Previous news story Next news story

Nikonos reborn? Our first impressions review of the submersible Nikon AW1

Sep 19, 2013 at 04:00:00 GMT

Print view

The Nikon 1 System has been around for a couple of years now, but the emergence of the AW1 signals a radical departure from what has been the norm. Functionally very similar to the 14MP J3 which Nikon announced earlier this year, the AW1 is waterproof to 15m (49ft), shockproof from 2m (6.6 ft), and freezeproof.

It's being announced alongside two equally rugged lenses, and a range of colorful silicone skins for underwater and wet weather use. We had the opportunity to use the new camera recently, and we've put together a first impressions review covering its design, operation and key features. Click the link below to read all about it.

Click here to read our First Impressions Review of the Nikon AW1

PREVIEW NIKON REVIEW WATERPROOF

Nikon 1 AW1

Add to: Login to add this item to your gear lists.

GearShop

Nikon 1 AW1 Waterproof Mirrorless Camera Kit with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 and 10mm f/2.8 Lenses (Black)●	$996.95	Buy on GearShop
Nikon 1 AW1 Waterproof Mirrorless Camera Kit with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (Black)●	$796.95	Buy on GearShop
Nikon 1 AW1 Waterproof Mirrorless Camera Kit with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (Silver)●	$796.95	Buy on GearShop
Nikon 1 AW1 Waterproof Mirrorless Camera Kit with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens (White)●	$796.95	Buy on GearShop

Nikon 1 AW1 14.2 MP HD Waterproof, Shockproof Digital Camera System with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 1 NIKKOR Lens (Black)	$796.95
Nikon 1 AW1 14.2 MP HD Waterproof, Shockproof Digital Camera System with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 and AW 10mm 1 NIKKOR Lenses (Black)	$996.95
Nikon 1 AW1 14.2 MP HD Waterproof, Shockproof Digital Camera System with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 1 NIKKOR Lens (Black)	$796.95
Nikon 1 AW1 14.2 MP HD Waterproof, Shockproof Digital Camera System with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 1 NIKKOR Lens (White)	$796.95
Nikon 1 AW1 14.2 MP HD Waterproof, Shockproof Digital Camera System with AW 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 1 NIKKOR Lens (Silver)	$796.95
Nikon COOLPIX AW110 Wi-Fi and Waterproof Digital Camera with GPS (Orange)	Too low to display
Nikon COOLPIX AW110 Wi-Fi and Waterproof Digital Camera with GPS (Black)	Too low to display
Nikon COOLPIX AW110 Wi-Fi and Waterproof Digital Camera with GPS (Blue)	Too low to display
Nikon COOLPIX AW100 16 MP CMOS Waterproof Digital Camera with GPS and Full HD 1080p Video (Orange)	$249.50
Nikon COOLPIX AW110 Wi-Fi and Waterproof Digital Camera with GPS (Camouflage)	Too low to display
Nikon COOLPIX L620 18.1 MP CMOS Digital Camera with 14x Zoom Lens and Full 1080p HD Video (Black) + 32GB Memory Card + Focus Memory Card Reader + Vivitar Small Camera Case + Kit	$239.95

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 561

expect to see non-water-proof housing be developed for the camera.

6 upvotes

Ha ha, very funny :)

0 upvotes

The idea is not that stupid, at least in a sense that you can do a cheaper waterproof housing for deeper dives, and, if it cracks, you just go up, before it floods, you're up at safe level, and the pressure has come to normal for the camera to withstand it. So, in some way you need a less elaborated housing. Chinese have housings at "normal" prices, around 125 to 200$. The housing industry, like Ikelite, wonder that they have low sales, but when I see the material invested and the price they cost, they are 5 times overpriced. Maybe with less profit and more sales, one could redress that situation and make real profit with housings. Housings cost often much more than the camera you put in there.

1 upvote

@Shamael... Consider the pressure differences, and you'll see that a cracked housing at -60 meters floods so quickly that you won't be able to reach -15 meters before the camera caves in as well.
The housings make things cumbersome and complicated both in work as also in maintenance. Properly made amphibious cameras are better in many aspects, and the same principles applied to the manufacturing of housings can easily be applied to produce the camera body / lens cases. The final product is 2/3rds smaller, more compact and easier to use and mantain. That was the core of Nikonos worldwide success.
I'm still wondering why Nikon does nothing to repeat that success, considering millions of divers around. If nothing, there is far more divers now than before... and Nikonos offers the means with readily solved water-related problems for production of full-frame-sensored digital version. I'm thinking of Nikons V model, which would be the best for the purpose.
And don't forget accessories... :)

0 upvotes

water-proof housing is not only for water-proof but also easier underwater operation, like we have on-land for better video operation.

would like to have a handle on each side of the camera and hold it like a steering wheel. though like many pointed out, the camera may have been designed for casual use than serious underwater work.

0 upvotes

Desperate move to save the lackluster 1 System. Now what?

3 upvotes

Huh? The 1 System works quite well for me... Excellent little combination with which I get great hand-held results at over 800 mm equivalency with a system which doesn't cause me any strain at all to carry and use. Lots of great features. I use many different cameras including the Nikon 1V - find it quite satisfactory myself...

5 upvotes

Commercially lacklustre.

2 upvotes

Optimal Prime:

You have sales figures worldwide for the Nikon 1 system?

No it's not a huge seller in the US, but the US is not the only market.

Even you've admitted it's far from a lackluster system.

It's a good system facing real competition from: Sony, Fuji, Samsung and of course even more from Panasonic+Olympus. No I didn't forget Canon, would probably mention Leica (Ls and Xs) before Canon.

Now Nikon has done something to really distinguish this system, well this variation.

2 upvotes

aaah...fun with two-word phrases. let's see///

0 upvotes

I want to see the manual to see wether or not it states not to change lenses under water.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Go ahead, but the camera might not work too well after that.

0 upvotes

it may be a good idea to have water filled between lens and sensor and wireless communication with the lens. but we'll always need watar there or the optical design will be different.

0 upvotes

Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.

