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

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Nikon's product line-up in DSLRs is looking very tired in DX, even though the D7000--now discounted--remains a bright spot.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not sure of that. The D3200 and D5200 are very good cameras, from all I can tell. The D7000 is obviously well-regarded, but so is everything with that sensor (NEX-5, K7). The D7000 at a discounted rate is well worth it as a mini-D300 for the controls, but it's not cutting edge - Pentax have just updated their camera, although only mildly. We may expect a D7000 and probably a D300 replacement this year (the D300 is certainly behind the curve, but as Shun says so is the 7D, if less so), but the low end, to me, seems to keep up quite well. DX lenses may be another matter.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7320367">C Watson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 09, 2013; 11:18 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Market "leaders" defined by sales differ significantly from leadership defined by innovation. Just look at the auto industry. Nikon's product line-up in DSLRs is looking very tired in DX, even though the D7000--now discounted--remains a bright spot. Big discounts on CX and FX may continue just to keep sales up. Far more interesting things are happening among "niche" players. Indeed, Nikon had better connect with the frying pan soon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The camera market is not the auto market. This is a poor analogy. Most pro cameras are designed for people who are (gasp!) professional photographers, and most consumer models are designed for people that want good pictures of their family. Every mass-produced automobile is designed for non-professional drivers that need to get a variable amount of people or cargo from Point A to Point B. If you are a professional driver, even 'stock car' racing, you're not driving anything off the sales floor, and it's been that way for about 30 years. Ditto if you use a plow, or do heavy towing; almost every one of those trucks requires a special-order or aftermarket option. The dealer may have it in stock, but it's not a plain-old 'off the lot' vehicle.</p>

<p>I remember talking to a guy a knew about his contracting business. He bought a Silverado (which is a pretty huge truck), and he still had to have the suspension tweaked and get it fitted with some extra junk before it would do everything that he needed it to do. </p>

<p>But there is one way your analogy holds true: look at automobile makers that are innovation-driven. How many of them are big players? I hear that Tesla is doing pretty well these days, and so is Spyker. There isn't a single "innovative" car company that mass-produces their vehicles. Beetle, Mini, etc. are all based off older designs, and even the Prius was based on technology invented in the early 1900s, with a production Audi model dating sometime in the 70s. Unless you're buying a car that is in the $100,000 range, everything "innovative" came from somebody else.</p>

<p>So to use your own analogy ... if Fuji picks up a good share of the market, Nikon or Canon will buy them, and ten years from now we'll forget all about it and talk about how innovative Nikon/Canon is.</p>

 

[c_watson1]

<p><em>"The camera market is not the auto market. This is a poor analogy. Most pro cameras are designed for people who are (gasp!) professional photographers, and most consumer models are designed for people that want good pictures of their family."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

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

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Hmmm. Not so sure. Nikon sells way more DX than FX cameras.Why would they pour comparatively more R&D resources into a line that undersells the "non-professional"(sic) DX system? Bragging rights over Canon?</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Challenging brands/companies almost always bring more innovations than incumbent brands. Fuji, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic are more interesting than Canon/Nikon. It's almost nature. But the course is changing. Back a couple years ago, almost no one was buying mirrorless cameras here on PN. Looks like that changed a whole lot.</p>

<p>A FF compact? I was told it was impossible by many here...Today, we have the RX1. <br /> Sub 2k FF nikon being impossible, remember? Again, I was told impossible by many here. Today, there are the d600 and canon 6d...</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>"What has been surprising me is just how much I like my little D5100."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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

<br>

(1) the AF points can't be lock and it is very easy to bump it with your palm, when carrying the camera in my right hand, as I do with the D90.<br>

(2) In M-mode, auto-ISO, I cannot use exposure compensation (since the button is used for the control of aperture).<br>

