Nikon Introduces V3 Mirrorless Body and 10-30mm, 70-300mm Lenses

<p>Regardless of whether Nikon calls it a V3 or J4, this is Nikon's attempt to make a hybrid between the V and J series so that it can be for everybody. If you want a small body, the vanilla V3 is small. If you want a good size grip and EVF, you can add them on.</p>

<p>However, to me, modular add-on components are never as good as those built in. Modularity also makes it more bulky and more expensive; the latter is the main issue with the V3.</p>

<p>Recall that Nikon introduced the V2 in October 2012, about a year and half ago. Body only is $799 and $899 with the older 10-30 kit zoom: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00axJs<br>

However, unlike the V1 and J1, the price for the V2 hasn't dropped (much) since its introduction. Today, it is still close to $800: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897576-REG/Nikon_27603_Nikon_1_V2_Mirrorless.html</p>

<p>Personally, I would rather have a V2 with everything built into the camera permanently. Those who prefer a tiny body can choose between a J or S.</p>

<p>Since the new kit zoom is more expensive than the old 10-30, while the V3 kit is expensive, it is not that much more than the V2. Having removable EVF and grip certainly adds to the cost. The problem is that the V3's price is not competitive against Fuji, Olympus and Sony mirrorless.</p>

<p>The high price for the new 70-300mm Nikon 1 seems to be very odd, though. Initially I thought it might be a typo since it so much more than the F mount 70-300 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew -- I think these new Aptina sensors were built ground-up to move data off the sensor as quickly as possible. The designs we've been getting in the FX cameras are more evolved versions of a couple of classic designs, neither of which was designed for 20fps throughput. But given the demands for 4K everyday, I'm betting there is a generation of fast cameras with big sensors coming.</p>

<p>I'm a pretty intense amateur photographer and know the various DSLR product lines fairly well. However, all these new mirrorless camera models have my head spinning, especially the ones with little bodies and large lenses. It just doesn't make sense to me. If you want a small body, it should also have a small lens. While I'm primarily a D800/D7100/A77 user, I recently purchased a Sony RX100-2. If you want a small body and lens, you don't want to go any bigger than this although this camera & lens is not that small. Perhaps I'm just too old but my 20/30 year old children aren't buying them either. </p>

<p>It's odd to me that they haven't released a fast (f2.8) 70/80 to 200/300 mm equivalent telephoto. That and a V2 would make a very good action/sports photography system. It would not be weather-protected, but in good weather it would make a great alternative to a D4 or 1D mated to a very heavy 70-200 f2.8 monster. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that the V3's price is not competitive against Fuji, Olympus and Sony mirrorless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sums it up well. To me, the problem with Nikon 1 hasn't really been the choice for the smallish sensor - yes, it's smaller than 4/3rds, but still larger than regular compacts. Lenses and bodies are really small (though except by the looks of it this new 70-300, but also that is still a lot smaller than the 800mm f/5.6). Combined with the reported good AF and decent enough image quality, I do not think the system is a flawed idea. But the pricing versus the feature sets has been problematic - only once at the discounted prices, they make sense.<br>

And those big sales aren't exactly happening here in Italy anyway - else I'd probably bought a Nikon 1 with the 10mm prime probably and given up considering the Fuji X100s....</p>

<p><em>However, to me, modular add-on components are never as good as those built in.</em></p>

<p>I think the opposite can often be true; e.g. my SB-910 or the Elinchrom Quadra are a lot better than the built in flash of the D800. I would be very surprised if the WT-5 to the D4(s) didn't have more range (100m+) and work better than those wifi features built into some cameras. I also think many interchangeable lenses are better than built in non-interchangeable lenses. It is because the modular component is not restricted in size and cost so it can be designed to achieve more ambitious goals. A built in device always competes with size and cost with other components as those who don't want it don't want it to make the camera bigger or more expensive than it needs to be.</p>

<p>Any way to trigger this thing with anything further away than the iddy biddy IR remote?</p>

<p><em>It's odd to me that they haven't released a fast (f2.8) 70/80 to 200/300 mm equivalent telephoto.</em></p>

