# Nikon unveils V1 and J1 Mirrorless Cameras



## bhavikk (Sep 21, 2011)

Just saw this on Engadget!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless-cameras-10-1mp-cmos-2-7-inc/


----------



## Bokehmon (Sep 21, 2011)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092120nikonlaunch.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092115nikonlenses.asp

Your move Canon....


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 21, 2011)

Ooooooooo!! I like the pretty pink one!! 


Hopefully Canon has something a little less stocking-stuffer than this.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 21, 2011)

Oh look, how cute, it's like a sensor only smaller...


----------



## KBX500 (Sep 21, 2011)

Canon has been waiting for this announcement. Now they know how to 
outfit their camera bodies and system that will be competing with Nikon 
in this segment. But the J1 & V1 don't seem to be much competition with 
the 13.2mm x 8.8 image sensor - not even for Oly, Panasonic & Sony.

Doesn't it seem like Nikon is waving the white flag kind of early ? 
Are they that afraid of Canon, or were they unable to source a 
competitive sensor ?
Do they believe their lenses are so superior that they will attract buyers ?

I don't get it. I thought Nikon would slot their offering in at a 2.0 crop factor.
Naturally, they wouldn't want to compete with their own APS-C bodies and
use their 1.5 CF sensor, but a 2.7 CF ?

Seems like an early Christmas gift to Canon.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 21, 2011)

Not quite what I was expecting. Seems more of a Pentax Q competitor for the Japanese home market.


----------



## Flake (Sep 21, 2011)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092120nikonlaunch.asp

Just reading the comments, people are far from positive about this camera, in fact most opinion is highly negative.

What is the advantage of this camera over the LX5 or the G12? When price is taken into account it's laughable (double). When the camera is compared to similar priced ones (PEN & NEX) it just looks silly.

On top of that it's incredibly ugly, current Nikon accessories are not compatible (so no speedlight hotshoe), and it offers no features which aren't offered on competitor products. The lenses are slow (especially considering f/2 is available) and expensive.

All in all this seems to being seen as a huge flop, dead on arrival was one comment, and it seems certain to ensure that Nikon doesn't progress from it's position of third place in the market.

I can only hope that Canon has the foresight to stick with the G12 in this sector, and produces a camera to compete with the EVIL cameras with an APS-C sensor, and the ability to use accessories in the Canon range which we already own. Otherwise we might as well go buy a Sony.


----------



## PeterJ (Sep 21, 2011)

About the only thing I saw of interest was the phase detect autofocus. I'd previously thought that was only possible with a mirror system but see in the Wikipedia article on autofocus it can be incorporated into the sensor. Still a bit of a nothing product for me, too large to always carry on you like a cell phone, too inferior to a DSLR for planned shots.


----------



## weixing (Sep 21, 2011)

Hi,
May be Canon can just use the G series and convert it to a mirrorless camera with adapter to use EF/EF-S lens.

Have a nice day.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 21, 2011)

Electronic Viewfinder....no thanks!


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 21, 2011)

what an epic fail....

i only hope canon will do it right.

enough of this _they wonÂ´t "cannibalizing" their dslr market_ nonsense.
if canon will not do it, sony or samsung or m43 will do it anyway.

please give us a APS-C mirrorless system canon!!!

or at least a roughly m43 sensor size system with a *PRO body and good handling*.

not some P&S body like these nikons.


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 21, 2011)

the nikon 1 system can't survive any kind of comparison

* the nex-5n has a 1.6x crop sensor and a similar price

* people complain about the m43 picture quality; but the difference between m43 (2x) and APS-C (1.6x) is actually smaller than the difference between nikon1 (2.7x) and m43 (2x)

* the difference between tha nex-5n (1.6x) and this nikon 1 thing (2.7x) is just as big as the difference between the nikon 1 (2.7x) and the canon G11 (4.8x)

I don't know why they even bothered with this: R&D costs of a whole new lens system that's owned by every competitor around

let's see how the cameras perform, but I'm quite pessimistic...


----------



## koolman (Sep 21, 2011)

bhavikk said:


> Just saw this on Engadget!
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless-cameras-10-1mp-cmos-2-7-inc/



The traditional p&s line of cameras posses a basic drawback in the form of slow focus and shutter lag. For many home uses, and consumer uses, this is a real problem as you are forced to pose people to snap a good shot. Pictures of anything moving like a small child, or a school dance, are very hard to achieve.