<br>

Does any one know how the D5200 work in these regards?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>(2) In M-mode, auto-ISO, I cannot use exposure compensation (since the button is used for the control of aperture).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you do that? Enlighten me...M-mode but auto ISO, yet exposure comp? Hmm...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Why would you do that?</em></p>

<p>If you want to set the shutter speed to control sharpness or blur due to movement, aperture to set the depth of field, automatic exposure (via the auto-ISO feature) to automatically react to changes in light levels, yet you may want to control the brightness of the image relative to mid gray by using exposure compensation. I think what is proposed is perfectly reasonable, though I never use auto ISO myself, as I want to be aware of what ISO (and what image quality) I am getting by manually controlling it.</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5166697">CC Chang</a> , Jan 09, 2013; 05:27 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p> <strong>When I first tried the D5100, I ran into two issues leading me to eventually return it:</strong><br>

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

</blockquote>

<p>That would just turn it into an ISO button. If ISO is the only automatic exposure setting enabled, then ISO is all that the EV control could change.</p>

<p>So then you really just want an ISO button. I think the Fn button can be assigned to do that :)</p>

<p>Personally, I'm a little turned off by the shorter dynamic range on the smaller-bodied Nikons anyway. Much too easy to clip highlights, and I'm careful as hell. Then again I'm also anal as hell, and that doesn't help :(</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7320367">C Watson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 09, 2013; 04:05 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The camera market is not the auto market. This is a poor analogy. Most pro cameras are designed for people who are (gasp!) professional photographers, and most consumer models are designed for people that want good pictures of their family."</em><br /><br /><em>"This way Nikon is using the most resources from R&D to keep develop the area where they are leaders: professional full frame DSLRs & lenses."</em><br /><br /><em><br /></em>Hmmm. Not so sure. Nikon sells way more DX than FX cameras.Why would they pour comparatively more R&D resources into a line that undersells the "non-professional"(sic) DX system? Bragging rights over Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because cameras are not cars, and camera buyers will often shy away from things that they see as too complicated. While the i-Drive system and paddle shifters may turn some consumers off due to their complication, very few people are going to buy an economy car over a full-size sedan purely because the sedan 'is too complicated.' Consumers buy J1s over D3100s every day for exactly that reason.</p>

<p>Also, most consumers are used to using the rear LCD rather than a viewfinder, and (I believe) Sony is the only company to offer a Live View feature on an SLR that does not drastically slow down the operation of the camera ... which is probably why my store has seen an uptick in Sony sales recently.</p>

<p>You're thinking with your own wallet. You've got to get out of that mindset, or else you'll just keep being angry at Nikon for not understanding what they're doing. Right now, their only problem is having too many "1" models, and Olympus and Panasonic both started off that way too. It's an easy mistake to make ... when the technology is new it improves rapidly, and they don't want to be selling old tech.</p>

<p>Also ... sic? Are you passive-aggressively calling somebody out for their grammatical usage? On a forum? Seriously? Are you going to call me out for using an improper conjugation of 'passive-aggressive'?</p>

 

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>That would just turn it into an ISO button. If ISO is the only automatic exposure setting enabled, then ISO is all that the EV control could change.</blockquote>

 

<p>As Ilkka says, it's completely reasonable to set shutter and aperture manually and then let the camera adjust ISO according to ambient conditions, but with exposure compensation to compensate for times when the meter is pointing at something you don't want mid-grey (or you want to tweak the matrix). It's how I use my D700 and D800 all the time. With the D800, I usually ride the controls to try to bring the ISO back down to 100, but that's to get dynamic range - and I know that I can stop at any point and get a usable shot (unless I've overexposed); the zoomable minimum shutter speed on auto-ISO on the D800 might mean I could consider that route as an alternative. The D700 can't do that, and doesn't suffer appreciably with small changes in ISO (the dynamic range benefit of the D800 at low ISOs isn't so much true of the D700), so I spent most of my time in manual mode with auto-ISO. If you really can't do exposure compensation + manual + auto-ISO on a D5100, I'm glad I never owned one (and I'll think carefully about my idea of a D5200 as a pixel density complement to my D800 if it has the same problem).</p>

 

<blockquote>So then you really just want an ISO button. I think the Fn button can be assigned to do that :)</blockquote>

 

<p>It's not the same as the ISO button. Even so, if Fn can be mapped to ISO on the low-end cameras, I'm even crosser that Nikon haven't followed the request I put in shortly after getting my D700, and allowed Fn (or the other programmable buttons) on the D800 to duplicate ISO. Yes, there's a dedicated ISO button, but not anywhere I can reach it when holding a big lens with my left hand... (I'd be fully manual far more if I had access to all three exposure controls right-handed, though it's nice that the camera can do fast lighting adjustments.)</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Andrew, I'm genuinely confused by your post, particularly the first part. If ISO is the only automatic setting, then that's the only setting that EV could change, I thought. Granted it COULD boost the meter so that you're overexposing when it's set flat ... but since you'd still need to manually control your shutter/aperture if THOSE were the settings that you want changed, wouldn't it make more sense to just set your exposure so that the meter reads +1 or whatever?</p>

<p>If you still have auto ISO on, it would probably drop it to compensate. But with it on, and using the EV button, you're required to (potentially) make 2-3 adjustments, where only 1 would be necessary otherwise.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to set the shutter speed to control sharpness or blur due to movement, aperture to set the depth of field, automatic exposure (via the auto-ISO feature) to automatically react to changes in light levels, yet you may want to control the brightness of the image relative to mid gray by using exposure compensation. I think what is proposed is perfectly reasonable,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, thanks, Ilkka. I ran into problem when I used the D5100 to photograph a black lens for sale and found that I need to underexpose it to make it black enough. I guess I could have switched to manual ISO or AE-locked on another subject ... With all the buttons on the D5100, why did Nikon choose the +/- to operate the aperture in the M mode? </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I ran into problem when I used the D5100 to photograph a black lens for sale and found that I need to underexpose it to make it black enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you need to have a certain ss for this? Couldn't you have changed the ss? Or maybe the ISO, or aperture? And guys, I suppose one could dream up a reason in theory, like I'm sure CC needed to be on M mode and auto ISO, on a lens sale photo no less. Yeah, I'm the obtuse one here...</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you need to have a certain ss for this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought this question has already been eloquently answered. If that was not sufficient, I could help you out more:</p>

<p>You must be thinking that lens does not move so there is no need to freeze movement with a higher ss. You are correct. However, you need to consider ss based on the focal length of the lens to prevent camera shake. Since I took the picture when the light levels were low, and I needed enough DOF so the whole lens is in focus, I would like to use just enough ss to keep the ISO as low as possible to reduce noise.</p>

<p> Lesile, do I have to do this for a sale on eBay? Of course not. But the point is that on other higher end Nikon cameras, e.g., the D90, one can set auto-ISO in M-mode and still have the option for exposure compensation. There is a reason why Nikon considers this a great feature for people who need greater control of their cameras. If you go to a m4/3 forum, you will find Nikon shooters complain about the lack of such feature in Panasonic GH cameras. Since that is how I usually set up my camera, e.g., the D90, I naturally did the same to the D5100 as a habit, to see if D5100 handles like the D90. Keep in mind that I was looking for a D90 replacement.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>With all the buttons on the D5100, why did Nikon choose the +/- to operate the aperture in the M mode?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All (?) Nikon DSLRs with one dial use this........! My D50 and D3200 are the same as my D5100.<br>

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

<br /> Set the Aperture you want, and the Shutter Speed suitable to avoid camera shake for your given focal length and increase/decrease the ISO using the mapped <em><strong>fn</strong></em> button until you get the histogram you want. No need for compensation.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Duplicate post</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If you are so worry about DOF (or handshake) of a lens sale photo, why not add lighting or find a more stable form of support? If you are so concern with IQ, why are you on auto ISO? Your reasoning maybe workable in theory but they are nothing short of ludicrous in practicality. And if you are shooting a lens sale ad, why not use a p&s? P&S has better macro capability (dof issue) and VR (for camera shake). </p>

<p>And, of course, none were available at the time, right? Have a good day. No need to argue/explain more...</p>

<p> </p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>I just use a bounced flash. It's not like the photo is there to impress anybody.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Coming back to the main topic I suspect that the issue is a marketing / consumer preference one far more than a technical or product design one.</p>

<p>What is interesting is that those companies not so wedded to DSLR (especially APS-C) are forging ahead with mirrorless systems that are either already strong and diverse (m4/3) or getting there very fast (NEX for example). By comparison both Nikon and Canon are positively timid in this space, and seem to be ending up in no-mans land for fear of cannibalising their main DSLR offering.</p>

<p>What this suggests to me is that the data shows more strongly than anticipated that people are directly substituting mirrorless for DX rather than adding mirrorless as their second cameras. And/or even when they have one of each, the mirrorless becomes the primary camera in practise which means slower/less investment in model upgrades on the DSLR side. I might be biased as I have recently done exactly that (D7000 to OMD). But I sense that the threat felt by the big DSLR makers from mirrorless is more than we perceive.</p>

<p>My predicted end point is that there will be consolidation around 2-3 mirrorless formats. Micro 4/3 is obviously one. I'm guessing NEX APS-C E-mount is the other, and indeed think that if either Nikon or Canon were to properly JV with Sony in this space it would be quite a formidable alliance with the potential to quickly develop a top system of bodies and glass. The only puzzling fact that cuts across this view is Sony's own recent investment in Olympus, and what that might mean in this product segment.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are <strong>so</strong> worry about DOF (or handshake) of a lens sale photo</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lesile, please lighten up. I was not SOOOO worry about DOF, and it would be silly to assume so. BTW, you are the one asking me first, twice, and you have taken the circumstance in which I found out the difference between D5100 and D90 way out of context. My first post was about whether D5200 and D5100 have the same features in two areas, which are relevant to this post. Your questions were off-topic and personal in tone. </p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

Oops, sorry, away from the computer.

 

Zack: My starting position is a shutter speed fast enough to avoid blur (according to whether I'm stable,

the subject is moving and zoom length) and the aperture I want (either to lose the background, get the

required DoF or optimise lens performance). In auto ISO the camera ensures that the exposure is right by

adjusting the ISO to match the metre, which may fluctuate for a moving subject. If I expect (or notice, in a

sequence) that the meter isn't treating the subject as I want, I tweak exposure compensation, but it'll still

adjust automatically to the subject moving in and out of light. For example, I may tweak the meter for skin

tone, but still want the camera to cope with the subject turning towards or away from the light or stepping

into shade.

 

On the D800, if I have a static subject, I tend to tweak shutter and aperture to reduce the ISO if reasonable,

often riding the limit of the other creative controls. On a D700, except where I bump into minimum ISO at

the selected aperture (rare, indoors), I more typically leave the camera to pick the ISO it needs and don't

tweak.

 

The philosophy is that I set aperture according to composition and lens behaviour, shutter speed

according to conditions and subject motion and exposure compensation according to the subject. Often

more than one of these is static for multiple shots. I still want the meter to deal with the way light falls at

the exact moment I press the shutter - something I don't get by adjusting ISO manually.

 

Of course, the fact that adjusting ISO manually is an ergonomic nightmare on either of these cameras (the

D700 doesn't have quick ISO, but it doesn't work in manual mode anyway) means I can't really compare

my approach to doing everything manually. I suspect I'd still prefer it. I might try some variant of quick

ISO, program shift and exposure compensation some time, which is probably as close as I could get to

one-handed full manual, but it's not quite the same.

 

Inability to do exposure compensation in manual mode sounds like a disaster to my way of shooting. But

the only one-dial camera I've used was my Eos 300D, and it didn't have (proper) auto ISO.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm in the same boat with folks not seeing the need for exposure compensation in conjunction with manual exposure mode, even when using auto ISO. Sure, it might be convenient. But when I'm in all-manual mode it's almost solely when I have plenty of time to make adjustments anyway, including a fixed ISO setting. If I need to compensate I can just tweak the shutter speed or aperture 1/3 or so EV.</p>

<p>But I mostly use Nikon's flexible program mode for everything. It works well for most situations and still gives me access to exposure comp. I just wish Nikon would update the V1 firmware again because version 1.20 didn't quite fix the problem with auto exposure tending to default to slower shutter speeds.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Lex: manual + auto ISO means I can "program shift" aperture against ISO or shutter against ISO, which means I can adjust either during

composition without changing mode. Other modes have their uses too, of course (outdoors, where I hit minimum ISO and I just need "fast

enough" shutter speed, auto ISO with a minimum shutter in aperture priority is useful, for example) - I'm just saying that, without exposure

compensation and auto ISO in manual, I'd have to shoot differently, and probably have worse control in many circumstances.

 

Of course, the other route is a lens with an aperture ring, but that doesn't work on a D5200 either. I envy Pentax the slightly more logical "ISO

priority", though I seem to remember them getting rid of it. At least the 1 series have two "dials", even if one is a rocker switch.

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm in the same boat with folks not seeing the need for exposure compensation in conjunction with manual exposure mode, even when using auto ISO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heh!</p>

<p>Lex, I'm a Canon user now, but back in my Nikon days (D70, D200) full Auto ISO - the ability to whack it into Manual, define my shutter speed, ISO limit, aperture, let the camera manage all of those, <em>and </em>have the ability to adjust EC - was a wonderful thing.</p>

<p>(I know "Manual and yet the camera is doing most of the work" seems counter-intuitive, but that's just how it works).</p>

<p>Imagine you're shooting a tiny, hyperactive bird like a Kinglet (on my side of the Atlantic, a <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_7b.jpg">Goldcrest</a>): you need fast shutter speeds, and the camera can ride around ISOs to maintain the chosen shutter speed much, much faster than can the photographer; but when the bird flits from deep shadow to well-lit (or backlit), being able to tweak ISO while the camera does the rest, is vital.</p>

<p>It is in fact the only thing I miss about my Nikons, and a feature I am utterly baffled by Canon's apparent inability to understand the importance of - my 7D has Auto ISO but no EC adjustment (in Manual) and it's useless for the kind of shooting I refer to above.</p>

<p>I hope to Hell that Magic Lantern builds this into their 7D firmware sooner rather than later - as it is (and a Google on the subject of 7D, Auto ISO and EC will confirm that a lot of people feel the same way), Auto ISO without EC, is a hopelessly half-arsed implementation.</p>

<p>Now you might still think "I don't see the problem", but take it from me, it's unquestionably real.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Keith - wow, suddenly I've another reason I'm glad I switched to the dark (lens) side. :-)</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>This is a very good explanation of its benefit as it applies to my kind of subject matter:<br>

http://www.robertotoole.com/2011/12/30/auto-iso-the-third-auto-mode/</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Enabling auto ISO in manual mode will allow you to use the exact settings you require and at the same time the camera will compensate instantly for any changes in light so you can concentrate on other important things like autofocus, timing, and composition. <em>Some cameras (Nikon D300S, D700, D3S, and D3S) even allow you to fine tune the results with exposure compensation in manual mode with auto ISO enabled.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's all about letting the camera react more quickly to changing light than we can.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Robert goes on to say (with my emphasis!):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Unfortunately</em></strong> at this time no Canon camera will allow you to use exposure compensation in manual mode with auto ISO enabled.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>He gets it!</p>