<p>I think it's because such a setup would not have very good handling / ergonomics. The body needs to be sizable to allow easy handling of large lenses given that human hands aren't getting any smaller to suit tiny camera bodies.</p>

<p>There are however a few fast lenses the 18.5mm f/1.8 and 32mm f/1.2 both of which have gotten positive comments from users. If I were to buy the V3, I'd get the 10mm, the 18.5mm and 32mm; the size of these lenses is reasonable compared to the size of the body. And the f/1.2 goes to some way to alleviate the effects of the small sensor, though I'd like the 10mm to be f/1.8 or f/2 instead of f/2.8. I think with these fast primes the camera would present an interesting option for dance photography, some jump sequences etc. Too bad there is no standard hot shoe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that the V3's price is not competitive against Fuji, Olympus and Sony mirrorless.<br>

That sums it up well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But to a certain extend, price is also the easiest problem to fix. There is no need to recall anything, fix any hardware, or introduce a new model. I would imagine that Nikon has a lot of built-in profit on some of the items they introduced in the last year or two, such as the way expensive 800mm/f5.6 AF-S VR and the 80-400mm AF-S VR. (And the same for Canon as well, as their 200-400mm/f4 lens is almost like twice as expensive as Nikon's.) Obviously up to a certain point you'll start to lose money, but e.g. the 80-400 is now having a $400-off rebate. So I would imagine that the V3 and Nikon 1 70-300mm lens have lots of room for rebates.</p>

<p>One of the problems for the Nikon 1 series is that both the original V1 and J1 had fire sales after the first year or two. In fact, the J1 fire sale is still on going selling at a price that Nikon is practically giving it away. Once a series develops such a reputation, people will begin to expect deep discounts in a year or so. Just such expectation alone can serious affect your initial sales at full price. Such fire sale has still not happened to the V2 yet, now a year and half since its introduction. We'll see whether the introduction of the V3 is going to affect V2 prices.</p>

<p>Finally, the modular design definitely adds costs to the V3. Personally I prefer the V2's built-in EVF and grip. It looks like Nikon wants to make the V3 both small and large to meet the taste of the Asian market and North American market, respectively, and the modular "add on" design is their answer. In the US, the V3 is only sold as a kit with the EVF, grip, and new lens. You can't just buy the body alone (although some dealer may be willing to break up the kit on their own and sell the components separately).</p>

<p>Here in Japan you can buy the body only for 81,160 Yen</p>

<p><br /> https://www.mapcamera.com/item/4960759142368</p>

<p>Sorry, the link didn't work.....<br>

PS. Also the price will be lower when the camera goes on sale in April.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here in Japan you can buy the body only for 81,160 Yen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes it about US$795 for the V3 body only, @ approximately 102 yen to the dollar.<br>

That is about the same as the introduction price for the V2, which has the EVF and full-size grip built in.</p>

<p>Recall that DPReview interviewed some Nikon executives last month:</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cOKM</li>

<li>DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3890662077/cp-2014-nikon-interview-our-cameras-need-to-evolve</li>

</ul>

<p>Nikon's marketing finds out that in North America, bigger is better.</p>

<p>It is kind of like the F4 back in 1988. In most countries, you could buy the smaller F4. In the US, the standard configuration was the F4S (which was not a different model) with the vertical grip attached to hold a total of 6 AA batteries.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the US, the V3 is only sold as a kit with the EVF, grip, and new lens. You can't just buy the body alone (although some dealer may be willing to break up the kit on their own and sell the components separately).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon remember that the V2 with a built in VF did not sell well at the already high price of near $800? So to address this problem, they now sell the V3 at $1,200!? This is just brilliant … </p>

<p>In addition, I wonder what will happen to the rest of the 1 system. What will a new J series looks like? Will they introduce a V4 with a built-in VF as an even higher model? It is very confusing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>a 1000-dollar 70-300 lens for a teeny sensor... I don't think I get that. doesn't even come with a tripod mount.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a tripod mount for it:</p>

<p>https://www.mapcamera.com/item/4960759028501</p>

<p>I just don't know if the link will work</p>

<p>Did the V1 price drop radically before the launch of the V2, or after? If it was only after the V2 was on the market, we probably shouldn't be surprised that the V2 price is still high. Honestly, if only for handling, I'd rather have a V2 than the V1 I've got (whose handling seems to be designed to get in the way) - but there's no way I'm paying what's currently £660 for the V2 + kit lens.<br />

