The Mirrorless Nikon Arrives

[DickArnold]

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.

[Two23]

<p>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.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>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.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>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?</p>

<p>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).</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>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.<br>

I see a couple of differences that make the Nikon 1 interesting and make me hesitate<br>

1. iTTL... i don't believe the NEX series has this capability.. is this right?<br>

2. The autofocus PD on the sensor will have to help in low light situations.. don't think NEX has this capability<br>

3. The ability to shoot a still while still shooting video. I tried that on the NEX 5 and could not do it...<br>

4. All the lens are VRII which should help in low light... enough to balance the 'potential' lower ISO performance of the Nikon 1. <br>

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???<br>

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...</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>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?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>All the lens are VRII which should help in low light... enough to balance the 'potential' lower ISO performance of the Nikon 1.</blockquote>

 

<p>Assuming a static subject, possibly. But not <i>all</i> 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.<br />

<br />

That ISO 800 image is good <i>for a small sensor</i>. 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.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>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.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>My gut reaction - Remember when 110 was going to replace 35mm? And how about when APS was going to replace 35mm?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[szrimaging]

<blockquote>

<p> This would be a good 2nd camera for on-the-run for DSLR owners, nothing more, nothing less.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>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.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Zach--<br>

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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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....</p>

<p> </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>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.</p>

<p>The way I see it, M4/3 for travel/fun and DSLR (full or DX) and bigger for pro work and action.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>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. </p>

<p>There's a reason I don't make that kind of decisions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Should I add a Pellix to my Canon collection? Hmmmm. ;)</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>So?? Nikon didn't announce the replacement of the now outdated and useless FX models? Many people must be upset about that..... :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see what you did there. =)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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?</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Comparing overall size, in millimeters, including N1 10-30/3.5-5.6 lens, to the Fuji X10:

<table>

<tr><td>J1</td><td>V1</td><td>X10</td></tr>

<tr><td>106</td><td>113</td><td>117</td><td>W</td></tr>

<tr><td>61</td><td>76</td><td>70</td><td>H</td></tr>

<tr><td>72</td><td>86</td><td>57</td><td>D</td></tr>

</table>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>My gut reaction - Remember when 110 was going to replace 35mm? And how about when APS was going to replace 35mm?</blockquote>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

 

<p>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 <i>really</i> 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.</p>

[DELETE THIS ACCOUNT]

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

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>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.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>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.</p>