3 upvotes

It doesn't look like a camera I would take it for diving even in shallow waters. For that, I still prefer using a camera with a real underwater housing. Never mind if a camera like the G12 or G 16 has a smaller sensor. With its proper underwater housing and image stabilizer, it will do better underwater. Those who have used this combo have taken very acceptable images.

If one want to really go professional would have to use a full frame camera in a professional underwater housing. That would be a totally different ball game at much higher prices.

Professional equipment are never cheap.

This camera is still under the amateur category. Unfortunately, it is neither here or there.

It maybe just good as a rugged camera for outdoor use.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

white shadow--

I like the "here and there" possibility of having this camera with me in the rain at night.

This is a perfectly good camera for snorkeling, rafting, sailing, and shallow scuba diving. The problem with say the G16--it can't shoot at high ISOs and this camera can. So yes this camera has big advantages even for simply snorkeling.

As you say: There's real photogear for diving, and no this camera isn't going to replace that gear.

0 upvotes

> 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling

Seriously? You must be pretty hardcore to snorkel on your own breath deeper than 15 m.

13 upvotes

> 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling

>>Seriously? You must be pretty hardcore to snorkel on your own breath deeper than 15 m.

Agreed, 15 meters is 49 feet.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

That's what I was thinking.

2 upvotes

guys, when you see a rating like 5 or 15m, it often is static pressure. A watch rated at 50m in theory should be fine for most divers, but they routinely flood because the dynamic pressure is higher.

Given the cost, and the limited rating, I'd be reluctant to push it.

0 upvotes

Just make sure you don't use the 15 m snorkel with this camera and you should be alright.

0 upvotes

Needs a homing beacon to find it when you drop it.
Will it come with a float strap?

4 upvotes

FINALLY. Someone who gets it.

1 upvote

Maybe a CO2 cartridge with balloon and distress beacon accessory. Take pics of your legs caught in a fishing net or capsized boat and inflate.

1 upvote

Trollshave:

You can make a float strap out of styrofoam and zip-ties+the strap of course.

1 upvote

It would be interesting @ $700. Perhaps in a years time it will be that price.

1 upvote

It will be $400 for X mas....(2013!)

2 upvotes

Jerome Nolas,

Very unlikely.

0 upvotes

Oh, get thee behind me, Satan!

0 upvotes

Very shortly: I like it yet I think it's an "incomplete" camera. Merging the V3 with the AW110 would have had more sense.
I'd like an EVF, a hot shoe for flash and something more; a good grip wouldn't be bad either
Second: Let's take the small size as a bonus but now Nikon please try to realize one of photographer's dreams, a 20-200mm lens with adequate aperture (which would turn in a 7-70mm more or less) or at least a 7-49 (20-140mm) f/4 or faster

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I don't know, it looks pretty good to me. I've got grand kids - lots beach and swimming pool activities. This could be just the ticket. I hope the under water photos are better than those we saw during the summer roundup.

3 upvotes

Cool feature !!!

but Nkon forget the most important thing ......image quality first !!!

the sensor is to small to invest in this system...

I call it a system....because it's an interchangeable lens camera

0 upvotes

Are there any APS-C or FF cameras that (absent a pricey encasement) will survive a 2 meter fall or 15 meter submersion? In the <$2,000 realm, the only current competition comes from 1/2.3" sensor cameras.

4 upvotes

What you are calling a "too small sensor" is quite a bit larger than the sensor in ANY OTHER rugged camera. In fact, several times larger.

A Nikon 1, wet or dry, will beat the pants off an Olympus Tough, Pentax WPS, Sony WP, Panasonic TS, or any other similar camera.

The only way to top this sensor, is to buy a waterproof housing for a 4/3 or larger DSLR or MILC camera.

Nikon nailed it.

8 upvotes

I'll just put a qx100 on a used peanut butter jar and weigh it down to the depths while watching the puzzled faces of little nemos in a tab on a boat. Or. . . I'll just buy this one and the ft1 so i can use my nikkors while on dry land too.

0 upvotes

It's not a Nikonos but it offers a whole lot more than any of the other "rugged" cameras.

Too much emphasis here on diving - this will also be great for canoeing, white water rafting, kitesurfing, mountaineering, ice climbing, bad weather, any outdoor stuff....and then in civilised conditions you can still mount any Nikkor lens on it.

I don't need waterproof so much as tough and portable...and then I still want to mount it on a tripod for the odd landscape or macro and use it with my long lenses for wildlife and make the occasional decent sized print. Can't do all this with any one other camera on the planet right now. Would have preferred to see an enthusiast model like the V1/V2 dolled up with a waterproof casing and mount but this "1" might do the trick anyway.

If you 're thinking its a niche diving/snorkelling product and the market is too small to be viable - think again

11 upvotes

Even if you don't intend to dive, it's nice if the camera will survive if the canoe capsizes, or if a wave knocks you down. Would a model that is simply "weather sealed" endure a full submersion, or even a fall?

6 upvotes

Weather sealing is also applied to cameras which have variable volume (e.g., lens changing length), and such cameras have some means of allowing air to enter and exit the volume. Those can't be submerged, as opposed to "waterproof", which operate within the constant volume.
Dive-able cameras would also be very good for surface sports, like Nikonos was, provided you didn't use the lens reserved for underwater use (like 28mm or 15mm UW Nikkor). The 35mm and 80mm lenses had flat ports, thus were used above and under the water.
Many of us would need a camera that can stand the 80+ meters depth pressure, and we also know why underwater housings are not the same as an amphibious camera. So far, no manufacturer seems willing to recognise the number of divers worldwide, and produce something in the old Nikonos quality and abilities. And with FF sensor, no less.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

OldArrow:

Right this isn't a really serious dive camera.

Though I don't dive and have no particular interest in ever learning to dive more than say 40 feet below the surface, I believe you when you say there's a market for something like a full framed digital 2014 version of the Nikonos.

However given the considerable development expense, and the fact that camera models can radically change in 24 months, I can see why Sony, Nikon, and Canon have avoided developing such a system. Sales could evaporate really really quickly, particularly since this would be an expensive body and system--like Nikon D4 pricing. The camera companies realize they're not likely to sell the hundreds of thousands of units which would be required to drive the price down.

