Nikon 1
- Thread starter H8R
- Start date
Obviously the pink is ugly but I like it - they could be very versatile cameras. Word is they'll accept F-mount lenses, too, with an adapter...
Yep, although it's not 4/3. It's actually a good bit smaller, about a 2.7x multiplication factor to focal length (vs. 4/3's 2x factor). I think Nikon estimated that 4/3 was too close to APS-C, which I agree with.
The price is too high, IMO, but hopefully some cameras will be released at lower price points.
The price is too high, IMO, but hopefully some cameras will be released at lower price points.
If/when Canon gets on board with the mirrorless DSLR (or whatever these compact interchangeable-lens cameras are called) I'm definitely looking at picking one up. Combine it with a flat 30mm pancake lens for most shooting, or be able to throw the 17-50 or 100mm on it as needed. Would be a fun backup to the main DSLR.
edit: And when the prices are below ~$600! Yikes, missed that part at first.
edit: And when the prices are below ~$600! Yikes, missed that part at first.
Yeah, I can see this competing with consumers for the price of a cheap DSLR (the consumers will primarily value size and looks even if it is simply adequate performance), but no way am I buying one when I can get a small APS-C DSLR for the same price.
Or far cheaper, actually...
Also just realized that they shrank the sensor down quite a bit from what the other companies are offering. I mean, for about the same price you can get the Sony Nex-5 which has a full APS-sized sensor on it (1.5x crop). Or for half the price you can get one of the 1/1.7" compacts that takes damn fine pictures and includes most of the controls (without the interchangeable lenses). The whole point of this style of camera is to give you DSLR sensors and lenses but without the bulk of a DSLR.
Ugh, utter fail, Noink. Canon, don't follow this lead, PLEASE. The last thing I want is to buy a camera on which my 17-50mm crops down to perform like a 47-135mm. Actually, come to think of it, this pretty much eliminates any use of existing lenses because they will be *so* completely different. Obviously they're probably looking at coming out with an entirely new range of lenses just for this that can be smaller, lighter, and more suited to the smaller lens, but that kind of defeats the purpose...
For the lolz:
Meh...nothing there that excites me that much. Could make a good camera to throw in the bag for hiking or biking, but I doubt I'll drop that kinda coin when a DSLR offers so many more advantages.
Great. So this camera isn't the one for you. OK.
In a clever scheme to turn a profit, it seems as though camera manufacturers are making cameras that appeal to different user groups. Go figure.
Pentax Q, Sony NX5, FujiFilm X-10, Panasonic GX1, Nikon 1(& Jr) Lytro cube...or even the higher-end market that encompasses the Leica M9 or the Fuji X-100. Do I really have to tell you that the people that buy these cameras could not care any less about crop factor, lens adaptability, etc?...They want good pictures and want it to be taken from a camera that isn't a bulky DSLR.
Yep..there is the odd lot like Steve Huff that have sold off their D3's for the Leica-life. They make a strong argument for the less-is-more approach...but if you are already that good, you can make it work for you because you know what makes a great image anyways. But, if you roll like Trey Ratcliff and HDR is your bread and butter, you're gonna want to keep that D3x.
I like that this market is starting to break out and gain some traction...it's an interesting experiment to see if people will buy into a system of lenses if it is attached to a less-intimidating body that resembles something closer to their typical P&S.
I work at an art school, and see no shortage of people walking around with T2i's, D40's(& 5000's) shooting all kinds of stuff. Obviously the DSLR market got really affordable, but not smaller. As compact and light as my D40 is, if I could get the same performance out of something more compact and lighter....I would do it. I would imagine that we're going to see that same shift happen in this particular market of cameras.
OK....that's it. That's all I got.
In a clever scheme to turn a profit, it seems as though camera manufacturers are making cameras that appeal to different user groups. Go figure.
Pentax Q, Sony NX5, FujiFilm X-10, Panasonic GX1, Nikon 1(& Jr) Lytro cube...or even the higher-end market that encompasses the Leica M9 or the Fuji X-100. Do I really have to tell you that the people that buy these cameras could not care any less about crop factor, lens adaptability, etc?...They want good pictures and want it to be taken from a camera that isn't a bulky DSLR.
Yep..there is the odd lot like Steve Huff that have sold off their D3's for the Leica-life. They make a strong argument for the less-is-more approach...but if you are already that good, you can make it work for you because you know what makes a great image anyways. But, if you roll like Trey Ratcliff and HDR is your bread and butter, you're gonna want to keep that D3x.
