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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
Absolutic: will probably produce the best picture out of all compacts, and could be on the same level with M4/3 when pictures downsampled from 20MP to 12 or 16MP.
What is meant by 'bright' zoom? Is this the same thing as a fast zoom? I understand how lenses are slow or fast, depending upon max aperture- what the heck is 'bright?'
munro harrap: The sensor is tiny . When I read large sensor I thought, ah, 36x24mm compact at last, but no, large here means tiny, and in a huge body- big enough for a 36x24mm sensor, and an inbuilt 64Gb SD type memory, and a viewfinder, so I'll keep on with my DSLR until Sony do that. They will eventually, they can now, but like Olympus Nikon Canon and Samsung etc, they just love the way you will go on "upgrading" to NO purpose at all.
There isn't even a viewfinder, so it is not even a camera for me.
Tiny Canon SD1200- definitely tinier than even the Canon S100 and XZ-1- managed to sport a quite useful zooming optical viewfinder. The internet buzz that gets repeated that a viewfinder would take up lots of real estate is a fable and an excuse. I call absence of any kind of viewfinder simply a cost savings by the manufacturer with bogus excuses.
Douglas F Watt: Let's see - 250 comments about a price increase? Too many people have too much time on their hands. And why can't software folks running blogs create a digital HTML 'whining filter'?? It really doesn't make sense to me - you are talking about a few hundred dollars matched against at least $8,000-10,000 for camera body and lenses? Come on guys. Whine about something more important . . .
The only thing worse than someone wasting their time to whine about a product on the internet is someone wasting their time to read 250 comments and then whine about other people wasting their time.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why the optical viewfinder is listed as a "Con"
To me, the presence of an optical finder on any compact camera is a "Pro." Very few digital compact models offer this feature.
So either DPReview considers the presence of this rare feature as a negative, which is interesting. Or alternatively, DPReview likes this feature, but just doesn't like Nikon's implementation of the feature. In which latter case, DPReview must rate the LACK of an optical viewfinder on any other compact camera as a Con... unless DPReview assumes the lack of a feature is more desirable than a 100% home run of a feature. In this case, I'll submit that the viewfinder is just fine as simple viewfinders go in any compact, non-pro camera ever. I mean, did you ever squint through a viewfinder of pre-coupled rangefinder 35mms?
So it would be good to know exactly what DPReviews criteria are for the presence, lack, and implementation of simple viewfinder windows.
rallyfan: Excellent camera for 2010.
Like the proverbial MOD that insists on fighting the previous war and not this one, Nikon insisted on releasing this when the body is too large, the sensor too small, the price too high, the interest too low, and the circumstances entirely different.
From the test it seems to be a great camera. I have no idea why it would be chosen over a μ4/3 or other mirrorless at this stage though.
I paid $350 new for the P7100 on Amazon some three months ago. I can't think of any equivalent machine at this price point.
This body fills an excellent niche with the kind of full external control the V1 could only dream of. Photographers who like to readily make adjustments will find few competitors in the compact segment anywhere (outside the fine Canon G series that is)
migus: A 400gr. and $400 camera in AD2012 that seems to outclass my '06 PowerShot A620 in IQ, zoom and handling. Well done, Nikon! :-)
However, last year i got an NX100 for $280 (now 199Euro), on which i also can use all my Nikkor glass. Like NEX, the NX produces APS-C type of IQ at about the same size as P7100, but for 30-50% less cost than a Nikon P&S. If i want a more serious rangefinder P&S, i could buy a Fuji X (w/o orbs, hopefully). And finally, the ever increasing m43 lineup, the G1X etc. All make the P7100 seem rather irrelevant in its class today...
We know that canikon must (a) first realize what's *relevant* in their future markets, then (b) flush their (overbloated dinosaurian) OEM design pipelines, and (c) eventually try to adjust their courses. Or shrink and fade away into niches.
One of the best things cameras such as this offer is a wide range of external controls that are relatively changeable without diving into and navigating menus. This list of up-front external features is what contributes to the size and flexibility. Those who tend to use P and Auto settings are probably better served elsewhere. But this ready full featured capability is what makes designs like those in the P7100 and Canon's so refreshing to a photographer, so unique is it in the run of themill compacts.
SeeRoy: "The P7100's optical viewfinder coverage is roughly 80%."80% - Roughly.Ie A completely useless peep-hole - roughly speaking.
The finder is extremely useful. I use it at least 50% of the time when taking photos, and wouldn't have bought the product if it was absent.
Xiaomao: Hope Fujifilm will put their in releasing a brand new X11 or X12, instead. I like the desigh and idea of X10, but will buy one without orbs.
This discussion of random ball lightning in your photos can be misleading in the sense that the discussion tends to overshadow other problems with this camera.
I purchased it with delight last fall. I never experienced specular clouds. I did experience other issues, such as lack of convincing IS, hidden by a tendency to choose soaring ISO when possible; inexplicable AF misses, image quality not living up to the hype, very good but still average for the segment; sometimes not powering up when turning the lens, high contrast capability ("dynamic range") that didn't live up to the hype. Autofocus and power on speed only average for the niche=
A nice camera with a great lens, but notliving up to the price by any means. Returned it for a P7001 for $350- near half its price, with albeit a slower lens.
I am not saying the X10 is a bad camera. I am saying that I found it a very very disappointing camera.