Nikon Introduces the AW1 Waterproof Mirrorless Camera

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>the aperture indexing ring that's vulnerable to moisture entry. That's where my D2H failed. I stopped using my D2H in anything less than fair weather after it failed in 2005 or 2006 following a few hours in atmospheric moisture that amounted to heavy fog or mist, not really even rainfall. The rubbery O-ring on the back of the 18-70 DX didn't help because it's inside the perimeter of that ring on the body.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Prediction....The next consumer level FX is going to be 'Aperture Indexing Ring' free.......... No-one needs legacy to that level on an intro FX. Why put an O-ring<strong><em> inside</em></strong> the World's biggest rain trap? Bad design.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>Over the summer in Jackson Hole, I've seen quite a few Nikon mirrorless cameras around tourist's necks. They blend into the mix of regular P&S and DSLRs.<br>

That camera sure doesn't look like it could dive to 50 feet. But it'd sure be fun to take it on a skin dive and find out. If the camera was only rated to 15 feet, then you could only dive to 10-ish feet not to kill the camera. That wouldn't be any fun, I'd routinely get down to 15-20 feet.<br>

The waterproof to 50 is useful when shooting as a surf photographer or the like. The shock of the waves hitting and dipping under them will, as a guess, generate a higher momentary pressure that might get close to a 50 foot dive.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>In DPReview's summary of waterproof cameras in 2009, only two of the cameras were waterproof even to 10m, and several only to 3m. The problem with that is that - especially with pressure of movement - there's a sporting chance that the camera's pressure limit will be exceeded even if you just drop it in the deep end of a swimming pool, which is a bit embarrassing for a "waterproof" camera. Certainly dropping it in a shallow bit of sea is quite likely. I'm no great snorkellist, but even I could drop a camera in 4m of water and hope to get it back intact.<br />

<br />

Things improved radically recently, and most current waterproof cameras seem far more capable of getting to 15m. If you drop something to 15m when snorkelling, you're not so likely to get it back; on the other hand, for scuba, it's really not enough.<br />

<br />

I dispute that even 30m is really enough for scuba, although it's true that you don't really want to be diving just on air much below that depth. My wife is 50m rated as an amateur - I'm told that's needed for a number of wrecks off the coast of the UK, and going much deeper is more risky; this makes me feel better that I got her a (cheap) 60m housing for a GoPro early in her training over their default 30m housing; the current high end of the GoPro range can do 60m by default. Of course, it helps that the camera is tiny, since the pressure much below 15m is going to risk a large screen and potentially make button pressing difficult. The GoPro series, like any small compact, won't capture the amount of light that the sensor in a 1-series will, but then a flash on the camera isn't going to be very useful in the ocean either. [i'm going to keep mentioning GoPros here, but please assume I'm talking about the various similar sports cameras as well.]<br />

<br />

An AW1 is no substitute for the budget amateur scuba enthusiast (wanting a - cheaper - GoPro or similar), or for the professional (who will probably want a proper housing on a DSLR) - but then trying to use it with a dry suit on probably isn't going to be very easy anyway. Making it waterproof to much less than 15m would make it look bad against the current selection of waterproof compacts, and might actually impact the snorkellist who accidentally drops the camera in water where a friendly scuba diver might be able to mount a rescue. I suspect they actually got the balance about right, assuming that they can actually sell the advantage over a GoPro to Joe Pubic. It'd certainly be a better above-water camera than a GoPro (if you don't want to shoot UHD), but they have charged about as much as a D3000 + GoPro pairing which may be better still for a lot of uses. As ever, the 1-series would be much more appealing at half the price - or in the case of my V1, <i>was</i> much more appealing when it hit half the price.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Not to be off topic, I am quite impressed by the Olympus Micro 4/3 system, which enables users to capture the high-quality images of the 4/3 system’s 4/3-type image sensor in a much more compact body.</p>

<p>A professional who travels extensively with Olympus Micro 4/3's gave a presentation at my photo club last week. The show-and-tell was impressive. Knowing practically nothing about it, I asked for a list of the equipment he uses for my reference.</p>