<br />

The V1 had SLR aspirations at much more than DSLR pricing, with a vastly inferior sensor and worse-than-compact handling. The V1 and, especially, V2 are much bigger than would be justified by the small sensor size. The V3 may be better, but pricing the V3 + kit lens at £799 (without EVF) while the D7100 is £739 (with cashback) is a joke - and it's hardly a substitute for an RX100 either. Trick autofocus and burst mode are nice, but they're not <i>that</i> nice, even for those of us pining for a true D700 or D300s replacement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did the V1 price drop radically before the launch of the V2, or after?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon introduced the V1 and J1 in September, 2011: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZMU1<br>

They introduced the V2 a little more than a year later in October, 2012. The V1 fire sale started around that time, pre-Christmas 2012. At that time I seriously considered getting one since it was so cheap, but so far I have resisted any mirrorless cameras. Meanwhile, the J1 fire sale is still on going. Nikon just can't give them away.</p>

<p>So far I haven't really seen any mirrorless camera that I feel like buying yet, and I don't mind the size of DSLRs a bit. If anything, the D7100 is a little too small. I think it is safer to first find out which mirrorless manufacturer cannot survive in the next year or two and wait for the technology to further improve.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are however a few fast lenses the 18.5mm f/1.8 and 32mm f/1.2 both of which have gotten positive comments from users.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 32/1.2 is what, $900? that price point makes sense if we're talking about the Fuji 56/1.2 on an APS-C sensor which does give you pretty decent subject isolation. but even at 85mm eqv. on CX sensor, you're not looking at anywhere near that same shallow DoF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were to buy the V3, I'd get the 10mm, the 18.5mm and 32mm; the size of these lenses is reasonable compared to the size of the body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, but, in the US you're looking at $1200 for V3 kit, plus $200 apiece for the 10 and 18.5, plus $900 for the 32. that's $2500 for your 3-prime kit. what's the advantage over a Fuji or Olympus mirrorless kit with equivalent primes? both Fuji and Olympus have a better assortment of bodies, pancake lenses and a wider range of primes and give you better IQ and high-ISO. maybe you get faster AF speed, but do you even need that for the things most users would typically shoot? you cant even use your nikon flash from your DSLR. you also can't use filters. also, you said "if," as in, this isnt something you're actually planning on buying.</p>

<p>even if we accept the V3 as a reboot of the N1 system aimed at high-end sports/wildlife shooters, there are still too many things wrong with it for that logic to make sense. at the prices nikon wants, they should throw in the tripod collar for the 70-300 and the VF for the V3. at $600-$800, the v3 kit might be a more reasonable option; also the 70-300 should be no more than $600, tops. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>what's the advantage over a Fuji or Olympus mirrorless kit with equivalent primes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The big question is which system is viable in the long run. As far as I know the Olympus camera division is still losing money year after year, and they had some major management scandal a few years ago. However, even though Olympus doesn't make it, Panasonic may be able to carry on the Micro 4/3 system.</p>

<p>By the same token, I can't imagine that the Nikon 1 mirrorless system is doing all that well financially. You have to wonder how much longer Nikon is willing to subsidize it and whether Nikon will eventually decide to move to a larger sensor for their mirrorless system and abandon the CX format.</p>

<p>There are still a lot of questions and that is why at this time I see no need to invest in any mirrorless system myself, even at fire sale prices.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The big question is which system is viable in the long run.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>what's the long run for consumer electronics, anyway? 2 years? 5 years? beyond that, it's hard to even speculate. pretty soon, we may be all taking 104mp full frame pictures, at any focal length and aperture we want, with Google Glass cameras that instantly share on social media and save RAW files to the cloud. the only cameras we can say for sure will still be usable 20 years from now will be manual film cameras--although film itself might be hoarded like water in the desert, and developing that film might be another story</p>