I like that this market is starting to break out and gain some traction...it's an interesting experiment to see if people will buy into a system of lenses if it is attached to a less-intimidating body that resembles something closer to their typical P&S.
I work at an art school, and see no shortage of people walking around with T2i's, D40's(& 5000's) shooting all kinds of stuff. Obviously the DSLR market got really affordable, but not smaller. As compact and light as my D40 is, if I could get the same performance out of something more compact and lighter....I would do it. I would imagine that we're going to see that same shift happen in this particular market of cameras.
OK....that's it. That's all I got.
The problem is you *can't* get the same performance due to the smaller sensor. This lays out the benefits of each, with the main benefits of the smaller sensor size being cheaper sensors and cheaper lenses... And yet it's just as expensive as the NEX 5, just about as big as the NEX 5, and it's incompatible with any of your current lenses. So why exactly would you choose it over the NEX 5?I work at an art school, and see no shortage of people walking around with T2i's, D40's(& 5000's) shooting all kinds of stuff. Obviously the DSLR market got really affordable, but not smaller. As compact and light as my D40 is, if I could get the same performance out of something more compact and lighter....I would do it. I would imagine that we're going to see that same shift happen in this particular market of cameras.
OK....that's it. That's all I got.
Sony even offers a (mediocre) lens mount adapter allowing you to use your current Alpha lenses, but with the massive crop factor I can't imagine any of the Nikon lenses would be usable on the 1.
Sorry, it just seems like Nikon either deliberately made it worse so it wouldn't compete with their DSLR sales, or they ran into technical difficulties and rushed it. Either way, it seems half-assed to me and I hope that Canon does it better when they release theirs.
Those are great points, dante. As I said before, the people that are buying into this system aren't the same type of people that are looking at...or even care about sensor size and crop factor. They are seeing a camera that takes great pictures, has some lens options, comes in several nifty colors, and shoots on Auto like a boss.
I love that comparison sensor pic of the NikJr and the NX5.
I love that comparison sensor pic of the NikJr and the NX5.
The real question here is going to be how well each company supports their cameras with a full lens lineup.
Dante, it's all well and good to say it's about the size of the NEX-5, but the camera body isn't the big part of the size. The lenses are. So tell me, where can you get an ~80-300mm lens that's 2.4" tall and weighs 175g? Not with Sony, that's for sure. Their equivalent is twice as long, twice the weight, AND has a smaller max aperture to boot. You can get closer with the Olympus PEN series but you're getting closer to the Nikon sensor size so at that point it's a question of who produces the better sensor - and I'm not sure I'd take Olympus in that bet.
Rob Galbraith had a good point on the 1-series as well. The massive crop factor isn't really that useless - sure, for wide angle, but you could make a pretty interesting 135mm f/1.4 out of a 50mm, or a longer large-aperture telephoto out of an 85mm lens.
In the end, though, I don't think people buy cameras like this to even consider their existing lenses. They buy it for a size:quality ratio. The NEX body is the same size, but the lenses are substantially bigger, so that right there is a pretty strong selling point for the Nikon.
Dante, it's all well and good to say it's about the size of the NEX-5, but the camera body isn't the big part of the size. The lenses are. So tell me, where can you get an ~80-300mm lens that's 2.4" tall and weighs 175g? Not with Sony, that's for sure. Their equivalent is twice as long, twice the weight, AND has a smaller max aperture to boot. You can get closer with the Olympus PEN series but you're getting closer to the Nikon sensor size so at that point it's a question of who produces the better sensor - and I'm not sure I'd take Olympus in that bet.
Rob Galbraith had a good point on the 1-series as well. The massive crop factor isn't really that useless - sure, for wide angle, but you could make a pretty interesting 135mm f/1.4 out of a 50mm, or a longer large-aperture telephoto out of an 85mm lens.
In the end, though, I don't think people buy cameras like this to even consider their existing lenses. They buy it for a size:quality ratio. The NEX body is the same size, but the lenses are substantially bigger, so that right there is a pretty strong selling point for the Nikon.
Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS:
Diameter: 62mm
Length: 60mm
Nikon CX-10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII:
Diameter: 58mm
Length: 42mm
So it's 18mm shorter, but since the width of the body where the lens attaches is actually *wider* on the Nikon, it ends up being pretty similar. Plus with the crop factor the f/3.5 on the wide end of the Nikon is going to let in FAR less light than the f/3.5 on the Sony.
Sony E 18-200mm f//3.5-6.3 OSS:
Diameter: 99mm
Length: 75.5mm
Nikon CX-10-100mm f/4.5 - F5.6
Diameter: 77mm
Length: 95mm
For those they're virtually identical...
By the way, here's a back-to-back body shot of the Nex-5 and the Nikon V1. Which would *you* think had the sensor that was twice as big in it?
Oh, and if you're going to claim that the tiny sensor allows for a natural "crop" to simulate a 300mm lens (and I don't even want to guess what Aperture that would be at a 2.7x crop factor and f/5.6 at the long end), you could achieve just the same cropping down the 16mp of the Nex-5n that's replacing the 5 soon.
Last edited:
f/3.8-5.6
60mm x 61mm
175g
THOSE are the kind of lenses that will sell this system.
Also, strictly seat-of-the-pants, I don't think you can crop a 16mp image from a 1.5x crop to 2.7x crop and get 10mp of data from it.
I guess... And I'll take your word on the cropping aspect since I'm too lazy to do the math as well.
f/3.8-5.6
60mm x 61mm
175g
THOSE are the kind of lenses that will sell this system.
Also, strictly seat-of-the-pants, I don't think you can crop a 16mp image from a 1.5x crop to 2.7x crop and get 10mp of data from it.
I just think that it's far too much of an "in-between" system that will sell (if at all) because it's trendy. Sure it's smaller than a DSLR, but it's also far, far bigger than the prosumer compacts like the P7000/G12 (P7000 has a 1/1.7" CCD, 10mp, 28-200mm 2.8-5.6, and my mother bought one a couple months ago for ~$300). It's still bulkier due to the non-retractable lens, still has the IQ issues of cheap kit lenses, and about the only thing going for it is that it looks new and different. At least the Nex cameras have the ability to take just as good photographs as a DSLR, meaning that people will pick one up as a smaller alternative to their larger, bulkier camera. Nikon's direction is the opposite, hoping to make something new and shiny and attracting all of the people for whom DSLRs are "intimidating". I just don't see how they can charge $700 for it.
Then again I panned the iPad pretty hard when it came out, and look how successful that is...
Last edited:
The NEX is going nowhere, IMO.
Having lenses that are, by the nature of physics, equally bulky as any other DSLR is stupid. As much as I like the body design, what possible use is shrinking the body by 50% if the lenses need to be completely redesigned only to get a tiny savings?
Nikon is at least attempting to bridge the gap, which is smart. The P7000 has a ~4.7x crop factor. The D3000 has a 1.5x crop factor. The 1-series hits in the middle. The 2x of the 4/3 series wasn't enough to differentiate (actually, I NEVER thought it was enough to differentiate from APS-C).
The initial price is too high, for sure. But that will drop, so what I am judging it on is its technical merits (plus, have you seen the prices on Alpha lenses?). What I see is a middle ground between the DSLR and the compact cameras, and it seems to be a solid middle ground. The lenses can be clearly much smaller, as is the body (compared to a DSLR), but you are still going to gain a lot of image quality over a compact camera.
For me, personally, I would have a very narrow use for this camera series. When I want a big camera, I already have a big camera. When I want a small camera, I already have a tiny P&S. I could see this being a really interesting option for hiking where ~100mm + adapter makes a telephoto and everything else is handled by compact lenses - VERY tempting. But for the rest of the world, there are a whole lot of people for whom a DSLR is overkill, but a compact is limiting.
Having lenses that are, by the nature of physics, equally bulky as any other DSLR is stupid. As much as I like the body design, what possible use is shrinking the body by 50% if the lenses need to be completely redesigned only to get a tiny savings?
Nikon is at least attempting to bridge the gap, which is smart. The P7000 has a ~4.7x crop factor. The D3000 has a 1.5x crop factor. The 1-series hits in the middle. The 2x of the 4/3 series wasn't enough to differentiate (actually, I NEVER thought it was enough to differentiate from APS-C).
The initial price is too high, for sure. But that will drop, so what I am judging it on is its technical merits (plus, have you seen the prices on Alpha lenses?). What I see is a middle ground between the DSLR and the compact cameras, and it seems to be a solid middle ground. The lenses can be clearly much smaller, as is the body (compared to a DSLR), but you are still going to gain a lot of image quality over a compact camera.
For me, personally, I would have a very narrow use for this camera series. When I want a big camera, I already have a big camera. When I want a small camera, I already have a tiny P&S. I could see this being a really interesting option for hiking where ~100mm + adapter makes a telephoto and everything else is handled by compact lenses - VERY tempting. But for the rest of the world, there are a whole lot of people for whom a DSLR is overkill, but a compact is limiting.