A 2014 variation of an APSC sensored Silicon Film adapter, with external WiFi control+viewing panel which can be velcroed to the back of a real Nikonos body seems like a more promising idea.

0 upvotes

I somehow think the real reason is like always: trying to sell out all the technology already produced before coming up with some "revolutionary" new system.
Considering what's already available, let's say someone guts out the Nikonos V and puts in digital innards. Old lenses would fit, the sensor could be full-frame, and all the usual bells and whistles would have more than ample place inside, plus a really huge battery. The only thing that would be new is the glass where the film door is, so one can see the monitor.
But seriously, it is not difficult to make a really tough casing anew (smaller). Equip it with reed-switches for dialing the functions, and put the same Nikonos lens mount to the front...
The camera could go well below 80 meters, sport a FF sensor, and open the lost market anew; for new (zoom) lenses, slightly changed strobe units, same add-on lenses... Even GPS, if it boosts the sales. Basic config should not cost over $500...
That would go like proverbial hot cakes.

0 upvotes

OldArrow,

Gutting the old Nikonos 5 and putting a sensor in it is fine idea, for those who are willing to shoot manual focus (I'm one).

A full framed sensor would be problematic because of vignetting in the corners--film being much more able to deal with that than sensors.

This is why I said APSC sensor in addition to a 2014 version of Silicon Film+an external waterproof WiFi viewer controller for the Silicon Film innards.

0 upvotes

Well, until Nikon came up with AF lenses, I'd be perfectly willing to use manual settings. The data on the monitor would suffice, and the whole would still be easier to use than the film version.
I also think the FF sensor would do well, but only the tests could show that for certain. Of course, APSC sensor would be happy with usual Nik lenses the way they are...
And I'd put the complete digital electronics in the Nikonos V casing, not only adapt it with Silicon Film. The commands would need to be redirected entirely for that purpose. Anyway, my point was, if Nikon already has tested and proven casings for camera and lens(es) that solve almost all water / pressure problems (unlike the new "rugged" cameras), the knowlege should be used and followed with digital models.
Most of all, I'd like to see the half-baked sealing "standards" relating pressure exposure time to maximum depth rating forbidden by law, since it has no logic other than sinking the customer.

0 upvotes

OA--

I'd bet Nikon is thinking people are wedded to AF. (I'm not--but that doesn't mean much I grew up focusing manually.)

I thought of the system you described years ago, when I had a Nikonos. But back then ISO 800 was about the top for an APSC sensored camera.

I also wasn't really impressed by the optical quality of that Nikonos V's lens, so the lenses need some work.

0 upvotes

HowAboutRAW... I have used all Nikonos models with all the lenses they produced, also with their accessories and those of other manufacturers. True, that was the most serious line of amphibious cameras of the time, and many SLR systems produced better images - but at a cost. The casings for SLRs used different ports for almost each kind of lens, and the cost of the complete range was about twice or sometimes thrice the Nikonos (bar the RS, which was up front too expensive for what it offered).
I want to urge Nikon to awaken their hibernating experiences and produce a new Nikonos, and I'm suggesting that the model V is/was best suited for the purpose. If they used the principles in a V-like case, and used the same lens tubes to incorporate electrically + manually controlled zooms (which they already have), they'd be the World's top in this special photo gear again.
Why they don't do it... that's anybody's guess. Sooner or later someone will see the light (in the depths).
Or not... ;)

0 upvotes

I'll use this on the boat and on ski outings! Looking forward

4 upvotes

This looks to be a very interesting application for the Nikon 1. Often I am hesitant to bring good equipment to the shore where the wind can drive sand and spray into the camera. Also, shooting in blizzards, this sounds attractive too. Fine grains of snow that can find their way into lenses and camera bodies. I can imagine a lot of applications here.

So far I have two Nikon 1 V1s. Appreciate what they truly offer. Smaller, yet with a quality sensor that gives me great versatility via the FT1 adapter and my Nikkor FX / DX lenses.

Not a perfect system but a useful photographic tool.

7 upvotes

There is 40m rated housing available for the RX100 for under $200.

Seems like a better way to go.

4 upvotes

and one can drop a RX100 in the housing from 2m in the water, too.

0 upvotes

Definitely. Sony RX100 is $600, the housing rated to 40m is $190
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Meikon-40m-130ft-Waterproof-Underwater-Housing-Case-Cover-Bag-For-Sony-DSC-RX100-/400470810119?pt=US_Camera_Underwater_Housings&hash=item5d3deb9e07
And you can connect external lenses to it underwater.

6 upvotes

supeyugin1:

The Sony RX100 is very slow when fully zoomed. This Nikon's sensor is better in lowlight than the first RX100's sensor; this may have changed with the new more expensive, not cited in your example, RX100ii.

Cases add bulk, expense and complication.

Then best not to cite Ebay pricing for something that may fail and you may have to return. In the US, cite the Amazon or B+H price.

In many ways, the Olympus XZ10, in a case or bag, would be a better bet than the Sony RX100. You see the Olympus' lens is much faster when zoomed out than the Sony RX100's. And the Olympus is very good in lowlight, not quite up to the Sony but close and the fast lens would help the Olympus extraordinarily. Unlike the not great "Zeiss" on the Sony, the Olympus' lens is optically extraordinary.

Then this: "just use a case" repeated again and again is tiresome and not the point of this Nikon. You can simply use a case or bag with the current 1 series Nikons.

0 upvotes

14 degrees? ABOVE zero???

That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.

Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.

0 upvotes

Standard cameras work fine in very cold temps, but if you look at the actual ratings, most are like 35-95 degrees F.

0 upvotes

It says -10C or 14F, so definitely subzero.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Farenheit 14 is NOT sub zero, it is 14 above zero. That is barely coat weather.

0 upvotes

I always thought "freeze proof" was an odd spec anyway. The thing that goes bad at 20 degrees (on my cameras, at least) is the battery life.

