The Mirrorless Nikon Arrives

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by scott_ferris, Sep 20, 2011.

  1. So now the worst kept secret for a long time is here, who is interested enough to buy one? Is it what you had wanted or hoped for?
    The Nikon page.
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Attached is Nikon USA's press release.
     
  3. Bodies, Lenses, and Why 2.7x crop sensor. Now we'll wait for some hands-on reviews and actual image quality evaluations. Not sold on the V1 exterior design, particularly for a, "Ground up."
     
  4. Hmmm. They've obviously put a lot of work into this, and the new AF strategy is interesting. But I'm just not sure I could actually use a camera with those ergonomics. Will be really interesting to see some field tests and comments from the hands-on folks.
     
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  6. I too would like to see some demo of how to use the interface. It seems like you have too FEW options. If you have all the interchangeable lens, there must be more than a point and click set of controls.
     
  7. ...and at $649, it better be more than that.
     
  8. It seems that the new AP_C format sensor (like 2.7 crop factor?), is even smaller than the 4/3 cameras, yet provides ISO-3200 as standard. Even though perhaps it is not geared for PRO photographers, but rather for the "uncle Bob". It is expensive for the pocket size camera.
    As alway the truth is in the pudding... let's wait and see the real life usage and picture quality.
    It is good to have some variations.
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The new sensor format is called CX, verses FX and DX. It is 13.2x8.8mm with a 2.7x "crop factor."
     
  10. First impression - disappointingly ugly...
     
  11. oh man... Finally some Nikon news and I must agree those cameras look horrible. I sure hope that the real things are much better looking than those photos show.
    I just noticed also that the sensors are so much smaller than the competition... how disappointing. I've been considering the Sony NEX series with an F mount adapter, but had been waiting to see what Nikon would be releasing.. Now that I know, the Sony NEX is starting to look much more appealing.
    I'm interested to know what market are these cameras targeted towards?
     
  12. Well, they may look horrible to you, but you are not their intended audience. It's the P&S upgrader crowd they are after and the P&S crowd will likely thing they look just fine.
    The V1 looks fine from the front to me, but the back is missing buttons and dials . . . .
    What's the next version of the camera going to be named? V2? J2? What do V and J stand for?
     
  13. I am obliged to examine the small 1-Series Nikons, but I'll also be looking at the NEX-7. The Nikons do look stupid.
     
  14. The Nikons do look stupid.​
    Hehehehee;)
     
  15. Why the tiny sensor? And the design is no better than my rather nondescript Samsung NX-100 that has an APS-C sensor. I guess bodies will progress from here and it's nice to know my old Nikkor lenses will retain their value but a 2.7x factor is not very flexible. We'll see how it shakes out in reviews and I'll check them out at PhotoPlus next month but I don't feel compelled to run out an pre order one.
    I'm still hoping for the next iteration of the Fuji X100 with interchangeable lenses.
     
  16. Hummm, niche market for bird-photographers?.. Your 500mm f4 AF-S VR gains the 'reach' of a 1350mm f4!
    Makes 'small bird' shooting a possibility! Especially if the new AF is worthy...
    I personally don't really care if it looks UGLY, it's a camera not a fashion accessory...right? ;-)
     
  17. I think they look... like normal compact cameras. What's all the fuzz about how they look anyway? I never considered my DSLRs pretty, but they work excellently for taking photos.
    As far as can be judged from the pictures, at least the lenses are small. A NEX might be nice small, but put anything else on it but the pancake prime, and it looks like a huge lens with a small blob at the end of it. From sales it's clear not everybody agrees with me, but I think Sony got that part all wrong. Having only a small body and no small lenses to me seems to give no advantage over a DSLR, only disadvantages.
    Let's wait for tests and to see them in stores, but if lenses are small and image quality and AF performance clearly better than compacts, then Nikon might have got it quite right.
     
  18. Agree, let`s wait to see their performance. It they work, if there is any improvement over current standards, why to repudiate them?
    I hate small P&S digital cameras up to date. I wish the new system will be a real improvement over them. If so, great for all. If not, I`ll simply get stucked to the bigger DX/FX models, as usual.
     
  19. Nice Format for unnoticed street photography.
    Fast, realy Fast AF, 60fps filming, does not sound bad at all.
    When the APS-C sensor first was introduced, everybody was also saying : Why such a small sensor, its now a widely acepted format, so lets just wait and see what it is capable of, i'd say..
    A link to the My Nikon Lifefor these cams : http://mynikonlife.com.au/gear/nikon-1
     
  20. I didn't think I was going to give this camera even a passing glance . . .
    But, I think the Nikon V1 is a beautiful piece of industrial design. From the front, it has a no-nonsense, simplicity about it. Surprisingly, I kind of like its product concept as well. Plus, I think they've done a great job with the branding. And, when you describe its 2.7x crop sensor as a, "one-inch sensor," it doesn't sound nearly as bad (especially, considering that our $70,000 broadcast cameras at work only have 2/3" sensors).
    Would I like it more if it had a DX-sized sensor? Hell yeah! But, since I'm not gonna pop for what I really want (a Fuji X100), and am very close to just saying the heck with it, and buying a Sony NEX-C3, with its "full-sized" APS-C sensor, I'm actually looking at this new Nikon mirrorless thing, and thinking . . . "hmmm."
    Perhaps, if Nikon were to introduce a couple of fast primes (e.g., 12mm f/2.0), this could get interesting. Otherwise, I may just wander back to consumer-land and buy that Sony NEX instead.
     
  21. Of course, it doesn't appear they're even offering how I'd want to buy the product:
    Nikon V1 CX-format body + 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 [27mm-equivalent]
    So, then I'm back to the Sony NEX-C3:
    Sony NEX-C3 APS-C format body + 16mm f/2.8 [24mm-equivalent]
     
  22. Hmm. The primary benefit of a small sensor (other than cost, and given the price for this system I'm dubious that this was the main concern) is to get small lenses. Well, they're smallish, you might just get the pancake in a coat pocket more easily than the micro 4/3 equivalent, but on initial impressions I'm a bit dubious about the portability of the other lenses. Compacts with big lenses often fold down a lot, and that's a trick that the interchangable lens systems don't seem to have (the Olympus folding zoom only shrinks a bit). As for the F adaptor, a crop factor this great is, I think, pushing things too far.

    My worry is that they've priced it above the enthusiast compacts, but it doesn't have the controls that the enthusiast compacts have. One thin command dial and a magnification jog isn't up there with the proper dials of the P7100, G12 and S100, let alone the NEX-7. Unless they've "done a Samsung" and let you use the lens as a control dial, I can't see it appealing to people who want to spend this kind of money on a camera. I can't understand the fixation with physical shooting mode dials - my D700 does quite nicely with two dials and a mode button, and the same arrangement would make a big difference to my interest in one of the new cameras. I actually don't hate the looks, and I suspect the lack of controls is partly to improve the appearance.

    10MP is brave as well. They'd need it to get decent low-light performance with a sensor that size, but with the new Olympus systems being criticised for sticking to 12MP and the S100 gaining a couple of megapixels, it might be a hard sell. (Admittedly it's rare that I run into the 12MP limit on my D700, but it happens.)

    That leaves the autofocus system. Which is interesting - I remember hearing about the technology a while back - and the increased DoF from the small sensor may help it; otherwise I'll believe it keeps up with a 70-200 f/2.8 in low light conditions when I see it. (Some micro 4/3 systems claim "world's fastest autofocus" as well, and it turns out that this means "world's fastest in good light so long as you've left it in full-time autofocus mode".)

    Despite all that, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I see full reviews. Nikon obviously had to aim for a niche, but my feeling is they needed to be cheaper, more flexible, more portable or more capable. But I'd like to be wrong.

    And "motion snapshot"? With music? Really?
     
  23. They look ugly??
    Why? They don't go with your design jeans??
     
  24. I like the PEN design so much better. Bigger sensor, and very important... manual focus ON THE LENS. As far as I can see, there is no manual focus on the lens with the Nikon.
    And since you can get an adaptor to use your Nikkors on the m43 stuff... there is no "brand advantage" anyway.
    But I'll try and reserve judgment for a review. I'm very much interested, maybe, in a camera like this, but I don't think at that price point.
     
  25. you can get an adaptor to use your Nikkors on the m43 stuff... there is no "brand advantage" anyway.
    Well if you want to use a third party "G" adapter the aperture control is not very precise. It's more like wide open - f/5.6 - f/22 ;-) If I may make a slight exaggeration. I suspect the Nikon version may work better. Also, at least Olympus makes an adapter which supports autofocus with Four Thirds lenses on MFT cameras; Nikon's adapter may also support AF with AF-S Nikkors. This you cannot get on MFT or NEX (using Nikkors that is).
    The built-in electronic viewfinder is definitely a plus. The MFT versions are clumsy accessories that reduce the pocketability of the camera considerably. What MFT has is a broader lens lineup with fast primes ... and of course a slightly larger sensor. But the Nikon zooms seem a bit smaller (as they should be, with 2.7x crop) and this is a good thing for most users of this kind of a camera. With MFT and NEX the zooms are quite large compared to the camera size.
     
  26. bms

    bms

    I must say I am intrigued but a bit cautious. When Pentax came out with the Q, I thought WT.... no manual A/M/S mode selection wheely thingy, c'mon!
    Let's see.... But I think they look pretty neat at least
     
  27. Why the tiny sensor? And the design is no better than my rather nondescript Samsung NX-100 that has an APS-C sensor. I guess bodies will progress from here and it's nice to know my old Nikkor lenses will retain their value but a 2.7x factor is not very flexible.
    The 1 camera lineup will have no effect on the value of DX and FX Nikkors basically since the sensor is so small they serve different purposes. And I don't think it makes much sense to use the adapter considering the difference in sensor size. Unless the autofocus works really well (better than that of DX DSLRs).
     
  28. I said:
    So, then I'm back to the Sony NEX-C3:​
    I mean the NEX-5N. Hard to keep up with everyone's current models!
     
  29. The video looks very intriguing on this one, though... I admit.
    I need to see a real review, but I still think that, for still photos, the PEN is hard to beat, especially for the price.
     
  30. Yes, it may have out-priced its market. Its sensor is too small. No manual focus on the lens barrel . . . hmmm. But a truly pocketable street camera? Yeah, I kinda want one. But how can I? An APS-C Sony NEX at ISO 800 has got to look a lot better than the Nikon V1 at ISO 800, right?
     
  31. I like Sony's effort on this more than Nikon's. The 2.7x crop sensor (even though I still need to see some reviews and sample images) is a bit disappointing. I was looking at Sony's NEX system last night. The NEX system looks very good on paper; it has with a 1.5x crop sensor that keeps photography intuitive for those of us that are DX users. And there are a wide range of lens options from a very fast prime to a wide angle to a telephoto.
    I'd like to have a mirror-less camera as a walk-around when traveling in large foreign cities and couple it with an 18-55 and a fast 50 (both of which are in the Sony lineup). I'd travel with my D90 with the 10-24 attached also, but for the UWA stuff only. It would also be good to have one of these cameras for small social gatherings with friends (dSLRs still scare people).
    I'll probably end up getting a Sony now that I see what Nikon has presented.
     
  32. Other day I was in a camera store chatting with the salesman there about video offered by these DSLRs D7000 and what he said that Nikon and Canon - both have issue with focusing during video shoot and suggested Sony a55 is better - it has something transperant mirror - May be this is Nikon's resolution to that issue which means video from this cameras could be better. Perhaps, they might introduce more cameras with this technology ..
     
  33. So?? Nikon didn't announce the replacement of the now outdated and useless FX models?
    Many people must be upset about that..... :)
     
  34. No manual focus on the lens barrel . . . hmmm.​
    It's a little hard to say, but I think there is - although there's only one ring on the zoom, there's a ring on the pancake prime as well. There is, however, a zoom rocker on the back of the camera; I suspect either you have to use this for zooming, or the ring on the lens can be dual-purposed. Some of the lenses seem to have an integrated slider that looks like a motorized zoom control; the kit zoom seems to have a button that I guess might be a clutch to toggle between zoom and manual focus. Unless it's a fully-configurable control like Samsung's, but it didn't look like all the lenses have a similar button.
     
  35. Kenneth said:
    I'd like to have a mirror-less camera as a walk-around when traveling in large foreign cities and couple it with an 18-55 and a fast 50 (both of which are in the Sony lineup) . . .​
    I didn't realize Sony made an E-mount 50mm f/1.8. I think you just sold me on a Sony NEX-5N + 16mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.8 [oh, I see I have to wait until Christmas for the 50mm!] Oh well, now I know what to tell everyone I want for Xmas!
     
  36. But, boy do I hate cameras without viewfinders! Dang it! Fuji X100. That's what I really want.
     
  37. C sensor? I must be missing something here? If my math is right, a 24mm lens has the angle of view of a 65mm lens? And a 50mm lens, shoots like a 135mm? This seems absurd? My favorite lenses on a FX sensor are the 24mm & 35mm, equaling a 9mm & 13mm respectively on a CX.
     
  38. I said:
    But, boy do I hate cameras without viewfinders!​
    Aha! An OLED EVF for the Sony NEX-5N: http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=FDAEV1S
     
  39. And, when you describe its 2.7x crop sensor as a, "one-inch sensor," it doesn't sound nearly as bad​
    Surely a 2.7 x crop sensor would be 13.3mm x 8.9mm. Hardly one inch.
     
  40. Steve said:
    Surely a 2.7 x crop sensor would be 13.3mm x 8.9mm. Hardly one inch.​
    Yes, clearly, I'm incorrect (even if measured diagonally). I don't know where I read that "one-inch" thing.
     
  41. Correction, the "button" I saw is to do with the zoom collapse mechanism. I need to read the brochure in more detail.
     
  42. I didn't realize Sony made an E-mount 50mm f/1.8. I think you just sold me on a Sony NEX-5N + 16mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.8 [oh, I see I have to wait until Christmas for the 50mm!] Oh well, now I know what to tell everyone I want for Xmas!​
    Yup, there is a 50 f/1.8 for NEX coming out. Check it out...
    http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666375271
    I would put this on an NEX-5, throw an 18-55 in the pocket and call it a day for traveling. The 16 f/2.8 looks good and there is a UWA adapter that goes with it that gets to 12mm at a full-frame equivalent, but I'd just carry a dSLR and a 10-24 for the UWA stuff...I heard that UWA NEX adapter is not great, and there is no zoom. I want to see what the IQ is like. If it's good, I might put my 16-85 on the market to subsidize this purchase.
     
