Nikon Retro F-Mount Camera (FM2 Style)

MikeGunter

Hi all,

Well . . . . I do give Nikon credit for trying to find new types of product categories. I think their use of the term "hybrid" refers to controls incorporating both the pre F5 layout and the modern layout so you have a retro look with dials on top but also modern controls for G series lenses. I don't think Nikon is using the term "hybrid" to refer to mirrorless or EVF design. But we will have to wait to see what it is when it is announced.

This would be my 'guess', but with the number of models available, price point will likely play the defining role for purchase. It would have to be pretty low to make it a 'hit' in my book. It seems a risky, at best, move. For it to be a hit it will have to be a low, low price point that I think is outside of Nikon's brain to think.

Looking backward, deliberately, invites comment (that's something disguised as criticism). Removing video and claiming that it is for 'photographers' is a lot of hooey. Nikon 'shat' (notice English verb tense of a noun) on users of the D600, and the company is offering up this camera as some sort of bridge - think Simon and Garfunkle.

It might be cool; it might be great; it might be grand. I might fall for it.

But at first blush, it seems gimmicky and wholly misplaced unless at a bargain price, and 'Nikon and bargain' rarely fall into the same sentence.

I know. I've been writing checks 'pay to the order to Nikon' for 50 years.

My best,

Mike

henrik1963

@PB_PM: Thanks for the heads up :-)

Tradewind35

As a fan of the FM2n and FM3A since they were released this is the digital body that I have been waiting for. no longer have to contemplate ditching my large collection of F mount manual focus primes and go the Fuji X Pro route.
I just hope the long delay in bringing it to market is because they have thoroughly tested it and that it is a top quality product - don't care much about the number of megapixels or the cost if the hardware quality is there and the software side of things does not detract too much from the simple pleasure of taking photographs.

PB_PM

I was talking about this camera with some other long term Nikon users, and Thom Hogan mentioned this as well, it's highly likely that Nikon's had this camera sitting on a drawing board since the FM2n was pulled from production back in 2001. Maybe not in the form that we will see, but in some form or another. I don't think this is going to be some slap dash effort, but rather the result of some hard core engineers long term tinkering.

NSXTypeR

As a fan of the FM2n and FM3A since they were released this is the digital body that I have been waiting for. no longer have to contemplate ditching my large collection of F mount manual focus primes and go the Fuji X Pro route.
I just hope the long delay in bringing it to market is because they have thoroughly tested it and that it is a top quality product - don't care much about the number of megapixels or the cost if the hardware quality is there and the software side of things does not detract too much from the simple pleasure of taking photographs.

You never had to ditch your F mount lenses though. Any of them would have worked on the D7000 and up.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

I read Hogan's article and took his survey.

I regret that there isn't a price point lower than $1400 for the camera and lens. :-)

It seems to me that going 'retro' is like the fable about the emperor and his new clothes, or fooling some of the people ... form following marketing.

It might be a good camera, but look at the specifications, not 'retro', or even FT (it is, after all, an electronic camera - the FT series was mechanical) hype.

My best,

Mike

Photobug

Just saw the main post indicating it's now going to be based upon the F3/F3 HP body. I loved that film camera, much better than the FM2. Plus I love the look better than the FM2. Now I can't wait to see it. So do we start the thread all over under a new name...MsMoto?

PB_PM

Or the mods could simply edit the title. :P The F3 style body would explain the size of the body.

Msmoto

Let's wait and see what the camera looks like. This entire story is IMO rather bizarre. Could it all be a cover for something entirely new... Like a D400? While I love the idea of a retro camera, in actual use I find the latest body styles with the ergonomics designed in much more convenient than the older style bodies. So what is Nikon thinking with all the expense of producing a new body which will appeal to maybe a few hundred folks?

Of course, if this is a mirrorless full frame, I am all for it.

sevencrossing

Where is that at - haven't been able to find that article. Would like to read that one\



http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-return-of-the-fm.html

PB_PM

Thom Hogan wrote a good piece on this, and gives a good reason why Nikon might be going with the 16MP sensor, rather than the newer ones.

