Last days of the DSLR?

WestEndBoy

Then make consumer grade and professional grade. That would rock! A couple of years later do the same thing with a 0.66ish crop targeted at the high end to catch the competition flat footed. The only thing missing in Nikon's lineup would be medium format DSLRs.

donaldejose

If I were Nikon I would produce a DX sensor based EVF system first because the cost should be lower and the market greater. Then I would add a FX sensor based counterpart.

WestEndBoy

I wouldn't be shy and limit yourself to FX. Remember the Fuji 6 by 9s. Have to wait for sensor cost to come down though.

Ironheart

What the heck is 0.66 crop? Wouldn't that be the opposite of crop, a larger than 35mm full frame? Just trying to understand your point. If so, you would need all new lenses as the light circle would be too small. But perhaps I'm missing something :-/

WestEndBoy

Not missing anything Ironheart.

Someone will do that someday and I would be interested in such a beast. I fondly remember that the Fuji 6 by 9s were great cameras. I like Nikon so I am hoping Nikon would do it, though a 90mm by 60mm would be an insane fortune today. Just like FX would have been 10 years ago. Hmm.....60mm by 40mm would do. I am not fussy.

TaoTeJared

What the heck is 0.66 crop?

I don't get that either - that would be a sensor 2/3rds the size of FX and slightly smaller than DX.

@jshickele: To go larger, you have to have "1.xx"

If I were Nikon I would produce a DX sensor based EVF system first because the cost should be lower and the market greater. Then I would add a FX sensor based counterpart.

Just to note, with EVF, (for Nikon) that drops the metering and focusing components so all newly designed stuff there and also loss in performance. From all the other companies who do this, it seems to take 2-3 generations of their bodies to "get it closer" to DSLRs. That would mean 6(+/-) years for Nikon. All change comes at a cost. My guess the Nikon 1 is their testing ground so they don't have such a lag.

WestEndBoy

DX is a 1.5 crop. 24x36 divided by 1.5 becomes 16x24.
With a 0.66 crop, 24x36 divided by 0.66 becomes 36x54.

OK, so the "0.66 crop" term is not catching fire, but the math works even though it is not really being cropped. What would you guys call it?

Ironheart

Medium format
40.2 x 53.7

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893195-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_60_DSLR_Camera_With.html

Only $42K for the kit with lens

WestEndBoy

Gulp and Yup! Makes me feel like I got my D800 for a steal.

But the price will come down. I recall that the D1 for its incredible price used what was essentially was a DX sensor, available now on a D3XXX for less than $500.00.

PB_PM

Don't compare the price of the D1 to the Dxxxx series. Compare it to the price of the D4. Why? Same build quality, and equivalent feature set. Sure DX vs FX sensor, but back then DX was big.

WestEndBoy

That is not really my point. My point is simply that the price will come down. Some will say 1 year. Some will say 1,000 years. Good that we all agree. Now the only question is how efficient Moore's law's benefits will translate into a lower price.

PB_PM

I get your point. I am simply saying that it is a bad example. Pointing to a high end product as an example of how expensive something was, and then saying, "look this low end product is cheaper", doesn't really work. There is a lot more to a cameras cost than the sensor.

That's like pointing out a Rolex watch from ten years ago and saying, wow this Timex watch from 2013 is sooo much cheaper! Look how much prices have fallen!

WestEndBoy

Since you got my point, the example served its purpose. But perhaps you can suggest a better example.

PB_PM

Directly, from comparable models. Look at the release price of the D50 (first entry level Nikon DSLR) vs the D3200. Both are entry level models, separated by a reasonable amount of time. The D50 kit price was $899. The D3200 kit price? $469.

WestEndBoy

OK. Care to take a stab at when we will be able to buy a D800 build quality (D4 is better, but let's use a semi-pro build quality) in a Fuji 6by9 or a Leica M ergonomic design with a 40x60 sensor for less than $6,000?

Don't forget to account for things like the increase in sensor quality over time (I wonder what the D3200 kit price would be with the D50 sensor), the ratio of the camera cost to sensor cost (I wonder what the D50 would have been at launch with no sensor) etc. These factors effect the analysis in the opposite direction as the Rolex/Timex affect that you mentioned.

Initially, I was just trying to make a point without going below the 40,000 foot level so as not to bore TTJ and Ironheart. However, I do like the details at times. A date would be great so I know how much to save every month. Hmmm.....will need 3 fast primes to go with that, say 24mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent. Let's assume $4,000 each for those, we won't want cheap glass with this IQ. PB_PM, if you could focus on the camera analysis. Let's call it the "Super FX Project". Moderator, do we need a new thread called "Super FX Project"?

And back to the point of this thread, I think that the DSLR will be alive and well even with all the above fantasies coming true. But that is just my opinion and let me stipulate that if the pentaprism is replaced by an EVF with data being fed directly from the sensor, then it is still a DSLR as it will walk, talk and quack like a DSLR even though the anal among us may want to call it a DEVF.

TaoTeJared

DX is a 1.5 crop. 24x36 divided by 1.5 becomes 16x24.
With a 0.66 crop, 24x36 divided by 0.66 becomes 36x54.

OK, so the "0.66 crop" term is not catching fire, but the math works even though it is not really being cropped. What would you guys call it?

Your math is backwards. That is how you calculate lens focal length crops. Not sensors. .66 = 66%. 66% of something is smaller than the whole.

That is not really my point. My point is simply that the price will come down. Some will say 1 year. Some will say 1,000 years. Good that we all agree. Now the only question is how efficient Moore's law's benefits will translate into a lower price.

For a million different reasons Moore's law does not equal price nor does it equate price for anything. It only states the number of transistors on a chip. What does matter is how many sensors can fit on the average 300mm wafer. Most stated numbers put DX = 102, FX = 44, MF = 20ish (seen anywhere from 20-25 depending on sensor size - MF sensors are less standard) that can fit on a wafer. Then you have the error/failure/broken rate which that is not an easy number to find. I have seen DX numbers being anywhere from 10-40% average failure rate. (Most seem to be in the 15-20% failure range.) If you put that on a MF scale, the error rate is going to be very, very high. Phase 1's sensors are 40.4x54.9, Leaf's 56x36, Hasseblad 48x36 and a whole range of other sizes. Pentax's is 44x33 and with the same color depth, not as good AF, and Ok metering compared to Nikon's FX and they have barely broke below the $7k mark. And I have seen many people move from it to the D800 since the IQ is just as good or better.

"When we will be able to buy...(one)...in a Fuji 6by9 or a Leica M ergonomic design for under $6k?" Price isn't the real hold back. It wasn't until just a few years ago that the main processing for MF finely moved to the body rather than being tethered to a computer to process the files. 7-10 years maybe - if ever. I think you would be close on the lens prices - $2-5k each. There is just so many issues with heat, battery, processing, manufacturing, etc. that didn't exist with film that made those bodies conceivable. I don't see that sensor-type in that size of a body again or for many years. It's fun to dream about it, I would love to see it, but it is far off.

I agree with you, "is replaced by an EVF with data being fed directly from the sensor, then it is still a DSLR as it will walk, talk and quack like a DSLR..."

heartyfisher

I would like to see small DX sensor based EVF cameras developed by Nikon. Take the Sony A7 design. Shrink it as much as possible for use with a DX sensor allowing the sensor to lens mount flange distance to shrink. Use the 24mp DX sensor from the D7100. Take the good 18-55 kit lens. Make an improved redesigned version as small as possible and reduce the sensor to rear of lens distance. Now you have a small, general purpose camera which will suit many people's needs and desires. Retain the ability to use all Nikkor lenses by producing a small spacer (like a tele-extender) to return to the normal sensor to flange distance. Produce a few new lenses such as pancake lenses equivalent to FX 28mm and 40mm lenses for those who want to be able to pocket this camera.

Except for a few small things .. You just described the Fuji Xe-1 and the fujinon lenses...

FreezeAction

Medium format
40.2 x 53.7

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893195-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_60_DSLR_Camera_With.html

Only $42K for the kit with lens

I've had it booked marked and I suspect that is where it is staying.

Add a printer in the package:

http://paradigmimaging.com/group/products/sign-equipment/sid-printers/sid-titan-320-series.html?utm_source=Graphics+3rdParty+Mailings&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GRVDB131209002&o_eid=7788E9366467E1Q

And farther wishful thinking, 8x10 Velvia territory

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893196-REG/Hasselblad_3013666_H5D_200MS_Medium_Format_Digital.html

FreezeAction

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/177791-USA/Rodenstock_150128_45mm_f_4_5_Apo_Sironar_digital.html

For up to a 72 x 96 sensor. What to they know that we don't. I'd say dslr is continuing to be refined and not dying if you are hard core landscape shooters. I know that these over sized senors are medical now but if a LF lens is being built when are the backs coming? And many more lenses coming up for either LF or MF backs. There is already made a digital mount for Canon, Nikon, and Hasselblad bodies for my 4x5 camera. Something bigger is brewing to turn a 4x5 body into a large format digital body I hope.

Ade

DigitalRev's Kai, who rarely blogs, has some choice words for Nikon and Canon:

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-and-nikon-past-their/MTc3MzU1MDAz

Msmoto

It is indeed a mystery why Nikon and Canon have been apparently not up to date on the move into a non mirror camera which performs like the current pro DSLR bodies. As I have suggested in the past, this may be a result of the marketing departments. Possibly the top pro body in a non mirror configuration would not hold the price that is currently being charged for the D4 and EOS 1DX . And they are worried about profits? Or, the continuous servo AF systems do not perform as well as or better than the above bodies.

Maybe a non mirror body in the mid price range would perform like the pro bodies and there would be no market for the high end….

Whatever the reason, until they get their acts moving forward, we will sit and wait.

Photobug

My bottom is SO TIRED of "sitting and waiting" as Msmoto says on Nikon, especially the D300 replacement. My approach, get out there and take pictures and master what I shoot.

Actually agree with Msmoto but just saying...my bottom is so tired of waiting. (:|

Ade

+1 Photobug

And I noticed the best reader comment on the digital rev link above came from our very own Mike Gunter. Tell 'em like it is...

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ Ade - My brain is atrophying with disuse, "tail-tale" usage error is the sort of thing an old editor would never have done, even in the worse of days.

I hope I don't sound too venomous about the Df; I just don't think it justifies itself in any realm of sensibility of usability or technology. It's like 'penis enhancement' pills. It's like penis enhancement pills. There's little doubt why people are coaxed in to buying them, and no evidence that they work, yet the profits soar from those who sell them - only people who sell them. One doesn't want to call anyone out on it, but the measure of worth has never been what you could buy, but would you could do with what you have.

My last job took me all over the hemisphere, and I think I would put the Sony A7 system really high on the list of all available systems (waiting on the lenses to come on line).

Frankly, a Micro 4/3ds would also do about as well for what I was doing, but the full frame would have distinct advantages for lower light shooting, greater feature sets and more.

As always, my very best to all,

Mike

Photobug

The slop fps rules out the Sony A7r for me. 1.5 fps doesn't cut it and yes you can change some of he controls to get to 4.5 but that is not an option for me. Just saying.