  43. "So?? Nikon didn't announce the replacement of the now outdated and useless FX models? Many people must be upset about that..... :)"
    Troll
     
  44. It's interesting, and in the right direction (smaller). Perhaps it is telling us something about the future of sensors as well. The days of large, conventional DSLRs, and huge weighty backpacks full of gear are numbered. There will be a proliferation of designs in this shift, and am glad Nikon has jumped in. I wish them the best of luck, as this is a critical step. Buy one? It's way too early to say. Looking forward to seeing the tests.
     
  45. Ugly? Looks pretty perfect to me. Minimalist design, no extraneous nubs or buttons. Kind of like a Leica actually...
    And have you guys even read the specs? 60fps 10mpix stills! 1200 fps video?! Of course there are limitations, but I would say that opens up some real creative possibilities. I think I could even press this into use for sports photography as my third body for close end-zone shooting. And putting this on my 400 f/2.8, even if focus was completely manual, would open up some amazing opportunities, especially with the slow-motion video. I can't wait to see some actual test results.
    (And yes of course I would have preferred to see a D4 announced. Oh well.)
     
  46. Nikon 1 is not for me. There is probably a group out there that will like it,
    those with P and Shoots who want to change lenses.
    I was hoping for a Fuji X100 type camera with interchangeable lenses, full frame sensor,
    excellent ergonomics, excellent auto-focus. I think the days of the mirror box are now
    numbered. It won't go away quickly, but it will go away; we don't need it anymore.
    The future holds smaller, lighter cameras than the D3X with equal or better image quality that
    use our current lenses. That's what I want.
     
  47. Looking at the colors, 3 slow aperture zooms, and lack of buttons, it is pretty clear to me that Nikon is targetting the P&S upgrader not the enthusiast. I'm actually okay with that but the price is pretty high even on the cheaper model. There are already Micro 4/3 and NEX models for less money, better lens selection, and most likely better image quality. I'm not really sure how much the Nikon name will help as there is no real dominant player in the compact market.
     
  48. [[Surely a 2.7 x crop sensor would be 13.3mm x 8.9mm. Hardly one inch.]]
    [[Yes, clearly, I'm incorrect (even if measured diagonally). I don't know where I read that "one-inch" thing.]]
    It is actually called a 1"-type sensor. Just like the 1/2"-type sensor is not actually 1/2", the name has no direct relationship to the actual dimensions of the sensor.
    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm
     
  49. bms

    bms

    Yes, it may have out-priced its market. Its sensor is too small. No manual focus on the lens barrel . . . hmmm. But a truly pocketable street camera? Yeah, I kinda want one. But how can I? An APS-C Sony NEX at ISO 800 has got to look a lot better than the Nikon V1 at ISO 800, right?​
    FWIW there is a ISO 800 sample (JPG no less) on the Nikon website that looks pretty darn good.
    I am very eager to see it tested. I do not think Nikon is stupid, they probably did their homework. A completely new sensor, that could not have been cheap. I'd love a 27mm equivalent pocketable camera with good IQ - just have not seen one. Tough the lack of manual controls IS disappointing.
     
  50. I have an open mind as I think mirrors and their mechanical operation, while effective, are well behind the state of the art of the rest of digital technology.. Also after well over twenty years of owning heavy equipment I would like to get saticfactory, for me, performance out of something smaller and lighter that the three pound lenses and heavy bodies I have been humping around for all these years. Low light performance, however, is very important to me. I don't really know how these Nikons will perform in dim light. Form follows function is the elegant design criteria that appeals to me not whether a camera body is aesthetically pleasing. The camera should function well when I hold it.
     
  51. About the last thing I want to do at this point is start buying yet another format of lenses. Especially at Nikon prices. For a small camera, the D5100 seems to have a lot more going for it from my POV. For the past year, money that I would have spent on Nikon stuff has instead been going to buy historical camera gear (mostly 19th century.)
    Kent in SD
     
  52. It's just a redesigned and upgraded P&S at a higher price point. Hopefully for them the lenses will shine but at what enlargement size? I would have been much more impressed if they had actually stepped outside the box and designed a revolutionary small camera system which this is not. I wonder how the factory drop test went? Will camera repair shops even touch it? It looks really too throw away for me, and at what street price.
     
  53. I think the breakthrough aspect of this camera system is the on-sensor phase detection AF, which I had previously read about but hadn't seen implemented. I suspect they did it on a tiny-format camera first because that's where their biggest market lies -- and possibly because they'd be taking more chances implementing it on a larger sensor. Maybe a DX or FX version of this technology is in Nikon's future?
    Hey, in its current form it's not a camera I'd buy, but I can certainly understand the appeal. Also I'm very impressed with the technology. Kudos to Nikon (from a Canon shooter).
     
  54. Regarding the phase detect AF on sensor, Fuji did the same thing about a year ago. Nikon doesn't seeem to be able to make really fast contrast detect AF. From what I've read the new Olympus M4/3 cameras have fast CD-AF.
    I'll bet a dollar that Nikon has PD-AF on sensor in a future DSLR if only for video. Right now Nikon's CD-AF in Live View is pretty slow. Sony with their pellicle mirror now have fast PD-AF and live view at the same time but that means you are forced to use an EVF which can be both good and bad.
     
  55. I too am disappointed by the sensor size, but in the final analysis I will want to see high ISO images from N1 and the two new Sonys NEX-5N and NEX 7. More waiting I suppose.
    I see a couple of differences that make the Nikon 1 interesting and make me hesitate
    1. iTTL... i don't believe the NEX series has this capability.. is this right?
    2. The autofocus PD on the sensor will have to help in low light situations.. don't think NEX has this capability
    3. The ability to shoot a still while still shooting video. I tried that on the NEX 5 and could not do it...
    4. All the lens are VRII which should help in low light... enough to balance the 'potential' lower ISO performance of the Nikon 1.
    What are other differences that people see and advantages/disadvantage. I really really do not care about ugly.. goes well with my face.... but how does it feel in my hands???
    I really wanted a D700 upgrade, but also am looking to pick up a not so noticeable walk around video/picture camera. I have used the NEX-5 and loved it and have been waiting to see the Nikon response...
     
  56. I feel the same way, Nikon took so long to release these mirrorless cameras, and then they didn't even put in an APS-C sized sensor, feels like taking a few steps back plus a few more steps back. During the waiting time, i purchased a sony nex-5 as a complement to my nikon d700, and man i love the nex's. its a camera you can sneak into anywhere with an APS-C sized sensor. i love the FX sensor and ISO performance of my d700 but dang the nex ISO performance really impressed me at iso 12800. now that sony is releasing a 24mpix aps-c version of their nex lineup with iso 16000 performance... i just think how can the nikon 1's even compete?
     
  57. All the lens are VRII which should help in low light... enough to balance the 'potential' lower ISO performance of the Nikon 1.​
    Assuming a static subject, possibly. But not all the lenses are VR (the pancake doesn't appear to be), Sony have stabilised zooms, and Olympus have sensor-shift which would give you (some) stabilisation even with third party lenses - one reason the Pens are under consideration for M-mount lenses.

    That ISO 800 image is good for a small sensor. In absolute terms, it's a bit noisy, a bit soft, and a bit over-sharpened (and the bokeh is iffy). The D3s and D3x can rest easy. Perhaps I'm being unfair.
     
  58. Looks like Nikon's answer to Canon's 10MP G12 is all -- but with its own special, new interchangeable lenses (+1) and the Nikon 1 comes in five colors (including pink & red). This would be a good 2nd camera for on-the-run for DSLR owners, nothing more, nothing less.
     
  59. I for one love the look of these cameras, especially the white one. They have clean lines and a simple front. In short, they look modern.
    We should keep in mind that as Nikon said in the press release, that the C1 system represents the beginning of a new era. The technology that Nikon has put into these cameras will someday be used in their main camera systems. At the moment, they are using these cameras to further go after the P&S upgraders crowds. Clearly no one should give up your D3 for these cameras, but there are times when a big camera is either not necessary or impractical and one may consider a much lighter alternative. I am using a m4/3 camera and love its compact size. The Nikon's lenses should be even smaller. Note that some of its future lens will have collapsible zoom design and power zoom features, which are currently lacking even in the m4/3 system (although new lenses with such features have been announced). In short, with these cameras, Nikon has shown that it is taking the "mirror-less" trend seriously and moving forward.
     
  60. My gut reaction - Remember when 110 was going to replace 35mm? And how about when APS was going to replace 35mm?
    Same thing to me - it will appeal to a certain non-pro crowd - and maybe even some pro's who are tired of lugging a DSLR around in some instances - but it will not replace the DSLR.
    Dave
     
  61. This would be a good 2nd camera for on-the-run for DSLR owners, nothing more, nothing less.​
    That is exactly what I'm in the market for. However, I'm not sure this is any better of an option than the PEN series. Weight savings is small, if any. Size is comparable. I'm comparing lens weights/dimensions in a minute to see how they compare. Lens size is how I ruled out the NEX, they just weren't small enough compared to DX lenses to justify using it as my backup/travel system.
     
  62. Well, on the pancake and normal zoom, PEN wins the size contest. However, the 1 wins by an inch shorter on the tele zoom. But yeah, with that close of results, it will be hard to justify the new 1 system as the better "smaller" system when compared to M4/3.
     
  63. Zach--
    That's how I looked at it. Some DX lenses + D5100 are already pretty small. I suspect image quality from D5100 will be noticeably better too, and I don't have to start buying "special" lenses and flash for a D5100. I'm not saying the camera is a bad one, it's just looking like a bad choice for me.
    Kent in SD
     
  64. Well, looking at the samples, they appear soft, with a fair bit of shadow noise even at lower iso, and are subject to blown highlights even in moderate contrast. And all for only $900. I'll pass....
     
  65. The DX lenses for the Nikon are still considerably bigger than their M4/3 counterparts. I carry DX right now, and it is heavy and bulky. The 35mm f1.8 is huge compared to the 17mm f2.8 from Olympus. Mind you, that extra stop of light probably is part of the reason.
    The way I see it, M4/3 for travel/fun and DSLR (full or DX) and bigger for pro work and action.
    I'll wait to see the dynamic range of the V1, but I can say there is a good chance of an Oly E-P3 in my future.
     
  66. I have to say I'm intrigued with this new Nikon product line, I was on the skeptic side about Nikon introducing such thing. But then again, I never thought the iPad was going to succeed.
    There's a reason I don't make that kind of decisions.
     
  67. Should I add a Pellix to my Canon collection? Hmmmm. ;)
     
  68. So?? Nikon didn't announce the replacement of the now outdated and useless FX models? Many people must be upset about that..... :)
    I see what you did there. =)
     
  69. I notice Thom is claiming that all the grumbling about the 1-series is from people who wanted a D4/D400/D800. For what it's worth, I think that's harsh; unless Nikon implement most of the feature list I've failed to submit to them yet, I'm not in the market for replacing my D700. I just think Nikon seem to have produced a system that appears to be awfully expensive for, effectively, an E-PM1 with a few unusual features. Since I genuinely want Nikon to do well (and subsidise the D700 replacement with the proceeds to the extent that I might actually buy one), I hope it turns out to be more than that. I can't currently see a reason to recommend it to anyone. Am I being unfair? Like Emilio, I didn't expect much of the iPad, so I'm no guide to the market. I gather Nikon's share price rose before the announcement; I wonder what's happening now?
     
  70. Comparing overall size, in millimeters, including N1 10-30/3.5-5.6 lens, to the Fuji X10:
    J1V1X10
    106113117W
    617670H
    728657D
     
  71. My gut reaction - Remember when 110 was going to replace 35mm? And how about when APS was going to replace 35mm?​
    To be fair, 135 did replace (mostly) 120/220. APS might have had a shot at 135 if digital hadn't appeared - there were quite a lot of APS cameras around at the end of the 1990s. There's such a thing as "big enough", at least for consumer use. For much the same reason, I don't think the DSLR or interchangable lens camera will ever kill off the compact. Remember that 135 is, from a quality perspective, an amateur format - it was never popular for studio work, only for consumers, sports and journalism. There are those who claim 645 is amateur, and not just in my hands.
    Same thing to me - it will appeal to a certain non-pro crowd - and maybe even some pro's who are tired of lugging a DSLR around in some instances - but it will not replace the DSLR.​
    I think this is true of smaller formats in general. Is there a big enough gap between a decent compact (like the S100) and micro 4/3 or NEX for them to sell? We'll see. I really see no point in the Pentax Q; personally I suspect more control points are needed on any camera priced above an S100/P7100/G12, but I'm apparently not the target market.
     
  72. Unfortunately the combo of small sensor size and relatively slow lenses means a certain loss of creative control for photographers who want to have the option to employ shallow depth of field to isolate subjects. This camera may not suit those that love to shoot "wide open" for that look. On the other hand, increase in the area of acceptable sharpness at various apertures probably aids the system in auto-focus and that could be a real benefit when shooting video.

    The camera will be useful in the hands of family shooters that often don't think about such things. More of their subject and background will be in focus regardless of what they point it at. It'll be good for holiday landscapes and such although one of the desert landscape sample images has me wondering about that.

    It feels like a "better" small family camera that might just do a half decent job at video too, something of a cross over that you can shove in a purse or pack front pocket and cart around everywhere. And it says Nikon on it. So maybe it will sell, stealing market share from others rather than cannibalizing sales of Nikon's more profitable DSLR camera and lens range.

    Not a camera for me. I want a least an APS-C (like in the X100) sized sensor in a camera with easy access to manual controls (and manual focus unlike the X100), and, ideally, interchangeable lenses of good quality. That and a ~35mm (in 35mm equiv field of view) fast (2.0 or better) lens that gives that perspective without unduly making the package too deep. Like the X100 in fact, which I own and really enjoy and carry around full time, something I've not done since I was young and then somewhat geeky adult in the early 80's with my Contax 139 (a fairly compact SLR itself). Oh, and it *must* have a viewfinder that isn't perched atop like an afterthought.

