Nikon Announces Mirrorless J3, S1, 6.7-13mm CX, 10-100mm CX, and D5200

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by shuncheung, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    For the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) that begins tomorrow, January 8 and runs through January 11, Nikon is announcing two Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras, two new lenses, a new Coolpix S6500, and finally the D5200 is official for North America.
    For of all, the D5200 was already announced for Europe and Asia last November. It has a 24MP DX sensor and a swivel LCD screen. However, I was in Hong Kong a month ago, and I looked all over the place and could not find one. In the US, the D5200 is:
    • $899.95 with the 18-55mm DX AF-S VR kit lens
    • $799.95 body only
    Two Nikon 1 mirrorless bodies:
    • J3: 14.2MP CX format sensor, $599.95 with the 10-30mm VR kit lens
    • S1: 10.1MP CX sensor, $499.95 with the 11-27.5mm kit lens, without VR. This is the new entry-level model, but some of the remaining J1 are still available new at a lower price.
    Mirrowless lenses (the "crop factor" is 2.7x for CX):
    • 6.7-13mm/f3.5-5.6: a wide zoom equivalent to 18-35mm for FX, $499.95
    • 10-100mm/f4.5-5.6: This lens is different from the previous 10-100mm, which is a power zoom, i.e. the zoom function is controlled by a motor. The new lens has a traditional manual zoom ring, $549.95.
    Coolpix S6500: $219.95
    Unfortunately, there is still no successor to the D300S or D7000.
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  3. Unfortunately, there is still no successor to the D300S or D7000.​
    But the D5200 price point strongly indicates that there will be one for each: D7000 successor at $1200 and D300S successor at $1700.
     
  4. <grumble>Hmmphh... was hoping for a 13mm f/2 or faster. Guess I'll settle for the 18.5/1.8.</grumble>
     
  5. Hoping for more at the CP+ show later this month in Yokohama.
     
  6. After spending $$$ on a V1 system all I really want from Nikon is an upgrade of that stupid mode dial.
     
  7. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I think Nikon is still slow in adding new lenses to the Nikon 1 mirrorless system. Lex, the 10mm/f2.8 is pretty good, but the 18.5mm is the only one that is faster than f2.
    Of course Micro 4/3 has been around for much longer, but their lens selection is a lot more extensive than Nikon 1. I am also puzzled about the differences among the J1, J2, J3 and S1. The J1 is in deep discount, and even the V1 with the better 10-30mm VR is now cheaper than the S1. Until Nikon can move all the old models at fire sale prices, it will be difficult to sell the new ones.
    And I am sure a lot of people have also figured out that prices will drop significantly if you are willing to wait 6 months to a year.
     
  8. I will likely end up selling my D5100 and replacing with a d5200, but I want to read some user reviews and let the price settle first. I'm also going to decide if I'm going to stay with Nikon or not in the next six months. Products like the D600 and D800 just aren't for me.
    Kent in SD
     
  9. [[S1: 10.1MP CX sensor, $499.95 with the 11-27.5mm kit lens, without VR. This is the new entry-level model]]
    Because what a consumer moving from a point and shoot wants is a system without VR. ?? I don't understand this absurd cost-cutting measure. Canon has done the same with their point and shoots. Why differentiate models like this? It's like car companies giving a very slight discount to a vehicle because it only comes with 3 tires.
     
  10. Suffice it to say neither Nikon or Canon "get" mirrorless. Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and especially Sony are miles ahead. So far, Nikon's CES rollouts were mostly covered/leaked weeks before the show.
     
  11. The Nikon 1 product line is pretty darn confusing.
     
  12. "...the 10mm/f2.8 is pretty good..."​
    Yup, that's the consensus among owners. Tempting but not enough faster than the 10-30mm at the 10mm f/3.5 base setting for my purposes. I have another P&S digicam with a zoom that's f/2.8 at the 28mm equivalent focal length and it's turned out to not be fast enough for many available light situations I encounter. And the pancake design isn't as much an advantage on the bulkier V1 as it might be with the J1/J2 and S1.
    "...what consumer moving from a point and shoot wants is a system without VR?"​
    I'm inclined to say the same, but I also realize not everyone needs VR as much as I do. Personally I wouldn't buy another zoom, P&S or compact digicam without VR or some type of image stabilization. But I would have 10-20 years ago when my hands were steadier.
    "Suffice it to say neither Nikon or Canon "get" mirrorless."​
    Sorta agree. While I'm thoroughly satisfied with the V1, I knew what I was getting in advance, warts and all, and happily accepted it as a top notch, super fast P&S that just happened to offer interchangeable lenses. I still don't consider it a mirrorless system camera and the top Micro 4:3 makers are still way ahead in this game.
    I still think Nikon's best shot at the CX format is to incorporate it pronto into the high end Coolpix lineup to compete with the Sony RX100. One with a fast midrange zoom. Save the slowpoke superzooms for the tiny sensor models.
    Otherwise the J-series and S-series have a future as long as the street price with kit zoom is well south of $500, preferably closer to $300.
    I'm doubtful about the future of the V-series unless Nikon incorporates the APS sensor. Do that and they'd have a viable rival to the Sony NEX.
     
  13. "I'm doubtful about the future of the V-series unless Nikon incorporates the APS sensor. Do that and they'd have a viable rival to the Sony NEX."

    Sony rolled out the APS-C NEX platform in 2010 and never stopped developing it. To match--better still, surpass--Sony's current products, along with the probability of a FF NEX-type body soon, Nikon would have to make a huge leap into MILC territory with a DX and/or FX-based system. They've so far stumbled with their CX cameras.
     
  14. [[I'm inclined to say the same, but I also realize not everyone needs VR as much as I do. Personally I wouldn't buy another zoom, P&S or compact digicam without VR or some type of image stabilization. But I would have 10-20 years ago when my hands were steadier.]]
    20 years ago, was VR/IS technology as mature as it is now? Especially for smaller lenses?
    To not include VR in the 1-series, for the explicit purpose of differentiating product lines, is simple accounting asshattery. Want VR in the 1-series? Spend $550 on the new 10-100 or buy a whole new camera just to get the 10-30. If that doesn't breed ill-will in your customers, I don't know what will.
    Canon has gone this route in their EOS line by taking good, low-cost ($250-400), prime lenses and adding $500 to the price tag by simply including IS. (And then discontinuing the non-IS version).
     
  15. These announcements tend to vindicate my recent decision to bail out of Nikon altogether and go down the M4/3 route. My recently acquired Olympus OM-D E-M5 has proven to be a more than adequate replacement for my D300 and D5100 in terms of image quality. The OM-D with Panasonic 14-45mm or 20mm lenses makes for an astonishingly light but capable walkabout combination. I considered the CX line, but decided that M4/3 was as small as I wanted to go whilst still maintaining a semblance of depth of field control using fast primes. Moreover, in-body image stabilisation allows both native primes and legacy lenses (with adapters) to benefit, unlike the CX range.
     
  16. The new standard zoom is smaller than
    the VR version; Nikon simply responded
    to criticism about the size of the original.


    NEX zooms are quite big compared to
    the size of the cameras; to make use of
    the small size of the camera body you
    have just the 16/2.8 which doesn't get
    good reviews ... Sony seems to have
    little interest in lens development. Micro
    Four Thirds and Fuji have serious lens
    lineups. Canon does not (yet). Nikon
    seems to be working on it; add a short
    tele prime with f/1.4 or faster and a
    macro and things look brighter, but the
    sensor is just too small IMHO.

    If I were to buy a mirrorless camera, it
    would likely be X-Pro1 or E-PL5 with 2-
    3 primes.
     
  17. Canon aren't the only ones doubling the price with IS - the price difference between the non-VC 90mm f/2.8 Tamron macro (that I have) and the new one is pretty criminal. Of course, it may be better (perhaps in LoCA?), but I'm not unhappy with my original. I do have the OS version of the Sigma 150, but I wanted a portable substitute for my 200 f/2 (sort of), so I'll take the hit.

    The zoom on my V1 is a bit big for what it is (though at least it retracts), but then so's the rest of the camera. It's roughly the same size as my GF2 with the 14-42 power zoom. I have an F mount adaptor for the GF2; I don't intend to bother for the V1, nor am I likely to get more lenses unless I really struggle with range. The V1 was only of interest to me as a massively discounted (cheaper than most of my lenses) high speed specialist, though I could do without the weird aspect ratio at high frame rates - I'm not interested in the newer, pricier announcements in the 1 series, though the V2 is indubitably a better camera (DxO aside). I consider the crop factor too large to justify trying to use F mount lenses on one of these.

    I feel obliged to mention my employers (Samsung). Unfortunately, they lost me at "too deep a flange distance to allow me to mount Leica lenses", but reports of the system have otherwise been reasonably favourable, I believe.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As I have pointed out a few times, Nikon decided on the CX format to reduce lens size, but such a small sensor will forever has its disadvantages. I think the Nikon 1 system is optimized for consumers, and someone such as Lex who wants a small system would like it a lot.
    In my case, even at the current fire sale prices, I still own no mirrorless cameras. I continue to find DSLRs serve me better. As far as I know the J1 is selling extremely well, but at a fraction of its initial price. I am not sure Nikon is making a lot of money from the J1 and mirrorless in general. IMO the CX sensor locks the Nikon 1 system to the consumer level. Whether that was a good decision will be debated for a while. I am afraid that it will be difficult for Nikon to introduce yet another incompatible mirrorless system with a larger sensor.
     
  19. All Nikon can do with the 1 Series & CX is make/get better sensors for it and go a whole lot further in USER customizability, such as making the Smart Photo Selector USER selectable and giving it a much bigger RAM buffer for better continuous shooting etc.
    Maybe the V3 will make progress, the V2 is almost no improvement on the V1......
     
  20. [[The new standard zoom is smaller than the VR version; Nikon simply responded to criticism about the size of the original.]]
    Ah yes, the "the users made us do it!" excuse. The forums, I see, are littered with 1-series owners typing from hospital beds due to throwing their backs out after using the overweight, hyper-extended 10-30mm VR. ;)
    The change, from 1.7 to 1.22 inches (42mm to 31mm) does not actually make the camera more pocket-able or portable. On a f/3.5-5.6 lens, the loss of VR is more significant than the length difference, doubly-so for anyone shooting movies with the camera. (Which I understand is popular with the kids these days.)
    "Responding to criticism" is a red-herring, IMHO.
     
  21. The inability to use my Leica lenses on the small Nikon cameras is for me a fatal flaw.
    Kent in SD
     
  22. "I think the Nikon 1 system is optimized for consumers, and someone such as Lex who wants a small system would like it a lot."​
    Yup. The V1 has many of the strengths of the D2H in a much smaller, lighter package. Fast, accurate AF. Better IQ, regardless of resolution. Quick shutter release with a great feel. More accurate metering, particularly in matrix metering with strong backlighting. Unfortunately it lacks the shot-to-shot speed of the D2H (including if pressure is released from the shutter button in continuous mode), but that's a minor quirk. I don't often shoot more than two or three consecutive frames, even with the D2H.
    But I'm probably not the typical Nikonista. I've always had a fondness for quirky cameras so it takes a lot to really turn me off if the camera has enough good stuff to offset the quirks. I think there's a niche for the Nikon 1 series as an instant cult classic among serious, experienced photographers who are willing to accept a few compromises for the overall price:performance - at least at the discounted prices.
    Whether that translates to a viable market for the Nikon 1 series remains to be seen. But recall the early stumbles Olympus experienced with their first mirrorless Micro 4:3, from which they recovered and carved out a respectable niche.
    In my opinion, Nikon is heading in the right direction with the J-series and, presumably, the S. The V-series... not so sure. Personally I think they could continue building on the original V1 chassis by:
    • Changing the mode dial to a SPAM dial.
    • Adding a front forefinger dial for aperture control.
    • Modifying the zoom toggle to a 4-way toggle to double as a shutter speed control.
    • Making the F button a true, user customizable Function button (like Ricoh does).
    • Burying the cute stuff in the menu.
    • Making the movie shutter release button default to standard HD aspect ratios regardless of how the mode dial is set.
    • Or just copy everything Ricoh does in control design for the GRD.
    Pretty minor mods for an existing chassis. Seems it could be done cost effectively without undercutting the V2.
    Nikon seems to be taking this incremental approach to the J-series. Might work on the V1 chassis too.
     
  23. I don't think 'why is the new S1 packaged without a VR lens?' is the right question to ask, Rob. There are plenty of reasons - some of them good ones.
    I think the right question is why the lens even exists. If I'm not mistaken, it's a power zoom lens, right? Which is usually only beneficial to video users? Those people practically need VR. I'm not sure why the lens was even designed in the first place. Unless I'm wrong about the power zoom.
     
  24. Very disappointing :-(
     
  25. Very disappointing :-(
     
  26. Very disappointing :-(
     
  27. Very disappointing :-(
     
  28. Oops - please delete the duplicates above.
     
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Oops - please delete the duplicates above.​
    No worries. We know that you are really disappointed. :)
     
  30. What I was hoping for from Nikon was a FF digital camera in the FM/FE form factor. Olympus has done it with the OM-D (sensor size aside). There is an army of mature Nikon photographers weeping because the Nikon semi-pro DSLR form factor is just too big. I still shoot my FE and its SO much better to use than a big DSLR. Its keeping me with a foot in film. I don't care about VR and I don't care for big fat plastic covered 77mm zooms. Even the AFS primes are way too big. We have a crude word for it here. A big F O lens. You know what I mean.
    Nikon have shown that they can produce nice smaller lenses for the V/J series, so why do the DSLR lenses have to be so big? Its not the mount. Using them in the field gets you disapproving, smirky glances. I am a shy person by nature and I gave up on using a D700 with grip for this reason. I felt quite out of place. I was no longer a pro and it was obvious. I was also a target. Can you image someone like Galen Rowell running all over the mountains with a D800...I don't think so. This is my beef. Pro quality need not mean big as well, surely. I quite liked the D300 when I had one, but the AFS lenses are just too big for the quality you get. I mainly used my AFD and AIS lenses on it. The AFS 24-70 2.8 is a good example. Its bigger and much fatter than my 80-200 F4 AIS.
    But we have small voices as far as Nikon is concerned. But my pro digital budget will stay in the bank for now.
     
  31. No, the 11-27.5 mm is not a power zoom; the only PD-ZOOM in the lineup is the original 10-100mm.
     
  32. Until Nikon has a full-frame mirrorless professional camera ready for us I am not interested in their new products, unless it is an updated version of the Coolscan 9000 dedicated scanner.
     
  33. Francisco, your comments echo the very same reasons why I've ditched Nikon in favour of an Olympus OM-D setup. An OM-D plus Panasonic 14-45mm weighs in 620g. It's also small, magnesium alloy shelled with some weather sealing. A 20mm f1.7 prime weighs 110g and the 14mm f2.5 is 55g. A 45mm f1.8 is 116g, the Panasonic 12-35mm - 305g, the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 - 360g.
    I suspect the DX format is destined to be increasingly caught in the middle between ever improving smaller sensor cameras and full frame ones.
     
  34. A DXX00 with a built-in focus motor would solve this debate once and for all as far as I am concerned. Canon can do it so why not Nikon?

    Right now the only upgrade option I see for my D300 is a D3200 which means I have to say good-bye to my AI-S and AF lenses and spend a lot of money that I don't have on pro-level AF-S glass as nothing less would suffice...
     
