Steve Bingham: The question remains. Why? It's another Nikon "almost". Now they are supporting 4 different formats (at least). Can they supply lenses for all these formats? Probably not. Look at their lack of DX support. 3 of my four lenses in my bag are made by 3rd party companies. Why? Because they are better AND cheaper.
What is the fourth?
Sarge_: To me, you either buy into the APS-C formatted Sony NEX cameras, step down to the smaller M43, or get the RX100.
The Nikon isn't even on my radar (except for the new waterproof model). The Sony NEX cameras are roughly as pocketable (NEX-5, etc) as this V3, and NEX produces better IQ, especially at higher ISO. If video is a priority, I'd look at the Panasonic GH4, and if pocketability/size were a factor I'd have the Sony RX100.
I love my Nikon D800, but Nikon really disappointed me with the sensor size in this camera system, and there's no 'fixing' that, as even if this sensor gets better, so too will the larger APS-C sensors...
Nikon decided to go for a segment with no competition. It just turns out that segment is smaller than they thought it would be.
mosc: It still offers no lense that is 28mm equiv (or wider) at f1.8 (or brighter) for the price of an RX100 or less. Until it does, the entire "system" is a joke. What is the point of interchangable lenses if the most obvious use of a compact camera (indoor wide angle) isn't covered as well as it's competition? If I could take the lens off of my RX100 and swap on some 70-300 powerzoom it'd be cool but they're missing the MAIN lens. I need something close to f4 full frame. That kit lens is nearly two stops too slow.
That a system that has less lenses than the other systems looses out in the category 'Available lenses' is somewhat inevitable.
b craw: So much commentary like a skipping record regarding the illegitimacy of a 1" sensor. Now, granted, I usually use a 20mp APS-C sized sensor mirrorless to produce intermediate scale prints for gallery shows. But, even when using m4/3, I can command good DR, detail, and scale. And so do colleagues using 1/1.7 sensor sized Leicas. Collectors never inquire about sensor size - never in my experience. The only issue that I consider is how my technology serves my ideas and visual outcomes. Sensor size, in theory, can impact results, of course. But sensor-size dogma ignores that so much high level work uses modest sized sensors, 1" included.
Where 'high level work' means NR. To me the sensor part of camera+lens combos has to fulfil two purposes: (1) Good base ISO, here the Nikon 1 is the weakest of all serious ILCs but still good, and (2) Low light performance, which can be divided in absolute and relative to size. And in relative performance the Nikon 1 is competitive but for a limited range only. The 32 mm f/1.2 is about the same length as the Olympus 45 mm f/1.8 (it is thicker and heavier though, but then it is metal where the Olympus has plastic). On APS-C, for Sony, you only have 50/55 mm f/1.8 lenses which are one stop faster but also clearly larger. So, on the size vs photon scale, the Nikon 1 offer something competitive, just at a different position.
Paul1974: I don't really care for exposure compensation dial. Camera metering is mostly spot-on. DR is increasing all the time. In case exposure needs to be adjusted I point the camera slightly towards sky or ground, lock exposure, reframe and make a picture. Exposure compensation button is a thing of the past. I can see why Fuji and Nikon Df have it, but not on any serious camera. It's a waste of body real estate. I prefer custom buttons and dials, if neccessary one can serve as an exposure compensation dial.
This is not about having a dedicated exposure compensation dial. It is about having the option to let one of the control dials set EC. When using a viewfinder, being able to set things without taking the camera from your eye, is something very useful.
Since the UK is still in the EU (sorry, I couldn't help it), buying from a continental Internet retailer is always an option and thus the UK buyers can as easily get any configuration offered in the rest of the EU.
Morris Sullivan: Come on guys. There are plenty of camera's out there priced less. If you want this camera so bad then it must be worth the price, if you don't want it enough to pay that much for it, then buy something else.
Nikon isn't about cheap hardware. Never has been.
Also, if the mirror-less design or 1" sensor doesn't suit your needs then why did you bother reading about it in the first place, let alone commenting on it?