    Sony NEX-7 and X100 so far appeal to me and little else. I think the X200 or X1000 needs to up the ante some if Fujifilm is to avoid eventually losing market share in this space to Sony who seem quite serious about the so called CEVIL format camera.
     
  73. Remember the Nikon Ti 35/28 from the end of the last century? These new things are the interchangeable lens, digital versions or those P&S cameras. Too expensive for the general population and not enough performance for the enthusiast set.
     
  74. I think the only real question is, is Nikon a strong enough company to recover from this complete marketing debacle. There are many on this forum who would have gone for this thing in an instant if it had been done right.
     
  75. Hard to really tell what they have in mind here ... I hope the intention is not to compete with the similiar-sized Sony NEX7 ... you know, the one with the 24.3mpx APS-C sensor, 10fps, tiltable LCD, EVF, in-camera HDR, etc., etc, etc. ... nope, no worry NIK, you won't be in any competition with THAT ONE at all.
     
  76. I don't really see how we can predict the future...
    These new cameras were just announced today and we don't even have samples of what they are capable of....
    Until now I wasn't interested on them but today I can see one of them in my hands in a near future. Maybe not these 1st model but a 2G.
    Good or bad. Better or worse than the competition. It doesn't matter. I think there is so much for Nikon to evolve here and that is only good for us who like photography and cameras.
    I don't really care how they look or how big the sensor is as long as they do the job.
    I already have a good selection of lenses for my DSLR's and it would be nice if they could be used with these new cameras but so far it doesn't make any sense to me except maybe for macro and tele but then again, this 1st generation seem not to have a M,A and S modes. Using my 24mm on this camera would become a short tele. Maybe my Tokina 11-16 would work....
    But yeah, I think the J1 with that 10mm seems like a sweet set and with time these system will only get better. So let's give Nikon a chance and let's not ONLY focus and what we don't like about the system but let's hope it gets better and we can enjoy it.
    Also no matter how many of us here in the forum won't buy these cameras but I think for Nikon what really counts are the millions of units they will sell over all. There is market for every one still.
     
  77. These new cameras were just announced today and we don't even have samples of what they are capable of....​
    Some night samples at all ISOs up to 3200 are viewable at imaging-resource.com.
     
  78. this 1st generation seem not to have a M,A and S modes​
    From the brochure:
    Autofocus (AF): Single AF (AF- S); continuous AF (AF-C); auto AF-S/AF -C selection (AF - A); fulltime AF (AF -F) Manual focus (MF)

    I still can't get over "motion snapshot" being a major shooting mode. I have one of the few monitors on the planet actually capable of displaying a 3840x2160 capture, and I still can't see the possible benefit. I have no intention of installing Capture NX to display it, let alone finding a way to send such a thing to anyone else. Music is of no use to me since I'm usually in an environment where making a noise is going to annoy other people. You can't print it, you can't share it. A gimmick is all very well, but of all the things to have pride of place on a mode dial... (And I note that there's no mention of the word "panorama" in the brochure, although I may have missed it in a press release.)

    Don - thanks for the link. ISO 3200 is... not magical.

    Maybe there's something about this that justifies the price. Otherwise, like (for me) the Pentax Q, you pay a lot to put a lens mount on a system; it really has to have appreciable benefits over a compact.
     
  79. Andrew.... I meant Manual exposure, Aperture priority and Speed priority
     
  80. I don't see auto-bracketing..... could be a complete killer for me.
     
  81. I wonder what it would look like with 70-200 attached... :)
     
  82. Too much for nikon to come up. After all they have come up with simi compact type. Nikon has gone for full frame
    since they couldnt cope with high iso on dx forma and here now they are going for cx

    Or may be they sensor manufacturer Sony don't want nikon to compete with them for their nex cams

    I thing nikon has to end to be under the mercy of Sony for the sensor
     
  83. Oops - sorry Rene', my failure to read carefully enough (distracted by previous talk of no manual focus rings).

    Again from the brochure, "Programmed auto with flexible program; shutter priority auto; aperture-priority auto; manual; scene auto selector". I think you're safe, although I'm not sure how quickly you can access it (not that I toggle between modes all that often). I keep vaguely hoping that these cameras are going to have a touchscreen to compensate for the lack of apparent external controls...
     
  84. It does have manual, aperture priority, and shutter priority exposure modes, if dpreview's information is correct.
     
  85. By initial review, I am very disappointed. I can see that Leica, Fuji, etc are laughing on Nikon latest toys. It appears that Nikon is primarily targeting consumer market.
     
  86. eeeow! what gives? while many wait for some real announcements, all we get are an updated point and shoot and now this?
     
  87. Why would one purchase one of these cameras over nikon p7100?
     
  88. Thinking about this a little bit more, it's possible that Sony (which supplies Nikon with sensors for many of its dSLRs) has an agreement with Nikon that it can only use Sony sensors in its traditional dSLR line. Certainly not out of the realm of possibility for technology companies to have these types of agreements. This could be why Nikon went with this out-of-the-blue small sensor. This aspect of the new line seems to be primary pain-point of many of the posters here today (I know it is for me). I find it hard to believe that Nikon would want to introduce a mirror-less camera with smaller sensors than its current crop sensor dSLR line, especially when Olympus and Sony have not done that.
     
  89. AF is faster than any DSLR on the market, Nikon says.
     
  90. bms

    bms

    It appears that Nikon is primarily targeting consumer market​
    This where the bulk of customers are. WE here are just a bunch of whiny enthusiasts and pros, making up a small minority. Of course we want to Full frame EVIL, F-mount compatible, NEX size with a few f1.4 primes..... ain't gonna happen anytime soon....
    Of course although we are all bitching that this a non-event, it is still the busiest thread on PNET :)
     
  91. silly crop factor, extremely slow lenses, it seems as though this is a huge way off of an Olymus EP-1.....pointless really.
     
  92. The sample photos on the Nikon USA site look like crap. Iso 400 sample of Tom Brady in the museum has as much noise as my D300s at 1600. The beach scene at ISO 100 looks no better than images from a compact in terms of acuity, resolution. I am a very open minded person about new things so I was considering this as a potential video solution, maybe even a magnifier for my telephoto stuff given the claimed AF speed. Looking at those samples is very disappointing.
     
  93. This is a great day for Sony, Panasonic & Olympus.
     
  94. Earlier this year I rented a NEX-5 to better understand, in my own hands, the capability. I was highly dubious that its performance could be anywhere nearly as good as my D700, but the question was it good enough as a walk around camera.
    My first test was to compare my D700 vs the NEX-5 and up to an ISO of 800, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference. If you want to take the test, stop by my website blog and take the test. (http://www.e2photo.net/e2Photography,_LLC/Blog/Entries/2011/1/20_Nex-5_Camera.html)
    From this experience, I have learned not to make judgements based on my preconceived notions. At the right time, I will rent both the NEX-7 and the Nikon 1 and make my own comparisons of performance. Although I don't know the results of that experiment, my belief is I will be surprised by the results.
    Another way to think about all this is what does this mean to the next FX Nikon camera. Put all of the video and autofocus capability in a FX, and I would guess all of you would be drooling! In the race of the tortoise and the hare, the tortoise takes their fair share of wins.
     
  95. Steven the beauty of these mirrorless cameras is that you can mount, with an adaptor, better lenses than you can add to your D700. Nikon has made an error, IMHO, not adopting the M4/3rds mount and the sensor standard.
     
  96. I'm disappointed.

    Sensor is 31% the size of the Fuji X100.

    92% of the weight (if you include the Nikon pancake lens)

    110% of the volume (including the pancake lens)

    Seems like weight and volume are similar, and the sensor is way smaller.

    I must not be the target demographic.


    Eric
     
  97. For me, I will wait until I see actual images that I have taken to make my decision. I will purchase one of these creatures before the end of the year, because I want a small walk around camera that takes great pictures but also gives me video. And I don't want the mass of a D3 or D700. Don't misunderstand me. I have a second D700 on order (tired of waiting) and will purchase two of the next gen D700 as well.
    Who knows... I may shoot a wedding with a mirrorless camera just to demonstrate the wonderful advantages of their capability!! lol...
    Like the rest of you I am dubious about Nikon 1, but I am patient and will wait for real world experience.
     
  98. They will sell very well in Japan. The colors, the Nikon brand ,
    the movie modes, Right in the Japanese sweet spot
     
  99. I would add that my Vixia HF S100 sensor is only 8.6 megapixels or a 1/2.6" sensor which is smaller than the Nikon 1 sensor.
     
  100. I want a small walk around camera that takes great pictures but also gives me video.​
    Get a Panasonic G3 or an Olympus EP-3.
     
  101. CC Chang said:
    I for one love the look of these cameras, especially the white one. They have clean lines and a simple front. In short, they look modern.​
    I quite agree. I really like its minimalist, modern industrial design. I'd like one just for its design statement. The high-resolution image sample Benjamin linked, I thought looked quite impressive for ISO 800. Once some tests are out, I'll decide. But for me, it's probably going to be the Sony NEX-5N + Sony OLED EVF. Yes, the EVF is pricey at $349, but it puts the viewfinder where I want it. Plus, it's OLED.
    I think the CX launch's largest failure (at least for me) is not announcing any fast primes or zooms, initially, at launch. I'm buying the Sony almost solely because of its available E-mount 50mm f/1.8. Not really a fair comparison, however, since this is just barely shipping almost a year and a half after Sony's initial NEX product-line launch.
     
  102. These cameras are what they are and are explicable as what they are -- upmarket cameras for the Ashton Kutcher sector of the Nikon market -- except in the prices. The prices are nuts. The high end compacts for $400 and $500 that you can fit in your pocket have excellent image quality already so how much better can a one-inch sensor be? Somewhat better, no doubt, especially for low light but that's a lot to pay nearly $700 for, or, in the V1's case, $900 for. For the V1's price you can get a D90 with the 35/1.8 lens; for like $560 you can get the D3100 with the 18-55mm. So I'm baffled who they think they're selling to. If they were $450 and $650 respectively -- tops -- I'd be like, fine, let's see what they can do.
     
  103. 2.7x sensor? Sorry. I'll go 4/3rds, NEX, or even Fuji X100.
    I can only hope Canon engineers are looking at their mirrorless prototypes and laughing at what Nikon came up with.
     
  104. Wait. There's this. These cameras are designed for "Expressive Living", don't you know. AND, The iconic new Nikon 1 system is designed to become one with the user and their [sic] lifestyle, providing a unique form of expression with amazing image quality .... \
    Now I get it. Although, if it's really going to become one with our lifestyles, shouldn't the apparatus just be implanted in our heads?
     
  105. I like the idea of this, I might get one for the "other half" as she is looking for a new compact. Then with the adapter ring it can be used with my dSLR lenses.
    Why is it, when there is a discussion about any Nikon camera do people hijack with "when's the new D188299388477 coming out". Patience!
     
  106. For anyone who's not already seen it, there's more discussion and justification at dpreview.

    I think they're a beautiful piece of minimalist design. I just don't know who would want to pay this much for a camera that's apparently got so little control. If you're upgrading to a camera in this price bracket, I have to imagine that you want a moderate degree of control over your images without hunting through lots of menus. That's a big component of why the S90 got so much interest, not just the low-light performance. If you're going to spend a lot of money on a camera that's a fashion statement, get an M9.
    Steven the beauty of these mirrorless cameras is that you can mount, with an adaptor, better lenses than you can add to your D700. Nikon has made an error, IMHO, not adopting the M4/3rds mount and the sensor standard.​
    Troll much? You can add different lenses than you can to a D700. I admit one of my interests in either a micro 4/3 system or a NEX (but not Samsung, which is why I ignored them) is that I could mount Leica glass on it, and with a moderate crop factor it vaguely makes sense - I think CX is too far, but that's my opinion. You can (probably, I've missed the size specification for the 1-mount) mount a Noctilux on one of these cameras. Is it "better" than a 200 f/2, or even a 150mm f/2.8 Sigma, on a D700? I would need convincing. I, too, would have preferred Nikon to produce a superior micro 4/3 camera rather than go their own way - but I'm not surprised they didn't.

    The autofocus is interesting, and potentially impressive. I just can't see the point. Stick it on an 85mm f/1.4 AF-S with an adaptor, and you get a 230mm f/3.8-equivalent in depth of field. You can run the sensor at a quarter the ISO of a full-frame camera with an f/2.8 lens, but the images look more than two stops worse in ISO performance (unsurprisingly). I suspect the lens will focus much slower, despite the camera's abilities, than a 70-200 or a 300 f/2.8, too. I'll admit it's much cheaper than a D3s and a pro telephoto lens, but it's no competition, however good the autofocus. With the native lenses, you're stuck with slow apertures combined with (relative to a DSLR) poor ISO performance. You can focus, you just can't take a decent shot except under direct sunlight. It's clearly better than your average compact, but then so is a D3100.

    I keep wanting to wish this system well. It just feels like Nikon were desparate for a way to distinguish this camera from the competition (and fair enough, there have been a lot of discussions on public fora about how they could do this), and picked some features that, I believe, won't justify the price to many people. Trying to sell a product based in technical prowess doesn't work unless customers actually want what that technology provides; I've been in a lot of companies that have learned that.
     
  107. I like the idea of this, I might get one for the "other half" as she is looking for a new compact. Then with the adapter ring it can be used with my dSLR lenses.​
    My other half, too, has expressed an interest in a small interchangable lens camera that she could carry around, and when I'm already carrying my DSLR and a load of lenses, would allow her to use my lenses as well. If the crop factor wasn't 2.7, which would make almost every lens I own preposterously unwieldy, the concept of an autofocussing adaptor might appeal. Otherwise, it's just not that difficult to manual focus on the competing systems, and (most of) the Pen range adds image stabilisation. My 200 f/2 and 150-500 are stabilised, but I can't see them being practical to hand-hold on a 1-system. Nothing I've got under 150mm is, so the Pen wins.

    In retrospect, I suppose the autofocus might appeal for the London Olympics (no big cameras allowed) and formula one (mostly good light). Possibly some outdoor tennis, too, although I've carted a 150-500 into Wimbledon without an issue (although I wasn't allowed to bring in a Maid of the Mist rain cape because they thought I was advertising...) So perhaps my "autofocus and low light performance go hand in hand" assertion is unjustified. Apologies - I expect to blather in this thread.
     
  108. I'm not sure how well this will fly with either the DSLR or P&S crowd. Even with stellar performance, it's rather pricey for having to buy into a completely new system.

    All new numbers with a 2.7X crop, and it's just a smaller, re-badged, (~28mm.?)
     
  109. In retrospect, I suppose the autofocus might appeal for the London Olympics
    I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. If you ask people who shoot with point and shoots, what is the main problem that the camera causes on their photography. They'll probably say that the delay from pressing the shutter to the actual taking of the picture is so long that the person might not even be in the picture by the time it is taken. This is to some extent true even of some micro four thirds cameras (i.e. E-P2) other than the latest generation which is a substantial improvement. Instantaneous operation, including autofocus that can track moving subjects fluently is of great value to casual photographers as well as more serious ones. So I think Nikon is right on track with the 1 series. By making the sensor smaller than DX they try to expand the market rather than change existing DX DSLR users to mirrorless. If the new autofocus turns out a success it will migrate to DSLRs which will eventually cease to be DSLRs. Why not let Nikon use the 1 as a platform for testing new technologies. Certainly if soccer moms become successful sports (soccer?) photographers it will become a commercial success. There are so many situations which people try to photograph e.g. when hiking, playing around, kids running around etc. and fail to catch the moments because of the limitations of the point and shoot cameras. The CX sensor is still several times larger in area than point and shoot digital cameras, so the quality will likely be much better.
    you just can't take a decent shot except under direct sunlight.
    I think this is not accurate. Firstly, direct sunlight is very demanding on the sensor because it requires a large dynamic range (at base and moderate ISO). With the D7000 one of the things that I was disappointed with was its performance in hard sunlight - the images looked thin compared to D3/D700. I was much more happy with the D7000 in cloudy bright conditions where it yielded excellent results. I've had similar problems with consumer video cameras and earlier Coolpixes - in bright sunlight there is no room for exposure error and even the slightest of adjustments will blow up the noise in your face. I would expect the 3-4x larger area of the CX sensor to show a substantial improvement over point and shoot cameras in direct sunlight (not as good as DX or FX) as well as in darker conditions. Yet the size of the camera is similar to a higher end point and shoot.
    And the fast primes will come, eventually. Even MFT didn't have any at first, starting out with 17/2.8. Same with NEX, only very recently have they announced their first fast lenses. Today MFT is more mature and there are many expensive lenses available. I am sure Nikon will get there. But they start out with products focused on the main market of this camera which is consumers who think a DSLR is too big and clumsy but they want to catch moving subjects which they can't with their point and shoots. Of course a DX or FX camera has the potential for higher image quality but then they're bigger, too. If you want a DX sized mirrorless camera, get a NEX and pray that Sony will get their lens act together. If you want a MFT sensor mirrorless camera, get an Olympus or Panasonic - but many of their lenses are hardly small and the good ones are very expensive considering how small the sensor is. A good normal lens (the Panasonic 20/1.7) costs almost 400 EUR - compare that to the price of a 35/1.8 DX or 50/1.8G for FX. So you're really paying a premium for the compactness. A mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is not about low light photography. It's about a compact camera with better performance than is typical in this size of a camera, better responsivity and higher quality lenses. If you photograph a lot in low light and want to be able to shoot in any light in which you can see, you need a D700 or better, and very fast, very expensive lenses (assuming that 50/1.4 is not enough versatility). Nikon puts out slow lenses in the beginning for the 1 series cameras - this is quite logical as they have been very slow to introduce fast lenses for DX either. They don't think a person who shoots in low light a lot would choose a DX camera and then pay many thousands for lenses that would perform better on FX anyway. It makes sense to put the money in the camera first and then get fast lenses if still necessary.
    Check out some reviews of the expensive micro four thirds lenses - you'll see that you pay a lot yet do not get quite the performance that you'd get for the money on DX or FX. The compactness is a value in itself.
    It's clearly better than your average compact, but then so is a D3100.
    Right, but the D3100 with lens is huge compared to a V1 or J1 and it has a limited set of focus points.
    I personally would like a compact camera with about 2-3 interchangeable (prime lenses) but I'm reluctant to plug 2000 EUR to micro four thirds to get good glass - especially since it seems the autofocus development is rapid and we may yet see several big advances which may or may not work optimally with older lenses. So I think waiting for 1-2 years for the mirrorless systems to mature is a good idea. The competition will be intense and I cannot yet see which systems will become the best. MFT was out there on the market before the others and they have the best selection of lenses now, but the sensors in these cameras are not as competitive as the other aspects of these cameras; they seem to have evolved little in three years.
    Anyway, I will stick to my FX cameras and their associated bulk for now, and then see when the market has matured, which mirrorless system I will buy (it's only a matter of time).
     
  110. I recently purchased a Nikon Coolpix S9100 and have been satisfied with it (for the price). But one deficiency it does have is that there is NO image stabilization when shooting movies. This is a problem when its zoom lens is cranked out to its max reach of 18x. (equivalent to 450mm for a 35mm camera).
    Do these new Nikons camera offer image stabilization in movie mode? It's likely that they do, as the brochure states that Nikon placed the image stabilization technology inside the lenses, rather than in the camera, as is the case with the Coolpix S9100. The only drawback is price. "The Nikon J1 camera with 10-30mm lens kit will be available at a suggested retail price of $649.95.". That's rather pricey for a point and shoot camera with a 3X zoom. I paid $329 for a Coolpix S9100 with an 18X zoom!
     
  111. Although it has different advantages and disadvantages, I am more impressed with the Sony NEX series. At least my NEX-3 retains the 1.5x crop factor, even if it has no viewfinder. It is not as fast as the Nikon, but it is a compact little camera for when I don't want to lug my Canon DSLRs around:
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=997650
    --Lannie
     
  112. It will be very interesting to revisit this thread in a year or two.
    Good photographers often make great photos using "amateur-oriented" tools that are dismissed by advanced photographers, from point-and-shoots to camera phones.
    After reading dpreview's "hands-on" report, I have to say that if not in this camera then in a future variant (by whichever manufacturer) I am very interested in:
    --Being able to shoot 60 full-resolution frames per second
    --Having faster autofocus than any other Nikon ever, including the D3s
    --Being able to hold focus on moving subjects at 10 fps in a $1000 camera
     
  113. Don,
    That autofocus is the only thing stopping me from grabbing an E-PM1 right now. If Nikon had put in auto bracketing (5 shots with 1 or 2 stop steps) I would be instantly sold on the J1.
     
  114. Since I'm too lazy to read through what is now 113 responses, apologies if my following opinions have already been repeated. Let me start by saying that overall I'm very disappointed. First, I'm confused about the ergonomics. Yes I know that traditional SLRs are designed the way they are because of the mirrors and because of the mirrorless system that Nikon came up with a more compact design in its newly announced cameras. However, I like the way a traditional SLR feels in my hands. I can't image these new cameras balancing well with a larger lens such as a 80-200 2.8. Second gripe is the smaller sensor size, enough said. Also they seem to be going backwards on resolution. Why only 10.1 megapixels?
    Finally, what I'm more confused about is where do these new cameras stand in relation to Nikon's current line up? We've all been wondering when Nikon will come up with the D400, D4 or D800. Will Nikon continue to upgrade its "mirrored" line or does the announcement of these new cameras signal the death of its current line? I've been sitting on the fence deciding should I get a D7000 now or wait to see what Nikon is coming up with next. If this latest announcement is the best Nikon could come up with it's the 7000 for me.
     
  115. "Also they seem to be going backwards on resolution. Why only 10.1 megapixels?"​
    Many photographers would say that ever-more megapixels is not automatically synonymous with "progress." There are plenty of $100 16-megapixel cameras available for those who think that "more megapixels" = "better camera."
    "Finally, what I'm more confused about is where do these new cameras stand in relation to Nikon's current line up? We've all been wondering when Nikon will come up with the D400, D4 or D800. Does the announcement of these new cameras signal the death of its current line?"​
    In terms of sales, you're referring to a relatively small portion of Nikon's current line-up. Hard as it is for many advanced photographers to believe, Nikon also has a consumer division that makes point-and-shoots (and happens to bring in a lot of income). Nikon's new cameras are an overture to that market and probably will not affect the timetable for updating the pro/sumer SLR line.
     
  116. I like the way a traditional SLR feels in my hands. I can't image these new cameras balancing well with a larger lens such as a 80-200 2.8.

    It's not meant to be used with a large lens. The primary idea of the 1 series is that the cameras and lenses are very small, but still offer some of the features previously available only in DSLRs (making it a viable upgrade for point and shoot users) and some new features made possible by new technology (fast autofocus, high frame rates). If you need a large lens then you obviously use a DSLR.
    Second gripe is the smaller sensor size,
    A mirrorless camera with an FX sensor would have the same size lenses that an FX DSLR in almost all cases (wide angles could be a bit smaller). The goal of pocketable size can only be met if the camera has a relatively small sensor.
    Will Nikon continue to upgrade its "mirrored" line or does the announcement of these new cameras signal the death of its current line?
    Of course they will. Nikon positions the 1 lineup between coolpixes and DX.
     
  117. I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view.​
    I'm prepared to believe that. :) It's certainly true that the autofocus performance of early micro 4/3 systems as an issue. That said reliably tracking a moving target isn't such a common thing to need to do - partly because it's difficult, especially with a smaller camera. It's nice, but if it were critical, we'd not have made do with manual focus for so long. If the subject isn't moving, or if you can prefocus, the shutter lag from half-press is pretty short (I believe 0.1s for the last camera I looked up). I don't deny that Nikon's latest will be better than the competition, I'm just not sure it matters so much. For a soccer mum, the f/5.6 long end of the zoom has the depth of field of full frame at f/15 with the same field of view; with a 110mm lens you can get a 6' subject on the long side of the frame at about 50 feet. DOFMaster would claim you'd have a 7' depth of field. You don't have to stop down much (are the zooms perfect at f/5.6?) or be much further away (tightly framing a moving person a 50 feet is difficult) to get hyperfocal. Which, I'm sure, relates to why the lenses can focus quickly - a small amount of glass has to move not very far.

    I'm not bashing the technology or calling it unwelcome, I just reckon a soccer mom ought to be able to do almost as well with a modern compact. I did reasonably capturing fighting robots with an Agfa ePhoto 1680 a decade ago, and that had a two-second shutter lag; a 300D actually didn't help much because the reduced depth of field meant locking focus while tracking was harder. But I've never shot football.
    you just can't take a decent shot except under direct sunlight.​
    I think this is not accurate.​
    I was being harsh for effect, but you make a good point about dynamic range (although I always thought the D7000 was supposed to be good at that). As you say, the 1-series should split the difference between 10MP compacts and 4/3. Of high-end compacts, the S100 is 99x60x68mm. Trusting the figures earlier in this thread, the J1 is 106x61x72mm with the 10-30mm lens; the V1 113x76x86mm. The E-PL3 (the E-PM1 has even less control than the 1 series) is ~110x64x37mm, to which you can add somewhere around 27mm for the (admittedly premium) 14-42 - call it 64mm deep. For pocketable systems, there's not much in it.

    Re. fast primes - they are easier in larger formats. (Well, it's more that the larger sensor means larger sensor sites at the same output resolution, so better sensitivity at a given ISO, and long slow lenses with more coverage are easier than short fast lenses - at least, as far as I can tell.) I can't blame Nikon for going with small portable optics, and there's nothing stopping you sticking a faster F-mount lens on the adaptor. I agree that the 4/3 lenses aren't entirely competitive with the larger format equivalents on price - some of which is possibly economy of scale, some is newness and lack of competition, and some is a justifiable size premium.

    I don't blame Nikon for producing a product with a performance premium over a compact and a size premium over an entry-level DSLR. I just worry that the apparent lack of controls makes it a dubious option compared with a high-end compact, and the performance benefits might not be all that obvious to many potential customers. (I'm projecting, and I don't want one, so maybe I'm wrong.) I'm less worried about the size premium - a NEX-7 costs much more than a D3100, but then it seems to have premium-grade controls in a small size.

    I shouldn't judge a system on the first release. I just worry that this isn't going to take the market by storm unless either it gets a price cut to match 4/3 systems with similarly crippled controls, or a version comes out with more direct controls. I think a soccer mum won't necessarily pay this much for an unusual system (why do I need interchangable lenses again?) in this economy, and enthusiasts want more control - DoF or not. But maybe there's a genius interface behind it that I've not seen reviewed yet, and maybe the market is bigger than I think.
     
  118. A lot of complaints about this camera are that it can't be used in ways that a camera like this is not designed to be used. Not, imho, legitimate beefs.
    Frankly, if you need DSLR features, you need a DSLR! This is a pocket camera for family snaps and such. It's not for serious landscape photography on a tripod or for using with all your Nikkors or anything like that.
    That said... the camera costs too much for what it offers. plain and simple. For 399 or maybe 450 or 499 (US$) it's a GREAT complement to what I have now. For what it costs, not so much.
     
  119. I can't image these new cameras balancing well with a larger lens such as a 80-200 2.8.​
    How well does a D700 balance on an 200-500mm f/7? Actually, I know exactly how well a D700 balances on a 150-500mm f/5-6.3, and I'll admit it could be worse, but that's because the lens is designed to have a big camera stuck on the back. The original 80-200 is designed to be hung off the camera (no tripod foot), and I suspect the more recent versions are weighted assuming there's a big camera on them. It could be worse - how's the 200-500 f/2.8 with a D3100? :)
     
  120. Eh... Just another small cam with another set of compromises...
     
  121. A lot of complaints about this camera are that it can't be used in ways that a camera like this is not designed to be used. Not, imho, legitimate beefs.

    Frankly, if you need DSLR features, you need a DSLR! This is a pocket camera for family snaps and such.​
    Agreed, but then I'm not sure that it solves a problem that a compact doesn't. Or at least, it has better AF and (somewhat) noise handling, but I'm not sure that justifies the price and (possibly) handling premium. The problem with aiming half way between a compact and micro 4/3 is that micro 4/3 was already aiming half way between a compact and DX, and DX was already half way between a compact an FX (or at least, the smallest that arguably makes sense to use with FX lenses). There's only so finely you can slice the market, and charge a premium for each gap.
     
