Did We Underestimate the Nikon J1?

[NickTrop]

This is an Adorama video of the Nikon J1. I recall reading threads here on RFF and the general reaction seemed to me to be - "Meh - another CEVIL". I dunno. This camera seems to have some very interesting, useful, and unique features. It really seems to blur (to the chagrin of many, I'm sure) the difference between still and video capture. Did we prejudge/underestimate this thing? It seems to me Nikon has always been one of those companies that's strategically "sat back", let other manufacturers "make their mistakes", comes late to the party - but they (metaphorically) bring the girls and the booze:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBhnhT0Pa3Q&feature=player_embedded

 

[f16sunshine]

Looks interesting. One thing though.
How can Nikon build a camera that is shaped like a bar of soap?
There should be a finger grip on the front of these things. Look how close the control dials are to the back right edge of the camera. Any sort of grip would make use more comfortable. The smooth front looks nice but, I doubt it plays nice.

 

[thegman]

Maybe, I quite like it, built in EVF makes it very nearly unique in that form factor. I think they've done quite well.

 

[Moriturii]

Looks interesting. One thing though.
How can Nikon build a camera that is shaped like a bar of soap?
There should be a finger grip on the front of these things.

Like all Leica M film cameras?

 

[séamuis]

maybe you did but I didn't. I find its new features rather gimmicky, and its overall performance where it counts, to be no better than anyone else. its ugly to boot.

 

[f16sunshine]

Like all Leica M film cameras?

Indeed. And mine all have a half case with grip for this reason.

 

[kuzano]

Isn't that redundant....

Isn't that redundant....

but they (metaphorically) bring the girls and the booze:

The girls and the boobz....

Or were you speaking of ladies and the guys they often choose?

 

[Shade]

Physically to me, it doesn't look very apppealing, despite coming in all candy colours. I'm sure there are those who disagree.

Technical and usefulness wise, I think for such a small sensor it is very large! Look at epl olympus and nex series. Sure they don't have a built in evf. But then again take a look at the Pentax q. Imagine adding an evf to the q, and it still wouldn't be as large.

The lenses are also huge in comparison, I have held the q lenses and its very small! I don't know what Nikon is thinking when they designed it. They may have the right mindset, some features are probably fun to use for a pocket step up camera, but really, the size and the lenses alone are not worth it. I'd rather get something else in the mirrorless league. Those who use the j1 are more likely to utiilize the screen for taking pictures anyway..

 

[rxmd]

Did we prejudge/underestimate this thing?

Almost certainly. When you have a crowd who has pretty fixed ideas about something, being presented with something else makes it hard to see things for what they are. Case in point: when you have a crowd who likes no-battery, mechanical rangefinders and dislikes video and who wants large sensors in their cameras and you present it with a camera that is good at video-like things and has a small sensor, you can be almost guaranteed that they will see divergence from their expectations as minuses, while failing to see pluses.

 

[btgc]

Grip? What do you mean? It costs $0.25 to manufacture and multiply it to amount of J1's produced....Nikon isn't expecting people will hold J1 except as with 4 fingers.

 

[gavinlg]

Almost certainly. When you have a crowd who has pretty fixed ideas about something, being presented with something else makes it hard to see things for what they are. Case in point: when you have a crowd who likes no-battery, mechanical rangefinders and dislikes video and who wants large sensors in their cameras and you present it with a camera that is good at video-like things and has a small sensor, you can be almost guaranteed that they will see divergence from their expectations as minuses, while failing to see pluses.

Well, the Nex-7 - a very expensive and advanced mirrorless camera is the ONLY mirrorless camera in the amazons 'top pre-orders' camera list. They've presold a huge amount of them.

As for the original question, no, we haven't underestimated it.

It's -
- Larger
- With a smaller sensor
- With basically no manual control
- More expensive
Than Nex and m4/3 cameras.

preview did a RAW studio comparison - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon1system/page5.asp and to me it's pretty obvious the Nikon can't hold up to the e-p3 or nex for IQ. More noise, less detail.

 

[rxmd]

As for the original question, no, we haven't underestimated it.

It's -
- Larger
- With a smaller sensor
- With basically no manual control
- More expensive
Than Nex and m4/3 cameras.

preview did a RAW studio comparison - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon1system/page5.asp and to me it's pretty obvious the Nikon can't hold up to the e-p3 or nex for IQ. More noise, less detail.

Remember, these are your criteria. Maybe people outside your peer group don't mind a smaller sensor or don't want manual control after all? How many soccer moms outside the vocal-but-numerically-insignificant third-party lens crowd actually use manual control on their mirrorless cameras?

After all it would be preposterous to claim that one's opinion is the majority opinion, just because one is in agreement with one's peer group.
Your list reminds me of the editor of computer geek weblog Slashdot and his comment when Apple presented the iPod back in 2001: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." I guess that was actually quite representative of what computer geeks thought of it, but it also makes quite clear how far off and irrelevant computer geeks' opinions really were.

 

[Lss]

The Nikon 1 system seems both too big and too expensive for me. I would actually like to buy a very small EVF camera (with smaller than 4/3 sensor but not super small; think NEX body size to sensor size ratio with much smaller lenses) that takes tiny interchangeable lenses: super fast primes and tiny zooms. Featurewise it should be a mix of still and video camera (much like Nikon 1 seems to be). Of course, I would like it to be dirt cheap too. 🙂 Many of the Nikon 1 features sound great for such a camera, and I can see this selling well. But I am looking for a toy with some serious tool qualities rather than a tool with some toy qualities. Nikon 1 size and pricing is too heavily in the tool department. That is perfectly okay for someone who is looking to carry one as their main camera.

 

[gavinlg]

Remember, these are your criteria. Maybe people outside your peer group don't mind a smaller sensor or don't want manual control after all? How many soccer moms outside the vocal-but-numerically-insignificant third-party lens crowd actually use manual control on their mirrorless cameras?

After all it would be preposterous to claim that one's opinion is the majority opinion, just because one is in agreement with one's peer group.
Your list reminds me of the editor of computer geek weblog Slashdot and his comment when Apple presented the iPod back in 2001: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." I guess that was actually quite representative of what computer geeks thought of it, but it also makes quite clear how far off and irrelevant computer geeks' opinions really were.

Apple is an anomaly - an exception rather than the rule. They make things that are simpler but better to use. Nikon is not that company - Their best products have always been about control and access to settings. All of their best products over the years have these things in common.

Now, as for the consumer, they tend to look at things like size, price, features and megapixels. The nikon is larger, has less megapixels, and is more expensive than it's competition.

And I still don't believe that consumers want the most basic and dumbed down camera possible. The NEX-7 was #3 on amazons top selling cameras after just 1 day of pre-orders:

The fujifilm x100 is still difficult to get, and that's an expensive point and shoot. Regardless, even IF the nikon is good for consumers, and sells well, it won't make it a good camera for photographers - who are generally the people that frequent this forum - where the question is being asked 😉

 

[rxmd]

The NEX-7 was #3 on amazons top selling cameras after just 1 day of pre-orders:

It just takes enough advance hype among gearheads to produce that kind of result. What kind of normal user preorders a camera, anyway?

The fujifilm x100 is still difficult to get, and that's an expensive point and shoot. Regardless, even IF the nikon is good for consumers, and sells well, it won't make it a good camera for photographers - who are generally the people that frequent this forum - where the question is being asked 😉

Your assertion that the people who frequent this forum are generally photographers is pretty optimistic; I find that they are generally gearheads. Everybody is free to feel or not feel insulted by that, however it's intended as a rather neutral statement of fact. Buying, selling, owning and talking about photo gear for fun really is a fine hobby, but it doth not thee a photographer make. The J1 is probably a bad camera for gearheads, I give you that.

The question that is being asked, however, is whether or not by applying one's own encrusted and fossilized set of criteria one might be prejudging or underestimating a product's other interesting, useful, and unique features. To that question, merely reiterating these criteria is not going to provide an answer.

 

[gavinlg]

It just takes enough advance hype among gearheads to produce that kind of result. What kind of normal user preorders a camera, anyway?

What's with the obsession with the word 'hype' on this forum? (not singling you out in particular) It's very clear why the NEX and the x100 are popular amongst photographers and gear heads - because they fill a very big niche of being compact cameras with good viewfinders and big sensors, that's gone completely unfilled since the demise of film cameras.

The 'hype' is there because the products were genuinely quite badly overdue in the first place.

edit: I've been using the x100 for a little over 2 weeks, and it's EXACTLY the camera that fujfilm advertised when they teased it for all those months. It's exactly what I thought it would be - but yet I still read about the x100 'hype' and not living up to it... I don't know maybe I'm weird or something. Did people think it would magically make them Avedon or something??

 

[Frontman]

I think the new Nikon is one of those cameras primarily intended for the Japanese market. For the past couple of years photography has been increasing in popularity with women. There are now several women's photography magazines being published, and there have been a few programs on daytime TV (most Japanese women are housewives) giving digital photography hints and tips.

These new Nikons will look at home in ladies designer bags, with small stuffed toys tied to the neck strap eyelets.

 

[NickTrop]

I think this is one of the more interesting offerings, personally, that's out there this year upon reexamination. Whether the market agrees remains to be seen. Photography is evolving toward devices that are proficient at both still and motion capture. Nikon's feature set reflects this... Motion capture is not just a tacked on "nicety" - it seems to share equal billing with still capture and these two capabilities play off each other nicely/smartly creating a synergy. HBC never said the decisive moment has to be a 1/30th of a second still frame, perhaps the decisive moment can also include 30 seconds of motion.

@fdigital - there have been relevant criticisms of the Fuji X100 since its release. Not saying it's a bad camera, I'm sure I'd enjoy using it if I owned one. However - as but one example, DPReview writes in the conclusion of its in-depth review:

"...unfortunately the X100 also suffers from a number of operational oddities, quirks and firmware bugs that can rather get in the way of the user experience...suffice to say that while many are quite minor, and can be worked-around once you know about them, others are potentially more problematic..."

This is a generally favorable review of the camera but nowhere in this review is it written, "We reallt thought the Fuji X100 would magically make us Avedon or something and are disappointed it didn't..." My take on the X100 is I can buy a used 24/2.8 AF for around $100 used and slap it on my Nikon and get close to the same capabilities but lose a stop. I can't see giving up the interchangable lens capability and paying more for less. "In the days of old" you bought a good fixed lens rangefinder with a good lens that usually cost less than an interchangeable lens system - the tradeoff being you were stuck with the lens on the camera - a pretty big one too as far as trade-offs go... I get the Fuji craze but in a sense I kinda don't. But that's just me. This new Nikon I'm "getting" - even though I'm not "getting" it.

 

[Mackinaw]

I dunno. The sensor's awfully small. Why buy this thing when you can buy a micro 4/3rds camera with a much larger sensor?

Jim B.

 

[Nikon Bob]

For one thing, every camera gets prejudged before it is released. If by "we" you mean the wonderful folks at RFF, then no we did not underestimate the thing from a RFF POV. Yes it has some really neat gee whiz features but the intended target users were not likely the crowd that hang out here.

Bob