cberry: I like the idea - I think the execution with motorized everything is not so great.The thing I see missing is the physical control of zoom and focus that an ILC should have - otherwise it's a P&SILC - and a very good one at that. 2 lenses and 27-270mm equivalent isn't bad but where is the portrait prime and Macro lens?A separate flash battery would have made it larger and reduced cycle times. No worries - 3rd party solutions will certainly crop up.Price it just above G12 and it should have some takers although looking at it, I might just think Leica should do this and improve on it.cb
portrait prime is where Sony lost me with their Nex models :P
desmo101: I think the J1 is more interesting than the V1... fits more the target market IMO and the rice is more reasonable. Also it's the more compact of the two. I can't wait to read the official review. Now... when is leica bringing out a M compatible mirror less cam? :-)
Didn't Leica re-brand some mirrorless Panasonic camera already?
justmeMN: This sounds like a really nice bridge camera, significantly better than a compact camera, but not as good (or big, or intimidating) as a DSLR.
I suspect that it will be popular with current compact camera owners who want to upgrade.
What about the existence of better non-intimidating and equally small sized options that can already be had for less money?
cm71td: "It's most certainly not designed as a second camera for SLR users, but rather as an entirely different type of system that users intimidated by the size and perceived complexity of SLRs can upgrade to when they outgrow their compacts"
Why would someone who is "intimidated by the complexity of SLRs" need an interchangeable lens camera?
Getting bored with waiting and need a camera within one month now, so I'm considering getting a cheap NX11 with a 30mm pancake as a stop-over, till maybe Canon wakes up next year.
You see, I was waiting for Nikon's release, not as a second camera to an SLR, but as a first and only camera. I haven't had an SLR since the days of little film cans.
And even though I loved shooting with it, my memories of lugging that around make me want to take advantage of the miniaturization Sony has proven works.
The only reason I didn't buy a Nex is cause Sony lacks a nice, small 30mm pancake like Samsung has, or even a 50mm prime.
I didn't buy a G3, solely cause I didn't want the smaller M4/3 sensor, even though I love the way that camera is set up.
I really wanted a small main camera out of Nikon, with the low light power of their D5100 at the same price but smaller size.I was really waiting for Nikon to deliver a better alternative.
Ok, so they fear cannibalizing their DSLR market, but it wouldn't touch their high end cameras, and they wouldn't need to charge any less for a small (cheaper to make) mirrorless version of the D5100 and a more simplistic sister model.
m3: What are they smoking now in Japan? People want their slow zooms glued to the tiny camera. Why bother bringing out the same thing with fiddly bits (sorry, interchangeable lenses) you can take off and put back on again if the camera you've already got takes the same pictures with the same small sensor and the same slow zoom?All this in the face of Sony's NEX7 which will be the standard to follow. I'll bet Nikon shareholders are furious.
@ ajay0612 with Nikon's 116sqmm vs Panasonic's 225sqmm being about half the size, you're calling it "JUST 50% smaller" I imagine you wouldn't complain if your builder said that to you about the expected square footage of your new house lol...Also, its less than 1/3 the size of the 368sqmm APS-C sensors you can get in Samsung cameras NX11 and NX100 between 270 and 380 euros (already including kit lenses).
If Nikon really offers "better photos" than LX5, F200 remains to be seen. I do believe it will take photos faster, which can be of benefit for certain applications.
So, if you're a trekker or hiker, first of all, you don't want to carry a bag full of lenses. As far as a quality zoom the size of a pancake lense goes, I think Panasonic has an easy lead at the moment. And of course you can just take a pancake lense with either Nex or GFx and not have any more size or weight than Nikon's J1
spiderhunter: This is tragedy at its worst. The technology, from what I read, is God-send but there is one fundamental flaw - the sensor is of the wrong size. The could well be the beginning of the end for Nikon as another brand can always have the same technology or better with a APS-C or FF sensor, and this little Nikon creation will bite the dust.
Already, the negative opinion against these latest releases is overwhelming. I can't remember any other occasion, and I stand corrected, when a new product has received such concerted negative reaction. No doubt other players are observing, taking down notes, waiting at the wings and ready to launch their attack.
Obviously, in their blind lust to protect their DSLR market, they became disorientated and marched into the quicksand. Sad, sad.
You're right, Harold66, until you get to the small matter of MSRP...
I know a few of the people you're referring to. A friend of mine, who uses a little canon snapper once said to me an LX5 would be wasted on him, he'd not use it enough to warrant spending $500. And this guy isn't short on cash, he's just not interested. Then there's my mom, if you walked her into a camera store and left her there, she's buy whatever the sales guy told her to buy. So, if Nikon's J1 offered the best margins to dealers, that's what she would come home with.
I really do wonder where this Nikon fits in between the don't-want-to upgraders and the would-like-to-but-too-expensive upgraders
Putting a Nikon J1 next to a discounted Samsung NX100 on Amazon's shelf; even at price parity of $399, I can already see the same customer-reviews previously seen there: "yeah, xyz camera is neat, but the bigger sensor camera is the sharper sword"
shaocaholica: "It's most certainly not designed as a second camera for SLR users, but rather as an entirely different type of system that users intimidated by the size and perceived complexity of SLRs can upgrade to when they outgrow their compacts"
So basically its not for the large majority of DPR readers.
uhhh, how much later?
I thought it was pretty late already...
Anton Marcu: the entire business model is predicated on a market segment of compact users who want to upgrade, but I think the vast majority of these would just upgrade to the newest iteration of the compact they already have NOT to a paradigm-shifting interchangeable system, no matter how compact it is (it's not really) or how fast
Nikon will have a though challenge ahead to convert their intended target market and convince them this is what they need, but who knows, in 5 years this maybe the next ipod
@ Fraucha ok, so it comes down to "marketing it right", cause surely, yanking out the perfect motion shot I'm already doing with my 1080p recording Galaxy smartphone. Somehow, it keeps video better in focus than stills :P
The Canon GF3 and the Nex do a good job of that already.
So we end up comparing AF speed vs sensor size / IQ...
I think Nikon just wanted to a) save money, b) not cannibalize DSLR sales, c) enter the new market before shareholders revolt.
All the strategy / slides / advertising looks like it was created after the DSLR department told them what they weren't allowed to use.
Ken Aisin: "If it turns out to be capable of producing good results where existing cameras can often fail - school sports, for example - then it could easily turn out to be the long sought-after 'family camera' for users who want memorable pictures but have no interest in learning the technical minutiae of camera operation."
So, I suppose AF speed is pretty much the only potential advantage of the Nikon 1 system. I wonder what will happen to Nikon 1 sales when the competitors catch up on focus speed by implementing hybrid AF in their mirrorless cameras.
This may be the one great benefit of this release: Prod the other manufacturers into improving the AF on their Nex and GFx models
sergueis: As I see it aims for the market of enthusiast compact cameras which currently have 10-12MP 1/1.7 sensor. Nikon 1 should deliver better IQ. But:
1. Due to much slower lens, for low light conditions it has to use higher ISO by 2 stops, e.g. 3200 against 800 for Panasonic Lumix LX5 or Canon S95/S100. Is its pixel size 4 times bigger? No. Hence, IQ will be worse despite bigger sensor.
2. Including lens, it's 2 times bigger and heavier.
3. Including lens, it's 2 times more expansive.
In total: my big doubts.
That's why there's always people clamoring for an LX5 type camera with an APS-C sensor...
But Manufacturers stand to make way more money with interchangeable lenses.
iunius: This is a brilliant strategy by Nikon.
Now we've got 3 sizes to choose from: Nikon, 4/3, and APS-C. People will go Nikon for compactness or APS-C for quality, and 4/3 in the middle will lose out.
Longer term, sensor tech will improve, and lenses will get faster. They'll pass the quality bar for more potential customers with each iteration, and more people will forgo the advantage of larger sensors in favor of compactness.
All the while, they have a format that is cheaper to manufacture, so they can put the difference into other features, or just have higher margins and invest more in R&D.
Only, these aren't any more compact than Nex or Gfx.
This strategy is assuming that a lot of people who can't read will spend $600-$800 on cameras, because they saw the slide that shows it to be as fast as a jet.
Yesss! I don't have to buy airplane tickets anymore, I got my Nikon J1!!
gl2k: What Nikon teaches us : Faster is better.We learn : The company with the fastest chips makes the best cameras.I've rarely seen something that is more ridiculous that this slide.A sad day in terms of photography. Especially since I own a Nikon cam and really really love it.
fast is nice, but processors are cheap, and sensor size is expensive. So the value for money is certainly not there, just because its speedy.
kevin_r: With phase detection on the sensor chip, i'd say that Nikon is using this camera as a market test. They are obviously busy building the technology into their APS-C and FF sensors and just want to see how this particular setup performs market-wise before unleashing the real McCoy on the unsuspecting public.Of course I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
I think you're right... see how much cash they can scoop up with the 'test'.
Meanwhile, if you waited with buying Sony's Nex & Co, to see Nikon's answer with a less-clunky-than-DSLR system, this looks like the wait was for nothing.
Even if the fancy new features will show up in Nikon's big clunky DSLR's soonish, Sony is still the only friend of travelers who need to pack light.
Nikon's idea of "lower end of the market" appears to aim at some user's need for extreme simplicity, while forgetting that lower end always relates to price.
Unless they're showing up at significant discounts from their stated MSRP, this "much greater potential" may never materialize.