  35. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    What I was hoping for from Nikon was a FF digital camera in the FM/FE form factor. Olympus has done it with the OM-D (sensor size aside). There is an army of mature Nikon photographers weeping because the Nikon semi-pro DSLR form factor is just too big. I still shoot my FE and its SO much better to use than a big DSLR.​
    Francisco, there is never going to happen. I bought an FE the same year it was introduced, back in 1978 and still own it today; I also had an FE2 for many years, so I know the FM/FE series quite well. Those cameras are rectangular boxes plus a viewfinder. Ergonomically, that kind of design is a disaster today. Modern SLRs have a grip and the controls fit our hands much better. You also need room for a battery, LCD for image review, etc. If your battery is too tiny, people will complain that it lasts fewer than 2000 captures. Today, a D600 is not all that big and not heavy.
    If you ask 10 people, there will be 20 different opinions. Nikon (or Canon) will never please everybody. If some other brand or some other format fits you better, by all means switch to something else. At this point I am quite happy with Nikon's DSLRs, but it puzzles me why it takes so long for Nikon to update the D300S. For whatever reason, Nikon seems to lock steps with Canon in their DSLR introduction. Within the last year, Canon had the 1DX and Nikon had the D4, Nikon D800/D800S and Canon 5D III, and finally Nikon D600 and Canon 6D. For whatever reason, Canon also has not updated the 7D, which was introduced back in 2009, the same year the D300S was introduced. So if Kent is tired of waiting for Nikon to update the D300S, are you going to switch to the equally "ancient" Canon 7D? It makes no sense. If you go Sony, you will lose the traditional optical viewfinder; at least I don't like that approach.
    On the other hand, I own no mirrorless cameras. IMO the Nikon CX sensor is too small and if I focus manually, I'd like to have a manual focus ring on the lens. I am not sure I want to get myself into that system.
    BTW, the only power zoom lens in the Nikon 1 mirrorless system is the first version of the 10-100mm zoom introduced in 2010 along with the initial V1 and J1. That lens is intended for video.
     
  36. The D5200 uses a Toshiba sensor: http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2013/01/08/inside-the-nikon-d5200-dslr-toshiba-found/
     
  37. I kinda thought it was the D3200's chip in the D5100's body.
     
  38. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I kinda thought it was the D3200's chip in the D5100's body.​
    Not exactly. Both the D3200 and D5200 are so called "24MP," but there is where the similarity ends.
    The D3200's sensor generates a 6016x4000 RAW file, while the D5200 is 6000x4000. It is actually quite clear that the sensors are different.
    Nikon is a leader in semiconductor stepper technology. What they don't have is IC manufacturing facility themselves. It is fairly easy for Nikon to design their own sensors, but they need to find someone else to manufacture those sensors.
     
  39. Indeed! :)
    I'd popped over to DxOMark and they hadn't reviewed the D5200's sensor yet and just 'went by the numbers'. Doh!
    Still interesting how the launch dates were so very widely spaced across the World........ and they (DxO) haven't even got a price or a detailed spec on it yet...would have thought they would have got their hands on one by now!
     
  40. Shun--
    I wait for an updated 7D. I don't have much interest in Sony DSLR. I've them a couple of times and they just didn't click. What has been surprising me is just how much I like my little D5100. I'm getting a lot of use out of that swivel screen, and I like the small size. I think a D400 and a D5200 would be a perfect combo for me! I have also tried a Leica M9. I loved it! The cost of it plus three lenses is dizzying though. So, I shoot a Leica IIIc and LTM lenses 35/50/90. It's another surprise just how often 70 yr. old photo gear gives me what I want. (I have a IIIf for when I want to use my flash triggers.) It gives me something fun to do while I continue to wait for Nikon to produce a camera I want.
    Kent in SD
     
  41. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Kent, as I said, Nikon introducd the D300S in 2009, although it is largely the same as the D300 from 2007. Meanwhile, Canon also introduced the 7D in 2009. So if you are not happy that Nikon has not udpated the D300S, leaving Nikon for Canon will you a 7D from the same era. At least I don't see what the point is.
    As I said, Nikon's DSLR introduction seems to lock step with Canon's. The D800 and 5D Mark III were introduced within a month from each other. The D600 and 6D were announced within a few days from each other at exactly the same $2100 initial price. Back in 2007, the 1Ds Mark III and D3 were also announced within a few days. While Nikon is not updating the D300S yet, neither is Canon with the 7D.
    So I don't see leaving Nikon for Canon will solve you any problem. If Canon eventually updates the 7D, most likely you'll see a D300S update shortly (or before).
     
  42. Francesco, DSLRs of a given sensor size are bigger than manual film SLRs of the same format, simply because the digital camera contains a computer, autofocus motor (in the case of higher end Nikons), display, lots of control buttons, etc. and is able to record and process the image whereas you need a film processor and printing system to get anything visible out of a film camera. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. As the image quality and detail that (say) a D800 is capable of recording is much higher than that from 35mm film cameras, especially in color, it is understandable that lenses need to be better corrected than lenses for 35mm film cameras, to make the most out of the new sensors. This kind of improved optical correction, together with autofocus and VR in many lenses has made them physically bigger. This is expected. What's more, the light rays need to arrive at the sensor more perpendicularly than with film, so the wide angles need to be more telecentric and this further increases their size. If you compare the D800 + 24-70 with a medium format film rig as well as a 35mm film rig and compare the image quality across the systems I think you will see that there is some benefit from the larger lenses and bodies that digital has brought into play. The way to get a small digital camera is to accept a reduction in sensor size, which people generally have.
    Using them in the field gets you disapproving, smirky glances.
    This is most likely partly their reaction to your behaviour and discomfort, not necessarily the camera directly. I find that while people at close distance can pay attention to a big camera, a good part of this resistance can be overcome by the photographer's confidence. Ok, if one uses a 24-70 to photograph people at close distance the subjects can react to it until they get used to you being there. This can be annoying as I wish not to draw attention to myself. I often use primes such as 35/1.4 for this reason; that lens is suitably compact and inconspicuous. When I use a huge lens at events, people can react to it for sure, but again if you carry yourself in a way that leaves the subjects the impression that you should be there and know what you're doing you can get on with the photography and people will over time pay less attention to your big lens. I would love to use an AF-S 180/2.8 VR for compact long reach but Nikon hasn't yet made one. The 70-200/4 is a step in the right direction; I recommend you consider this lens, perhaps the 28/1.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 which are not much bigger than their predecessors yet offer improved focusing and image quality. Those together with a e.g. D600 or D800 should not be too big; many consumers have cameras and lenses bigger than these.
    You can also consider the positively small Micro Four Thirds system cameras, e.g. Panasonic GX1, Olympus E-PL5, and some primes such as the Panasonic 14/2.5 and 20/1.7, which are really, really small and lightweight, and the slightly bigger 12/2, 45/1.8 from Olympus, which are still smaller than most DSLR lenses yet give good image quality. They will look very little different from point and shoot cameras; slightly fancier, true, but not too much.
    For me, I have been happy with Nikon FX cameras since the time they introduced some AF-S wide angle primes; I also use the 24-70 but when in close range to people I prefer smaller lenses. When I photograph an event with lots of people the 24-70 gets lost in there and no one will notice it and so I tend to use that when I'm not shooting in a small room with 3-4 people in it; the 35 is perfect for the latter. I try to adopt my equipment to the situation in hand. One of my main gripes with DX DSLRs is that there are no truly small wide angle primes that would be in proportion to the size of the cameras such as is the case for micro four thirds cameras and lenses. But no one says that you must use a Nikon for a small camera; I wouldn't feel any objection to purchasing an MFT system for these situations; I haven't done so simply because I don't have infinite amount of money and I fear that I'd want to buy lots of lenses for MFT if I bought into that system. Also, the D800 is more compact than previous FX cameras and the new AF-S primes help with compactness when working in close range to people, so the Nikon system has moved in a direction that is suitable for quiet, close-range reportage. I actually prefer the D3/D4 series of camera bodies because they have more comfortable controls especially when I'm shooting a lot of verticals, but in situations where I am really in close range to the subjects and they're deep in thought, whatever they're doing then the smaller form of the D800 is perhaps better (as long as I don't rise my right arm above my eyes to do a vertical, at that point the "advantage" from any small camera is lost, I'm afraid). Fortunately the D800 has so many pixels that verticals can be made out of horizontals with ease, allowing this situation to be handled (with less than optimal image quality, but still) discretely.
     