  122. But there are lenses to sell, guys, lenses to sell! That's where the money is made.
    Small stupendous cameras are probably the wave of the future, but apparently that future is not here yet.
    --Lannie
     
  123. Well, I just perused the B+H site looking at high-end point-and-shoots. The only one that caught my eye was the APS-C sensored (20.7 x 13.8mm), Sigma DP1X, at $699. But while the lens is nice and wide at a 28mm-equivalent, the lens is just too slow (f/4.0).
    So, then, I went back to considering the Sony NEX-5N with the expensive add-on OLED EVF . . . but not only is that starting to get "clunky," it's getting expensive. What I really want is a small, slim, pocketable, Leica-ish camera. The Nikon J1 may be it. Yes, I'll be giving up the viewfinder of the pricier V1, but I also gain a built-in flash. However, Nikon chose not to sell the camera as I'd like to buy it: the J1 body + 10mm f/2.8 short prime only. I guess I'll have to wait for body-only kits, or pay for yet another "kit" lens I don't want. Surprisingly, I may actually buy one of these!
     
  124. Ralph - I'll look forward to your report (unless you get an S100 instead). :) For all my concerns (and they are concerns, not criticisms) I want the system to do well, and exceed initial expectations. A few comments from people who have played with them, and the sample images, don't seem all that astonishing, but without having held one in my hands I don't want to dismiss it entirely, no matter how vocal I appear to be.
     
  125. The problem with aiming half way between a compact and micro 4/3 is that micro 4/3 was already aiming half way between a compact and DX, and DX was already half way between a compact an FX
    Not to nit-pick, but if you look at
    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9716229576/why-make-a-small-sensor-mirrorless-camera
    you'll see that micro four thirds is much closer to DX than to compact digital cameras in sensor size (which are about 1/3 or 1/4 of the new Nikon CX format).
    I think a soccer mum won't necessarily pay this much for an unusual system (why do I need interchangable lenses again?) in this economy
    Because if you shoot soccer, you need something that will track a moving subject properly and will fire when you ask it to, instead of half-a-second later. I don't think the current state of economy is really important here - it is a new system meant to be in production for decades; economic recessions come and go. Nikon surely started the development of the 1 system many years ago, before the first wave of this recession.
    That said reliably tracking a moving target isn't such a common thing to need to do - partly because it's difficult, especially with a smaller camera. It's nice, but if it were critical, we'd not have made do with manual focus for so long.
    When people used manual focus, most images were quite static and photographs of moving subjects were of quite poor quality. Just look into wildlife and sports pictures from the 1980s in printed media.
    I think it's the most common thing in the world to want to be able to shoot a running child (you know how unpredictable they can be when they're playing outdoors). This is quite difficult to do even with the best of DSLRs, and I think any improvement in AF technology which potentially can handle this situation would be welcome by any parent. Images of posing subjects ... well, they're certainly one area of photography but many people would want to catch real expressions at the peak of action. With the fast frame rate bursts at full resolution that can see into the past (because the camera is already recording to a running buffer before you press the button) you might catch something that you already "missed" - and if the technology really works I am sure these cameras will be popular.
    By the way while I admit I'm not a typical user, most of the time when I shoot people, even if they're sitting or standing, I will have the AF in continuous mode and hold the AF-ON button down so that small movements of the subject's position (e.g. when they move their weight from one leg to the other) are corrected for. This is very important when shooting at f/1.4 ... granted, it won't be the situation with the 1 system since the depth of field will be greater, but with the anticipated f/1.2 and f/1.4 primes, I expect to use continuous tracking on even almost static subjects (if I get such a system). If it's a close-up of a person with a short tele, the depth of field will be quite shallow wide open even with a CX camera. And I want the tracking to work really well and preferably allow focus to be held on any part of the frame, to the very edges of the frame.
    But I do think the situation depicted in Nikon's 1 brochure of a guy jumping into water is the target application - at 10 fps you can track the jump and get several frames, hopefully some good ones too. If you're shooting really close to the subject then even the depth of field may come into play. But what I think is more important than if the depth of field is shallow is that the action can happen very quickly and spontaneously and if the camera cannot find the subject and track it instantaneously then it may well be missed. When using a DSLR I have to pin-point where I want to focus if I want it to work quickly and effectively - the multi-point modes are progressively slower and less predictable as you increase the number of points in consideration by the AF system. If the 1 system autofocus can handle wildly unpredictable situations (finding the subject quickly and getting it in the depth of field) then it will be something I will buy once there are some fast primes on the market. Spontaneity is not something that I would put in the same sentence when using my DSLRs. I have to plan everything to get good results with them.
    you make a good point about dynamic range (although I always thought the D7000 was supposed to be good at that
    I know it's supposed to be, which is why I was surprised ...
    Anyway, I also would have wanted to see a large sensor mirrorless interchangeable lens system from Nikon, but the reality of the matter is that it matters very little, which manufacturer you buy it from - for the camera to remain compact, the lenses have to be purpose made for the system, not adapted large DSLR lenses. So you have the option of choosing a Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung etc. irrespective of which brand of DSLR you use. I doubt many people will use the adapter except for special purposes such as macro and occasional long distance tele shots. And I doubt it would have made a big difference if they had made the system DX sized - you'd still want dedicated lenses for most things since wide angles will be smaller for mirrorless cameras than DSLRs, and such a camera is too small to hold a fast long lens with it hand-held.
    And I am very happy that Nikon in particular is trying to develop new AF technology - be it for compacts (where they have not been impressive in the past), the 1 system, or DSLRs. In time DX and FX cameras will become mirrorless too, and then compatibility will be more important than it is for small-sensor mirrorless cameras. Nikon will drop the mirror when the technology allows it to be done in such a way that there is no gain from retaining the mirror. The time isn't quite yet, as an optical viewfinder is quite a bit better than an electronic one but I would expect in 5-10 years we will use all our cameras without mirrors. If Nikon can rise capital for the development of the technology behind this transition by selling ten million Nikon 1 system cameras, and use it as a testing ground, this is all for the good of us (current) Nikon DSLR users.
     
  126. I think it's the most common thing in the world to want to be able to shoot a running child (you know how unpredictable they can be when they're playing outdoors).​
    You are one of the few who got what Nikon has done here. Furthermore, I have two toddlers and it is a challenge to get both of them in focus. If I use a wider aperture to get better subject isolation, one of them is frequently just so slightly out of focus to ruin the shots. At the end of the day, you pick pictures that are sharply in focus first. In this regard, with a smaller sensor and lots of DOF, it only help to capture the moment.
    The new Nikon is all about capture the moment in our life when many things do not sit still, and do so in a light and <$900 package. To be so obsessive about sensor size, lack of "command dials," etc is to miss the point completely. Some of the early pictures from this camera seems quite decent and can only be improved once the RAW converter is available. My prediction is that it will produce images that close to the sensor in Panasonic GH2, and the Nikon will beat the m4/3 or even NEX in tracking and capturing moving objects. This together with a list of thoughtful and beautifully crafted accessories and a clear marketing message (which we can already see in many YouTube version already), I think Nikon will have a true winner here.
     
  127. you'll see that micro four thirds is much closer to DX than to compact digital cameras in sensor size​
    Conceded - I was approximating "filling the gap" by saying "half way between". APS-C was presumably chosen to make existing lenses still useful while making the sensor affordable - I remember (I think) Canon talking about how the 1Ds sensor required some special technology because its area was larger than the stepper supported, so the sensor needed to be generated in two passes with very careful alignment. I assume 4/3 was chosen as the tipping point at which the sensor size stops contributing excessively to the camera price (at the time), and to suit lens size/cost (not that this mattered quite so much with the original 4/3 DSLRs, which weren't exactly pocketable anyway). Pentax Q went for "make the system as small as possible", but it's still not that small or cheap, and has, effectively, a toy sensor and toy lenses. Nikon presumably aimed for the smallest system that was distinguishable from a compact, but I'm just not convinced that the gap between the micro 4/3 systems and the larger compacts was big enough to fill. But I could be wrong - I'm obviously not the target audience, so we'll see when there are sales figures.
    Because if you shoot soccer, you need something that will track a moving subject properly and will fire when you ask it to, instead of half-a-second later. I don't think the current state of economy is really important here​
    If you can rely on the hyperfocal distance, 0.1s for half-press-to-capture is pretty close to instant, with the better compacts. I concede that the 1-series is better, especially with continuous capture (if you can edit the resulting gigabytes). I would still imagine someone buying a camera for photographing kids either to go with an SLR (which, at least for the sensor size, is still the better solution under many lighting conditions), knowing that holding a bigger camera while you're standing still for 90 minutes isn't such a hardship, or to buy a half-decent cheapish compact - and until the price drops significantly, the new cameras don't appear to be in this bracket. Perhaps, as someone who has cats instead of kids, I'm completely misjudging parental priorities; I'd really want to see how much of an improvement the system is in the kind of scenarios I needed before I thought about spending the current premium for this system.

    Incidentally, I wonder if the continuous shutter has a significant impact on the battery life?

    I actually do sympathise with the frame rate argument - I've captured high speed footage before, and wondered about hiring some of the very fast Casio compacts. Unfortunately, they effectively priced themselves out of my wanting to buy one for special effects, and I have the same problem with the new Nikons. If I win a lottery, I'll probably start singing the praises of the concept.

    I'm happy for Nikon to be pushing the boundaries, and I, too, have a selfish hope that this bodes well for DSLR development. I'm trying not to state why I don't want one; my worries are that no-one (well, only a small market share) will want one. But it could be that I'm completely mis-projecting my priorities onto the masses. In which case, go Nikon!
     
  128. Ilkka, I think you have nailed it. A large sensor is moot if the shutter doesn't fire when the shooter intends, and if the image is out of focus. I'd consider buying one... the worst case is it doesn't suit me and I flip it. Of course I've never missed a decisive moment or botched the focus, so this is all theoretical of course......
     
  129. No looking good to me, ugly design and bad ergonomics. Looks as unactractive as Sony nex series. Even if this kind of
    devices can take great photographs, I do need them to look and feel like a photographic camera, not like a futuristic
    supercool gadget. Fuji understood this ideology and came up with finepix X100, not perfect yet,, but they did indeed
    understood the market.
     
  130. B.F.D. Nikon. If I had wanted one of these I'd have bought the Panasonic or Olympus 3 years ago....
     
  131. Ilkka - I agree. Slow shutter response time coupled with slow focusing speed caused a lot of missed shots for me back in the days when I used a Cybershot T1. It was a great camera for a lot of things. Instead of moving kids, though, I shot moving puppies and dogs. The T1 was not so great for this. Many missed shots because the critters moved faster than the camera. They moved while standing still so panning was not often an option.
    The 10 mm f/2.8 sounds really interesting. I have a 28 mm f/2.8 that I used often on my FE. The possibility of 30 fps sounds really intriguing for action shots. I can see wanting to print a series of 3 - 5 pictures of a decisive moment. $900 for the v1 with the wrong lens is pretty steep.
    I hope Nikon does well with this camera. I really don't need another camera, but if it was priced at $600 with the 10/2.8 I'd give it some serious thought.
    Mark
     
  132. What a passionate group we Nikoners are. Over 130 responses, some quite long and not too many favorable. I have a feeling Nikon reads this stuff and wonder what they are thinking right now. "Any publicity is good publicity?" It will be interesting to see how the Canon forum responds when they release their mirror-less camera. Olympus, while barely able to stay afloat, has set camera trends in so many ways over the years.
     
  133. It would be interesting to mount my 800mm f5.6 lens to but definitely not rushing out to get one. Seriously thinking about switching to Sony.
     
  134. Mark said:
    I hope Nikon does well with this camera . . . if it was priced at $600 with the 10/2.8 I'd give it some serious thought.​
    That's exactly how I would want my Nikon 1 kit packaged, and just about how much I would be willing to pay for it. Unfortunately, Nikon isn't selling body-only kits initially, and there is no kit offered with just the 10mm f/2.8. Nikon, if you're listening, think quick, and productize a J1 + 10mm f/2.8 kit for $599, and you may have some additional sales.
     
  135. I just wanted to say that, after Ilkka, CC and Mark's robust defence of the concept, I'm a little more confident that these cameras might find a market. It's certainly not for me, I couldn't see good autofocus on an (apparently) fiddly to use camera as appealing to enthusiasts, and I hadn't imagined that the autofocus performance would justify the price to the "soccer mum" market; I still have my doubts about the former, but I could definitely be wrong about the latter. I'll hold out some hope for Nikon's future after all. (But I still think more control rather than beauty, or a lower price, would help them sell more. Maybe as the range matures.)
     
  136. if it was priced at $600 with the 10/2.8
    The prices in Finland (which include 23% tax) initially appear to be 968.90 EUR for V1 with 10mm pancake kit, and 1078.90 € for V1+10-30mm+30-110mm kit; the V1+10-30mm is 908,90 €. So the 10mm is a bit more expensive than the standard zoom. The J1+10-30mm is 629€, J1+10-30mm+10/2.8 is 799€ , J1+10-30+30-110mm is 799€, and the kit you're looking at, the J1+10mm is 679 €. Right now B&H seems to offer the J1+10mm+10-30mm and that's 899.95 USD (without tax) but no J1+10mm kit. If they did offer it the price ratios suggest that it would cost about 764 USD. After 6 months the 600 USD target may not be quite realistic but perhaps 700 USD.
    Anyway, for me this price seems acceptable for the J1. It's indeed nice to see the pancake as a kit but I would also like to see a short tele (30mm f/2 or f/1.4 would be perfect).
    I saw an interesting Youtube video example from the J1 that illustrated a spinning person in close range. AF tracking and quality of the video was very good though the depth of field is considerable.
     
  137. Andrew said:
    . . . and I hadn't imagined that the autofocus performance would justify the price to the "soccer mum" market . . .​
    Yes, I agree it's a bit out-priced for its market. Especially when consumers at that level seem so focused on more spurious "benefits" such as ever-higher megapixel-counts. Also, this segment tends to shop a lot on price. If Nikon fails to communicate these benefits to the consumer, and present them as a value-promise worth at least equal to its rather steep SRP, the product will likely fail to meet its sales objectives (leaving Nikon with less R&D money to invest in D4/D800/D400 development!). With so many other, lesser, and cheaper options to choose from (with more megapixels!), Nikon's marketing people will have their work cut out for them.
     
  138. Nikon's marketing people will have their work cut out for them.​
    Never underestimate Demi Moore's husband. He has a beard now. He's unstoppable.
     
  139. Never underestimate Demi Moore's husband. He has a beard now. He's unstoppable.​
    Like!
     
  140. I like Nikon's concept here, but I thought that the big advantage of a smaller sensor size (relative to M4/3) would be smaller lenses. I haven't seen any direct size comparisons between the new Nikon 1 lenses and M4/3 lenses but they look to be relatively similar. I am going to withhold judgment until some more Nikon 1 primes get released, but the 10mm pancake is not super fast (f/2.8) and it still looks to be about the same size as the M4/3 pancakes. Has anybody handled both - am I wrong about the lens size perception?
     
  141. I looked up weight and size (NikonUSA and B&H photo for refrence). I looked at Olympus M4/3 lenses versus the Nikon ones, and the Olympus were smaller and lighter in the normal focal length, about the same in the pancake, and larger but lighter in the tele lens (1 inch longer). This made the Nikon system barely smaller than the Olympus PEN system. Not small enough for the prices they are charging. The frame rate and focus speed are the saving graces that put the J1 on level footing with the E-PM1.
     
  142. "Andrew said:
    . . . and I hadn't imagined that the autofocus performance would justify the price to the "soccer mum" market . . ."
    Yes, I agree it's a bit out-priced for its market.​
    I would have to disagree with that. We have seen "soccer mom/dad" coming here to ask what cameras she/he should buy to take pictures of their kids in some kinds of performance, be that sports or ballet. What have we been telling them? A D90 or better yet, a D7000, which is over $1k just for the camera alone. Not only a D7k costs a lot, it weighs more than the J1 and a lens combined. In terms of lens, we most likely would recommend the 70-300 zooms or the 50-150 from Nikon or third party, which are not cheap and in general very big. And then imagine a soccer mom so equipped as we suggested, stand next to someone that is shooting with a very small white V1 with a pink lens, and is getting as many (if not more) good shots as she is ... The V/J1 kit is even smaller if we factor in the flash ...
    Now of course, we are giving Nikon the benefits of the doubts that its AF and various features, such as Motion snap, work as advertized. Regardless, I do think that Nikon has done her homework and find a significant niche for this new class of camera to draw in more users to the camp who someday may "upgrade" to more sophisticated systems. The Panasonic m4/3 cameras with its face detection and the use of a swivel screen partially address the issue of weight/size and the inability to effectively track my two kids with my Nikon gears. The SONY NEX does not do anything better for me in this regard — the IQ from m4/3 is "good enough."
     
  143. I looked up weight and size (NikonUSA and B&H photo for refrence). I looked at Olympus M4/3 lenses versus the Nikon ones, and the Olympus were smaller and lighter in the normal focal length, about the same in the pancake, and larger but lighter in the tele lens (1 inch longer). This made the Nikon system barely smaller than the Olympus PEN system. Not small enough for the prices they are charging.​
    The Nikon lenses are supposed to have more features and cheaper:
    1. The m4/3 lenses are heavily corrected by software but according to Nikon, the 1-series lenses require very little correction. We will have to see the actual lens test to see if the Nikon lenses are better but it seems highly likely that the Nikon lenses are built to a higher optical standard to justify for its bulk. Most m4/3 lenses are soft in the corner, which could be partly a result of software correction. Typically Olympus does not correct CA of Panasonic lenses in-camera, and I am not sure if the reverse if true as well.
    2. The Nikon lenses have VR2, but all Olympus lenses do not have any kind of in-lens stabilization. The Panasonic OIS works quite well with the "mighty" 14-140 Panasonic lens, which is not small, but the OIS in the 45/2.8 is reported to be not as capable. Maybe Nikon's VRII is much better? We will see.
    3. The AF motors in most m4/3 pancake lenses are "weak" — they are not fast and hunt in low light.
    4. Nikon's lens have the power zoom feature which all current m4/3 lenses lack.
    5. If you go to "Image Resource," (use the link below) they listed the possible prices of Nikon's kits and pancake lenses and they are all around $250. By contrast, m4/3 lenses are very expensive. Both the 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 are $400. The 45/2.8 and 45/1.8 are $700 and $400. The 12/2 is $800, ... etc
    Thus in terms of lens size, we should wait and see what is the size/IQ ratio.
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1316578774.html
     
  144. Hey now, he asked about size. Yes, the VR is part of the weight of the lenses, except in the case of the pancake.
    We have no idea what the non-launch lenses are going to cost, and they could be right up there with the price of the M4/3 lenses you mentioned.
    So as you said, we have to wait and see. Or, if you are impatient, you need to just get a system and pray.
     
  145. I can see the Nikon name adding to the desirability for many consumers. When people go to news/sporting and other types of events, they will generally see Nikon and Canon. When a consumer goes into Best Buy to purchase their first somewhat upscale camera the'll be presented with an array of cameras from manufacturers such as HP, Sony, Kodak, Olympus, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, Insignia, GE, Casio, Epson and a bunch of other brands. I think the Nikon and Canon names will draw the more serious consumer because of brand recognition.
    To me, HP = Printers and laptops, Sony = Camcorders and CD players, Kodak = Film, Olympus = off-brand/entry level cameras, Samsung = Phones, Insignia = who??, GE = lights and appliances, Casio = watches and kids electronics, Epson = Printers.
    Nikon = Real Cameras, laser rangefinders, Rifle Scopes, and most recently my eyeglass lenses. Canon = Real Cameras and inkjet printers.
    Mark
     
  146. Hey now, he asked about size. Yes, the VR is part of the weight of the lenses,​
    The non-VR version of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 uses 67mm filter, but the VR (VC) version uses 72mm filter. So adding VR will make the lens bigger and heavier.
     
  147. I'm in the market for a mirrorless and IF it has decent ISO at around 1600. I'll buy one
    I can wait to handle one . It seems to very well made , much better than the junk Olympus and panasoinc are selling for the same price. Forget NEX, where are the lenses..? and how much are the "Zeiss branded" lenses going to cost.?
    When you factor in the cost of an add on evf the price of the competition jumps. that's $1150 for an E-3 or a new nex 5
     
  148. Actually, you know, the V1 is starting to grow on me a little bit.
     
  149. The Nikon lenses are supposed to have more features and cheaper:
    1. The m4/3 lenses are heavily corrected by software but according to Nikon, the 1-series lenses require very little correction. We will have to see the actual lens test to see if the Nikon lenses are better but it seems highly likely that the Nikon lenses are built to a higher optical standard to justify for its bulk. Most m4/3 lenses are soft in the corner, which could be partly a result of software correction. Typically Olympus does not correct CA of Panasonic lenses in-camera, and I am not sure if the reverse if true as well.
    2. The Nikon lenses have VR2, but all Olympus lenses do not have any kind of in-lens stabilization. The Panasonic OIS works quite well with the "mighty" 14-140 Panasonic lens, which is not small, but the OIS in the 45/2.8 is reported to be not as capable. Maybe Nikon's VRII is much better? We will see.
    3. The AF motors in most m4/3 pancake lenses are "weak" — they are not fast and hunt in low light.
    4. Nikon's lens have the power zoom feature which all current m4/3 lenses lack.
    5. If you go to "Image Resource," (use the link below) they listed the possible prices of Nikon's kits and pancake lenses and they are all around $250. By contrast, m4/3 lenses are very expensive. Both the 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 are $400. The 45/2.8 and 45/1.8 are $700 and $400. The 12/2 is $800, ... etc​
    1. Check out this review, which puts an Olympus EP-2 (apparently an entry level camera) with a Panasonic 20mm lens against a Nikon D3s:
    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/
    2. Olympus has in body stabilisation - do companies still make in lens image stabilistation? If Nikon's lenses are bigger due to this fact, they've no one to blame but themselves. Silly idea really.
    3. I'm led to believe (could be wrong), that this new Nikon will not fire if you mount a non AF-S Nikon lens! With an Olympus, there are very few limits to what you can mount. If I'm correct, then this is a huge drawback to this system.
     
  150. 2. Olympus has in body stabilisation - do companies still make in lens image stabilistation? If Nikon's lenses are bigger due to this fact, they've no one to blame but themselves. Silly idea really.​
    In lens stabilization is supposed to be better at it's task than in-body. The way I see it, both systems have merit. That said, with the rise of video, I think in-body has a bit more merit than it used to, as few, if any, primes come with stabilization built in.
    And knocking cameras for having barrel distortion in consumer grade zoom lenses is kind of sad. Even Nikon's consumer glass has barrel distortions. M43 has a decent ecosystem, and if everyone who has committed to it starts to build into it, the limits are almost endless. If Sigma brings out those lenses they promised and Fuji a body, then we could see even more growth.
     
  151. 2. Olympus has in body stabilisation - do companies still make in lens image stabilistation? If Nikon's lenses are bigger due to this fact, they've no one to blame but themselves. Silly idea really.​
    You know that IBIS overheats during video, don't you? This is why Olympus cameras cannot use IBIS during video. The way it "stablizes" the video is to take a software approach, which lowers resolution and creates many distortions and artefacts.
     
  152. Everyone seems to be complaining about the 1 sensor size. I don't get it. Why should APS-C be the standard? Are the 18*24 mm dimensions so sacred? Don't forget, the APS-C size was chosen completely arbitrarily, based on value/cost ratio at the end of 1990's. Same for 4/3, a little later, and it didn't even work well for DSLRs. This is digital, you can make any sensor size you want. You don't need to worry about buying the right film!
    If you ask me, APS-C is not a very good format and FX should be the norm, but hey - cost is the issue, so fine. On the m43, consider the 4:3 aspect ratio. One should chose 4/3 arefully - if you like 3:2 ratio like me, you'll crop off 4/3 pixels. Similarly, if one uses 4:3 on an APS-C sensor, you throw away a lot. Since I like 3:2 and wider, m43 is not idea for me - and APS-C means large lenses. So, there you go, CX is in the right spot right there.
    So really, why so much love for APS-C format and the hate for CX? Now, 1/2.3" of Pentax Q complains I understand, but 10 MP CX is almost like cropped 24 MP APS-C. Instead, we should applaud Nikon for sticking with 10 MP. It could have been worse. Panasonic is sticking 16 MP into their 4/3, yet nobody seems to complain about that...
    Another thing I find really funny is that APS-C is similar in size to APS film, which received more hate than any other format. 4/3 senzors are similar in size to 110 film, which also doesn't get much love. Yet, everyone seems to want APS-C and 4/3 now. Say what?
    Now, I understand the complains about the camera controls, lens choices, perhaps cost etc., but sensor size? I for one welcome the alternative. Everyone is welcome to buy NEX with their insanely bulky lenses, NX with almost no lenses, or overpriced 4/3 with 4:3 aspect ratio.
     
  153. Ty:
    1. Check out this review, which puts an Olympus EP-2 (apparently an entry level camera) with a Panasonic 20mm lens against a Nikon D3s:
    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/
    What I got from this "review" is that a $350 lens (Panasonic) can almost hold its own against a $125 lens (Nikon).
    I would hope so. I would hope the $350 lens would blow away the $125 one.
    Eric
     
  154. Eric, by your reasoning, the Leica M9 must be the best small format digital camera on the market, as well as all of their lenses - thank you for confirming my suspicions.
    The Nikon 50mm in question, regardless of price, is a good lens. In fact the best 50mm that Nikon can make. Bjorn Rorslett rates it as high as 5+, and on a D3x it gets a 5. "Almost hold's it own"....As the reveiwer asks, which of the images look better to you?
    You know that IBIS overheats during video, don't you?​
    You mean to tell me that people actually use the video function on their cameras! I guess that's what camera enthusiasts do when they're sick of pushing and turning all the other knobs.
     
  155. Ty, the problem with that test is that the RAW conversions were done with ACR default settings. That's not going to work for a Nikon D3s. These cameras have an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor that prevent moire and other aliasing artifacts. The high SNR of the sensor means you can recover the detail with appropriate image processing. The guy who did the test appears to be a Leica M9 user. That explain why he doesn't know how to process a D3s file. (Hint: use Nikon's software.)
    Secondly, if you compare a camera with micro four thirds size sensor with an FX camera, you should stop down the FX lens about two stops to get similar depth of field. You can do this again because the SNR of the D3s will give less noise at ISO 400 than the E-P2 at ISO 100. And no, the E-P2 is not an "entry-level" model - it is Olympus' former top-of-the-line micro four thirds camera, replaced recently by the E-P3.
    As to regarding the 50/1.8 in question, the older D version does have a little soft corners which has been rectified in the AF-S versions of both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. And even these new 50mm lenses are meant to be affordable and are hardly the best that Nikon could do. Nevertheless if you look at a properly done test, e.g. photozone.de you will come to a very different conclusion regarding the capabilities of the 50mm Nikkor vs. the 20mm Panasonic.
    To add my personal opinion; I have seen some images from the Panasonic 20mm, and have played with the lens and think it is excellent. But I also get excellent results from the old 50/1.8D (and D3), how curious. ;-) And image quality is not just about detail, but also tonality and colours, especially at higher ISO, which is where FX cameras excel compared to micro four thirds. Take a shot with some blue sky with both cameras and compare. You can use the lowest ISO if you like.
     