<p>m4/3's long-term prognosis may not be great, but... they have 40+ lenses out. which makes their long-term usefullness for the end user more viable, even if Olympus bites the dust. in the short-term, we're probably looking at upcoming fire-sale prices on some bodies. $500 m4/3 bodies are already now just $250. and that system has reached maturation as far as sensor and features, with in-body IBIS and PDAF being the zenith. even if Olympus stops making cameras and lenses tomorrow, it will take awhile for what's currently out there to go away. in a year from now, if i can pick up a GX7 or Pen 5 for a song, and have my pick of lenses according to how i want to shoot, why wouldnt do that rather than invest into a system that doesnt know what it wants to be?</p>

<p>with Nikon 1, i have to agree with <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/nikon-introduces-v3.html">thom</a>: i just dont know who its for. if Nikon wanted to make a high-end compact mirrorless camera, why all the consumer features and incompatibility with system accessories, not to mention weird decisions, i.e., you cant use the EVF and flash hotshoe at the same time? so your serious V3 user can't use that with the same functionality that serious m4/3 and Fuji X can, despite the similar price points. let's see, $1200 for a V3 kit or $1300 for an XT1 or XE2+18-55...which is the better buy? the answer isn't even close to being on the Nikon side. if all i want is compact and i dont need zoom, i can get a new XE1+27mm pancake for $800. meanwhile, E-M5 bodies are down to $700, and E-M5 kits are $850.</p>

<p>the sad part is the V3 could have been a much better camera had Nikon made better decisions when the 1 system was first released. as it is, they've crippled it compared to their own less-expensive DSLRs, except for autofocus, iterated only a few primes, given us zero fast teles, and priced all that at a point which seems unsustainable given the current market. oh well...</p>

<p>Eric, unless you are the type that is still happy with a 7-year-old D300 (and obviously there are a number of such folks: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cRdC), I am not going to spend money buying expensive lenses such as the Olympus 12mm/f2 that cost $800. Suggesting that mirrorless bodies is mature technology is very short slighted. As I mentioned a few months ago, I tried a Fuji mirrorless last November, and its EVF simply cannot handle the contrast between indoor lighting and sunlight outside a big window; everything outdoors was totally blown out. A lot of improvements in AF, EVF, video, etc. etc. are yet to come in the next several years. Buying a bunch of expensive lenses for a brand (or lens mount) that might not be around in a year or two to supply new bodies with new technology is an unwise move, and Nikon 1 also falls in that category.</p>

<p>There is little doubt that the V3 is expensive, and the Nikon 1 70-300mm lens is more so. When I first heard the $1000 price tag for the lens, I thought it was a typo and had to confirm it. Nikon's design goal for the V3 is that it can be both small and big at the same time. That is why it has a modular design and IMO it is a poor choice. The fact that the V1, V2, and now V3 all have drastically different designs reflects that Nikon is still searching for the direction for the V series. The purpose for the J, S, and AW cameras are clearer.</p>

<p>I think Nikon's original goal was to make the Nikon 1 series small and that was why they picked the CX format. The advantage is that their lenses can be small, unlike those large Sony NEX lenses on those tiny bodies. Personally I don't particularly like small sensors such as CX, but only time will tell how successful or unsuccessful it will be.</p>

<p>My main puzzlement remains Nikon's insistence on the CX sensor as a system camera as a solution to a non-existent problem. There are plenty of more appealing mirrorless system cameras. The CX sensor was born to dominate the P&S non-interchangeable lens format but Nikon just doesn't seem to get it.</p>

<p>By now they should have offered a CX sensor competitor to the Sony RX100 and RX10 - essentially a turbocharged Coolpix on steroids. This V3 should have been the J4 or whatever name they wanted to give an RX100 competitor. And the next V-series should have been the RX10 competitor, with the excellent EVF.</p>

<p>I still enjoy the heck out of the V1 and use it often. The CX sensor is an excellent compromise between teensy sensor digicams and APS sensor mirrorless and dSLRs. But I'm not a bokeh/shallow DOF addict. I like the compromise between the deep DOF of the teensy sensor and the better IQ of the larger sensor, without having to stop down to f/8. It's a terrific snapshot format.</p>

<p>But I've been hoping for a Coolpix version with fast midrange zoom, more sensible controls (at least Nikon has made some progress there since the original J1 and V1), standard hotshoe with full CLS/TTL compatibility with existing SB-flash and pop-up flash with commander mode.</p>

