It seems like there's some neat features I would like to play with on these cameras. But at this moment if I were to buy a Mirrorless camera i'd still pick panasonic or olympus.
I agree with RedSox, I want Canon's to have a big sensor. But I'm not even sure they'll make a mirrorless... the Rebels are already so small . They sell really well too. I also don't think that a $2000 FF or $800 APS-C camera would sell like a $500 2.7x camera.
As for Ashton, I just wish they'd do the I Am Nikon promotions over here too. That'd be cool. But I bet the folks in Europe/Asia are saying the same thing about Ashton
I'll be weird and say I really like the design. That "1" looks really good where they put it
It is a smart market move. 2.7x is pretty much in between P&S sensor size and APS-C. It fills the gap. The J1 is more consumer-oriented, and it's cheaper. No, it won't appeal to the average entusiast or pro. That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a camera that will sell.
It is a smart market move. 2.7x is pretty much in between P&S sensor size and APS-C. It fills the gap.
I think it's really dumb. That gap is already filled by m4/3. Anyone who does any research at all will quickly realize they should get better pictures from the larger sensor. And then when they realize the J1, Pen, and GF3 are all the same size, they will be insulted that someone tried to sell them an equally bulky camera with a smaller sensor.
The other gap you might be referring to is between m4/3 and consumer point-n-shoots. That gap is filled by the Oly XZ-1, Pany LX-5, and Canon S100. Nikon could make a killing in that market by putting the 1" sensor in a camera like those. But apparently that would make too much sense.
The 1 is simply lost in no-man's-land.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I think it's really dumb. That gap is already filled by m4/3. Anyone who does any research at all will quickly realize they should get better pictures from the larger sensor. And then when they realize the J1, Pen, and GF3 are all the same size, they will be insulted that someone tried to sell them an equally bulky camera with a smaller sensor.
The other gap you might be referring to is between m4/3 and consumer point-n-shoots. That gap is filled by the Oly XZ-1, Pany LX-5, and Canon S100. Nikon could make a killing in that market by putting the 1" sensor in a camera like those. But apparently that would make too much sense.
The 1 is simply lost in no-man's-land.
This market is all about size though so with a 2.7X sensor you theoretically could make smaller lenses and bodies. This does have a limit though as you can see with the Pentax system since that sensor only takes up a small fraction of the space inside the mount. The 2.7 if done right could be similar in performance to a m4/3 and if Nikon has a hardware or processing edge when it comes to noise (the latter is true at least looking at Nikon VS Sony products with the same sensor) they can make it up. But the lens looks bigger than the collapsible Olympus m4/3 ones, and there are no pancakes yet.
As to why don't you put the bigger sensor in the P&S's look at the size of the lens needed, the LX5 etc. are at the max of what you can do as they already have a limited zoom range and are rather large for a pocket camera. If you go any bigger the issue is do you make it too big for a pocket...or reduce the zoom range.
Back to the Nikon mirrorless cameras I've been thinking who will buy this? All I can come up with are the majority of camera buyers who when they think of brands it is Nikon and Canon then everyone else. So if the average consumer wants a mirrorless this is where Nikon will have an edge.
I think olym and panny are most serious in mirrorless, because this is the only thing they have some advantage now. Sony comes the third, for the similar reason. Sony found it is hard to beat Canikons in DSLR market. All others are half hearted at least for now.
On the other hand, the 2.7x could be the perfect cost effective mirrorless test platform for Nikon. If they see a fit they can move to the bigger sensor arena. Remember couple of years ago, Nikon tried so hard to convince people that there was no need and they were not interested to go FF DSLR, but guess what?
Anyways, it looks like you need to invest new sets of lenses if you decided to go mirrorless, so it actually doesn't matter what DSLR platform you own. I'll be on the fence for a while. I am actually more interested in large sensor DC. It will be awesome if they can fit the 2.7x sensor to a S100 say..
With regarding to whom should promote the Nikon 1, I think Bieber would probably be a good fit. But again though those cameras have some pretty colors, but they are a bit pricey, girlfriends might not be able to afford..:D
This market is all about size though so with a 2.7X sensor you theoretically could make smaller lenses and bodies.
Yeah but they didn't.
As to why don't you put the bigger sensor in the P&S's look at the size of the lens needed, the LX5 etc. are at the max of what you can do as they already have a limited zoom range and are rather large for a pocket camera. If you go any bigger the issue is do you make it too big for a pocket...or reduce the zoom range.
I think the LX5 and XZ1 represent the limit of "pocket sized" and that a 1" sensor could fit in a camera like that. I'll bet a big reason Oly and Pany didn't use a larger sensor in those cameras is because the 1" sensor didn't exist.
I would gladly take a 28-90mm f/2.0 - f/3.2 lens in a camera like that. That's hardly limited. It covers most everything from landscape to travel to street to portraits. I'm not shooting sports or birding with a friggen point-n-shoot. I'll sacrifice that last 22mm.
Back to the Nikon mirrorless cameras I've been thinking who will buy this? All I can come up with are the majority of camera buyers who when they think of brands it is Nikon and Canon then everyone else. So if the average consumer wants a mirrorless this is where Nikon will have an edge.
Agreed, but only if said consumer does no technical research. Which sadly is probably a lot. Those people will probably feel pretty insulted if someone points out the fact that their hip new mirrorless camera has a stunted sensor.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I was a bit nonplussed by this at first
But it doesn't seem that bad and I'm surprised at the level of negative reaction on the web. Knowing how ahead of the curve Nikon are in APS_C (partly thanks to Sony), I'm expecting the IQ of Nikon 1 to be exceptional relative to its pixel density and, while Nikon talks of the consumer, there are plenty of enthusiasts who might find a use for this camera's lightening fast tracking AF.
Is it for me? Not really. Four Thirds is something of a sweet spot for me. I can get pretty much unlimited depth of field (which is what I'm after most of the time) at hand holdable apertures but also narrow enough depth of field when I need it. I suspect the smaller sensor of Nikon 1 would compromise the latter a little too far for my purposes.
What is surprising though is that neither the bodies or the lenses are appreciably smaller than those for Micro Four Thirds. In that respect, it's starting to look like Panasonic and Olympus made all the right compromises when designing their new system.
The bigger the sensor, the more it costs to make it. That's why FF cameras are so expensive. The body of a 5DII doesn't cost much (if any) more to make than that of the 7D. Same with the AF system. Same with the VF and the shutter. It's the sensor that makes the camera $1000 more. So Nikon is trying to save money. If I got a mirrorless, yes, I'd want an APS-C sensor. That would be Sony, or, uh.... S...Sa....Samsung
@Jack: I agree with you about the camera companies... they'll never do anything that makes too much sense. They also think that making money is more important than making cameras that enthusiasts will like.
@NikonsandVstroms: Who will buy this? True, the Canikon loyalists. But really, there are an amazing number of people that walk into costco wanting a camera that will take good pictures. The more expensive cameras will automatically take better pictures, of course. And many of these people are... rich. Oh wait, salesman, before I buy that Nikon 1... tell me, can I hook it up to my computer and get the pictures off?
I think this is an interesting first step by Nikon.
The Mirrorless cameras from Panasonic and Olympus have a real following, but still suffer from fairly slow autofocus ( compared to DSLRs ) and Nikon has clearly indicated much much faster AF for these cameras. I think they will have a following, and I suspect Canon will announce theirs shortly as well.
I think the LX5 and XZ1 represent the limit of "pocket sized" and that a 1" sensor could fit in a camera like that. I'll bet a big reason Oly and Pany didn't use a larger sensor in those cameras is because the 1" sensor didn't exist.
I would gladly take a 28-90mm f/2.0 - f/3.2 lens in a camera like that. That's hardly limited. It covers most everything from landscape to travel to street to portraits. I'm not shooting sports or birding with a friggen point-n-shoot. I'll sacrifice that last 22mm.
It is a pretty big jump going from the 4.7x crop of the LX-5 to Nikon's new 2.7x. If you look at the micro 4/3 standard a F2.0 prime 24mm equivalent lens is 2.2" long. For the Nikon sensor it should be able to be a little shorter but not much. So any zoom would have to be much slower or have a very, very small range.
@NikonsandVstroms: Who will buy this? True, the Canikon loyalists. But really, there are an amazing number of people that walk into costco wanting a camera that will take good pictures. The more expensive cameras will automatically take better pictures, of course. And many of these people are... rich. Oh wait, salesman, before I buy that Nikon 1... tell me, can I hook it up to my computer and get the pictures off?
I just don't get that big 1, it isn't stylish and doesn't fit the aesthetic of the rest of the camera. If they were going after that market then something like the EP-1 or the new Fuji's would be a much better fit.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around this thing....but really we don't know anything right now, how it performs will be key
I think this is an interesting first step by Nikon.
The Mirrorless cameras from Panasonic and Olympus have a real following, but still suffer from fairly slow autofocus ( compared to DSLRs ) and Nikon has clearly indicated much much faster AF for these cameras. I think they will have a following, and I suspect Canon will announce theirs shortly as well.
The new AF system in the EP-3 is supposed to be very fast.
I'll be one to say I really like Nikon's faster AF and more-fps approach here. With the Nikon F lens adapter, this could really be a tool, if the sensor performs well and delivers good IQ.
Am I right in understanding that both the models do not have built in flash and the J1 does not support a external flash unit either? That puzzles me when even the cheapest point and shoots have a built in flash.
Am I right in understanding that both the models do not have built in flash and the J1 does not support a external flash unit either? That puzzles me when even the cheapest point and shoots have a built in flash.
J1 has a pop-up flash. V1 does not. Which makes the V1 even more undesirable.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The new AF system in the EP-3 is supposed to be very fast.
The new Pens appear to the joint world record holders for single AF speed (and there's plenty of information in the reviews and in the blogsphere to support this) but they are not so good at continuous AF.
What Nikon has done is go better and not only (apparently) do a little better than Olympus in single AF but deliver continuous AF better than anything else on the market at the moment. Of course, without fast lenses, this is moot. No one would realistically want to shoot fast sports indoors/at night with the new Nikons......
The new Pens appear to the joint world record holders for single AF speed (and there's plenty of information in the reviews and in the blogsphere to support this) but they are not so good at continuous AF.
What Nikon has done is go better and not only (apparently) do a little better than Olympus in single AF but deliver continuous AF better than anything else on the market at the moment. Of course, without fast lenses, this is moot. No one would realistically want to shoot fast sports indoors/at night with the new Nikons......
I'd be fun to try with the FT-1 F-mount adapter. That would be interesting.
This post has quite a bit of good info in it (facts, not rumors . Check out that noise comparison with the GF3!
I'd be fun to try with the FT-1 F-mount adapter. That would be interesting.
This post has quite a bit of good info in it (facts, not rumors . Check out that noise comparison with the GF3!
Thanks; that's a good article. That comparison with the GF3 doesn't surprise me in the least. That 12MP Four Thirds sensor is getting awfully long in the tooth (and one of the reasons I feel no rush to upgrade my Olympus equipment at the moment).
Nikon seems to be pretty good at getting high ISO performance out of small sensors. Of course they have the amazing FF D3s, but they're doing the same thing with the D7000 and the 1. I just wonder how the IQ will turn out against the larger sensors, say m4/3 or NEX's APS-C.
Canon, if you're listening, make a camera like the 1, with a 1.6x or maybe 2x sensor, performance like the 1, with an EF adapter, and maybe a touchscreen. I'll buy it.
Probably enough people buy a first camera or replacement camera every week to make regular new models earners. And who among them are not going to be most likely to buy something just out? Then Nikon is a star brand. As well, there's a lot to fill out a sales pitch in this new series, as this long thread demonstrates - still tiny in the hand compared with the "working" dslrs, and the majority of camera consumers don't want to have to "work", it's fun they want, with larger sensors, faster image grab and more available lenses than comparable products, and so more photo options and opportunities. They are high tech and fun. Doesn't that just about sum up the values of the largest block of the market, and not just for cameras? And it explains why this series is getting so much attention here! High tech and fun.
I think it's worthwhile not losing sight of the part software development is playing in all new camera production at the moment. People go to buy a camera and they imagine that the device they hold - electronic+optical+mechanical - does it all. They hold this gear or that and compare, with that notion in their heads. Most do not realise that critical differences between devices lie in the firmware/software that run these machines. It's not as sexy to say I have a camera with firmware v.xyz as I have Nikon's latest high tech and fun machine, so there!
The market is as much about psychology as it is about tech in any form, and I am a bit surprised that a thread like this can go on so long without that crucial fact being mentioned! If you can rip your mouth away from the teat of marketplace suckling for just a moment you will see more than a few square inches of blinding skin!D
Doing some late night reading I looked over some preliminary J1 reviews and noticed a key feature for some experienced photographers, it uses an electronic shutter! This will be a big advantage (along with the fact that it is a subdue design) for street photography.
Doing some late night reading I looked over some preliminary J1 reviews and noticed a key feature for some experienced photographers, it uses an electronic shutter! This will be a big advantage (along with the fact that it is a subdue design) for street photography.
I think it has both a mechanical and an electronic shutter. The electronic shutter allows for 60 fps still shooting.
Comments
http://www.harish-agawane.com/
As for Ashton, I just wish they'd do the I Am Nikon promotions over here too. That'd be cool. But I bet the folks in Europe/Asia are saying the same thing about Ashton
I'll be weird and say I really like the design. That "1" looks really good where they put it
It is a smart market move. 2.7x is pretty much in between P&S sensor size and APS-C. It fills the gap. The J1 is more consumer-oriented, and it's cheaper. No, it won't appeal to the average entusiast or pro. That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a camera that will sell.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I think it's really dumb. That gap is already filled by m4/3. Anyone who does any research at all will quickly realize they should get better pictures from the larger sensor. And then when they realize the J1, Pen, and GF3 are all the same size, they will be insulted that someone tried to sell them an equally bulky camera with a smaller sensor.
The other gap you might be referring to is between m4/3 and consumer point-n-shoots. That gap is filled by the Oly XZ-1, Pany LX-5, and Canon S100. Nikon could make a killing in that market by putting the 1" sensor in a camera like those. But apparently that would make too much sense.
The 1 is simply lost in no-man's-land.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
This market is all about size though so with a 2.7X sensor you theoretically could make smaller lenses and bodies. This does have a limit though as you can see with the Pentax system since that sensor only takes up a small fraction of the space inside the mount. The 2.7 if done right could be similar in performance to a m4/3 and if Nikon has a hardware or processing edge when it comes to noise (the latter is true at least looking at Nikon VS Sony products with the same sensor) they can make it up. But the lens looks bigger than the collapsible Olympus m4/3 ones, and there are no pancakes yet.
As to why don't you put the bigger sensor in the P&S's look at the size of the lens needed, the LX5 etc. are at the max of what you can do as they already have a limited zoom range and are rather large for a pocket camera. If you go any bigger the issue is do you make it too big for a pocket...or reduce the zoom range.
Back to the Nikon mirrorless cameras I've been thinking who will buy this? All I can come up with are the majority of camera buyers who when they think of brands it is Nikon and Canon then everyone else. So if the average consumer wants a mirrorless this is where Nikon will have an edge.
I think olym and panny are most serious in mirrorless, because this is the only thing they have some advantage now. Sony comes the third, for the similar reason. Sony found it is hard to beat Canikons in DSLR market. All others are half hearted at least for now.
On the other hand, the 2.7x could be the perfect cost effective mirrorless test platform for Nikon. If they see a fit they can move to the bigger sensor arena. Remember couple of years ago, Nikon tried so hard to convince people that there was no need and they were not interested to go FF DSLR, but guess what?
Anyways, it looks like you need to invest new sets of lenses if you decided to go mirrorless, so it actually doesn't matter what DSLR platform you own. I'll be on the fence for a while. I am actually more interested in large sensor DC. It will be awesome if they can fit the 2.7x sensor to a S100 say..
With regarding to whom should promote the Nikon 1, I think Bieber would probably be a good fit. But again though those cameras have some pretty colors, but they are a bit pricey, girlfriends might not be able to afford..:D
Yeah but they didn't.
I think the LX5 and XZ1 represent the limit of "pocket sized" and that a 1" sensor could fit in a camera like that. I'll bet a big reason Oly and Pany didn't use a larger sensor in those cameras is because the 1" sensor didn't exist.
I would gladly take a 28-90mm f/2.0 - f/3.2 lens in a camera like that. That's hardly limited. It covers most everything from landscape to travel to street to portraits. I'm not shooting sports or birding with a friggen point-n-shoot. I'll sacrifice that last 22mm.
