Nikon reveals it's mirrorless '1' system

Mirrorless cameras - on the whole, to me, are for the camera companies. They really don't offer any practical advantage (to me) in size over compact DSLR offerings. - They do look cooler looking though - but like that neat looking sports car body with the underpowered engine, they're all show and no go. They're presumably cheaper to make than their DSLR offerings as they're pretty much pure electronic items, that manufacturers (for now) can earn a higher margin. This is Nikon getting on the band wagon. APS-C is as small as I want to go. Compacts? Another silly category. Love reading those blogs. It has raw! All manual control! - You have no control over DoF and their output all looks the same since they all use tiny sensors. Get the cheapest fully automated compact that fits in your pocket that has an f2.8 widest ap and a usable iso 800, which covers a lot of flashless lighting ground. For me, a used Fuji Finepix F series - 10.11,20,30,31 used and don't spend more than $150 on it, which is all they're worth. Compact entry level DSLR + cheap pocketable compact with reasonably fast lens and usable 800 ISO + Compact digital zoom (were these things really excel). 4/3? Mirrorless? Keep'em. One day, Nikon will make a Konica Auto S3 - sized full frame. Now that will be something. Until then? "meh".
 
pvdhaar said:
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..
Click to expand...

I did no such thing nor would I because I don't personally care about crop factor - what I did do was poke fun at you stating people with different beliefs to yours were "moaners" (which is clearly a disparaging term - if anyone is ridiculing anyone it is you), which I chose to do by taking your one-sided argument (FOR crop cameras) to a ridiculous extreme, and also pointed out that your use of "equivalents" was technically incomplete. If that's too much for you to handle, so be it.
 
Last edited:
fdigital said:
Not to mention the Nikons kit zoom seems to be a lot larger than the new Panasonic 'X' kit zoom - which is literally a pancake:
panasonic_14_42mm_x-506x400.jpg
Click to expand...

I forgot about the the new Panasonic kit lens. it is a lot smaller than the original..

Gary
 
NickTrop said:
Mirrorless cameras - on the whole, to me, are for the camera companies. They really don't offer any practical advantage (to me) in size over compact DSLR offerings. - They do look cooler looking though - but like that neat looking sports car body with the underpowered engine, they're all show and no go. They're presumably cheaper to make than their DSLR offerings as they're pretty much pure electronic items, that manufacturers (for now) can earn a higher margin. This is Nikon getting on the band wagon. APS-C is as small as I want to go. Compacts? Another silly category. Love reading those blogs. It has raw! All manual control! - You have no control over DoF and their output all looks the same since they all use tiny sensors. Get the cheapest fully automated compact that fits in your pocket that has an f2.8 widest ap and a usable iso 800, which covers a lot of flashless lighting ground. For me, a used Fuji Finepix F series - 10.11,20,30,31 used and don't spend more than $150 on it, which is all they're worth. Compact entry level DSLR + cheap pocketable compact with reasonably fast lens and usable 800 ISO + Compact digital zoom (were these things really excel). 4/3? Mirrorless? Keep'em. One day, Nikon will make a Konica Auto S3 - sized full frame. Now that will be something. Until then? "meh".
Click to expand...

It's going to be a difficult day for you when you can no longer buy a traditional DSLR camera on the low end of the market, and you have to choose between a pro DSLR or a mirrorless...

And that day swiftly approaches!
 
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 using legacy glass you'd be better off with an Olympus mirrorless. Yes, the effective reach is a bit less (2x cf vs. 2.7x of the Nikon), but they have in-body stabilization which works with every lens... not just the $1700 AF-S 1.4/85 Nikon with integrated focus motors. For a birder on a budget, I don't think it gets better/cheaper than legacy glass on an Olympus mirrorless.

But as others have pointed out, I rarely use long focal lengths. And for the shots I do take, I already find m43 a bit limiting in the DOF control department. I don't really see what core advantage the Nikon has here... The body size is about on par with the m43 and NEX 3/5, the lenses may be smaller than the NEX, but not m43. Heck, Nikon's 2.8/10 pancake is bigger than the faster Panny 2.5/14 (equivalent focal lengths) and has less depth of field control to boot!
 
I was at the launch and have had one for a week. Much that seems bad can be turned off, much that is good has not been discussed. It's not a camera I thought I wanted or needed, but I'll look into mirrorless system cameras more now.

Marty
 
Meh... Barf... Meh.... I like the looks, hate the small sensor. If they would have just dropped the current sensors (14mp or 16mp) in it I would have got one over the NEX. As it goes, I'm still getting the Nex-7 or a similarly priced lens for my D7000. I'm so over small sensors 🙂
 
Yeah, I'm told by extremely reliable sources that Nikon engineers call it the "Fast Winogrand Transform"* -- the standard version of that algorithm being too computationally expensive** to implement with current image processing pipelines.
Click to expand...

If the Nikon 1 really had a Winogrand mode, it would take 20 pictures in a row and select the best one but wouldn't show it to you for a year.
 
Breaking news: Some persons use a camera for something else than some other persons.

In other news, my brother needs to use a scalpel for work, while I need to speak languages for work.
 
My favorite post in this thread! 🙂

rxmd said:
Breaking news: Some persons use a camera for something else than some other persons.

In other news, my brother needs to use a scalpel for work, while I need to speak languages for work.
Click to expand...
 
rxmd said:
Breaking news: Some persons use a camera for something else than some other persons.

In other news, my brother needs to use a scalpel for work, while I need to speak languages for work.
Click to expand...

My dad couldn't be more of an amateur with a camera and yet he still made great photographs with my 5d when I lent it to him for a trip to Tasmania. And that's the most bare bones DSLR you can buy!

The reason so many of us moan about stuff like this is because it isn't actually easier to use than a basic camera with an auto mode, it ends up being more complex, and taking the control away from the user is a bad thing because no computer program can make critical decisions as well as a human can. There's a million consumer compact digitals out there in the world, and I'm not interested in any of them. There are by comparison VERY few 'prosumer' digital compacts with a built in viewfinder and large sensor (2 in fact - the x100 and nex 7), thus making this an untapped market.

The x100 isn't a beginners point and shoot yet has sold in massive demand - the main shops in melbourne have a 6 week waiting list on it STILL - because it's a sexy functional tool, and people desire it. This nikon seems to me to be a me-too product in an already over saturated consumer market...
 
What were they thinking? With a sensor that small you must have at least 20 MP.

The AF hype amuses me. The DOF will be wide enough to compensate for AF inaccuracy 90% of the time.

I think most most people who previously used compact, fixed-lens digital cameras will just keep using their phone, send the photo to whomever and wherever, and then forget about the photo forever within 24 hours.
 
fdigital said:
It's going to be a difficult day for you when you can no longer buy a traditional DSLR camera on the low end of the market, and you have to choose between a pro DSLR or a mirrorless...

And that day swiftly approaches!
Click to expand...

Nah - if that day comes, I'll pick me up one of the bazillion compact APSC DSLRs used from the millions of "Affluenza" inflicted people throughout the world who run out and buy cameras, rarely use them, have them sit on a shelf, then feel inexplicably compelled to purchase the "next big thing" (in this case CEVIL cameras) so they can occupy the shelf space of the camera they just sold to partially fund the next camera they won't use... If I can get a 1969 Yashica GSN with no difficulty, I'll be able to get a compact DSLR in a few years.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if they sell quite a lot of these. The typical RFF member, of course, is not their target market 🙂
 
Considering that this forum is populated by Pro, semi-Pro, and advanced enthusiast photographers. The comments that "Nikon lost the plot" so to say with their ugly (uhg..) new system is comparable to Formula one drivers and enthusiasts complaining about the new Ford focus. It's clear this thing is not aimed at the demograph we sit in. MR & MRS Consumer P&S are probably going to love this thing. It has changeable lenses and says NIKON on it. Not Sony, Pany, or Fuji but NIKON. The most storied brand in the US for sure. It's going to sell and that's what matters to Nikon. Not that pros embrace it. My 2c 😀
 
I'd be impressed with the new Nikon if the lenses were size of the old Pentax Auto-110 lenses ... which brings up the question of why can't they be. Autofocus, I suppose, is one main reason; or, if not a reason then an excuse.

All in all, I'm still satisfied with my now 3-years-old Lumix G1, the camera that started the whole mirrorless revolution. It's amazing to think how many things they (Panasonic/Olympus) got right with the m-4/3 format.

~Joe
 
My take (abbreviated):
- Bodies too cute
- Lenses too slow and zoomy
- A system born of a perceived hole in their line-up compared to up-and-coming competitors

My take (blogger's cut):
http://www.cronbi.com/2011/09/21/quick-take-on-the-new-nikon-1-system/

Nikon calls this system “ACIL” – “Advanced Camera [with] Interchangeable Lens”. Controversial. Of all the “IL” systems out there, I would argue this is the least “AC”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Anyone have a Canon R7, or a Nikon Z6?
Replies
7
Views
464
Darthfeeble
Darthfeeble
p.giannakis
Nikon bought RED
Replies
2
Views
836
x-ray
x-ray
jaredangle
Nikon Z or Sony E for Leica M, Contax G, and Nikon F lenses?
Replies
5
Views
3K
monochrome_joy
M
H
Nikon F Shutter Speeds Adjustment 1/60th and 1/500th
Replies
0
Views
255
Howie1922
H
J
  • Article Article
How Canon Reinvented Itself for Mirrorless and Now Leads the Market!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
Back
Top Bottom