What Nikon should do...what do you think?

[herc182]

I think Nikon should produce a large sensor compact (like sigma have with the DP1).

I think every keen photographer would like to carry a good compact with them wherever they go - to work, pub, dinner etc.

The image quality (with the new EXPEED Processor) would be unrivalled and I am sure people would pay (i would say around £400 - £500) for it.

Do you think this will happen? What price?

[VTEC_EATER]

Personally, I wouldn't want a fixed lens large sensor camera like the DP-1. I like having options for my focal length.

Also remember, the larger the sensor, the larger the lens has to be to project the proper image circle. So, you can probably have a sensor as large as full frame, but unless you are into pancake lenses, I don't think you will find much faster lenses than F/2.8 (which isn't so bad) that will still be compact.

Nice in theory, but probably rather impractical, especially considering how expensive a full framed camera is.

[erichlund]

Nikon would sell zillions of them. But, that's just my opinion.

[David Metsky]

I don't think there's a market for them.

A SLR-sized CCD would run hotter and couldn't be kept running all the time, meaning you'd drop live view and movie mode. A smaller one (but still larger then the current generation of P&S) would be like the Canon G9; expensive and not appreciably better for the vast majority of users, who just take snapshots.

I think the market is much smaller then you appreciate, and the price sensitivity is much higher.

[herc182]

i guess the biggest improvement would be the performance in low light. That is the main reason I went for a DSLR. Noise and performance ("mechanically" - fast start up time, FPS, autofocus etc).

I am not so sure we would get those in the compact. Might be wrong though.

I still think people would be interested in this product, but the fixed focal length might be more limiting to serious photographers.

[Screenclutter]

I think Nikon should produce a large sensor compact (like sigma have with the DP1).


Wouldn't a large sensor also mean a large lens barrel? A large lens would also would have to fit into a compact body size.

Since most point-and-shooters also use the LCD to compose their photos, this would mean the sensor would always be running, which is a problem from David Metsky's post.

If it was easy and cheap to produce, they would have done this a long time ago.

[Visual Reality]

Sounds like you are thinking like Fuji when they made their F20/30/50 series cameras. Big SuperCCD in a small camera, and the lens is average size. My F31fd matches my D80 at ISO 800, if that says anything about it.

[tim11]

Sounds like you are thinking like Fuji when they made their F20/30/50 series cameras. Big SuperCCD in a small camera, and the lens is average size. My F31fd matches my D80 at ISO 800, if that says anything about it.
The same thought crossed my mind but Fuji has gone off rail with their latest introductions. It will be handy but I'm not sure if there is a profitable market for such design, considering Nikon doesn't even compete seriously in the PnS market.

[herc182]

my fuji F11 produces clean images up to iso 800 too! just frustrating to use (handling wise)

[aparmley]

I think they need to add AF-S to all their primes.

I'd like to see a DX 30mm/35mm F/1.4 AF-S prime - I'd accept a AF-S 28mm f/1.8 though.

[WestCoast]

I think they need to add AF-S to all their primes.

Or at least produce a relatively cheap AF-S f/1.8 50 mm prime.

They also need to put more AF points and a depth-of-field preview on their slightly-higher-than-intro-level DSLR. They failed to do both on the D60.

[ssil2000]

Or at least produce a relatively cheap AF-S f/1.8 50 mm prime.

They also need to put more AF points and a depth-of-field preview on their slightly-higher-than-intro-level DSLR. They failed to do both on the D60.

i think we can forget about af-s primes, and as for the d60 it is the entry level, its just a replacement of the d40 its not a higher model, so they have kept it basic for that reason, the d80 replacement is going to be the inbetween camera body and it will have plenty of bells and whistles (you would think).

[WestCoast]

i think we can forget about af-s primes, and as for the d60 it is the entry level, its just a replacement of the d40 its not a higher model, so they have kept it basic for that reason, the d80 replacement is going to be the inbetween camera body and it will have plenty of bells and whistles (you would think).

I'm not sure about that. The D60 is a lot more like the D40x and isn't exactly in the D40's price range, either (the D60 kit retails for $750). Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd think that Nikon a would release a cheaper (~$550 or so) upgrade to the D40 later this year. The price is what really made the D40 sell so well and they'd be kind of silly to abandon that formula.

But you probably are correct that Nikon isn't in a hurry to make AF-S primes, especially with zooms taking over and the consumer market being a poor one for primes in general.

[erichlund]

I agree. The D60 is the replacement for the D40x. I think a lot of people are confused by the 40/40x pair, as they have different sensors. I think the 60 was an effort to get rid of that confusion. Both are entry level cameras, but one is super cheap, the other gets you more (statistically), but keeps roughly the same feature set.

You have to move to the D80 to get the full featured amateur model. Then the D300 for the enthusiast model and D3 for the full bore pro model.

I think the reason for two entry models is to capture two different types of people. D40 buyers what the ultra bargain. D60 buyers want specs closer to the higher level cameras without breaking the bank. If you need stronger features, you should really get the D80 or wait for the D90.

[Visual Reality]

See my other posts on why the D60 isn't a good deal right now...