We need the android version
This camera is so underwhelming. Really, for $2,000 you have so many better choices and especially when it comes to lenses. 3.5 to 5.6's are kit lens territory, not serious photography tools
So... following Leica's journey from real camera to fashion accesory, Hasselblad --up until now the standard in large format photography-- has also become a fashion accesory and "certifies" cell phone cameras in an $11,000 cell phone. I don't know about the Swedes, but at least the Japanese had the inner strength to commit suicide when their dignity was lost.
Marla2008: 1" sensor.... yawn....
@Rastad - as I said, I tried them. My sister bought them. I found them really really bad. Sorry, but I am not buying that particular Nikon brand. And, no, the X20 is just not "pocketable" at ALL. But overall, I find it 1000% better than my sister's like nikons
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
Oh... Liz Z. ... if I actually cared about your opinion, I might even feel remotely uneasy or something. But... truly... I couldn't care less. If you can't even recognize a mild joke, hey, your loss. I certainly would not want to be you.
MarcMedios: 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?????
@MarcLee - it is academic now. I tried the GX1 and found the shutter lag horrible, so I purchased the Fuji X20 which has zero lag and great optics.
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.
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.
@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!!!!
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?