Where is that at - haven't been able to find that article. Would like to read that one.

www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-return-of-the-fm.html

Dailuo

We will have to see the price. If it has similar performance as D4, 10 FPS, same AF, buffer, etc., the price will be in the pro range,I.e., higher than $3,000. IMO. I agree, it will have some appeal, but only a niche market, and that is my point about Nikon using its resources wisely.

I find it attractive, but not necessarily something I would buy.

With your comment on ergonomics i dont agree , my thought are opposite - i dont think 2,3,4 lb cameras are ergonomic and if you are a pro weight and size doesnt make the camera a pro - it is the person taking the creative capture that is the pro. the fm2 is very good i can set it with my eyes closed and it is durable and compact. Where the ergonomics went haywire is in the digital world. Cameras grew to the size of 70's DEC computers and OS that rivaled IBM 360's and the weight increase to the size that could anchor the titantic Finally things are starting to line up with reality getting back to the refined 35mm cameras of film -also the big ugly digitals will soon lay in the cemetary next to the old DEC and IMBs of old - it is the trend of the new age . If you boil it down all a good photographer needs is a durable instrument that he/she can control the light through focus, shutter speed , and DOF requiring good glass and something to capture it film or sensor. And a good understanding of how all this works. Once this is understood and practiced you dont need all the stuff, just look at the light set the aperture and speed and visualise the capture before the shutter is released. This is the art and where professionalism comes. The rest is just marketing. If nikon can pull off something like this it would be good and you will be surprised how many peofessional people will grab this thing and how quickly the cameras of now will become relics. Watch!

Msmoto

@Dailuo.....

Maybe you could tell us something about your professional experience in the introductory thread.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/22/introduce-yourself-here#Item_295

moreorless

Sorry Dailuo but that's nonsense, many "refined" 35mm SLR's looked much the same as digital by the late 80's. They did so because the needs of users were changing as we saw things like AF, built in motor drive and larger zoom lenses.

Now if you want to argue that theres an unserviced market for users who want a smaller FF camera that does away with features like the larger grip, the top plate LCD, dual card slots etc and brings back marked dials I suspect you might be correct but it won't be because these people are more "professional".

shawnino

Nasim Mansurov posted an article a couple weeks back about a concept of what was essentially a lens with one element where software could take over. I'll try to post a link here.

http://photographylife.com/the-future-of-optics

Moving that further, the next iteration would be a lens-less camera, or rather a body with one or two glass elements baked in where virtually everything else (including focal length) was done in post. I have no idea if this will happen, but I know Lytro is taking steps in that direction. I treasure my 1908 encyclopedia that assuredly states that orbiting the earth in a space-machine would always be impossible because absolutely everything would burn up on low atmosphere re-entry.

Unless and until we get there, the ergonomics of photography will never be what we want. The further we slide away from a normal prime, the worse it's going to get, regardless of choice of body. A 14-24 f/2.8 and a 300 f/2.8 will never, ever be joys to hold. So, in these "dark ages", I'm happy to use any body that doesn't make my life immeasurably worse when it's on my Black Rapid strap. I'll use whatever piece of glass I think I need to try to get the shot. (Sometimes it's not even the 135mm f/2 DC!) If I end up with a camera/lens combo that balances nice or feels good, it's a happy bonus.

Unless this body is hideously laid out and brutally weighted, ergonomics would never be a dealbreaker for me on any body. Cost of doing business.

kenadams

I'm wondering where all this retro style craziness is taking the pro market. Assume, this new camera has pro specs (sealing, bracketing functions, flash sync and what not), would any serious pro take it up? Where does self marketing on retro bodies come in? If you're a serious wedding photographer, could you risk bringing this to a job or wouldn't you get laughed at by everyone?

