Nikon reveals it's mirrorless '1' system

Boring. Do we really need still another digital camera with still another sensor size?

All the target audience needs to take fuzzy photos of their drunk friends by the pool is the camera in their cell phone. And if it doesn't automatically upload every frame to Flickr, Facebook and Tumblr, then it's gonna be DOA.
 
Well, this certainly is not going to be the kick-off for the expected pro EVIL system from Nikon. And I doubt that it will succeed. Nikon only know one trick, developing a pro system and marketing its reputation in scaled-down consumer devices - and this one seems to be a bit too scaled down to benefit from the F respectively D reputation, and is quite likely to share the fate of the Nikon Apnea, oops, Pronea.

We'll see. Every maker will eventually have to shift the main system towards EVIL - we're just two display chip generations off the point where EVIL displays will outresolve the human eye/matte screen combination, and anybody refusing to jump the boat at that point will merely lose the convergence with the pro video market and go downhill as the last remaining photo only digital camera maker. But given their past, I predict that Nikon will do a intermediate D generation with hybrid SLR/electronic viewfinder.
 
sevo said:
Well, this certainly is not going to be the kick-off for the expected pro EVIL system from Nikon.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was ever meant to be a pro system - just an incorrect rumor. The closest we've got to a 'pro' compact is maybe the x100, and panasonic/olympus's coming 'pro' models...
 
I think the comment above that they're protecting their own prosumer DSLR market is dead on. They obviously have a predicted time line for introducing something kick ass and this is not the time.

For a company that gave us a brilliant DSLR like the D700 a couple of years ago this is a pretty wimpy effort ... but I think they have more up their sleeves than just their arms and may surprise us yet! :D
 
fdigital said:
The thing is, even if it matches m4/3 performance completely in sensor IQ, it's still a smaller sensor with less DOF control etc, but without any discernible size advantage...
Click to expand...

DOF? This days we talk about Background Blur, done in-camera when camera is set to Portrait mode. Why pay for larger sensor?

should I put ;) here?
 
Why all this moaning about the crop factor? That 2.7x would turn an 85/1.4 into a.. Yes, that's correct, a 230mm f1.4 equivalent. And that 105/2.8 macro would suddenly have a reach and speed comparable to a 300/2.8. You may not get that über-thin DOF, but it would make a heck of a wildlife/birding platform.
 
pvdhaar said:
Why all this moaning about the crop factor? That 2.7x would turn an 85/1.4 into a.. Yes, that's correct, a 230mm f1.4 equivalent. And that 105/2.8 macro would suddenly have a reach and speed comparable to a 300/2.8. You may not get that über-thin DOF, but it would make a heck of a wildlife/birding platform.
Click to expand...

theoritically you are correct. but in practice, lens of such relatively small size w/ that kind of reach would be very difficult to hold steady by hand. i imagine that very little hand movement would already cause a great shake in the camera, which negates the point of having a small gear that can be handheld, let alone the size of such lens.
 
pvdhaar said:
Why all this moaning about the crop factor? That 2.7x would turn an 85/1.4 into a.. Yes, that's correct, a 230mm f1.4 equivalent. And that 105/2.8 macro would suddenly have a reach and speed comparable to a 300/2.8. You may not get that über-thin DOF, but it would make a heck of a wildlife/birding platform.
Click to expand...

Out of something like 10,000 photographs on my hard drive, I think maybe 80 have been taken with a lens over 50mm...
Also, if I specially wanted to use an 85mm f1.4, and achieve the 'look' of an 85mm f1.4, I'd need something like a 33mm f0.8 on this system.

Thus, I moan!
 
Last edited:
I think Nikon P&S are not really produced by Nikon. Nikon has never been good at digital P&S in contrast with what they can do for DSLRs.
 
stip80 said:
theoritically you are correct. but in practice, lens of such relatively small size w/ that kind of reach would be very difficult to hold steady by hand. i imagine that very little hand movement would already cause a great shake in the camera, which negates the point of having a small gear that can be handheld, let alone the size of such lens.
Click to expand...
Digiscopers are used to lugging tripods around already.. The big thing here is having only one single piece of good glass in front of the sensor. No matter how good a scope (leica/swarovski), when put in front of a digital P&S lens, the total image suffers.
 
pvdhaar said:
Why all this moaning about the crop factor? That 2.7x would turn an 85/1.4 into a.. Yes, that's correct, a 230mm f1.4 equivalent. And that 105/2.8 macro would suddenly have a reach and speed comparable to a 300/2.8. You may not get that über-thin DOF, but it would make a heck of a wildlife/birding platform.
Click to expand...

