RichRMA: Do these cameras feature some kind of extended range WB feature to compensate for colour shifts below the surface of the water?
hc44:Regarding the exposed glass: Nikon will offer a filter but it won't be available at launch. The filter is designed to address an even more serious issue: condensation. They claim that it should stop condensation inside the lens, which of course would be ruinous. But the timing of this essential accessory is beyond bad--they said January. So buy the cam in October, wreck the lens by November, or wait until January for the part you should have had available in the first place.
88SAL: Good work Nikon! You have a market for this product which I suspect is bigger than the cynics quack about. Re the numerous "Buy another camera with a housing instead ( for more cost and less convenience)", can we PLEASE hear feedback from those who actually practice UW photography as the ignorant are the ignorant and therefore are tp be taken with BOULDER or salt.
HowaboutRAW:You are too kind to the TG2. The image quality is very poor and the AF is erratic. Also almost no manual control. Various Lumix cameras have proven that good imaging is possible with a small sensor. For some reason, Oly decided not to go there. I had one and liked everything except the aforementioned points, which were bad enough to cause me to send it back. So now we have "tough" cams with lousy IQ and (almost) no manual control, vs. an expensive cam with no VF and inadequate zoom. Sigh...
One_Oldman_4U: It would have been better if the AW1 is a "rebadge" V1 with a viewfinder.
I long for a waterproof rugged camera with a bigger sensor, that doesn’t use housing. P&S waterproof camera are ok (I had TS1, AW100 and used some of the other brands) but they are far from good.
A V1 rebadged as the AW1 would have been better IMHO. It will be like the “Jack of All Trades” of 1” sensor cameras. Just imagine the capabilities of the V1 as it is. A small, lightweight camera, with very fast and accurate focusing, rugged, waterproof, dustproof, freeze proof, shockproof camera will be a joy for outdoorsmen and women alike.
The AW1 with the 10/2.8 and 11-27.5/3.5-5.6 is a good start for Nikon’s new addition to the Series 1 System. I would like to see a higher end version of this, the likes of the V1/V2 and maybe V3? underwater camera with viewfinder will be almost perfect. Add the underwater equivalent of the 10-100VR and we have a winner in a whole new category of rugged weatherproof cameras.
1 Oldman:You are so right about the VF and the 10-100 lens. The former was available on the Nikonos; the latter exists in non-waterproof form. Shouldn't be too hard to implement. I had actually pre-ordered the AW1 but cancelled due to lack of VF and decent zoom. Hard to understand why Nikon would launch a product with such major built-in limitations. And yet it has a popup flash.
Since it won't go deep enough for serious divers, it will be used in the shallows and above the surface (in or out of the water) and on shore. A VF in bright beach/sea environments is a must. Maybe next year...
Gunther35Aloha and thank you for posting your comments--organized, on topic and to the point. The type of comment that is needed on any camera forum. Agree or not, you have given clear and precise observations.Mahalo
John Koch: People who clamor for RAW or A-mode are a sedentary crowd, some of them in apparent need of cerebral regeneration and mobility assistance.
Any action camera is for situations that defy careful shot set-up or manual contrivances. When scaling a peak or diving to a reef, what one really needs is physical resilience, wide angle and aperture, image stabilization, quick response, and reasonable battery life. Narrow DOF can be difficult to manage while shooting fast action, or if fingers are cold and numb, so better to let the camera manage focus, apterture, and shutter.
The strengths of the TG-1&2 are this: f/2.0 aperture, good depth tolerance, good stabilization, reasonable IQ.
Gotta say, I'm with HowaboutRAW on this one. CCD sensors were terribly slow with RAW, but not CMOS. Pany FZ150 shoots RAW at 5.5fps for 12-15 frames, and write time isn't bad. Same tiny sensor size. No reason Oly couldn't have included that. (Of course if memory serves, Oly was among the first to decide that viewfinders weren't really desirable, either.) Want memory capacity? Use a higher-capacity card. Who could doubt that RAW retains far more potential? JPEG throws away vast amounts of color data which can't be retrieved.
As for the bizarre nonsense about sedentary RAW shooters, try paddling out on a 10-12-ft day and taking shots while ducking under waves, dodging surfers, and catching a few waves yourself from time to time.
Houseqatz: does anyone have experience with the tg-1? how is the jpeg rendering engine? i had an 725sw and never had issues with it's jpegs, and the ep-1 i have outputs fine jpegs. in fact, i've always been happy with the olympus jpeg look.
i'm not saying that raw wouldn't be nice, but i'd like to see some actual, "i was under water when i took this shot with my tg-1" pics.. which never seem to surface (heh) with the clamor for RAW
Experience with tg-1: I had it and sent it back to Amazon. See Amazon 3-star review "It is what it is." Basic problems: erratic AF, noisy and/or grainy images, arbitrary sharpening, severe internal fogging (nothing like the Canon D10), generally very disappointing IQ. Also does not attain 25-frame burst depth at full res, more like 16-18. I have been tempted by the hoo-ha surrounding the tg-2, but it sounds like the same technology with the addition of aperture control. I might buy one IF there are large numbers of 5-star rave reviews from people who care about IQ.
gwenhael appere: Dear DPreview,please go direct to the point. When the review is finished, post it. We don't need 3 or 4 updated previews in the meantime !
There is something wrong with people who get something for nothing (in this case, free product reviews PLUS a free bulletin board to inform the world of their opinions) and complain about it. You don't like the way dpreview does it? Option 1: don't use the site. Option 2: start your own site. Option 3: read user reviews on a site like Amazon. (This will make you long for the dpreview information.)Bottom line: you "don't need" previews? Great! Don't use them! No one is forcing you to. There are people who make use of them, people who think any information is better than none at all.
57even: D600 IQ more or less as I expected. Perfectly adequate and competitive with it's class.
Now I don't have any issue with previews and publishing early views of parts of the review.
The complaint originally was that it took too long before you knew if a camera was worth buying or not. Now you can form an opinion much earlier. I find that useful.
Now the complaint is that people don't want to read the drip fed results before the final review. Why on earth not? Noone puts a gun to your head and forces you to read stuff.
Whatever DPReview does a bunch of people moan and wail like teenagers with science homework. If you have a beef, send it to DPR or post it on Open Talk - don't hijack posts with off topic BS. That's what is turning people off DPR, not the site itself.
Jimmy jang Boo: Please, let me be the first to whine... It doesn't shoot raw! This is terrible! What a travesty! What was Panasonic thinking? If only someone would make the perfect camera...
royshoonit & others,You are right, but if you look at various product lines the motives of the makers are confusing. Fuji often includes RAW, but neglects other features. Canon routlinely ignores any serious burst capability. And so on. I just bought a new ZS15 on Amazon for $165--the list price is almost $300. Surely with that much price flexibility they could have included RAW (as with various Fuji models in the same original price range), even if they had to set the list price a few dollars higher. (After all, hackers have created RAW firmware for non-RAW Canon models--for free!). Actually, cameras like the FZ150, FZ200, Fuji S100, etc. come very close to many DSLR specs in everything but resolution (tiny sensors), and are priced much cheaper. The reasoning behind all this is hard to fathom. The object should be to sell product, generate profits, increase market share, and develop brand loyalty. And yet their offerings are all over the map, and we have to settle for less.
marike6: I wonder if the X-5 has the same sensor as the Pentax Q. The Q has outstanding IQ relative to it's sensor size, so a camera with such a long zoom might be interesting. I wouldn't buy this because there is no raw, but I'm curious for future Pentax cameras.
Speaking of the Q, I still cannot believe that DPR has no intention of reviewing the Pentax Q. All the generic cameras they review, yet the first ILC to feature a BSI 1/2.3" sensor, a camera loaded with features and a first rate build quality and because of some assumptions about sensor size and the Q was essentially ignored by DPR. Talk about dissing both readers and Pentax. Oh well, at least we've been consistently updated on what's happening at Instagram or with the latest Samsung P&S.
"I wonder if the X-5 has the same sensor as the Pentax Q."Wonder no more. The Q is 12.4mp, the X-5 is 16mp.Clearly not the same sensor. And very probably much lower IQ.
Vladik: People need to stop saying that camera specs aren't important, that is the pure BS! if it wasn't important we'd all be using phone cameras and all of the camera manufacturers would be out of business. We are here for the technology, we discuss it, use it, love it. It makes our lifes easier and better every time they improve some aspect of it. Painters should stay out of internet and go paint something.
BTW, good painters use premium brashes to create works of art. If you are talking about people who paint with their tits and penises, then you're right, those people don't need any special equipment! :)))
Vladik: You are absolutely right. Of course, if you're shooting snapshots to view at 800x600 max, or in wallet-sized photos, it doesn't matter what you use. Too many people assume that everyone wants to limit themselves to this low standard. Try shooting action shots of an osprey diving and grabbing a fish 200-300 yards away--with your cell phone. Try getting a high-resolution picture of a surfer, in bad light, who is half a mile out on a wave--with your low-end P&S. Then try to look at the picture and guess what it is. It's silly to say that equipment doesn't matter. If it didn't, then all the great photographers from Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams on would always use simple box pinhole cameras. Even the pioneers of photography toted the best equipment they could get their hands on. Because it helped them take better pictures.
Great product, if all you want to do is share your stuff on facebook and similar sites. And give the company total control of your images. Can you transform with PhotoShop, etc.? Alter them artistically? Print them and hang them on the wall or in a gallery, or enter them in a show? The concept as described sounds very limited, and limiting. Like Apple. In the 80s I bought an Apple to write a book. After 10 pages, the document refused to accept more characters. I contacted support, thinking something was wrong. I was informed that since "most people don't write more than 10 pages" Apple had decided that no one would be allowed to. The suggested solution was to write 30 ten-page documents and then print them out sequentially. Then years later came the Apple computer with no removable storage (i.e., no floppy drive or CD drive). I have never purchased another Apple product, and never will. There are other companies that don't dictate how the product will be used.
Great comments and useful observations from all. One key point: for the HS30, Fuji states write times after burst shooting of only 2 seconds". This is many times faster than many competing cameras. Does anyone know the post-burst write time for the X-S1? The stated burst depth of the X-S1 is disappointingly small, but a fast write time like the HS30 would go a long way toward compensating for it.
Kametori: Only one issue I like to see this one: some level of weather sealing like K-5.Then this could be taken everywhere. It shouls be even easier to implement than in K-5.
lbjack: Good points. But if you want to crop/enlarge, you need more resolution than a superzoom can deliver. Bigger sensor, more detail. If you're shooting surf pix at 200-300 yards, you have to have ASP-C size to be able to crop and enlarge the surfer and still allow people to tell who it is. The same issues arise for wildlife photos. It's true that the majority of snapshot takers don't make super-large prints. But 14x11 or 16x12 are very common sizes to hang on the wall. And ASP-C delivers much better IQ. Also, even the kit lenses with DSLRs tend to be better than those on superzooms. There are exceptions; I found my S100 superior to one Sony DSLR for many shots. But this is unusual. BTW, the XS-1 is not a compact by any stretch of the imagination. It's a big, relatively heavy camera.
I'm mainly an action shooter (sports, breaking waves, etc.). My experience with the S100 were, luckily, much better than Phil44's. I have gotten very good results and was lookiing forward to the XS-1 for two reasons: (1) greater zoom (although I have my doubts on this one; experience indicates that about 15x is about the top limit for good IQ) and (2) mainly for the CMOS sensor, which *should have* increased the burst performance over the CCD sensor on the S100. Now that the specs are out, I won't bother with this camera. So you can shoot 7fps--for about 1 second at full res?!? What's the point? I actually learned to live with the slower (under 4 fps) burst rate of the S100, but really needed a bigger cache and/or faster transfer rate, which the CMOS sensor should be capable of. Fuji fumbled the ball on this one. To JoeDavid: not a good camera for traveling light. The S100 is about the same weight as my K-5 (with 55-300mm) and the XS-1 won't be much smaller or lighter.