Nikon planning "new concept" mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras with enhanced video modes
By Nilay Patel 
posted July 8th 2010 12:45PM
posted July 8th 2010 12:45PM
The past year has seen both Sony and Samsung unveil tiny interchangeable lens cameras designed to compete with the Micro Four Thirds units from Panasonic and Olympus, and now Nikon's getting in the game as well -- company president Makoto Kimura told Bloomberg Nikon will introduce a "new concept" mirrorless cameras with enhanced video functions as early as this year. (That sort of sounds like the Canon G11 competitor with DSLR tech Nikon was hinting at earlier this year, but we can't tell if they're the same.) Kimura says that Nikon is "intensively" focused on developing the new mirrorless product as part of a plan to increase SLR revenue -- Nikon's goal is to increase interchangeable lens camera sales a whopping 80 percent over the next three years. That's ambitious, but if Nikon can produce a tiny shooter with some of the D3S's low-light capabilities and the ability to accept even a subset of its modern family of lenses, we don't think it's out of the question. We'll see what happens.
Considering the success of the Pen and GF1, I am surprised the camera is not out yet. Sony aleady manged it, even with the same sensor size. Nikon, please remember, retro is hot and hot sells...
"developing the new mirrorless product as part of a plan to increase SLR revenue "
if you take the mirror out it isn't an SLR anymore...
@paulodourado apparently they call it SRL just because it can take SLR lenses, even thought there is obviously no mirror.
@paulodourado
It doesn't need a mirror to be an SLR system.
If there is some other technology to get the Image that the lens is seeing to the Viewfinder, then that is all that matters.
As long as they don't use some kind of Digital-Based "Live" view on an LCD up in the Viewfinder, then whatever they do will just be new tech.
The Photographer just needs to see exactly what the lens is seeing in one way or another. The mirror can be replaced with something new.
@BMills the only other way to get the image up in the viewfinder is via a single light reflex to the viewfinder's prism. There is no other way to bend light in there other than a mirror.
An lcd in the viewfinder would work just fine but it wouldn't be an SLR.
it NEEDS the mirror to be an SLR, but it doesn't need one to be a camera.. all they need to do is find a diff name for it
@BMills
Wrong. A mirror is required for the "reflex" part of the single lens REFLEX system.
@nihaoyao It's a naming problem for the industry right now -- these cameras are obviously closer to SLRs than compacts, but the old name doesn't fit, and "interchangeable lens cameras" is unwieldy and lame. We're just sort of letting companies blur for lines of "SLR" for the moment, but eventually I'm sure we'll see a new term emerge.
@Nilay Patel maybe call them ILC's....i am sure at one time the name Single Lens Reflex was a bit unwieldy, but now its so common that most people dont even know what it means.
About the camera, it will most likely be some kind of "live view" LCD viewfinder with a way to keep the sensor covered and clean during lens changes. i dont see how this is amazing or innovative, but i also dont work in marketing.
@ACEdotcom
EVIL - Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens
@popeyoni
That is exactly what I was going to say!
I am kind of excited that Nikon is going to make an EVIL camera.
@paulodourado
Technically speaking a reflex-element does NOT need to be a mirror. Basically it merely describes the transmission of an image to the viewfinder. By mere semantic definition alone an EVF could be considered a reflex element.
If you look at the origins of the word, "SLR" its a derivative of the "TLR", twin-reflex-camera that predates it. There have been 'mirrorless' TLRs, such as Mamiya TLRs, have retained the 'reflex' in the name.
However, all these terms are out-dated, the "single-lens" in the "SLR" is only there to differentiate the itself from the TLR. Pretty much every single camera now has a one lens on it, and it isn't a very descriptive term. Most important differentiating factor in a camera body these days is the senor and its size.
By a more pragmatic perspective, when we say "SLR" I think we all imagine the classic 35mm style of camera. But at the same time we've evolved passed these old names with digital cameras. "Mirror-less Interchangeable Lens" Camera seems to be the standard definition for these types of camera.
But to Engadget's defense:
When they say "developing the new mirrorless product as part of a plan to increase SLR revenue "
These Mirrorless Cameras are counted within "SLR revenue" by camera companies. The whole 'reflex' thing and silly definitions is irrelevant compared to the the fact that these cameras have a large dSLR sensor, have interchangeable lenses, and take dSLR-quality images.
Its part of the "SLR revenue" because it aiming at the dSLR user, all the expensive bits are from the dSLR. Its part of the SLR business. In fact, in Japan, these mirrorless cameras account for 1 in 3 "dSLRs" sold (which is how they calculate it).
@paulodourado
There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a mirror in the SLR acronym. SLR = stands for SINGLE LENS REFLEX... The cameras before SLR were DUAL LENS NON-REFLEX... meaning you looked through one lens and took pictures through another... Some medium-size portrait cameras are still like so (although it's a bit retro). And of course, many 35mm portable cameras use separate viewfinder to compose a shot, so you could never look through the lens.
Technically, all digital cameras are SLR's these days. As live-view defines single lens, and all cameras have to "reflex" from taking picture to providing the monitor with a view. The "reflex" is digital, as the processing switches from recording image to memory to sending the image to EVF and back, as you take pictures.
Because there was never a necessity to differentiate between the two. Now you can call the older reflex - SLMR (single lens MIRROR reflex), and SLDR (digital)...
@Nilay Patel
"We're just sort of letting companies blur for lines of "SLR" for the moment, but eventually I'm sure we'll see a new term emerge."
I agree. It's the same sort of dancing around we saw with the word "netbook". Remember all the fuss from a couple of years ago?
Though if you want to lump SLRs and these cameras together, the simple "ILC" (interchangeable lens cameras) would do just fine. The problem is what do you call them when you want to differentiate them from SLRs...
@paulodourado In fact what I see from the Bloomberg is a tiny bit different. That's where the confusion comes from.
"The “new concept” model will probably have an enhanced function for video recording and may adopt the so-called mirrorless structure..."
Notice the "may".
@Temple "These Mirrorless Cameras are counted within "SLR revenue" by camera companies."
And that too. +1
If whatever it is fits the existing len's that'd be great. But I thought the Sony ones used a different set of len's from the A line.
Sounds an awful lot like that Canon concept that was posted just a day or two ago.
Nikon - where is the news on the D400?!
Blasphemy!
1080p and continuous focus plus work with all nikon lens (adapter)
Enhanced video is nice. Too much stuff to talk about. But I will want to upgrade from my D90 one day, so I hope the future looks bright!
@n11 I am still looking for a reason to upgrade from my D70s. D80 and 90 did not show an extreme evolution to me, besides the extra pixels.
@spass
"D90 did not show an extreme evolution to me.."
aside from the revolutionary inclusion an HD video mode?
what do you expect from your next DSLR, Light-speed burst shooting?
Sony is planning on doing the same using similar technology.
http://sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-to-announce-the-first-two-pellix-cameras-at-photokina-in-september-the-a55-and-a33/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellicle_mirror
So it begins ;-P
Actually I think mirror-less cameras are the future.
An electronic live viewfinder offers the advantage of actually seeing aperture settings/effects etc. applied before taking the shot.
Less bulk and optical complexity.
Provided that we can already produce small displays with sufficient pixel density and obviously there will be advances I think it's inevitable that an optical viewfinder will go the way of the film cameras.
@sibyyhome
The problem with the electronic viewfinders is that they are sloooooooow.
Until they solve that problem, optical will rule.
@sibyyhome
That's not the only problem. The BIG downfalls of compacts are:
1. Small sensor (and the IQ/DOF problems that come with it)
2. Lousy way to see what you're taking (LCD)
3. Unchangeable lens
4. SLOW autofocus
5. Horrible shutter lag/time to get ready from on switch
They've already (sort of) fixed 1 and 3 with u4/3's, but only Panny has been able to (sort of) fix #4 and #2 on some models. Still #5 left. The mirror is not what makes a DSLR appealing, but it does make it FAST. Anyone who's used a DSLR knows it's responsiveness is light years ahead of compacts.
@sibyyhome
And all DSLRs have an aperture preview button. As for effects, really, most photographers apply their affects in photoshop.
And, since so far Panasonic has been the most successful in making an EVF even passable/tolerable, I don't think that we're quite there yet with pixel density in small displays.
With the current sales of DSLRs vs u4/3 and their like, it's pretty doubtful that mirrors (and their viewfinders) will die out anytime soon.
@solmar
Actually these "mirrorless cameras" have the same sensor as dSLRs. Nikon will likely use the same Sony's APS-C sensor as in their dSLRs. Image quality is identical, its basically a dSLR without the whole mirror-box assembly, kinda like a Live-View APS-C camera.
As far as EVFs being slow, new EVFs such as the one is Panasonic's GH1 does 180 fps refresh rate and is fairly high-resolution.
But an OVF will always offer a better view of the shot then an EVF, unless in dark conditions where the OVF isn't getting much light, in which case an lit-EVF may be better.
@solmar similar arguments existed regarding film cameras vis-à-vis digital ones, i.e. quality not yet the same etc. But I think that advances in tech+convenience will help the lvfs prevail.
With a live view finder you are actually seeing exactly what the sensor is seeing and can potentially continuously see how your actual shot is going to turn out. When I was talking about effects, I was including shutter sheep effect as well, no feasible preview with an optical. Also don't other types of effects can be pretty useful, e.g. colour etc.
It's also not and SLR vs m4/3 issue, these probably be integrated cameras where they will simply be replacing the the mirror/viewfinder but keeping sensor. The more adoption lvfs see, the better they will ultimately become and my prediction is that they will be become the standard even for pro cameras. - bookmark this page and come back in 5-10 years. ;)
@sibyyhome
Whole-heartedly agree.
The whole MIRROR REFLEX is dumb and comes from the ALL-OPTICAL systems where nothing else could be done. Manufacturers just slapped the sensor instead of the film, and "were done". And generally, they couldn't do anything back then, because they didn't have the technology to make a nice high-rez monitor.
The biggest problem is EVF resolution - as soon as they get it to at least 3mp, there will NOT be a reason to view at the image through some mirrored path, which is a half-ass representative of what is ending up on the sensor. People forgot why Mirror-Reflex was invented, and that's to allow the person to see through the lens (it was impossible before), and now EVF allows you to see what actually ends up on the sensor. It is the next logical step. And even though it's still a technological challenge (lumix g-series has 800x600 viewfinder, which is still considered high-rez), the industry WILL DEFINITELY move in that direction as better viewfinders will be economically possible.
@popeyoni Speed is really the only problem IMO and when you think about it, how many of all the people using cameras need that much speed?
@solmar Wrong!!! Olympus' external EVF crushes Panny's.
It sounds nice and all that but until they work on the AF and shot to shot times on their compacts, it all means nothing!
@Elem
The answer already exists:
Lumix GF1... small... fast focusing (VERY), and very responsive shot-to-shot..
It would be great to get something in that size where I could use my Nikon lenses. That's been one of Nikon's greatest selling points over the past, oh, 40 years. Amazing backwards compatibility.
@Tammacho Pentax's too :)
For people like me who shoot a lot of theater and dance (Nikon D700 user, most of the time), the benefit of a system that doesn't produce a mirror-slap/shutter sound cannot be over-expressed.
If I could use all of my F-Mount glass with a live-view-finder-only camera that gave me the low-light performance of the D700 (or D3s), I'd be all over it.
Please don't cheap out and make this a DX only thing. There is a market for full-frame mirrorless cameras in F-Mount.
@chaboud There's no reason they won't make an FF. Except marketing.
"That's ambitious, but if Nikon can produce a tiny shooter with some of the D3S's low-light capabilities and the ability to accept even a subset of its modern family of lenses"
What?!?! Do you guys actually have any photographers on staff or do you just accept big wads of cash from Nikon & Canon to review their flag-ship products?
The sensor in the D3S and D700 which enable those amazing low-light capabilities are FULL FRAME (FX) sensors (sensor is 1:1 w/35mm film). That full frame allows the camera to absorb more light and take pictures in darker environments. Every other SLR camera Nikon sells is a DX (cropped) sensor. Those full frame sensors are pretty massive and would not fit into a "tiny shooter". Even if Nikon could fit FX into body the size of the D300 or D90, having a FX camera in the sub $2k range would take a big chunk out of their DX sales.
Which leads us to the reality of Nikon's statement. Nikon wants to increase sales of interchangeable lens cameras because...tada...they want you to buy more interchangeable lenses. If they can get you locked into their brand by making you purchases lenses even further "down market", the more likely you are to upgrade from that camera to a 'true' Nikon SLR because you can use the lenses. Then, since FX sensors are reserved to the flagship products, you'll realize years later after investing thousands into lenses for DX cameras you'll need to purchase even more lenses if you want to move up to FX.
@Rockhurst
You're really freaking out over a statement that could actually come true. First of all they just said "some of the D3S's low-light capabilities". They didn't say "sensor". Look at today's budget cropped sensor DSLRs. They're light years ahead of what full frame DSLRs of only some years ago could do in terms of low light (among many, many other things). And subset of the lenses means just that, a subset, maybe the DX-only lenses. Calm down, and read again. Even so, they're allowed to dream, aren't they?
@Rockhurst
An FX (full-frame) sensor can easily fit in a normal body, look at any 35mm film camera. Also see the Sony Alpha-850 which actually uses a sensor related to the Nikon D3x. Not to mention the Alpha-850 is sub-$2k.
A mirrorless camera with a FX sensor should be around the same size as a Leica M9.
Also, the Sony E-mount (NEX3/4) can technically fit a full-frame sensor within its given mount area. Its still a wild-rumor at this point, but its technically feasible, and Nikon would be better placed for a higher-end full-frame product then Sony.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=e868f8f428f2603860c84ec9edd24182&showtopic=43864&view=findpost&p=370711
@Temple You beat me to it. There is absolutely no problem to put an FF sensor in a small body. In fact, it can be even smaller than the M9 (you put an EVF).
I am so glad that I am broke for one reason only. I have not been able to go and get a dSLR yet. I will be back on my feet in a couple of months and then I'll start looking at cameras again. By then we should know what Nikon has coming probable spec wise and when it releases I can get a camera of higher capability for a lower price. Yay for me!!
I agree that SLR means the viewfinder image is formed through the taking lens and has nothing to do with having a mirror in there.
However some people on the internet are so crazy and vocal about SLR meaning there is mirror in there (probably because they have never seen any other type of camera like for example a dual lens reflex camera) that I seldom try to argue the point.
The best thing about Nikon releasing one of these is that Canon is surely to follow.
If Canon release one of these I will be all over it.
The main thing that could be improved in cameras like this is the autofocus system.
However I'll still take one, even with crappy autofocus as long as the sensor is big.
A full frame one would be awesome, although I'm not holding my breath for one.
@Engadget: I see. What a poor news outlet you are, if you miss the news.
If your reaction to the Nikon news was "WTF?!", here's the explanation.
http://43rumors.com/and-the-mirrorless-market-grows-and-grows-new-market-share-increase-in-japan-now-32-5-in-june/
"The mirrorless camera segment is still growing in Japan and in June only 32.5% of all sold system cameras were mirrorless!"