This will always be a niche product. It's one of those cases where they could fail if they get too big. You wouldn't want to expand your workforce, factories and marketing if your consumerbase has a ceiling.
They could develop other kinds of niche cameras. Such a s a consumer-priced highspeed cameras (>1000fps at a resolution that isn't 64x30). It would expand their consumerbase a bunch.
beavertown: The thing that kills Nikon 1 is Nikon's own greed.
Nikon V1, V2 are very expensive. V1 lowered its price but the V2 only drops its ridiculous price a bit.
The 1 system's lenses are not cheap, the price tags are competitive to some of their DX lenses.
Having said that, the advantage of the 1 system may be the tiny sensor which can make brilliant superzoom.
Before it is too late, please release some super telephone lenses along with large aperture prime lenses and LOWER the prices!
Agreed. I mean, micro 4/3 also has premium-priced lenses, but at least the quality and sensor size makes THAT system worth the premium price.
Nikon somehow decided people were going to pay over a grand for performance that was only a little above premium P&S level.
I've said it from the beginning that it was a poorly thought-up system.
Premium compact sized sensor and image quality (or a little more) but at mirrorless prices and bulk. How in the world does that make sense?
goshigoo: From Dof prespective; it will act like 85 f/2.4 on 35mm FF
a 6D + 85 f/1.8 will have shallower DofAlso, IQ wise, 6D + 85 f/1.8 @ f/2.4 could be better than this lens
35mm FF still has it's value when shallow Dof is needed
However, I rather enjoy having room in my shoulder bag for stuff other than just camera gear.
"The LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm/F1.2 achieves the fastest (1) F1.2 for a Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens"
DPreview should point out marketing lies when they paste them.
I won't believe Leica has never heard of the f0.95 Noktor hyperprime, which came out ages ago. I won't say the Noktor has better IQ, but clearly Leica's above statement is BS.
N13L5: Can anybody still afford actual film? Prices must be through the roof by now...
Also, if you shoot in black and white, you can save huge by getting big film spools and refilling the normal 35mm spool yourself (much cheaper- per photo) and developping it yourself. Black&white does not need a dark room or many chemicals. I've developped it with my hands inside a black plastic garbage bag and a little $25 kit.
Absolutelly! I still actively shoot both 35mm and medium format film. In the case of medium format, it ends up being MUCH cheaper than the digital alternative. A grand will get you a quality camera.
How we film shooters "survive" is also how we tend to take less photos, but carefully pick which ones we do take, make sure they're extra worth it. We're not going to take 200 film photos at some birthday party. Maybe a couple, then take the rest in digital.
$7 for a 36 roll of kodak Ektar$6-7 for straight developpement (no prints or CD)one-time $200-300 for a decent Epson or Canon scanner that'll do filmone-time $100 for a copy of Silverfast (scanning software for film)
Whether it's more expensive than digital or not entirely depends on how crucial full-frame is to you, how often you tend to replace your digital gear (film gear lasts far longer, with CLA), and how many photos you tend to take that would be worth putting on film.
bacteria: they need to make versions of this for legacy glass, no electronics.
I have several high quality Minolta lenses that I'd love to use at greater potential!
my 24mm f2 would become a 34mm equiv at f1.4. perfect street lens!my 50mm f1.2 a 71mm equiv. at, what, f0.95? that's just nuts!
the 24mm f2 is hard to find. look for kiron or vivitar brand in MD mount. they pop up a few times a year on ebay, when I look. the 28mm f2 is more common (same brands).
they need to make versions of this for legacy glass, no electronics.
kermitG9: I have been reading all sorts of things about this "fan noise".. including people that said that they wouldn't dare to take their camera to a museum (?!). Having this camera at home, I can say that this "noise" is barely audible in a totally quiet room up to 1 or 2 meters away and additionally(!), I need to hold my breath and focus on that noise to notice it. My (what I consider as silent) 2.5" usb powered drive is far, far more audible than this camera..
Absolutelly rediculous on their part, if true. I've heard the nosie it makes. In a public place with ambient noise louder than people walking and whispering, you have to stick your ear to the camera to hear anything.
Nikonworks: The review glosses over the fan noise issue.
The review complains about focus tracking ( in a Contrast AF camera).Seems they can't say 'This camera is Great!'
If this is all they found wrong, it must be a Great M43 camera.
The nosie is barely noticable when I tried it. In the ambient environment of the store (with people talking at normal volumes), I couldnt hear it even with my ear pressed up against it. You can hear it if you're alone (or nearly) in a small quiet room, though. Big deal.
They can't say this camera is great? What does "This is without question the best M43 camera we've yet seen" mean to you?
"since it's easier to adjust the behavior of a color filter than change the emission color of an OLED"
- that can totally be done in software. what they gain in "color filters", they lose in the saturation of dedicated r/g/b OLEDs. my mp3 player is an rgb OLED and it's an absolute *treat* to look at photos on it!
my guess is that because the resolution is so high, the manufacturing process can't easily produce three color channels at that density, so rather than admit that fallback, they turn it around into a claimed advantage.
Calvo: Why? This camera is heavier and bigger than latest m4/3rds or Samsungs NX and has *probably* worse iq... with known firmware problems
Lets wait for the first tests
I don't call 85% coverage a "guess the picture". I call it an "optical viewfinder", although a small one. I'm used to shooting with old SLRs and rangefinders so this is perfect for me, even if it wont be as large or bright. and I feel that I should reiterate that a m4/3 camera with a similarily speced zoom certainly won't be lighter, nor will the lens be as fast.
the m4/3 cameras with a similar zoom lens would be huge, and the lenses wouldnt be as bright. up the iso to compensate and I'm willing to bet it would be similar. also, which m4/3 have viewfinders?it's an unfair comparison........ .....but, yes. a fast fixed m4/3 lens will beat this if you're not into zooming and viewfinders.