I really liked the X100 in firmware 1.30 but now with 2.0 it really is like getting a new camera. Or at least and updated model. Noticably faster AF, huge improvement to MF and focus peaking! Some companies release new camera bodies for that kind of improvement. Well done Fuji!
nunatak: First barrier, to my mind, is it appears to be neither ergonomically friendly, nor pocketable. No indication of whether it's made of environmentally friendly materials, or will be another piece of toxic landfill in a few years. As a designer, it looks to me like a franken-cludge that was slapped together upon one evening's brainstorm, and after five bottles of saki.
The next barrier Nikon faces is the performance of their "improved" CX sensor. Is it just more lipstick on a pig, or can it deliver relatively rich, fat, data files that will replicate the wide range of tones, and crisp focused edges that the larger, more proven sensors do? To my mind that's a Herculean effort considering the price point Nikon has chosen to introduce this product.
IMO, these are just some of the earliest barriers Nikon has to cross to make this technology popular enough that they won't need to discount it by half (e.g. V1) before the next iteration comes to market.
I second this post! Who is the Nikon 1 series for? The image quality is good, no denying that. For a CX size sensor! There are many tiny cameras with larger and better sensors. Want a stylish small one? How a bout a PEN Lite or a Sony NEX5? Want a practical one? How about a Panasonic GH3 or X-E1. A stylish and practical one? Olympus OMD-EM5.
The lens selection isn't very good and the crop factor is huge on legacy lenses. But the AF is very good! Yes, it's class leading! I guess this camera is great for sports and wildlife photographers who want a small camera then.
Regarding beauty. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder so to each his own. Unless your a Leica camera I guess :-) I still think it's dog ugly!
victorenglund: Holy **** that's an ugly camera...
Well I'm certainly not buying it for the lenses or the shallow depth of field :-) All joking aside it actually looks pretty much like a super zoom bridge camera. The Pentax X-5 comes to mind.
Holy **** that's an ugly camera...
I also feel this i a triumph of form over content. It's not that the images lack content, because they have plenty of content, it's because the photographer chose to shoot them with Hipstamatic! If a smartphone was his ONLY camera available he could have used an app like hipstamatic but I'm sure a pro like Lowy could have brought any camera he wanted. So why use hipstamatic? Did he do it to prove that you can take amazing pictures with any camera? In that case I feel he kind of disrespects the beauty of the subject by using it to prove a point. Did he do it to more easily get noticed and published? I sure hope not, that would be a dick move! Did he do it simply because he simply likes hipstamatic?
Analyse this article side by side with the one on Hipstamatic and Ben Lowy. He got published in the NY Times with his Hipstamatic images. I feel software like instagram and hipstamatic affect the world of professional photography in a very real way!