0 upvotes

-10C is sub-zero (10 deg Celsius below water freezing point), so there was perhaps a conversion error somewhere.
But what strikes me as funny is this ubiquitous stating of waterproof with dustproof. Doesn't the former include the latter?
On the other side, there is this time-limited worth of water pressure resistance... like 30min @ 10 meters and the like. This one is a purposefully built weak spot, since proper sealing has nothing to do with pressure exposure time, and why should it?
Anyhow, the industry seems to insist upon risky sealing principles, avoiding the age-old, proven systems which work for submarines as well as underwater housings. The reason it is not applied with tough series cameras is a sort of mystery - or is it just the way of making sure the cameras do not survive for too long?

0 upvotes

OldArrow,

There's no conversion error. It's just that in the USA 14 deg Fahrenheit isn't considered below zero.

0 upvotes

Water-freezing temp is not the reference point ih F?
My error, then.
However, water-freezing point is important when speaking about mechanical and optical problems it causes, not to mention the battery becoming comatose.

0 upvotes

OldA--

Right water freezing is not the reference point in Fahrenheit.

32F above 0F is H2O freezing.

0 upvotes

Much as I dislike the Nikon 1 range this one caught me as an interesting surprise - well done Nikon ! But its FAR too expensive at its RRP - perhaps a 50 % discount is coming as with all of the other Nikon 1's ?

2 upvotes

It wouldn't surprise me.

Panasonic does similar price crash tactics...I've heard that it's because the Japanese market goes nuts for mirrorless compacts, so they try to make as much money as possible on that initial rush...then readjust the price to suit the more patient/stingy American & European markets a few months later.

0 upvotes

Not even close to Nikonos. Just another frustrating attempt to avoid building something truly usable to divers. Funny silicone underwear, whatever the color, won't help.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Nikon already covers scuba diving with the Nikon 1 with the WP-N1 waterproof casing for the J1 and J2 models or WP-N2 for the J3 model to a depth of 40 metres, plus sundry waterproof spares/accessories such as spare o-rings, zoom-gear sleeves, reflection prevention rings, and even desiccant and Nikon-branded tubes grease.

Doesn't look like avoidance to me. Or are you claiming none of this is actually usable to divers?

0 upvotes

A camera in the housing is not the same as an amphibian camera. So it is not the same theme.
I am saying that divers should not be additionally depth-limited by concurrent sealing / pressure resistance. Many people were more than happy using Nikonos cameras, among other things also because those were able to work perfectly at double the rated depth. I have taken both models III and V down to below 80 meters (9Atm) with no trouble. The strobe (Sunpak) was also not affected. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever not to repeat the same camera - only with digital innards.
Do not think that market for such a camera would be small; there are millions which would be happy with it, as the Nikonos was widely used in industry too (pro divers).
IMHO, the easiest way would be to gut the Nikonos V and put in the digital works, with a full-frame sensor. It could use all the former (excellent) range of lenses, etc. and should cost about the same as then, since mechanics are usually more expensive.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Drop it and it breaks , or submerge it and it leaks, and you're in trouble to prove you did not exceed specifications.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting

5 upvotes

This is, AFAIK, the first relatively affordable digital camera - beyond the 2/3" crowd - that can be taken under the water without bulky, heavy & expensive housing. I do not say this often: "Well done Nikon!"

5 upvotes

many people can do something great only when cornered. Nikon is a good example, Canon is an opposite one.

0 upvotes

How are you supposed to hold a bar of soap underwater?

0 upvotes

I did it this morning.

8 upvotes

I've been instructed to buy the white with orange cover.

5 upvotes

This looks like fun but I'm guessing somebody already makes a cell phone that works underwater. I wish I was joking.

1 upvote

You mean my S4 Active?
It doesn't go deep.
Has no impact protection.
Lens is the same all the time.
The sensor is weak.
No OIS coming...EVER!
But it works in shallow water!
And rain, splashes, sweat. even shower, etc

0 upvotes

I kind of like where this is going. having owned two point and shoots with underwater housings (Panasonic TS-1 and Canon S-95) I can say that adjusting controls of a camera inside a housing isn't exactly easy. Yes, this is at best a snorkeling camera but it could also be the best snorkeling camera. And valuable for those who shoot, say, underwater portraits in swimming pools, etc.

I know there's a 1 system underwater housing for previous Nikon 1 cameras (a local camera shop has it) so there should be some idea of how useful the body is underwater. And until Nikon comes out with flashes, can't a third-party flash be used as well, since there are several that sync via the built-in flash of smaller cameras anyway?

0 upvotes

for that price why would jou get an underwater housing for the Sony NEX-6 at $1600
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/15/Nauticam-introduces-NANEX6-underwater-housing-for-Sony-NEX6

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

And many others have made the point: "but cases already exist for mirrorless systems".

Assuming a case, not a simple bag with optical glass, controls are going to be bit more difficult to use with a case instead of a purpose built camera body.

Cases can also cost $500 for cameras this size and $2500 for DSLRs.

2 upvotes

For 100 Euro/USD you can get a cheap but compact housing for nex-5:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3526653

0 upvotes

Nikonlausz--

Do you have link to a retailer listing something like that for that price.

In the USA, that's the price for a good watertight bag with optical glass.

I checked and I admit that Amazon US lists a Nex 5 case for $133; that's still an unusually low price. Think more like $300-400.

0 upvotes

The 1 system was dead, but this actually delivers a small breath of new life. Having a niche product and pricing it like a mass-market product should ensure it gets a lot of looks at least from that small market and maybe even some looking for more flexibility.

6 upvotes

Nikon 1 is actually very popular in Asia.

I would be more worried about m43, neither Oly nor Pana have made any profit from that system. The only thing propping Oly up is are their endoscopes.

9 upvotes

Jogger wrote: "Nikon 1 is actually very popular in Asia."

It became popular only after they started selling old models at a price of a recycled toilet paper.

1 upvote

Hooray! They've found a use for the "1" system.

5 upvotes

Nikon avoided the stupidity of a touch screen that does not work when wet like so many other "underwater" cameras. Now the question remains whether the LCD can produce a visible image in the bright sun or underwater. Can't wait for a test.

