yet, even with the smaller lenses.

2. From a sales point of view, users will have to buy another whole set of bodies and lenses when they want to upgrade to the DX. Kinda like now, when they upgrade from DX to FX. Additionally, those users who downgrade will need to buy everything all over again.

The above is based on nothing more than the fact that a large proportion of DSLR users buy them for the better image quality, do not buy other lenses, and are not too happy with the bulk and size.

I could well be wrong though.

But in doing a 2.5 crop sensor,and having lenses to match to compete with micro four thirds,it's as good as saying "smaller sensor is good,doesn't matter noise" which isn't something they want since they've been promoting larger sensors to have low noise

 

[microcosm]

Actually its the consumers laughing at Oly's ideas at 1st, those other co. r watching very carefully to see if its sellable. If markets shares pick up, they jump in with their ver to kill off competition. So its actually a matter of who can sell more goods rather than who is more innovative. Juz look at IBM & Kodak & u'll get the idea. Who has the biggest market share in the camera world? What did they innovate? These qns shud draw a very clear pic of what i'm saying

The oracle has spoken... ommm.....

 

[spidey89]

I am honoured to have the honour,same time can carry about 20 school bags? Increase the damage by that much more XD

 

[microcosm]

Why do you think that they would go to a smaller sensor when they've been promoting APS-C sized sensors for so long?

I agree... it will be a APS-C variation... it is about miniaturisation... think about it... it is not something impossible... because only a few years ago, everyone felt that a "pro" camera must be of a certain "bulk and weight" to make it pro. Not that they are wrong, just that the market today demands something else altogether. And also, a bulky camera body was primarily designed for pro shooters or serious hobbyists who demands better glass and faster glass which is typically heavier, thus having a big body balances things... but consumers don't really understand these things... they still want to jump on high IQ equipment, without the bulk. Married people with children will totally understand this.

 

[microcosm]

I can think of 2 possible reasons,

1. A smaller sensor will mean even smaller lenses than m4/3rd, it might be possible to have a truly pocketable system with good image quality. The current m4/3rd bodies are not down to compact size yet, even with the smaller lenses.

2. From a sales point of view, users will have to buy another whole set of bodies and lenses when they want to upgrade to the DX. Kinda like now, when they upgrade from DX to FX. Additionally, those users who downgrade will need to buy everything all over again.

The above is based on nothing more than the fact that a large proportion of DSLR users buy them for the better image quality, do not buy other lenses, and are not too happy with the bulk and size.

I could well be wrong though.

1. That would be quite challenging, though not do-able. Give this to Leica and something might happen... but the cost will be high.

2. Nikon has been screwing their customers and they are so willing to be screwed for so long... nothing's going to change much... We are the ones learning to get used to being screwed... Now we have Zuiko Digital and M.Zuiko Digital too...

I think the coming years will see two kinds of users more clearly... DSLRs are truly not for everyone... finally people are starting to understand and the m43 platform finally realises a solution to the demands from the consumers... pro level images without DSLR systems. The short comings are fulfilled by going DSLR... if they need to shoot in darkness... ha ha ha... this always makes me laugh... every amateur photographer these days are demanding gears only requested by spy agencies and paparazzi. Funny how everyone just don't get it in their head... low light means flat images. No one can change that physics. Not to mention reduced dynamic range, etc. Noise is NOT the problem, flat lighting is.