  43. Fuji managed to pull off a EVF+optical finder in the X-Pro1--a high-performance package whose feel and handling recalls classics like the FM/FE bodies. Nikon, like Canon, seems unable/unwilling to innovate beyond the SLR form factor. Since Nikon sells mostly DX format cameras, there's probably room for experimentation with a new APS-C system.
     
  44. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    C Watson, I am afraid that you are getting it backward. Canon and Nikon are the market leaders, at least on DSLRs. The likes of Pentax, Fuji, etc. cannot compete on the main stream products. (Recall that Fuji had the S2, S3 and S5 ... with Nikon mount, but they eventually faded.) Therefore, they have no choice but to produce some niche cameras and lenses that have appeals to some, but they are just getting a small share of the market.
    Bringing back the so called "classics" like the FM/FE is not exactly innovation. Those are very out of date designs. They do have appeal to a few people, but as market leaders, Canon and Nikon are not going to bother with those products. I would much rather see Nikon focus on the successor to the D300S and other missing lenses such as AF-S VR versions of the 300mm/f4 and 80-400 .... The Nikon 1 mirrorless system is still not in very good shape. The J1, J2, J3, V1, V2 and S1 are all on the market simultaneously, which is confusing. The J1 and V1 are on deep discounts that will certainly block S1 sales, and the lens selection is still limited. I am afraid that Nikon has much bigger fishes to fry.
     
  45. Whoah, busy therad. I turn my back for five minutes...
    The inability to use my Leica lenses on the small Nikon cameras is for me a fatal flaw.​
    Huh? I don't see a reason you can't adapt an M mount lens to a 1-series, other than that the crop factor makes it a bit awkward. The only mirrorless system I'm aware of that can't cope with an M adaptor (excluding Pentax's thing with using a mirrorless camera with a normal SLR mount) is Samsung's NX mount. That's precisely the reason that I've completely ignored Samsung's options - otherwise I believe they're perfectly capable. Sadly I wasn't a Samsung employee until it was too late to influence the camera division to avoid that silly mistake. Not that I work for the camera team, or would have had any influence, but it's a problem I would have seen coming. Anyway, not an issue for the 1 series as far as I know.
    A DXX00 with a built-in focus motor would solve this debate once and for all as far as I am concerned. Canon can do it so why not Nikon?​
    Um. Not so much. No EF-mount Canon camera has a focus motor in the camera - they all have the motor in the lens. This is the reason that, for a while, Canon versions of third-party lenses were more expensive than on-brand ones. Canon made sure that no EF lens would autofocus if adapted to anything predating the EF mount (ignoring whether you can sort out the mechanical and optical mounting issues). Nikon made it so that only AF-S lenses (all recent autofocus lenses, though not admittedly all current ones) mount on the low-end cameras. They simply made this change more recently, and less completely, than Canon.
    Ah yes, the "the users made us do it!" excuse. The forums, I see, are littered with 1-series owners typing from hospital beds due to throwing their backs out after using the overweight, hyper-extended 10-30mm VR. ;)

    The change, from 1.7 to 1.22 inches (42mm to 31mm) does not actually make the camera more pocket-able or portable.​
    Really? My VR lens is partly responsible in making my V1 appreciably bulkier than my GF2. Checking specs, my GF2 is 33mm thick and the Panasonic 14-42 is 27mm long (collapsed). The Nikkor 10-30 VR is 42mm long and the V1 is about 36mm thick. Panasonic total 6cm; Nikon total 7.8cm. The Panasonic fits in a compact camera bag or an inside coat pocket; the Nikon doesn't. Knocking a cm off the depth would actually help quite a bit, although it's still bulkier than the micro 4/3 camera. It's also taller, although admittedly not as wide (the dimension that's usually least of a problem because it doesn't matter if the grip sticks out of a pocket).

    For what it's worth, I got the GF2 because it was cheap (being on old model when I got it and when my local Panasonic store was closing); the latest models are appreciably more capable, though the handling temporarily got worse with the GF3. I might have gone Sony if they'd been cheaper. I got the V1 for the same reason - the V2 is appreciably better in some ways, but isn't worth double the price to me. I anticipate the GF2 being my walk-around pseudocompact far more than the V1, though I'd not turn down one of the Fuji cameras if offered to me. Each tool to its purpose - I have uses for a Rolleiflex if I ever find a cheap one...
     
  46. bms

    bms

    Personally I think they could continue building on the original V1 chassis by:
    • Changing the mode dial to a SPAM dial.
    • Adding a front forefinger dial for aperture control.
    • Modifying the zoom toggle to a 4-way toggle to double as a shutter speed control.
    • Making the F button a true, user customizable Function button (like Ricoh does).
    • Burying the cute stuff in the menu.
    • Making the movie shutter release button default to standard HD aspect ratios regardless of how the mode dial is set.
    100% +1
    This is why I now own an OM-D, though for $299 I was very tempted to re-acquire the V1
     
  47. Market "leaders" defined by sales differ significantly from leadership defined by innovation. Just look at the auto industry. Nikon's product line-up in DSLRs is looking very tired in DX, even though the D7000--now discounted--remains a bright spot. Big discounts on CX and FX may continue just to keep sales up. Far more interesting things are happening among "niche" players. Indeed, Nikon had better connect with the frying pan soon.
     
  48. From the Chipworks site:
    Why is it a surprise to see Toshiba? If you had to pick a new vendor for Nikon APS-C class sockets you would likely pick Aptina.Aptina has the design wins in the Nikon 1 system cameras (1” format V1, J1, V2), and it has previously marketed an APS-C device. The MT9H004 is a 16 Mp sensor employing Aptina’s dual conversion gain approach as part of its DR-Pix platform. The device is intended for use in APS-C class DSLR and MILC applications, but we haven’t seen a design win for it yet. Due to the existing relationship between Aptina and Nikon, you would expect that the 24.1 Mp sensor for the D5200 would have been developed by Aptina.
    Toshiba has publicly announced its strategy to aggressively pursue the mobile imaging space, with a target of 30% market share by 2015. So we know it is backing image sensor technology within its semiconductor group. However, it has not broadly promoted interest in the APS-C space, and we were pleasantly surprised to see this disruptive event. We’ve typically found Nikon to use either its own APS-C designs (devices fab’d by Renesas) or Sony sensors. Adding Toshiba in to the mix makes for quite the assortment of silicon vendors used by Nikon.​
     
  49. Benjamin, I see you are another OM-D owner. How have you found it? I love mine!
     
  50. I really do not think that Nikon is designing the Nikon 1 lineup for DSLR users. Of course there are some DSLR owners that are adding a Nikon 1 to their bag but IMHO the main target are the young guys and gals that build their life around gadgets. These people have no idea about sensor size, they are shooting jpeg mostly for social media, they are not pixel peeping but they appreciate the huge frame rate, the compact size of a cool camera that can use more lenses, the label Nikon, the minimalist design, etc. These people can navigate thru the menu faster than I operate the dedicated controls on my DSLR. For them the name that's written on the gadget is more important than the technical specs. They generally consider Nikon, Canon and Sony (lately not so much Sony... if I have to give credit to my own son... ) as the only real players. The difference is in general made by the cost... and Nikon 1 is an inexpensive system in comparison with Sony NEX... That's why it seems that J1 has been the most sold model of mirrorless cameras in Japan during 2012, with an incredible 11.2% shares from the whole market.
    Also Nikon wants to be a trend setter. They do not want to go late to a game fishing where others already have a good position. That's why they introduced CX sensors, opening a new niche in the market. For us, as old DSLR users, these models seems childish, but from a market perspective they seems to be a good initiative. Nikon knows that one can go small up to one point when using a larger sensor... Maybe Sony already found its limits of miniaturization in NEX line. But CX leave space to develop smaller and better cameras. Because with the development of the technology in a couple of years maybe CX sensors will equal the performance of DX sensors of 2012. For the needs of those young guys and gals this is more than they dream. And definitely more than they need.
    This way Nikon leaves Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung and others to trample each other trying to develop an attractive model for people who really knows what photography is but are tempted to add to their pro system a small but high quality camera. The cost to develop a small factor pro grade camera is too high to be attractive considering the level of sales. Because to many fishermen are trying to fish in a quite small lake.
    This way Nikon is using the most resources from R&D to keep develop the area where they are leaders: professional full frame DSLRs & lenses. They are building the brand value by providing the best cameras for PJ, sport, fashion, wildlife, wedding, event etc. Then this high value of the brand makes millions and millions of guys & gals to purchase Nikon 1 cameras. And there is no lie... these cameras are perfect for their needs and the price seems to be adequate.
    Last but not the least... Nikon 1 was introduced like yesterday... but we already are at J3... There are not huge differences or improvements... but gadgets have to be replaced faster... the customers looks only for what's new and cool.
     
  51. Nikon's product line-up in DSLRs is looking very tired in DX, even though the D7000--now discounted--remains a bright spot.​
    I'm not sure of that. The D3200 and D5200 are very good cameras, from all I can tell. The D7000 is obviously well-regarded, but so is everything with that sensor (NEX-5, K7). The D7000 at a discounted rate is well worth it as a mini-D300 for the controls, but it's not cutting edge - Pentax have just updated their camera, although only mildly. We may expect a D7000 and probably a D300 replacement this year (the D300 is certainly behind the curve, but as Shun says so is the 7D, if less so), but the low end, to me, seems to keep up quite well. DX lenses may be another matter.
     
  52. C Watson [​IMG], Jan 09, 2013; 11:18 a.m.
    Market "leaders" defined by sales differ significantly from leadership defined by innovation. Just look at the auto industry. Nikon's product line-up in DSLRs is looking very tired in DX, even though the D7000--now discounted--remains a bright spot. Big discounts on CX and FX may continue just to keep sales up. Far more interesting things are happening among "niche" players. Indeed, Nikon had better connect with the frying pan soon.​
    The camera market is not the auto market. This is a poor analogy. Most pro cameras are designed for people who are (gasp!) professional photographers, and most consumer models are designed for people that want good pictures of their family. Every mass-produced automobile is designed for non-professional drivers that need to get a variable amount of people or cargo from Point A to Point B. If you are a professional driver, even 'stock car' racing, you're not driving anything off the sales floor, and it's been that way for about 30 years. Ditto if you use a plow, or do heavy towing; almost every one of those trucks requires a special-order or aftermarket option. The dealer may have it in stock, but it's not a plain-old 'off the lot' vehicle.
    I remember talking to a guy a knew about his contracting business. He bought a Silverado (which is a pretty huge truck), and he still had to have the suspension tweaked and get it fitted with some extra junk before it would do everything that he needed it to do.
    But there is one way your analogy holds true: look at automobile makers that are innovation-driven. How many of them are big players? I hear that Tesla is doing pretty well these days, and so is Spyker. There isn't a single "innovative" car company that mass-produces their vehicles. Beetle, Mini, etc. are all based off older designs, and even the Prius was based on technology invented in the early 1900s, with a production Audi model dating sometime in the 70s. Unless you're buying a car that is in the $100,000 range, everything "innovative" came from somebody else.
    So to use your own analogy ... if Fuji picks up a good share of the market, Nikon or Canon will buy them, and ten years from now we'll forget all about it and talk about how innovative Nikon/Canon is.
     
  53. "The camera market is not the auto market. This is a poor analogy. Most pro cameras are designed for people who are (gasp!) professional photographers, and most consumer models are designed for people that want good pictures of their family."

    "This way Nikon is using the most resources from R&D to keep develop the area where they are leaders: professional full frame DSLRs & lenses."


    Hmmm. Not so sure. Nikon sells way more DX than FX cameras.Why would they pour comparatively more R&D resources into a line that undersells the "non-professional"(sic) DX system? Bragging rights over Canon?
     
  54. Challenging brands/companies almost always bring more innovations than incumbent brands. Fuji, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic are more interesting than Canon/Nikon. It's almost nature. But the course is changing. Back a couple years ago, almost no one was buying mirrorless cameras here on PN. Looks like that changed a whole lot.
    A FF compact? I was told it was impossible by many here...Today, we have the RX1.
    Sub 2k FF nikon being impossible, remember? Again, I was told impossible by many here. Today, there are the d600 and canon 6d...
     
  55. "What has been surprising me is just how much I like my little D5100."​

    When I first tried the D5100, I ran into two issues leading me to eventually return it:

    (1) the AF points can't be lock and it is very easy to bump it with your palm, when carrying the camera in my right hand, as I do with the D90.
    (2) In M-mode, auto-ISO, I cannot use exposure compensation (since the button is used for the control of aperture).

    Does any one know how the D5200 work in these regards?
     
  56. (2) In M-mode, auto-ISO, I cannot use exposure compensation (since the button is used for the control of aperture).​
    Why would you do that? Enlighten me...M-mode but auto ISO, yet exposure comp? Hmm...
     
  57. Why would you do that?
    If you want to set the shutter speed to control sharpness or blur due to movement, aperture to set the depth of field, automatic exposure (via the auto-ISO feature) to automatically react to changes in light levels, yet you may want to control the brightness of the image relative to mid gray by using exposure compensation. I think what is proposed is perfectly reasonable, though I never use auto ISO myself, as I want to be aware of what ISO (and what image quality) I am getting by manually controlling it.
     
  58. CC Chang , Jan 09, 2013; 05:27 p.m.
    When I first tried the D5100, I ran into two issues leading me to eventually return it:

    (1) the AF points can't be lock and it is very easy to bump it with your palm, when carrying the camera in my right hand, as I do with the D90.
    (2) In M-mode, auto-ISO, I cannot use exposure compensation (since the button is used for the control of aperture).
    That would just turn it into an ISO button. If ISO is the only automatic exposure setting enabled, then ISO is all that the EV control could change.
    So then you really just want an ISO button. I think the Fn button can be assigned to do that :)
    Personally, I'm a little turned off by the shorter dynamic range on the smaller-bodied Nikons anyway. Much too easy to clip highlights, and I'm careful as hell. Then again I'm also anal as hell, and that doesn't help :(
    C Watson [​IMG], Jan 09, 2013; 04:05 p.m.
    "The camera market is not the auto market. This is a poor analogy. Most pro cameras are designed for people who are (gasp!) professional photographers, and most consumer models are designed for people that want good pictures of their family."

    "This way Nikon is using the most resources from R&D to keep develop the area where they are leaders: professional full frame DSLRs & lenses."


    Hmmm. Not so sure. Nikon sells way more DX than FX cameras.Why would they pour comparatively more R&D resources into a line that undersells the "non-professional"(sic) DX system? Bragging rights over Canon?​
    Because cameras are not cars, and camera buyers will often shy away from things that they see as too complicated. While the i-Drive system and paddle shifters may turn some consumers off due to their complication, very few people are going to buy an economy car over a full-size sedan purely because the sedan 'is too complicated.' Consumers buy J1s over D3100s every day for exactly that reason.
    Also, most consumers are used to using the rear LCD rather than a viewfinder, and (I believe) Sony is the only company to offer a Live View feature on an SLR that does not drastically slow down the operation of the camera ... which is probably why my store has seen an uptick in Sony sales recently.
    You're thinking with your own wallet. You've got to get out of that mindset, or else you'll just keep being angry at Nikon for not understanding what they're doing. Right now, their only problem is having too many "1" models, and Olympus and Panasonic both started off that way too. It's an easy mistake to make ... when the technology is new it improves rapidly, and they don't want to be selling old tech.
    Also ... sic? Are you passive-aggressively calling somebody out for their grammatical usage? On a forum? Seriously? Are you going to call me out for using an improper conjugation of 'passive-aggressive'?
     