Agreed, but only if said consumer does no technical research. Which sadly is probably a lot. Those people will probably feel pretty insulted if someone points out the fact that their hip new mirrorless camera has a stunted sensor.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
But it doesn't seem that bad and I'm surprised at the level of negative reaction on the web. Knowing how ahead of the curve Nikon are in APS_C (partly thanks to Sony), I'm expecting the IQ of Nikon 1 to be exceptional relative to its pixel density and, while Nikon talks of the consumer, there are plenty of enthusiasts who might find a use for this camera's lightening fast tracking AF.
Is it for me? Not really. Four Thirds is something of a sweet spot for me. I can get pretty much unlimited depth of field (which is what I'm after most of the time) at hand holdable apertures but also narrow enough depth of field when I need it. I suspect the smaller sensor of Nikon 1 would compromise the latter a little too far for my purposes.
What is surprising though is that neither the bodies or the lenses are appreciably smaller than those for Micro Four Thirds. In that respect, it's starting to look like Panasonic and Olympus made all the right compromises when designing their new system.
@Jack: I agree with you about the camera companies... they'll never do anything that makes too much sense. They also think that making money is more important than making cameras that enthusiasts will like.
@NikonsandVstroms: Who will buy this? True, the Canikon loyalists. But really, there are an amazing number of people that walk into costco wanting a camera that will take good pictures. The more expensive cameras will automatically take better pictures, of course. And many of these people are... rich. Oh wait, salesman, before I buy that Nikon 1... tell me, can I hook it up to my computer and get the pictures off?
The Mirrorless cameras from Panasonic and Olympus have a real following, but still suffer from fairly slow autofocus ( compared to DSLRs ) and Nikon has clearly indicated much much faster AF for these cameras. I think they will have a following, and I suspect Canon will announce theirs shortly as well.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
It is a pretty big jump going from the 4.7x crop of the LX-5 to Nikon's new 2.7x. If you look at the micro 4/3 standard a F2.0 prime 24mm equivalent lens is 2.2" long. For the Nikon sensor it should be able to be a little shorter but not much. So any zoom would have to be much slower or have a very, very small range.
I just don't get that big 1, it isn't stylish and doesn't fit the aesthetic of the rest of the camera. If they were going after that market then something like the EP-1 or the new Fuji's would be a much better fit.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around this thing....but really we don't know anything right now, how it performs will be key
The new AF system in the EP-3 is supposed to be very fast.
I'll be one to say I really like Nikon's faster AF and more-fps approach here. With the Nikon F lens adapter, this could really be a tool, if the sensor performs well and delivers good IQ.
J1 has a pop-up flash. V1 does not. Which makes the V1 even more undesirable.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The new Pens appear to the joint world record holders for single AF speed (and there's plenty of information in the reviews and in the blogsphere to support this) but they are not so good at continuous AF.
What Nikon has done is go better and not only (apparently) do a little better than Olympus in single AF but deliver continuous AF better than anything else on the market at the moment. Of course, without fast lenses, this is moot. No one would realistically want to shoot fast sports indoors/at night with the new Nikons......
I'd be fun to try with the FT-1 F-mount adapter. That would be interesting.
This post has quite a bit of good info in it (facts, not rumors
Thanks; that's a good article. That comparison with the GF3 doesn't surprise me in the least. That 12MP Four Thirds sensor is getting awfully long in the tooth (and one of the reasons I feel no rush to upgrade my Olympus equipment at the moment).
Canon, if you're listening, make a camera like the 1, with a 1.6x or maybe 2x sensor, performance like the 1, with an EF adapter, and maybe a touchscreen. I'll buy it.
I think it's worthwhile not losing sight of the part software development is playing in all new camera production at the moment. People go to buy a camera and they imagine that the device they hold - electronic+optical+mechanical - does it all. They hold this gear or that and compare, with that notion in their heads. Most do not realise that critical differences between devices lie in the firmware/software that run these machines. It's not as sexy to say I have a camera with firmware v.xyz as I have Nikon's latest high tech and fun machine, so there!
The market is as much about psychology as it is about tech in any form, and I am a bit surprised that a thread like this can go on so long without that crucial fact being mentioned!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I think it has both a mechanical and an electronic shutter. The electronic shutter allows for 60 fps still shooting.
The J1 is electronic only which is why the flash shutter sync is 1/60, the V1 has both.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092119nikonJ1.asp
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1316730752.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonv1j1/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums