Otaraka: I find the entire prospect baffling myself. Its not really a 'cheap' snorkelling camera, its not really useful for scuba or keener underwater types who might be willing to pay more due to its depth limits, for a variety of reasons - odd lens ranges, low depth limit, etc.
One really popular reason for an underwater housing vs 'all in one' for these kinds of depths is you can test the housing without the camera vs trying to convince Nikon after the fact that it leaked, and you can also fully concentrate on image quality rather than 'ruggedness' - you can even put a leak detector in, which would be pointless for thise. I can see a lot of complaints in the future with this setup unless it really is 'rugged', and with a removable lens setup, Ill bet you see more with this one than most.
It's generally well known that a "1 inch" sensor does not have a 1 inch diagonal. The sensor is still bigger than any other tough camera or pretty much any P&S, with the exception of the RX100s from Sony.
4/3" sensors don't have a diagonal of 1 and 1/3 inches either.
OldArrow: In short, it's a half-job again. While it is hard to imagine anything but an o-ring seal on the lens mount, the compartments (two, to double the risk) still close via funny gummy gaskets which are unreliable by default, since these depend upon hatch locking mechanism. For less money and easier construction, Nikon could have used a single access hatch sealed by another o-ring.This, along with some body shape thinking, and using command elements other than sealed push pins (reed switches / magnets would be best) could have set the camera a bit higher toward Nikonos which cost about the same but offered a lot more depth autonomy and water-resistance reliability.Nikon could also have used the Nikonos lens mount with this model, and used the elements housing for more modern glass. Having the o-ring exposed with dry-land lenses is also wrong, and whenever the camera is used with such optics I'd suggest the removal of the ring.
A digital Nikonos, in a real Nikonos V body, is a fine idea, but then Nikon would need to spend monies developing new AF lenses. I guess here they could take advantage of PDAF on an APSC sensor.
I think the O-ring needs so be setup this way on the 1 series--unless Nikon wanted to build completely new lenses for the AWS-1.
Never particularly thought of this AWS-1 as a real dive camera--just something with a good bit better image quality than the small sensored "tough" cams. And that appears to be the case.
ShatteredSky: So far I am not convinced that this is much better than the TG-1 I own, except noise. But it misses the wide-angle, and the macro capabilities ... A 24-120 equiv. zoom would have been nice to go with that ... or if Olympus may finally add RAW to the TG-3, and a slightly bigger sensor. I would not mind a larger size, even a RX10 sized fixed-lens 24-120 beast and 1 inch sensor would be nice.
Yep, my mistake, I was thinking of the RX1.
Then of course the RX10's lens extends, so that's a problem.
jennajenna: Biggest problem with the nikon frankly is the lack of wide angle lenses. The best it can do is 27mm. The olympus tg2 is 25mm BUT with an adapter it can get as wide as ~ 21mm. That is massive as a field of view advantage (over 20%) compared to the nikon's 27mm max - and the real world of underwater video or photos... you want a wide vista of your experience. Also the tg2 aperture of 2.0 lets in twice the light of nikon so it can take lower iso shots.
Sorry image quality matters a lot more than how big your zoom is.
pocoloco: I am not so convinced a compact camera could not have captured that unique moment : http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3225500706/photos/160652/turtle?inalbum=beneath-da-surface
See above where I wrote: "I guess if your point is that tough cameras like the jpeg only Oly TG1 can do decent shots at low ISOs only a foot or two beneath the surface, then sure."
No, your five year old tough camera doesn't shoot raw and can't be used at ISO 1600 easily. While all Nikon 1 bodies can do both.
It shoots raw, so it's much better for snorkeling.
Then also good for sailing or rafting, and still it shoots raw unlike every other tough camera, and there's the big sensor, again unlike every other tough camera available today, late 2013.
I am. Heard of raw?
I guess if your point is that tough cameras like the jpeg only Oly TG1 can do decent shots at low ISOs only a foot or two beneath the surface, then sure.
JamesVo: AW means All-Weather not Under-Water. Great for snow, surface water, dust, mud and mild underwater usage but not a dive cam.