<p>Olympus is so far ahead on this technology now that I believe it will take Nikon a while to catch up, if at all.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mary - Micro 4/3 seems to be at the lower end of what people consider a "proper" sensor size, possibly aligned with 2x being the largest common teleconverter. The CX crop seems to be small enough that it puts people off - and, indeed, I have no particular desire to adapt my Nikkors, especially since I already have a passive adaptor to micro 4/3. Though Thom Hogan seems to like the CX crop for some uses.<br />

<br />

I'm pretty happy with my Panasonic GF2 as a run-around camera that's small enough to fit in a compact camera bag. Notably, it does so where my V1 doesn't. Apart from the finder, the reason for this is that my V1 has the 10-30 f/3.5-5.6 VR zoom on it, which is (according to checking online) 42mm long. My GF2 has a 14-42 f/3.5-5.6G, which is under 27mm long, in the dimension that makes the biggest difference to fitting the thing in a pocket. Nikon do make the 11-27.5 lens (31mm long), but that's not stabilized, and the small sensor really needs all the help it can get in low light. The J1 would have been thinner, but the V1 is 36mm thick according to dpreview - 3mm thicker than the GF2. Plus the GF2 has "normal" controls plus a touch-screen, rather than the deliberately obfuscated interface of the V1. (The V2 is better, but still too expensive for me.)<br />

<br />

So my V2 stays as a high-speed video shooter only, and the GF2 is my "shove it in a pocket" camera. At least, it would be, but I actually don't understand about travelling light, and what I normally carry with me is a D800 unless I have a very good reason not to. I kind of expect most people not to use this strategy, though.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Mary, if I was willing to spend between $1,000-$2,000 for a mirrorless system, I wouldn't even consider Nikon's 1 series. The Olympus OM-D models and, possibly, the Panasonic GX7, are better options.</p>

<p>I've mentioned this in other threads but the main reason I'm so enthusiastic about my Nikon V1 is because at the December 2012 heavily discounted price of $300 for the V1 and 10-30 VR, it was the best buy in history for a P&S digicam - as of that time.</p>

<p>Since then the heavily discounted Canon EOS M with APS-C sensor and kit lens makes it the current best ever value. It's such a great value I'm considering one myself, although I'd want to be sure it can come close to the Nikon 1 in AF speed because that's what makes the V1 such a charm to use - that ultrafast AF blows away any P&S camera I've used. And the shot-to-shot speed is satisfactory, if not quite equal to a dSLR. I'm a huge fan of spontaneous candid photography and can't think of any occasion when I missed a shot with the V1 due to the camera's speed - I can only blame my own reflexes. (I did miss some shots due to the V1 overheating when recording video this summer for more than 10 minutes at a time, but that's another issue.)</p>

<p>But...</p>

<p>Nikon's lens-based approach for image stabilization shows they still don't get it. Ditto the Series 1 rather than committing to a CX sensor Coolpix with fast midrange zoom. Rather than incorporating sensor based VR, which would benefit all lenses including manual focus lenses used with adapters, Nikon opted for a no-win compromise: lens based VR which would ensure they'd never make a fast VR zoom because there would never be a market for such a lens with a niche camera system based around a CX sensor. Nobody, not even 1 series fans, would be willing to pay over $1,000 for something like a 10-30mm f/2.8 VR zoom for the CX sensor class.</p>

<p>Only in-body stabilization makes sense in the mirrorless category. With in-body stabilization, even a cheap Fotodiox adapter and 50/2 AI Nikkor can make for a very appealing short tele for low light stuff like live theater photography, where an absolutely silent shutter is a must (Nikon's electronic shutter is virtually inaudible unless you use a stethoscope), flash isn't allowed and even at high ISOs it's common to need slow shutter speeds *and* fast lenses. Nikon gambled badly. Olympus gambled well.</p>

<p>My interest is primarily candid and documentary photography. I'm not a pixel peeper or concerned about high ISO noise. Any currently available digital camera will satisfy my preferences in image quality. But I do need good image stabilization. I've seen photos by documentary photographers whose work I admire and respect, using the OM-D EM-5, which is good enough to persuade me that it would be a very good choice for my purposes. Occasionally I need stabilization even with fast lenses in dim lighting, and the OM-D models offer that option.</p>

