New 1 inch sensor cameras from Nikon

The Panasonic LX3 was the first camera to show me what a well matched lens to sensor can accomplish. My only complaint w/ the two compacts us they decided not to include an evf..

While they are following the rest of the one inch pack w/ this release, they came out w/ something totally different in the 18-50 that I missed initially until I was corrected.

For me, my initial reaction was really about disappointment about not entering the market w/ a apsc or FF csc. Steve Jobs once said that he would rather cannibalize his own product line then let a competitor bring a product that will... At this point only Canon has an apsc csc..

Of the 3 new offerings, the 18-50 does look the most interesting..

Gary
 
iPhone doesn't have a 1 inch sensor. The only smart phone w/ a truly big sensor is Panasonic cm1 which is also a 1 inch sensor. 1 inch buys u better dynamic range and higher ISO.

For the unique 15-50 version, current price is 949.

That being said, the predominance of the p&s user would agree w/ u, might as well use a smartphone for that price --> so peace.

Gary
 
I find the 18-50 model quite appealing, but will be a small niche seller. I hope that the focal length selector is relatively fast, waiting to zoom off the wide end on startup would be a deal breaker. It may be okay when starting at 28, but 18 is not your everyday family grab shot length, and it would really p**s me off waiting too long to get to 28 or 35 to take a shot.

I don't mind the lack of an EVF, I'm used to using the iPhone screen for casual photography, and if it had an included EVF, it's unlikely to be a really nice one - it'd be a dinky little peep hole. I'd prefer the option of a higher quality clip on (assuming it is higher quality).

The 24-85 is competing with a lot already proven and out there. Hard to get any traction over the sony/panasonic offerings. Not interested.

The big one - am I the only one who can not imagine ever using one of these things? They just look so unwieldy, and are hardly pocketable - you'd need a decent bag.

Thats just my 2c though.
 
if they produce dslr like IQ then the 18-50 would be a great for landscape, i thought about the RX100 series but IQ didnt impress me which im worried this might be the same
 
All these 1 inch sensor cameras..doesn't matter whose is a compromise between quality, conveince of the small package, and dynamic range.

The best image quality u will get is if the lens is really well tuned to the sensor and your shooting a base ISO. Whether it is good enough is going to be an individual call. For me, none of these 1 inch sensor cameras are a match to my landscape camera of choice a Sigma Foveon camera (Merrill or Quattro)..but they will do in a pinch from my perspective..because at the end of the day as the saying goes -

"The best camera is the one u using now!!"

I look at this category (rx100 like) as mainly the small enough everyday carry camera for those that want something better than the smart phone camera.

Gary
 
I just bought an RX100 II and the comments about how these types are nothing better than a smartphone have me worried :(
 
Handled two of the new Nikon compacts and they are pretty solid offerings actually. Blazing fast, excellent video implementation and modular (external Mic, viewfinder etc).

For some folks, me included, things like narrow dof, bokeh and sensor size are pretty far down the priority list. I think they make very viable journalism tools and I'm looking forward to test driving a couple in the near future ;)
 
Cameron said:
I just bought an RX100 II and the comments about how these types are nothing better than a smartphone have me worried :(
Click to expand...

If u are talking about my comment..sorry I didn't mean that. As I said in an earlier post here - no smartphone outside of the Panasonic cm1 has a big 1 inch sensor.

One inch sensor will do better than any smartphone camera except the mentioned Panasonic cm1. They do better in terms of dynamic range, high ISO specifically. The are smartphones that at base ISO and a well match lens to sensor combo that will do as good in terms of image quality, but the majority will not.

What I was trying to say is that these cameras are not a replacement for the bigger sensor cameras, but a compromise in convenience where in most cases better than the smartphone camera..

I used a rx100mk1 for over two years over my iPhone camera for this reason plus I'm not a fan if 28fov. I always crop to 40ish when using a 28fov fixed lenses camera.

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
If u are talking about my comment..sorry I didn't mean that. As I said in an earlier post here - no smartphone outside of the Panasonic cm1 has a big 1 inch sensor.

One inch sensor will do better than any smartphone camera except the mentioned Panasonic cm1. They do better in terms of dynamic range, high ISO specifically. The are smartphones that at base ISO and a well match lens to sensor combo that will do as good in terms of image quality, but the majority will not.

What I was trying to say is that these cameras are not a replacement for the bigger sensor cameras, but a compromise in convenience where in most cases better than the smartphone camera..

I used a rx100mk1 for over two years over my iPhone camera for this reason plus I'm not a fan if 28fov. I always crop to 40ish when using a 28fov fixed lenses camera.

Gary
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary. I'm not extremely worried about it, especially because I'm getting the camera for a great price. This will be my first digital camera in years, I've been all film for a long time, but just wanted something compact and high quality. The iPhone does great, but I'm sure I'll have a more enjoyable experience with a Sony.
 
jsrockit said:
Not all photos require shallow depth of field.



Depth of field (at least in closer ranges) and shooting at night handheld.



Define good photography and you do realize that these cameras are A LOT different than the cameras you are referencing right?
Click to expand...

Didn't suggest ALL photos require anything. I'm only surprised that, in 2016, there is interest among 'real photographers,' in cameras that don't give you a choice, when there are alternatives not significantly larger or more expensive.

DOF at close ranges.... Theoretically. Maybe. A little.

Define good photography? That wasn't an argumentative question. I'd like to see examples based on the criteria of people who like these types of cameras. As I said - I tried a couple and was always disappointed. I'm hoping to be educated by one of the advocates. And,inherent in that request is the recognition that someone, somewhere is doing good hints with them. I just hate the limitations. I'd like to see how someone has worked well within those limits and produced something that doesn't look like a cell phone picture.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
Didn't suggest ALL photos require anything. I'm only surprised that, in 2016, there is interest among 'real photographers,' in cameras that don't give you a choice, when there are alternatives not significantly larger or more expensive.

DOF at close ranges.... Theoretically. Maybe. A little.

Define good photography? That wasn't an argumentative question. I'd like to see examples based on the criteria of people who like these types of cameras. As I said - I tried a couple and was always disappointed. I'm hoping to be educated by one of the advocates. And,inherent in that request is the recognition that someone, somewhere is doing good hints with them. I just hate the limitations. I'd like to see how someone has worked well within those limits and produced something that doesn't look like a cell phone picture.
Click to expand...
I'll get back to you when I receive mine ;)
 
I like the look of these. I like the bright aperture and the macro ability. I'm also glad for the lack of EVF. I know, people like to look "professional" and all. However, I'd rather be discreet and no EVF means a smaller camera. EVF or no, the pictures will look the same. It's cheaper than the Sony too, is it not? All round, it looks pretty good to me.
 
Mark T said:
I like the look of these. I like the bright aperture and the macro ability. I'm also glad for the lack of EVF. I know, people like to look "professional" and all. However, I'd rather be discreet and no EVF means a smaller camera. EVF or no, the pictures will look the same. It's cheaper than the Sony too, is it not? All round, it looks pretty good to me.
Click to expand...

The issue is always wash out from bright sunlight when shooting outdoors. The new LCD displays are getting better, I must admit. When shooting slow shutter speeds, an evf like position helps steady the shot vs using an LCD viewpoint. though it is partially mitigated by image stabilization when using the LCD approach.

Gary
 
For some folks, myself included (again), content is king. All the inherent strengths of a large sensor are of little value or interest. Fast, discreet and compact are the top requirements.

I have been using point and shoots, some with much smaller sensors, professionally for quite some time and I have never had an outlet turn down my work due to a lack of perceived quality.

Horses for courses as they say.

One of the newest Magnum nominees shoots a 1 inch sensor compact frequently. As do a few members. The quality of the work is not hindered as far as I can see.
 
the 18-50 has definitely piqued my interest, assuming its sensor is the same one on the J5, it might work for me.
curious to see the price for the optional DF-E1 viewfinder and AF performance.

fortunately the camera doesn't come out until end of June/early July so plenty of time for me to think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom