dccdp: It's always disturbing to see other people's fetishes.
Yes. People obsessed with big cameras, hefty lenses, or how pictures look at pixel level have a strange mental life. The only mirrors they can bear are the ones locked inside a DSLR.
sixtiesphotographer: I think this is clumsy and pretentious nonsense.
At least Dali was clever, creative, thought-provoking, and humorous.
ObPhotoContent: the "Dali Atomicus" photo by Phillipe Halsman, representing an extreme macro interpretation of atomic particles in suspension. No Photoshop or LR, just water, cats, string, and 28 attempts.
Dali: rotting corpses, coprophilia, transgender messiahs, mutiliation. Plus egregious commercial aplomb. All a matter of taste. Take your pick.
ppronovo: Despite being fond of Nikon products, this seems too little too late. I don't see what is superior in this to other options out there. I would never take this diving if it can only be used to 15 m. I know scuba diving isn't all of underwater use, but 49 ft seems limited. What am I missing?
Dives more than 49 feet are no good for photography, unless one brings lamps to compensate for loss of red wavelengths and darkness. Otherwise, everything looks blue-gray, gloomy, and murky. Air tanks last less time at greater depths, and you incur risk of bends or rapture of the deep. No fun. Not much to see. Not worth the trouble. Stuff for ALVIN, not me.
Nuno Souto: Have any of the reviewers of these "underwater" cameras actually tried to change a setting while underwater? It's virtually impossible to read anything on a lcd screen while diving. That goes for just about all the "underwater" cameras I've tried so far. And of course, I've tried them underwater. Not in a hotel room...
Dive mask won't make the LCD readable if the sun is to your back. Swimming upside down won't help much, either, especially if your snorkel floods or scuba bubbles block your view. Beneath a certain depth, pressure causes some control buttons to collapse or cease to function.
Tee1up: Even if I bought it, I don't think I could bring myself to submerge it.
The camera's greatest protection against failure under water is precisely the fact that few people will dare take it very deep. Too much to lose.
Ken Aisin: Where's the EVF?!
EVF useless for underwater or action shots. Even an LCD can be useless. Ergo, a GoPro lacks even an LCD. Shoot wide and WYSIWYG. AKA P&S.
Ran Plett: I hope this turns out to be a big seller, and I bet it will, especially from people traveling on vacation. I would love to have a backup camera that is mirrorless and water proof up to 15m. Canon? Please make it happen. I so badly want to start shooting in the water / snow more!
People with $14,000 to spend on a vacation will have Jeeves the butler / driver / bodyguard double as photographer. Salt water also ruins the hair and require reconditioning in a deluxe salon, so better not to go in the water anyway.
TFD: Not quite sure I understand the fuss about interchangeable lens camera that have no/few actually lens to change, for which you get to pay a premium price.
Not sure I would be submerging this camera either $$$
Wolfie: exactly when, or how, will you change lenses under water, or even above water between plunges? Very likely, the camera must be bathed in distilled water and allowed to dry considerable time first. The battery chamber seals might be finnicky, or apt to fail, after months' wear and tear. The water pressure tolerance might vanish, or the warranty void, after a few 6' falls. Or do wet hands never fail? Reviewers are apt to "baby" the camera, or submerge it only once, whereas a real world test would expose it to multiple stresses. $1,500 is a lot to put at risk if mere $250 sealed lens versions have a rather high failure rate. Or will it be proof enough to see Ashton Kutcher pose with the camera on a beach?
mpgxsvcd: I wonder what GoPro will bring for the GoPro 4 in a few weeks?
It won't have a 1" sensor or a stabilizer, but the promotional videos will cover 6 continents, seven seas, and 9 planets, unicorns, mermaids, yetis, and dragons.
However, Nikon would convey a similar miracle if it showed someone changing lenses on a beach between dives or in a dust storm.
JamesVo: It's not a Nikonos but it offers a whole lot more than any of the other "rugged" cameras.
Too much emphasis here on diving - this will also be great for canoeing, white water rafting, kitesurfing, mountaineering, ice climbing, bad weather, any outdoor stuff....and then in civilised conditions you can still mount any Nikkor lens on it.
I don't need waterproof so much as tough and portable...and then I still want to mount it on a tripod for the odd landscape or macro and use it with my long lenses for wildlife and make the occasional decent sized print. Can't do all this with any one other camera on the planet right now. Would have preferred to see an enthusiast model like the V1/V2 dolled up with a waterproof casing and mount but this "1" might do the trick anyway.
If you 're thinking its a niche diving/snorkelling product and the market is too small to be viable - think again
Even if you don't intend to dive, it's nice if the camera will survive if the canoe capsizes, or if a wave knocks you down. Would a model that is simply "weather sealed" endure a full submersion, or even a fall?
pgphoto_ca: Cool feature !!!
but Nkon forget the most important thing ......image quality first !!!
the sensor is to small to invest in this system...
I call it a system....because it's an interchangeable lens camera
Are there any APS-C or FF cameras that (absent a pricey encasement) will survive a 2 meter fall or 15 meter submersion? In the <$2,000 realm, the only current competition comes from 1/2.3" sensor cameras.
Valentinian: Well done for Nikon, except.... its marketing stinks because you cannot buy just the AW1 and the 10mm (equiv. 27mm) ONLY.Underwater snorkeling I would use the 27mm equivalent ONLY -is that me, or anybody else agrees?(also a flash would be useful)
Under-water photography or video must be wide angle and at rather short distances. It's impossible to frame any narrower shots since you often can't see the LCD in the sunlight. Long focal lengths are also disadvantageous because murky water makes distant objects blurry, and even clear water robs red wavelenths beyond a small distance.
Will anyone dare submerge a $1,000 camera and $350 lens to 49'1" or drop it from 6'7", just to see whether the items survive? Will anyone repeat the experience to see how long the seals survive, or degrade?
A relevant test for all such devices would be to drop them multiple times onto concrete and descend them on a line into the local harbor, on two separate dates (and AFTER the drop tests), while shooting video or time lapse. Scuba dives for each test would be too difficult, but perhaps be the only way to confirm whether the control buttons or touch-screen features work at all at any depth.
Maybe the traditional $235 U/W, shock resistant P&S models are a safer gamble. Buyer reviews of these cameras have a larger-than-usual quotient that assign 1 or 2 stars because of failure on the first or second dive.
R Thornton: One more product nobody called for. Like the shape though. Now, Nikon, put something spectacular in it for the price already!
A crusty, dry ole landlubber, are ye?
A full-frame sensor with 1920x1080 resolution is probably great for HQ video. Nice if Canon would put one in an affordable video camera. But astronomic applications probably mean astronomic prices.
On the other hand, perhaps the 1/2.3" MP sensor in the HF-G30 might provide, in anything but pitch darkness, perhaps 70% of the low light performance for 1/1,000 the cost. In moderate light, the performance differentials probably dwindle.
Balanced color may be almost impossible to coax out of star illumination, no matter what the sensor.
Isn't an owl's daytime vision proverbially not worth two hoots?
SHood: Who would pay $5k for a pin head sensor (1/2.3").
A 1/2.3" sensor is optimum for 4k resolution, since ultra-high-definition is an oxymoron unless you have deep focus. The 20x zoom would not be possible, either, with a large sensor, which would incur heat problems anyway, given the heavy processing requirements. Yes, a small sensor needs good light, but nocturnal 4k is also an oxymoron, except perhaps for certain owls, who don't mind monochrome.
David Elliott Lewis: The real compromise in this camera is not so much in its small sensor size but in it's huge data compression rates. Based on the announced recording time of a half hour on a 32gb memory card, this camera is only processing 17gb per second. Given that professional video records at 30gb to 50gb a second and cinematic (e.g. Red, Alexa) record at data rates from 120gb to 250gb (Gigabytes per second), this camera is forcing some severe compromises on video quality. I would expect to see many visual artifacts from this high video compression rate.
So the purist accepts only the unaffordable (aka impossible)?
All video must be compressed to be watchable. Most people simply won't have the budget to shoot RAW or any reason to think they can compress more efficiently than what the FDR does on-board.
The FDR AX1 bitrate is up to 150MB+bps at 3840 x 2160p at 60 fps. That is plenty more than anyone can stream over the web and 3X what one gets with a high-end DSLR in h.264 MOV at 1920x1080.
To compare against RAW capture on commercial gear is a bit irrelevant, if you consider the huge difference in overall production costs and tech requirements.
Since few folks will have a PC with the spec to edit 4k video, it would be nice if the camera came equipped with basic on-board editing software one could operate, using an ordinary PC or tablet as the interface, as well as a 4k screen. Existing PCs with 4k displays probably have a hard time processing or rendering anything beyond 4k still images.
belard: If you remove the marketing jargon, it's a 100 dollar flashlight.
Yet you'd be mesmerized and pay $250 for an Apple iLight.
chouster: For filming outside at night times this just isn't bright enough. 130 lux at 1m is a joke, you'll barely be able to film your own feet in the dark at reasonable ISO levels... There is no lumen output specificated but I doubt this has more than 150 lumen. For that price you can get high quality lights that deliver about 1000 lumen.
130 lux is probably enought to illuminate faces at short distances. The diffusion feature limits glare. It will not illuminate a ballpark, no. But even a mere 1,000 lumens would blind any close subjects and draw complaints from others.