<p>But if Nikon picked up the baton, put in-body VR into a V3, and maybe added stop-down metering capability... I'd be seriously tempted as long as they keep the price under $1,000. And that's the key. Nikon cannot hope to compete in the mirrorless market with the CX sensor unless they do so in performance *and* price. Even the Micro 4:3 market is being challenged because of the Sony models with APS-C sensors. But Olympus still offers great value because they're smart enough to understand the appeal of a good EVF and in-body stabilization, which gives the OM-D an edge over Sony, Panasonic, Canon, etc.</p>

<p>But Nikon still seems to be floundering around because they have brilliant engineers who appear to be working without any feedback from photographers and marketing gurus.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>... Micro 4/3 seems to be at the lower end of what people consider a "proper" sensor size, possibly aligned with 2x being the largest common teleconverter. The CX crop seems to be small enough that it puts people off</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, from what I read, the Nikon V1's sensor (<strong>13.2 x 8.8mm</strong>) is considerably smaller than the 4/3's sensor @ <strong>18 x 13.5mm</strong>, and it is smaller than APS-C format sensors used in competitive mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.</p>

<p>The newly announced <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1">Olympus OM-D E-M1</a> has a 16MP Four Thirds format sensor.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mary, if I was willing to spend between $1,000-$2,000 for a mirrorless system, I wouldn't even consider Nikon's 1 series. The Olympus OM-D models and, possibly, the Panasonic GX7, are better options.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I agree, as I am learning more about this.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"From what I read, the Nikon V1's sensor (13.2 x 8.8mm) is considerably smaller than the 4/3's (18 x 13.5mm) sensor and APS-C format sensors used in competitive mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, the CX or one-inch sensor is huge, compared with the typical 1/1.7" teensy sensor on most P&S digicams and cell phone cameras. But it's still small compared with everything else: 4:3, APS-C, etc.</p>

<p>That's why I think Nikon made a mistake with the 1 series. They should have taken a cue by now from the Sony RX100 and developed a CX sensor Coolpix, rather than continuing to develop a niche camera with mostly slowpoke interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p>A Coolpix with non-interchangeable fast midrange zoom, comparable to the Sony RX100's, with the EVF of the V1 and V2, and the AF speed and overall quickness of the 1 series, would be a killer compact/P&S camera. Especially if it was also compatible with Nikon's existing iTTL/CLS flash system.</p>

<p>The Coolpix A was a good start. There's a niche for cameras like the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR with APS-C sensor and relatively fast wide angle lens. But I'm a bit disappointed Nikon didn't follow through with a CX sensor Coolpix, including making their next all weather camera a CX sensor Coolpix, which would eliminate the need for fidgeting with gasket/baffle seals for slowpoke variable aperture zooms.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The problem with ever-shrinking crops sizes on lenses is that it starts changing the point of the lenses. As an FX shooter, the crop of the 1-series is just too far. Sure, I could put my 14-24 on my V1 as the world's most unwieldy mid-range zoom, but it would be turning a truly excellent ultrawide into a pretty iffy 38-65mm equivalent. Sure a 70-200 turns into a hugely long zoom, but it's already mostly a big lens with a camera attached even with a D800 camera on it, and a 10MP V1 doesn't make it much more portable for a lot less cropping power (but admittedly a little more reach per pixel). I can imagine using a 28mm lens as a longish normal and a 50mm as a moderate telephoto on micro 4/3; coming from a DX system it's a much smaller change. But the 1 series sensor is so small that it turns any adapted lens into a digiscoping exercise. Pentax have the same issue, but worse, with the Q - but at least they seem aware that they have a toy camera with that model.<br />

<br />

It seems ironic to me that one of the companies with the biggest lens catalogue releases a mirrorless system that can barely use it. Of course, stick a big SLR lens on a mirrorless camera and you lose most of the point (portability), but it's still a weird route to take. I'm still kind of waiting for Canon to make a pancake lens based on diffractive optics, but the 100D makes some sense. With Nikon, I worry that the 1-series division is competing against the DSLR division for existence within the company; I've certainly seen that corporate culture before. It can motivate, in a stressful kind of way, but it also detracts from producing the best that Nikon as a whole can do. I'm speculating.<br />