The real improvement in the new(olympus, panasonic, etc.) smaller bodies (MFT etc.) is that this hurdle seems to have been overcome. Technology now allows a fast focusing/shooting NON DSLR body. This is a major improvement and opens up a world to consumer use.

Nikon made a smart business move, to develop a small sensor body, with fast focus and speed. As sensor technology improves - the physical size of the sensor is less meaningful, allowing nikon to provide smaller better quality lenses, and keep costs down. I believe most consumers are not seeking interchangeable lens systems, and do not want to lug around a MFT body and lens. Nikon gives us a smallish body, with super fast performance.

I think this is a very smart business move.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2011)

KBX500 said:


> Do they believe their lenses are so superior that they will attract buyers ?



Of course. They come in black, white, sliver, pink, and red. How could they _not_ be superior?!?


----------



## gmrza (Sep 21, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> what an epic fail....
> 
> i only hope canon will do it right.



I think it is difficult to put a foot right in this segment. It seems that CSCs have only really caught on in the Japanese market, while the rest of the world has so far been sitting on the fence.

The lower end of the market could probably not care less about interchangeable lenses - they are perfectly happy with a compact. The higher end of the market insists on image quality - these users already have DSLRs and need a pocketable camera. Until something really good comes along they will probably rather stick with a G12 (or similar). That leaves a small group in the middle who probably see current EVIL offerings as good option.

I think a challenge here as well is that the market for users who want a large sensor and fast lenses is an extremely small niche. That makes it difficult for manufacturers to put anything decent in the market.

For myself, I would be interested in something with an APS-C sensor, a selection of fast prime wide angles and a proper accessory hotshoe (so that I can use my existing speedlites or off-camera flash). The problem is that the mass market is demanding zooms with the biggest possible zoom ratio. Most of us reading these forums shudder at the thought of the knock that image quality takes with a 10x zoom. But we are a minority.

If I want a light system with interchangeable lenses, right now I am still probably best off dusting off my 350D, or getting my act together getting my Zeiss Ikon overhauled... (OK the Zeiss is not that light.)

In a way, I feel for the camera manufacturers - this is a market segment where whatever they do, they seem bound to get it wrong.


----------



## liberace (Sep 21, 2011)

I personally can't see the appeal of APS-C sensors in tiny bodies. They're ridiculous. The 18-200mm lenses for example on the m43 system cameras is laughable. Much more practical to get an actual dSLR.

Nikon's smaller sensor however, allows for genuine miniturisation of interchangeable lense cameras. That said, for the size of their sensor and the slowness of the glass, the lenses really look too big to me, partly diminishing the size advantages.

Plus the bodies look awful.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 21, 2011)

I think this is the thing. Other than pancake lenses I cannot see a valid reason to use 4/3.

Nice jump in IQ granted but for a small jump in size you could have a 5D.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 21, 2011)

koolman said:


> Nikon made a smart business move, to develop a small sensor body, with fast focus and speed. As sensor technology improves - the physical size of the sensor is less meaningful, allowing nikon to provide smaller better quality lenses, and keep costs down. I believe most consumers are not seeking interchangeable lens systems, and do not want to lug around a MFT body and lens. Nikon gives us a smallish body, with super fast performance.
> 
> I think this is a very smart business move.



problem is it is not small compared to m43....

m43 has the bigger sensor by similiar sized body+lens combos.
plus m43 has faster lenses.

so there is no reason to buy this nikon system...
beside the 60 FPS that will sure be seen in other (cheaper) P&S cameras soon.


----------



## djw (Sep 21, 2011)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> May be Canon can just use the G series and convert it to a mirrorless camera with adapter to use EF/EF-S lens.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I think this would be a good plan for Canon:

keep the G series 'feel' and rename/work it a R/'Ranger' series. 

interchangeable using EF-S (EF would be great!)
Ability to have full manual control, audio tags (as per G series) and some of the features from the s100 (e.g. GPS, DIGIC 5) - I think GPS fits in nicely with a rangefinder's traditional 'traveller' feel
keep the hotshoe!
... while we are at it add an optional 'motordrive' grip. ;-)


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 21, 2011)

The V1 maybe the ugliest camera I've ever seen...