  59. That would just turn it into an ISO button. If ISO is the only automatic exposure setting enabled, then ISO is all that the EV control could change.​
    As Ilkka says, it's completely reasonable to set shutter and aperture manually and then let the camera adjust ISO according to ambient conditions, but with exposure compensation to compensate for times when the meter is pointing at something you don't want mid-grey (or you want to tweak the matrix). It's how I use my D700 and D800 all the time. With the D800, I usually ride the controls to try to bring the ISO back down to 100, but that's to get dynamic range - and I know that I can stop at any point and get a usable shot (unless I've overexposed); the zoomable minimum shutter speed on auto-ISO on the D800 might mean I could consider that route as an alternative. The D700 can't do that, and doesn't suffer appreciably with small changes in ISO (the dynamic range benefit of the D800 at low ISOs isn't so much true of the D700), so I spent most of my time in manual mode with auto-ISO. If you really can't do exposure compensation + manual + auto-ISO on a D5100, I'm glad I never owned one (and I'll think carefully about my idea of a D5200 as a pixel density complement to my D800 if it has the same problem).
    So then you really just want an ISO button. I think the Fn button can be assigned to do that :)
    It's not the same as the ISO button. Even so, if Fn can be mapped to ISO on the low-end cameras, I'm even crosser that Nikon haven't followed the request I put in shortly after getting my D700, and allowed Fn (or the other programmable buttons) on the D800 to duplicate ISO. Yes, there's a dedicated ISO button, but not anywhere I can reach it when holding a big lens with my left hand... (I'd be fully manual far more if I had access to all three exposure controls right-handed, though it's nice that the camera can do fast lighting adjustments.)
     
  60. Andrew, I'm genuinely confused by your post, particularly the first part. If ISO is the only automatic setting, then that's the only setting that EV could change, I thought. Granted it COULD boost the meter so that you're overexposing when it's set flat ... but since you'd still need to manually control your shutter/aperture if THOSE were the settings that you want changed, wouldn't it make more sense to just set your exposure so that the meter reads +1 or whatever?
    If you still have auto ISO on, it would probably drop it to compensate. But with it on, and using the EV button, you're required to (potentially) make 2-3 adjustments, where only 1 would be necessary otherwise.
     
  61. If you want to set the shutter speed to control sharpness or blur due to movement, aperture to set the depth of field, automatic exposure (via the auto-ISO feature) to automatically react to changes in light levels, yet you may want to control the brightness of the image relative to mid gray by using exposure compensation. I think what is proposed is perfectly reasonable,​
    Exactly, thanks, Ilkka. I ran into problem when I used the D5100 to photograph a black lens for sale and found that I need to underexpose it to make it black enough. I guess I could have switched to manual ISO or AE-locked on another subject ... With all the buttons on the D5100, why did Nikon choose the +/- to operate the aperture in the M mode?
     
  62. I ran into problem when I used the D5100 to photograph a black lens for sale and found that I need to underexpose it to make it black enough.​
    Why do you need to have a certain ss for this? Couldn't you have changed the ss? Or maybe the ISO, or aperture? And guys, I suppose one could dream up a reason in theory, like I'm sure CC needed to be on M mode and auto ISO, on a lens sale photo no less. Yeah, I'm the obtuse one here...
     
  63. Why do you need to have a certain ss for this?​
    I thought this question has already been eloquently answered. If that was not sufficient, I could help you out more:
    You must be thinking that lens does not move so there is no need to freeze movement with a higher ss. You are correct. However, you need to consider ss based on the focal length of the lens to prevent camera shake. Since I took the picture when the light levels were low, and I needed enough DOF so the whole lens is in focus, I would like to use just enough ss to keep the ISO as low as possible to reduce noise.
    Lesile, do I have to do this for a sale on eBay? Of course not. But the point is that on other higher end Nikon cameras, e.g., the D90, one can set auto-ISO in M-mode and still have the option for exposure compensation. There is a reason why Nikon considers this a great feature for people who need greater control of their cameras. If you go to a m4/3 forum, you will find Nikon shooters complain about the lack of such feature in Panasonic GH cameras. Since that is how I usually set up my camera, e.g., the D90, I naturally did the same to the D5100 as a habit, to see if D5100 handles like the D90. Keep in mind that I was looking for a D90 replacement.
     
  64. Duplicate post
     
  65. With all the buttons on the D5100, why did Nikon choose the +/- to operate the aperture in the M mode?​
    All (?) Nikon DSLRs with one dial use this........! My D50 and D3200 are the same as my D5100.

    I gotta say, using Manual to shoot a Black lens for use on line, seems kinda Masochistic :)

    Set the Aperture you want, and the Shutter Speed suitable to avoid camera shake for your given focal length and increase/decrease the ISO using the mapped fn button until you get the histogram you want. No need for compensation.
     
  66. If you are so worry about DOF (or handshake) of a lens sale photo, why not add lighting or find a more stable form of support? If you are so concern with IQ, why are you on auto ISO? Your reasoning maybe workable in theory but they are nothing short of ludicrous in practicality. And if you are shooting a lens sale ad, why not use a p&s? P&S has better macro capability (dof issue) and VR (for camera shake).
    And, of course, none were available at the time, right? Have a good day. No need to argue/explain more...
     
  67. I just use a bounced flash. It's not like the photo is there to impress anybody.
     
  68. bmm

    bmm

    Coming back to the main topic I suspect that the issue is a marketing / consumer preference one far more than a technical or product design one.
    What is interesting is that those companies not so wedded to DSLR (especially APS-C) are forging ahead with mirrorless systems that are either already strong and diverse (m4/3) or getting there very fast (NEX for example). By comparison both Nikon and Canon are positively timid in this space, and seem to be ending up in no-mans land for fear of cannibalising their main DSLR offering.
    What this suggests to me is that the data shows more strongly than anticipated that people are directly substituting mirrorless for DX rather than adding mirrorless as their second cameras. And/or even when they have one of each, the mirrorless becomes the primary camera in practise which means slower/less investment in model upgrades on the DSLR side. I might be biased as I have recently done exactly that (D7000 to OMD). But I sense that the threat felt by the big DSLR makers from mirrorless is more than we perceive.
    My predicted end point is that there will be consolidation around 2-3 mirrorless formats. Micro 4/3 is obviously one. I'm guessing NEX APS-C E-mount is the other, and indeed think that if either Nikon or Canon were to properly JV with Sony in this space it would be quite a formidable alliance with the potential to quickly develop a top system of bodies and glass. The only puzzling fact that cuts across this view is Sony's own recent investment in Olympus, and what that might mean in this product segment.
     
  69. If you are so worry about DOF (or handshake) of a lens sale photo​
    Lesile, please lighten up. I was not SOOOO worry about DOF, and it would be silly to assume so. BTW, you are the one asking me first, twice, and you have taken the circumstance in which I found out the difference between D5100 and D90 way out of context. My first post was about whether D5200 and D5100 have the same features in two areas, which are relevant to this post. Your questions were off-topic and personal in tone.
     
  70. Oops, sorry, away from the computer.

    Zack: My starting position is a shutter speed fast enough to avoid blur (according to whether I'm stable,
    the subject is moving and zoom length) and the aperture I want (either to lose the background, get the
    required DoF or optimise lens performance). In auto ISO the camera ensures that the exposure is right by
    adjusting the ISO to match the metre, which may fluctuate for a moving subject. If I expect (or notice, in a
    sequence) that the meter isn't treating the subject as I want, I tweak exposure compensation, but it'll still
    adjust automatically to the subject moving in and out of light. For example, I may tweak the meter for skin
    tone, but still want the camera to cope with the subject turning towards or away from the light or stepping
    into shade.

    On the D800, if I have a static subject, I tend to tweak shutter and aperture to reduce the ISO if reasonable,
    often riding the limit of the other creative controls. On a D700, except where I bump into minimum ISO at
    the selected aperture (rare, indoors), I more typically leave the camera to pick the ISO it needs and don't
    tweak.

    The philosophy is that I set aperture according to composition and lens behaviour, shutter speed
    according to conditions and subject motion and exposure compensation according to the subject. Often
    more than one of these is static for multiple shots. I still want the meter to deal with the way light falls at
    the exact moment I press the shutter - something I don't get by adjusting ISO manually.

    Of course, the fact that adjusting ISO manually is an ergonomic nightmare on either of these cameras (the
    D700 doesn't have quick ISO, but it doesn't work in manual mode anyway) means I can't really compare
    my approach to doing everything manually. I suspect I'd still prefer it. I might try some variant of quick
    ISO, program shift and exposure compensation some time, which is probably as close as I could get to
    one-handed full manual, but it's not quite the same.

    Inability to do exposure compensation in manual mode sounds like a disaster to my way of shooting. But
    the only one-dial camera I've used was my Eos 300D, and it didn't have (proper) auto ISO.
     
  71. I'm in the same boat with folks not seeing the need for exposure compensation in conjunction with manual exposure mode, even when using auto ISO. Sure, it might be convenient. But when I'm in all-manual mode it's almost solely when I have plenty of time to make adjustments anyway, including a fixed ISO setting. If I need to compensate I can just tweak the shutter speed or aperture 1/3 or so EV.
    But I mostly use Nikon's flexible program mode for everything. It works well for most situations and still gives me access to exposure comp. I just wish Nikon would update the V1 firmware again because version 1.20 didn't quite fix the problem with auto exposure tending to default to slower shutter speeds.
     
  72. Lex: manual + auto ISO means I can "program shift" aperture against ISO or shutter against ISO, which means I can adjust either during
    composition without changing mode. Other modes have their uses too, of course (outdoors, where I hit minimum ISO and I just need "fast
    enough" shutter speed, auto ISO with a minimum shutter in aperture priority is useful, for example) - I'm just saying that, without exposure
    compensation and auto ISO in manual, I'd have to shoot differently, and probably have worse control in many circumstances.

    Of course, the other route is a lens with an aperture ring, but that doesn't work on a D5200 either. I envy Pentax the slightly more logical "ISO
    priority", though I seem to remember them getting rid of it. At least the 1 series have two "dials", even if one is a rocker switch.
     
  73. I'm in the same boat with folks not seeing the need for exposure compensation in conjunction with manual exposure mode, even when using auto ISO.​
    Heh!
    Lex, I'm a Canon user now, but back in my Nikon days (D70, D200) full Auto ISO - the ability to whack it into Manual, define my shutter speed, ISO limit, aperture, let the camera manage all of those, and have the ability to adjust EC - was a wonderful thing.
    (I know "Manual and yet the camera is doing most of the work" seems counter-intuitive, but that's just how it works).
    Imagine you're shooting a tiny, hyperactive bird like a Kinglet (on my side of the Atlantic, a Goldcrest): you need fast shutter speeds, and the camera can ride around ISOs to maintain the chosen shutter speed much, much faster than can the photographer; but when the bird flits from deep shadow to well-lit (or backlit), being able to tweak ISO while the camera does the rest, is vital.
    It is in fact the only thing I miss about my Nikons, and a feature I am utterly baffled by Canon's apparent inability to understand the importance of - my 7D has Auto ISO but no EC adjustment (in Manual) and it's useless for the kind of shooting I refer to above.
    I hope to Hell that Magic Lantern builds this into their 7D firmware sooner rather than later - as it is (and a Google on the subject of 7D, Auto ISO and EC will confirm that a lot of people feel the same way), Auto ISO without EC, is a hopelessly half-arsed implementation.
    Now you might still think "I don't see the problem", but take it from me, it's unquestionably real.
     
  74. Keith - wow, suddenly I've another reason I'm glad I switched to the dark (lens) side. :)
     
  75. This is a very good explanation of its benefit as it applies to my kind of subject matter:
    http://www.robertotoole.com/2011/12/30/auto-iso-the-third-auto-mode/
    Enabling auto ISO in manual mode will allow you to use the exact settings you require and at the same time the camera will compensate instantly for any changes in light so you can concentrate on other important things like autofocus, timing, and composition. Some cameras (Nikon D300S, D700, D3S, and D3S) even allow you to fine tune the results with exposure compensation in manual mode with auto ISO enabled.
    It's all about letting the camera react more quickly to changing light than we can.
    Robert goes on to say (with my emphasis!):
    Unfortunately at this time no Canon camera will allow you to use exposure compensation in manual mode with auto ISO enabled.​
    He gets it!
     
  76. Urrghh...
    being able to tweak ISO while the camera does the rest, is vital.​
    Should read:
    being able to tweak EC while the camera does the rest, is vital.​
     
  77. Keith - wow, suddenly I've another reason I'm glad I switched to the dark (lens) side. :)
    Oh, I'm glad I made the change, Andrew: I think Nikon's current cameras are excellent, but man! I came to hate the D200s I had, with a vengeance!
    I use a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS lens for the most part, incidentally - that's black!
    ;0)
     
  78. Okay, you've persuaded me. If exposure comp via auto ISO works as well as Nikon's flexible program mode, I'd probably find a use for it. ;)
     
  79. Naah, I'm not to persuade anyone Lex, just to explain that it's a tool that has its place, and that I wish I still had it.
     
  80. In regards to the OP announcement. I probably won't go with CX format b/c it means starting again. If I was after CX I wouldn't want to mix larger SLR lenses with it so it means getting CX lenses and it's slowly increasing ... If I wanted something smaller and I haven't got into SLR I may consider CX (and not use DX/FX). As I have a SLR now, if I wanted something smaller, I may just pick up a fixed lens compact, APC sensor would be a bonus....
    Not that I would get it soon, but I would like a FX body the size of a Nikon N75 but that probably won't happen when we have DX and DX is a very capable camera. Bit of a bummer the really smaller ones don't work with screwdriver lenses, the last was the D50 I think. The N75 did work with them, the N55 didn't. Seems like the D300 upgrade is still on the list and given the lens upgrades in the past few years, maybe the 180mm and the fisheye and DCs.
     
  81. I have not been up to date with Nikon in the last year or two. Is there anywhere one can read something about the benefits, pros and cons, of a Nikon mirrorless lens?
     
  82. Mary, there are a few good, objective reviews on the Nikon 1 system and lenses. Shun's review last year is a good one. So are reviews by Thom Hogan, DPReview, Imaging Resource and a few others.
    So far I've used only the 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, which is remarkably good for a kit zoom. The main problems have been barrel distortion and vignetting at the wide end, both easily corrected in Adobe Lightroom 4.x. Sometimes I don't even bother with the corrections if I prefer the look of the uncorrected "flaws". Otherwise, I find the lens acceptably sharp for my needs, even wide open.
    I've read enough good reviews of the 10mm f/2.8 and 18.5mm f/1.8 that I'll probably buy one or the other since I occasionally need a faster prime. I'd rather have a 13mm or 14mm f/2 prime, which is closer to the 35mm focal length I prefer with the 24x36 35mm film format.
    But I doubt I'll invest too heavily in the Nikon 1 system. For now I regard it mostly as an excellent, very fast compact digicam that also happens to accept interchangeable lenses.
     
  83. So does this mean these mirrorless cameras do not accept older lenses? - If true, this is a "deal breaker" for me, then there is no need to research further.
    Excuse my ignorance - got to start somewhere. ;)
     
  84. The FT-1 adapter will allow using some AF and AFS Nikkors on the J1, V1 and other Nikon 1 series cameras. I haven't tried the adapter myself as it's fairly expensive and I have only three autofocus F mount Nikkors. Manual focus is rather crude on the V1 so I wouldn't be tempted to buy the adapter for use with lenses requiring manual focusing.
    The Micro 4:3 and Sony NEX mirrorless cameras are probably better suited to adapting your favorite lenses.
     
