steveh0607: This camera is loaded with great technology. If Nikon joined the 4/3 group they would own that market. The 1 strategy doesn't make sense to me.
What motivation would Nikon have for joining a shrinking format that has never made any money, thereby lending credibility to a team of manufacturers that formed it only when they were unable to succeed in the DSLR world?
There are lots of mirrorless cameras that are not m43- Sony, Fuji, Canon, Samsung, Nikon- that in many geographies sell better than m43.
rockygag: At the end of the day, Nikon needs to bit the bullet, kill of that flapping mirror last century tech in all but the high end D4 types and use the Cheaper mirroless approach.
Always hard to kill a favorite son, but sometimes it must be done to save the company.
Why should Nikon abandon a design that offers superior viewing resolution, rendering, continuity, color rendition, dynamic range viewing, in favor of a little tv set, especially when the Nikon DSLRs are profitable and mirrorless is not?
Obviously the market prefers the DSLR.
True the mirrorless are cheaper to produce, but the savings are not passed on to the customer. Hence, customers are not buying into the mirrorless cult as numbers show.
mgurantz2: with competition from Sony, Fuji, Olympus and the rest Nikon has to get into this market seriously. Many people want small, non-SLR, good quality and flexible tool IN ADDITION to their main camera, and with quality similar to the big one. I don't see what the issue is, or why you must be missing something. Not every company has the foresight to do it first, but does not mean they should stay behind.
Nikon sells more than Fuji and Olympus in many markets. So I guess that makes them serious enough.
Royalpig180: I think that Nikon came pretty close to nailing the feature set that is becoming expected of MILC's at this point, but they didn't do enough to justify the price.
The Fuji X series and Olympus OM-D cameras just seem like a much better choice at this price point, given the better ergonomics and other features the Nikon is missing, as well as larger sensors.
Two years ago, this might have been a revolutionary camera. The mirrorless market has come a long way though, and it seems somebody forgot to tell Nikon.
If larger sensors justify a higher price point, why does the EM-1 body alone sell for three times as much as a Canon APS-C DSLR with kit lens?
In two years the mirrorless market has not come very far at all in image making capability, with Fuji and Olympus strangely stuck at the same resolution without visible improvement in image output. Certainly they haven't caught up with the old Nikon V1 in performance or battery life.
Lawrencew: Though you would think they are entirely capable of doing so, it seems Nikon and Canon are simply unwilling to address the MILC market "full on".
Given their expertise, it can only be fear of impacting DSLR sales.
It's unfortunate because even though I have been a Canon DSLR and currently a Canon M series user, the cameras I am more interested in now are Fuji and Olympus because Canon just don't want to sell the the sort of MILC camera I am looking for even though I believe they are quite capable of making it if they wanted to.
Fuji is free to make self-serving statements, but they were the ones who failed in the DSLR market, edged out by Nikon. And the Nikon mirrorless sells better than the Fuji mirrorless in most markets.
Not addressed: Why mirrorless costs so much. A smaller format, inferior viewing, slower performance, lesser image quality/dynamic range, yet more expensive. Like it or not, these are the decisions customers are making every day. Pay more for less.
They haven't taken over the world as promised. Price is likely the biggest factor. This would have been a huge topic for him to have addressed.
Quite innovative of Nikon. A camera with far more megapixels than the vaunted Olympus EM-1, weighing less than the Olympus EM-1, complete with a new collapsible zoom, all for less than half the price of the EM-1 body alone.
Add the advantage of direct SLR viewing, a wide range of low cost used lenses (save wide primes), fast autofocus, and this is a shot across the bows of mirrorless.
Look at the evolution of the DSLRs- they are becoming smaller, lighter, and retain their overall competency at an affordable price. It's no wonder they are gaining market share over mirrorless.
For the last few years we've constantly heard bloggers and forum posters proclaiming the death of the DSLR. The DSLR begs to differ, and wonders which segment is really dying.
This may not have the features of the EM-1, but it has gone beyond the 16MP ceiling, and arguably gives up nothing in picture-taking ability or photo quality, at a more attractive price point.
"Innovation?" What would that add?
Congrats to Olympus. I have an EM-5, but passed on this new Olympus EM1. I find it too big and bulky for the format.
It's the same size as the Sony A7, but with a much smaller sensor. This gets away from the entire raison d'etre of micro 4/3, and it's a trend that makes me uneasy.
No doubt it's great for the 100 people in the world that have the old full 4/3 lenses, but it's way too full figured for me. I'm holding out for the EM-6.
Patrick Kristiansen: If one needs 40+mp's to crop a pic into something worth watching, one is not taking one's pics right. And 16mp is enough for just about anyone without a very special need. Not many lenses justify a higher resolution either. And not to mention the need for exceedingly high shutterspeed and/or tripods. Nah, super-high resoultion is bonk imo. Can't wait to receive my em1 and 12-40 lens. And can wait even less to try out my OM-lenses on it.
The ability to crop a shot is a feature. It means you can eliminate carrying one more long lens. This reduces weight and load.
I thought weight was the bete noir of the micro 4/3 zealots who need to buttonhole every passerby to tell them that DSLRs are dead and micro 4/3 is as good as 135 format. Instead, they deem such opportunity for weight reduction a bad thing.
Every aspect of every other camera is bad to these micro 4/3 zealots. The Nikon 1 can never be as good because it is smaller. The line stops at micro 4/3, however, as the laws of physics are at that point suspended because micro 4/3 is automatically better than any larger format.
nicolaiecostel: I don't think I've ever seen so many trolls and nay-sayers gathered in one place. Even when Nikon fulfills the age-old wishes of the majority, it's still not good enough.
For 10 years I hear people wanting a digital FM, a retro dSLR with a retro 35 mm sensor. Now you got it and the design stinks. Cause it's old and retro ..
For years I hear people wanting a low MP high sensitivity sensor in an affordable model, just like the D700 was. Not that 16 Mp is low, but now you got it, and it's too low on resolution (Looool !). I print 35x70 cm high quality photo albums from my puny D700.
And it's really affordable (1/2 price compared to a D4, but same sensor so same IQ, and that's just to start), and it's plenty fast (5.5 FPS, decisive moments are shot and were shot with manual Leica's .. how many FPS ?), and it's damn sexy, and I could go on all day.
For me, this is a dream come true and the only thing I hate is the sh*t AF taken from the D7000. The rest of you don't deserve this camera.
This ain't a digital FM, unless it has a glandular problem. It's twice the weight and twice the size.
The digital FM2 body could be had for $210 US in its prime. It was robust, affordable, an everyman camera.
The digital FM2 was well laid out for 2 handed operation. Shutter speed dial was there so your right hand could change it while advancing film and clicking the shutter, while our left hand supported the camera, focused, adjusted aperture- two hands working at the very same time. This camera has a shutter speed dial as a design affectation.
The FM2 had a meter not taken from the parts bin of other cameras, its own innovative shutter, its own internal parts. It was not compiled of existing parts thrown together cynically to meet a competitive market challenge requiring little R&D beyond assembly and production.
We asked for a digital FM2, not this poseur in its halloween costume.
Probably a nice personality, if a little tubby. Price tag is nuts, however. A compact trying to pass for a non-compact in a quickly evaporating market needs aggressive pricing. $500 would be nice introductory, would like to see some Black Friday deals under $400. Otherwise this model will just be a footnote.
AlpCns2: One word: Impressive. Fuji is one of the very few companies actually listening to customers. Together with the stellar optics, this is one heck of a camera system.
I read a lot here how Fuji is uniquely listening to customers. It seems like some planted marketing viral meme to me. Damningly slow autofocus, known to them but the model was released anyway? Still no native RAW support for popular editing software? Constant new product releases in short timeframes making loyal early adopters reconsider their choices.
I like Fuji, and I've used their medium format stuff for almost 30 years since their first clever G645.
lolopasstrail: "We're pretty sure that no one has ever done this before. We've seen major updates to relatively old products before (Canon's venerable EOS 7D was given a serious shot in the arm last year) but never to a camera that has been superceded and discontinued."
Pretty sure Nikon has done that with at least one of its Coolpix top of the line models. Forget if it was the P5100 or P7000.
Yep, it was DPR itself who announced Nikon's firmware update for a discontinued model:
"We're pretty sure that no one has ever done this before. We've seen major updates to relatively old products before (Canon's venerable EOS 7D was given a serious shot in the arm last year) but never to a camera that has been superceded and discontinued."
Abaregi: Well done Sony.For such a short time in the camera business they keep pushing out innovative stuff. Hopefully this might push Canon and Nikon to do something exiting.
Konica got in the photo business 136 years ago. Minolta got in the photo business 80 years ago. Sony bought out their companies and with it their camera lines.
lolopasstrail: So the Nikon P7100, the 7700's immediate predecessor, is reviewed here and is dinged for its optical viewfinder. Not praised because it at least has a viewfinder, but has it listed as an actual con.
And now the Canon's optical viewfinder is praised here as a benefit.
So the P7100 viewfinder is listed as a con because its coverage is low at approximately 80%.
To be consistent, then, every other review needs to rate viewfinder coverage. For example, the P7700 needs to have as a con its viewfinder coverage at only 0%.
A feature almost no camera in this space possesses- an eyelevel viewfinder- gets listed as a con in the P7100, but is ignored in other models.
So the Nikon P7100, the 7700's immediate predecessor, is reviewed here and is dinged for its optical viewfinder. Not praised because it at least has a viewfinder, but has it listed as an actual con.
Back in the day I had a GR1 film camera and loved it. In fact, I still have it. This looks very similar.
But it is just another me-too in an increasingly crowded field.
Too bad- whoever is first with an eyelevel finder in a small size wins.
And I don't buy the common wisdom here- that it would have to be so much larger to accommodate said finder. Just a few years ago eye level finders were more common in such point and shoots.
The Canon SD1200- a much smaller camera, had a tiny zooming eyelevel optical finder. Even simpler if you don't have to zoom.
The aforesaid GR1 had an optical finder- plus an entire film transport mechanism, plus electronics, plus collapsing lens.
I dispute there is a technical obstacle. I aver that the vendors have rather a price point obstacle.
First one to take the dip in the small form factor wins.
Declaring a best all rounder without taking acquisition price into account is delivering only a partial review.
These are consumer products. Toys like this are a major expense for people, and going out on a limb to buy toys they can't afford are a major problem for people.
Let's have a new attribute to include in reviews. Let's call it the price/performance ratio. Take you quality metrics, your imaging ability metrics, and whatever other subjective ingredient to throw into the stew, and divide it by today's actual acquisition price.
And then let us determine the best all-arounder. Is an LX-7 with a ppr (price/performance ratio) of 8.3 better than the Sony with a ppr of 4.8? Or whatever.
Because without real world, practical business attributes shared, this is just soft core spec porn.
Tom_A: I have the XE-1 bought as a limited launch kit with the 35mm 1.4 lens.This is such a nice combination, giving very convincing bokeh and perfect sharpness and colours, that I was a bit disappointed when trying the 18-55 in a japanese shop. Yes the quality seems to be good, but the speed and bokeh is lost. I may eventually still buy the 18-55 as a good single lens for holidays.But for now, I think I'll just stay with the 35mm and walk a bit more instead of zooming :-) There is something to be said for minimalism !I am curious about the 23mm, it has the perfect angle of view for walking around like a classic full frame 35mm lens. However if I read the DOF charts well then at medium distances this 23mm f1.4 lens has a similar DOF as a classic 35mm lens at f2.8.
What on earth does "very convincing bokeh" mean?
That out of focus areas appear actually to be out of focus?