# Nikon 1 platform = RIP?



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

Huge news if true:

http://petapixel.com/2016/08/18/nikon-shuttered-1-series-line-mirrorless-cameras/

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

I've been tempted by the AW1 as an option with better IQ than a waterproof P&S (all of which have smaller sensors) and more convenience than a waterproof housing. Thinking for things like beach and pool, not diving.

My first reaction was 'bummer' but then I thought...maybe discontinued = fire sale?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've been tempted by the AW1 as an option with better IQ than a waterproof P&S (all of which have smaller sensors) and more convenience than a waterproof housing. Thinking for things like beach and pool, not diving.
> 
> My first reaction was 'bummer' but then I thought...maybe discontinued = fire sale?



I snorkeled with an AW1 + their sealed 10mm prime (27mm FF equiv I think) on vacation in Hawaii a couple year's back. Pleasantly surprised with it out of the water (handheld pano mode (like a cell phone sweep method) was great), but I didn't know you needed a specific underwater mode to be set. The underwater RAW files were absolutely dreadful as a result. I was stunned that using the right mode mattered at all with a RAW file even when I got the exposure and focus right. Nutty.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 18, 2016)

The 1 series has been practically dead for a long time.

Which is no surprise when they're charging premium prices for something with no lens selection and a sensor smaller than M4/3.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

9VIII said:


> The 1 series has been practically dead for a long time.
> 
> Which is no surprise when they're charging premium prices for something with no lens selection and a sensor smaller than M4/3.



Lenses are not what did them in. 17 lenses for N1 are on sale at B&H presently (but in fairness, there are repeats in three different colors). 

In comparison, for a long time, canon had less than 4 lenses available domestically in the US. Only 7 are there today, and only 5 unique designs (two color repeats).

The sensor size is undoubtedly what killed N1. They gambled on small small small and it would appear that bet has failed. If a mirrorless rig is only marginally better than a cellphone (and we can debate that all day -- it depends on the targeted user), it's only a matter of time before folks just use the phone instead. They also charged Fuji X-like prices on their nicer models, which made no sense for what you were getting.

So the question is: what's next for them? They clearly won't give up on mirrorless. Would they rather battle with Sony a6000/Canon/Fuji in APS-C or swing for the fences against Sony A7 in FF? (Try not to think like a photography enthusiast when you answer. )

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 19, 2016)

The issue for the many different small cameras is the lack of lenses. Many people will find that their investment in lenses is worthless, and as camera sales fall, it will get worse.

Canon really needs to consider mirrorless cameras that use EF and EF-s lenses natively, and avoid creating any more new types of lenses. The M series is hampered by a lack of lenses, it is expensive to tool up, manufacture, distribute, advertise and support new lens types worldwide.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue for the many different small cameras is the lack of lenses. Many people will find that their investment in lenses is worthless, and as camera sales fall, it will get worse.
> 
> Canon really needs to consider mirrorless cameras that use EF and EF-s lenses natively, and avoid creating any more new types of lenses. The M series is hampered by a lack of lenses, it is expensive to tool up, manufacture, distribute, advertise and support new lens types worldwide.


I am surprised that there hasn't been a mirrorless rebel yet..........


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The issue for the many different small cameras is the lack of lenses. Many people will find that their investment in lenses is worthless, and as camera sales fall, it will get worse.
> ...



And this whole forum (at least 2/3 of us) think the same of a FF offering -- just grab a 5D3 and pull the mirror out.

*But that isn't 'thin'!* 

We all know how ridiculous that statement is, and that isn't the mission statement of mirrorless, but a good chunk of that market is about smaller and lighter. For the rest of us who are going slap f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms on it, the size of the rig is 4th or 5th priority. 

I just don't think Canon knows how to dive into that market yet.

- A


----------



## moreorless (Aug 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've been tempted by the AW1 as an option with better IQ than a waterproof P&S (all of which have smaller sensors) and more convenience than a waterproof housing. Thinking for things like beach and pool, not diving.
> 
> My first reaction was 'bummer' but then I thought...maybe discontinued = fire sale?