<p>Nikon almost seemed to have grokked the zeitgeist with the Coolpix A, but once again let opportunity slip away. So the Ricoh GR remains more attractive than the Coolpix A in that niche, and Sony continues to offer more appealing cameras in the niche Nikon could have owned by now.</p>

<p>Nikon's System 1 engineers need to get out of the basement lab, take a vacation and chat with some actual amateur enthusiast type photographers.</p>

<p>And, yes, I'd still like that CX sensor Coolpix with EVF, 14mm f/1.4 lens with VR, standard hotshoe with full CLS/TTL compatibility, and built in flash with commander mode. Sure, go ahead and toss in the articulating screen. And if they're afraid of the EVF hump, just make the darned thing a bit taller to accommodate the EVF and flash.</p>

<p>Ahhh, what's the use. The Nikon 1 System engineers probably don't even have internet access in their basement lab.</p>

<p>Somehow every V camera Nikon introduced was a little disappointed to me. However, whatever the missing basical features (dedicated ISO button on the V1 for example) the cameras have, the main issue is the price. I brought a V1 with the kit lens when the price hit $300. It was a bargin with this price, but with the introducing price it was a rip (to me I mean). With low or more reasonable price, you can tolerate some inconveniences when using the camera. Nikon lamented the sale of 1 series camera in the North America, but they seemed to not think price was a problem. This is reflected in the pricing for these camera and lens. Their huge success in consumer DSLR mostly lies in the nice balance of the performance and the price: those cameras are great performers with good price, which makes people using them happy. I may update to V3 when the package cost me $300 :).</p>

<p>Yeah, the Nikon 1 System is a perfect example of the adage "Money changes everything". At anything close to full retail price they're lousy values. At the discounted prices their quirks can be forgiven.</p>

<p>I'm so accustomed to the V1's quirks I hardly notice them now. With the 10-30VR it's an outstanding value at anything under $400 and blows away any teensy sensor digicam unless you happen to need flash. And even though I think the SB-N5 flash was overpriced and disappointing due to the lack of commander mode for the SB-800, I still take it everywhere.</p>

<p>But over $400 there are so many appealing choices in Micro 4:3 and APS sensor mirrorless models. The only advantage the Nikon 1 System may offer is a slight edge in AF and shutter response quickness and maximum framerates.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Suggesting that mirrorless bodies is mature technology is very short slighted</p>

</blockquote>

<p>what i actually said was that m4/3 has matured, i.e. is in its 4th/5th generation. i wasnt saying that all mirrorless cameras have matured, which would be an absurd and impossible statement.</p>

<p>but allow me to elaborate: IMO in the digital age, maturation happens around the 3rd gen with cameras. nikon is no exception: the d1/d100/d70 were 1st-gen products; the d200 and d2x were 2nd-gen. the d300 and d90 are 3rd gen, etc. by the time you get to the d90, you have a highly capable, functioning consumer oriented DSLR. in the consumer line, the improvements since then have been very incremental -- you're really talking about adding megapixels and a few other mostly cosmetic bells and whistles, and not much else. the d7000 wasnt a quantum leap from a d90, though it was a better camera, and likewise the d7100. in some ways, those last two are not as capable as the d300, which many continue to use.</p>

<p>looking at Fuji, what they've done is accelerate the time in between generations, iterating new cameras rapidly, on a faster product cycle. within 4 years we go from x100 to xpro to xe 1 to xe2 to xt1. that's five generations. the xt1 EVF is the best to date, although that's one area where significant upside remains. moving over to sony, they've got the chips and the technology, but the a7/a7r is a first-gen product; second gen if you include rx1. their mirrorless FF bodies 'should' get better, but they dont have the advantage in R&D that fuji has of experience as a lens and filmmaker. i was reading one interview, and one of their engineers actually worked on velvia back in the day--which explains why their IQ is so highly regarded, and also why they've seemed more "photographer-centric" than the competition. meanwhile, with nikon, it looks like marketing is a bigger priority, which is the only thing that can explain their puzzling moves over the last 2-3 years. so while the V3 is a 3rd gen product, it's a crippled one which doesnt exactly build on success, but attempts to reinvent itself, just in case no one was paying attention to the first two generations. In other words, Nikon 1 hasnt quite matured the way you'd want it to in a perfect world.</p>