<br />

As for the compact situation, I feel we're not giving Nikon much of a break, although possibly because everything they've been doing is a bit weird. The waterproof camera gets criticised for not being waterproof enough. We're a forum full of DSLR shooters who tend to ignore anything with a fixed lens, then we tell Nikon they should be releasing a compact. We say the CX sensor isn't good enough and Nikon do make a compact with a DX sensor - then we complain it's too expensive and tell them to release a CX sensor one instead. We scream for a cheap FX body then complain that the D600 isn't a D4. We complain the D700/D3 doesn't have enough pixels, then we complain that the D800 has too many. We ask for a D400, get a (much cheaper) D7100, then complain about that one too. We complain that our cameras weigh too much, then object to the build of the D600. Then there are people like me who whinge about the button positions for several years, which is like telling Porshe that the engine is in the wrong place.<br />

<br />

That's not to say that I wouldn't mind Nikon doing some things differently, possibly including a 1-series compact (although Nikon's reputation in compacts is currently low enough that I'd probably rather have an RX100 anyway). Just that they don't seem to be able to get much support from the community these days. Though it would help if they occasionally tried being nice to the community, by admitting to problems and providing customer service...<br />

<br />

Anyway, perhaps today should be "be nice to Nikon" day. After all, it's a Sunday, and it'll be over before most people get back to the forum...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<P>

Most of you should have seen this sensor size comparison before. Nikon CX is about half the area of 4/3, but the form factors are different. Whether you like it or not, I think Nikon has pretty much locked themselves into CX now.

</P>

<P>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14389733-lg.jpg" alt="" /></center>

</P>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>But i guess they could add <em>Sensor Based</em> VR to the CX format?</p>

<p>Getting it to work in sync with a VR lens might be a bit much though??</p>

[richard_hammond2]

<p>I wish Nikon would come up with a digital version of the venerable Nikonos V. These cameras are really pretty much worthlss for divers unless you are diving a shallow reef. UW housings are ridiculously expensive and are available for only a very limited number of cameras.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yup, Mike, I'd really like to see sensor based VR with Nikon's CX cameras too. Olympus apparently has developed very effective in-body stabilization with the OM-D models, so it should be feasible.</p>

<p>Having in-body VR with future 1 series cameras would seriously tempt me to stick with the system. More so than additional slowpoke variable aperture VR zooms. Especially if they added stop-down metering capability. Those features would be more important to me than flash compatibility with Nikon's existing iTTL/CLS system, although I'd like that as well.</p>

<p>I do get good use from my 50/2 AI and 85/2 AIS Nikkors, and 24/2.5 Tamron Adaptall, with the V1 via Fotodiox adapter. The Tamron 24/2.5 has very little chromatic aberration so it's excellent for stage lighting situations - but I'd really like image stabilization and stop-down metering as well. The latter is less essential since I can usually guesstimate exposure within two or three frames.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Lex, does body based VR 'sense' camera movement or image movement?</p>

<p>The latter would be real handy to help with the increased 'shake' induced by using longer FX lenses on CX bodies. My 300mm f4 would be nice on CX for long range hand-held birding...if you could get me 3 or 4 stops of reduction both in image <em><strong>and</strong></em> viewing stabilization.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>If Nikon is going to make a true Nikonos successor in the Nikon 1 series, it is going to be far more bulker to go down to 40 meters or so.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>These cameras are really pretty much worthlss for divers unless you are diving a shallow reef. UW housings are ridiculously expensive and are available for only a very limited number of cameras.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It makes sense that cameras should go along with diver`s licenses. PADI licensed advanced divers up to 100 feet (specialty divers up to 130), and european CMAS licensed three star divers up to 130. All entry level divers were licensed up to a max. of 60 feet (approximately). (I`m an *almost* retired PADI-CMAS teacher).</p>

