[mst]

It seems that Nikon follows the same silly small sensor road as Pentax:



http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/22/the-pi...-real.aspx



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1311321645' post='10185']

It seems that Nikon follows the same silly small sensor road as Pentax:



http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/22/the-pi...-real.aspx



-- Markus

[/quote]

That was what the rumors have been telling for a while now. The sensor should be a bit bigger than that "compact digital" sensor from from Pentax Q... but smaller than MFT. And I already find the MFT sensors starting to be a bit small..



But of course, the EVIL cameras fish in a different pond than DSLRs do (more upmarket compact digital). Whether that market really wants to buy a set of lenses, I am not so sure about though.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1311323744' post='10187']

That was what the rumors have been telling for a while now. The sensor should be a bit bigger than that "compact digital" sensor from from Pentax Q... but smaller than MFT. And I already find the MFT sensors starting to be a bit small..



But of course, the EVIL cameras fish in a different pond than DSLRs do (more upmarket compact digital). Whether that market really wants to buy a set of lenses, I am not so sure about though.

[/quote]



The rumors suggest a 2.6x crop which would be still fine I think.



The problem is, IMHO, that it seems to be a 4:3 format sensor. I think most would prefer a 3:2 sensor. In this segment 16:9 may also be an option (for showing your results on HDTV or a wide-screen notebook/monitor.



But then it may be a multi-format sensor just like on the GHs.



Klaus

[miro]

I consider myself as a APS-C fanboy.

But I have to agree that such small format has future. Back in time when the 35mm format was born,. It was format that offers

- small and dim viewfinder.

- Limited dof. Not to mansion the missing perspective control available in most of the large format cameras.

- Mediocre but still acceptable IQ for the general consumer.

- cheap

[Guest]

Mmm, I've tried comparing it like-for-like (mostly trying to match by the screw size and the distance between the contacts):







It does look like 2.7-2.8x crop. Obviously better than Pentax Q, but it will be interesting to see it competing with the m4/3 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' />

[Guest]

Thinking reasonable, it is a very wise move by Nikon. They have a full blown range of accessoires and lenses for APS-C and FF cameras and if you take a D3100 with a 18-55mm and compare it to a similar m4/3, the size difference is obvious but not large enough to make such a big difference that the m4/3 would allow for a complete different handling in terms of use and storage. Using a 2.6x crop, they broaden their field of application significantly. I mean, for a vast majority of friend I have, this new system would be the one I could recommend to them. This is because they all want a better image quality than compact cameras but are shy of carrying around even the smallest APS-C. In essence, even m4/3 would be to large because none of them is prepared to sacrifice a universal zoom lens to get it into their pockets. This new Nikon system might do the trick: offering a truly pocketable zoom lens solution with the option of a large aperture lens for available light shooting, even if not up to the same quality of an APS-C available light setup.



You have probably read it between the lines - this system is not for me. I would even carry around a D3s body if I could afford it. But I think it is a clever move in terms of marketing. Remember, the target audience for this system is not likely to be found in boards like these. Don't estimate the success by looking at forums. In my family alone, we have about 10x more cameras than board users. This is what Nikon is after. For me , this is nice, because it makes future affordable APS-C systems more probable than it is the case e.g. with Olympus where new m4/3 is eating away traditional 4/3, which would probably be similar with Nikon if they introduce an APS-C mirrorless solution.



Christian

[Klaus]

For my kind of (private) photography I consider APS-C or possibly MFT to be the sweet spot. Give me that in a package which is as small as possible and I'm happy.



However, I would appreciate a really micro-system (more micro than MFT)

* as a backup

* for the really casual stuff / snap-shooting for those occasions when I just don't want to carry stuff.



You may argue that there are digicam options for this purpose but I'm not so sure whether they are really "good enough". Top priorities would be RAW support and a good lens in a tough package. Basically there are 4 digicam options here (S95, XZ-1, LX-5, EX1) and three of them are already fairly large - probably in the same league like the Q. So you might argue that, apart from pricing issues, you could also go for the cool stuff. Ok, that is gear-head talk (and I have to get the Q for testing anyway).

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1311324478' post='10188']The rumors suggest a 2.6x crop which would be still fine I think.[/quote]



The rumored 2.3" sensor size would be a 5.5x crop similar to the Pentax Q (and more or less similar to a vast number of P&S cams)?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=38954738

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1311333125' post='10194']

The rumored 1/2.3" sensor size would be a 5.5x crop similar to the Pentax Q (and more or less similar to a vast number of P&S cams)?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=38954738

[/quote]

It is not rumored to be that small. Only a silly dpreview post makes not a serious rumor <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



The more serious rumors talk about a 2.5-2.6x crop (compared to FF).

[Brightcolours]

Expect "Made in Malaysia" on Nikon DSLRs soon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />