• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nikon to enter the ILC-arena (micro 4/3's!)

At first, I laughed at 4/3. Now that we're getting mirror-less cameras, I changed my mind. 4/3 seems to be perfect size for mirror-less cameras.
 
Meh. Wish it were actual m4/3. That would have been a nice boost for the format, and Nikkor lenses probably would have come to dominate the market (even with other brands of bodies). This sensor is too small IMO.
 
so the camera isn't appreciably smaller than an EPL3 and has a stop smaller sensor? great work nikon. not quite as dumb as pentax's Q but still dumb.
 
Last edited:
Fail. Only the Nikon name will give enough traction to keep it from total ridicule.
4/3 should be the smallest sensor out there, save point and shoots and phones.
Another major manufacturer did this.
Samsung, I think.
I like Sony's approach on this. APS-C.
Edit-- err, derp. Pentax, not Sammy.
 
Nikon failed hard

Fail #1: Small sensor (only HALF the sensor area of Micro 4/3 and ONE-THIRD the sensor area of NEX)

Fail #2: No good pancake lenses (only a slow 28mm equiv f/2.8). Compare that to m4/3, which has a 24mm equiv f/2.0, 28mm equiv f/2.5, 34mm equiv f/2.8, and 40mm equiv f/1.7, all in a pancake form factor.

Fail #3: $899 for the V1 + kit lens? Almost double the price of a GF2 with kit lens

Fail #4: Despite the smaller sensor, BOTH of the Nikon cameras with their 10-30mm kit lenses are LARGER AND HEAVIER than a GF3 with its 14-42mm kit lens:

WTF???

Nikon_V1_V2_Size_S.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seems the popular opinion = fail.

m43rds would have been better.

No PASM, no manual controls = P&S with stupid lens mount. its not exactly small or light given the competition and its tinny sensor.
 
given a choice to supplement my DSLR of a NEX, Panny or Nikon - it'd be a Panny or Nikon. Not sure why people would want a Nex APS-C supplement if they already have a DX camera. MFT would need an adapter for F mount lenses, so I'm not seeing the big deal if people want to re-use their F mount lenses.

I read lots of complaints about fail but most of the consensus is based on a system that doesn't replace their existing dSLR. It's a supplement and an entirely different market.

If I ever more UP from a D90, i'd like to supplement a decent IQ camera in a smaller form factor. It'll likley be a travel camera where DOF isn't a high priority. I think MFT and Nikon hit that niche.

P&S < CX (nikon) < MFT , Nex < DX/APS-Canon < FX

Nikon isn't looking at enthusiast replacement, they're trying to bridge a market that doesn't exist. It's all in how they're marketing and how well they can sell the solution. The market isn't looking for super-shallow DOF, they want to video and still images.

The tech in the sensor is probably a test bed for what they can offer in their dSLR bodies.
 
Sid59 said:
given a choice to supplement my DSLR of a NEX, Panny or Nikon - it'd be a Panny or Nikon. Not sure why people would want a Nex APS-C supplement if they already have a DX camera. MFT would need an adapter for F mount lenses, so I'm not seeing the big deal if people want to re-use their F mount lenses.

I read lots of complaints about fail but most of the consensus is based on a system that doesn't replace their existing dSLR. It's a supplement and an entirely different market.

If I ever more UP from a D90, i'd like to supplement a decent IQ camera in a smaller form factor. It'll likley be a travel camera where DOF isn't a high priority. I think MFT and Nikon hit that niche.

P&S < CX (nikon) < MFT , Nex < DX/APS-Canon < FX

Nikon isn't looking at enthusiast replacement, they're trying to bridge a market that doesn't exist. It's all in how they're marketing and how well they can sell the solution. The market isn't looking for super-shallow DOF, they want to video and still images.

The tech in the sensor is probably a test bed for what they can offer in their dSLR bodies.
Click to expand...

Ok, sure, it's a new market, designed to slot below DSLR's and above P&S's. But all things being equal, a larger sensor will give better IQ at higher ISO, as well as greater DOF choices (don't know why you seem to think the bigger sensor is just about DOF). The problem is, all things AREN'T equal and Nikon is giving you a SMALLER sensor in a BIGGER package (size and weight) for GREATER price! If these were priced at $350-$400 with kit lens (i.e. competing with top-end P&S's), they'd find a reasonable place in the market IMO.... hell, I might even buy one. If they were physically smaller than m4/3 at the same price, then OK, there might be a market niche there. But as it is, these Nikons are the worst of all worlds: more expensive, smaller sensor, larger+heavier form factor. Nikon must be nuts to think that this will work.
 
10FPS with full AF, 60FPS with AF locked, at full resolution.

Contrast AND phase detection AF (supposedly the fastest in the world) with 73 points.

I'm interested.
 
996GT2 said:
Fail #3: $899 for the V1 + kit lens? Almost double the price of a GF2 with kit lens
Click to expand...
I would hope so, considering the V1 has an EVF, magnesium body, VGA LCD, mechanical shutter, and should demolish a GF2 (or GF3) with AF and continuous shooting speeds.
 
slashbinslashbash said:
Ok, sure, it's a new market, designed to slot below DSLR's and above P&S's. But all things being equal, a larger sensor will give better IQ at higher ISO, as well as greater DOF choices (don't know why you seem to think the bigger sensor is just about DOF). The problem is, all things AREN'T equal and Nikon is giving you a SMALLER sensor in a BIGGER package (size and weight) for GREATER price! If these were priced at $350-$400 with kit lens (i.e. competing with top-end P&S's), they'd find a reasonable place in the market IMO.... hell, I might even buy one. If they were physically smaller than m4/3 at the same price, then OK, there might be a market niche there. But as it is, these Nikons are the worst of all worlds: more expensive, smaller sensor, larger+heavier form factor. Nikon must be nuts to think that this will work.
Click to expand...

I was just playing the flip side. I know large sensor isn't all about DOF but reading through photography enthusiasts sites, some people were annoyingly complaining that wont be able to shoot super duper bokeh from the sensor and the lenses they announced. I'm just saying, that's not the point of the package.

I think the coolest feature is the ability to shoot video and still take a still image. Is that worth 900 bucks?! not sure ..

Nikon 1 J1 Sample Image Gallery - http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-j1-preview-samples
 
I tend to agree that it seems rather silly to develop a system around such a small sensor.

It doesn't really have anywhere to go in the future as a lot of things will become limited by sensor size.

I am definitely interested in the on sensor PD/CD AF and if they will bring it to their DSLRs. I was interested in Sony's SLT system, but now if this comes to DSLRs with good EVFs then it will obviously be better since Sony has the SLT cutting 1/2 stop of light.
 
jpeyton said:
I would hope so, considering the V1 has an EVF, magnesium body, VGA LCD, mechanical shutter, and should demolish a GF2 (or GF3) with AF and continuous shooting speeds.
Click to expand...

Realistically speaking, who actually uses a mirrorless camera in a situation where they would need 10 fps continuous shooting and extremely fast AF tracking? I don't see professional sports shooters switching to these anytime soon, and even if the AF performance was amazing there are still the problems of 1) Sensor way too small=poor high ISO and no ability to control DoF, 2) No lenses beyond 300mm, and all available lenses are very slow aperture

I feel that Nikon's claims about AF are more marketing gimmick than anything else. To begin with, I highly doubt the lenses can actually keep up, since none of them are specified to have a ring ultrasonic motor. If these lenses have micro-motors for AF, you can say good-bye to the kinds of AF speeds that are the norm with many SLR lenses.

Second of all, most of the lenses available for the Nikon system are quite slow (f/5.6 when zoomed). A fast phase detection AF system usually requires a fast lens for maximum performance, so it remains to be seen how that will affect the Nikon's AF speed.

Honestly though, 73 AF points on a mirrorless camera is not much more than a gimmick IMO. With the sensor being as small as it is and the lenses being as slow as they are, you probably don't even need AF most of the time 😛



With Micro 4/3, at least you're getting a compact system with a decently sized sensor and a wide variety of lenses. Nikon's system is larger, bigger, and yet has a sensor with one half the area. Not to mention the Nikon costs twice as much and most of that cost is just for a few gimmicky features.
 
Last edited:
jpeyton said:
I'm interested.
Click to expand...

Not that I'd buy one now yet, as I'm still building my glass collection, I'm also interested.

Too many people seam to be fixated on "omg this is not a NEX" while overlooking the bigger picture, the sensor has a few tricks up it sleeve that could change Nikon's DSLR lineup.

996GT2 said:
AF are more marketing gimmick than anything else.

73 AF points on a mirrorless camera is not much more than a gimmick IMO.

Not to mention the Nikon costs twice as much and most of that cost is just for a few gimmicky features.
Click to expand...

As Thom said, "Why not watch the movie before you write the review?"

As hard as it is to swallow, gimmicks sale. And unfortunately Nikon is in the business of selling cameras.
 
IMO, you people are discounting it prematurely. Nikon has repeatedly gotten better image quality than Sony using the exact same sensor, so I will reserve criticism until reviews of the production model are available. And it IS noticeably smaller than the NEX5 with its relatively ginormous 18-55 lens, not to mention other benefits like a build-in flash and EVF.

The lens lineup is relatively lacking, but again, much better than what Sony had for their initial lineup. With more lenses in the future, this could become a successful system.
 
Sid59 said:
The tech in the sensor is probably a test bed for what they can offer in their dSLR bodies.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Sid wins the the grand prize. This sensor sized to APS will give about 24mp and much more in FX.

Hybrid AF built in the sensor= likely a no mirror SLR (type) F mount camera. It will be a much better solution than Sony's implementation.

Dual core processor in the low end quadcore in the the pro models.

This is just the first salvo in Nikon's tech assault on Canon. Nikon need not worry about the bottom 20% of the market that Sony, Pentax, Olympus et al... occupy.

This is about taking it to Canon (yet again).

We now only need wait to see what Canon has hiding in the digital darkroom.

And as for the CX cameras, I can see a market for them, but only until when and if the others can match or surpass Nikon's tech advantage.

Gene
 
Lol. Assuming Canon is just sitting down on the porch and whittling.

It's great they will use the consumers as guinea pigs for err...other consumers.
It has nothing to do with new sensor technology and how it can benefit DSLR's down the road. That's just a side effect. They already know what it can do when the fabs are bigger.
It's all about a market that isn't there yet.

non-Gene.
 
twistedlogic said:
As hard as it is to swallow, gimmicks sale. And unfortunately Nikon is in the business of selling cameras.
Click to expand...

I don't think these gimmicks will sell at this price. There are some good points as to why it is more expensive (build quality, fps, AF innovations) but I do not see how anybody in the market for this kind of camera would want those things, but not want the things that are missing from these cameras. As 996GT2 points out, what kind of person needs that kind of speed and AF performance from a camera with crappy lenses and a tiny sensor? It's not like sports photogs are going around whinging about the size of their cameras. A nice pro-sized body is what they need to get a good grip, have good fast handling (multiple scroll wheels placed conveniently for constant adjustments without moving the grip on the camera -- in both vertical and horizontal orientation) and in fact, a hefty mass is good for stability. I can see these appealing *maybe* to a *tiny* niche but when it comes to what your average photographer wants/needs, these fall pretty flat.

All that said -- I do admit that the AF technology is pretty cool and it could lead to some very interesting and exciting developments throughout the Nikon product line. I hope that it does. But I think that these particular cameras (and this new sensor format) will end up being a market failure. I really don't see why Nikon didn't put this technology into a DX-sized sensor in a DSLR-sized, mirrorless body with an F-mount. I can see videographers and sports photogs going for that, for sure. Sort of an improved, mirrorless D300. Price it under $2000 and you'd have a very solid (and possibly superior, depending on how the AF actually performs) competitor to the 7D.
 
In my perspective, everything about this camera is just a major fail. But, average joes and soccer moms may think differently.

However, there's one thing I'm interested in: 73(!) phase detect in-sensor AF module. I'm eager to see how it performs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top