Removing the viewfinder is a step backwards from the V2.
The Nikon "1" system has received a lot of (I think) unwarranted criticism. As an owner of a V2, I've been very happy with the photos and the fit and finish are quite nice. But I use this as a supplement to my D7100 as I feel the latter's overall capability is pretty tough to beat.
With this said, I think there are some valid criticisms of the Nikon "1" system---like other mirrorless cameras--they are pretty pricey. Secondly, in regards to the V3---I'm still scratching my head as to why the built in optical view finder was dropped in favor of the optional clip on unit. As far as I'm concerned, that was a step backwards.
One other point: I think in the case of both Nikon and Cannon--there is concern that more elaborate mirrorless cameras might cannibalize the DSLR market. I don't think either company is ready ---YET--to jettison mirror boxes in their flagship lines. Yet I suspect that in Nikon's case, the "1" series is a testing ground for future tech developments.
Beautiful and fascinating pictures. The viewer is almost transported back in time.
Onyxtiger: The Df is definitely NOT ugly. I started shooting Nikon back in 1967 with a Nikon F....I still have it, along with a Nikkormat EL, an F2S and a myriad of classic Nikon lenses. The Df is perfect for me. I can use all my lenses, plus the newer digital lenses that I have also purchased for my first digital Nikon.
Who the heck needs video on a DSLR?
The Df reminds me of a large Nikon FM.
Kibernetik: Leica cameras cannot be compared with other cameras basing on its specs. It is as incorrect as evaluating the art masterpiece price basing on the cost of canvas and oils used. Maybe some cameras can be compared using specifications, but not Leica. There is art and there are ordinary drawings. How their price can be compared using just size of the drawing?
It is more a question of "Can I afford this piece of art or not?" than "Does it worth these specifications or not?"
It's so expensive that users probably won't take it outside the house for fear of damage or theft. The question becomes: what's the point?
beavertown: If Dpreview decides to review the V3, I hope they will also seriously consider the ridiculous price tag.
Because you should get what you pay for.
I think the high price tag issue is true of many brands of mirrorless cameras.
Harry S: Just how good is the AF in these things? Comparable to a DSLR if shooting something like motorsport?
That's a big drawback with mirrorless cameras of all brands--they are not as capable as DSLRs for action shooting--especially motorsports.
As a long time Nikon owner with many Legacy F mount auto focus lenses, I use and love my current D7100. With that said, I also own a Nikon V2 which I have great regard for. I'm not so sure that the V3 is a step forward in the sense of only allowing for an optional, add on electronic viewfinder---why such a device is no longer an integral part of the camera, I don't know that I understand the rationale. And I am indeed old school, but I've never been particularly fond of the tilting LCD screens.
Some have expressed the opinion that Nikon will never develop these mirrorless cameras to a great extent for fear that they will pose a threat to the DSLR market. I've always thought of the Nikon 1 series as a sort of testing ground for ideas that will eventually be found in their DSLR series. Whether or not mirror boxes are eventually replaced by either an advanced pellical mirror or by a pure electronic view find, only time will tell. But I don't think the Nikon 1 is a waste of effort.
Marty4650: You have to commend Nikon for jumping on the retro bandwagon when the fad is almost over.
To do it right, they probably should have made the hot shoe an optional accessory. And the LCD on the back is totally unnecessary. There should be a frame on the back to hold a piece of cardboard from the memory card package to remind you what size memory card you are using.
It takes courage and vision to be the last one to spot a fad, then try to exploit it. Kudos to Nikon.
I'm not so sure the "fad' is almost over. I think many people over the years have grown impatient with the "black plastic Blobs" that all of the companies were churning out. I think the yearning for a more "traditional" look has been a growing backlash.
BobYIL: 90% of this criticism would not happen if it had a price tag of the D610...
Nikon set a model with the pricing of D800 and D600; now with the Df it is only opportunism..
I suspect in time you will see price drops---as happens with most cameras.
As far as appealing to the "retro look"--isn't that the point of all such cameras recently produced by Olympus, Fuji, etc. For years, people have griped about the "black plastic blobs" there were bering produced by all camera manufacturers. So aesthetics has been added as a sales factor.
For those immediately condemning the camera--I wonder how many would jump at the chance to buy the epitome of all retro cameras--the Leica (if money were no object).
Let's wait and see reports on its performance.
Timmbits: "Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon." ROTFL LMAO
SERIOUSLY??? It was on this very website that reports of dwindling camera sales pointed at Nikon1 line as having a huge drop in sales.
I appreciate the preview of this new underwater camera. And it would be quite nice, and hold it's own, without the nonsense.
Mirrorless systems are popular in Asia--not so much in the U.S. and Europe. I think that is one reason for the seeming contradiction.
Truman Prevatt: Nikon was looking for a home run. The last home run came with the SLR which changed the camera industry and is still dominate - independent of digital sensor or film. Home runs are difficult to come by. What people want is not important - it is what people buy is. I expect the Nikon 1 type cameras will be around in the mix for a long time. However, just as the flexibility of the SLR system limited the rangefinder cameras of the 50's and 60's to a niche - I expect the flexibility of the DSLR system will limit the mirrorless to a niche. That doesn't mean that the companies won't pursue their development or limit their utility.
Right on the button here.
Drop the entire "1" line, fire all employees connected to the "1" line, including all departments doing research, design and marketing, and yes... including the advertising company that put a spin on this nonsense crap.
Voila! Profits galore!
Indeed, it is the price that is the culprit here. The Nikon 1 series actually produce some very nice images.
As an owner of a couple of vintage Leicas and a Leica C Lux 2--I know that the Red Dot can be very alluring. But $3,000 will buy a lot of camera from Nikon. Not so much from Leica.
Weyskipper: I shoot Nikon DSLR and Canon G12. I was hoping that Canon would bring a serious contender that is fast and has an Electronic View Finder to the market. I am puzzled why Nikon and Canon aren't taking the mirrorless market seriously. They seem to be happy to leave this space to Sony, Olympus et al. They should stop worrying about cannibalising their own DSLRs or they will lose out. The Nikon 1 is actually pretty good, but it has flaws. It was overpriced, but you can get great deals on it now. This Canon leaves me completely confused what they were trying to do. Slow focus, no EVF. A real missed opportunity. All I can hope is that Nikon has learnt out of the 1 series and releases a professional grade model at Photokina. My wish list: Bigger sensor (very unlikely), V1 spec with built in flash, better quality lenses (faster lenses), higher res sensor, better low-light performance.
I do not think that Nikon and Canon would want to jeopardize their DSLR market by making too formidable a rival for their standard models. And I think the prices would tend to rival their more expensive models with less capability.
Here's some predictions: Just as with the Nikon release, Canon fans will set themselves up for disappointment. First of all, the price will likely rival the entry level Rebels with less capability. And fans will lament that it is not as versital as Canon DSLRs. But, as with Nikon, Canon will not want to cannablize their DSRL market by developing a too elabaorate mirrorless unit. Don't expect a Leica rangefinder clone.
I think we will move a situation in the near future where these mirrorless cameras will start to crowd out the entry level DSLR base models (if prices drop to reasonable levels)---especially for the "legacy" camera companies such as Canon and Nikon. And, I think these units will be a testing ground for new and innovative technologies.
Zvonimir Tosic: It is all about "going back in time" philosophy, "when the world was young", and in such a philosophy actual product does not make any practical value, nor takes any photograph — it's all about being different at all cost (or lack of it), and leave the brand name take the photos in people's minds and give them appropriate value as such, by selling the experience of "simpler and happier past".Leica is not in business because of photography, but because of its own name, which is a synonym for a simple time machine that operates only towards the past. A hi-res modern OLED screen would diminish such a feeling. They do camera design just once, and stick with it forever, even if it's flawed and begs for improvement.
Leica is a beautifully made anachronism. Sixty years ago--before the advancement of single lens reflex cameras--Leica was the gold standard for photo journalism and professionals in general. But the Nikon S started to challenge Leica for rangefinder supremecy. And then the Nikon F in 1959--relegated Leica to the technological backwater.
Leica hasn't gone the way of Zeiss Ikon, Contax and Rolleiflex---yet. But they've been on the edge a number of times.
Yes, a beautifully made anachronism.
Almost $2,000 for a camera ---most assuredly for the red dot logo on it's exterior and not for its capability. More competent cameras can be purchased for less.