Although rated for immersion to 15m you have to understand how waterproofing specs work. In a splash/spray situation the speed of the water gives it momentum which can drive it past seals and barriers. So the seals are made more robust to resist this. Under testing in a static environment a seal might resist leakage at a depth of 10 to 15m but when you direct a fast moving jet of water at it on land, it leaks. More info on the web under "IP ratings".
Taking the AW1 to 10m and then bumping it against something as you swim might be more than it can handle. Nikon's marketing hype may be partly to blame ; creating an impression of a wider envelope for use than is pragmatic. Finally of course, the smallest bit of dirt in a seal is fatal. Even a fibre from a paper towel can cause a leak and one must be meticulous about this.
True enough to a point, but the Nikonos could be used hundreds of feet below the surface and also on land. And there were plenty of seals and body penetrations on those Nikonos bodies.
So waterproofing can be improved.
Okay, then why call it the TG3?
The Sony RX10 is a full framed camera with a non zoom lens.
Why wouldn't Olympus just waterproof an m4/3 body and a couple of lenses instead of calling whatever the TG3? So except for the confusion about the Sony RX10, all you've described is an m4/3 tough camera from Olympus. I bet it's in the works.
Dennis: I wish someone would make a fixed lens UW camera with one of the 'premium' digicam sensors (1/1.7" through the Sony 1" sensor) and something like a fixed f/2 lens at 28mm equivalent.
I'm sure you can get a good bag for the Sony RX10. Those bags make the use of fixed lens bodies pretty easy underwater.
Then you'd have FF underwater.
Or just use this Nikon 1AWS with the 10mm lens. That gets you the excellent 1" Aptina sensor underwater. (I realize that lens isn't as fast as you'd like, you'll have to wait until Nikon waterproofs the 32mm (84 FFE) 1.2 for a really fast 1 lens underwater.)
Jogger: Id rather have an action cam / go pro type camera with the sony 1 inch sensor. no need for interchangable lenses on a ruggedized camera like this. the qx100 proves that this can be done.
The QX100? That doesn't shoot raw, and can't be sealed, so would need to be inside a sealed tube. Not a bad idea, as long as raw has been added, but not simply proven by the QX100, and then you still need a waterproof smart phone to run the camera.
So you've described a very different system.
Aptina's sensors are excellent--though yes I like the BSI 1" sensor from Sony too.
Does that TG1 shoot raw, and have a so called 1 inch sensor? How about the TG2, does it shoot raw and have a 1" sensor?
You seem confused about the astoundingly better image quality of the Nikon 1 system in comparison to the Olympus TG tough cameras. The Nikon's sensor is not simply a tiny bit bigger.
Okay then if wider angles than 27mm FFE is the deciding factor, pick a different camera.
Most people would care about image quality+raw, and figure perhaps a FFE (full framed equivalent) 18mm would come along from Nikon.
Treeshade: "Canon has the largest market share right now."So did Internet Explorer.
"Many people actually own the EOS M."So did Internet Explorer.
"It is simple and friendly to use, fulfilling basic needs."So did Internet Explorer.
"And the new version got a speed boost"So did Internet Explorer.
Just a reminder, the first iPhone was glitchy for at least a month. It was also quite slow as a web access device over cell networks. Then it was more than a few iterations before the iPhone worked well as a phone.
Right the GUI was brilliant, and came at a time of vastly increasing battery and mobile CPU capacities.
Disrupting the market for Canikon is harder, people who know how to use all of the features of a good mirrorless body like the Sony Nex 5R or the Fuji XE2 all know how to use a DSLR too. There's nothing that makes the mirrorless systems brilliantly better, the way the iPhone GUI was so much better than a Windows phone. (Blackberry suffered more from a slow OS and lack of real web features than lack of a good early touch screen interface--the current Blackberry Z10 is a bit better than the iPhone so long as you don't need Apple apps.)
Anastigmat: I am glad Canon uses the APS-C format for its mirrorless cameras. Pentax and Nikon are making huge mistakes using sensors smaller even than M4/3. Moving in the other direction is Sony, with its full frame mirrorless camera. In a few years, you will find that the only M4/3, and the Nikon and Pentax mirrorless cameras for sale are found inside glass cases in your local pawnshop.
Pentax had an APSC sensored mirroless, excellent image quality.
Digital camera bodies lose value so quickly that few can be pawned, except say the D4, M9, D3s, D700.
Koemans: 18 megapixel - brand new from 2008. 2.7 times faster than the m1 failure but a dumbed down video mode, since the 70d technology is not in it for the sake of product diversification. Calling it now, Canon is desperately trying to become the new Kodak.
Atleast it has not been announced for release in the US & europe from what i read on canonrumors. Good choice there canon, we no longer want to buy outdated underperforming junk for the highest price.
“More megapixel - while the sharpness and quality might be similar - will ALWAYS win it for me if the customer demands a bigger print.”
Then get a Leica S2. More megapixels often get in the way, in the realworld outside of the studio, hence the Nikon D4/Df.
Canon makes excellent DSLRs, so too Nikon.
You ignored everything else Canon makes, you ignored the 1D X, in your MP obsession.
I can’t draw conclusions about the 6D, I’ve barely handled it and don’t have raws from it.
Most people don’t limit their shooting to studios, even with the D800E. Bigger prints obviously cost more to print–guess that’s fine if you have a paying client, get your client to put up the monies for a Leica S2.
Try thinking before launching a knee jerk attack on Canon. My understanding of dual pixel AF: That’s real innovation from Canon.
Big deal neither Canon nor Nikon has a great large sensored mirrorless system, though at least Nikon makes enough lenses and made a waterproof version.
There's a cover ring for the o-ring, when using the dry land lenses.
I don't have a problem with the manual focus Nikonos lenses, but others would and that's likely Nikon's thinking.
Nikon would need an entirely new box, not based on the J3/J1, to do a single o-ring sealed compartment and use these modified 1 series lenses. New specialized boxes take new engineering, testing, and then factory set up. So money, and Nikon is not some huge profitable company like Apple or Samsung, nor is it big like Canon or Sony.
I understand you want a dive camera, but clearly this isn't it, and that was clear from the launch date.
It still appears to be an excellent snorkeling, sailing, rafting, pouring rain camera.
An Olympus TG-3 with a bigger sensor would have a much bigger lens, and the lens could not be internal to the box, without vastly increasing the size of the box.
In the future Nikon will likely release other waterproof lenses for this 1 AWS.
As you realize, raw helps a lot with image quality and noise. No raw on the tiny sensored Olympus.
"Calling it now, Canon is desperately trying to become the new Kodak."
Because some how mirrorless bodies are going to kill of DSLRs. And then there'll be no more sales of FF video cameras, photocopiers, printers, what? Not.
Kodak acted like a conventional typewriter manufacturer circa 1979, instead of realizing that it had all this incredible tech and chemistry to sell to the world, Kodak sought to hang the preservation of its business on the equivalent of typewriters. AMOLD screens, which is 35 year old Kodak tech, are about to replace every TV and monitor.
Canon is not acting in the same manor. The 5D III is "underperforming", against what? Yes, for lowlight the D4 from Nikon is better, who cares? The 5D is still an excellent camera.
Canon makes excellent video cameras. Panasonic+Sony should be deeply embarrassed by the prosumer Canon G30 video camera.
I neither own nor use a Canon 5D. Canikon lenses aren't optically good enough for my purposes and I don't care about shooting sports so don't need fast AF. Then none of the 5D bodies can match the best Nikon's best high ISO DSLRs.
However the Canon 5D bodies are still a big deal.
No most Olympus lenses have been engineered so the light hits the sensor dead on across the sensor plane, this is a well known point about Olympus digital camera lenses. This is similar to the system Leica uses for S2 system lenses.
DXO scores are nearly useless for lenses, they can tell if a lens is good, but not extraordinary. So stop quoting them. I won’t claim to be particularly familiar with the other websites.
Yep, I have the photos that prove my point, no I will not share them. You can rent the Zeiss lenses yourself.
I will say that yes Canikon can make a sharp lens–colour aint particularly good though. Too bad Canikon has had years to catch up to good Olympus and Fuji lenses and they’ve wasted their time. Now Fuji and Olympus are both significantly improved and Samsung has entered the market, in one case besting very good Fuji and Olympus lenses.
Instead of expending effort to argue with me, get Canikon to improve those system lenses optical quality.