  156. Ty:
    Eric, by your reasoning, the Leica M9 must be the best small format digital camera on the market, as well as all of their lenses - thank you for confirming my suspicions.​
    I don't believe that's what I said, but at low ISO, I'd be surprised to see another small format digital camera produce images with more resolution or micro-contrast. At the point when I no longer need to use super telephoto lenses, I will most likely sell my current kit and buy a used Leica M12 along with a couple more lenses. I still have an M6 and 35/2 that I can't bring myself to sell.
    Doesn't matter how expensive the camera is when you choose the cheapest lens for the comparison. My point is that this was an "apple vs oranges" review. The reviewer was building a straw man to tear down. That's fine. It's his prerogative.
    The Panasonic 20/1.7 lens is a great lens. I'm not disputing that. If I were to use the same equipment in a different test, I could easily show how the Panasonic has horrible resolution. Put the test target on a platform moving quickly toward the camera. :) If you're not going to take advantage of the D3's features, then why use it for comparison? Only reason I can think of is to show how the Panasonic is on par with a much more expensive camera. Except it isn't. Run the test during a rain storm. I doubt if the Olympus would fare as well. :)
    Compare it to a Nikon D3000. Then, the Nikon combo is $600, and the Olympus one is $1400 (according to the article.) The $1400 one will barely hold its own to the $600 one. Since the reviewer was making a point about how much everything cost, I'm assuming that's an important factor.
    Eric
     
  157. You mean to tell me that people actually use the video function on their cameras! I guess that's what camera enthusiasts do when they're sick of pushing and turning all the other knobs."​
    As every digital camera has or will include video, and as Olympus made a YouTube ad to show that the entire ad was shot with a PEN, do you still think that the video capacity on a camera is just a "gimmick?" Not only people, pro or no pro, want video in their camera (and there have been plenty of discussions here and elsewhere for why that is), the Nikon 1 series camera has further incorporated video features to improve the way we shoot stills which is how we can now get 60 fps at full resolution with a sub $1000 V1/J1.
     
  158. Shooting for a ski resort, video has become more and more of my job. Depending on the event, being able to grab aux video or even B-camera video from my photo cameras has become a huge asset.
    Now bring this back to my personal life, it has been nice having the video function as I travel. I have one camera out, and seamlessly switch from photo and video. It's great. Post the photo to YouTube or Facebook later to share with friends and family. And on a possible upcoming adventure, space could be a big concern (cross country on motorcycles). Having to carry two independent systems just won't work. I need 1 good photo/video camera + 1 helmet cam.
     
  159. Everyone seems to be complaining about the 1 sensor size. I don't get it. Why should APS-C be the standard?​
    Just to pick up on this: the problem isn't that APS-C and 4/3 are "standard" (although the fact that they're established helps) - the problem is that they're the competition. Small sensors have compromises, as do large ones; the onus is on Nikon to ensure that the benefits of a small sensor (mostly cheapness, small lenses, small camera) justify the disadvantages (depth of field control, noise handling/resolution). On first appearances, they may not be making their argument especially well, since the 1-system is (with RRP) quite expensive and not much smaller than some of the competition. The system has advantages, which may or may not justify the other trade-offs, but purely on the subject of sensor size it's not an indisputably compelling decision. On the other hand, it is easier to stop a smaller sensor from overheating - and there may be other non-obvious benefits.

    Incidentally, re. APS/110 vs 135 film: the problem there is that the benefit of APS over 135 is size and (slightly) convenience, not cost, and there's a quality hit. A lot of people, myself included, like FX DSLRs, but there's no doubt that the cost of making them means that they're never likely to be as popular as the DX sensor cameras; they're simply "good enough" for most people, and the price (and size) premium for FX isn't always wanted. The FX cameras also don't have the pixel density of the DX ones (which explains the better high ISO performance), so for telephoto work DX can be a benefit. Going smaller still? I'm not so sure.
     
  160. the cost of making them means that they're never likely to be as popular as the DX sensor cameras;
    I think the cost of the sensor is actually a very small part of the cost of the camera. Notice how the D2X cost about 5000 EUR when it was top of the line yet Nikon set the price of its successor at 1700 EUR ... just like that. The same is true of the D3 vs. D700 and even more D3X vs D700. The cost of the sensor is not a big factor obviously, but prestige, and desirability of the top of the camera for those who want a top-of-the line camera. Yes, it would be an issue making an FX camera at the price point of a D7000 obviously, but given how much money lenses cost the cost of the D700 (1700 EUR) vs. D7000 (1000 EUR) again is not that decisive especially considering that there is a difference in autofocus performance and features. I believe the pricing is largely artificial ("what the market will bear") and little or nothing to do with production cost of sensor or any other part of the camera.
    The drawback in my mind with Nikon DX cameras is that there are few dedicated prime lenses that would indeed make these cameras small. Micro Four Thirds cameras are small with the associated primes. Hopefully Nikon will also make a set of primes for the 1 series since with zooms the performance and usefulness is reduced (due to the combination of a small sensor and very slow lens) and the size is not all that tiny either.
    The FX cameras also don't have the pixel density of the DX ones (which explains the better high ISO performance), so for telephoto work DX can be a benefit.
    That's mostly a Nikon thing; Canon and Sony sell 21-24MP cameras for less than 2000 EUR. The pixel density of Nikon FX cameras is low because they can get away with it by offering better autofocus than the competition. There is however a lot of criticism that they get for this decision and it's likely to change in the next generation. Canon has 40MP sensors just waiting to be needed by the market i.e. competitive pressure to build up. I think people do not ask for 40MP simply because such files would be a pain to process routinely and most applications do not require it. But in 5-10 years the raw conversion of a 40MP files will take a split second and nobody will think they're slow to process or that there is a capacity issue associated with it. So then the FX cameras will likely match the pixel density of current DX cameras. And it isn't so easy to focus at that level of precision.
    The low pixel density of the Nikon FX cameras is only one factor in their high ISO performance; about 1.2 stops comes simply from the increased size of the sensor (which means there will be more photons detected per given area of the final print => increased SNR). The rest is implementation.
     
  161. The research into making good small CX chips should lead to better chips all round especially with regard to on-chip AF.
    Slightly OT, but if they built an FX version of the current D7000 chip, would it push the limit of the lenses even more ie. with the chip out resolving the lens?
    It would seem that given for example a 60 MP chip, the 'binning' down to 30MP would remove most of the noise and still have enough resolution to satisfy the p.peepers.
     
  162. That's mostly a Nikon thing; Canon and Sony sell 21-24MP cameras for less than 2000 EUR.​
    True, but bear in mind that a 5D2 has roughly the pixel density of an Eos 350D (8MP APS-C). A D3x at any price has much larger sensor sites than a D7000. If this weren't true (which would mean a ~40MP "D4x") then there'd be no benefit for wildlife in using a DX camera (except cost and weight) compared with using the DX crop of an FX sensor. It's also true that implementation has made the modern cameras handle noise better irrespective of sensor site size.
     
  163. Pixel density has very little to do with the benefits of using crop cameras for wildlife shooting to make you think you have a longer lens.
    If it did then real life crop camera resolution would be substantially higher than cropped ff camera resolution, but it isn't. The true advantage of using a crop camera for wildlife telephoto shooting is framing, WYSIWYG, plus a tiny bit of additional resolution in some circumstances.
    Pixel density is not a factor for noise in same generation sensors, sensor size is the over riding factor. If you want/need less noise get a bigger sensor. The best sensor for noise per area, tested at DxO, is a Canon P&S, if you put twenty of them together you would get a 200 mp FX sensor with less noise than a D3 anything.
     
  164. Pixel density has very little to do with the benefits of using crop cameras for wildlife shooting to make you think you have a longer lens.

    If it did then real life crop camera resolution would be substantially higher than cropped ff camera resolution, but it isn't. The true advantage of using a crop camera for wildlife telephoto shooting is framing, WYSIWYG, plus a tiny bit of additional resolution in some circumstances.​
    I'm going to disagree, respectfully, and acknowledging that I own only one (FX) Nikon DSLR. The pixel density of a D300 is 2.25x that of a D700 or D3s. The pixel density of a D7000 is 1.6x higher than a D3x. With a DX sensor, you need a less long lens to achieve the same field of view as an FX sensor would achieve with a longer lens, but if the FX sensor's pixel density was as high as the DX sensor, you'd get exactly the same image by using the FX sensor in DX crop mode (or by manually cutting the edges off the image). All else being equal, under these circumstances, I'd take the FX sensor in a heartbeat. because it would allow me to use a wider field of view when I wanted it. Relatively few of my images aren't cropped retrospectively anyway. Would you really choose a 5MP DX DSLR (let's call it 6MP and think of a D300 with "L" image size disabled) over a D700, just because of the viewfinder masking? (And even that is a more complete mask on a D3 series.)

    I have used a digital zoom on a compact when I knew I only wanted the middle of the frame - but only because the "zoom" was simply a crop, and I was saving card space and write time.
    Pixel density is not a factor for noise in same generation sensors, sensor size is the over riding factor. If you want/need less noise get a bigger sensor. The best sensor for noise per area, tested at DxO, is a Canon P&S, if you put twenty of them together you would get a 200 mp FX sensor with less noise than a D3 anything.​
    Unless you want to enlarge the image based on the pixel count providing enough detail, as opposed to enlarging a constant fraction of the captured image, I agree, at least to an engineering approximation. And, of course, sensor size only matters because of the relationship between focal length, field of view, relative aperture and the total amount of light the lens transmits to the sensor. Of course, making an FX sensor with the pixel density of a P&S is a bit expensive (even if Ilkka's right about FX cameras having big mark-ups).
     
  165. Pixel density is not a factor for noise in same generation sensors
    It is a factor, though of secondary importance. The D3s (12MP FX) is one year newer than the D3X (24 MP FX) and they're very far from each other in high ISO performance. And Nikon has explicitly said many times that they need to make a compromise between resolution and noise (in the final print obviously). Canon on the other hand has a different approach as they always increase the resolution in subsequent generations thereby making comparisons between pixel densities within the same generation impossible.
    The reason why pixel density is a factor is obvious: there is less space available corresponding to each photosite in a high density sensor, therefore they can not use as high quality electronics. By the way if there were more space, the best low-light photodetector would be a photomultiplier tube, not at all CMOS or CCD, but it's about 1 square centimeter in size so you wouldn't do much of an image with it (though there are imaging PMTs called microchannel plates, but still the individual channels are much larger than a photoside in a camera sensor). The difference in sensitivity is quite dramatic. For bright light the situation is different and photodiodes are competitive there. My point is just that given more space per detection site, much higher performance can be obtained.
    The best sensor for noise per area, tested at DxO, is a Canon P&S,
    Oh really? And which camera would that be? In any case the D3s which has the largest photosites of any DSLR currently made (AFAIK) absolutely smokes the 5D Mk II (Canon's best high ISO camera) as well as Nikon's high resolution model (D3X) for high ISO SNR:
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/628%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/485%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon
    Seems pretty convincing that the best way to get good low-light sensitivity is to use large photosites and good electronics for each photosite.
    If it did then real life crop camera resolution would be substantially higher than cropped ff camera resolution, but it isn't.
    Again that's a conclusion made based on your experience with Canon equipment. The D7000 (16 MP DX) camera obviously renders much more detail than the D3s with the same lens used at or near its optimum aperture, at base or intermediate ISO. Even the D200 (10MP) camera does, by a considerable margin. Now, another factor entirely is your ability to get the subject in focus which can be a challenge with small sensors. But the pixel density is a very real factor in real-world conditions when the light is bright but diffuse and shutter speed high enough and your aperture stopped down 1-2 stops on a suitable lens. Even I will admit to this, though I sold my D7000. The reason I sold it was that good results can be obtained across much wider set of conditions on a 12 MP FX camera than the 16 MP DX camera in my case, excluding tripod-based macro and landscape detail work for which the DX camera blows away the FX cameras that I have. And it's because of its pixel density.
     
  166. Well, for my sins, I am a Canon user and I tested the 7D (18 MP Dx), with a view to getting one, against my 1Ds MkIII (21 MP Fx). For me the small additional resolution the 7D gave, minus the additional noise didn't make getting one any sense.
    The montage below is set up in totally optimal conditions to favour the 7D, any deviation in support, manual focus, aperture etc and that very small resolution advantage just isn't there.
    With regards pixel density, you can pontificate over definitions of enlarging for ever, most people want to make x-sized print etc from their image as captured. I have some nice images from a heavily berated high pixel count P&S that when you blow it up to big sizes the sweat pores on fingers are clearly visible.
    I was just pointing out the oft quoted but inaccurate ideas about crop cameras and also pixel density and noise.
    00ZNxW-401575784.jpg
     
  167. I'm certainly not contributing to ruffle feathers or start fights.
    Peter van den Hamer's review of the DxO sensor testing methodology and results on Luminous Landscapes is certainly far more thorough and involved than I am capable of accurately contradicting. As he points out in end note (27) the S90 is arguably the best low light sensor tested when you take size into account. Even if you argue that it isn't the best, or argue DxO's testing methods (which many would), it is certainly in the same ballpark as the D3s, totally debunking the notion of noise and pixel density.
    "The D7000 (16 MP DX) camera obviously renders much more detail than the D3s with the same lens used at or near its optimum aperture, at base or intermediate ISO. "​
    The D3s is pixel castrated, if you choose to believe Nikon's marketing department for the reasoning then fine, in the mean time line up a D3s, a D3x and a D7000 and show me the images laid over each other like my example, with over 100% crops that prove that and by how much. I have found that the differences are often much smaller than people think they should be, incidentally my train of thought was first started by a Nikon user when he compared his Dx and Fx cameras here on PN.
    For my example the only processing I did was to resample the 1Ds MkIII image to give it the same pixel density as the 7D, no sharpening or noise reduction to either image, doing that at least illustrates an equal starting point.
     
  168. On first appearances, they may not be making their argument especially well, since the 1-system is (with RRP) quite expensive and not much smaller than some of the competition.​
    I disagree with that. As for cost, well, J1 costs around the same as the cheapest 4/3 cameras (at least here, I dunno around US). V1 is comparable to 4/3 Panasonic with EVF. Yes, Samsung NX is cheaper, but hey, it's Samsung. They're always cheap (and good). Nobody buys them anyway.
    As for size: Sony NEX is a HUGE system if you want anything else than pancakes. They're also pretty crappy cameras in terms of controls. Basically I can see little advantage in NEX over DSLRs in terms of size and lots of disadvantages.
    M43 cameras? PEN Mini is almost exactly the same size as J1 body. How smaller can it be, since everyone wants 3" displays? V1 is, if I'm not mistaken, the smallest system camera with an EVF. Also, the three base lenses are really tiny. You don't get much smaller than the 10/2.8, or 10-30. And from what I've tried, I'd rather pick the Nikons than the Olympii.
    If I'd be picking up an EVIL system, I'd be choosing between the two underdogs - Nikon 1 and Samsung NX. Samsung blows everyone else out of the water with ergonomics and price (except the higher-end Panasonics) and cost, but sucks with lens selection and control of manual lenses. Nikon meanwhile, is at least tiny.
     
  169. On the EVF free J1, it's a pity they couldn't shoe-horn the hi-res 3.1/2 touch screen from the COOLPIX S100.
     
  170. Scott, your images very clearly show that the 7D images render details better than the 5D Mk II and that they're more noisy too. Note that both cameras have far greater photosite density than the D3s. I made a similar test between the D3 and D200 (a 10MP DX camera) using a 180mm Nikkor and the D200 produced far superior details, much bigger difference than shown in your example (but then those cameras operate at lower photosite densities than yours, so differences would be expected to be greater).
    I find DXO's claim that pixel density has no drawbacks and only improves image quality humorous. They seem to be fixated on base ISO image quality. Their article
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-advanced-compacts
    shows that Canon was able to achieve a substantial improvement in DXOMark score in their compact cameras going down from 15MP to 10MP. Yet the site seems to have difficulty accepting that the pixel density has to do something with it. The site twists and turns around, refusing to admit to the obvious fact that the camera which has the largest photosites of any commercially available digital camera for normal photography, the D3s is heads and tails ahead of its competitors in high ISO performance. Since high MP cameras are easier to market especially in the compact camera sector, going back to 10 MP shows that even Canon had to concede that they cannot achieve good high ISO results by sticking with a ridiculously high photosite density. As to sticking a bunch of S90 sensors side by side, this cannot be done in any trivial manner. Nikon says they could not implement the high-speed features in a larger chip (60fps at 10MP, best shot selector etc.). I don't know why this is the case. Back to the issue of signal quality, the data has to be processed somehow and by increasing the distances the data has to travel, and by increasing the total amount of traffic in the whole sensor, noise (due to interference and electromagnetic pickup) will increase. A larger chip will also generate more heat, increasing thermal noise. I cannot see why DXO is so obsessed in making a claim which is so contrary to their own scoring (regarding high ISO). It seems to be a case of people who are quite blind to criticism regarding their own arguments.
    in the mean time line up a D3s, a D3x and a D7000 and show me the images laid over each other like my example,
    I don't have to do that; your example was sufficiently convincing (but we seem to see different things in it) and I know how the D3 and D7000 behave from extensive practical use. I would not shoot the D7000 higher than ISO 400 and be happy about it (if colour is required; B&W is fine even up to 1600). I know it renders much better detail than the D3 at low to moderate ISO and optimal aperture (using the same lens) from the same camera spot; there is no need to demonstrate this. You can check photozone results which show even cheap consumer zooms improve in detail on D7000 vs. older, lower resolution DX cameras (D200) - again this assumes you can get the subject in optimal focus, which is not at all trivial with the D7000 but autofocus issues are not the topic here. It just happens that your Canon full-frame camera has a lot higher pixel density than the Nikons (apart from the D3X which most people think is a poor deal compared to the D3s) so the remaining differences in detail can be quite small and you can dismiss them as insignificant but they're very real to us Nikon users. But then we get cheap DSLRs with top of the line autofocus so one of the companies holds back on AF and the other on resolution. And curiously enough both companies charge an extortionate amount of money of the combination of two relatively cheap features, good AF and high resolution.
     
  171. Scott said:
    The D3s is pixel castrated, if you choose to believe Nikon's marketing department for the reasoning then fine, in the mean time line up a D3s, a D3x and a D7000 and show me the images laid over each other like my example . . .​
    Although of different scenes, here's two ISO 5000 images, one from a D3s, and the other from an D7000, that I just happened to have handy (no post-processing other than re-scaling for upload):
    [​IMG]
    Nikon D3s @ ISO 5,000
    [​IMG]
    Nikon D7000 @ ISO 5,000
    Scott also said:
    I was just pointing out the oft quoted but inaccurate ideas about crop cameras and also pixel density and noise. . . .​
    Not sure which inaccurate ideas you're mentioning, Scott. My D7000 is clearly noisier than my D3s. Just as in telescopes, the larger the mirror (photosite), the more light-gathering capability.
     
  172. Back on-topic:
    Not sure if everyone's seen focus-numerique's Nikon V1 noise comparisons yet:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus-numerique.com%2Ftest-1302%2Fcompact-nikon-v1-bruit-electronique-12.html
    The Nikon V1 is compared with a Nikon point-and-shoot, a couple micro-4/3rds, and an APS-C sensored camera, including the one I was most interested in--the Sony NEX-5N. What I found a bit surprising was that the Nikon V1's base ISO images didn't seem to look that great. I would've expected Nikon to have somehow optimized at least the base ISO's imaging capability a bit better than that. Hopefully, that was just a pre-production sample. However, the V1 fared reasonably well against its larger micro-4/3rds competitors. And, as expected, in the high-ISO tests, the APS-C sensored Sony NEX-5N did best. While the APS-C sensored Sony NEX-5N exhibited superior high-ISO noise performance, that's not particularly why I am interested in the J1.
    Although I would prefer the larger sensor, the J1's product concept actually fits my "consumer" needs--it's pocketable, and I'll have it with me all the time. Not so sure I'd want to pocket the NEX-5N. Also, the Nikon 1 series seems great at what it's attempting to specialize in--fast auto-focus, and decent still photos and video quality in the same bitstream. Obviously, Nikon chose the smaller sensor to accommodate the data processing overhead needed for this type of real-time image processing. Yes, it's a compromise, but it's one with some tangible benefits--perfect for vacation photos, and pictures of you and your friends when just hanging out . . . I think I'm getting one!
     
  173. Ralph,
    Looked at the link and yes, it seems the one ISO performance is not as good as the NEX-5N. My understanding is the sizes/weights are also similar. Have you done the size/weight comparisons?
     
  174. Steve said:
    Have you done the size/weight comparisons?​
    I didn't compare their published physical specs, but I did have a hands-on demo with a Sony NEX-5N, and a Nikon 1 J1, which I described here in this thread:
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZN5K
    My overall impression was that the Sony NEX-5N was a bit awkward in comparison. Although the NEX-5N is much thinner than the J1 (the Nikon reps didn't have a V1), the Sony was larger in both width and height (as I recall), and the protruding Sony grip, while more ergonomic, makes it less "pocketable." So, even though the Sony's body is actually slimmer, it lacks the unified profile, and parallel-lined form factor of the J1, making the NEX feel a bit more cumbersome.
    It's a tough call because I really think the Sony is a very good camera, and thanks to its large sensor, the clear high-ISO winner. The NEX-5N seemed nearly as quick to focus as the J1, but as I said, everything about the J1 one seemed fast. That's what impressed me most about the J1--it just felt very responsive. But, to be completely honest, what's really selling me is the beauty of its industrial design, the simpicity of its form, and whatever nebulous value the cachet of the Nikon brand holds. I just think it's beautiful. Although the demo unit I played with was white (with a white 10mm f/2.8), I bet the J1 in black is one stealthy looking, stylish piece of gear.
     
  175. The other consideration for me was the Olympus E-P3, or some other micro-4/3rds body, mainly for the following reasons:
    1. micro-4/3rds sensor is nearly twice as large as CX sensor (1.93x).
    And, the following rather impressive array of speedy m4/3 lenses, all the way up to the Voigtlander super-speed 25mm:
    2. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7
    3. Olympus 45mm f/1.8
    4. Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0-- a relatively fast, constant-aperture, super-wide zoom--neat!
    5. Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4--how awesome is this?
    6. Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 (of course, very pricey at $1,199 USD; but it's pretty cool that this even exists!).
    The Sony NEX-5N is attractive for the following reasons:
    1. Best-in-class, high-ISO performance, APS-C sensor.
    2. Optional OLED EVF.
    3. Sony's just-released 50mm f/1.8 E-mount lens (Nikon also stated that they plan to introduce a CX "portrait" lens at a later date).
    4. Sony's 16mm f/2.8 E-mount, 24mm-equivalent (Nikon's wide-angle is only a 27mm-equivalent).
    5. Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 E-mount (but it's big, and expensive at $999 USD).
     
  176. But, I nearly forgot . . . I absolutely hate the 4:3 aspect ratio. So then, I think it's gotta be either CX or APS-C for me, although those ultra-fast, micro-4/3rds lenses are very tempting.
     
  177. I said:
    What I found a bit surprising was that the Nikon V1's base ISO images didn't seem to look that great [in the focus-numerique ISO images].​
    However, the Nikon rep showed me some J1 images he shot (food, portraits), I imagine, at base-ISO, displayed on his iPad, and they looked gorgeous.
     
  178. New York Times has an article on this:
    http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/nikon-joins-the-mirrorless-movement/
     
  179. An interesting note in that article that I had not yet heard:
    (Sony announced that it will introduce a faster camera on Oct. 6, although it’s unclear what Sony means by faster). --New York Times
    Sony's announcement will precede Nikon 1's October 20 release date. If the camera's also smaller than current NEX offerings, they may have something there.
     
  180. Someone from DPReview posted DxO test scores, comparing the 1 to current m4/3 camera, such as G3. The conclusion is that they have the same overall scores. I hope the link below can be accessed.
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39472022
     
  181. Interesting read, CC. Essentially, I believe the executive summary would go something like this: The Nikon 1 is optimized at lower ISOs, and is competitive with m4/3rds at base ISOs. However, since the m4/3rds sensor is nearly 200% the size of a CX sensor, then inevitably, standard SNR ratios apply: e.g., 200% better-performing SNR in a sensor twice its size, and a two-stop ISO performance advantage gained with a m4/3rds-sensored camera, over a CX-sensored camera.
     
  182. I am a long time Nikon user but the V1/J1 disappointed me. The 4/3 system looks a lot better especially the Panasonic GF1 and GF2 they are very good looking camera. The lenses available for the 4/3 system are plenty and some of them are very good and fast. I can use almost any of my Nikkor lenses on the 4/3 system camera with an adapter for extra long telephoto shots as well as using a bellow for macro.
     
  183. BeBu said:
    The lenses available for the 4/3 system are plenty and some of them are very good and fast.​
    Yes, I'm considering getting an Olympus E-P3 instead to take advantage of some of the ultra-fast Olympus and Panasonic micro-4/3rds lenses, such as the Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux. I also haven't completely discounted the APS-C format Samsung or Sony ILCs either yet.
     
  184. Well, I've gone full-circle, and now I'm back to the Nikon J1 . . .
    It's got too much depth-of-field, no fast normal or portrait lens yet, and I can only buy it with a lens I don't want. But, I like it! Possibly because I expect its video features to be quite good, and with a camera like this, I'll be shooting more "home videos" with it. I'll take it on ski trips (where often the video is just as entertaining as the still photos), on vacations, and mostly, I'll just take it everywhere I go (especially to work, where I'm not allowed to take a DSLR).
    I looked at just about every other mirrorless system out there, and while all were great (several with some extremely impressive lens options), I was quickly approaching a total of $2,000 for a compact-ILC body, a wide-angle pancake, and a fast normal/portrait lens. That money would be much better spent on buying a second FX body for paid event coverage in the future.
    So, instead of having absolutely no compact camera, I think I'll just throw in the towel and get a Nikon J1. One of its biggest selling points? A built-in flash! Neither of my top-two, APS-C compact picks, the Sony NEX-C3, nor the incredibly full-featured (and incredibly pricey) Samsung NX200 has a built-in flash. In fact, most of the smaller compact ILCs (e.g., Olympus E-PL3) don't have a built-in flash--a real handicap for a camera also substituting for a point-and-shoot.
    However, the Sony C3 does have that speedy 50mm f/1.8 portrait-length lens; the Samsung, that cool, rotate-the-focus-ring-and-change-the-aperture feature, plus that wicked-fast, 85mm f/1.4 short-tele. The Olympus PENs and Panasonics have that awesome Leica 25mm f/1.4. Lots of cool stuff. Not too cool prices.
    I handled the J1, and really liked it. Plus, as I said, I'll be using it as much as a video camera as a still camera. Hopefully, I'll be able to live with (ugh) noise! Maybe I'm just goofy for anything that says "Nikon" on it (well, except for stuff that also says "Coolpix" on it).
     
  185. I said:
    Not too cool prices.​
    I mean, you get what you pay for, and a lot of these ILC manufacturers are making some really great stuff--the majority of it, reasonably priced, for what you're getting. It's just that a lot more systems (including the Nikon V1/J1) would be a lot more attractive if fewer manufacturers chose not to bundle their precious ILCs with slow consumer-ish zooms, instead of offering a more enthusiast-oriented kit, with a single f/2.8 wide-angle, or a fast normal prime.
     
  186. I just finished reading the imaging-resources hands-on review here (duh, I only just discovered it!):
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONJ1/NIKONJ1A.HTM
    I was pleasantly surprised by the included sample images, high-ISO comparison tests, and video clips. The video did show 1080i interlace artifacts (as all interlaced video will show on a progressively scanned computer monitor), but I'll probably only shoot in 1080p30 (30-frames, progressive). Too bad Nikon chose to implement 30p, and not 24p, so that you could seamlessly integrate the J1's video with professionally shot 24p footage (mixing 24p and 30p in the same timeline is a nightmare). This is a repeat of the same issue with the Sony NEX-VG10--an otherwise excellent indie-video camera that doesn't shoot at filmmakers' preferred frame-rate (that's why everyone kept shooting on Canon 5Ds and 7Ds).
    An unexpected capability of the J1 is its ultra-high shutter speed. Since the J1 uses an all-electronic shutter, its highest shutter speed is a blazing 1/16,000th of a second. The only gotcha is the J1's maximum flash sync speed: 1/60th. Weird, since the D70 can sync to like a 1/billionth of a second with its electronic shutter. Oh, well.
    Anyway, since Nikon showed a prototype of a forthcoming "portrait" lens, I can only pray that Nikon will eventually grace its new format with an ultra-fast normal lens for speed junkies like me, plus a moderately fast portrait-length CX lens, sometime in the near future, hopefully, before Xmas!
     

Share This Page