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 21, 2011)

Actually, you guys are missing the point here... Have you seen the tiny size of the 110mm zoom that gives a 35mm equivalent of nearly 300mm in a lens the size of a standard 18-55mm ? The range also has a powered zoom for video. Whilst this ain't my thing, I can see it flying out the door as a fancy carry anywhere camera system for folks that don't wish to lug several kg around everywhere.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Actually, you guys are missing the point here... Have you seen the tiny size of the 110mm zoom that gives a 35mm equivalent of nearly 300mm in a lens the size of a standard 18-55mm ? The range also has a powered zoom for video. Whilst this ain't my thing, I can see it flying out the door as a fancy carry anywhere camera system for folks that don't wish to lug several kg around everywhere.



Right. But, have you seen the size of the 150mm zoom in the Canon PowerShot SX40 HS that gives a 35mm equivalent of over 800mm in a lens the size of a standard 18-55mm?

The smaller you make the sensor, the smaller the lenses can be...and the lower the IQ. There are always tradeoffs. I agree with gmrza on this - it's a tough market segment outside of Japan. Most people here would be less than thrilled with the IQ delivered by the CX sensor. At least Nikon released a 'fast' wide angle prime (10mm = 27mm FF-equivalent), but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive.

I think Nikon read the Wikipedia section entitled, "...Bridging the gap in sensor sizes," studied this plot:







...and decided, hey, _that's_ where we should put our new sensor format!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....



I never knew there was a correlation as direct as that. So if I have a 24-105 f4, is that like f6.4 on a APS-C sensor; or do we need to consider other factors too. 

Just learning here... cause then my f4 lens on a 5D is not too bad compared to his 70-200 f2.8 II on his 7D (f4.48 equivalent ?) or should other factors dwarf this correlation?


----------



## liberace (Sep 21, 2011)

K-amps said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....
> ...



This is in terms of Depth of Field only. If you google depth of field and sensor size you should find several calculators to help you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2011)

K-amps said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....
> ...



Basically, yes. But to be clear, the crop factor applies to aperture in terms of depth of field for equivalent subject framing...so, f/2.8 on APS-C gives you the same depth of field that you'd get at f/4.5 on FF, for the same subject framing. The reason is distance - the crop factor means a narrower angle of view, so to match the framing you need to be further away with APS-C, and that extra distance means a deeper DoF. 

Many people don't realize this. A great example is people who state they won't upgrade to FF until the 24-70mm has IS, because they want a FF equivalent of the very nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. What they don't realize is that such an equivalent exists...and is actually better spec'd - the actual FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is a 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS plus on the 5DII it will out resolve any APS-C sensor.

The effect of crop factor on aperture does not apply to exposure, though with the better ISO performance of a FF sensor, you can bump up the ISO to compensate for the loss of a 1.3-stops of shutter speed.


----------



## skitron (Sep 21, 2011)

The video OS looks abysmal judging from Nikon's own clips...looks like NEX wins that battle hands down. Plus NEX has APS-C and option for 'real' lens. Hopefully Canon ignores the Nikon formula and goes squarely after Sony.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I was thinking the exposure, but this clears it, thanks neuro and Liberace


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 21, 2011)

koolman said:


> bhavikk said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw this on Engadget!
> ...





Of course it is! Big corps couldn't survive many dumb moves. This is clearly aimed at a target audience. Just look at the colors. They'll sell everyone they build.

The kicker is...there are dslr users who've bought into this idea and irregardless of it's shortcomings, will just have to have one to "throw in the bag". It's win/win for Nikon. They know this. They're not dummies. And they'll laugh all the way to the bank.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 21, 2011)

> Of course it is! Big corps couldn't survive many dumb moves. This is clearly aimed at a target audience. Just look at the colors. They'll sell everyone they build.



well i think i can talk enough customers into buying these cameras if i want too.

BUT if i do my job and give proper information to my customers, i think most who are willing to buy into a system would buy a different camera.

there is not much beside the name, 60 FPS, the yet to seen AF, that makes this looks good compared to a PEN.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 21, 2011)

Interesting move by Nikon but I think the pricing is way off for those wanting to move up. I followed this path from compact to 5DMkII and while I went back (in size) to buy a Panasonic LX-5 for my pocket, I can't imagine paying these prices (i.e. more than a small SLR) for a travel or upgrade path camera. I realize they can't cannibalize their entry SLRs, but without high IQ, I don't see a compelling upgrade path.