I'm with you, I've got a DSLR and a sub-compact, and the camera I use most is the 8mp one on my smart phone... Maybe part of it is the fact that I've been camera-shopping for my mother for the past ~2 years or so. Didn't want a big, bulky, DSLR, wanted something that would take *good* pictures, better low-light photography than her current 1/2.3" ancient sub-compact, etc. She theoretically should have been the perfect candidate for this, but we wouldn't have even looked at it due to a) her insistence that it needed a viewfinder and b) the fact that the V1 with the kit and the 30-110mm lens is pushing almost $1000. And for 1/3 the price, I'd bet that the P7000 would actually take a better picture, having better optics than the low-end kit (or $250 30-110mm) lenses.
Dunno, guess we'll just have to see how the pictures start coming out. I still think it's a dumb idea and that Nikon half-assed it, and I'm praying that Canon follows Sony instead of Nikon, but we'll have to see what the reviewers say and what the sales numbers are...
I have to agree here. They should have swung for the fence and they bunted. Out at first.
Let's hope the next batter is on the 'roids.
It still misses the point, though. For an enthusiast, you might be correct. This is not a lineup that is primarily targeted at enthusiasts. Are you going to tell the average idiot that just wants to take some nice pictures that they should use a 35mm prime all the time?
In all cases, with a large sensor, you sacrifice with large glass. Period. It doesn't matter what the size of the camera body is.
Out of curiosity, what would you guys have suggested for a camera series like this? Would you have recommended to shrink the body and stick with APS-C, a la the NEX-5? Or something else?
In all cases, with a large sensor, you sacrifice with large glass. Period. It doesn't matter what the size of the camera body is.
Out of curiosity, what would you guys have suggested for a camera series like this? Would you have recommended to shrink the body and stick with APS-C, a la the NEX-5? Or something else?
This. The one benefit of these types of cameras over a P&S is great IQ. Period. They're bulkier, far costlier, and sometimes don't even get down to the focal range/aperture settings of some of the advanced P&Ss. If a camera-maker focuses on *one* lens integrated into the P&S they can even do things like ED glass since they don't have to recreate it across a line of lenses. So why would a camera-maker sacrifice the one advantage they have? All the other benefits (better/faster AF, electronic shutter, etc) can be transferred to a P&S at some point in the future, but the larger sensor can't. And Nikon chose to get rid of that one advantage just to save ~1/2" on something that's going to be 4.5" long anyway (body plus stock lens)?
They have a ton of technology packed into these cameras. Electronic shutters, FPS rates, amazing AF, all things that will eventually trickle *up* into the DSLR range. Or maybe these will be the new DSLRs since we won't need the mirrors/reflection going on inside of a camera body anymore. (Most) People use DSLRs today for IQ and to a lesser extent versatility. They want the better IQ, they want better low-light pictures, they want wider apertures, etc, all of which they get with an entry-level DSLR and a kit lens. The Nex system allows all of that without the bulk of in-body mirrors/mechanical shutters/etc. The new Nikon has a ton of technology packed into it as well, but they ham-strung it with a smaller sensor and incompatibility between lenses. Canon designed the EF-S system to allow for shorter/smaller lenses, but allowed for reverse compatibility with all of their (and their competitor's) EF lenses.
So what I'd like to see is all of that technology packed into a tiny body like the Nex system but that also has the APS-C sensor and reverse compatibility with all of their EF lenses. I don't *need* a mirror slapping away inside my camera body. I don't *need* a viewfinder. I don't *need* a camera body that's as big as the DSLRs these days. What I do need is image quality and low-light performance, both of which come with the bigger sensor.
My dream camera:
Canon
Size of the Nex-5n
16-18mp APS-C CMOS sensor
Compatibility with all EF/EF-S lenses (although EF-S might not work due to the protruding back? Know that it would hit the mirror on a FF camera, so not sure)
Hot shoe (maybe?)
Electronic shutter/enhanced AF/all the Noink goodies from the 1-series
Priced like the Nex-5n
That's really it. If they came out with one, I would probably get that over another DSLR body when it's time to upgrade (which is probably EXACTLY what Nikon is afraid of).
So how does the tiny body really impact the overall photo system?
Let's look at the NEX-5 as compared to a small DSLR - the Nikon D3100. The D3100 (450g) weighs approximately 50% more than the NEX-5 (300g), but at these weights, we're talking about an actual difference of ~150g. Okay, a 50% improvement seems significant enough.