<p>my theory is this: since products continue to iterate and technology moves on, companies with market share dominance will sometimes affect user-unfriendly strategies to attempt to hold on to that share, even in the face of new innovation. that's precisely what's happened with canon and nikon. once innovative as long as there was upside in DSLRs, now stubbornly holding back the marketplace. the result is products like the EOS-M and Nikon 1 series, both of which are far less good than they could have been.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Buying a bunch of expensive lenses for a brand (or lens mount) that might not be around in a year or two to supply new bodies with new technology is an unwise move,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji will be around in two years. it's Olympus that's in trouble, and even then, we're only talking about the camera division. the medical optics line is doing well, as are digital voice recorders and other segments. as i said earlier, m4/3 pretty much has all the lenses anyone could want, except maybe for super-exotics. if they stopped making cameras today, the lineup of bodies from entry-level to prosumer fits most niches, so that just means prices on older/discontinued models will be more affordable, which is a win for the consumer as long as supplies last. maybe Oly lenses get cheaper if they go belly-up, IDK. does a m4/3 user really need more functionality and customability than offered in the e-m5 and e-m1? you dont really need a bigger MP count than 16 with that 2x crop sensor, and those bodies have just about everything else. anyone could ask for, except native compatibility with Nikon/Canon glass.</p>

<p>there's always trepidation about switching companies, and buying into new systems, but Fuji's releases and their frequent firmware updates, etc., have inspired consumer confidence--the opposite of what's happened with Nikon, which is now committed to a strategy of trading on their reputation by launching overpriced, underwhelming products, some with bad QC issues (d600), while ignoring market segments they perhaps should have paid more attention to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon's design goal for the V3 is that it can be both small and big at the same time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that just has "epic fail" written all over it. you need early adopters at the enthusiast level to buy into a system to give it longevity, and that clearly didnt happen. but getting back to that flawed "design goal," you need to engineer products that live up to those goals and you need vertical integration within the system to make it work with ancillary products, i.e. lenses, flashes, etc.. there are inherent limitations with such a small sensor. you can only go so big, and going big with super tele lenses for example, works against the small, compact ethos. had nikon come out with high-end bodies and a full set of fast primes from the go, they might have positioned themselves better. but guess who did that? Fuji.</p>

<p>So what are we left with? a $1200 basic kit that doesnt exactly innovate or offer enough uniqueness and is more expensive than the majority of Nikon's own DSLRs. or a $2000 buy-in for a compact super-tele kit that maybe works for birders and voyeurs, but seems underwhelming at that price point, given the competition. maybe Nikon should make Jimmy Stewart circa "Rear Window" their new spokesmodel.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think Nikon's original goal was to make the Nikon 1 series small and that was why they picked the CX format. The advantage is that their lenses can be small, unlike those large Sony NEX lenses on those tiny bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, but they just announced a 70-300 which is not that small. and they would have needed a lot more wide/fast lenses--both zooms and primes--to get enthusiast interest, which they clearly whiffed on. with a 2.7x crop factor, 2.8 isnt nearly fast enough. had they released an entire line of 1.2 primes, we might be talking. but even then, at the prices they would have asked, you're not gonna get mass market buy-in. OTOH, the Fuji primes are high-Q, reasonably small and also not super-ridiculously expensive for their quality and build. Fuji now has two 1.4 primes, a 1.2 portrait lens a f/2 pancake, a 2.4 macro, and a 2.8 pancake. i dont see that kind of versatility in the nikon 1 line.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By now they should have offered a CX sensor competitor to the Sony RX100 and RX10 - essentially a turbocharged Coolpix on steroids. This V3 should have been the J4 or whatever name they wanted to give an RX100 competitor. And the next V-series should have been the RX10 competitor, with the excellent EVF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>seems obvious, but no...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a terrific snapshot format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>do you need to spend $1200+ just to take snapshots? if not, who does?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon almost seemed to have grokked the zeitgeist with the Coolpix A, but once again let opportunity slip away. So the Ricoh GR remains more attractive than the Coolpix A in that niche, and Sony continues to offer more appealing cameras in the niche Nikon could have owned by now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the Coolpix A was overpriced for what it delivered. it really needed a f/2 or 1.8 lens, and full compatibility with CLS. once again, Nikon crippled what could have been an outstanding product because they didnt understand their customers' needs; if i have a big pro DSLR, i cant take it everywhere but i do want a compact that gives me comparable IQ and maybe adds a few wrinkles of its own. currently, i'm carrying my Fuji x100 in my camera bag along with my FX setup to gigs as a backup/candid shooter. that could have been a Coolpix A. a 'seemed to have almost grokked' is still a non-grokk.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, the Nikon 1 System is a perfect example of the adage "Money changes everything". At anything close to full retail price they're lousy values. At the discounted prices their quirks can be forgiven.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's because nikon isnt operating in a vacuum; people dont exist simply to pour money into nikon's coffers. they have limited budgets and lots of choices about where disposable income goes. if the v3 kit drops to $600, i might consider it, but even then, the limited CX lens selection would hold me back. </p>