People who would even look at cameras this price range are not going to be too ditzy to work with Sony's Nex cameras.
Selling just the Nikon label may work in places like Beverly Hills, it'll be a fashion item. I remember some guy saying he didn't mind paying $500 more for the Leica name on an unchanged, re-branded Panasonic camera, cause "Its cool to whip out a Leica" Sadly, some are just desperate for attention.
As for the speed and the AF, sure, I'd like that, but not on a small sensor. Cut the exchangeable lenses feature and give me a big sensor.
But they won't: instead, they'll add exchangeable lenses to everything down to smartphone snappers, cause its the perfect money sinkhole...
daVBALLguy: I'm personally skeptical about the system, but I also can't believe how everyone jumps to criticism about what the system is NOT, rather than what it is.
Speed: even if the diagram is an exaggeration, wouldn't it be nice to have the AF speed of a D3-series for 1/5 the price and 1/3 the size?
Features: There is clearly much missing from this system for enthusiasts, but I think the combination of 1080p/30fps, full-time AF, and power zoom could be enticing for the target market - the remaining millions of people out there who do NOT keep up with photography news.
Colors: if this is the biggest gripe, the world will go on...
Nikon has had its share of failed product lines (IX lenses). Yet, the D1 was far from perfect - and certainly not inexpensive - when it was introduced. So were DX lenses. I am interested to see how this system will evolve.
I think its a play for people who buy cameras based on labels.
I do wonder if this backfires when J1 owners compare their low-light party pictures with Nex owners...
Spending hard earned cash on lenses for a sensor that's less than a third of the size of Sony's Nex cameras seems like a lousy idea to me.
I'd actually like to go the other way round: give me an APS-C sensor camera without changeable lenses; just one built-in, high quality and perfectly matched lens.
gw2112: I'm sorry - on my Macbook using Firefox version 6.0.2 I clicked at "Click here to view firmware ... on and off" and only got five empty frames.
What was wrong?
Don't use Macbooks, you're paying the devil to take your soul...
You must realize that's backwards, cause normally you get cash from the devil for your soul.
Ross Alford: Fascinating to compare with the LX3 at ISO 800 and 1600--if you look at jpegs, there is no comparison, the LX5 blows it completely out of the water. Look at raw results, though, and to my eyes it is not at all clear there is much difference. Looks like the main improvement over several years has been in image processing algorithms (which is very good, don't get me wrong) rather than in sensors (which is just a bit of a surprise). Since I shoot in raw, and mostly at 24mm equivalent, I still don't feel any need to upgrade from an LX3.
its weird that the LX3 is still available in stores, and it still costs almost as much as an NX100 with its APS-C sensor.
I think that's where the sensor improvements went...
I'm waiting for an APS-C sensor camera without swappable system lenses, but just one built-in high quality and perfectly matched lens.
Morgan David: :) "We're going to be sitting around in 30 years trying to remember what 2D looked like" I really hope she is right!
For stock photographers/filmmaker willing to try something with 3D: We have created a 3D stock footage marketplace called Stereobank.
If anyone wants more info, don't hesitate to contact me on email@example.com
I guess this explains why you thought 3D is so overwhelmingly wonderful in the other response.
But really, I think you went way over the top with your 8mm black and white film parable. But people selling things always go to great lengths to make their product look indispensable...
I guess in 30 years, its gonna be a brave new world for painters... paintings will double in price, cause the poor slobs have to paint everything twice...
I hope people remember they get the best 3D, if they just go out and play some tennis or whatever they like themselves, making their lives their own movie. Or else, we'll all end up as brains and eyeballs floating in a nutrient solution in a jar - entertained into oblivion.
Trike: This is fairly interesting, but it's becoming increasingly evident that 3D is a fad that is already waning. People are staying away from 3D movies now and 3D TVs (and video game devices, apparently) aren't selling.
By all means, keep doing articles on it, just keep in mind that it's going to return to being a niche market. (Forever, if I had to guess.)
I think there are 2 main reasons for the lack of uptake:
1) there's a healthy price premium on a 3D TV, vs last year's 2D models. Basically, in the stores, you're able to buy a 55" 2D TV at the same price point as a 40" 3D TV. Even the added benefit of loosing that hideous piano lacquer with the newest models seems to have a hard time making up for a several hundred dollar difference :P
2) You need to wear those glasses for anything in 3D, so uhhh, who's gonna sit around their house with those glasses on for regular TV?? People might put them on for a movie or a game, but the rest of the time? David Letterman in 3D? its just superfluous for a most programs.
Once they figure out how to do 3D without glasses and without having to sit still in the "aligned" spot, it'll become ubiquitous, just cause we need the product upgrade carousel to keep going round and round.
Personally, I'd be more interested in a device that can visualize four or five dimensional space.