Deleted pending purge: 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.
How...There is no doubt there for a second. They'd charge seriously for such a camera, of course, regardless of what I was aiming at, and that is the price of actual production, which goes down significantly if one does not use all mechanical but all electronic parts.Anyway, we can't even begin to forecast what Nikon will do, so this is just giving them ideas! :)Live long and prosper! Maybe someone else recognises the market that they ignore, and we get to take photos with something even better... :)
MarkByland: They just released the Df. Why not release a Digital Nikonos or Dn?
Well, they're just another set of experiences, is all. What I can say, I always followed the ritual of cleaning and mantaining the seals in perfect working order, inclusive those not normally allowed to users, such as the film advance / trigger lever in Nik III, and also all the sealing rings on Nik V - except those at the ocular and at the lens port, since it takes a special tool to put those together again.Both models have been used for 20+ years with absolutely no water leakage. My diving buddy has had one leak, because his brother forgot to replace the flash contact plug. His Nik III and, what's worse, the mounted 15mm Fisheye were flooded. We managed to take both the camera and the lens apart, cleaned it, and put it together again, and everything worked as before.But it has to be said that the repairs were done immediately after the flooding, so nothing had time to corrode.
celipessoa1971: La souffrance des autres nous rassure sur notre bien être momentané.
I'm sorry, I'm not in the habit of replying to shallow provocation. This was a one-off, and this member will subsequently be avoided. Anyone not liking what I write can simply go find someone else to annoy.
RedFox88: Time should rename them: their most graphically violent and disturbing images of the year.
Time will rename those; just the "Time" won't... :-(
You noticed? You must be the cleverest in your family.
Deleted pending purge: "Trade dress" indeed. Why not patent white, red, black, and be done with competition. And there are those letters on one... saying n-i-k-o-n, and the other has p-o-l-a-r uh, something... Is this lawsuit aimed to protect the illiterate? How weird can it get...
Still, the size differs, the commands differ, the placement of flash port is different... so why would some stripes be so important, when there are such prominently visible differences, not forgetting product names, manufacturer names etc?Let's say the colors on the camera were other than what was made? Would it still point to similarities? Many people, me included, used to re-paint their cars when the new coat of paint was due, and one of my Fiats was painted citrus-yellow of the BMW. It still remained Fiat, only funnier! ;)In other words, would somebody buy Sakar's product thinking it was Nikon? Hardly a "danger" worthy of all the hullaballoo, IMO.On the other hand, if Nikon's overall design of model 1 was patent-protected to such detail, they'd be within their rights. But we do not know how detailed the patent documents are...Never mind. It's lawyer food anyway.
HowAboutRaw... Even if they've lost the manufacturing equipment (tools, programs...) the experience gathered through all the yearss of producing the World's best amphibious camera must have remained... so why would they go and apply a seal which is dependent upon hatchlock mechanism in place of o-ring sealing principle? This type of gaskets that they use requires that the lock and hinge are always perfectly aligned with the sealing surfaces, and there are several kinds of problems with that. Aside from the fact that the gaskets they use are quite unreliable, the production is also more expensive (compared to o-rings), and two closures instead of one raises the risk level by 100%.Instead, the single hatch could have had a groove all along the rim with proper o-ring sitting in there, and all the servicing content (battery, card, contacts) would be safely shielded...
HowAbout... Nope, the bodies were made using CAD/CAM, and every manufacturer takes care to save their technology with more than a single backup, and especially software. Some years ago there was this reportage about a man who needed some parts to restore a 1926 Fiat (Topolino). He contacted Torino and stated the original part numbers. Since there was no such parts on the shelves, they've made them for him. And I don't believe Nikon is lesser known than Fiat... so it is hard for me to believe...Lenses you mention are already available, the only thing to adapt is a straightforward machined tube to fit them in, and a way to add outer commands where required: with all electrically driven lenses it would be easy to incorporate, say, reed switches on the inside and a magnet or two on the outside. No big deal.But think of the lesser cost of electronic elements vs. mechanical ones, and $1K would be more than fair to pay for it. And these would sell, trust me.Pipe dreams all, anyway...