The Olympus OM-D E-M1 also costs more than any APS-C DSLRs from any manufacturer (at least in Europe).V3 body: €850 at introductionD7100 body: €1400 at introduction, now €950E-M1 body: €1500 (I think this is still the introductory price)X-Pro1 body: €1600 at introduction, now €1050
This is not to say that the price is 'justified' but that there is a massive price overlap between different camera categories. But if you can find reasons to pay almost 3x as much for a D7100 body over a D330 body, you have to concede that having a wide price span within one product line is apparently completely normal.
What seems grating is that exception with FF, smaller sensored systems aren't really much cheaper.
Araucaria: The sony medium format sensor is probably a lot better than this.
Same technology as the Sony FF sensors on a two thirds larger sensor should lift the low light score up by 67%.
Steen Bay: Well, if something sounds too good to be true... As far I can tell the QE of the Red Dragon must be quite a bit higher than 100% in order to get such a high SNR, and that's hardly the case.
The short version: If you got the same (low light) score (aka SNR here) as FF cameras who have a QE 50% on a sensor half the size, you need to be collecting 100% of all photons.
Now, the area is not exactly half as large but 1/1.8 as large, which puts the QE down to 90%. And if you are precise, a score of 2745 corresponds more to 47% and the area ratio is 1/1.78, which brings us down to 84% which is still unbelievably high. For the last five years the best cameras had QE between 50 and 60%.
The Low Light score of DxO is based on the maximum ISO which "achieves an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits". For all Sony- and Nikon-sensored FF cameras the SNR is determining criteria. And the SNR score mainly reflects the quantum efficiency.
whtchocla7e: "... the first camera to break the 100-point barrier isn't a full frame model from Nikon or Sony ..."
Subtle Canon diss, haha.
If you don't care about those measurements why did you even read this article whose only news content was the results of those measurements, let alone comment on it?
igorek7: It's nice to see some progress with the Nikon's professional "action" camera, and a brave decision to not increase the pixel count of the sensor.
Perhaps, video capabilities is the major upgrade. Video bit rates up to 1080@60p is a good addition, but limiting video stream to 42Mbps (10 min limit), and 24Mbps (20 min limit) is not. The D4s can now adjust audio volume as it records, which is good. Unlike existing Nikons, the D4s can now simultaneously output uncompressed video over HDMI and record to internal memory cards --great.
However, I'm asking myself, with all those D4s video improvements, why not to add a 4K video, like in Panasonic GH4? Why not to add a silent shutter, an electronic one or a rolling shutter? Many of Nikon D3/D4 are used in external-noise-sensitive environments, such as theater/public performances, etc.
I since had a look at the Canon 1Dx manual which can record longer at high data rates than would fit into the 4 GB limit. It automatically creates a new file once it gets to the limit. But that will be a completely separate file, ie, when you play them back again, you must start the second movie file manually (or use software to combine them).
babalu: ...in five to ten years any camera with a mirror box will be as antiquated as film cameras are today .
The E-M5 still is too slow for shooting people for me. Exposure lag is too long to catching fleeting facial expressions reliably. Most of that is probably due the contrast detect autofocus and switching to focussing on demand (ie, it focusses when pressing another button than the shutter or said differently it doesn't focus when pressing the shutter release) might solve it but I haven't used my E-M5 often enough for people to bother with it.
I have seen several explanations for the recording duration limit:1) Broadcasting rights for sporting events. Essentially if you use devices that can record for more than X minutes, you need to pay for different rights. But such rules naturally might have been true five years ago and having been changed since.2) Higher taxes on movie recording devices than still cameras with a cut-off recording time limit as the differentiator (Canon 1Dx has a maximum recording time of 29 minutes and 59 seconds, staying just below the 30 minutes mark).3) Maximum file size of FAT32 formatted memory cards of 4 GB. While exFAT (with much higher size limits) has been supported by the main OSes for, I think, seven years now, cards are still formatted usually as FAT32. If you multiply 24 Mb/s *60 s/min *20 min you get 3.6 GB. I would assume that cameras that have longer recording times save the movie file into a format that allows easy splitting into multiple files.
Eric Glam: OK. I just tried it on Windows 7 x64 with 24GB RAM.It is so frustratingly slow, that I think they should just quit and give Adobe the information to the Focus point and other "secret" metadata.Then we can all use ACR / LR, and be happy with it.
Focus point information isn't secret (at least Aperture can display it).
Cheezr: ok i officially give up! you got me Barney!so where is the link to read the interview?if i click interview it takes me to a list of interviews and if i click the d4s title it takes me back here, if i click any of the labels above the "you may also like" they just circle around but afaik there is no link to the interview.
If this is a test i surrender and maybe this is why there are only 5 comments, something broken???
The interview is in the captions beneath each image (it took me a while to find that as well).
dcdigitalphoto: I don't really understand why a power house camera like this doesn't have a basic setting that appears on other cameras. I'm talking about TvAv where you set the shutter speed and aperture and the camera works out the ISO required. I have found it extremely useful shooting sports.
Since the beginning of Auto-ISO on Nikon DSLRs (at least since the D3/D300 in 2007) that has been a feature of all Nikon DLSRs [that had Auto-ISO, and at least all the higher end ones had Auto-ISO]. Which means you rushed to judgement based on zero knowledge about how Nikon has used Auto-ISO for many years. You would have to have just google Auto-ISO Nikon and you would have found descriptions of this among the first results.
Just a Photographer: Why should we still use Eye-Fi cards now in most places we can use a 4G network?
Next to that in todays world not only your phone has wifi already, but most (consumer) camera's have wifi too.
Few years ago these cards came in handy, but nowadays aren't these eye-fi card mostly redundant? Its only a matter of time before Eye-fi will be out of business.
You mean now that cameras can directly connect to a 4G network and upload their images? Or in what other does 4G help getting images from a camera/card to somewhere else?
pwmoree: How to shoot RAW and at the same time send small jpegs to your tablet or PC I have never been able to find out. If you shoot large jpegs the transmission is rather slow. I liked the X2-pro but because of the above almost never use it.
What is ludicrous about sending raws to the CF card and jpegs to the SD card slot? It's one of the three modes dual card cameras usually offer:1) Overflow2) Mirror3) Split JPEG & raw
MayaTlab0: "I think we did too much too fast, and made too many models."
I believe that's the first time I've seen a camera manufacturer acknowledge that aimless, numerous and boring iterations are detrimental to this business. It couldn't be a stronger contrast with Sony's interview a while ago.
"Our biggest challenge is customer awareness, and customer education. We think that at least 50% of the market could be mirrorless in the future, but what’s missing is awareness on the part of the consumers about the benefits of mirrorless."
I absolutely disagree with this assessment. If customers can't understand the benefits of mirrorless, perhaps it's because camera manufacturers, including Fuji, have made a pretty poor job at exploiting them. For example, no mirrorless camera manufacturer has yet produced a large sensor that covers portrait and landscape formats in various ratios while keeping the camera horizontal, something a DSLR can't do because of the mirror box and viewfinder prism design.
Really, what is wrong with using a Sony A7 or A7r with APS-C lenses? Making it a 24 x 24 mm sensor instead of a 24 x 36 mm sensor will not make dramatically cheaper. Why would people buy a 24 x 24 mm Sony mirrorless and use it as an APS-C camera but not a 24 x 36 mm mirrorless and use it as an APS-C camera? Why isn't this happening already. What is the big difference 24 x 24 over 24 x 36 mm would offer?
I am all for adding the option of vertical APS-C crop to any FF camera but why am I the only who is even just suggesting it?
I don't deny the ergonomic benefits, I just think they aren't large enough that a lot of people will be willing to pay for it. Think about it, what you want is FF camera whose sensor is less wide but has the same height as a FF sensor. Take a FF camera and use it with APS-C lenses, the only thing that would needed to be added is to allow a vertical APS-C crop on top of the already existing APS-C crop. Except for having to do that portrait crop yourself (easy in LR or Aperture) and not having viewfinder markings. Ask yourself why you or others are not doing that already. Or ask yourself why none of the FF cameras have that portrait APS-C image data crop and viewfinder masking. All that is needed can be done with a firmware update.
The answer why nobody does this is that once you have paid for a FF sensor, you also want to use. I've never heard of anybody who uses a FF camera mostly in APS-C crop mode.