If you are talking "equivalents", then you would have to include the DOF in that equation - in which case the 85mm f1.4 would be equivalent (in field of view, and in DOF, in 135mm terms) to a 230mm F4 lens and so on and so forth. If you think other people are "moaning" about the crop factor, how about a sensor which is small enough that no-one can see it. It comprises of one pixel and turns your 85mm lens into the equivalent of a 1,000,000mm lens - how's that for "birding" for ya ?? People aren't just "moaning" they are pointing out legitimate concerns based upon their needs. In my world, this seems fair.
 
DamenS said:
If you think other people are "moaning" about the crop factor, how about a sensor which is small enough that no-one can see it. It comprises of one pixel and turns your 85mm lens into the equivalent of a 1,000,000mm lens - how's that for "birding" for ya ?? People aren't just "moaning" they are pointing out legitimate concerns based upon their needs. In my world, this seems fair.
Click to expand...

You mean I can have a hubble telescope of my own? :D
 
DamenS said:
If you think other people are "moaning" about the crop factor, how about a sensor which is small enough that no-one can see it. It comprises of one pixel and turns your 85mm lens into the equivalent of a 1,000,000mm lens - how's that for "birding" for ya ?? People aren't just "moaning" they are pointing out legitimate concerns based upon their needs. In my world, this seems fair.
Click to expand...
This is a bit silly isn't it? I'm having a practical application in mind.. The low aperture number allows freezing subject motion with fast shutter speed even in low light, the narrow field of view gives great reach. I'm pretty convinced it outclasses the Nikon-P5100/converter combinations I have used..
 
Yes - my point was silly to display a point to you (which you still don't seem to have "gotten" though it was articulated reasonably clearly in the words you just quoted) - everybody has different uses, wants and desires. If people wish to express that this camera is not what they want (what you call "moaning"), then you should at least understand that your judgement of these "moaners" is predicated upon your particular use ("birding") of this camera - which others don't share. Let them express their opinion. You can express your own. But if you judge others, do not expect them not to judge you too.
 
Big in Japan?

Otherwise I don't get it.

Not a bad looking camera IMO. But the price! And the size!

What consumer shopping in this category would buy the Nikon over a M4/3 offering?
 
DamenS said:
Yes - my point was silly to display a point to you (which you still don't seem to have "gotten" though it was articulated reasonably clearly in the words you just quoted) - everybody has different uses, wants and desires. If people wish to express that this camera is not what they want (what you call "moaning"), then you should at least understand that your judgement of these "moaners" is predicated upon your particular use ("birding") of this camera - which others don't share. Let them express their opinion. You can express your own. But if you judge others, do not expect them not to judge you too.
Click to expand...

Moaners are moaners because there are products out there that satisfy their needs perfectly. But instead of concentraiting on that they choose to closely observe every single new camera release and then moan about what it is NOT.

Clearly Nikon 1 wasn't designed for your average RFF user. Does every product out there satisfy my personal needs? No. And I'm sure for every wish that I have there are 10 that are exact opposite. Fact is you can't satisfy every single person with a single product and that's why manufacturers choose to target a particular one. Leave what's not for you and move on to what is.

"Weeeeh, weeeh, this baby buggy doesn't have a motor, I can't drive it 100mph on the highway, weeeh, weeeeh....".
 
DamenS said:
Yes - my point was silly to display a point to you (which you still don't seem to have "gotten" though it was articulated reasonably clearly in the words you just quoted) - everybody has different uses, wants and desires. .
Click to expand...
No, what you did was ridicule the mere assumption that a crop factor camera can be put to good use. But hey, that's your party.

What I think is (and for your pleasure, I'll phrase it p.c.) "somewhat remarkable", is the knee-jerk reaction about crop factors. A crop factor in itself doesn't mean anything.. if it really did, we'd all be shooting wet plates as large as movie posters..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom