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

[nishnishant]

<p>Very disappointing :-(</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Very disappointing :-(</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Oops - please delete the duplicates above. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Oops - please delete the duplicates above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No worries. We know that you are really disappointed. :-)</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>What I was hoping for from Nikon was a FF digital camera in the FM/FE form factor. Olympus has done it with the OM-D (sensor size aside). There is an army of mature Nikon photographers weeping because the Nikon semi-pro DSLR form factor is just too big. I still shoot my FE and its SO much better to use than a big DSLR. Its keeping me with a foot in film. I don't care about VR and I don't care for big fat plastic covered 77mm zooms. Even the AFS primes are way too big. We have a crude word for it here. A big F O lens. You know what I mean.<br>

Nikon have shown that they can produce nice smaller lenses for the V/J series, so why do the DSLR lenses have to be so big? Its not the mount. Using them in the field gets you disapproving, smirky glances. I am a shy person by nature and I gave up on using a D700 with grip for this reason. I felt quite out of place. I was no longer a pro and it was obvious. I was also a target. Can you image someone like Galen Rowell running all over the mountains with a D800...I don't think so. This is my beef. Pro quality need not mean big as well, surely. I quite liked the D300 when I had one, but the AFS lenses are just too big for the quality you get. I mainly used my AFD and AIS lenses on it. The AFS 24-70 2.8 is a good example. Its bigger and much fatter than my 80-200 F4 AIS.<br>

But we have small voices as far as Nikon is concerned. But my pro digital budget will stay in the bank for now.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

No, the 11-27.5 mm is not a power zoom; the only PD-ZOOM in the lineup is the original 10-100mm.

[Alex_Es]

<p>Until Nikon has a full-frame mirrorless professional camera ready for us I am not interested in their new products, unless it is an updated version of the Coolscan 9000 dedicated scanner.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Francisco, your comments echo the very same reasons why I've ditched Nikon in favour of an Olympus OM-D setup. An OM-D plus Panasonic 14-45mm weighs in 620g. It's also small, magnesium alloy shelled with some weather sealing. A 20mm f1.7 prime weighs 110g and the 14mm f2.5 is 55g. A 45mm f1.8 is 116g, the Panasonic 12-35mm - 305g, the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 - 360g.</p>

<p>I suspect the DX format is destined to be increasingly caught in the middle between ever improving smaller sensor cameras and full frame ones.</p>

 

[israel1]

<p>A DXX00 with a built-in focus motor would solve this debate once and for all as far as I am concerned. Canon can do it so why not Nikon? <br /><br />Right now the only upgrade option I see for my D300 is a D3200 which means I have to say good-bye to my AI-S and AF lenses and spend a lot of money that I don't have on pro-level AF-S glass as nothing less would suffice...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>What I was hoping for from Nikon was a FF digital camera in the FM/FE form factor. Olympus has done it with the OM-D (sensor size aside). There is an army of mature Nikon photographers weeping because the Nikon semi-pro DSLR form factor is just too big. I still shoot my FE and its SO much better to use than a big DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Francisco, there is never going to happen. I bought an FE the same year it was introduced, back in 1978 and still own it today; I also had an FE2 for many years, so I know the FM/FE series quite well. Those cameras are rectangular boxes plus a viewfinder. Ergonomically, that kind of design is a disaster today. Modern SLRs have a grip and the controls fit our hands much better. You also need room for a battery, LCD for image review, etc. If your battery is too tiny, people will complain that it lasts fewer than 2000 captures. Today, a D600 is not all that big and not heavy.</p>

<p>If you ask 10 people, there will be 20 different opinions. Nikon (or Canon) will never please everybody. If some other brand or some other format fits you better, by all means switch to something else. At this point I am quite happy with Nikon's DSLRs, but it puzzles me why it takes so long for Nikon to update the D300S. For whatever reason, Nikon seems to lock steps with Canon in their DSLR introduction. Within the last year, Canon had the 1DX and Nikon had the D4, Nikon D800/D800S and Canon 5D III, and finally Nikon D600 and Canon 6D. For whatever reason, Canon also has not updated the 7D, which was introduced back in 2009, the same year the D300S was introduced. So if Kent is tired of waiting for Nikon to update the D300S, are you going to switch to the equally "ancient" Canon 7D? It makes no sense. If you go Sony, you will lose the traditional optical viewfinder; at least I don't like that approach.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I own no mirrorless cameras. IMO the Nikon CX sensor is too small and if I focus manually, I'd like to have a manual focus ring on the lens. I am not sure I want to get myself into that system.</p>

