Nikon 1 ... why go to all the trouble?

RovingEyePhoto · November 27, 2011

I've looked through the threads here, and surprised I see so little on the new Nikon 1. What is Nikon aiming for? The whole group of ILCs -- be it Panasonic, Sony, Oly or others -- all appear great for travel and casual everyday use, seems to knock serious tiny-sensor compacts out of the box, and be a magnet for non-art use by us serious SLR users. I know I'll get one soon as I have a reason to do so (for me, reason would be travel, my family is grown, but unfortunately there's nothing exotic in my immediate travel future, lol). What I don't understand is why Nikon would go to all the trouble and end up with the not-just-marginally smallest sensor of the group? I've held and priced all the top brands' models, and the 1 is about the same size/feel/cost. I thought if not-just-marginally smaller, especially in the lens because of the smaller image circle, Nikon might be carving out a smaller box niche, but it's about the same heft as the others. I'm sure the 1 takes fine pics and is a ball to use, but others similarly take fine pics and are a ball to use, so how does Nikon plan to compete? I can't imagine Canon will follow suit when their ILC comes out (bold assumption, could be totally wrong of course), would think an APS-C of similar size/price/quality to the others plus the Canon moniker could blow off a big segment of the field, same as I though Nikon would with their not-to-be APS-C version. Comments?

ThatCanonGuy · November 27, 2011

The Pentax Q has the smallest sensor of the group I think. The Nikon 1 has speed. The LV (live view) is responsive, the AF is snappy, and there's very little shutter lag (probably not noticeable). You're right about Nikon's name. People will spend more for a big name like Nikon.

MarkR · November 28, 2011

Nikon's trying to enter the ILC market without cannibalizing their SLR sales.

Ask GM how that worked with re: minivans and station wagons.

RovingEyePhoto · November 28, 2011

MarkR wrote: »

Nikon's trying to enter the ILC market without cannibalizing their SLR sales.

Ask GM how that worked with re: minivans and station wagons.

But Nikon seems to be trying it relying solely on their name, not offering a product that will compete technically with the rest of the exploding ILC market. All else being equal (which essentially is true), maybe there are enough Nikon devotees who will stick just for the name, we'll see. And maybe there are enough Nikon devotees looking to mount an ILC with already-owned Nikor FF/APS lenses plus adaptor, we'll see. As for the former, though, name value would seem to go only so far, assuming equally good technology/features (again, essentially true), significantly larger sensors at equal size/heft eventually has to win over. And as for the latter, I've tried my Oly lenses plus adaptor on Oly's ILC (in a store, don't own one), and found the whole thing way too far out of balance and big/heavy for friendly family/travel everyday use. Hey, Nikon knows how to market, they're taking their shot. I just don't see it working, especially when (assumed) Canon enters with an APS-C ILC with equally good technology/features (again, would be essentially true), same size/heft, its equally renowned name, and all gloriously topped off with a 4x larger sensor. To this photographic consumer who eventually will own an ILC, the whole issue seems a slam-dunk.

As for auto industry strategy, SUV's and crossovers offered the same as what minivans and stationwagons offered, but in an improved, more stylish fashioned and more humanly proportioned way. The SUV/crossover producers were sending station wagons/minivans to the trash heap regardless of whether GM followed or stood pat, an old niche was being replaced, not a new one created. The photographic industry doesn't have station wagons/minivans/SUVs/crossovers, merely a uniquely new mirrorless technology that creates a whole new niche: processors/sensors of SLRs at significantly reduced size/heft, or said another way, processors/sensors vastly improved over P&Ss and compacts at larger but far more manageable size/heft than SLRs. Either perspective, a whole new niche. What P&Ss have to fear are smart phones, could make them as obsolete as station wagons/minivans in fairly short order. Technology and time will decide that one ...

MarkR · November 28, 2011

My point was that GM at one point could have led the minivan revolution, but chose not to, as it would have interfered with the sales of their more lucrative (at the time) station wagons. Then when Chrysler introduced their minivans, they spent quite a lot of time trying to play catch-up.

I believe the analogy, though not perfect, is appropriate.

EDIT And of course, I'm misremembering history. Replace GM with "Ford", although I'm sure GM had looked at minivan designs at the time.

ThatCanonGuy · November 28, 2011

I thought the same thing when it came out. After I watched some hands-on videos and saw some sample images, I changed my mind. The value is beyond the specs. It has really good ISO performance for its sensor size. It's super-responsive. They've made a really nice pancake prime. You'll soon be able to use Nikon F-mount lenses on it. Watch a hands-on video on youtube - it's impressive in actual use.

RovingEyePhoto · November 28, 2011

MarkR wrote: »

My point was that GM at one point could have led the minivan revolution, but chose not to, as it would have interfered with the sales of their more lucrative (at the time) station wagons. Then when Chrysler introduced their minivans, they spent quite a lot of time trying to play catch-up.

I believe the analogy, though not perfect, is appropriate.

EDIT And of course, I'm misremembering history. Replace GM with "Ford", although I'm sure GM had looked at minivan designs at the time.

I guess analogy holds, but if I'm understanding, seems to pat Nikon on the back for being innovative, when all I can see is a poor marketing gamble that the Nikon name will trump a seriously undersized sensor for the form size/heft. Seems to become even more of a questionable bet if one assumes Canon also will compete, and if with an APS-C sensor, could become a real turkey shoot with Nikon on the receiving end.

Qarik · November 29, 2011

you never know what you don't know. The real wow factor in this camera is not in the spec sheet..try shooting with one and you will instantly "get it". The shutter lag/AF speed, is what will make you go ooooh.

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I thought the same thing when it came out. After I watched some hands-on videos and saw some sample images, I changed my mind. The value is beyond the specs. It has really good ISO performance for its sensor size. It's super-responsive. They've made a really nice pancake prime. You'll soon be able to use Nikon F-mount lenses on it. Watch a hands-on video on youtube - it's impressive in actual use.

Sure, all that's true, would expect nothing less from Nikon, but you've said it all in the phrase "for its sensor size". That's what I'm talking about. The Pana, Sony and Oly ILC's look and feel great like the Nik1, have little lag and are responsive like the Nik1, have great pancakes like the Nik1, but invariably will give significantly better ISO and/or resolution performance than the Nik1 solely because of their significantly larger sensors. We're dealing here with manufacturers who all produce fine gear, not fly-by-nights, one is a little better than the others in one thing, another a little better than the others in another thing, but overall all are at about the same place atop any quality/experience listing "for their sensor size". Considering this, sensor size isn't just a spec, it defines the family of gear each is producing for. All these companies are great at P&S's, great at compacts, great at ILC's, and great at SLR's, but comparing between families, their smaller sensor size products can only compete based on physical-size/heft/convenience, ISO/resolution just can't be as good. The Nik1 sensor is 1/4 the size of quality APS-C ILC's, that's not even in the same ballpark. Plenty of folk will buy the Nikon name, agreed, and the Nik1 is great "for its sensor size", but it's still difficult to see it as a winner in the serious-family/vacation market without offsetting physical-size/heft/price advantages, which it seems not to have.

Ah well, lots of jabber, that's what forums are for, the market ultimately will decide ...

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

Qarik wrote: »

you never know what you don't know. The real wow factor in this camera is not in the spec sheet..try shooting with one and you will instantly "get it". The shutter lag/AF speed, is what will make you go ooooh.

Yep, the Nik1 does in fact have wow! But as responded to ThatCanonGuy, I just don't see it as competitive in the serious-family/serious-vacation shooter market when equal quality/size/price/wow is available in significantly larger sensor-size packages. Maybe there's a whole market of less-serious-family/less-serious-vacation shooters out there looking to move up from P&Ss and compacts, I don't know. Maybe Pentax has the more competitive product for this less-serious market in its new sub-ILC, haven't held it as I have the Nik1, but apparently significantly smaller in physical-size/heft with only a somewhat smaller sensor. When dealing with only with quality brands as we are here, can't just wish for ISO-performance/resolution, sensor size has to come into play. Ah well, the market will decide ...

ThatCanonGuy · November 29, 2011

What you're saying is true; however, Nikon gets very good noise performance out of their sensors. I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar to the APS-C sensors. If Nikon does better than the other players, they can get just as good ISO performance from their smaller sensor.

I totally agree with you - I think Nikon should have put an APS-C sensor in the Nikon 1. But sales have been very good so far. Nikon is really good with sensors.

RobG liked the Nikon 1 for his (serious) family/vacation shooting.

RovingEyePhoto · November 29, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

What you're saying is true; however, Nikon gets very good noise performance out of their sensors. I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar to the APS-C sensors. If Nikon does better than the other players, they can get just as good ISO performance from their smaller sensor.

I totally agree with you - I think Nikon should have put an APS-C sensor in the Nikon 1. But sales have been very good so far. Nikon is really good with sensors.

RobG liked the Nikon 1 for his (serious) family/vacation shooting.

I also agree, although I wouldn't kick any of the top quality manufacturers out of bed when it comes to sensors. Don't see where any of them have leapfrogged the rest. Lets face it, we all love what we buy, the tech is all that good, so undoubtedly will be many happy Nik1 users. The market ultimately will decide the shares ...

ziggy53 · November 29, 2011

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

... sensor size isn't just a spec, it defines the family of gear each is producing for. All these companies are great at P&S's, great at compacts, great at ILC's, and great at SLR's, but comparing between families, their smaller sensor size products can only compete based on physical-size/heft/convenience, ISO/resolution just can't be as good. The Nik1 sensor is 1/4 the size of quality APS-C ILC's, that's not even in the same ballpark. ...

DXOMark tested the Nikon 1V and the Olympus PEN EPM1 (a current model). According to their tests the signal to noise ratios are somewhat comparable, as are tonal range and color sensitivity, but the 1V is demonstrably better than the PEN EPM1 with regard to dynamic range, especially at higher ISOs. (The 1V is about 1.5 stops better.)

If you are comparing the same sensor and processor technologies the results would be different. Obviously, Nikon is doing some things very right.

Click on the "Measurements" tab and choose the "Print" comparison metric for the best concept of the visual ramifications.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/745%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/726%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

RovingEyePhoto · November 30, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

DXOMark tested the Nikon 1V and the Olympus PEN EPM1 (a current model). According to their tests the signal to noise ratios are somewhat comparable, as are tonal range and color sensitivity, but the 1V is demonstrably better than the PEN EPM1 with regard to dynamic range, especially at higher ISOs. (The 1V is about 1.5 stops better.)

If you are comparing the same sensor and processor technologies the results would be different. Obviously, Nikon is doing some things very right.

Click on the "Measurements" tab and choose the "Print" comparison metric for the best concept of the visual ramifications.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/745%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/726%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus

Hey Ziggy, been a long time, glad to be back.

Thanks for the test reference, I'll follow-up. Seems I've read something similar about the Oly relative to Sony and Pana, so not overly surprised. Given the same physical-size/heft, it's just difficult to see why Nikon didn't apply that same great improved tech to the larger sensor and end up with even a more startlingly terrific ILC product. I know I've posted about smaller sensors logically leading to more marketable reduced physical-size/heft, but in reality I'm not really sold on the idea, not convinced the ILC market wants much smaller. Our hands certainly aren't shrinking, and there are minimum limits to what we can effectively hold and manipulate. It's one thing with P&S's and compacts, where for the masses of users everything but zoom and focus-point is pretty much automatic. But for serious shooting, gotta be able to deal with the controls. So maybe I should rephrase my thinking: given "so desirable a physical size/heft", it's just difficult to see why Nikon didn't apply that same great improved tech to the larger sensor and end up with even a more startlingly terrific ILC product.

I guess there's something to the logic that Nik didn't want to pirate buyers from its own lower-end APS-C SLR's, but does that really hold water? Seems to me the ILC market is a group thinking one-AND-the-other, not one-OR-the-other; that the mass of shooters buying in the price range are serious shooters both as hobbyist/professional with SLR's and family/vacationers with ILC's. Speaking just for myself, I hate lugging my SLR for family/vacation, am unenthused by tiny P&S/compact sensors, and look forward to buying my first ILC. When it comes to that choice, and accepting that top brands pretty quickly catch up with any leapfrogging in the translation of larger sensor size into ever more superior results (the old all-things-being-equal saw), I can't imagine I'll be considering a sensor smaller than popularly included in the box. A particularly faster/smaller quality ILC zoom might draw me to a different conclusion, but otherwise, sensor size would seem to govern (again, all things being equal, and again, as they generally turn out to be among the top brands).

All of which is to say: this is a great for us serious-family/vacation shooters dying for the more palatable ILC size/heft, so let the bullets fly ...

jmphotocraft · December 1, 2011

I handled a J1 in the store. I think the J stands for joke. It does not fit in a pocket, despite what Ashton would like you to believe. If I have to carry a camera bag, I may as well have my DSLR. Or at least some camera with some amount of control over DOF.

Chuck289 · December 2, 2011

My girlfriend is going nuts over the J1. Because it comes in pink. Thats all she knows

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2011

Chuck289 wrote: »

My girlfriend is going nuts over the J1. Because it comes in pink. Thats all she knows

That's great!!! Wish I had her spirit ...

RovingEyePhoto · December 2, 2011

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I handled a J1 in the store. I think the J stands for joke. It does not fit in a pocket, despite what Ashton would like you to believe. If I have to carry a camera bag, I may as well have my DSLR. Or at least some camera with some amount of control over DOF.

Yeah, gotta go to P&S for that. But the ILC size in general sure feels good hanging on the shoulder. Like a kickback to old rangefinder days, very convenient/classy ...