SantaFeBill: Just a note to posters: The article is questioning Nikon's _strategy_, not the camera per se.
People complain about the usage too. My sister bought one (the one without the viewfinder, the J? V? Something like that) and it sucked major... major! The image quality was miserable, the screen was difficult to use as it was darkish... awful. She returned it after a month.
Marla2008: 1" sensor.... yawn....
Just to be sure... if silent shutters are so important (and to me, they are), the Fuji X20 is silent, the Panasonic Lumixes are silent. Doesn't seem to be a big deal.
MarcMedios: These little Nikons can't be taken seriously. A mild telephoto (10-30mm) with an aperture of 5.6 on the 30? Get real. It is just not competitive at all. The removal of the viewfinder, just to sell it back to you at $200 or so is really criminal.
Ecopix - with respect to Roland Barthes... really, so what? You could apply the phrase to any camera.
The little Nikons are really not to be taken seriously and the market was highly reflective of that. They really haven't sold at all. People are more intelligent than most marketers realize.
1. Tiny telephoto: 3:12. AWWWWWful fstop: 5.6? Jeez. 3. No viewfinder
jhwaaser: I am shocked at the lousy response to the Kodak name on here. Kodak invented digital photography, and Kodak, Nikon, and Olympus, all involved in film photography, were the first to tame the excess contrast of the charge coupled device. As a professional photographer, I tried Agfa, Ilford, and even earlier, Ansco products, but I discovered that Nikon cameras and Kodak film, paper, and chemicals made it easier for mecto make top quality photos without problems. I owned, used, and loved Kodak Z510 and Z712 cameras (okay, so my C735 was a p.o.s.) and I thought I would wait and get a Z-Max at a cheap price when they went out of business, but they sold out of that model first, and I lost out. One of my favorite film cameras was the Retina, and I had a iiic stolen out of a Stouffers motel, and haven't bought a Stouffers product since! High-end Kodak products rock, and I hope that the new products treat the brand name as well as, say, the resurrected Triumph motorcycles....
But Kodak is out of business.
Nikon is not. Canon is not. Sony is not. A bunch of other companies are not.
So, whether they invented digital photography in 1975 or June 21st, 1974, it is pointless and only shows a narrow vision of the world. The fact is, they did not do anything with it, did not capitalize on their invention and went ignominiously out of business.
Those are the important facts.
15 years, 30 years... pointless semantics from someone who clearly doesn't see the big picture.
MarcMedios: This camera is a real game changer. My main objection (shared by many pros I know) was the lack of viewfinder. First, who wants to look like a soccer mom focusing and second, impossible to really frame and focus in most conditions. The pop up viewfinder destroys all of those objections in a second. Also, it doesn't eat valuable real estate on the top of the camera. Add that to absolutely no shutter lag, a quality lens and a 20mp sensor and you have the beginning of the end of low-end pro-wannabe cameras. Thank god it costs $800 meaning a lot of soccer moms and mammarazzis won't buy it. Next step, a 5:1 zoom, perhaps 24-135? That would be a killer combo
@miwok and hinder... you guys ever hear of humor?
Wow. Must be awful being you.
As to my comment about framing and composing. My opinion, of course, but notice that ALL professional cameras have a viewfinder. When you are holding a camera half an arm's length from your face there is always the inevitable shake, minute changes in position and other movements that make precision framing if not impossible, certainly hard. The viewfinder solves all that: it provides a frame with no distractions, clear under almost every condition (except, of course, dark clubs), allows you to frame with great precision and, if you know how to hold the camera steadily, minimizes shake.
@Liz Z - yes, it should be possible, but hey, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
meh... not that great. Not bad, but certainly not superb. Slightly better in quality than some smartphones today
Awful image quality! Concur.
This is such bad timing for Canon!!!!
They remove the ONE thing that made the G-Series great: the viewfinder, offering one as an option and having the viewfinder increase the footprint of the camera.
Then they still haven't solved the issue of shutter lag.
Sony 100-III anyone?????
This camera is a real game changer. My main objection (shared by many pros I know) was the lack of viewfinder. First, who wants to look like a soccer mom focusing and second, impossible to really frame and focus in most conditions. The pop up viewfinder destroys all of those objections in a second. Also, it doesn't eat valuable real estate on the top of the camera. Add that to absolutely no shutter lag, a quality lens and a 20mp sensor and you have the beginning of the end of low-end pro-wannabe cameras. Thank god it costs $800 meaning a lot of soccer moms and mammarazzis won't buy it. Next step, a 5:1 zoom, perhaps 24-135? That would be a killer combo
Why are some people so focused on the past? Why does it matter that Kodak (or any other company) invented digital photography? That was a decade and a half ago. Since then, they haven't done anything and many companies offer real alternatives. Unless you are buying 15 year old technology, you need to examine what is availabe TODAY, not whas was done then.
These little Nikons can't be taken seriously. A mild telephoto (10-30mm) with an aperture of 5.6 on the 30? Get real. It is just not competitive at all. The removal of the viewfinder, just to sell it back to you at $200 or so is really criminal.
A very akward looking camera with a fantastically slow kit lens
It seems like such a complete waste. Overpriced, over-designed. It reminds me of the old GM cadillacs that were nothing but rebranded Chevy's. Their only claim to fame is the name... and that won't last that much if they keep destroying the brand.
Could it be that some common sense is creeping into the scene?
All good (and an excellent quality) except for the lack of interchangeable lens. Who wants to take pictures with just the one lens that some anonymous designer chose for you in Japan?
Seems like a lot of noise for what is, bottom line, another retro looking thing. I like that it is full frame, I would really like my 7D and 60D NOT having video if they had lowered the price by 30%, but otherwise, no biggie
kadardr: I want a camera with proper manual focus!
So why don't you just get it? Stop moaning.
1. Install a split screen in your DSLR... $50 to $150 depending on whether you do the installation yourself or not2. Use MF on your lenses on your DSLR3. If you have it, use "peak" focusing
Cameras are not the one with the focus, lenses are.
What's the problem?
I am sure many photographers still decry autofocus the same way many drivers decry SMGs and paddles, yet, Formula 1 drivers all switched to SMG and paddles years and years ago.
The issue of manual vs auto focus is moot in most cases and, especially, in lenses that are clearly designed to be used in action, like the 85 mm. If you are in the middle of a portrait session, you can't really manually focus with more precision than auto-focus... everything moves too fast.
As a Canon user I welcome the use of dual and however many pixels they would like to throw in to make our cameras focus faster, better, sharper.
Clear proof that Leica is no longer a photographic tool but rather a fashion icon.
I am in awe at the power of branding. Leica is the master.
The camera has no improvements (except for the margin) over the LX7.
The guy on the video is so full of rhymes with hit.
Yet... I am sure that there will be enough suckers to spend $1,300 for a camera that, at B&H, can be bought without the red dot for $398 AND then argue with sane photographers that it is worth it.
I bow before Leica.
They are the masters