harold1968: sorry, why would I get this over a good P&S (e.g. canon s95)its bigger, hiddeously expensive, and no DOF, so whats the point ?
Then wouldn't they be happier with a P&S?
As far as I know, someone with no photography background will always want "your camera is amazing, subject is very sharp and everything else is blur, oh it looks so nice" thing.
Fotogeneticist: I've just been waiting for a small body to stick on the end of my Nikkor glass to use for video in a package that can fit in a book bag. I've already got a D-SLR for everything else.
I use old FD glasses with a Nex 5, focus peaking takes care of it, most of the time anyway. It fails where the contrast is too high, but then you can use magnification via a custom button and check the focus. It's not the most practical solution, but it works most of the time and I'm happy with it.
The thing is, nobody actually needs this camera. That's why there are 20+ comments below, trying to justify this camera by saying "great for soccer moms", "might come in handy for birders", "50 1.4 on this would be a good portrait lens" etc.
Vertigo_101: D7000 : 44 kpixels/mm2
7D : 54 kpix/mm2
G3 : 70 kpix/mm2
V1 : 87 kpix/mm2
S100 p&s : 293 kpix/mm2
SX40HS bridge : 431 kpix/mm2
This place the V1 in the large sensor class.
Also, another problem with the sensor size is that we have to buy 1-mount lenses to use on this camera. F-mount is also adaptable, I know, but I think of it as being pretty useless.
Also DOF is too large to create the effect that everyone seems to like. Even if these sample pictures are impressive at high ISO levels such as 3200, they still look like as if they came from a cell phone or point and shoot camera.
This means I can shoot with a G3 and almost crop it to V1 size :)
obican: The images don't look anything special. If I was looking for a carry around, easy and simple camera with those results, I'd just get an iPhone.
On the other hand, with its fast autofocus and ability to use a 100-300 lens as a 270-810, I'd like to have one of these if I were a soccer mom.
And since I already have a Nex-5 with a 500/8 lens, I know that it's extremely hard to stabilize. Even monopods and tripods don't really help as a 100-300 lens wouldn't have a tripod mount. Putting the camera to your eye helps a lot, but still you'll look ridiculous with that tiny body and that lens.
The images don't look anything special. If I was looking for a carry around, easy and simple camera with those results, I'd just get an iPhone.
Mike Sandman: Where is Canon in all of this? Its long time rivals Oly and Nikon have mirroless ILC; electronics competitors Sony and Panasonic have as well. It doesn't seem plausible that Canon would cede this whole class of products to others. Unless they produce an ILC product line like the NEX range they will lose a lot of market share.
In short, NEX system will probably live on if pro-video-shooters(TV and Cinema) catches on with that system. If Canon or Nikon would come up with a system with smaller sensors, they'd be only producing for the everyday shooters, whereas Sony is producing for a market that's much larger. But if Canon offers a small camera with APS sized sensor which could be coupled with their EF lenses(and a couple of smaller lenses which would make the consumers happy), it'll probably hurt the sales of Sony and 4/3 companies a lot.
Then again, if Canon decides to make a mirrorless camera system, they have the chance to blow all the others out of water.
Just think about it, they could use all their EF and EF-S lenses on that body, since everything with those lenses are electronicly coupled.
But then again, the camera would have to be about the same size as NEX. Even longer since they'd use the EF adapters. Or they could ignore their current lineup and use a smaller sensor with lenses designed just for that system. I wouldn't care in such a system because I would be stuck with only a few lenses. Any camera system can only be as good as the lenses in that system.
Sony's advantage is the fact that E mount is actually for their video cameras. Nex-3,5 and 7 are just the tip of the iceberg. They have one basic and one very advanced camcoders in that system. They're better than HDSLRs in many ways. If the professionals catch up, they'll be making lots of lenses for that system.
Canon has made some quite experimental cameras in the past decades. For example T90(1986) had a multi-spot-metering system which we only saw again in Eos 3 in 1997 and apart from that, only again in 1V SLR and 1d series DSLRs. It was among the most advanced cameras for a very long time. Just think about it, less than %0.1 of this website's community has ever seen anything like T90's metering system.
Speaking of Eos 3, again, only maybe %0.1 of this community has ever heard of eye-controlled-autofocus, where you choose the focus point in the viewfinder by looking at it.
Canon has always been innovative, they're the ones to ditch their whole lens lineup(FD) so that they could get rid of all mechanical contacts. As result, all EF lenses work on all Eos cameras, ever.
They also made the first affordable DSLR, Eos 300d. Before that we were stuck with Sony F-828 as the best choice.
But they've never been as innovative as Sony. Nikon as well, they both play it safe(r).
RRJackson: @obican Here's the problem with that line of thinking (for me, at least). I've got a D700 that I'll use when I can carry a large camera and lens. There are a lot of places where you aren't allowed to carry what's commonly referred to as a "professional camera." Usually that means you can carry a point and shoot, but nothing with interchangeable lenses. With a small pancake something like the Panasonic, Olympus or Samsung offerings might slip by. An NEX with a big beer can attached to it won't fly, though.
I had a Canon FD 50/1.4, 70-210/4(both f/4 all the way) and a TS-35/2.8 Tilt Shift, all in Canon FD mount. If I wanted to buy them now, they'd cost about 500€. All are excellently sharp lenses, only they suffer from purple fringing when wide open. And I have a Tilt-Shift :) which is cool.Also I have 18-55 and 16/2.8 kit lenses. If I wanted to have a equilvent set in 4/3, I'd pay about the same as a Nikon set because most of those cheap lenses wouldn't be practical on 4/3(50mm would be 100mm etc). Instead, I'd just invest in a Nikon set AND buy a NEX and use all those Nikon lenses on my NEX :D Why not? Also it would allow me to take my Nikon Body with me OR take the NEX with me, and use all the same lenses(D series).
I usually take 50, 16 and the TS with me. 50 and 16 are pocketable, TS is usually attached. No bags. People hardly take notice because it's always under my arm, pointed down, hiding. When taken out to shoot, it does it quickly. Usually only problem is that it's SO loud.
Actually, if you think about it, you'll see that the whole "the lenses are too bulky" discussions are mostly pointless.
Yes, the body is so tiny. Yes, even the lens mount is larger than the body itself.
The problem is, you're thinking it as a pocketable camera. Stop trying to shove it into your back... pocket and get a shoulder strap(actually included). Then you'd notice that when on a strap, NEX will be pointing DOWN. When it's on your shoulder, even a VERY large lens like 80-200 2.8 will be no problem to carry around because it will be pointing down AND the camera is already smaller than the lens itself.
What's more? Don't compare it with any 4/3 camera because it has a much larger sensor, so that it's meaningful to use your old lenses on this. A Canon FD 50/1.4 will be dirt cheap and it'll act as a very useable 75mm lens, not a 100mm it'd be on a 4/3.
And about that AF adapter, has anyone noticed how cool it'd be using that on a NEX Camcoder? All Alpha lenses, in AF, in video.