----------



## Flake (Sep 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Many people don't realize this. A great example is people who state they won't upgrade to FF until the 24-70mm has IS, because they want a FF equivalent of the very nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. What they don't realize is that such an equivalent exists...and is actually better spec'd - the actual FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is a 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS plus on the 5DII it will out resolve any APS-C sensor.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2011)

Flake said:


> As a FF user I want a FF version of the 17 - 55mm. No equivalent stuff just that focal length as is! Maybe to replace the 17 - 40mm L but I'd even forgo the 55mm for a new fast wide angle with IS.
> Just to put it the other way around 17 - 55mm is 10 - 35mm on crop, I wonder how many crop users would be interested in that focal length.



We may see one, I'd guess it will stop well short of 55mm. Nikon added VR to their 16-35mm UWA zoom, although it's f/4. I believe that IS could be added to the current 16-35mm without a substantial increase in size. But a 17-55mm f/2.8 with an EF image circle would be closer to the current 24-70mm in size and weight. 

Would crop users would be interested in a 10-35mm lens? Sure...if it was optically as good as the current 10-22mm and didn't cost much more.


----------



## traveller (Sep 21, 2011)

Choosing the sensor size is a difficult decision for any camera manufacturer contemplating a compact system camera. There is always the tradeoff between a larger sensor with slower lenses and a smaller sensor needing faster lenses; somewhere must lie an optimal sensor size, the question is where? I don't think that anyone really has an answer to this yet. Perhaps there is no single answer, just as in film days there were multiple formats for different needs. 

When this whole 2.7x crop factor was first suggested in the rumorverse it was widely panned, but my first thought was that with some clever lens design it could deliver some small fast zooms that would appeal to a wider audience than pancake primes on larger sensors. The problem with the route that Nikon has chosen is that the cameras and lenses don't seem to be much smaller than m4/3rds and the lenses are no faster... 

I think that there are really two different markets here for CSCs, the 'better-than-a-compact' mass market (or should this now be 'better than an iPhone?) and the 'smaller than a DSLR so I can carry it when I don't want my full kit' enthusiast market. None of the current entrants (which is now almost everyone but Canon) really seem to know which market they're serving, so they're just throwing cameras into the market to see what sells. Panasonic m4/3rds bodies have been getting smaller and shedding enthusiast features, whilst Olympus and Sony are splitting the market into ever smaller segments. 

All the camera manufacturers are facing the question of what will happen when the future generations of camera phones destroy the bottom segment of the camera market. The '1' system is Nikon's answer, but I'm not sure if they wouldn't have been better off with an APS-C size CSC and cover the lower end of the market with a decent fixed zoom lens camera like the Fuji X10. I think that Nikon's system will gain a following, but I don't thinks it's the killer move that will see them dominate this market like they do with DSLRs (along with Canon of course). 

None of this really bodes well for Canon, I think that both of the 'big two' have perhaps left it too late to make a significant impact with CSCs; they'd best hope that all this turns out to be a sideline, like the original Olympus Pen. What can Canon now do? If they'd launched an APS-C CSC with some good lenses at the end of last year/beginning of this year, they may have had more room to stand out. As it is, the NEX7 looks like it will carve out the top end of this market (if Sony get their lens development into gear!), even if Canon launch next year it will look a bit 'me too' and will be two years behind even Sony in lens releases. I don't think that Canon would be welcome in the m4/3rds alliance; maybe they should join forces with Nikon in a 2.7x crop alliance!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2011)

traveller said:


> even if Canon launch next year it will look a bit 'me too'



That's why Canon will make a game-changing entry into the field. It's a common theme in innovative companies. Apple developed the iPad long before the iPhone was released in 2007, and Apple sat on it until other necessary developments and technological adjacencies paved the way (they were waiting on large LCD displays with lower power consumption and better battery technology, as the iPad prototypes had abysmally short battery life). 

So, Canon is probably sitting on a full frame mirrorless camera...they're just waiting for the laws of physics to change so they can launch pancake lenses with a 43.2mm image circle.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 21, 2011)

honest i think all this "too late" talk is nonsense.

it dosnÂ´t matter that much.
the product matters.


