| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
A Digital F...would be Exactly that...Looking like an F being Digital , as in All that ,say ,a D6 could do..WiFi and Geotagging are of Importance to Many incl. me, and I`m a Retiree , many ,if not Most pro`s require that by now, witness the fact that the stuff is for sale ,and as mentioned for a Hefty sum, while it costs practically next to nothing in manufacture, and since when does Nikon listen to anyone ???..several reviewers have complained about exactly the opposite..
About that digital F....imagine the camera as is ,incl. it`s Low weight but spec'ed with electronics incl. metering/autofocus and everything, interchangeable finders with a photomic having a metering range of Lunasix F class...interchangeable backs with sensors of different characteristics , something that Leica does with different camera´s and is being rather successful with it ..from the get go the F is designed as a System - Camera , making it probably the most successful as over a million were produced, unrivalled by any.....a Digital version could reach an even Higher success rate....by using all Nikkor retro focus lenses ever made, as Lens continuity has been part of the driving force behind Nikon`s success....somewhat flopped by the introduction of the G-lenses,..I have some, and I can use my TC converters on those with Full lens opening Only !!
OK, that makes some sense but it is worth considering that Nikon stopped producing interchangeable finders after the F5. The F6 and later D series cameras didn't have one. There were four finders for the F5, the standard one, a waist level finder, a magnified waist level finder and a sports finder. The waist level finders become redundant with the Z series because the articulated screen does the job.
As far as I know the only interchangeable digital back for an SLR was the Leica Digital Modul R which wasn't a particular success, backs for MF digitals seem to work well enough but I am not sure the bulk would be acceptable for an SLR.
The Photomic head was an after thought to allow metering with a body that didn't have it built in, it is redundant today with metering cells in the bottom of the mirror box and beside the eyepiece. If you had interchangeable finders in the same was as the F5 you would still have the mirrorbox sensor. I don't see what a Photomic head would achieve.
You don't mention it but I assume you want Auto Focus and full compatibility with lenses from Pre-AI to the very latest. I think that might be challenging as you would need a means to adjust the aperture on G series and later lenses without aperture rings, a means of coupling rabbit ears on Pre-AI lenses and some means of inhibiting Shutter priority with anything before AI-S. A mechanically complex design.
I have already explained that adding Wi-Fi and GPS, while it may be relatively cheap, isn't necessarily in the photographer's best interest. My WT2a isn't compatible with my wife's 2009 MacBook Pro because the security protocols have changed since the WT2 was introduced. A camera with built in Wi-Fi would no longer be able to connect but might still drain the battery. Likewise since 2005 Wi-Fi has moved to include the 5GHz band and the WT2 can't go there either. A demand for more space on the 2.5GHz band could see that shifted from Wi-Fi making any camera with only 2.5GHz Wi-Fi unable to connect. It limits the life of the camera. Which is why I am prepared to forego Wi-Fi in a camera. Yes I still occasionally use the D2X and D2Xs and they work as well today as they did in 2006.
GPS has undergone some changes too, WAAS, and LAAS, being just two of them. Navigational GPS systems also have to be SA aware and/or SA immune but but you can't add those functions/capabilities to a system built into a camera. For me the GPS adaptors sold on-line are a much better solution as they can be replaced when technology moves on, they are also GOLNASS and Galileo compatible.
I am sure Nikon could build a Digital F but they would have to be sure of making a profit. Given that such a camera would be mechanically complex (expensive) and, to some extent, niche market I really don't see them doing so. I like the idea but I couldn't afford to buy one.