Yeah I'v got the same kind of feeling for a V2/V3 and the 70-300mm CX, I'm not serious enough for wildlife to justify the expense of a long tele and honestly I probably wouldn't use it much anyway due to the size but equally the limits of standard smaller compact sensors are a bit too much.

I suspect if it does stick around it will actually shift more to cater for wildlife and underwater shooters rather than the mass market that they seem to be going for with there 1 inch compacts.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The issue for the many different small cameras is the lack of lenses. Many people will find that their investment in lenses is worthless, and as camera sales fall, it will get worse.
> ...


I believe the market is ripe for a Rebel mirrorless camera, able to focus tracking with 5 shots per second, and costing less than $ 1000.

The native compatibility with EF and EF-S would be the turning point for me to give up the mirror.
Even Canon offers us a premium EOS-M, I do not intend to invest in a new lens system.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 19, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I expect $2000 or more, but there is the Quandry. US and some other Western countries have so many users who see the big cameras as more desirable because they "Look" professional. Experienced photographers understand the functionality they want, and buy small or large depending on their needs, but at Best Buy, if your spending $3200, you might as well get a big one for your money.

In Asia, space and a smaller size is valued, and smaller cameras have a advantage in the market. I think that Asians as a group, tend to be more educated about what they are getting than many US buyers.

So the quandary is: Which group to design for and market to, all the while realizing that cameras in smart phones will be improving with each generation, and may threaten small mirrorless sales in a few years, if not already. Big cameras are selling in large numbers so there seems little incentive to make large mirrorless bodies until the technology can produce something clearly better.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 19, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Why do you think a "80D with the mirror ripped out" would cost $ 2000?


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Why native EF/EF-S support? Isn't it better to have the advantages of short register distance if you want those, and still be able to use EF/EF-S lenses with a simple glassless adapter? If you want to pretend to have a native EF mirrorless camera, just leave the adapter always attached.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Why native EF/EF-S support? Isn't it better to have the advantages of short register distance if you want those, and still be able to use EF/EF-S lenses with a simple glassless adapter? If you want to pretend to have a native EF mirrorless camera, just leave the adapter always attached.


I never thought a good idea to make a very thin camera body with horrible ergonomics, and use a heavy lens and adapter, making this set unbalanced.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Why native EF/EF-S support? Isn't it better to have the advantages of short register distance if you want those, and still be able to use EF/EF-S lenses with a simple glassless adapter? If you want to pretend to have a native EF mirrorless camera, just leave the adapter always attached.



There are *many* threads on this subject here. I'll try to summarize. In FF mirrorless (b/c the adapter call has already been made on APS-C), there are more or less two camps of interest:


There's a 'keep it small and use an adapter to get EF' camp. These folks want a pocket-sized rig with purpose-built lenses that are ideal for the smaller flange distance. They might limit their primes to f/2 and zooms to f/4 to keep things small.


There is an 'I want mirrorless because of what it could do that's better than an SLR' camp. These people geek out about lack of mirror slap, the mirror/mechanical shutter no longer limiting super high framerate work, an amplified EVF to work in dark rooms, manual focus assistance, etc. These people generally do not give a damn about size because they are trying to squeeze as much performance as they can out of these rigs: they want f/1.4 primes, and they want f/2.8 zooms.


At least on this forum (photography overthinkers of the most wonderful order), there is about a 2:1 preference to not have an adapter and just have a straight EF mount on a future FF mirrorless rig. I am not advocating this position or declaring that 'this is what Canon is going to do', but that's the prevailing opinion of the forum, but it's clearly not a unanimous take on this -- there are two very different camps on this.

That larger group stitched together this basic logic for no adaptor:

1) Physics is physics. Whereas you can get some small aggregate camera+body size advantage with (say) a mirrorless rig with a mirrorless-dedicated 35mm f/2.8 prime, the minute you go for f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms, the lens + body total size savings effectively is erased. So why make tiny mirrorless-only lenses at all?

2) You cannot 'cap' mirrorless into a small aggregate rig world by limiting the FL range and speed of their lenses. Sony tried this, but all their A7 people demanded big pro lenses.

3) Canon is not going to rebuild the entire EF portfolio for a new mirrorless mount, even if it is the inevitable future of just about every form of photography (in 10 years let's say, not imminently).

Put 1 + 2 + 3 together and it there is wisdom in casting aside the 'keep it small' camp and just letting folks directly bolt their EF glass on to this new mirrorless rig from day one. Instant ramp-up of excited users, no new lens inventory to build/maintain/obsolete/etc. and no painful hedging of bets with a small flange set of users and an EF set of users. 

There are some practical points to an integral / non-removable adaptor as well: you can't leave it at home because you last shot with some future small flange-only lens and end up getting totally hosed on a shoot because you can't mount your bag of EF glass.

Again, I'm the first to tell you the FF mirrorless decision on flange is complicated, expensive, and sure to piss people off. Canon now has to make that billion dollar decision and commit to it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Why native EF/EF-S support? Isn't it better to have the advantages of short register distance if you want those, and still be able to use EF/EF-S lenses with a simple glassless adapter? If you want to pretend to have a native EF mirrorless camera, just leave the adapter always attached.
> ...



Yep, I ran a poll on this as well, and though it's a limited sample, it would imply people are going to bolt their fast primes and 70-200 f/2.8 zooms on a future mirrorless rig:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28231.0

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

Again, the $64,000 question is:*What is the split in the market between the 'Keep it small' camp and the 'Surpass SLR' camp for FF mirrorless?*

The Keep it small camp is basically topped up with options in the A7 brand (many slower lenses to keep the kit small but still leverage the EXMOR goodness). Now Sony is pivoting to the pros and getting into proper flashes with radio control, large/heavy/fast glass, etc.

Canon has to decide where it will put it's marker down and conquer. Going big (for Canon) seems to be the easy move given the unstoppable appeal of the EF portfolio, but _it has to be small or why do it amirite?_ :

That's the rub. Some people can't get over that it *must* be smaller. Canon thinks (at least based on EOS-M) that there are quite a few people in this camp.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Again, the $64,000 question is:*What is the split in the market between the 'Keep it small' camp and the 'Surpass SLR' camp for FF mirrorless?*
> 
> The Keep it small camp is basically topped up with options in the A7 brand (many slower lenses to keep the kit small but still leverage the EXMOR goodness). Now Sony is pivoting to the pros and getting into proper flashes with radio control, large/heavy/fast glass, etc.
> 
> ...



Whenever anybody says "Canon has to...." I say to myself, no they don't. They don't!

Now if you go back to any number of interviews with senior Canon management they are consistent in their view that for Canon the key feature of mirrorless, and as they see it, the attraction to the majority of those system buyers is size.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Why native EF/EF-S support? Isn't it better to have the advantages of short register distance if you want those, and still be able to use EF/EF-S lenses with a simple glassless adapter? If you want to pretend to have a native EF mirrorless camera, just leave the adapter always attached.
> ...



Thanks, awesome summary! Much obliged.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Now if you go back to any number of interviews with senior Canon management they are consistent in their view that for Canon the key feature of mirrorless, and as they see it, the attraction to the majority of those system buyers is size.



Yep, and EOS-M both reflects that and is selling well despite not being the sexiest or highest performing tool out there. 

So I'm back and forth on this, but I think Canon will indeed offer a new 4th still-camera mount expressly for FF mirrorless and 'pull an EOS-M' in the FF market. I still think they'll also consider a fixed lens mirrorless like the Leica Q, Sony RX1R or Fuji X100 to get the kinks out and nail their subsequent interchangeable lens offering.

- A


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 20, 2016)

I remember looking at the J1 etc when they first came out.
I thought they looked and felt like toys, and I think that was their main problem. 

I like smaller cameras but I think that someone upgrading from a phone would like something that looked and felt more serious.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 20, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Why do you think a "80D with the mirror ripped out" would cost $ 2000?



Knowing Canon, they would try to get 1799 plus lens. They have to compete with the A6300 which may very well be why we don't see one.


----------