----------



## traveller (Sep 21, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> honest i think all this "too late" talk is nonsense.
> 
> it dosnÂ´t matter that much.
> the product matters.



Maybe your right, Canon hasn't got to its current market leading position by being first, but by making the right choices at the right time. My feeling remains that the technologies for making CSCs a success are beginning to coverge; Sony has their new EVF, Nikon has some form of phase detect AF on sensor, Panasonic and Olympus are starting to get into their stride with capable yet compact lenses. At the moment, no one has everything so perhaps it is Canon that can get the right mix, as they did with EOS. 

One thing that they can't afford to do is leave it too long, like Olympus did with AF, there are a lot of the 'enthusiat-wanting-smaller-second-system' crowd that have already given up waiting for Canikon and invested in either m4/3rds or NEX/NX. Once they have a lens collection, it will be a difficult sell to get them to switch. I'm pretty sure that when (and it's now almost certainly _when_ and not _if_) Canon launch a CSC, they will go for it full throttle. The only thing that worries me is where this will leave the current EOS system (especially APS-C) because there are still many lenses missing or in need of updates.


----------



## dougkerr (Sep 21, 2011)

Hi, Peter,



PeterJ said:


> About the only thing I saw of interest was the phase detect autofocus. I'd previously thought that was only possible with a mirror system but see in the Wikipedia article on autofocus it can be incorporated into the sensor.


There has been *much* patent activity by Canon over the last some while on doing that.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## Mike Ca (Sep 21, 2011)

I am probably not the target customer base for this camera, but many enthusiast have a second P&S camera that they carry in their pocket for everyday use. These are things like the G12 or S95/S100. Both of those cameras have 7.5x5.5mm sensors. This allows them to have very compact fixed zoom lenses with good reach on both ends. 

The Pentax-Q has a even smaller sensor at 6.2x4.5 mm, but the with the 27-83mm equivalent zoom lens, it certainly is not a pocket camera. Even with the pancake prime I don't think it would fit in your pocket. It is however very small and light, so it may appeal to someone that wants a step up from a P&S.

Now the N1/J1 has a 13.2x8.8 mm sensor, considerable larger than the Canon G12 or S100 and the Pentax-Q, but smaller than the mic4/3 cameras. 

I guess these cameras and the bigger mic4/3 and APS-C size mirrorless cameras are not designed to appeal to me, cause I just don't see why anyone would buy one. Are they really going to be able to deliver anything better than the high end P&S like the G12 or S100? When you put a lens on them, they sure are a lot bigger and more expensive.


----------



## AJ (Sep 21, 2011)

gmrza said:


> The lower end of the market could probably not care less about interchangeable lenses - they are perfectly happy with a compact.
> 
> The higher end of the market insists on image quality - these users already have DSLRs and need a pocketable camera.


I agree with you. I just don't see the market here. And here we have a brand-new sensor and brand-new line of lenses. Chances are, if this thing doesn't sell like hotcakes (probably won't) then prices won't come down in a hurry. Olympus PEN hasn't exactly taken the market by storm.

I think if you look at it as a point-n-shoot with higher image quality than its 1/1.7" brethren plus the ability to change lenses, well then it's kinda interesting. The price kills it though.

If you look at it as a mirrorless DSLR system with a miniature sensor and the same price as a proper APSC cam, then forget it.




Gothmoth said:


> what an epic fail.... i only hope canon will do it right.



Epic fail... I say probably, likely.

I sure hope canon gets a mirrorless system going with its APSC chips and an EF-S lens mount. Why manufacture a whole new line, no upgrade path? I just don't get it. Why not use components already being manufactured?


----------



## gmrza (Sep 22, 2011)

AJ said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > The lower end of the market could probably not care less about interchangeable lenses - they are perfectly happy with a compact.
> ...



The challenge is that these products are playing in the market segment between the G12 and the 1100D. What is likely to happen is that you land up with a product which is rather like a motorbike with a sidecar - it inherits the disadvantages of a motorbike combined with the disadvantages of a car, and only satisfies a small market segment. (Let's not try to pick apart my analogy - it is not perfect.)

This is a segment where I believe there is first mover disadvantage. (OK Nikon are not the first mover.)

Hopefully Canon will take a serious look at what the strengths of the G12 and the 1100D are, and come up with a product that carries the strengths of both of them, and which fits into the price bracket. That will be a tall order. This kind of product is trying to satisfy the high end of the compact market and the low end of the DSLR market - i.e. the most demanding users in the compact segment and the least demanding users in the DSLR segment. That is a marketing nightmare.

What does seem to be a promising development is the availability of phase detect autofocus in a mirrorless camera. That development may open the way to some more useful products.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > even if Canon launch next year it will look a bit 'me too'
> ...


I could like with an APS-C camera - for my needs I would not even demand full frame.

Leica have shown us how small a lens for a full frame camera can be - if it doesn't have to work with the massive flange to focal plane distance which is necessitated by a mirror box. My understanding is that with moving the flange closer to the focal plane, you would be able to avoid having to use a retrofocus design in lenses, thus simplifying the optics, and making lenses smaller and lighter. By using power zooms, you can eliminate the zoom ring and focus ring, further reducing the size of a lens.
Think about the size of Leica primes, or the old Zeiss Ikon lenses - the Sonnar f/2 is a small lens - yes it has its weaknesses, but that kind of lens is proof of how compact a lens can be.
A further interesting twist to make the whole package smaller would be a recessed lens mount, which would allow part of the lens to sit "inside" the body - in the way that the lenses of compact cameras do. - Now I am really speculating though!


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 22, 2011)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm


----------



## bycostello (Sep 22, 2011)

real pretty looking too... sensor size puts me off though


----------



## koolman (Sep 22, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon made a smart business move, to develop a small sensor body, with fast focus and speed. As sensor technology improves - the physical size of the sensor is less meaningful, allowing nikon to provide smaller better quality lenses, and keep costs down. I believe most consumers are not seeking interchangeable lens systems, and do not want to lug around a MFT body and lens. Nikon gives us a smallish body, with super fast performance.
> ...



Gothmoth: I agree with you that the size of say the GF3 and this new nikon are very close. However the size of the lenses, and the ability to create smaller lenses to match the sensor size - is the main advantage of keeping things small on the sensor side.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 22, 2011)

Funny that DPR had to write a whole praise release article and basically act as Nikon's corporate mouthpiece just to defend this DOA Japanese faddist Rainbow Brite toy. ;D

Body and lenses too big, sensor too small, price too high, fruitcakey design and colors == TEH FEYL.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 22, 2011)

> "If bringing multiple sensor sizes into the mirrorless market ends up seeding customer confusion about the camera's capabilities (especially in markets where such systems haven't yet become a success), this would only serve to benefit Nikon's DSLR sales."



Winnar quote from DPR.


----------



## Flake (Sep 22, 2011)

Just received the Pre Order 'offers' from Calumet: http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/eng/gallery-NIKNEW/home?t=CM02&a=CM02

Eye wateringly expensive! V1 + 10 - 30mm lens costs almost as much as a D7000 + 18 -105mm VR and a lot more than a D3100 twin lens kit! In Canon terms that's a 60D with 18 - 55mm IS I know which I'd choose for that much money and the V1 would be last on my list!


----------



## AJ (Sep 22, 2011)

gmrza said:


> ... you land up with a product which is rather like a motorbike with a sidecar - it inherits the disadvantages of a motorbike combined with the disadvantages of a car, and only satisfies a small market segment.


And you price that motorbike-and-sidecar higher than a fully loaded Honda Civic.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 22, 2011)

The only thing good comes out from the Nikon mirrorless is the fast AF ( at least that is what Nikon claims). However, the high price, small sensor, large camera body and lenses make us wondering this "Who is going to buy it???)


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 22, 2011)

Rocky said:


> The only thing good comes out from the Nikon mirrorless is the fast AF ( at least that is what Nikon claims). However, the high price, small sensor, large camera body and lenses make us wondering this "Who is going to buy it???)



Ashton "Nikon" Kutcher.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 23, 2011)

Rocky said:


> The only thing good comes out from the Nikon mirrorless is the fast AF ( at least that is what Nikon claims). However, the high price, small sensor, large camera body and lenses make us wondering this "Who is going to buy it???)



People who need to care about money in their purchases will probably rather buy a high-end compact or an entry level DSLR. People to whom money is no object, or who absolutely have to have a light camera that produces quality images, would probably be better advised to buy a Leica M9, as it will deliver far superior images (albeit at an eye-watering price). If money is not object, why monkey around? Rather just buy a Leica. If money is an object, think about what your real requirements are and either buy a compact or a DSLR.


----------



## -zero- (Sep 23, 2011)

The whole small sensor with interchangeable lens thing makes no sense to me 
first the Q with a sensor barely bigger than a PS camera now Nikon?

with a sensor this small it practicaly negates the major advantage of interchangeable lens (shallow DOF) you might as well put a fixed 24-120 equivalent like the S100 and be done with it


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 23, 2011)

gmrza said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing good comes out from the Nikon mirrorless is the fast AF ( at least that is what Nikon claims). However, the high price, small sensor, large camera body and lenses make us wondering this "Who is going to buy it???)
> ...




Bingo!


But, the gear head in us won't always tolerate logic.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 23, 2011)

-zero- said:


> The whole small sensor with interchangeable lens thing makes no sense to me
> first the Q with a sensor barely bigger than a PS camera now Nikon?
> 
> with a sensor this small it practicaly negates the major advantage of interchangeable lens (shallow DOF) you might as well put a fixed 24-120 equivalent like the S100 and be done with it


Exactly. Canon should make a mirrorless with FF sensor with its own line of smaller lenses (withadapter for EF lens and Leica M Mount). However, I will settle for APS-C sensor with its own line of even smaller lenses, also with adapter for EF, EF-S and Leica M mount. Both MUST have the focusing speed of DSLR. Or Canon can come up with a Leica M9 copy, let the old range finder fan use zone focusing technique and Old leica lenses to get extremely fast manual focusing speed.


----------



## Flake (Sep 23, 2011)

Interesting to see Dpreview desperately scrambling to put up sample images of the new Nikons, especially following their apology for the small sensor yesterday. It's almost as if they're desperate for Nikon to have a success not a flop.


----------



## Sunnystate (Sep 23, 2011)

Just a simplistic way Nikon is attempting to be in the game squeezing mirrorless system in to non existing, imaginary place in between, without cannibalizing own DSLR sales. Lets hope Canon will be more genuine in they mirrorless offer.


----------



## Flake (Sep 24, 2011)

Well it seems from the first review that the one redeeming quality might save this camera, but alas it's not even good for image quality. Seems like a dead duck.

_Conclusion

By now it should be clear to everyone that if you are upgrading from a compact like the Canon G12 searching for more image quality, virtually any other choice of camera is better for image quality than the Nikon J1 and V1.

In fact the Nikon V1 is by far the worst in itâ€™s class for resolution and high ISO performance, in fact Iâ€™d go so far and say that for Â£850 it is a catastrophe against its peers. The Fuji X100 is far more interesting, more innovative, more fashionable and has far better image quality.

If Nikon had released this mirrorless camera 1 year ago it would have been FAR more competitive but all their rivals especially Sony have moved on in big steps recently especially with their CMOS and image processor technology.

For the normal mass market consumer (not the enthusiast) the Nikon J1 gives you no real meaningful image quality boost over a high end compact like the Canon G12 or upcoming PowerShot S100 and no size advantage.

For average consumers looking for a Handbag Camera, the Sony NEX 5N is a far better choice for a genuine compact step-up in terms of image quality.

It also has the added bonus that you can make a Hollywood film with it._


Source: http://www.eoshd.com/content/4216/nikon-j1-and-v1-image-quality


----------



## moreorless (Sep 26, 2011)

-zero- said:


> The whole small sensor with interchangeable lens thing makes no sense to me
> first the Q with a sensor barely bigger than a PS camera now Nikon?
> 
> with a sensor this small it practicaly negates the major advantage of interchangeable lens (shallow DOF) you might as well put a fixed 24-120 equivalent like the S100 and be done with it



Yeah thats my feeling, the X10 seems to point more to the future between compact and m43 than these Nikon releases do, seems theres still a good deal more room for a larger fixed lens. I can't say I know the technical specifics but wouldnt an UWA fixed lens be possible with a larger sensor? 22mm or even 20mm would offer something different to any current compact.

Personally I think its too late to challange the m43 crowd on there own ground now, if these Nikons are anything to go by they've got way too much of a head start. The smarter move for Canon would IMHO be too merge the best aspects of the NEX and the X100, a crop sensor in a small body(maybe one ultra compactand a larger prenium one with a viewfinder and more manual controls) with a range of pancake primes.


----------