We need a lens, though, right? So let's add the 55-200 lenses from each manufacturer. They each weigh and size about the same - the NEX lens is 10g heavier, but we'll chalk that up to lens design and say they both weigh 330g. Now we have a total weight of 780g for the D3100 and 630g for the NEX-5. Now we're down to a 25% weight difference. But these are interchangeable lenses, right? So we're probably not only carrying one - we want our 18-55mm wide angle. Again, a little variance but about a wash if we call it 200g each, for combined weights of 980g & 830g, and now we're down to an 18% weight difference. For that small difference, we've introduced a new lens mount, and a whole new series of lenses, all of which way exactly the same as their standard counterparts.
Compare that to the Nikon 1. 234g body (65g less than the Sony), 115g 10-30, 175g 30-110, and we have a kit that's 525g, and suddenly we're not that far off from cutting the kit weight in half from a DSLR. It's even a big savings off the NEX-5. Plus, you end up with a telephoto option that doesn't weigh much by using a fairly short standard lens + adapter.
I just can't see introducing an entire new lens lineup and a new camera mount all to shave weight only at the camera body, when the lens kit comprises the majority of the weight.
I'm not going to belabor the point any more, I just wanted to throw some numbers up to elaborate on why I thought the smaller sensor was important here.
Let's look at the NEX-5 as compared to a small DSLR - the Nikon D3100. The D3100 (450g) weighs approximately 50% more than the NEX-5 (300g), but at these weights, we're talking about an actual difference of ~150g. Okay, a 50% improvement seems significant enough.
We need a lens, though, right? So let's add the 55-200 lenses from each manufacturer. They each weigh and size about the same - the NEX lens is 10g heavier, but we'll chalk that up to lens design and say they both weigh 330g. Now we have a total weight of 780g for the D3100 and 630g for the NEX-5. Now we're down to a 25% weight difference. But these are interchangeable lenses, right? So we're probably not only carrying one - we want our 18-55mm wide angle. Again, a little variance but about a wash if we call it 200g each, for combined weights of 980g & 830g, and now we're down to an 18% weight difference. For that small difference, we've introduced a new lens mount, and a whole new series of lenses, all of which way exactly the same as their standard counterparts.
Compare that to the Nikon 1. 234g body (65g less than the Sony), 115g 10-30, 175g 30-110, and we have a kit that's 525g, and suddenly we're not that far off from cutting the kit weight in half from a DSLR. It's even a big savings off the NEX-5. Plus, you end up with a telephoto option that doesn't weigh much by using a fairly short standard lens + adapter.
I just can't see introducing an entire new lens lineup and a new camera mount all to shave weight only at the camera body, when the lens kit comprises the majority of the weight.
I'm not going to belabor the point any more, I just wanted to throw some numbers up to elaborate on why I thought the smaller sensor was important here.
Dude....while I am most appreciative of the legwork you put into these weight figures, you are aware that the only thing that matters to 75% of camera owners, is that you can clearly see the camera manufacturers name on the oversize strap around their neck? We all want to be Star-Bellied Sneeches with stars upon thars.....
Looks like Canon was listening....
Will be interesting to see how it performs, but so far it hits just about everything I'd asked for (we'll see what the street price ends up being, but that's about it). Smaller, lighter body than the Nikons, APS-C sized sensor, EF/EF-s compatibility (with adapter), etc.
I don't understand the point.
If you have an APS-C sized sensor, your lenses have to be almost as big as "normal" lenses.
Yes, you can lose some size because of the body design. Yes, you can lose some size because you carefully design the lenses. But by and large, you're not going to, say, cut the weight of the lens in half just because the exit pupil-to-sensor distance is almost nonexistent now.
It's not a kit that's pointed at me, that's for sure. If I'm going downsize, I want to downsize, not introduce a whole new lens lineup into my system just so that I can cut the weight of the camera body in half.
What's funny is the Canon message boards are full of people bitching and moaning that the EF-M mount won't allow FF in the future...
I'm pretty sure that this camera wasn't made for the US, but rather Europe (CRC sales are 30% of interchangeable lenses) and Japan (CRC sales are ~50%).
As for sensor size, I like bigger sensors. The IQ is better as is low-light photography, and I'm guessing that that 22mm f2 and relatively modern APS-C sensor by Canon are going to make this a (comparative to other CRCs, compacts, etc) low-light monster.
My only real complaint is price, although that $800 retail should come down in the future, and especially the $200 adapter. For me it'd be almost worthwhile just getting an additional $300 lens instead since I don't have a ton of glass (just a 17-50mm 2.8 and a 100mm f2), at which point I could go with *any* of the CRC setups, including those costing hundreds of dollars less.
No clue. I guess we'll see how everything pans out in another year or so?