Nikon D3100 leaked

"lofi" wrote in message
...
Big deal, another boxy, mirror based dSLR marginally different from the
rest of the line-up.
Note to dslrosaurs: mirror based dSLR designs in the 1930s Exacta form
factor are not news, they are merely evolutionary variations on what might
be a pending mass extinction.
You who like the traditional film SLR design paradigm are an ever
shrinking minority compared to the ever increasing hordes whose concept of
a camera is based on some kind of electronic viewfinder and is quite a bit
smaller than an optical viewfinder camera design paradigm can allow.

Quite a bit smaller but nowhere near as efficient. EVFs still have a long
way to go.

It would not be surprising if Sony bailed entirely on traditional dSLR
designs. Sic Semper Minolta.

Uh, "Thus always to Minolta"? I doubt that's what you really meant to say.

In the long run Canon and Nikon could go the way of Minolta if they do not

"In the long run," John Maynard Keynes observed, "we are all dead."

join the mirrorless slr party.

"mirrorless slr" is a contradiction in terms.

It certainly will be interesting to see what Nikon's mirrorless camera turns
out to be. But clever and innovative technology does not necessarily mean a
sea change in major product lines.

Remember the Wankel rotary engine? Many were saying it would replace the
conventional piston engine, and it did have some definite advantages. Well,
over the last 50 years or so lots of Wankel engines have been produced, in
all sorts of sizes and for all sorts of purposes, but the piston engine
still rules in the marketplace.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010081519125816807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-15 10:55:44 -0700, "lofi" said:

Big deal, another boxy, mirror based dSLR marginally different from the
rest of the line-up.
Note to dslrosaurs: mirror based dSLR designs in the 1930s Exacta form
factor are not news, they are merely evolutionary variations on what
might be a pending mass extinction.
You who like the traditional film SLR design paradigm are an ever
shrinking minority compared to the ever increasing hordes whose concept
of a camera is based on some kind of electronic viewfinder and is quite a
bit smaller than an optical viewfinder camera design paradigm can allow.
It would not be surprising if Sony bailed entirely on traditional dSLR
designs. Sic Semper Minolta.
In the long run Canon and Nikon could go the way of Minolta if they do
not join the mirrorless slr party.

Well, Nikon president Makoto Kimura keeps saying that they are going to
have a mirrorless camera. He keeps talking about connectivity and
redefining photography entirely. So I don't think Nikon plans on being
left behind there. Such a mirrorless camera would probably have a DX
sensor, Internet connectivity -- perhaps 3G, and it would blur the line
between movie and still cameras. I would certainly use such a camera,
especially if it had an F mount or an adaptor so I could use my existing
lenses.

I doubt it will have an F mount since the flange distance for such lenses
would mean a lot of wasted volume in the camera body, largely defeating the
purpose of mirrorless design. But I do expect it will have an F-mount
adapter, and I'll be very disappointed if it doesn't.

Granted, such a camera would not beat the resolution or beauty of a D3x,
nor would it probably be as fast as a D3s, but it certainly would further
relegate those cameras to a niche market.

I do not foresee Nikon bringing out a mirrorless camera that is going to
steal sales from newly introduced DSLRs, though. I would guess that no
such camera will be announced before second quarter next year. Nikon seems
to like announcing major new bodies in April.

I don't think anybody really likes the mirror. It is one more moving part
to break, makes too much noise, introduces too much vibration, and even
scares wildlife with the "blinking eye" effect. DX viewfinders in
particular are too dim.

There must be something wrong with my eyes, as I have never noticed the
viewfinder dimness that I see many people complaining about, even with
"penta mirror" cameras like the D40 family. Well, with one exception, and
that's the Minolta 700si -- which has an LCD overlay on the focusing screen,
and that really does make the viewfinder noticeably dimmer.

But I sure do notice that DX viewfinders are a lot *smaller* than full-frame
SLRs. I've gotten used to that and it doesn't bother me at all, but once in
a while I pick up an old 35mm SLR and the viewfinder image seems enormous.

Its only advantage -- and a rapidly diminishing advantage at that -- has
been speed and resolution. Well, the mirror also uses less battery power.
The question has never been whether a mirrorless camera would be better
for most purposes. The only question has been how long it will take to
develop one that will meet professional needs. As far as I am concerned,
the sooner the mirror is gone, the better, but its replacement cannot be
inferior to a DSLR in any way.

Huh. The mirror has never really bothered me at all. And, in modern Nikons
at least, it seems to me very vibration-free and quiet. But then I'm 81 and
pretty hard of hearing, which probably does enhance the quietness. You're
right about it being "one more moving part to break" of course, but I have
never yet had one break.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:22:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010081519125816807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-15 10:55:44 -0700, "lofi" said:

Big deal, another boxy, mirror based dSLR marginally different from the
rest of the line-up.
Note to dslrosaurs: mirror based dSLR designs in the 1930s Exacta form
factor are not news, they are merely evolutionary variations on what
might be a pending mass extinction.
You who like the traditional film SLR design paradigm are an ever
shrinking minority compared to the ever increasing hordes whose concept
of a camera is based on some kind of electronic viewfinder and is quite a
bit smaller than an optical viewfinder camera design paradigm can allow.
It would not be surprising if Sony bailed entirely on traditional dSLR
designs. Sic Semper Minolta.
In the long run Canon and Nikon could go the way of Minolta if they do
not join the mirrorless slr party.

Well, Nikon president Makoto Kimura keeps saying that they are going to
have a mirrorless camera. He keeps talking about connectivity and
redefining photography entirely. So I don't think Nikon plans on being
left behind there. Such a mirrorless camera would probably have a DX
sensor, Internet connectivity -- perhaps 3G, and it would blur the line
between movie and still cameras. I would certainly use such a camera,
especially if it had an F mount or an adaptor so I could use my existing
lenses.

I doubt it will have an F mount since the flange distance for such lenses
would mean a lot of wasted volume in the camera body, largely defeating the
purpose of mirrorless design. But I do expect it will have an F-mount
adapter, and I'll be very disappointed if it doesn't.

Granted, such a camera would not beat the resolution or beauty of a D3x,
nor would it probably be as fast as a D3s, but it certainly would further
relegate those cameras to a niche market.

I do not foresee Nikon bringing out a mirrorless camera that is going to
steal sales from newly introduced DSLRs, though. I would guess that no
such camera will be announced before second quarter next year. Nikon seems
to like announcing major new bodies in April.

I don't think anybody really likes the mirror. It is one more moving part
to break, makes too much noise, introduces too much vibration, and even
scares wildlife with the "blinking eye" effect. DX viewfinders in
particular are too dim.

There must be something wrong with my eyes, as I have never noticed the
viewfinder dimness that I see many people complaining about,

Nothing wrong with your eyes. You're just so used to that being "how it is"
that you don't realize how dim that image truly is. After having used
superzoom cameras with EVFs for the last 8 years, and now when I recently
dug out my old OM2n to check something, while indoors I looked through "the
brightest optical viewfinder ever made for any SLR". I was stunned at the
extremely dim image I had put up with all those years. So much so that at
first I thought the mirror had become locked up. Until my eyes adjusted to
the light then I could make out the late evening light from the window
frames at the end of the hall. What an astounding difference between that
ancient mirror and pentaprism technology and today's EVFs that
automatically ramp up the gain in dim lighting. The image in the EVF at
least a good 5-6 stops higher in brightness in the above situation.

You're just so used to dim. The too, some people enjoy keeping themselves
in the dark. The bliss of self-induced ignorance. Some can't get enough of
it.



even with
"penta mirror" cameras like the D40 family. Well, with one exception, and
that's the Minolta 700si -- which has an LCD overlay on the focusing screen,
and that really does make the viewfinder noticeably dimmer.

But I sure do notice that DX viewfinders are a lot *smaller* than full-frame
SLRs. I've gotten used to that and it doesn't bother me at all, but once in
a while I pick up an old 35mm SLR and the viewfinder image seems enormous.

Its only advantage -- and a rapidly diminishing advantage at that -- has
been speed and resolution. Well, the mirror also uses less battery power.
The question has never been whether a mirrorless camera would be better
for most purposes. The only question has been how long it will take to
develop one that will meet professional needs. As far as I am concerned,
the sooner the mirror is gone, the better, but its replacement cannot be
inferior to a DSLR in any way.

Huh. The mirror has never really bothered me at all. And, in modern Nikons
at least, it seems to me very vibration-free and quiet. But then I'm 81 and
pretty hard of hearing, which probably does enhance the quietness. You're
right about it being "one more moving part to break" of course, but I have
never yet had one break.


Now it all makes sense. You're senile too.

C J Campbell wrote:

I don't think anybody really likes the mirror. It is one more moving
part to break,

just like an EVF

Its only advantage -- and a rapidly diminishing
advantage at that -- has been speed and resolution. Well, the mirror
also uses less battery power.

You will always have lag between what is coming in through
the lens and what is displayed on an EVF, more if you have
to integrate longer. Truly, the mirror also has some lag, but
that's a few cm at the speed of light, much less than the reading
of a sensor, interpreting the data, writing to an EVF (or LCD)
and their reaction time is.

Not to mention keeping the sensor cool.

The question has never been whether a
mirrorless camera would be better for most purposes. The only question
has been how long it will take to develop one that will meet
professional needs. As far as I am concerned, the sooner the mirror is
gone, the better, but its replacement cannot be inferior to a DSLR in
any way.

Then I have proven the replacement cannot be.
You probably meant "cannot be inferior ... in noticeable and
practically relevant ways". Gone will be the days of 1000
shots on one battery.

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:22:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
: Huh. The mirror has never really bothered me at all. And, in modern Nikons
: at least, it seems to me very vibration-free and quiet. But then I'm 81
: and pretty hard of hearing, which probably does enhance the quietness.
: You're right about it being "one more moving part to break" of course,
: but I have never yet had one break.

Being "only" 72, I'm delighted to hear that you're still going strong as a
photographer nine years on. Congratulations! :^)

Bob

On 2010-08-18 16:05:30 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:22:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
: Huh. The mirror has never really bothered me at all. And, in modern Nikons
: at least, it seems to me very vibration-free and quiet. But then I'm 81
: and pretty hard of hearing, which probably does enhance the quietness.
: You're right about it being "one more moving part to break" of course,
: but I have never yet had one break.

Being "only" 72, I'm delighted to hear that you're still going strong as a
photographer nine years on. Congratulations! :^)

Bob

Geez. I thought I was the old guy at 60.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010081910011116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-08-18 16:05:30 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:22:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

: Huh. The mirror has never really bothered me at all. And, in modern Nikons
: at least, it seems to me very vibration-free and quiet. But then I'm 81
: and pretty hard of hearing, which probably does enhance the quietness.
: You're right about it being "one more moving part to break" of course,
: but I have never yet had one break.

Being "only" 72, I'm delighted to hear that you're still going strong as a
photographer nine years on. Congratulations! :^)

Bob

Geez. I thought I was the old guy at 60. --
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Naw - I'm a "young antique" at 67 - but that still "doesn't compute"!
Where in the heck did 50 years go?!?!?! 8^(
--DR

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010081421215816807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...

German magazine Foto-Digital leaked next week's announcement of the Nikon D3100, several lenses, and a couple Coolpix cameras.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/13/n...-leaked-in-ge/

More he
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes
http://photography.bhinsights.com/co...-85-nikon.html
--DR

On 2010-08-19 16:13:02 -0700, "David Ruether" said:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010081421215816807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...

German magazine Foto-Digital leaked next week's announcement of the
Nikon D3100, several lenses, and a couple Coolpix cameras.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/13/n...-leaked-in-ge/

More

he
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes

http://photography.bhinsights.com/co...-85-nikon.html
--DR

Yep.

It was finally officially announced.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:58:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
:
: "lofi" wrote in message
: ...
: Big deal, another boxy, mirror based dSLR marginally different from the
: rest of the line-up.
: Note to dslrosaurs: mirror based dSLR designs in the 1930s Exacta form
: factor are not news, they are merely evolutionary variations on what might
: be a pending mass extinction.
: You who like the traditional film SLR design paradigm are an ever
: shrinking minority compared to the ever increasing hordes whose concept of
: a camera is based on some kind of electronic viewfinder and is quite a bit
: smaller than an optical viewfinder camera design paradigm can allow.
:
: Quite a bit smaller but nowhere near as efficient. EVFs still have a long
: way to go.
:
: It would not be surprising if Sony bailed entirely on traditional dSLR
: designs. Sic Semper Minolta.
:
: Uh, "Thus always to Minolta"? I doubt that's what you really meant to say.

I'm afraid your high school Latin teacher would rap your knuckles for that.
"Minolta" is nominative (or possibly ablative, if you assume a long "a"). So
it would be "Thus always Minolta" or "Thus always about Minolta".

"Thus always to Minolta" is "Sic semper Minoltae" (dative). ;^)

Bob