<p><em>the 32/1.2 is what, $900?</em><br /> <em>that's $2500 for your 3-prime kit.</em></p>

<p>Eric, you seem to be looking at everything from the perspective that the customer is primarily interested in "getting the most bang for buck" instead of finding the solutions to whatever problems they have in their photography. I look at purchases with specific applications in mind. E.g. last week I was photographing a figure skating gala and while I had a front row seat I was still cropping many images shot at 200mm by quite a bit. I don't yet have a fast truly long lens and if I had, I am not sure if they would've let me use it from the regular seat in the audience. So, a V3 and FT-1 might actually provide me opportunities to test 20fps on jumps and spins, something that I can't do today. Because the angular velocity changes all the time it is not so easy to time exposures manually so that the face is in the position I want it in my shots. Jumps by themselves are easier as they can be anticipated by looking at what the feet are doing but still if they're rotating while doing it the position of the face is quite random in the outcome if I try to do the timing manually using my regular camera. Now, if I had a D4s and 400/2.8 or 600/4, swell. Compared to those, the V3 seems a fairly inexpensive way to experiment with high speed photography.</p>

<p>Also, in the studio with some 20fps capable Elinchrom ELCs, if I can make the V3 trigger the flashes (perhaps using an adapter that I might be able to make myself), it would let me capture some sequences of dance action which could be interesting as images and also for the dancer to see. Since the time of the models, the studio, the flash equipment all can be considered to cost money, the camera itself is not a huge expense if it yields unique results. Since I'm motivated by my subjects and the images that I try to achieve, and I focus on specific applications in my photography, I first look at ways of solving the problem and then choose ones that I can implement within my budget.</p>

<p>For general purpose photography I wouldn't be interested in the 1 series since it has too small a sensor and any new general purpose camera would have to compare favourably with the D800 for image quality to be even considered. But the V3 seems a camera designed for this kind of in-between video and stills applications and no other camera does what the V3 does (18MP 20fps with AF tracking) in this respect, so the price is to be considered from that point of view. If the quality of the outcome is not sufficient for the user's needs, then of course it's not a good purchase; such things must be evaluated before purchase.</p>

<p>If you're not interested in any of these applications of the 1 series cameras then by all means look elsewhere. It seems you already have many different cameras so what does it matter if Nikon makes some experimental cameras? Sometimes it is good to test water with a toe to see what it feels like, before plunging in. If these cameras solve a photographer's real world problem somewhere and allow them to capture something the could not otherwise capture then that's a sign of a successful product. If they motivate users of point and shoot cameras (by allowing high speed AF and capture) to get into more serious cameras, instead of just assuming that all cameras are so slow that the subject is lucky to be still included in the frame at the time the shutter opens, it is a successful product. There are several manufacturers competing for the general-purpose mirrorless interchangeable lens camera market, I don't see why Nikon specifically has to be involved in every type of camera. Manufacturers have to focus on areas where they think they can do well and limit the number of different types of products they make, otherwise they won't be doing well in any of their markets if their resources are spread out too widely.</p>