<p>So with a max. of 49 feet, this light cameras are not definitely for divers, but for water and sports enthusiasts. <br /> Also, a good diver`s camera has to be really rugged, in order to ¨fight¨ against the rest of the heavy equipment and the environment. Any non-waterproof camera inside a -good- housing (=expensive) will be a much better diving tool, but will have a higher bulk and control complexity, hence a lower user comfort.</p>

<p>IMHO, this camera looks great for snorkeling, boating, speleology, climbing, etc. I like them because they are so comfortable to carry&use.<br /> The Nikonos is a stone-age system in comparison; think that focus has to be predictive (except the RS, I mean), without any other option.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The Abyss.</p>

<p>As I'm sure everyone whose seen the Sci-Fi film remembers, this relies on some poor diver having his lungs full of fluid so he can return to his womb-phase and breath dissolved Oxygen..... well.....read on!</p>

<p>As I understand it, water pressure is trying to crush any structure with an air gap. Why not pre-fill a digi-cam with glycol or some-such, readjust the optics and Hey Presto! an un-limited depth camera. Impossible in film days, but with an immersed sensor, bit like oil-immersion lenses in microscopy, it should be fairly simple with built in battery and memory. Anyone want to oil fill their GoPro?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Why not? Actually some very popular diving computers and apparatus are (at least partially) filled with liquid (some kind of paraffin).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <em>some poor diver having his lungs full of fluid so he can return to his womb-phase and breath dissolved Oxygen..... </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Love this film, but to breath dissolved oxygen we`d need a gill... Only frogs could do it... :) (Divers are not really frogmans! :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Indeed. I understand that the fluid aeration thing ought to work in theory, but the exertion needed to get enough fluid movement to clear carbon dioxide makes it impractical. You'd be better off with some kind of mechanical blood oxygenator. Or a submarine.<br />

<br />

Mike: I've never heard of a VR system that tries to track subject movement. You you read the camera frames fast enough (and people already do fast updates on mirrorless systems to help the AF) I guess it would be possible, but I doubt it'd work well in low light. Camera rotation (and to a lesser extent translation) is much easier to detect mechanically.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Correction... I've never heard of a <i>mechanical</i> VR system that tracks subject movement, unless you count autoguided cameras. Systems that capture an over-sized frame and stabilize video by changing the capture area might do this.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Back in the film era, you could have a Nikonos 5 and used it for years. You may need to change the seals and O-rings every year or two (or three), but for the sensor (film), you just buy film.</p>

<p>Now in the digital era, your camera, be it SLR or mirrorless, get out of date after 3, 4 or perhaps 5 years. It seems expensive to build a dedicated digital Nikonos that will get out of date after a relatively short while. The housing approach seems to work better. The problem is that the housing is expensive, and worse yet, at least Nikon changes its camera design in every generation so that, for example, the housing for a D7000 is not going to work on a D7100 because they have moved the video start button to the top, and the D7100 has a slightly different size. It is not exactly cheap to buy a new housing every few years.</p>

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems expensive to build a dedicated digital Nikonos that will get out of date after a relatively short while. The housing approach seems to work better (...) It is not exactly cheap to buy a new housing every few years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! I have gone through several iterations of underwater equipment. Good housings are usually as or more expensive than the camera (unless you go FX) and this is exactly why a digital Nikonos in a CX format may sell (relatively) well - image quality will be better than compacts (and many use 1/1.7" sensor cameras for underwater) and if the price stays reasonable, it will be far cheaper to upgrade the cameras body and keep the lenses than buy a new housing and camera.<br>

I pre-ordered the AW1 thinking it may be useful on shallower second dives.... and then cancelled, because 49 ft is just a bit too shallow. I wonder what it would have taken to go to 60 ft or maybe even 100ft.... and I am waiting for the AW2, and hopefully a wide angle (6-11mm) lens...</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em> I wonder what it would have taken to go to 60 ft or maybe even 100ft.... and I am waiting for the AW2, and hopefully a wide angle (6-11mm) lens...</em></p>

<p>The 10mm AW Nikkor is rated for 20m instead of the 15m of the zoom and the AW1, so probably there will be more advanced camera bodies that can meet that specification.</p>