Previous page Next page

Body & Design

The Nikon 1 AW1's design expands from that of Nikon's original J1 camera, which was introduced in late 2011 and whose minmalist, compact body continues in the current J3 model. Obviously, the body on the AW1 is a lot chunkier, in order to 'proof' it against water and shock, but it's still quite compact for a mirrorless camera (something aided by its relatively small sensor).

Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon 1 J3

Some of the other changes from the J3 include a 'hump' for the GPS module, a grip (which is helpful, since the J3 is slippery), and several relocated (or removed) controls. Nikon has added quite a few buttons on the back of the camera, leaving little room for your thumb.

Perhaps the biggest change is the AW1's lack of a mode dial, which means you have to enter the camera's menu system to change modes. Unfortunately, this change makes it even harder to get to the P/A/S/M modes than it was before, as there are no dedicated spots for them on the mode dial (or the virtual one on the AW1). Of course, if you intend to use the AW1 underwater or in extreme conditions, it's unlikely this will bother you at all.

Weather Sealing

It takes more than just a bulkier body to make a camera rugged. The AW1 has a good-sized seal in-between the mount and the body to keep out water and dust. The two available AW lenses have a large flange that completely covers the mount, allowing for a tight seal.

The gray gasket behind the metal lens mount keeps water from entering the body. This gasket can be removed for cleaning. The 11-27.5mm lens shown above has a flange that extends past the mount and presses against the gasket to make a seal.

It's important to note that the two AW lenses (11-27.5mm and 10mm) are only for use with the AW1 body. They will not work on any other 1 System camera. Conversely, you can attach a regular CX-mount lens to the AW1, but the camera will no longer be waterproof.

Both of the camera's doors are gasket-sealed and feature a double-locking mechanism. A closer look at the dual locks on the door over the AW1's I/O ports.

In your hand

With the substantial collection of buttons and a small thumb rest, pressing something accidentally is a possibility. We are pleasantly surprised to find that the AW1 doesn't feel like a typical 'tough' camera in use. The AW1's grip allows you to securely hold the camera, which is quite important when using it outdoors in poor weather.

If you want to get a firmer grip on the camera - which is desirable when you have wet hands or gloves on - you can add a silicon skin (like the one shown on the intro page). The skins are available in black, khaki, and orange. As you might expect, each lens has its own skin as well.

Action Control

A feature borrowed from Nikon's compact rugged cameras is Action Control, which allows you to adjust certain camera settings by quickly rotating the camera. This feature is activated via a dedicated button to the right of the thumb rest.

The Action Control feature allows the user to rotate the camera to adjust certain camera settings. In the example above, the shooting mode is changed by turning the camera left or right.

Body Elements

Controls at the top-right of the back of the AW1 include a pair of buttons for showing thumbnails or zooming into photos in playback mode.

Next to the thumb-rest is the button for activating the Action Control feature described above.

Just below is the main control cluster, which has direct buttons for common settings.

Pressing 'up' on the four-way switch can bring up a variety of options, including one that allows you to quickly jump to P/A/S/M mode.
The pop-up flash has a guide number of 5 meters at ISO 100. Using the flash underwater is no problem.

If you want more flash power, you're out of luck, as the AW1 lacks a hot shoe. Nikon says it's developing an underwater unit for release in spring 2014 (the SB-N10 Underwater Speedlight), but has given few further details.

The AW1 has a built-in GPS receiver, which also supports the Russian GLONASS system, allowing for greater precision.

Also included are a compass, altimeter, and depth gauge.

First Impressions

The AW1 is an interesting camera, and one that we're very curious to try out when final production samples become available. We've had some time with a (very) pre-production sample, and although we haven't had the opportunity to actually shoot with it, our brief experience suggests that the AW1 does what Nikon says it does, about as well as we'd expect from a modern 1 System camera.

What we really like about the AW1 is that it doesn't feel like a tough camera in use. It's water and shockproof, but it doesn't have the same over-rubberized, over-built quality of so many cameras in – say – the rugged camera class that we looked at over the summer. You could quite happily take the AW1 out over a dry sunny weekend and forget that it's a rugged camera. But with one of the two companion lenses attached, you could jump into a lake, head up a mountain, or go rock-climbing without needing to give it a second thought.

Making a splash: This AW1 survived being repeatedly dropped into water at Nikon UK press event with no apparent ill-effects.

The AW1 doesn't offer the same enthusiast-oriented ergonomics as its big brother the 1 V2. There's no EVF, and little in the way of direct manual control. This latter point annoyed us in the 1 V1 when it came out at the birth of the 1 System, but arguably, it's acceptable in the lower-end models. The AW1 isn't 'low end' as such, but we don't consider its lack of external control or traditional ergonomics to be a bad thing, necessarily. After all, when you're underwater, up a mountain or just wearing gloves on a cold day, 'point and shoot' operation is generally very desirable. Pre-set the camera 'top-side' and then go and do your thing. If you need to change settings underwater, the aforementioned 'Action Control' feature should do the trick.

In the US, the AW1 with twin-lens kit can be had for just shy of $1000. This is a pretty good deal, in our opinion. The value proposition in the UK isn't quite so favorable, though – the numbers are almost the same, but you just swap dollars for pounds sterling. And £949 (~$1230 before UK VAT is added) for the twin-lens kit might be a little steep for some people. Hopefully we'll see the same price-falls for the AW1 and its companion lenses as we have for other previous 1 System cameras.

The AW1 sounds promising, and we're looking forward to getting it into our lab (and underwater) to see how well it performs.

Previous page Next page
75
I own it
92
I want it
8
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 588
1234
BobFoster

Great in depth review - I’ve got the smaller (& older) Nikon AW100 which use for underwater video - the video is great from it but the photographs are terrible so I’m really excited by the AW1 - I’ll definitely buy one.

The one thing I noticed was that the video quality of the sample (especially when panning) was downright awful - it looked more like it was shot on a mobile phone than a £750 camera… I’m guessing that it’s not meant to look like that…?

1 upvote
Britzzzilla

Looks like this camera finally sank.
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/02/21/digitalrev-cancels-nikon-1-aw1-order-claims-its-discontinued-by-the-manufacturer.aspx/#more-72528

1 upvote
JFBee

Why is AdobeRGB missing in specs list?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

I would. (Maybe not the open ocean or into the middle of a big lake, but that's about finding it. But into the deep end of a swimming pool, why not?)

0 upvotes
GCHYBA

Great camera, just wish it fit in a pocket.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Besides the Pentax Q, can you think of an interchangeable lens camera that can fit in a small pocket?

In fact this Nikon AWS will fit in many "cargo" pockets.

0 upvotes
Scottelly

They just need to make a waterproof 10mm f2.8 pancake lens for it. Then it would KILL! (not that it doesn't already)

I'd like to see them make a 7mm f2.8, a 10mm f2.8, a 15mm f2.8, a 20mm f2.8, a 27mm f2.8, and a 35mm f2.8 VR Macro - all underwater lenses for the AW1 (and AW2 - presuming they will eventually make an AW2)

:)

I wish they would hurry up and get production going again! (or start selling an AW2)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rondhamalam

No WIFI ? Of course no wifi. Nikon has been criticized for crappy stupid Wifi system. Something that they could easily buy from Taiwan but didn't.

4 upvotes
rondhamalam

WTH showing detail of sealing lens using WIDE APERTURE SHOT ???
Is that an ART ???
I want clear details not an artist shot

1 upvote
rondhamalam

why BLOB was not mentioned ?

1 upvote
Jake64

Still wouldn't throw into a body of water to prove a point.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

I would. (Maybe not the open ocean or into the middle of a big lake, but that's about finding it. But into the deep end of a swimming pool, why not?)

1 upvote
JVS2013

I have several Nikons and I am looking for good 8x10 quality in a lightweight compact "Wet Capable" camera less than 15m depth but can be rough handled in the surf. Nikon1 AW1 has got me interested.
I am cautious because I had an Olympus 1030SW and used it snorkelling. Adequate snapshots. Then I went sailing and jumped of a boat, the camera leaked, much less than 10m depth. Olympus response was as the camera was more than a year old (less than 2 years) but I had not had the seals serviced by an "Olympus Dealer" within the year.
No one has mentioned seal replacement and guarantees in any of the underwater camera reviews. I expect to own a camera several years.

1 upvote
PICtheGREEK

Have tested the 1aw1 in a shop!
Good IQ!
In wet conditions after swimming there's no way to change lens without water drops on the sensor. Have to dry for an hour and change then!
1aw1 feels generally good and can also make better panoramas than other cameras in that segment, shooting in different directions possible.
A fail is that there's no Raw management like in other Raw shooting Nikons I use. After shooting it is only possible to perform D-lightning and cropping. It is a shame that there's no Raw pic-stitching.
When the 1aw1 cam and the 10mm 2.8 lens (part of the Kit) produce better results in particular resolution than other 1 lenses I will by it.
Because under water you need only the best lenses from Nikon.

1 upvote
krikman

Where are my underwater iPhone! I strongly need a wi-fi and underwater instagram capability.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

What's wrong with the available iPhone waterproof cases? They fit without adding much bulk. (I guess they may not be good down to 50 feet below the surface.)

Then you can take you iPhone snorkeling, and wifi Instagram updates all day--well until the battery dies.

Still no raw and no serious shooting at ISO 2500, and there's the iPhone's lens limitation.

1 upvote
rondhamalam

No RAW on iphone??? Naaaaaaaah rubish

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Ken Hadi

like any other gaskets in the world, it wears out and leaks.

before that you better use this camera on very extensive frequency

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Why don't you wait for reviews.

The gaskets on the Nikonos were replaceable.

In other news things like car tires decay without being used.

1 upvote
peter42y

I guess this new camera is an acknowledgement that the initial V1 , was not a success. ( In fact their price did drop a lot).
I do not think this camera will be a sucess either.
How many people do underwater photography ? Not many.
The demand will be therefore rather small I believe .
Let us see.
BTW : I am a V1 owner but I bough it at a heavily discounted price.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Many people would like to shoot in heavy rain with a camera able to shoot raw.

Many people would like to be able to shoot with a raw capable camera on a raft or small sail boat being bounced about by waves and wind.

Many people would like to shoot surfing shots while standing in the surf.

Not one of the small pocket tough cameras shoots raw, and none of those cameras have a sensor anywhere near this big.

This is not simply an underwater only camera.

So there’s a huge market for this camera. (Unless of course Panasonic/Olympus introduce something similar in the MFT type next week.)

9 upvotes
Ken Hadi

How many people do underwater photography ??
there will be a lot.

this is the same question as how many people make video while photographing? in the beginning almost none, but now almost everybody.