Form follows function. Now cameras have gotten more slimlined over the years than ever, more curvy with every new release. Now all of a sudden it's back to hard edges and corners, buttons over menus. While I agree it looks kinda cool, I don't really get this. My macbook isn't steam powered either, and neither does it look like an Apple II...

moreorless

You could argue the specs that have been rumoured don't really favour professional use at an event(one card slot, no video) but I don't think perception would be a problem. If anything the reverse, the only wedding photographers that seem to make a big point of their equipment tend to use digital Leica M's or film.

henrik1963

Over the years we have seen many different cameras - shoe boxes - range finder - SLR - P&S and smart phones just to name a few. I see nothing wrong with a F3 style camera - after all it was a pro camera once.

Cameras are tools. Some tools feels nice when you pick them up - others not so much. Some tools work well - others do not. I like nice cameras but they need to work well. Leicas are nice - but they are not practical for a lot of things. D800 is not as nice to pick up as a Leica - but i works better for a lot of things.

I like my D800. But if someone came to me with a camera with features that would help me take better pictures I would consider buying it. If that camera has a different "box" - so be it. But I would prefer a nice "box" Maybe Nikon is trying to make nicer "boxes"?

PB_PM

Could it all be a cover for something entirely new... Like a D400?

If anything I think the rumors of this camera tells us something about the fate of the D400, as in never going to happen.

henrik1963

Not long ago all Nikon cameras were full frame cameras. As FX sensors become cheaper to make maybe Nikon is moving FX only = no D400. With FX cameras costing less than 2K how can they keep margins on a DX camera with pro features if the only difference is the sensor? How many would pay close to 2K for a D400? Many more would like a FX camera with consumer features I think. Sad but true.

shawnino

I'm wondering where all this retro style craziness is taking the pro market. Assume, this new camera has pro specs (sealing, bracketing functions, flash sync and what not), would any serious pro take it up? Where does self marketing on retro bodies come in? If you're a serious wedding photographer, could you risk bringing this to a job or wouldn't you get laughed at by everyone?

I can't find it, but 3-4 mo. ago a wedding tog wrote a guest post on Mansurovs'. She was using a film rig as her secondary camera on Wedding Day, and as a primary on non-wedding-day parts of shoots. She marketed herself as such, and claimed it brought her a lot of extra business as a differentiation tool. Many of the sample shots she posted, in my opinion, were top class. I could see my wife and many of her friends eating that right up, especially with a strong portfolio.

shawnino

Main blog now tipping US $3,000 body only, $3,300 w/retro lens.

Oh what the heck, it's Wednesday afternoon, I'll be a bomb-thrower: I actually do believe anybody who picks this up at $3K in lieu of a D800 is either
--doing an awful lot of work in low-light or high fps conditions
or
--a complete moron.

Actually, I'll just go with "moron": if they were doing serious low-light/high fps, they'd have one (or more) D4 or D3-variant bodies already. Just saying.

kenadams

Ah, yes shawnino, I remember that article and the photos, they were pretty damn amazing! This is a good point. However, she is marketing herself as such, as someone using older, low-fi tech, and I guess a lot of people that are getting married now are just old enough to remember the film days (if only as bystanders), and associate it with careful composition as opposed to their own experiences with any sort of digital photography they no doubt have now. Also, at the end of the day she can rightfully claim she *really* uses film and give whatever reason (I still use film and can absolutely relate). If someone doesn't appreciate that, they don't have to book her.

But there are certainly those who associate old film cameras with someone being hopelessly out of date (arguably, but still), and I wonder what impression you give off if you only pretend to use film but really aren't. Does this make you look unprofessional? What's more, there's this huge discussion about having such and such gear only to impress a client into booking you (regardless of your other qualifications for the sake of the argument here).

Oh, and the price point, if it comes to it, is outerwordly. Ridiculous.

PB_PM

Main blog now tipping US $3,000 body only, $3,300 w/retro lens.

Yikes. I'm out...

Symphotic

Nothing retro about the price. Maybe I'll pass.