1 upvote

Appeals to me. Every time I shoot near/around a swimming pool someone has the glorious idea to do under water shots. I would prefer this thing over an expensive UW housing or a GoPro any day.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

this is camera for me ..maybe?...I can imagine myself dive 3 m under the water, then shoot everything all around in 60 frames per second mode, while struggling with lack of air and then spend 3 hours on computer with two possible outcomes....first is, all photos are rubbish and i have to delete them or second, I find 1 maybe 3 briliant photos, put it on facebook, get a lot of likes and die happy...:)

0 upvotes

There are other uses for decent photos than FBook.

0 upvotes

15m? They must be joking! It's not a camera for scuba diving. Must be at least 40m. Not a Nikonos at any measure.

5 upvotes

If you had bothered to read Nikon's advertising you would have discovered that this camera isn't aimed at divers - it's aimed at anyone who wants a ruggedised waterproof camera with 60fps for outdoor use. Scuba divers only make up about 0.0001% of outdoor sports enthusiasts.

9 upvotes

Dpreview claimed that Nikonos is reborn. It's a joke, and not a Nikonos.

2 upvotes

There is already 40m underwater housing for both the J1 and J3 models to cater to scuba diving, so you don't actually need this AW1 for that.

3 upvotes

Just don't go that deep. The light is usually very poor anyway below 10m or so.

2 upvotes

@supeyugin1: Is this the line where we claimed the AW1 is a Nikonos? "Some of us are old enough to remember the famous Nikon 'Nikonos' waterproof film cameras, and although the AW1 certainly isn't a Nikonos..."

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting

15 upvotes

The title of this article says Nikonos reborn?
Apparently not. Why even mention Nikonos here?

0 upvotes

Maybe because it's a waterproof, submersible, interchangeable lens camera from Nikon?

And what was the last one to fit that description before this?

3 upvotes

This camera is the result of Nikon misunderstanding their market research. Their research question was "What would you like to see us do with the Nikon 1 system cameras.?". Those queried overwhelmingly
responded "Throw them in the ocean."

71 upvotes

Well done, sir.

6 upvotes

Your comment is the result of your misunderstanding of what the Nikon 1 is all about. As one of my teachers used to say - never talk about things that you know nothing about, otherwise you'll look stupid.

15 upvotes

haha, that great

4 upvotes

@Joe, Great one. You deserve the post of the day.

3 upvotes

Once in a while there is a well timed quip that earns lots of likes....very funny and thanks for the laugh....

Next research question asked..."Where should the WIFI system be placed?"...the focus group responds "up your keister!"

Months later, Nikon introduces a separate WIFI adapter, with a soft, rubberized and rather bulbous design.... :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

Badda bing. At the root of most great humor there is usually an element of truth.

4 upvotes

I know that this comment's gonna be too "facebook'ish" but.... HERE, TAKE MY LIKE!

0 upvotes

lol, this gotta be THE " Gold Award " comment of the year, thanks for the laugh!

0 upvotes

I like the Nikon 1 system but your comment was hilarious all the same. Well done.

0 upvotes

Even with this new release, Nikon can't keep up the breakneck development of the Canon EOS M line. :-)

9 upvotes

As watch repairer i must say that even a 10 atm waterproof watch need to be controlled every year. Often the sails or O-rings need to be replaced. So what whit a camera ? Replace all the seals every year to be shore ? To use it occasionally for under water exploring it will be OK i think.

3 upvotes

Yes, seals and O-rings will need maintenance and replacement. Dpreview should find out if Nikon will provide the service and what it will cost. Nikonos users typically carried replacement O-rings but I'd bet they won't be user-replaceable in this camera.

4 upvotes

The Nikon USA web site shows an O-ring, an O-ring removal tool, etc., in the AW1 Waterproof Accessories section.

2 upvotes

Waterproof to 15 m is useless for scuba diving. I don't understand which is the market for this camera.

4 upvotes

Do a lot of scuba divers dive below 30 feet?

Yes I know that some do. But that's where a case and a really good in lowlight DSLR would be helpful.

It would be a good bit more expensive to engineer and manufacture a camera body and lenses for use 50 meters underwater, so Nikon would have to charge more money.

In the case of the Nikonos, I believe Nikon was relying on someone else's design and engineering from the 1960s, at least for the body. So all that was paid off years before the camera ended production.

1 upvote

Uh... for every 1 person that scuba dives 500 people snorkel?

Dunno, that might have something to do with it [sarcastic shrug]

6 upvotes

gescolar, you need to get out more. The world of outdoor activities doesn't just include divers. I can't believe how myopic some people are.

2 upvotes

The last 4 years or so I shot more than 3000 images underwater during snorkeling, so yes, this may be useful (for me). As for the market, well, snorkelers ... if there are enough of those ??

Cheers

3 upvotes

Yes, many dive a lot deeper than 30 feet, and they use a variety of lights to make fantastic photos. Nikon acquired the rights to reproduce Calypsophot (J.Y.Cousteau) and in their range of Nikonos series have made five models: Nikonos II, III, IVa, V, and RS (SLR).
Model II had a film transport problem.
Model III had it solved - film transport was very precise, and there were some other betterments.
Model IVa looked like everyday camera, but they used the impossibly stupid sealing system ("Quad X") to the back door.
That was changed in model V for a proper o-ring (something every manufacturer nowadays refuses to understand...)
And finally the SLR model (RS) was a flop again, same as IVa.
It was outrageously overpriced, TTL viewing was impossible in the deep / dark, and sealing was hard to maintain in the field - something that models III and V were excellent for, truly outdoorsy cameras.
Now we have monitors, but there seems to be no-one at Nikon who understands the rest of it.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

OldArrow:

Quote: "Yes, many dive a lot deeper than 30 feet, and they use a variety of lights to make fantastic photos." Right they use lights and cases.

Many people snorkel and do light scuba in shallow water.

Interesting enough Nikonos history.

0 upvotes

We can expect lots of those to be listed soon on ebay...used but, in mint condition, after just a minor flooding.

0 upvotes

Why did the Nikonos leak? No. So the "flooding" thing makes no sense.

It's a great idea, small camera, shoots raw, don't have to worry about use in the rain, snow, good video, good in lowlight, fast Af, doesn't cost $2500 plus another $1500 for a case+$1200 for a lens. Can easily be used when snorkeling, rafting, sailing etc.

Nikon probably just killed much of the small "tough" camera market--unless tiny sensors+tiny bodies+jpeg only are must have features. (And I don't want to read, "but the Nikon costs more". Raw would have cost Olympus almost nothing in the TG2 body.)

7 upvotes

Yes, why oh why did Olympus not put the XZ-2 sensor and Raw in the TG-2.

Cheers

1 upvote

Shatter--

The body would have to be bigger or the zoom less for that sensor to work in the TG series.

0 upvotes

@HowaboutRAW:Yes, I am aware of that, but would not mind a larger size.

Cheers

0 upvotes

ShatterdSky--

Right, I posited long ago that Canon could fit something in say the body of the G series. I also pointed out that Canon could possibly make the M APSC cameras waterproof.

0 upvotes

It's not about the camera but user.
I guess average Nikonos user was more than just a snoorkling teenager. Now many users (consumers) of AW1 might not be sensitive enough for things such as a tiny hair on a gasket or lack of grase on the oring...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@Langusta: Yes, I fear the same. After each snorkeling trip (1-2 hours, down to 8 m) I soak the TG-1 in freshwater, dry it and the seals, charge the battery and let it completely dry with the card doors open.

@HowaboutRAW: Yep, was thinking of a tough LX7 ... or a tough E-PM2 with a bolted on 12-50 zoom (it is not extending during zoom anyway).

Cheers

0 upvotes

ShatteredSky:

Right I own the Panasonic LX5 and almost always have the filter tube installed, with filter, so when I look at the camera body and tube together, I see box with an internally zooming lens, and of course that box could have been engineered to be entirely waterproof.

And in the case of the LX5, I see a camera which shoots raw, is useable to ISO1000 (with the latest firmware) and shoots excellent video and amazing lowlight video. Yes I know the video is only 30p and AVCHD Lite, but the CCD makes up for those failings.

0 upvotes

Will anyone dare submerge a $1,000 camera and $350 lens to 49'1" or drop it from 6'7", just to see whether the items survive? Will anyone repeat the experience to see how long the seals survive, or degrade?

A relevant test for all such devices would be to drop them multiple times onto concrete and descend them on a line into the local harbor, on two separate dates (and AFTER the drop tests), while shooting video or time lapse. Scuba dives for each test would be too difficult, but perhaps be the only way to confirm whether the control buttons or touch-screen features work at all at any depth.

Maybe the traditional $235 U/W, shock resistant P&S models are a safer gamble. Buyer reviews of these cameras have a larger-than-usual quotient that assign 1 or 2 stars because of failure on the first or second dive.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Look up Torture Tests.

0 upvotes

jkoch2:

Look up the difference between "can withstand" and "must endure at the hands of every user".

The $235 WP tough cameras, have small mostly crap for lowlight sensors, don't shoot raw, don't have phase detect AF, and only a couple have fast lenses. How many of these $235 cameras shoot 60p video?

Nikon probably just killed that market.

Then most pocket tough cameras will be out shot by the likes of an iPhone is a case very soon. (Yes I know iPhone cameras don't have optical zoom, unlike say the $400 Olympus TG2.)

2 upvotes

@jkoch2: "Will anyone dare submerge a $1,000 camera and $350 lens to 49'1" or drop it from 6'7", just to see whether the items survive?"

Yesterday I was at a Nikon UK press event where the assembled journalists did just that, and yes, the cameras and lenses survived.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Andy W:

Of course someone is going to ask this, so I will: Nikon really had a tank 49 feet deep at the press event? Or was it some kind of water pressure vessel?

Then right, yes people will test these kinds of things out, if they don't own them.

However owners don't have to test the extremes, but it's nice to know the bodies and lenses have some capacity to with stand abuse.

0 upvotes

No, of course it wasn't 49 feet deep - more like 6 inches. But that wasn't the question originally asked.

0 upvotes

Man, the comments on this are great. It's a shame John Cameron Swayze isn't around for Nikon to use.

0 upvotes

Andy:

Um, "submerge...49'1"" means forty nine feet and one inch, so that point was in the original comment.

Just saying someone would ask.

0 upvotes

Fair enough. We'll send Jeff diving with it and see what happens...

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Well done for Nikon, except.... its marketing stinks because you cannot buy just the AW1 and the 10mm (equiv. 27mm) ONLY.
Underwater snorkeling I would use the 27mm equivalent ONLY -is that me, or anybody else agrees?
(also a flash would be useful)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Under-water photography or video must be wide angle and at rather short distances. It's impossible to frame any narrower shots since you often can't see the LCD in the sunlight. Long focal lengths are also disadvantageous because murky water makes distant objects blurry, and even clear water robs red wavelenths beyond a small distance.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

It has a pop-up flash. Or were you hoping for a waterproof external flash?

0 upvotes

Anything but remote flashes are pretty much useless underwater because they illuminate every. single. little. piece of everything directly in front of the camera.

If they had the foresight to include means to trigger a strobe, I'll be surprised/impressed

2 upvotes

Um...guys?

A flash is in the works.

1 upvote

No manual controls, no mode dial with M/S/A/P modes, I won't buy it.

0 upvotes

Did you even bother to read the specs?

3 upvotes

What? No hot shoe, evf, touch screen and only 60i video? Nikon, where is the full-frame sensor?!?

I'm going to take my Haldol now and take a nap. Yawn.

2 upvotes

Cool! 'Nuff said. :-)

0 upvotes

I like it. It's a big step up from the rugged compact cameras out there, and a nice second camera for wet weather. The preview doesn't mention if the built in flash can control an external flash? As others have said, a rugged version of something like the Ricoh GR would be ever so nice.

0 upvotes

Use optical cabels and it'll work just fine.

0 upvotes

One more product nobody called for. Like the shape though. Now, Nikon, put something spectacular in it for the price already!

0 upvotes

A crusty, dry ole landlubber, are ye?

6 upvotes

it is spectacular. watersealed system camera with a good sensor? fine with me.

did you count, how many waterproof cameras are out there? well?

7 upvotes

A product nobody called for, or a product that no one dared hope for?

The cost is a little high but it's a nice alternative to a waterproof casing for my larger cameras.

1 upvote

Waterproof cameras are one of the few differentiators left for a traditional camera over a smartphone.

Smartphones have cannibalized the digital camera market, so being able to use it in harsh environments / underwater is a major differentiator.

0 upvotes

Michael,

Check out the waterproof S4 Active.

Not saying that this isn't compelling new ground for cameras, just that smartphones are slowly getting there too.

1 upvote

Teru K--

This is product many bodies called for.

@Michael She:
Smartphones don't shoot raw, so smartphones aren't really challenging a lot of digital cameras.

Also almost no smartphone has an optical zoom.

Yes, smartphones have helped to kill the sales of cheap jpeg only cameras, this Nikon is not one of those.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

hydrospanner:

I handled one of those "waterproof" S4s, and there is no way it's actually waterproof, one simply removes the back panel with one's finger nail.

There is an older Samsung with a locking waterproof case.

Neither of those smartphones shoots raw, neither has a 1" sensor, neither takes interchangeable lenses, and neither has real manual controls.

1 upvote

I'd rather have a fixed lens, fixed-focal length APSc camera like the Coolpix A or Ricoh GR in ruggedized form.

2 upvotes

Okay, but I don't think anything is stopping you from putting a Ricoh GR into a waterproof bag with an optical window for the lens. That's still a small set up and easy to use. (No doesn't look as slick hanging from the neck strap.)

Then I think this Nikon1WP (my term) is directed at people who will be out shooting in rain and snow, so on land and/or above the surface. Interchangeable lenses can be really helpful shooting some outdoor water exposed activity, eg sailing while on small boat.

2 upvotes

That's all well and good, but I suspect you'd be in the minority in the market segment this is aimed pretty squarely toward (that being the outdoor adventurer demographic).

These folks want the best compromise of:

(1) A camera that is light & compact enough to justify bringing it along camping/hiking/kayaking/skiing/fishing/etc.

(2) Within the realm of rule #1, a camera that will stand up to the challenges presented by those environments.

and

(3) Within the realm of the first two rules, the max. amount of image quality and flexibility to get the shot you want without greatly pushing the limits of the first two.

While fixed-lens/bigger sensor will likely get you better IQ, it's a big hit on flexibility, where a smaller sensor, with interchangeable lenses, lets you pack an extra 1-2 lenses and have a camera that'll do absolutely anything you ask of it, while turning out IQ that is reasonably close to the APS-C for the majority of situations outside of pixel-peeping & large prints.

0 upvotes

Why are the 1's lenses all so slow? The RX100 has a f1.8 28mm equivalent on it that ZOOMS! Would it be so hard to put out an equivalent pancake prime for <$300?

4 upvotes

It's only f1.8 for a very small portion of that zoom. Also doesn't the 1 system have a f1.2 lens?

1 upvote

Isn't there an F2.0 10mm for the normal Nikon 1 system?

1 upvote

10mm f/2.8
18,5mm f/1.8
aaaand: 32mm f/1.2

fast enough? for me, that works fine...
plus you can get c-mount lenses like i did:
eg. computar 25mm f/1.3 of sick things like the schneider xenon 50mm f/0.95

yeah, all that: +1 for my Nikon 1

3 upvotes

k--

I guess I was thinking of the 18mm F1.8. BH's website wasn't playing well over my slow home connection.

Anyhow fast enough and a sensor useable above ISO3200.

I think Nikon just killed the small tough camera market--well nearly, those who want jpeg only cameras will buy those P&S things.

0 upvotes

I don't know what you guys are smoking. Just the other day I was taking a picture of a waterfall with the RX100. 1/2000, f1.8, 28mm, ISO3200. Shot didn't even come out that bright. At f2.8... man. And I'm asking for a 1 series PRIME, why are you bringing up the fact that the RX100 slows as it zooms? You're telling me I have to go from 28 equiv to 50 equiv in order to match f1.8 doesn't really help either.

1 series lenses are simply slow, across the board, by almost 2 stops from what I think they should be. That's given their price.

1 upvote

mosc:

"1 series lenses are simply slow", a F1.2 lens is slow now? And of course a F1.8 lens must be slow [sarcasm]. Who smokes what?

This Aptina sensor is better in low light than the Sony RX100's (not sure about the RX100ii's sensor).

The fact remains that yes the lens on both RX100s gets significantly slower as it zooms. And Nikon makes plenty fast lenses for the 1 system. Though no the fastest 1 series lenses are not rugged--yet. But you said 1 series, not rugged 1 series.

Look the Sony RX100 is a good compact camera, but its lens is slow when zoomed. It also doesn't come in a waterproof version. No the Zeiss name doesn't mean much in this case either. In some ways the Panasonic LX7 or Olympus XZ10 are more promising still cameras than the RX100, because the lenses are optically excellent and remain reasonably fast when zoomed.

The Olympus XZ10 is useable through ISO 2000 and has a beyond excellent lens. So if you need a still camera to fix the flaws of the Sony RX100...

0 upvotes

For those of you offended by the comparison of this rugged camera to the classic Nikonos, please remember that Dpreiew never made that assertion. They merely posed the question in the headline for this new item. ("Nikonos reborn?")

Most likely the question was asked to draw attention and elicit response, and not to claim that the Ruggedized Nikon 1 is in the same league with the classic underwater SLR.

7 upvotes

The comment sure stirred up the trolls though.
It is tiresome to see so few comments of value. Rather it seems to be a storm of trolls each trying to out do each other in some new sneering comment about how stupid the camera manufacturers are for not making something making something that conforms to their idea of camera perfection as they understand it (from their recently minted Internet photo education).

6 upvotes

Okay it's not a Nikonos because it can't be used hundreds of feet below the surface--not like many dive that deep anyhow. And it doesn't have a large optical VF.

Also not a Nikonos because you can't put ISO3200 colour film in it and shoot--oh wait this Nikon1WP can shoot colour at ISO3200, so really really helpful underwater or on dark rainy nights.

Just to be clear shooting with a Nikonos below snorkeling depth wasn't exactly possible without extra lighting and remember until about 2002 ISO 400 was it for colour 35mm film--then Kodak released good ISO 800 35mm film. So this camera solves some of the lowlight problems of the Nikonos system and any other underwater film camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

The only Nikonos that was an SLR is the RS. The others were zone focus viewfinder cameras. You'd have to be a really skilled photographer to shoot with a Nikonos wide open. I suspect this new offering will be much easier to use for occasional underwater users.

1 upvote

It's not just that we never made that assertion, we actually explicitly wrote "the AW1 certainly isn't a Nikonos". But that hasn't stopped anyone arguing about it.

3 upvotes

Like a dog with a bone, they just won't let it go until they are done chewing on it!

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Andy Westlake wrote: "It's not just that we never made that assertion, we actually explicitly wrote "the AW1 certainly isn't a Nikonos". But that hasn't stopped anyone arguing about it."

Oh, you expected people to read it. There is your mistake right there.

1 upvote

First the sensor oil issue (D600), now the sensor water issue (caused by underwater lens changes).

Joke aside, this camera is a really refreshing concept, even if it won't become the scuba divers favorite.

1 upvote

Did you know that the standard 10-30 is actually ruggedized? Mine was anyway. I was climbing down a rocky cliff in the Kimberley when it popped out of my bumbag, fell 6 feet, bounced on a rock, dropped another few feet, bounced again, and then clattered down 10 feet among rocks.
I thought of just forgetting it but I didn't want to litter a wilderness, so I climbed down, retrieved it, shook it, tried it on the camera, and it seemed to work fine.
Back at base I did careful tests on it's various functions and image quality. It was fine. That was half a year ago, and it's still a workhorse. The ruggedized lenses must be H-bomb proof.

1 upvote

Nikonos reborn?
Are you kidding?
The 35mm Nikonos was a "proper" underwater camera.
The AW 1 is water proof (i.e take if for a swim or snorkel)
The original was rated to 50 mtrs (good enough for recreational diving to 30mtrs).
It had a variety of excellent special u/w lenses.
Strobes and connectors.
What is Nikon waiting for?

0 upvotes

Right about the depth underwater thing, however one couldn't simply shoot at ISO3200 in colour with the real Nikonos.

And as you get at below snorkeling depth on had to use extra lighting with the Nikonos system.

0 upvotes

.....still can't take it diving - it's just not a Nikonos replacement.
It's just another (ok, better) swimming/snorkeling camera.

BTW, even with a high ISO digital you still need a strobe/flash when diving if you want to take reasonable pictures. I do it with an Ikelite housing.

0 upvotes

What do I do if dust gets onto the sensor whilst I'm 49 feet below the sea?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

The manual states that you have to insert a bluestreak cleaner wrasse before you dive to prevent dust on the sensor!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

If you are a certified diver you know the answer.

0 upvotes

You remove the lens to get rid of it. Once you do this, you will no longer be at all concerned about dust on the sensor.

1 upvote

The good news is, if dust gets in while you are making an underwater lens change, you will get an instant "wet cleaning" of the sensor.

However, this could still be a problem if you are shooting in salt water.

0 upvotes

Question (I'm lazy): does it take regular 1 lenses and do these AW lenses work on other 1 bodies?

0 upvotes

Don't be lazy. Read.

0 upvotes

Yes and no.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I read, thanks, it makes sense. I'm positively surprised by this camera, Nikon may have finally found a niche where the 1 may be the choice for many people, since it's very versatile. As people use the 1, they will realize how good the AF and the whole camera and lenses are.

2 upvotes

I'm glad you read.

I agree. This is the first camera I've seen that has made me reconsider getting into m43 in the near future. Until this one, Nikon CX represented a system with nothing to entice me and a lot that I'd never really get much use from.

While I won't likely get *this* model, as, waterproof or not, I don't like the J3's specs, if they make an AW10 that is a high-spec waterproof modeled after the V-series, that might just get me to stop lusting after a GX7.

...that said, I'd probably feel like an idiot after that, when Panny reacts to the sales and releases a waterproof GX7.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 561

Editorial content

Product database

Community


Just posted: Nikon Coolpix AW110 Review Jul 5, 2013	Just posted: Olympus Tough TG-2 iHS Review Jun 28, 2013	Fujifilm unveils X-A1: an entry-level mirrorless with a conventional sensor Sep 17, 2013	Tough Decision? We round up the best rugged cameras of 2013 Aug 10, 2013

	Nikon 1 AW1 Sep 19, 2013
	Fujifilm X-A1 Sep 17, 2013
	Olympus OM-D E-M1 Sep 10, 2013
	Leica C (Typ112) Sep 8, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sep 5, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix S02 Sep 5, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Alpha A3000 Aug 27, 2013
	Sony Alpha NEX-5T Aug 27, 2013

##### WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN M43 THIS WEEK? #####	150
Okay Fuji, so now that the experiment is over....	107
>>> Street Photography eXchange #65 <<<	87
How many shots do you take to get a shot?	82
While everyone ooohs and aaaahs over the ...	78
D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)	77
More leaks about K3 specifications	72
Anyone for Sunday Scapes (2013-10-06) ?	66
E-M1 Trouble focusing on moving objects	54
X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8	50
7D inconsistent focusing	49
After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + ...	47
The Sunday BIRD Volume 9, Issue 15 October 6, 2013	47
Counterfeit lens caps from Amazon	42
GX7: Extended ISO125 Image Degradation?	38
Help deciding between Sony NEX-6 or Olympus ...	36
E-M1 as E-5 successor - first week experience	35
Weekend Catch : 5-6 October 2013	34
X-pro1 vs x-a1 (or is it X-A1 vs X-pro1) using ...	32
I'm going broke buying E-M5 Eyecups!	32

Your email address:
Your name: