It looks insanely bloated. There's a comparison pic on Steve Huff's blog: the Sony and the Leica have such clean lines, and then there's the Nikon bloatfest.
Worst of all, you are paying $3000 for a camera with broken autofocus intended for APS-C. I have the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus module in my current Nikon DSLR, and I know first-hand that it doesn't work at all. What an insult. Why carry a DSLR if the autofocus isn't even competitive with an Olympus PEN.
And don't get me started about that dreaded 50mm f/1.8G. I own it. It doesn't get sharp until f/2.8. The bokeh and rendering is horrible. I very much prefer my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. One would expect the full frame lens to be 4x better but it isn't, it's inferior.
I think I'm done with Nikon. It's just insult after insult. Abandoning DX, then forcing us to the broken D600 which is absolutely terrible in every aspect, and then this bloated attempt to compete with Sony/Olympus and Fuji. It's a poorly skinned D600 :(
liquid stereo: Deck chairs on the titanic...
Oly/Pana/Fuji/Sony: Here are different/better offerings — ergo, sensor size, solution size, high ISO performance, etc. — at a lower price.
Nikon: Here's one of our cams — same features, in an angled body — for the same (high) price.
Canon: What's all this then?
@Plasterk, I find it very hard to believe that Sony would be losing money as they supply all the sensors including for Nikon.
And yes, INSANELY bulky. It is 2 cm fatter than the retro Nikon cameras it is trying to imitate (which are also F-mount). Why should I be carrying this useless amount plastic when the slim Sony camera does the same thing better?
Other bulky items that got phased out by technological advancement: CRT screens, desktop computers, hard disks, walkmans, etc...
dgrogers: Somebody at Nikon was paying attention to the success of the OMD E-M5.
And yet the Olympus lens selection wipes the floor with almost everything Nikkor out there..
Those old AI lenses don't work well on digital. Especially on full frame.
The next year will be crucial to see what is possible in digital. Keep in mind that micro four thirds has f/0.95 (f/1.8 equivalent) at the wide end. Sony started at f/2.8. It will remain to be seen if f/2 or faster is possible without micro lenses or gigantic tele centric designs.... (something micro four thirds has no problem with at all).
Donnie G: My guess is that this camera will be a bare bones, entry level, full framer that will replace the APS-C D300 series in the Nikon lineup. Having some type of hybrid ovf/evf switchable viewfinder and support for full compatibility with all of Nikon's legacy dslr glass along with completely analog controls will be the camera's defining feature set. I'm also guessing that this camera will be priced at around USD $1800, just like the D300 series was. To me, that would be the move that would make the most sense within the Nikon marketing scheme. :)
The camera is already said to be costing 3000 euros.
The Nikon will go in direct competition with the Sony A7.
Nikon: > $3000, insanely bulky, crippled D600 autofocus, mediocre Nikkor glass.
Sony: $1600, slim design, world class Zeiss glass.
As it seems that Nikon has abandoned the DX system, I will be selling my D7000 and all my DX glass. I want to replace it with a slim and modern full frame system, to complement my PEN camera which I absolutely love.
nofumble: Nikon just want to send you a message, wait don't sell your Nikon gears and buy the Sony A7 just yet.
Exactly, and I am incredibly close to selling all my Nikon gear. Especially if this new Nikon Df has the crippled D600 (=D7000) autofocus.
mpgxsvcd: The conclusions should have looked more like this.
Pros:It is a Canon camera
Outstanding image Quality for a sensor using 4 year old technology.
Dynamic Range that a compact camera would be proud of.
Battery life that equals its competition when in the off position.
Inventive new Auto Focus that delivers almost as good auto focus as the original Mirrorless cameras
Enables Canon to make a profit by requiring you to rebuy all new versions of your lenses.
If you look at the provided samples, the sensor is being beat by sensors one quarter of the size.
NiklaiN: Why the hell don't you compenzate the underexposed nikon d7100 test pic?I know, you guys like cannon but they don't need these kind of advantage...
The E-P5 shot is slightly out of focus (if you compare to the identical E-PL5 and E-M5).
Just admit already that you're being paid to botch the results in favor of Canon.
Dylthedog: When I bought into Canon their sensors were the only game in town. Since then I've purchased a bag full of lenses and five bodies over the years but, like many, I feel that Canon have failed to innovate since that initial lead.
This is the first camera in a while that looks like they have done something attractive. The trouble is I find myself reaching for my M43 Oly kit before my 5D3 on many occasions and having truly compact system (more so than APS-C anyway) with a FF option means I'll never look at this camera.
Canon need this kind of tech with a competitive DR sensor across the range. Here's hoping for 2014.
Same story here...
It looks VERY promising, but first I will need a detailed comparison with other compact systems before I buy in. I need to know which compact primes will exist for Sony and how they fare against the excellent micro four thirds primes.
At the moment there is only the 35mm f/2.8 which is reasonably sized and I would like to know how it fares compared to the excellent PL 20mm f/1.7 on micro four thirds. Both have a 12mm maximum aperture, field of view is about the same, and the PL has proven to be incredibly sharp with beautiful rendering. It would be incredibly interesting to me to compare these two to see exactly how big the full frame advantage is!
On top of that I'd like to know which wide angle and tele primes Sony plans to make, how large those lenses will be.