<p>BTW, the only power zoom lens in the Nikon 1 mirrorless system is the first version of the 10-100mm zoom introduced in 2010 along with the initial V1 and J1. That lens is intended for video.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>The D5200 uses a Toshiba sensor: http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2013/01/08/inside-the-nikon-d5200-dslr-toshiba-found/</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I kinda thought it was the D3200's chip in the D5100's body.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I kinda thought it was the D3200's chip in the D5100's body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not exactly. Both the D3200 and D5200 are so called "24MP," but there is where the similarity ends.</p>

<p>The D3200's sensor generates a 6016x4000 RAW file, while the D5200 is 6000x4000. It is actually quite clear that the sensors are different.</p>

<p>Nikon is a leader in semiconductor stepper technology. What they don't have is IC manufacturing facility themselves. It is fairly easy for Nikon to design their own sensors, but they need to find someone else to manufacture those sensors.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Indeed! :-)</p>

<p>I'd popped over to DxOMark and they hadn't reviewed the D5200's sensor yet and just 'went by the numbers'. Doh!</p>

<p>Still interesting how the launch dates were so very widely spaced across the World........ and they (DxO) haven't even got a price or a detailed spec on it yet...would have thought they would have got their hands on one by now!</p>

[Two23]

<p>Shun--</p>

<p>I wait for an updated 7D. I don't have much interest in Sony DSLR. I've them a couple of times and they just didn't click. What has been surprising me is just how much I like my little D5100. I'm getting a lot of use out of that swivel screen, and I like the small size. I think a D400 and a D5200 would be a perfect combo for me! I have also tried a Leica M9. I loved it! The cost of it plus three lenses is dizzying though. So, I shoot a Leica IIIc and LTM lenses 35/50/90. It's another surprise just how often 70 yr. old photo gear gives me what I want. (I have a IIIf for when I want to use my flash triggers.) It gives me something fun to do while I continue to wait for Nikon to produce a camera I want.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kent, as I said, Nikon introducd the D300S in 2009, although it is largely the same as the D300 from 2007. Meanwhile, Canon also introduced the 7D in 2009. So if you are not happy that Nikon has not udpated the D300S, leaving Nikon for Canon will you a 7D from the same era. At least I don't see what the point is.</p>

<p>As I said, Nikon's DSLR introduction seems to lock step with Canon's. The D800 and 5D Mark III were introduced within a month from each other. The D600 and 6D were announced within a few days from each other at exactly the same $2100 initial price. Back in 2007, the 1Ds Mark III and D3 were also announced within a few days. While Nikon is not updating the D300S yet, neither is Canon with the 7D.</p>

<p>So I don't see leaving Nikon for Canon will solve you any problem. If Canon eventually updates the 7D, most likely you'll see a D300S update shortly (or before).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Francesco, DSLRs of a given sensor size are bigger than manual film SLRs of the same format, simply because the digital camera contains a computer, autofocus motor (in the case of higher end Nikons), display, lots of control buttons, etc. and is able to record and process the image whereas you need a film processor and printing system to get anything visible out of a film camera. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. As the image quality and detail that (say) a D800 is capable of recording is much higher than that from 35mm film cameras, especially in color, it is understandable that lenses need to be better corrected than lenses for 35mm film cameras, to make the most out of the new sensors. This kind of improved optical correction, together with autofocus and VR in many lenses has made them physically bigger. This is expected. What's more, the light rays need to arrive at the sensor more perpendicularly than with film, so the wide angles need to be more telecentric and this further increases their size. If you compare the D800 + 24-70 with a medium format film rig as well as a 35mm film rig and compare the image quality across the systems I think you will see that there is some benefit from the larger lenses and bodies that digital has brought into play. The way to get a small digital camera is to accept a reduction in sensor size, which people generally have.</p>

<p><em>Using them in the field gets you disapproving, smirky glances.</em></p>

<p>This is most likely partly their reaction to <em>your</em> behaviour and discomfort, not necessarily the camera directly. I find that while people at close distance can pay attention to a big camera, a good part of this resistance can be overcome by the photographer's confidence. Ok, if one uses a 24-70 to photograph people at close distance the subjects can react to it until they get used to you being there. This can be annoying as I wish not to draw attention to myself. I often use primes such as 35/1.4 for this reason; that lens is suitably compact and inconspicuous. When I use a huge lens at events, people can react to it for sure, but again if you carry yourself in a way that leaves the subjects the impression that you should be there and know what you're doing you can get on with the photography and people will over time pay less attention to your big lens. I would love to use an AF-S 180/2.8 VR for compact long reach but Nikon hasn't yet made one. The 70-200/4 is a step in the right direction; I recommend you consider this lens, perhaps the 28/1.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 which are not much bigger than their predecessors yet offer improved focusing and image quality. Those together with a e.g. D600 or D800 should not be too big; many consumers have cameras and lenses bigger than these.</p>

<p>You can also consider the positively small Micro Four Thirds system cameras, e.g. Panasonic GX1, Olympus E-PL5, and some primes such as the Panasonic 14/2.5 and 20/1.7, which are really, really small and lightweight, and the slightly bigger 12/2, 45/1.8 from Olympus, which are still smaller than most DSLR lenses yet give good image quality. They will look very little different from point and shoot cameras; slightly fancier, true, but not too much.</p>

<p>For me, I have been happy with Nikon FX cameras since the time they introduced some AF-S wide angle primes; I also use the 24-70 but when in close range to people I prefer smaller lenses. When I photograph an event with lots of people the 24-70 gets lost in there and no one will notice it and so I tend to use that when I'm not shooting in a small room with 3-4 people in it; the 35 is perfect for the latter. I try to adopt my equipment to the situation in hand. One of my main gripes with DX DSLRs is that there are no truly small wide angle primes that would be in proportion to the size of the cameras such as is the case for micro four thirds cameras and lenses. But no one says that you must use a Nikon for a small camera; I wouldn't feel any objection to purchasing an MFT system for these situations; I haven't done so simply because I don't have infinite amount of money and I fear that I'd want to buy lots of lenses for MFT if I bought into that system. Also, the D800 is more compact than previous FX cameras and the new AF-S primes help with compactness when working in close range to people, so the Nikon system has moved in a direction that is suitable for quiet, close-range reportage. I actually prefer the D3/D4 series of camera bodies because they have more comfortable controls especially when I'm shooting a lot of verticals, but in situations where I am really in close range to the subjects and they're deep in thought, whatever they're doing then the smaller form of the D800 is perhaps better (as long as I don't rise my right arm above my eyes to do a vertical, at that point the "advantage" from any small camera is lost, I'm afraid). Fortunately the D800 has so many pixels that verticals can be made out of horizontals with ease, allowing this situation to be handled (with less than optimal image quality, but still) discretely. </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Fuji managed to pull off a EVF+optical finder in the X-Pro1--a high-performance package whose feel and handling recalls classics like the FM/FE bodies. Nikon, like Canon, seems unable/unwilling to innovate beyond the SLR form factor. Since Nikon sells mostly DX format cameras, there's probably room for experimentation with a new APS-C system.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>C Watson, I am afraid that you are getting it backward. Canon and Nikon are the market leaders, at least on DSLRs. The likes of Pentax, Fuji, etc. cannot compete on the main stream products. (Recall that Fuji had the S2, S3 and S5 ... with Nikon mount, but they eventually faded.) Therefore, they have no choice but to produce some niche cameras and lenses that have appeals to some, but they are just getting a small share of the market.</p>

<p>Bringing back the so called "classics" like the FM/FE is not exactly innovation. Those are very out of date designs. They do have appeal to a few people, but as market leaders, Canon and Nikon are not going to bother with those products. I would much rather see Nikon focus on the successor to the D300S and other missing lenses such as AF-S VR versions of the 300mm/f4 and 80-400 .... The Nikon 1 mirrorless system is still not in very good shape. The J1, J2, J3, V1, V2 and S1 are all on the market simultaneously, which is confusing. The J1 and V1 are on deep discounts that will certainly block S1 sales, and the lens selection is still limited. I am afraid that Nikon has much bigger fishes to fry.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Whoah, busy therad. I turn my back for five minutes...</p>

 

<blockquote>The inability to use my Leica lenses on the small Nikon cameras is for me a fatal flaw.</blockquote>

 

<p>Huh? I don't see a reason you can't adapt an M mount lens to a 1-series, other than that the crop factor makes it a bit awkward. The only mirrorless system I'm aware of that can't cope with an M adaptor (excluding Pentax's thing with using a mirrorless camera with a normal SLR mount) is Samsung's NX mount. That's precisely the reason that I've completely ignored Samsung's options - otherwise I believe they're perfectly capable. Sadly I wasn't a Samsung employee until it was too late to influence the camera division to avoid that silly mistake. Not that I work for the camera team, or would have had any influence, but it's a problem I would have seen coming. Anyway, not an issue for the 1 series as far as I know.</p>

 

<blockquote>A DXX00 with a built-in focus motor would solve this debate once and for all as far as I am concerned. Canon can do it so why not Nikon?</blockquote>

 

<p>Um. Not so much. No EF-mount Canon camera has a focus motor in the camera - they <i>all</i> have the motor in the lens. This is the reason that, for a while, Canon versions of third-party lenses were more expensive than on-brand ones. Canon made sure that no EF lens would autofocus if adapted to anything predating the EF mount (ignoring whether you can sort out the mechanical and optical mounting issues). Nikon made it so that only AF-S lenses (all recent autofocus lenses, though not admittedly all <i>current</i> ones) mount on the low-end cameras. They simply made this change more recently, and less completely, than Canon.</p>

 

<blockquote>Ah yes, the "the users made us do it!" excuse. The forums, I see, are littered with 1-series owners typing from hospital beds due to throwing their backs out after using the overweight, hyper-extended 10-30mm VR. ;)<br />

<br />

The change, from 1.7 to 1.22 inches (42mm to 31mm) does not actually make the camera more pocket-able or portable.</blockquote>

 

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

<br />

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

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think they could continue building on the original V1 chassis by:</p>

<ul>

<li>Changing the mode dial to a SPAM dial.</li>

<li>Adding a front forefinger dial for aperture control.</li>

<li>Modifying the zoom toggle to a 4-way toggle to double as a shutter speed control.</li>

<li>Making the F button a true, user customizable Function button (like Ricoh does).</li>

<li>Burying the cute stuff in the menu.</li>

<li>Making the movie shutter release button default to standard HD aspect ratios regardless of how the mode dial is set.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>100% +1<br>

This is why I now own an OM-D, though for $299 I was very tempted to re-acquire the V1</p>

[c_watson1]

<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>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>From the Chipworks site:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why is it a surprise to see Toshiba? If you had to pick a new vendor for Nikon APS-C class sockets you would likely pick Aptina.Aptina has the design wins in the Nikon 1 system cameras (1” format V1, J1, V2), and it has previously marketed an APS-C device. The MT9H004 is a 16 Mp sensor employing Aptina’s dual conversion gain approach as part of its DR-Pix platform. The device is intended for use in APS-C class DSLR and MILC applications, but we haven’t seen a design win for it yet. Due to the existing relationship between Aptina and Nikon, you would expect that the 24.1 Mp sensor for the D5200 would have been developed by Aptina.</p>

<p>Toshiba has publicly announced its strategy to aggressively pursue the mobile imaging space, with a target of 30% market share by 2015. So we know it is backing image sensor technology within its semiconductor group. However, it has not broadly promoted interest in the APS-C space, and we were pleasantly surprised to see this disruptive event. We’ve typically found Nikon to use either its own APS-C designs (devices fab’d by Renesas) or Sony sensors. Adding Toshiba in to the mix makes for quite the assortment of silicon vendors used by Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Benjamin, I see you are another OM-D owner. How have you found it? I love mine!</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I really do not think that Nikon is designing the Nikon 1 lineup for DSLR users. Of course there are some DSLR owners that are adding a Nikon 1 to their bag but IMHO the main target are the young guys and gals that build their life around gadgets. These people have no idea about sensor size, they are shooting jpeg mostly for social media, they are not pixel peeping but they appreciate the huge frame rate, the compact size of a cool camera that can use more lenses, the label Nikon, the minimalist design, etc. These people can navigate thru the menu faster than I operate the dedicated controls on my DSLR. For them the name that's written on the gadget is more important than the technical specs. They generally consider Nikon, Canon and Sony (lately not so much Sony... if I have to give credit to my own son... ) as the only real players. The difference is in general made by the cost... and Nikon 1 is an inexpensive system in comparison with Sony NEX... That's why it seems that J1 has been the most sold model of mirrorless cameras in Japan during 2012, with an incredible 11.2% shares from the whole market.</p>

<p>Also Nikon wants to be a trend setter. They do not want to go late to a game fishing where others already have a good position. That's why they introduced CX sensors, opening a new niche in the market. For us, as old DSLR users, these models seems childish, but from a market perspective they seems to be a good initiative. Nikon knows that one can go small up to one point when using a larger sensor... Maybe Sony already found its limits of miniaturization in NEX line. But CX leave space to develop smaller and better cameras. Because with the development of the technology in a couple of years maybe CX sensors will equal the performance of DX sensors of 2012. For the needs of those young guys and gals this is more than they dream. And definitely more than they need.</p>

<p>This way Nikon leaves Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung and others to trample each other trying to develop an attractive model for people who really knows what photography is but are tempted to add to their pro system a small but high quality camera. The cost to develop a small factor pro grade camera is too high to be attractive considering the level of sales. Because to many fishermen are trying to fish in a quite small lake.</p>

<p>This way Nikon is using the most resources from R&D to keep develop the area where they are leaders: professional full frame DSLRs & lenses. They are building the brand value by providing the best cameras for PJ, sport, fashion, wildlife, wedding, event etc. Then this high value of the brand makes millions and millions of guys & gals to purchase Nikon 1 cameras. And there is no lie... these cameras are perfect for their needs and the price seems to be adequate.</p>

<p>Last but not the least... Nikon 1 was introduced like yesterday... but we already are at J3... There are not huge differences or improvements... but gadgets have to be replaced faster... the customers looks only for what's new and cool.</p>