The Mirrorless Nikon Arrives

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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</em></p>

<p>Not to nit-pick, but if you look at</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9716229576/why-make-a-small-sensor-mirrorless-camera</p>

<p>you'll see that micro four thirds is <em>much</em> 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).</p>

<p><em>I think a </em>soccer <em>mum won't necessarily pay this much for an unusual system (why do I need interchangable lenses again?) in this economy</em></p>

<p>Because if you shoot <em>soccer</em>, 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.</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>you make a good point about dynamic range (although I always thought the D7000 was supposed to be good at that</em></p>

<p>I know it's supposed to be, which is why I was surprised ... </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>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).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>The new Nikon is all about capture the moment in our life <strong>when many things do not sit still</strong>, 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. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>you'll see that micro four thirds is much closer to DX than to compact digital cameras in sensor size</blockquote>

 

<p>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 <i>that</i> 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.</p>

 

<blockquote>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</blockquote>

 

<p>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.<br />

<br />

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

<br />

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.<br />

<br />

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>I</i> don't want one; my worries are that <i>no-one</i> (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!</p>

[adam_weaver]

<p>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......</p>

[anuarpatjane]

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.

[rustys pics]

<p>B.F.D. Nikon. If I had wanted one of these I'd have bought the Panasonic or Olympus 3 years ago....</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

[Sanford]

<p>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.</p>

[thomas_lozinski]

<p>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.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Mark said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's <em>exactly</em> 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.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>if it was priced at $600 with the 10/2.8</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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. <br /> <br /></p>

[studio460]

<p>Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . and I hadn't imagined that the autofocus performance would justify the price to the "soccer mum" market . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>more</em> megapixels!), Nikon's marketing people will have their work cut out for them.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon's marketing people will have their work cut out for them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never underestimate Demi Moore's husband. He has a <em>beard</em> now. He's unstoppable.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Never underestimate Demi Moore's husband. He has a <em>beard</em> now. He's unstoppable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like!</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>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?</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>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.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>"Andrew said:<br>

. . . and I hadn't imagined that the autofocus performance would justify the price to the "soccer mum" market . . ."</p>

<p>Yes, I agree it's a bit out-priced for its market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 ...</p>

<p>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." </p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon lenses are supposed to have more features and cheaper:<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>3. The AF motors in most m4/3 pancake lenses are "weak" — they are not fast and hunt in low light.</p>

<p>4. Nikon's lens have the power zoom feature which all current m4/3 lenses lack.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>Thus in terms of lens size, we should wait and see what is the size/IQ ratio.</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1316578774.html</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Hey now, he asked about size. Yes, the VR is part of the weight of the lenses, except in the case of the pancake.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So as you said, we have to wait and see. Or, if you are impatient, you need to just get a system and pray.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Nikon = Real Cameras, laser rangefinders, Rifle Scopes, and most recently my eyeglass lenses. Canon = Real Cameras and inkjet printers.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Hey now, he asked about size. Yes, the VR is part of the weight of the lenses,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[mcclayton]

<p>I'm in the market for a mirrorless and IF it has decent ISO at around 1600. I'll buy one<br>

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.?<br>

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</p>

<p> </p>

[Sanford]

<p>Actually, you know, the V1 is starting to grow on me a little bit.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon lenses are supposed to have more features and cheaper:<br />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.<br>

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.<br>

3. The AF motors in most m4/3 pancake lenses are "weak" — they are not fast and hunt in low light.<br>

4. Nikon's lens have the power zoom feature which all current m4/3 lenses lack.<br>

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</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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:<br>

<a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/">http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/</a><br>

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.<br>

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.</p>