  85. Thanks Lex. Think I need to read some reviews first, perhaps beginning with Shun's review. Or I will be asking a lot of redundant questions and get everyone annoyed. LOL!
     
  86. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mary, Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras have a very small sensor, compared to 35mm film. It is called the CX format and the so called "crop factor" is 2.7, as shown in the yellow frame below. Therefore, while you can mount Nikon F mount lenses onto Nikon 1 via the FT1 adapter (FT1 stands for F-to-1), the angle of view will be drastically narrower. Moreover, only the center AF point will be functional in that set up.
    As I said earlier, the main selling point for Nikon 1 is the small sizes, especially small lenses. I am afraid that mounting Nikon F-mount lenses on them totally defeats that advantage.
    [​IMG]
     
  87. These charts never fail to fascinate me. It almost makes you wonder why anyone who can afford FF would decide not to buy one. And then you realise how much of an investment a FF setup is, in money, convenience, learning technique, sheer physicality and crucially, how seldom people need or want or even get around to printing things out at all, never mind at sizes large enough to make the sensor area really make a huge difference.
    For me Nikon have quite deliberately cut out the middle man or "ad-hoc non-professional enthusiast". Sure, some affordable FF offerings seem great, until you realise your being given the AF system from a >2 year old DX camera for your money or there are major q.c. concerns.
    Once many people actually check out the higher end MFT offerings they feel it's pretty stupid to go back to a DSLR. The IQ is more than good enough and more than offset by the speed, convenience and discretion offered in this modern format.
     
  88. Stephen: Be fair, the 5D2 and 6D have archaic autofocus systems (at least in point count - the latter has impressive low light ability), so Nikon's FF cameras, assuming you're digging at the D600 vs the D7000 (or D5200), aren't the worst offenders. The 5D3 is much better, since Canon did with the 5D3 what Nikon did with the D700 and put the autofocus system of their top end body in it.

    I agree with Shun that a 2.7x crop is pretty extreme, and I can't see much point in putting an AF-S lens on my V1; the only exception would be attaching it to my F mount adaptor for my telescope, but if I want high resolution planetary imaging the advantage over a web cam is pretty small. I do have an F adaptor for my GF2 (micro 4/3), on the basis that a 2x crop is actually quite usable on a 50mm f/1.8 or a 135mm f/2.8 (I've yet to try my 500mm), but to me that's the limit of a useful crop before dedicated lenses are more sensible. This is one reason I'm so surprised that Nikon came up with CX as their way to enter the mirrorless market; I suspect that they decided they'd waited too long and decided to "do a Pentax" (the Q being similarly cursed with a pointlessly small sensor) so as to be different. Pentax responded and produced a camera that uses their traditional lenses (unmodified, weirdly). To me, Canon took their sweet time, but did the obvious thing and made it easy to use their entire EF lens range with the new camera. I'll not be surprised if Nikon eventually decide the same, though they're obviously trying not to hit their DSLR sales. That said, I gather CX is selling in Japan; I'm just not sure why - clearly I'm not the target audience.

    My MFT (admittedly old) is no substitute for my D700, let alone my D800. However, it clearly has its place and uses. So do my V1, my Pentax 645, my F5, my compact and my camera phone - and the 5x4 I still hope to buy, There's never been one photographic tool that does it all, and it's unlikely there ever will be.

    As for an FX camera in an F75 form factor... well, the electronics will have to get smaller. Without a mechanical shutter it might be possible. I'd settle for someone making a film camera in the F75 form factor - but adding support for all the lenses tha the F5 and F6 support. Sadly, features come with build quality and weight, whether you want it or not. You'd think someone could knock out a plastic clone of the F6 by now...
     
  89. I think I am being fair. The AF system of the D600 is a killer for me. This is in fact emblematic of Nikon's recent patronising attitude. There is no doubt they can make great cameras when they choose to. But what they choose to do is give with one hand and take with the other, ignoring both q.c. concerns and the leading edge of the industry (MFT). The 5D3 seems great, no doubt, as does the D800 (if they'd only make it properly). But neither the 6D nor D600 cut it- they're like a BMW 520i. The key difference for me when handling a good higher end MFT is AF and processing characteristics. So, pardon me, but spending 16,000 RMB on a camera which demands that every shot I take is focussed on a rather small area of the centre of the screen is just pants.
     
  90. Shun, thanks for the explanatory diagram. I also read your review of the Nikon N1V2. It's a sweet camera, especially remarkable is the high continuous frame rate. Hwvr, for a small camera, I am quite happy with my Canon G11 at this time - sorry Nikon! ;)
     
  91. Stephen: So, when people have been asking for ages for the cheapest possible full-frame camera, I've argued that it seems unlikely that someone who's paying $1000 for the sensor is going to be happy with the rest of the camera being crippled with low-end components, which is why the 5D2 and D700 had pretty high-end specs in addition to the big sensor. You're complaining that the D600 - differentiated from the D800 by only having Nikon's second best autofocus system - is too crippled? You've really confirmed my suspicions. :) I'd actually say the D600 is more like an M3 (big engine, small body), and they seem to sell well enough. The autofocus area on the D800 isn't that much better, but that's a physics thing for FX flange distances - the 5D3 has the same problem, though it admittedly spreads out its above-average focus points more than the Nikon design.

    To my mind, the 6D is - wifi aside - far more crippled than the D600. It's a tweaked 5D2, where the D600 is a cross between a D7000 and a D3x. One could argue it has ergonomic advantages if you happen to prefer the design, admittedly. If we're worried about the D600, heaven help us if Nikon listen to everyone who wants a small, light, cheap FX camera, and actually puts a D700 sensor in something with a pentamirror. I'll happily let anyone who complains about the D600's autofocus play with my F5 for a bit.

    Bar a couple of handling differences which some might prefer, the D800 is the no-compromise alternative to the D600 - where it loses out, it doesn't lose out by much, and sometimes it wins more significantly. If the two weren't differentiated in this way, it would be hard for Nikon to maintain two product lines. Buying a D600 and complaining it's not a D800 is like complaining that the D3200 isn't a D5200. Go figure.
     
  92. I freely admit that I may be fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the beast. I have never owned a Full Frame body. In fact I would be willing to bet it is difficult to appreciate the full benefits of such a large sensor without spending some time with one. Thing is, I am the buyer for which the D600 has been brought out- able and willing to both afford and get to know an affordable FX body.
    Maybe a few years ago. I am now far more likely to buy something from Fuji. In fact, anything other than a totally kick ass D400 (NOT a D7200) in the next 6-9 months will result in my ditching Nikon permanently.
    This might show me up as naieve, ill-informed or even mean-spirited.
    But it's my money and this is my opinion in this matter & I am by no means the only person making this choice
     
  93. Andrew, I particularly like your last point. Sadly...:)
    I have a D3200 and like the images I get from it, in a kinda walkabout-camera-style, but always wanted to be able to tether it for Hi-Res macro and slide scanning/copying. 12Bit RAW didn't help either. Nikon wouldn't play ball with Camera Control Pro, so when I saw a D5100 at a very, very good price, I got one. Love it too. Like the folding screen for overhead 'paparazzi' social shots and arty 'interesting' angle shots. Live-View focusing and tethering weren't so great. Res wasn't bad, but not quite up to the D3200. Then they bought out the D5200, which appears to be the best of both worlds. Same res, but a different chip as my D3200. I haven't seen any side by side sensor comparisons yet, I suspect due to the internationally staggered release dates.
    The only 'complaint', well comment really to call it that, is the well known thought that there is never a good time to buy a new camera as it will be deemed obsolete next month. The important thing is to use the camera you have now. The D5200 is supposed to have much better LV focusing, but I think I can wait for the D5400 before I need to upgrade......probably!
     

Share This Page