If Sony fails to impress with the lenses, the upcoming Nikon DF seems far more enticing. The Nikon body will balance far better with the larger FF lenses, and many of us already have a lot of Nikon glass.
caver3d: Not impressed at all. The Oly E-M1 and Pany GX7 can do it better. A lot better.
Is this dynamic range myth real? I mean, if you crop an image in half, does it affect the dynamic range at all?
I'm asking because when I compare my FF, APS-C and MFT cameras, I see no major differences in DR, and dx0mark measurements seems to agree with that observation.
Deleted78792: Once again, the Equivalent Aperture chart shines and informs. The constant aperture F2.8 seems to be the new race after the interest in megapixels has waned- and it's good to see a return of focus (intended!) to optics.
The Stylus 1 does look interesting at almost half the price of the Sony RX10. The colours and contrast look great in the samples, and one does expect that from Olympus jpegs. It would have been interesting to see the size comparison against the RX10.
I also really enjoyed the photography in the samples, much nicer than the cold clinical approach to samples that DPR sometimes prefers. The good lighting and the beautiful season help of course.
I don't understand why review sites keep sticking to the archaic focal length / relative aperture / ISO ratings. These specifications are meaningless on digital and are used as a smoke screen to confuse customers.
The most important spec of a lens should be it's angle of view, in degrees. Focal length is an empty metric without the sensor size.
Aperture should be shown in absolute aperture, because this and only this will determine what the capture image will look like. Lens/camera systems with the same angle of view and the same absolute aperture will produce the same image.
And finally, something needs to be done about the ISO myth. Right now, the ISO scale is scaled to the sensor size, to match the equally scaled focal length and aperture. This is why we get the illusion that ISO 800 looks cleaner on full frame than on smaller sensors, regardless of the pixel pitch. This is nonsense, and does not give a clear picture of sensor efficiency.
mas54: I think dpr and all other review sites should refuse to review any more cameras that don't have optical viewfinders. Just consider them non entities. Maybe the camera companies will get the hint.
Unless you have a full frame camera, optical finders are not all that. They are more like view-tunnels on APS-C cameras anyway.
The latest Epson EVF is absolutely gorgeous.
jagge: It does NOT make sense. It would have made a LOT of sense to make a 15 mm 1.4 lense or even 1.2 then you could get some ff like wideangle feel.
Why go for a 15 mm. 1.7 when there is a 17 1.8 out there. Is it to difficult with a 1.4 version ? I would LOVE that lense
It is only a matter of time until Olympus comes with a set of f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes to complement that new PRO zoom.
The f/1.7 and f/1.8 primes are quite nice because of their tiny size. However, now it's clear that Olympus also wants to take the system in a pro direction, so I think we can expect faster/larger primes soon.
And to the jackass whining about equivalent lens prices etc... I have the fully equivalent Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Canon 40mm f/2.8 (on FF). The Panasonic takes far better pictures. A lens is not only defined by its specs. Image character is everything. This is why people pay thousands for Leica and Zeiss lenses rather than cheap Canon and Nikon lenses. You can't put everything in equivalences. If you would have touched one of these lenses just ONCE in your life you wouldn't be spreading this nonsense on the internet!
jkokich: I applaud Panny for making such a small MFT, but until lenses can be made equally small, it's not really compact.
Eh. The 14mm and 20mm are TINY lenses with exceptional quality.
Marksphoto: why would a working pro consider this camera when they can get a nikon D3100 + a 35mm 1.8 lens for about $500, which will practically do the same thing for a fraction of the cost and still have the option of taking the lens off. And no, Sony is not a better brand than Nikon as far as cameras go and hopefully never will be in my lifetime because most photographers own Canon or Nikon lenses which makes Sony practically on the island of their own. I can't even put my canon flash on this thing so why would I even consider this as my 2nd camera?
It's not like the rx1 will fit into my pocket, I still have to hang it around my neck which makes this camera irrelevant in my opinion as far as compacts go...
This camera is aimed at a rich audience but then again if you have an RX1 and not a Leica M9 than you are not very rich, are you?
Who is the target market here?
I am off to look at Canon S120, that's my next camera I will be buying for my wife to take great family photos and videos.
A D3100 with 35mm f/1.8 does NOT do the same thing. The Nikon is a 50mm f/2.8 equivalent. To get the equivalent from Nikon you would have to buy a D3100 plus the $2000 Nikon 24mm f/1.4. THAT would be the equivalent of 35mm f/2 on full frame.
That Nikon setup might be marginally cheaper, but is ridiculous in size and balance.
And Zeiss makes much better glass than Nikon. The 35mm f/1.8 from Nikon is a joke of a lens.
Jogger: Prob $1000 going by the other "Leica" lenses for m43.
@yabokkie... the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is quite crappy as a reference. It is crazy soft until f/2.8, and the bokeh is unpleasant. Nothing like the masterpiece that is the 25mm f/1.4.
@yabokkie... I paid $599 for my 85mm f/1.8G, and it's not particularly sharp. If the 42.5mm is anything like the 25mm, it will be significantly sharper than the 85mm f/1.8G stopped down to f/2.4. Plus it comes with IS.
And in terms of DoF the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.4 is really small.
I paid $500 for my 25mm f/1.4, I'm going to assume the 15mm will cost the same or less.