1 upvote
Mike VA USMC

It's not just about underwater photography. I have a Panasonic TS2 that I bought years ago. I take it into the pool with the kids, trips to the beach, skiing/snowboarding/sledding, amusement parks, if the kids pick it up and take pictures I'm not worried about them damaging the camera. I tie it to my wrist or keep it in my pocket...it's more portable than this AW1 though. I'm not sure how useful a waterproof interchangeable lens would be (snorkeling, diving, swimming). Can they be changed after jumping out of the water quickly? If the visibility suddenly changes? There are IL cameras that are weatherproof if you get caught in a rainstorm or high-humidity environment. The AW1 looks like a pretty good camera even without considering the waterproof aspect. I do like the size too. I'm in the market to buy a new camera. Still considering something like the Pentax K-50 over the AW1 for what I would use it for. If I did a lot of snorkeling or shallow diving, then maybe the AW1.

0 upvotes
Scottelly

This AW1 is an alternative to a DSLR with a housing, which is bulky and expensive. They will sell the hell out of this thing, if the image quality is acceptable. 14 megapixels is enough to print at 20x30. (I've printed at that size with 10 MP JPEGs from a camera with a 1.7 x crop factor sensor, and the detail was good . . . not just o.k.) My guess is Nikon has hit a home run here. I hope they make a few more waterproof lenses and a kick-ass 16 megapixel successor to this camera with a viewfinder, like the V2 has.

1 upvote
Thomas Rowland

Bottom line is you need to base your camera choice on your budget and your IQ expectations. It makes no sense to get any camera if you are not happy with the images it captures.

One consideration for me is when sailing for months at a time I like to have a backup if something goes wrong, so before I head to Georgetown in Nov I will probably pick up one of these bad boys to go along with my other toys just in case.

But I will be using a view finder attached to the top of the camera. The LV is frequently useless under water in many lighting conditions not to mention I often am holding the camera at an odd angle to try and get the best composition, as well as looking through a mask that may be fogged up a little.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here have ever captured an image underwater in real conditions.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

And this cameras isn't solely for underwater use. This 1 series has excellent IQ too.

2 upvotes
Thomas Rowland

There is a reason guys pay US$8k and up for a dlsr and housing for underwater photography, it is called IQ.

I have a Canon 7d in a Nauticam housing I used when diving (free diving only enforced by gun boats from Mexico) with whale sharks. I also have an oly epm1 in a housing I picked up on close for $US399 a few months ago. I just returned from sailing my catamaran to the Dry Tortugas for six weeks and only took that camera with me as this was kinda shake down cruise for the upcoming trip to the Bahamas. The size and weight of the oly and housing (plus the fact that it floats) was a big OK, but IQ did suffer. I also have one of the older Canon d20 (like the 2.8 lens better than the newer model) and it is very usable, but again IQ suffers. Also have used a EWA plastic housing in the past as well as a Nikonos 4a film camera.

Cont in next post

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Go right ahead and carry that gear (a D4 has much better IQ) and a housing when you want to shoot on land in heavy rain.

Also kind of hard to use good manual focus Zeiss lenses if they're inside a housing.

Don't understand why you're listing all of the things that a DSLR and housing can do. This Nikon is for other purposes, like snorkeling.

1 upvote
y0chang

This might be the camera for backpacker who are also photographers. Lighter than a DSLR, waterproof so that you don't have to dry bag your camera, and way better image quality than a rugged point and shoot.

3 upvotes
LukeDuciel

Exactly why I am interested in this offering. However, two flaws hinders me reaching for my wallet:

1) The all weather system desperately needs an ultra-wide option. I cannot stress how important the ultra-wide possibility for making it useful for consumer and making it a commercial success.

2) Nikon, pls buy RX100M2 sensor and put it into the 1 system. So far, none of the Nikon sensor choice on the 1 system can rival with RX100 not to mention the improved RX100M2 sensor.

0 upvotes
octopulse007

As someone that uses uw cameras for coral reef surveys and pleasure I would like to offer the following re several comments about the merit of this camera and other tough cameras rated to 10 - 15m:
1) I recently used my Olympus TG1 with wide angle lens rated to 10m at 25m with no issues.
2) 15m is a usable depth for lots of reef based underwater photography and arguably offers greater opportunities due to better deco limits and more available light.
3) No doubt Nikon will offer an additional underwater housing for use at greater depths.
4) It is unique being a natively waterproof interchangeable lens system. Its main rivals will be housed compact cameras with wetfit lenses that can be changed uw.
5) The biggest benefit of this system IMHO is size. Housed mirrorless systems (I have a GX1) are the size of an SLR. Great for those of us completing multiple tasks uw.
Nikon should be applauded what's missing is a great waterproof wide angle zoom, Nikon make one of those and I will buy in.

2 upvotes
lmtfa

This will appeal to the snorkeling crowd. When they build a real UW camera that say can go to 110ft like the Nikonos IV with plenty left to go deeper, that will turn scuba divers heads.

Why do they have to put so many buttons. By the time you snap a picture of a barracuda, it will be snacking on your arm! Still kudos to you Nikon.

1 upvote
ppronovo

A suggestion for DPreview. When you do more formal testing of this camera, please have sometime use it underwater at various depths to check for leaks. of course at some point you will recognize that you went too deep and now have a soggy sensor!

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy

Yes!
Break the damn camera! ;)!!!
It would be quite informitive to know the breaking point and what failed. Keep it at 1 meter interval depths for 1hour. Make sure you get a handful of copies with both lenses.
PS yes I want a pony too. Make sure it farts rainbows.

2 upvotes
ppronovo

rainbow farts underwater are so colorful

2 upvotes
Clueless Wanderer

Better than brown clouds any day ;-)

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ppronovo

Does anyone know what the depth ratings mean for practical purposes. It isn't as if the system is completely water tight at 48 ft deep and then is leaking at 51 ft. Is there usually a margin of error. How deep would you safely take it. Would you never bring it below 30 ft or feel comfortable taking it to 60 or 80 ft? Are the ratings usually conservative or realistic.

thanks

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge

In Nikonos times it was customary to build and test the UW devices of all sorts to at least 150% of the rated pressure. I have taken Nikonos models III and V below 80 meters (9Atm, or 200%) with no ill effects, also no distinguishable change in operation. Everything worked as smoothly as above surface.
Nikonoses had rotational commands (hard-set shaft seats with no resistance change felt from o-ring deformation).
The new models use biased-spring linear pin movement instead of o-ring sealed shafts, and so resist the pressure by spring force. This can develop some usage problems below rated depths.
Also, most of the new "tough" models have curiously designed hatch sealings, which depend a lot upon the closing mechanism, and also do not employ o-rings. Both solutions put such cameras at risk. I seriously doubt it is the lack of knowlege (especially with Nikon), rather a purposefully built-in weak spot, so going deeper than rated would not be my idea of Nikonos-quality trusting any more.

3 upvotes
schaki

The Nikonos wont be properly reborn until the camera uses full frame sensor.
This seems like the development of the Nikon 1 system which almost was doomed to fail before it reached the shelves in the stores the first time.
Craptax Q is an other joke amongst cameras with interchangeable lenses.
The 1" sensor size however would make sense to used more in usual compacts and I certainly would like to see compacts like Cann S110 and Coolpix P7700 use this sensor size it it would be possible.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Note the "?" after the word "reborn" in the headline.

The lens on a Canon S110 would need be much bigger, heavier, and more expensive to work with a so called 1" sensor, same is true of the P7800/7700.

I think the story of general Nikon 1 series successes would be different if it had been introduced in say 2006. Look it faces stiff competition from the likes of Olympus and Panasonic; it's not a failure of a system.

2 upvotes
bgbs

The full frame sensor will come when the Nikon DSLR's start becoming mirrorless.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

bgbs:

Then those bodies won't be SLRs.

Nikon already has a body and lenses which could readily take an APSC sensor. And electronics. The Nikonos V.

0 upvotes
Neodp

"it's not a failure of a system."

Yes, it is. A failure to really compete.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Needp:

In capacities this 1 series competes just fine, it does high ISO better than the MFT cameras--save those that released this month (Oct 2013). It just doesn't stand out. And no I have no idea about sales.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jdrpc

Waterproof to 15m is NOT an Underwater Camera! And much less the successor of the Nikonos V or RS that could go to 75m!!!!
It's like the watches that say "Waterproof to 30m" but can barely go under 10!
If the camera says 15m, it can barely go to -5m, because of dynamic pressure....
Pity! would be nice to have a real Digital UW camera

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

DPReview DOES NOT claim this waterproof 1 series camera is the successor to the Nikonos. And as far as I know Nikon doesn't make that claim either.

You can take up the wish for a real dive camera with a full frame, or APSC, sensor and interchangeable lenses with Nikon.

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge

I have never had an underwater watchpiece which leaked, and some of those had shaft operated internal divetime rings. So, static vs. dynamic pressures have nothing to do with sealing abilities at great depths, where the sealing components are solidly pressed against the casing. The problems one might experience would more likely come from improperly cleaned / maintained seal system, or some careless assembling of the device.

0 upvotes
bgbs

When a company rates a product at 15 meter, you can sink twice deeper before the thing breaks. Everything in technology can be pushed further than what its rated at.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Optimal Prime

Will DPR update it's Test Chart to now include underwater performance?

4 upvotes
Jefftan

lens look like can't use lens filter,correct?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

Not correct. Both lenses have 41mm filter threads.

5 upvotes
Jefftan

thanks but is there waterproof filter besides the official accessory? in Nikon site it said using the official filter and the lens will not be shockproof
can't understand why and a great concern to me

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

Probably best to ask Nikon for clarification on that. But at a guess, it seems most likely that setup isn't considered shockproof simply because the filter won't be. They have a bad habit of breaking when dropped.

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge

All filters will be "waterproof" if you take care to mount and also remove them in water, taking care not to leave any air bubbles between the lens and filter. Do not apply force when screwing the filter in, the temperature difference might make it hard to remove later, and do not fatten the threads with silicone grease; best use light oil to protect the thread scratches from corrosion.
Otherwise, the greatest danger to filters in the water, they get lost easily. There is a way to keep them safe and handy:
Find an old diving neoprene suit and cut off about 15 cm of one sleeve. Pull the sleeve over your arm and turn the lower part upward over the rest, to create a pocket between two layers of neoprene. Sew the doubled upper rim together at three places. That's all.
Keep the filters, add-on lenses and such in the pocket(s) around between the layers. It will be a safe, snug fit giving sufficient protection, and also easily accessible.

2 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio

see nikon, now we are talking

first mirrorless ever that seems interesting to me

11 upvotes
goloby

1/60 flash sync. Ha, good luck getting sharp results at that speed

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Albeit this is not a SLR, but for years, including in the digital era, that was the flash sync speed of almost all SLRs and DSLRs. Try using a higher shutter speed and higher ISO and no flash.

4 upvotes
Deleted pending purge

People used flash sync speed like that for ages, with no complaints...
... also hand-set apertures and manual focus,
... also no TTL or other dedicated flash metering,
... and still they have managed to get a lot of sharp, correctly exposed pics.
All they did was try and learn about the same four basic elements in photography that still apply - only now these are masked by things called "program modes".
These programmed modes are maybe what creates an ever greater distances between learning and camera users - more's the pity - and for nothing more than mercantilistic reasons.
The light surely remained the same. :)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
mandm

How did I get 10's of thousands of sharp photos with my Nikon F's slow flash speed of only 1/60 with a Honeywell 800 Strobonar flash! The bigger question must now be, why did soooo many people/pro's by the Nikon F with it's 1/60 flash sync speed over the 14 years it was produced starting in 1959?

8 upvotes
goloby

I am still shooting more film than digital and a slow flash sync is not an issue with everyday photos. But try freezing fish or wobbling see weed at 1/60

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

goloby--

The thing about digital, using a 1" sensor or greater, it's much easier to use high ISOs than will film.

With modern sensors, from say 2010, and shooting raw, it's readily possible to shoot at say ISO2000, and avoid a flash entirely, and use a faster shutter speed to freeze action.

(Clearly tens of meters below the surface lighting would still be necessary.)

Warning all but the most recent micro 4/3rds cameras struggle above ISO 1600.

0 upvotes
GeorgeD200

You don't really understand flash, do you goloby? The flash duration, which is responsible for freezing the action, is much faster than 1/60 (usualy 1/200-1/1000 second). 1/60 is just the amount of time the shutter stays open for the ambient light (background) exposure. This will rarely be a problem underwater.

0 upvotes
happypoppeye

Looks great ...and everyone can praise or belittle it all they want ...but my first thought is, now you have an $800 or $1000 camera with very "unsecure" sealing (from what it looks like). The claim of Nikonos-like with what looks like the bad sealing of the compacts available.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Where in the text, not comments, does it say Nikonos-like?

It doesn’t.

And very clearly says “is not”.

Then of course, with lighting, a Nikonos could be used at a much greater depth. Which more than implies that this is not sealed as well as a Nikonos.

Go ahead and make things up, which can then be listed as a problem. It’s a standard method of arguing a case you don’t really have.

This remains the only water proof mirrorless camera system that shoots raw. Good for Nikon for developing it.

6 upvotes
happypoppeye

Exactly what I'm talking about, thank you for proving my point. Its the only mirrorless waterproof that shoots RAW, so preorder it and hope it doesn't leak ...but even if it does leak, that doesn't matter because it shoots RAW? Awesome.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

HappyP:

Quote:

“but even if it does leak, that doesn't matter because it shoots RAW?”

And where did I say that? I didn’t.

However it is still the only raw shooting camera that is even slightly waterproof. (Yes I know one can modify the slow lensed Canon tough cameras to shoot raw with CHDK.)

Raw is kind of pointless if this camera doesn’t work, because of leaking or some other failure. And the same obvious point applies to any other raw shooting digital camera.

Now about things you did say: “claim of Nikonos-like”, which is not in any part of the text.
And next: “with what looks like the bad sealing of the compacts available.” Well you really don’t know how the seals work, there aren’t detailed pictures of all of the seals. So you have to wait for reviews, or until you handle one.

Again: You’ve made things up, and the disputed them.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
happypoppeye

Read the article and my posts again ...woooooo ...thats them going right over your head.

I didn't say DPR or the article said it was Nikonos-like. Your arguing a statement that you don't even understand.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

happypoppeye:

From your first comment at the top of this thread: "with very 'unsecure' sealing (from what it looks like). The claim of Nikonos-like with what looks like the bad sealing of the compacts available."

What that means is that you think DPReview claims this is a "Nikonos-like" camera system. When DPReview says otherwise.

Though I will admit one thing I missed in your original comment, you've used "Nikonos-like" in an incomplete sentence.

And remember you still haven't seen these seals in person, nor have they been described in detail here by DPReview.

Look it's not like I've never quickly posted a comment that because I skipped a word or took something out the meaning got garbled.

But don't claim that what you wrote means something other than what you wrote without fixing your text.

So no your meaning is not over my head.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
SulfurousBeast

Sorry to post this one here. DPR - Came across and interesting booster device for pop up flashes for entry level DSLR made by ExpoImaging.

Rogue Safari DSLR Pop-up Flash Booster

Can you do a quick review of the same as part of your accessories review? Seems like a no-brainer for $35 if this thing really works as claimed by the manufacturer.

0 upvotes
justmeMN

It's good that it's ruggedized. That way, when you take "unauthorized" photos at the beach, the camera won't break when you get beat up. :-)

3 upvotes
TacticDesigns

I was wondering when someone would take tough cameras up a notch . . . well done Nikon! :)

7 upvotes
KariIceland

Sorry but the first thing I noticed is: what is with all the horrible photo's of the camera? both on the front page in the selection at the top, the images on the first page of the review as well, have dpreview lost they're talent for propper exposure and focusing?

0 upvotes
John Koch

It was probably in a display case, disturbing both the lighting and focus. There will be an optical and light distortion, even if you (by luck) focus on the camera body and not its surrounding plastic and glass. Nikon might wish to protect the camera this way, too, lest every one of the hundreds of inspectors try to drop it from 6', 7', or 8' in order to see if it continues to work.

0 upvotes
justmeMN

In the photo on this page, I think the camera is in a small aquarium, to show off the fact that it is waterproof.

2 upvotes
KariIceland

A good photographer carries a polorizer to take the reflections away.

0 upvotes
seta666

Make a macro lens and you will make many people happy

0 upvotes
Jefftan

no 10mm single kit option is stupid as this is what me and many others will use for weight reason

now cost $1000

3 upvotes
Timmbits

it is nice to see an underwater camera with a larger than tiny sensor for a change... now all we need is an underwater RX100 that is really compact. ;)

0 upvotes
chile7236

put the rx100 in the recsea housing and it is still noticeably smaller and compact than 95% of the offerings out there. plus, a tiny camera underwater is a handling nightmare...unless you have tiny hands, of course.

0 upvotes
Timmbits

"Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon."
ROTFL LMAO

SERIOUSLY??? It was on this very website that reports of dwindling camera sales pointed at Nikon1 line as having a huge drop in sales.

I appreciate the preview of this new underwater camera.
And it would be quite nice, and hold it's own, without the nonsense.

1 upvote
Marty CL

Mirrorless systems are popular in Asia--not so much in the U.S. and Europe. I think that is one reason for the seeming contradiction.

1 upvote
Plastek

True. And in Japan Nikon 1 is actually doing quite well. Though Japan is just one, hardly a most important market. Definitely not large enough to compensate for all of the losses in other markets that their Nikon 1 generates (sales are marginal, while expenses on marketing and manufacturing/delivery are all there).

0 upvotes
Jefftan

anyone notice even with the 10 mm lens weight 470 gram twice as heavy as TG-2. with zoom weight 530 gram also the terrible 220 shot battery life. can't be put in shirt pocket

The $370 230 gram tiny TG-2 is not obslete at all

2 upvotes
Jefftan

I am surprised no one mention weight and size in all these comments

1 upvote
TacticDesigns

The other way to think of it is that it is still smaller and lighter than a dSLR. When on vacation and travelling . . . sometimes its nice to not have a big camera.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Jefftan:

Did you notice that the Olympus TG-1/2 doesn't shoot raw and has a much smaller sensor than this Nikon? I'm guessing not.

Until Olympus adds raw to the TG series, it's not a serious camera, and now this Nikon will likely kill it.

Olympus was dumb: It did the fast lens, but refused to make the box bigger, so had to use a smallish sensor and was even more stupid to ignore raw.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
BorisK1

With its small body and 25mm wide end, TG-2 is *the* serious camera of the two. And its meter and WB systems are good enough that it doesn't need the crutch of RAW processing.
Wake me up when Nikon comes up with a camera that can fit into a PFD pocket, and has decent wide angle. IS wouldn't hurt, either. *Then* I'll ask if it has a decent jpeg processor, and if not, if there's the RAW option

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

BorisK1--

Nope, because the TG1/2 has a small sensor, which can't be used above ISO 800 and only shoots jpeg. So the Olympus is not a serious camera, "serious" doesn't mean small.

Olympus was lazy.

Who cares about WB if the system shoots raw?

Raw is not a crutch, since you clearly don't know, shooting raw avoids jpeg artifacts, some exposure problems, color issues, and then the already mentioned having to get WB correct the first time--not the same thing as colour. Don't forget less noise and the ability to shoot at higher ISOs with raw. Not like higher ISOs help when snorkeling [sarcasm].

Those who claim jpegs are good enough, either aren't doing challenging shooting ever, or don't care about image quality. That jpegs are good enough sometimes is a different matter.

This particular Olympus you laud does not do good jpegs--more laziness by Olympus.

Stop with the claims that a camera with a much smaller sensor comes close to the image quality of any Nikon 1 system camera.

1 upvote
Jefftan

My TG-2 fit in shirt pocket and if one don't pixel peep may not be that much different than AW1 between ISO 100-400. Also the lens is at least 1 stop faster than AW1

it is fair to say that TG-2 is still very useful for its size and weight. If you own one you know IQ is good enough between ISO 100-400 which cover many circumstances with its F2 lens.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Jefftan

AW1 is a nice try but lots need to improve, it need to be smaller and lighter, have F2 lens, with IS and at least 300 shot battery life. I would keep using my TG-2 for now

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jefftan–

The thing about jpegs, isn’t simply pixel peeping. It’s lack of colour, exposure and white balance control.

Yes, for a small jpeg only camera, that Olympus is good at ISO 400 and below. However being able to pocket a jpeg only camera means usually something other than high image quality.

I agree that Nikon would be best to release waterproofed versions of the faster 1 series lenses; there’s an F1.8 and F1.2. I assume Nikon will make waterproofed versions of these lenses, once this waterproofed 1 series body starts to sell.

Despite the fact that the Olympus has an F2.0 lens, and the fastest waterproofed 1 series lens announced is F2.8, the Nikon body has a much bigger sensor, which can easily be used at ISO 3200+ and of course the Nikon shoots raw.

Sadly Olympus was lazy with the TG series, and the sad irony is that when Olympus decides to Olympus makes much better lenses than anything from Nikon.

0 upvotes
Jefftan

HowaboutRAW , I understand your pount. at first I am excited too but than I realize lens lose 1 stop, no IS lose at least 1 stop or more. than with at least 2 stop loss, how much better in low light really. again nice first try but at leats IS must be added to make it worthy for the extra size
not using the 10-30mm VR as kit is a serious mistake in my opinion

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jefftan–

The thing is this sensor in the Nikon and the lenses are known quantities, and you can find samples from them to look at. You’ll find ISO 3200 raws perfectly useable. It’s the waterproofing that’s new, not the sensor or lens.

You’d have a point about the Olympus having a faster lens (only when wide of course) if the Olympus recorded raw data, but it doesn’t. Nor does the camera have real manual settings.

And the fact remains that more lenses are very likely to be released in the waterproof form for this Nikon tough 1 series.

It’s also much easier to steady a body like that of the Nikon’s than it is a pocket camera.

The Olympus is just a decent small pocket jpeg only camera, so not a significant challenge to a system with a much bigger sensor and raw.

Separately you've raised a point about the Nikon 1 series, they didn't introduce fast lenses to start, they're repeating this mistake, but plenty fast nonwaterproof lenses do indeed exist.

There was a world before IS.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Echo Gallery

Wait! Didn't I read an article on this website about a month ago regarding the latest Nikon financial statement. They reported that 1 System sales have been disappointing. Now dpreview is telling me that the system is doing "pretty well." Okay, which is it?

I owned a Nikonos V and while it was definitely the camera for my underwater work, the lenses were not dialed in for use on land. The images it produced had very high contrast with very deep shadows and blown highlights. The characteristics of the lens that was less than helpful on land was just what was needed underwater. I'd like to see some test results for these new lenses. Maybe they've found the best compromise.

3 upvotes
Revenant

The Nikon 1 system really does pretty well, at least in some parts of the world. They have the fourth largest market share in mirrorless ILCs after Sony, Olympus and Panasonic. That doesn't preclude Nikon from being disappointed, though, because they obviously expected an even larger share of the market.

0 upvotes
Bokeh_freak

Will I be able to change lenses safely in a sandstorm with this interchangeable lens weatherproof camera?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

No, not if the sensor matters to you.

0 upvotes
SayCheesePlease

Film based underwater cameras (Nikonos included) are a royal pain in the anterior to use and very difficult to capture good images. Certainly possible, but difficult.

This camera is awesome, great hi iso, great lens, one session can take hundreds of images and/or video, small, less expensive.

Bravo Nikon! The whole water-sport world celebrates this camera

surfing
sailing
swimming
fishing
rafting
etc.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

I had no particular problem using my Nikonos on land or when snorkeling.

1 upvote
chile7236

until I see how this camera actually performs underwater, I am not celebrating a $700USD underwater camera when I can still get the E-PM1 w/housing for $500...since I do like surf photography this may work for that...now let's see some hands on reviews in some of these water sports.

edit: agree with howaboutraw...had no issues with my NikV, either

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
calking

uncontrollable drooling, disneyland rides and cliff diving are all right up this baby's alley.

5 upvotes
Photoexposition

Come on, give me break.
Rebirth of the mythical Nikonos ? Nikonos were slr cameras, designed at the beginning for Commandant Cousteau so he could take pictures under the sea. This Nikon 1 is merely an hybrid with some waterproof features. It's like comparing apples with tomatoes.
Let's cut the marketing crap once and for all.

3 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski

No, they weren't SLRs at all (except for that psychotic junk pile the Nikonos RS, which used an entirely different lens family).

There, I cut some of your crap. Now, put up or shut up, and tell us what an original, Nikonoos was, if not a "hybrid with some waterproof features".

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Photoexpo:

Note the “?” after “reborn”.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Photoexpo:

Note the “?” after “reborn”.

0 upvotes
King Penguin

Have you not had a tomapple yet? They're delicious..... :)

0 upvotes
T3

Actually, Nikonos cameras were originally not SLRs. The first Nikonos "beginning for Commandant Cousteau" in 1963 was not an SLR and all the subsequent Nikonos models for the next 30 years weren't either. It wasn't until 1992 (!) that the Nikonos camera finally became an SLR.

BTW, trying to look through an SLR viewfinder underwater kinda sucks, especially while wearing a diving mask. It's a lot easier to frame with a large 3" lcd screen in such conditions. So it's rather lame to even want an SLR when the mirrorless form factor with LCD screen framing would work a lot better than an SLR. Looking through a tiny SLR peep hole underwater while wearing a diving mask? "Come on, give me a break."

3 upvotes
steelhead3

Impact damage at Nikon service centers takes on new meaning.

0 upvotes
KW Phua

Wow! Can I change lens underwater? Good news, so now camera cannot go underwater will become cheaper.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd

I wonder what GoPro will bring for the GoPro 4 in a few weeks?

1 upvote
Jogger

That POV action cam market is getting close to plateauing (or whatever marketers call it), with only incremental annual updates and stuff. I guess they will do the predictable stuff like NFC pairing, better video, 4k@30p, etc.

0 upvotes
jkoch2

It won't have a 1" sensor or a stabilizer, but the promotional videos will cover 6 continents, seven seas, and 9 planets, unicorns, mermaids, yetis, and dragons.

However, Nikon would convey a similar miracle if it showed someone changing lenses on a beach between dives or in a dust storm.

2 upvotes
Vince P

The Go pro is niche video camera that is not much use for stills (I have a couple of Hero 2s and had and returned a Hero 3). This is a niche stills camera that will probably be OK for Video. The Hero 4 will almost certainly have 30fps 4K but more useful is 120fps 1080p and 240 720p. The downside for the Nikon for me is the 15m limit.

2 upvotes
Plastek

I still find it hard to believe that it actually works fine at 15m. Bayonet allowing interchangeable lenses is a very bad thing to have at 15 meters in a small camera.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Plastek:

Um the Nikonos worked just fine much deeper than 15m. And that system had interchangeable lenses.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd

This is the only thing Nikon could have done to make me interested in the 1 system again. Bravo, Nikon!

5 upvotes
JackM

Agreed. Perfect application for an otherwise pointless camera.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

mpgxsvcd:

What's pointless about the 1 system, small, quiet, excellent AF, good in lowlight, more than a few lenses, etc.

Oh you probably mean that it faces stiff competition from the likes of Fuji, Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, and Olympus; that doesn't make this system "pointless".

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Ivo Verhaar

interesting cam, give it a bit more reach and evf and it is a very sensible tough compact travel camera for desert and tropical rainforest (or your typical european winter) usage. Would love a bit more control on the outside and a 14-150 reach with real good image stabilisation.

0 upvotes
TFD

Not quite sure I understand the fuss about interchangeable lens camera that have no/few actually lens to change, for which you get to pay a premium price.

Not sure I would be submerging this camera either $$$

3 upvotes
wolfie

Have could it have "No lens to change"? - it has two underwater rated lenses if you actually read the article, and can use the other "normal" series 1 lenses and probably other Nikon lenses via the series 1 adapter.
Obviously if you don't intend to use it for it's purpose then why would you buy it? There is nothing else like it on the market - that's why it is causing a fuss. The alternatives cr*appy little compacts or bulky expensive housings weighing 1-2 kgs.
As for not submerging it -well, that says more about you than the camera.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

TFD--

I'll bet that Nikon develops more waterproof versions of already existing normal 1 series lenses once this tough variation starts to sell.

And then read what wolfie says above.

0 upvotes
jkoch2

Wolfie: exactly when, or how, will you change lenses under water, or even above water between plunges? Very likely, the camera must be bathed in distilled water and allowed to dry considerable time first. The battery chamber seals might be finnicky, or apt to fail, after months' wear and tear. The water pressure tolerance might vanish, or the warranty void, after a few 6' falls. Or do wet hands never fail? Reviewers are apt to "baby" the camera, or submerge it only once, whereas a real world test would expose it to multiple stresses. $1,500 is a lot to put at risk if mere $250 sealed lens versions have a rather high failure rate. Or will it be proof enough to see Ashton Kutcher pose with the camera on a beach?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

jkock2--

Look my local public ocean beach, you know with life guards, has fresh water showers.

So after using the camera in the surf, it's simple enough to rinse the camera off in the showers. Distilled water is not an absolute necessity.

Then without access to fresh running water, well you have to find a source of clean fresh water and those are kind of important for survival so it's likely something you'll have. (Guess in the middle of the desert, starved for water, you may decide to forego rinsing the camera before a lens change.)

And no, I've not forgotten that the camera and lens needs dry before the swap.

So, assuming no major manufacturing defect, this camera and the lenses will likely sell well for Nikon--unless say Panasonic announces something very similar next week.

Or of course you don't have to change the lens immediately, simply wait until in a clean and dry environment, like a car.

0 upvotes
drewski70

I used a shower at the beach to wash off a olympus tough and the seals failed...not recommended

Also I don't recommend you telling anyone that the seals failed in the shower or they will think you are taking a odd self portrait

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

drewski70:

Many beach showers are out in the open, so take all the selfies you want.

Anyhow why take your beach clothes off to shower. Wash the salt out of them too.

Not suggesting you put your Olympus directly under the showerhead.

The point was reasonably clean fresh water.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge

That's one more reason for manufacturers to finally see the light and stop producing those funny excuses for sealing. It's one thing how it looks in the designing program or on the drawing board, and quite another in the brine.
Usually you can't budge neither lens nor the hatches deep down, but immediately under the surface, and if the sealing they use now depends upon the hatch closing mechanism, it will not be safe. And if you expose such sealing to the (unequally distributed) pressure of water jet, as in the shower, it may lift and let the water in.
This problem may be augmented by the temperature difference, since the sudden cooling of (sun-warmed) camera might develop a partial vacuum, which in turn can suck in the water, should the tiniest part of the seal edge be dislodged by waterjet pressure.
So, do not wash the camera under the strong shower, unless it is sealed by o-rings. Rinsing thoroughly in a water bucket will do.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
PeakAction

Now this is something interesting! Nice surprise from Nikon!

3 upvotes
Ran Plett

I hope this turns out to be a big seller, and I bet it will, especially from people traveling on vacation. I would love to have a backup camera that is mirrorless and water proof up to 15m. Canon? Please make it happen. I so badly want to start shooting in the water / snow more!

0 upvotes
calking

doubtful most typical vacationers would be taking pictures in the rain or letting their kids snorkel with something at this price point. Id say the target market is more likely the hiker / biker / adventurer type looking for a durable all-weather camera that's lighter and easier to carry.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

calking--

Do you have any idea how much some people spend on camera gear, this is a tiny amount of money for some, particularly if you're say spending $14,000 on a family vacation.

0 upvotes
jkoch2

People with $14,000 to spend on a vacation will have Jeeves the butler / driver / bodyguard double as photographer. Salt water also ruins the hair and require reconditioning in a deluxe salon, so better not to go in the water anyway.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

jkoch2:

Sorry, but for a basic family of 4 in the US $14,000 is not a lot of money for a 2 week vacation. (That it can be done cheaper is a different question.)

The vacation you're describing is going to cost a lot more than that, a lot.

You've confused a couple with some money to spend on a vacation for the family, with some very rich family.

Don't forget, vacations oft include, airfare, car rental, sightseeing (like learning to scuba dive or sailing), hotels, meals, basic traveler's insurance, etc and no hair styling, so that's pretty easy to add up to $14000.

0 upvotes
Cliff Fujii

I agree with you. Vacationing is an expensive proposition. Joining the Disney Vacation Club so you can have two week vacations each year cost about $47,000 plus $1000/year upkeep fee for you home resort. Apparently it's been working for Disney because they just finished building one for the Grand Floridian and have announced one for the Polynesian. A 14 day cruse in a midships cabin with veranda on an upper deck (maybe deck 9) costs about $12,000 (depending where it goes) for two people. The previous poster is right, spending $750 to $1500 on camera gear for a vacation that can cost $14,000 seem appropriate. I guess it all depends on how high your standards are.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 588
1234