Nikon AW1 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

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.

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)	$249.95
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

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

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.)

0 upvotes

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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.

0 upvotes

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.

1 upvote

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.

3 upvotes

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

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!

1 upvote

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

rainbow farts underwater are so colorful

0 upvotes

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

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.

1 upvote

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

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

Yes, it is. A failure to really compete.

0 upvotes

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

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

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

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

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

3 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

Not correct. Both lenses have 41mm filter threads.

5 upvotes

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

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

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.

1 upvote

see nikon, now we are talking

first mirrorless ever that seems interesting to me

9 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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.

2 upvotes

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

8 upvotes

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?

7 upvotes

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

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

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

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.

5 upvotes

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

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

7 upvotes

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

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

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

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

7 upvotes

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

Make a macro lens and you will make many people happy

0 upvotes

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

No, not if the sensor matters to you.

0 upvotes

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

3 upvotes

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

1 upvote

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

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

5 upvotes

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

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".

0 upvotes

Photoexpo:

Note the “?” after “reborn”.

0 upvotes

Photoexpo:

Note the “?” after “reborn”.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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."

2 upvotes

Impact damage at Nikon service centers takes on new meaning.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

1 upvote

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

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

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

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.

0 upvotes

Plastek:

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

0 upvotes

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

5 upvotes

Agreed. Perfect application for an otherwise pointless camera.

2 upvotes

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

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

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

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

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

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?

0 upvotes

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

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

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

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

Now this is something interesting! Nice surprise from Nikon!

3 upvotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

very Promising news. I'm not a fan of Nikon 1 cameras, while IQ and picture quality are disappointment compare to other compact system cameras, but With the same size sensor of Nikon 1, Sony rx-100II has an incredible image quality. even comparable to new 4/3 cameras. I think Nikon 1 has a great potential. also, sensor size is perfect to make a COMPACT camera. Nikon AW1 and it's successors can become really attractive for those, who likes extreme sports, water and snow sports, hiking, diving, rafting and etc.
I would buy one for my summer holiday on the sea.
God job Nikon!

0 upvotes

Where's the EVF?!

0 upvotes

hey -- there isn't one~! You shoot using the rear LCD screen~! It's easier to do than you think~!

0 upvotes

For underwater using the LCD is ok I think. But for everything else an EVF is better.

3 upvotes

EVF useless for underwater or action shots. Even an LCD can be useless. Ergo, a GoPro lacks even an LCD. Shoot wide and WYSIWYG. AKA P&S.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Not planning to go underwater with it. Just wanted a rugged compact raw camera with EVF/OVF for outdoor use.

A standard hot shoe there would have saved the day though because I can put my Voigtlander 28mm OVF there. But knowing that Nikon 1 system has its proprietary hotshoe, this will never happen.

Rear LCD just doesn't work for me somehow. I've given it many honest tries.

0 upvotes

Ages ago, the only viewfinders available were made from bent wire, in the form of two rectangles you looked through. The rectangles were mounted one behind the other in the line of sight, and their sizes depended upon the lens angle. When you visually aligned the rectangles to cover each other, what you saw through the frame was an approximation of what the camera sees.
Outside of a slight parallax problem when shooting close, the system worked well, and there's no reason it won't work now. It was called "Sport Finder".
DIY... quick and easy to make and use.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I don't agree with Jkoch2. I have a J1 with the Nikon WP-N1. Using the LCD was just fine as I only use it for composition. Of course the WP-N1 is a contraption compared to the AW-1. I wonder if it's too late to sell it on eBAY?

0 upvotes

Even if I bought it, I don't think I could bring myself to submerge it.

2 upvotes

You sound like a very interesting person.

2 upvotes

LOL . . . but how about those times that it might get accidentally submerged . . . like taking it out for a canoe ride where you might go for an accidental swim . . . :)

0 upvotes

The camera's greatest protection against failure under water is precisely the fact that few people will dare take it very deep. Too much to lose.

1 upvote

Snowboardiiiing!!!

5 upvotes

...is for GoPro ~!!!

2 upvotes

Hah- this is the GoPro's competition now ...

1 upvote

Ok now Nikon has had the foresight to release a dedicated UW camera with relatively large sensor that shoots RAW and has the bonus of IL, how long before the numskulls at Sony, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Pentax and Samsung wake to themselves. And if they do, how long will the AW1 have in the sun to shine and will it be enough to save the Nikon mirrorless ecosystem?

Whatever, this should have happened 3 years ago.

3 upvotes

15m is hardly a hardcore UW camera. The IL part is good, but a DLSR + UW housing is the way to go (and has been around for the longest time). The small buttons and dials is also a minus although the UW housing is not a lot better. It would be interesting to see a digital RS or Nikonos.

2 upvotes

Where did I say anything about hardcore? Not in the least bit interested in a hardcore set up and I suspect a lot of people just want to dabble and 15m is plenty for me. My ears won't let me go much past 10m anyway. It's also not just about being an UW camera, but is a rugged camera for plenty of outdoors work. I wish I had had one of these a few times on my Iceland trip when it was a hassle to quickly setup rain gear on the big DSLR combo.

4 upvotes

Not hardcore enough for me. Not saying you said hardcore.

0 upvotes

I don't think Nikon had the notion this would "save" their mirrorless. I also don't think there's the global demand for a waterproof IL CC you might think there is. Fact is, the overwhelming amount of recreational photographers don't reach for a waterproof camera to go play in bad weather. Sports buffs aren't going to use it during play. It's a niche item. Cool, sure, but niche.

0 upvotes

Totally disagree - as someone who takes a camera every time I fish, kayak, hike this is EXACTLY what I have been waiting for - something light, compact, better image quality than 1/2.3 sesnor tough cam that cah handle saltwater splashes, wind blown sand, rain and fish slime.
I bet when these reach the shops they will sell very well.

2 upvotes

calking--

Yeah there is a global demand for a raw shooting tough camera, and Nikon makes this more attractive by making a tough camera with a bigger sensor.

You mean that you don't want one, that's fine.

I for one am sick and tired of jpeg only tough cameras.

This is an excellent high ISO sensor, so great for a dark and stormy night or underwater.

And just to repeat: raw, raw, raw + raw.

If these things don't matter to you don't have to buy one.

1 upvote

Have any of the reviewers of these "underwater" cameras actually tried to change a setting while underwater? It's virtually impossible to read anything on a lcd screen while diving. That goes for just about all the "underwater" cameras I've tried so far. And of course, I've tried them underwater. Not in a hotel room...

1 upvote

Or tried changing lenses underwater?

3 upvotes

Cant say I have trouble but depends where you're diving and what the issue is.

Changing lens underwater wise, no other camera allows for that either really, other than 'wet' lenses that go over the front of a port. There are various ways for managing those.

2 upvotes

Where you try ? at the pool or at the sea ? and what is the depth ?
Give more info

0 upvotes

Try a scuba diving mask.

1 upvote

Dive mask won't make the LCD readable if the sun is to your back. Swimming upside down won't help much, either, especially if your snorkel floods or scuba bubbles block your view. Beneath a certain depth, pressure causes some control buttons to collapse or cease to function.

0 upvotes

Good job Nikon. Never have actually thought anybody would come up with an interchangeable underwater camera. I think this will bring back excitement to the 1 model. Regular 1" cam faces fierce competitions(RX-100, NEX, m43). By adding this not only weather sealed but water proof feature, the market for Nikon 1 is now expended to GoPro territory. What a come back. Let's see how the market will response. Technical greatness doesn't guarantee sales success.

8 upvotes

Nikonos reborn, it sounds like the hospital fooling the charity. This is a huge toy, in some way, but we are far away from a rebirth of the "Nikonos". Maybe some day, but when I see how much they charge in normal usual cameras for a double portion of sensor, the "Nikonos" would not be payable anyway.

0 upvotes

Given Nikon's extremely poor track record with its "waterproof" Coolpix AW cameras (AW100, AW110), there may be some hesitation towards this new offering.

2 upvotes

Given the fact that Nikon made and sold the Nikonos for years, I'll bet they can make this body+lenses waterproof.

And remember of course that say the D4 and many Nikon SLR lenses have excellent weather sealing today.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

3 upvotes

If I recall correctly, Nikon did not design the Nikonos but bought the design from a company that specialized in underwater equipment.

3 upvotes

Given the fact that the Nikon 1-J3 sells for $250 why are they bringing out more new models? I thought Nikon announced they were to seriously rethink their Nikon 1 line due to poor sales most of which the decline in their sales was due to decline in Nikon 1 sales.

0 upvotes

Their Digital Nikonos was plagued by leaking, flooding, corroded electronics...

0 upvotes

I have an AW110. It's never leaked.

2 upvotes

AbusiveReader:

I already raised the point that Nikon was not the originator, in a reply OldArrow explained in detail that yes the first design came from somewhere else, but then Nikon spent years doing modifications and different versions of the camera bodies and lenses.

0 upvotes

Do they give warranty for the leak proof ?

0 upvotes

@CaseyComo: The fact that the problem may be in quality control rather than the principal design is not exactly consoling. Have you taken yours down to the advertised depth of 59 feet?

1 upvote

forsakenbliss:

Nikon shipped a digital Nikonos, when and for how long? There was an AF Nikonos.

0 upvotes

@HowAboutRaw... Don't forget that Nikon botched the two models thoroughly: IVa and RS. The former had an unthought-through seal which they quickly exchanged for proper o-ring in mod. V. The RS was completely frustrating, as someone forgot that, whatever the ocular size, there simply is not enough light to view TTL. Besides, their special rings were PITA to service, and all that at a price which simply had no logic.
Thus, it seems that contemporary "tough" cameras are designed by yet another team which has not had much contact with such camera users. People do buy such things to actually use them in the field, and the designers should learn from their experiences, and also take into account their wishes / needs.
The very fact that they nowadays use some IP standards which connect the water pressure limit with exposure time restriction shows that the cameras are sealed / shaped either wrongly- or purposefully so.
And that, IMO, is not exactly being honest to a customer.

0 upvotes

Despite being fond of Nikon products, this seems too little too late. I don't see what is superior in this to other options out there. I would never take this diving if it can only be used to 15 m. I know scuba diving isn't all of underwater use, but 49 ft seems limited. What am I missing?

1 upvote

You're missing a lot. This isn't just for use under water.

5 upvotes

Just good for snorkeling or shallow reef dives, but still a step forward in a good direction. But, anyway, this camera has a lot to offer, it is not only scuba diving, but more outdoor adventure that is targeted, rafting, for example, cave exploration, sports you do in dirt and wet situations. I think that this camera can be very successful among adventurers, and, it has a larger sensor, a good one, and it shoots raw.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

There is a reason why they mentioned 49 feet limitation. In all practical purposes, it can go well beyond that.

1 upvote

@ppronovo, what you're missing is that Nikon already covers scuba diving 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 (130 feet).

1 upvote

Dives more than 49 feet are no good for photography, unless one brings lamps to compensate for loss of red wavelengths and darkness. Otherwise, everything looks blue-gray, gloomy, and murky. Air tanks last less time at greater depths, and you incur risk of bends or rapture of the deep. No fun. Not much to see. Not worth the trouble. Stuff for ALVIN, not me.

0 upvotes

lovely concept but I would rather invest in underwater case for upcoming Full Frame NEX or alternatively Fuji (with their excellent low light performance). Large sensor is the key for good underwater photography or video. Just don't expect exciting results with your f5.6 Nikon lens - equivalent of f 15.1 on full frame!

3 upvotes

The light gathering of the lens is the same regardless of the sensor size. f5.6 is still f5.6 on the smaller sensor. The depth of field is what changes.

8 upvotes

Oh how many have said, “but you can buy a case”.

Cases for DLSRs start at around 1000usd.

Then “upcoming full framed Nex”, heard that a lot, and it’s not impossible. However unless Sony wants to take the Pentax route, Sony is going to have to do entirely new lenses for any such camera.

If cases are your thing for underwater shooting just get one for that Fuji XE1.

There sure are a lot uses for this new Nikon that don’t involve actually being underwater. You know like in heavy rain.

So a lovely concept, and likely very good execution by Nikon.

Look you’d have a point if good case didn’t add bulk and significant cost; bags can avoid some of those problems but not cases.

5 upvotes

Yet another person who, faced with either rugged compact cameras or this AW1, argue for a bigger camera and casing. It's not either/or. There has to be a middle ground - which used to be held by the Nikonos.

Quite apart from the cost of a casing, the sheer size and weight of the things is a deterrent to many outdoor users. Hopeless for mountaineering, caving, kayaking etc. Try stuffing a DSLR in a casing inside your life jacket. We need a slightly bigger camera with real 'O'ring sealing to cater for diving pressures and really rough conditions.

I agree with you about the potential for an NEX FF in a small casing, but let's wait and see the camera first. FWIW I really can't see the point of debating equivalent apertures between formats for UW use. It's not about shallow DOF UW - it's usually more about getting enough light and actual depth of field.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Rod McD:

Reread the big F stop light gathering mistake in the original post--the OP confused DOF with light gathering.

0 upvotes

Battesea,

Silly me I missed that huge mistake by the OP.

0 upvotes

There's also that not-so-insignificant kick to the groin the rumored Sony FF NEX will cost. Can't wait to see all these Sony FF NEX fanboys taking $4000 worth of ILC into the sea to shoot little fishies. lmao

0 upvotes

Good luck hiking or kayaking or caving with your FF camera and 2kg housing!

1 upvote

At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.

So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .

2 upvotes

No, not at all silly at first glance.

And that Panasonic doesn’t shoot raw, has a slow lens, isn’t good in lowlight.

Right glad you see the reason for a big sensor, now shoot raw.

And try increasing the shutter speed to fix blur problems, there was a world of action photos before auto sensor/lens stabilization.

0 upvotes

As an accomplished D800 user I know all about RAW.
As far as increasing shutter speed, that's hard to do without running the ISO way up on such a small sensor so that the results become, well, less than tolerable.

And yes I was part of that world before auto sensor/lens stabilization and one of the cures was fast glass, which none of these AW compacts have (even f/2.8 is not so fast), along with a flash, otherwise the picture was just not attempted.

0 upvotes

If there ever was a place where VR would be beneficial, this has to be it.

0 upvotes

jhinkey--

And with this Nikon 1 system you really can use ISO 6400. So don't be so quick to dismiss this system. This is very good in lowlight, probably better than a D800. (I guess Aptina may know something Sony doesn't) So yep you can increase shutter speeds to fix blur.

See this is one of the few cameras where the listed top ISO is actually useable, yes I'm sure, and yes you'll need to shoot raw.

0 upvotes

@abrasive== so true, but then there'd be no reason to get the upcoming AW2 which would have that useful feature, for a price.

0 upvotes

I think your comment was exactly right. This is a great camera for people who occasionally drop their camera. I, for one, never plan to drop the camera, so I rarely have the waterproof housing on when it happens.

0 upvotes

AS far as HA RAW claiming the ISO 6400 will be better than the D800, I can't imagine that will be true. (No matter how much you like grain...)

I have not used either, so I can't say for sure, but there are some laws of physics to deal with. Also, about a hundred thousand camera reviews from people who know a lot about image quality.

Faster AF, maybe.

0 upvotes

Low Budget Dave:

Well I have raw samples from both.

And the D800 is shadow noisy above ISO3200.

Guess you always print from D800 files at a resolution beyond 300 dpi.

And it's not like the Nikon 1s are noise free at ISO6400, they're just producing useable files, which is stretch for the D800.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

HA Raw: I looked up some samples from the DP review of each, and the D800 completely buries the V1 at every ISO.

The color is similar at 6400, but only in JPG. In Raw, the chroma noise on the V1 is overwhelming. The resolution on the D800 is outstanding, even at 6400, while the V1 is only usable for telephone-size screens.

I admit that a lot of people are obsessed with sharpness, and miss out on the artistic look that can be obtained from the V1. In addition, the V1 might deliver better images for hacks like me, because of the blazing fast AF. (Also, since it is smaller, I might actually have it with me, if I bought one.)

But for sharpness, dynamic range, color, and low-light capability, the D800 is hard to beat. If your V1 works better, then there is a chance that your D800 needs service.

0 upvotes

Low Budget Dave--

Um, this is the 14MP sensor from the Nikon 1 V2. (So a different model.)

So get some raws from that camera, and extract away. Albeit: it will be close. (I don't think DPReview has raws from the 1 series V2.)

I'm not interested in the D800 having better IQ at say ISO 400, I'm sure that's the case, well depending on the lens too.

And as I said, if printing of course the 36MP camera affords more tricks, like printing above 300dpi.

0 upvotes

As mentioned elsewhere - sort of a good weatherproof design which would be of little use for serious underwater purposes. I think people tend to forget that even a camera with a waterproof rating of 15 meters is only good for 15 meters "if" it isn't bumped hard against coral or equipment, etc. The reason waterproof watches are rated at depths which no diver would ever reach is that the shock of a good thump against a hard object at depth exponentially increases the depth requirement instantly. I use a little old Olympus with an underwater housing at depths to 100 feet and am quite secure knowing that it will withstand fairly hard bumps and not leak. I would not use this new Nikon as a camera for diving - perhaps for snorkeling at 20 feet or so it would be perfectly satisfactory.

0 upvotes

Once upon a time all underwater equipment was tested to at least 150% rated pressure, and often worked well at over 200%. Such devices (breathing regs, cameras, diving instruments etc.) could withstand a lot of rough usage.
Things used at extreme (pro, non-sport) depths were sometimes liquid-filled, or had some arrangement for gas adding, as a means to compensate the pressure difference. There were helium vents on some diving watches for the surplus gas to escape when returning to surface pressure.
In short, all depth / pressure problems have been solved ages ago; all it takes is to apply the same knowlege and principles. Forgotten?
But since camera water ingress renders the Warranty useless, the manufacturers seem to think they'd sell more cameras if they used risky sealings.
Replace the funny rubbers for o-rings, replace push-pin commands for rotated or magnet switches, use proper form and material for the camera box, and there's the perfect u/w camera they think nobody needs...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Total comments: 561

Editorial content

Product database

Community