Nikon Rumors came up with a picture that MAY be the MX - even they say they're not sure. It looks like a Nikon SLR with a huge prism housing and a very large lens mount (lens mount looks larger in proportion to the camera than even a Canon EF mount, let alone the much smaller Nikon F mount. There is no lens on the picture, so the mirror is visible. If this is real, it tells us three things...

1.) This is a one-piece SLR - NOT an electronic rangefinder or a modular camera.

2.) It uses a 3:2 aspect ratio, like 35mm - NOT a 4:3 or square aspect ratio - the mirror was visible, and, if anything, was a bit wider than 3:2 (I'd say 16:9 or 16:10 is more likely than 4:3 from that mirror) - it's probably 3:2, but if it's not, it's wider, not squarer.

3.) From the size of the mirror compared to other parts of the camera (of course, we don't know how big the whole camera is - it could be the size of a Pentax 67, and then the sensor is also large), it looks like the sensor, while bigger than 35mm, is in the Leica S2 size range, not the full medium format size range.

The shot doesn't show the bottom of the camera, so it's impossible to tell if it's the size of a D3 or a D700 (or in between). I'm guessing D3, only because they could get a big battery in there (it doesn't look like there's room for a battery in the grip).

If this is true (that it's a more reasonably priced S2 competitor), how does this affect everyone's thinking? Personally, I'm less interested than I was when I thought it might be an electronic rangefinder with a square sensor (although it DOES make it a much easier camera for Nikon to build - a 30x45 mm one-piece SLR is not a big stretch for a company that builds great 24x36 mm SLRs). I like square formats and 4:3 formats better than 3:2 - just my personal aesthetic choice. This will probably not be any lighter than existing MF SLRs, although it may well have a higher frame rate (the 35mm shape body gives them more room for fast motors, and for processing hardware, but it is less space and weight efficient than a boxy body). A D3 is actually heavier than some MF body/back combinations.

Unless it's either highly weatherproof or MUCH cheaper than a body/back combination, it's not the best fit for my landscape work - I'm looking to move because I don't especially like the 35mm form factor (either cameras or images), in addition to wanting the big jump in image quality. This version of an MX would be intended for people who like a lot of things about 35, but just want more pixels. What about other folks here who are contemplating MF? Would a "super 35" be more or less attractive than what we have now for your style of shooting? Would its probable high ISO leadership be more or less important than a 14 bit (instead of 16) image pipeline - this looks so much like a D3 that I suspect it'll have the D3's image processing as well (possibly a double version if the pixel count is high enough to need it)

-Dan

-Dan

Ummm... Wrong forum, Dan.

I am curios about something. Why would these guys be stepping into MF land for??

They already have the best 35mm *Canon/Nikon I mean. Specially in a MF market that seems to be fading?
Is it maybe b/c the sensor sizes are getting a little bigger and won't "Fit" inside the normal 35mm bodies we are used to?
Is it also because the current lens are not good enough for the new bigger demands od Sensors?
I think Leica might know something we do not. I doubt they got into the market just for the heck of it? Maybe they know through the sensor dealers that Nikon and or Canon are heading in that direction also??
Maybe Canon gave the 5DII the same sensor as the MIII b/c maybe the production line of the Ds might be ending and they to will go into this "new" format size?
These are all maybe but I was wondering what others might think of it.

Don't you all find it strange that Leica jump into this "new" format size? and full throttle with new line of lens and all...? Seems like quite a big jump into new waters if they did not have some kind of insight?

Snook

PS.. Can you post the image you are speaking of, would be nice to see the image you were taling about?

Why do you say it is the wrong forum???
There is no "New" format size forum in here that I know of.
Be streetwise, where would you put the Leica S2 talks?
Please let me know so both of us will know.
Snook

Here's the tiny image (all that it's possible to see is that it has a big prism - interesting that it has a prism at all given some of the rumors, that the lensmount is much bigger than an F-mount, and that the mirror is a skinny rectangle of roughly 35mm shape). The image without the red border is a Nikon D3 for comparison. These are from Nikonrumors, and the MX is not confirmed - there is speculation that it could be any of a number of Nikon prototypes ranging from a D4 all the way back to a design study for the F5 (which has an oversize prism due to the removable finder, but why the big lensmount)... It would make sense as the MX, due to the big prism and mount, and that is what Nikonrumors' source told them it was, but it is not certain.
I agree with Snook - the potential MX interests me as I contemplate switching to medium format, and I suspect that it and the S2 are being viewed against MF backs by others as well... If a lot of "intermediate format" ~30x45 mm DSLRs start showing up, we'll have to decide whether they belong in here or not. Even if they are eventually put in the 35mm forums, they'll show up here as well, just as the 1Dsmkanything makes cameo appearances in here in comparison with Phase, Hasselblad or Sinar. The camera in this picture would not appeal enough to me to stop my move from 35mm digital to an MF digital back (unless its specifications or price were really special), but a big rangefinder that was two pounds lighter and was showing a square sensor through its open lensmount might well, whether it said "Mamiya", "Hasselblad", "Sinar" or "Nikon" on it. Given that, I thought it might be relevant to others considering the move to MF as well - and someone else might say "I love my 35mm DSLR, but I want a bigger sensor" - therefore this MX is really appealing.

-Dan

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

The red border on the image didn't come through the attachment process - the possible MX is on the left, with the odd looking handgrip.

Did you see a picture with that body right next to a known sized body? How do you know it is much larger than 35mm with a larger than F size mount? (going with the consideration that it might not be a fake)

deleted

it only makes sense for nikon /canon to come out with a larger sensor body....even if the next dsIV will be a 35mm sensor at 30mpix, what should the dsV be? there has to be a break somewhere and with leica announcing their now (a year before shipping), the time is right for nikon and canon to come out with theirs....you know they have played with larger chips for a while....but they never HAD to come out with it....now the time is right....nikon releasing a 22mpix D3X right now would really only catch up with the market and would almost be outdated at the launch by the 5DII....the 1DsIII is great but i am just not sure we will see a IV with the same size sensor....

a new slightly larger format would simply provide a new platform for the years ahead....sure glass is a major investment and a big decision maker for a choice of platforms, but a new format also means new and exciting glass and new revenue for the company.....canon will have a hard time keeping the 8000$ price for their flagship unless they do something drastic....and a new format would be just the right thing.....

it will be interesting if nikon and canon will have the same format chip! film decided the last SLR body size/lens coverage....now it comes down to the sensor and how big they want theirs to be....

I have Nikon Rumors on my RSS feed list, but it does get annoying to have the stuff regurgitated here. There is no factual info at all right now. And I was under the impression that Michael wants to avoid all that stuff which plagues many other forums.

If and when it is announced will be time to chat about it. Let's make art and solve workflow problems.

I would have agreed with you before the Leica came out...:+}

I think michael will have to change his attitude because this everything to do with this forum.
The Leica sealed that.
Paul (pss) said basically what I was saying. It does make sense.

Plus it is a legitimate question as the sensor are getting bigger.
My question was is it possible for Canon/Nikon to put bigger than what they have now sensors in the current size camera??
Are they going to have to redesign the bodies if all the stuff besides just the sensor don't fit in the bodies.
With the future incorporating Video also in some cameras, maybe they will have a body change need for that..
I think it could be an interesting thread.
Again since Leica has done it, it is obviosly a proven format.

Snook

Sorry, my instant reaction is that it's a prototype for the D3.
The lens mount is exactly the same, down to every screw.

You're probably right, but I do see a future where Canon/Nikon (should) come out with 35mm style bodies (as small as they can make them) with large sensors, modular lens mounts, and two sets of lenses: the current system of 35mm lenses, and lenses that cover the larger sensor.

My first, second & third reaction is, it is a fake PS photo, as the handgrip looks like the most uncomforatable grip I have ever seen on a camera. With the sharper edge than D3/D2Xs or D2x. Even compare that with Hasselblad H series, or Phase/Mamiya, Leaf/Sinar.... they all have better ergonomic handgrip, which is most crucial. IMHO.

To my eyes, it looks like a styling study, probably of the D3 indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

You're probably right, that IS a D3 prototype (if not something older like an F5 prototype) - it has the "screw drive" AF screw in exactly the same place as a regular Nikon F-mount. I could easily see Nikon just "scaling up" a normal F-mount (say 20% or 30% bigger diameter), so all the MOUNTING screws would be in the same place, but that AF drive screw should be absent from the new mount (which is all motor in lens according to everything I've heard) unless it's there only to drive an F-mount adapter.
HOW the heck would an F-mount adapter work on a SLR, anyway? The flange focal distance (from mount to sensor) of the new mount is probably longer than the F-mount (awfully close to that big mirror if it's not) - all existing medium format mounts are much longer than an F-mount (by a minimum of 20 mm or so). Any adapter that made up that much distance inside the body would hit the mirror right away! A medium format RANGEFINDER could have an F-mount adapter (mount much wider, flange distance exactly the same or even shorter, adapter fits inside original mount like a screw-mount lens to Pentax K-mount adapter does), because there's no mirror to clear. An all-electronic (no screw drive AF, so you lose AF on non AF-S lenses) version of that adapter would even be cheap and simple to make (cheap enough that Nikon could toss one in every MX box). Getting the screw drive to work would be trickier, but maybe not impossible.
If the MX is a SLR, it won't work easily with existing Nikon lenses, though (even in a crop mode) - the flange focal distance is tricky to overcome... An optical adapter is a possibility, but it would automatically be a teleconverter as well - great if you want to put your 600 f4 Nikkor on your medium-format MX (it would also expand lens coverage), but not what you wanted for your 14-24 (although the expanded coverage could mean that it used more of the sensor and retained its field of view), or your f1.4 lens that turns into an f2.8. I guess that a teleconverter/optical adapter might be the way they go if they want to retain any existing Nikkor compatibility on a new MF SLR. The only similar thing I can remember is some "autofocus adding" teleconverters in the early days of AF 35mm - put a manual focus lens on them, and they added AF (by rear-focusing in the converter) and functioned as a 1.7x teleconverter... You lost a stop and a half of light, and generally some optical quality, but your old lenses focused automatically.

-Dan

uh...is this DPReview??

Just one note:
To my eyes the width of the mount's front flange (circle) appears thinner. If true, it denotes a bigger mount, hence bigger everything.
Eduardo
Question: What if Sony won't sell Nikon its 24 mp sensor?

That would be the main thing though. Wide angle lenses need to be mount specific in essence, but they are reasonnably cheap anyway.

On the other hand long lenses are very expensive, and it would be valuable to be able to adapt them, would it be with a change of focal lenght. Besides, nobody would produce real high end long lenses for such a format because the market is too small.

A design without mirror box (like the rumoured rangefinder rumor) would of course mostly solve the issue of the sensor to lens flange distance, but probably not that of the sensor coverage. You would need some optical elements to address that.

Cheers,
Bernard

No it is not.. So close the door on your way out...:+]

Snook

Good point - it's the long lenses that are the main concern, and an optical adapter could take care of them (with a generally beneficial change in focal length) - especially with a bigger sensor to cover, nobody's going to mind a 300 becoming a 400. If the really long lenses DO convert, that could be a selling point, because I can't think of a current MF system that has anything above a 300 (except for a couple of exotics for Hasselblad V-mount that Zeiss built a few of to prove they could do it - including a one-off 1700 mm f4).

Snook - you are absolutely right! I'm sorry that I didn't crawl out from my cave before commenting on something that I hadn't read about (S2) until now.

Apologies to you too, Dan.

But IF the MX does end up being an "DSLR"...

There are 3 Rollei 6000/Hy6 lenses above 300 that I know of:

The 5.6/350 Tele-Tessar,
the 8/500 Tele-Apotessar,
and the 8/1000 Tele-Tessar.

They occasionally turn up in the second hand market.

There may be 2 different versions on the rollei 500mm if I recall..