Why cant Nikon make a digital FF FM3a (or equivalent) camera?
How much space is actually needed behind the sensor? Is it that they physically do not have space to move the sensor back?
If they put the LCD on the outside of the body (like D750) and could move the sensor back they could keep the F mount for a mirrorless type camera. Who would even want something smaller than this type of camera? What would be the benefit of having 2 mounts and adapting existing F mount lenses if they could just get to FM/2/3 size wouldnt that be the ideal solution to go mirrorless?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 754 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2007:06:17 15:06:17 Exposure Time 1 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 60.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1280 Image Height 960 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2695100
like eos m + ef adapter or pentax k01?
>>2695100
you mean like sony a7?
>>2695103
K01.. Why make a new mount + adapter if its possible to do a FF mirrorless with native F mount? Who cares about the wasted space?? Who the fuck wants a FF camera a6000 slim with dslr grip and dslr lenses.. it would be fucking retarded.. Just stick an F mount on there and keep it a usable size.
>>2695107
>pentax k01
>hasbro in charge of camera design
they definitely can make the k01 thinner.
I really don't think there's very many insurmountable technical problems with making a DSLR roughly the size of a classic MF SLR. I think the problem is really just business decisions and the fact that Canikon don't think that it would be worth it to design a whole new style of DSLR radically smaller from existing ones when it's so easy to take the exact same oversized lumpy modern DSLR body they've been using for 20 years and stick the newest sensor with more pickles in it and slap a new name on it and sell it as a brand new camera. There are plenty of people on the internet who very vocally complain about wanting one, but despite that it seems like they don't think it's a good investment to make one. Nikon made a pathetic half-assed attempt to please that group of people with the DF and it ended up backfiring because the camera was a fucking abortion. Unfortunately I think that will further discourage them and others from trying to make a serious attempt. And now it's probably too late anyway because companies other than Canikon listened and they have already made plenty of mirrorless cameras which are roughly the size of an FM2 and many of which even have the same cool retro styling.
Also I post this article every time someone makes this same exact argument because this guy gets it: http://www.chromaticabrasion.com/blog/nikon-d800-versus-fm2-size-comparison
>What’s more, there seems to be no good reason for a D800 to be as big as it is. Consider that:
>the D800’s viewfinder is actually noticeably smaller than the FM2’s
>the frame size is practically identical
>the lens mount is the same, with the same distance between flange and focal plane
>a Leica M-E is barely larger than an M7
>a whole iPhone (battery, camera, display, and all!) is thinner than the D800’s extra depth behind the focal plane compared to an FM2.
agreed
>>2695100
A little added thickness wouldn't be so bothersome if they kept is simple.
The DF is such a hideous monster because they stick to this idea that a digital camera has to have an external button or dial for every function. If the ISO and shutter dial remained as it is on the old FMs and FEs, replace the rewind know with mode and a small dial on the back for aperture control on G lenses but allow for ring adjustment on all other lenses it would rock.
Every other function could be controlled through menus with a minimal number of buttons on the back with the screen. or even less if they went with a touch screen.
>>2695108
Actually Marc Newson designed it, it may not be that much of a looker but it has great IQ and it uses the same sensor as the d7000/K5
>>2695112
>And now it's probably too late anyway because companies other than Canikon listened and they have already made plenty of mirrorless cameras which are roughly the size of an FM2 and many of which even have the same cool retro styling.
I don't care that much for mirrorless though. I want an OVF.
>>2695884
Yes but if they had gotten their shit together earlier and made a smaller DSLR years ago then they could've captured the whole market of people who want a smaller camera. Now smaller cameras exist so they have to go for the smaller market of people who want a small camera but also want an OVF. And as they continue to wait, EVFs continue to get better so fewer and fewer people will insist on an OVF and the market of people who want a digital FM2 keeps shrinking.
>>2695901
Makes complete sense. Seems though like I'll never get that pure bliss of having a small, portable DSLR. Not that I'm some ML hating faggot. I just really like seeing the actual picture with my eyes and not something processed. I feel a lot more comfortable in post when I take the picture seeing something directly with my owneye. And if I want to lug a big ass, conspicuous piece of brick, I'll take my 645 over any DSLR any day.
Guess I'm stuck with film then.
>>2695935
>yfw Olympus E-420 shaped cameras are kill 4ever
>what is a vocal minority