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.
13 o-rings in all, on both models III and V - and all of those accessible to any user with some technical sense. Anyway, the Manual required only three of those to be cared for by the user: - main body seal with Nik III, or main door seal with Nik V,- lens-to-body seal, and - strobe contact plug seal.I have used both models for decades, and sometimes at double its rated pressure limit, and never experienced a leak. Also, even in the most extreme pressure the cameras were exposed to, all elements and commands performed with the same ease as on the surface. This kind of conceptual and technical quality Nikon should repeat, instead of creating models with purposefully built-in weak spots. And sure, a FF camera which could replace Nikonos is neither impossible nor should it cost more than an analog Nikonos either. My guess is, mercantile politics have replaced Nikon's pride in quality and uniqueness. Someone there should commit sukiyaki... ;)
Now we need a definition for too similar. It actually may boil down to either someone's idea of functionality or to the same author behind both shapings. In that sense, all cars are similar too. But there are also differences and these should count, without overly strong accent on their quantity. An example would be seen in the army, where everyone is dressed the same, but still not look like clones; for reasons of soldiers iindividual features, abilities etc... and then there are those strips and stars and whatever which differentiate them by their own default.Another example would also be all those SLRs, also many superzoom bridge cameras, or "pocketable" little boxes where the inscriptions often make the only prominent diff.But when the lawyers get involved, all men and/or things can be made equal or different, as per wish, money clout, or whatever other reason, imaginable or not. Like in this case, where all the difference seems to have been disregarded in favor of similarities.
"Trade dress" indeed. Why not patent white, red, black, and be done with competition. And there are those letters on one... saying n-i-k-o-n, and the other has p-o-l-a-r uh, something... Is this lawsuit aimed to protect the illiterate? How weird can it get...
brianj: Does a photo need to be about some sort of violence to draw people's attention?
Since all life is a wave phenomenon, maybe the times will soon come when something actually NICE will become news...They only sell us what we buy. And it WILL get worse before it becomes better... :-(
dharma108: Same old, same old. Oh, for some consciousness!
Forget it. There is no more free consciousness. All its capacity is utterly stuffed with "sell, sell, sell..."And the regular ever-lower-IQ folks are being continuously force-fed the other part of the equation: "buy, buy, buy..." :-(
You're right, "the suffering of others makes us remind ourselves how well we are at the moment"... but then, it is a political attitude thing. And it is as old as the World.The other and by far more important thing is, why do we still let such primitive concepts being forced upon our education, thinking, behaving and feeling. High time for self-education, then... and also removal of the primitives who practice that system.
I can't but think how weird the people have become. Is there no more beautiful things in this World? Is there only conflict, tragedy, disasters, cataclysms? And the mind of people picking out those for being "the best", or "top" (of what)?If we think of our life as a cross-section of all we can perceive, isn't it high time we replaced this kind of thinking? Or do we let things go as they go, and end up in really miserabe frame of mind, where if something does not involve grief, pain, death, or loss - it is not worth publishing / highlighting?I suggest we all wake up and demand (or better yet, DEMAND!) that this attitude based upon cheap sensation sell changes - for good - before our children learn from wrong people that if you're not aggresive, or daredevil, your life sucks!There is more to living quality than selling and buying. The way everything else is subdued, well... it makes me sad. MY young days were much happier, and a lot of today's good things were then nonexistent...
sugardaddy: I couldn't find anything mentioned in the original article. Was the supplied silicone grease applied to the O-ring at all, either first time attaching the lens or before the dip?
I know a lot of people originally wanted a dial of some kind but the zoom buttons act as a dial, which is pretty intuitive to me (I own the AW1). Buttons are a LOT easier to waterproof than moving knobs.
Greasing an o-ring keeps it symmetrical under pressure, as it can move and adapt. Otherwise, a part of it might not slide toward the gap of lesser pressure area, and so create an area where water might seep in. The groove wherein an o-ring lies must be kept greased too, for that same purpose. The idea is to make o-ring and groove just grease-shiny, and not covered with grease. It is no great feat to keep it properly mantained, but it has to be done, and above all, understood.Problem is the other kinds of seals, like on battery/contacts doors. Those do not seal by the same principle, and sometimes the gaskets are of other material, which does not stand grease.The Manual should explicitly state how those gaskets are to be treated. For instance, the u/w housing Manual for Sony T7 explicitly forbids any grease on their (o-ring shaped!) hatch seal. Greasing such seals may destroy their elasticity, cause them to "set" and lose their sealing ability.
I see two different things here. One is the properly designed underwater casing for digital camera parts. The other is the actual camera that can be built into such casing.Suppose Nikon adapts Nikonos V case to house digital camera parts. It wouldn't be a problem to update such parts as the technology evolves. The casing could remain the same for a long time. No diver would mind. Some cosmetic changes on the outside (such as nametag, model type, color or grip/surface texture could distinguish one model from another, so as to denote the newer, better, different camera inside.The main advantages: ample place for many years of such changes, room for enormously capacitive battery, and add-ons, even dive-assisting instruments using monitors; like compass, air/mix gauges, dive computer... there is no end to the possibilities.Using casings of old UW Nikkors, all-new optics could be made, even very good zooms...The final result, cheaper - made, and better product than AW1.
davids8560: Just curious. What kind of rigs did Jacques Costeau use? Anybody else around here old enough to remember him? Would you say that he was just a "celebrity oceanographer" or a true, actual innovative underwater photographer, too? Or both, of course, if it's so. I imagine he had a team of photographers and cinematographers working for him. Maybe they deserve the real credit. But I dunno. Just wonderin'!
The very first Nikonos was called Calypsophot, so you know who conceived the thing. It was made in 1960, and had all sorts of problems with film transport, but none with the sealing. When the Japanese bought the patent, they named the next model Nikonos (1963). And so on. To this day they have made five models:Nikonos II, very similar to Calypsophot, but with film transport solved...Nikonos III, IMHO the very best among all the mechanical models...Nikonos IVa, with built-in light metering and dedicated flash unit, but with o-ring on the main door stupidized beyond imagination...Nikonos V, with corrected seal system...Nikonos RS, a TTL camera which was an attempt to bring SLR underwater without a housing. Outrageously overpriced, nigh impossible to mantain in the field, and without any chance to see through the lens (considering the dark ambient), did nothing to better the underwater photography.And after all the experience, they still can't produce a proper u/w camera again.
With due respect, none of the above. All the construction problems have been solved long ago, and millions of divers were very happy with what Nikon was then able to do. Besides, as the mechanical cameras are much costlier to produce than the electronic ones, there really is no excuse for Nikon... other than an idea that they can perhaps push contemporary half-products with risky sealings to more people.They can easily make Nikonos III and/or V in the digital version, and use the casings of four existing lenses to house more modern glass, but someone there simply does not want to do it.Maybe it is because they'd last too long, who can tell?
Dave Ingraham: @Jeff: Do you think that putting a very tiny bit of the included silicon grease around the edges of the 2 port doors would be a good idea, or not? I purchased the AW1 primarily for outdoor rugged use (mountain biking/snowboarding) but the family is going to Cabo for Christmas, and while I'm not a diver, but I'm sure it will see some underwater use while we're there.
Check very carefully whether Nikon allows the use of grease with contact / battery hatch seals! These are sometimes made of another material, and unlike usual o-rings, can't stand the grease. At least not for long, before deforming, and staying that way (no more elasticity).Greasing the o-rings does not help with the actual sealing, it merely aids o-rings to move within their groove and so symmetrically adapt to pressure difference. Since the gaskets used in most of today's amphibious cameras do not seal by o-ring principle, the grease will more likely be a problem than the solution.