Previous page Next page

Nikon AW1 First Impressions Review

September 2013 | By Barney Britton, Jeff Keller
Buy on GearShopFrom $746.95

Well now here's a pleasant surprise - Nikon has released a rugged, waterproof mirrorless interchangeable lens camera - along with a pair of equally tough lenses - for a starting price under $800. Those familiar with Nikon film cameras may fondly recall the days of the Nikonos, with which the company dominated underwater photography from the 1960s onward.

The AW1 is essentially, if not exactly, a ruggedized version of Nikon's 1 J3. It is waterproof down to 15 meters (49 ft), shockproof from up to 2 meters (6.6 ft), and protected against cold as low as -10 degrees Celsius (14F). It is announced with two lenses - equally ruggedized versions of the 11-27mm (30-74mm equiv) and 10mm (27mm equiv) optics that already form part of the 1 System lineup. The AW1 is compatible with all 1 System lenses, but it will not be water, shock or freezeproof with a non-ruggedized lens on the front. The waterproof lenses, however, will not be compatible with other 1 System cameras.

Nikon AW1: Key Specifications

  • Waterproof, shockproof and freezeproof
  • 14MP C-format (2.7x crop factor) CMOS sensor
  • ISO 100-6400
  • 3-inch LCD with 921,000 dots
  • Built-in GPS with compass, altimeter, and depth meter
  • Action Control system for underwater/gloved operation
  • PASM shooting via 'Creative Mode' menu
  • 15 fps burst mode with continuous AF, 60 fps with single AF
  • Full HD 1080p video

Nikon's 1 System has been around for a couple of years now, and although we weren't entirely convinced by the initial pair of cameras - the J1 and V1 - they did offer some unique (at the time) hybrid autofocus technology, and some cool features. Ultimately, they also did exactly what Nikon wanted them to do, providing intermediate and novice users with better-than-compact image quality plus the ability to add lenses and system accessories if needed.

The asking price for the initial offerings was a little high - especially for the V1 - but since then the system has expanded sensibly, and current low-end 1 System cameras like the S1 and J3 are reasonably priced and well-positioned, with the V2 offering a much more compelling 'step up' option than the original V1.

The AW1 is shown here with one of its optional silicone skins attached (left) and 'naked', on the right. The orange rubber might have a certain appeal to those nostalgic for the Nikonos cameras of yore, but the AW1 is still impressively tough without this extra protection.

Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon. As such, we honestly didn't expect the company to significantly change the recipe quite yet. Arguably, Nikon didn't need to do much beyond adding lenses and periodically updating its entry-level, intermediate and advanced 1 System cameras to keep its target demographic happy. In an industry which is increasingly characterized by caution, this would have been perfectly normal.

And that's why the appearance of the AW1 is so refreshing. When we were shown the new camera at Nikon's American HQ recently we were very pleasantly surprised. Some of us are old enough to remember the famous Nikon 'Nikonos' waterproof film cameras, and although the AW1 certainly isn't a Nikonos (it's only rated to operate at 15m underwater rather than 50m, for a start), it has the potential to occupy a similar niche. What this means of course - assuming the AW1 performs well in our tests - is that it could make the 1 System genuinely interesting to enthusiasts and owners of other established systems. It might not be an evolutionary product - the AW1 is extremely similar to the inexpensive J3 in terms of specification - but its existence does evolve the 1 System.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
61
I own it
92
I want it
4
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 587
1234
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (10 months ago)

Where's the EVF?!

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (10 months ago)

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
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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
Cliff Fujii
By Cliff Fujii (10 months ago)

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
Tee1up
By Tee1up (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (10 months ago)

You sound like a very interesting person.

2 upvotes
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (10 months ago)

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
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

Snowboardiiiing!!!

5 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

...is for GoPro ~!!!

2 upvotes
wolfie
By wolfie (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (10 months ago)

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
love_them_all
By love_them_all (10 months ago)

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
thx1138
By thx1138 (10 months ago)

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
love_them_all
By love_them_all (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

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
wolfie
By wolfie (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
Nuno Souto
By Nuno Souto (10 months ago)

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
raincoat
By raincoat (10 months ago)

Or tried changing lenses underwater?

3 upvotes
Otaraka
By Otaraka (10 months ago)

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
utomo99
By utomo99 (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Nikolausz
By Nikolausz (10 months ago)

Try a scuba diving mask.

1 upvote
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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
new boyz
By new boyz (10 months ago)

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
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

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
Leandros S
By Leandros S (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (10 months ago)

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
forsakenbliss
By forsakenbliss (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (10 months ago)

I have an AW110. It's never leaked.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
utomo99
By utomo99 (10 months ago)

Do they give warranty for the leak proof ?

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (10 months ago)

@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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

forsakenbliss:

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

@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
ppronovo
By ppronovo (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

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
Devendra
By Devendra (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (10 months ago)

@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
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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
novak977
By novak977 (10 months ago)

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
Battersea
By Battersea (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
Rod McD
By Rod McD (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Rod McD:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Battesea,

Silly me I missed that huge mistake by the OP.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

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
wolfie
By wolfie (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
jhinkey
By jhinkey (10 months ago)

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
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

@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
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (10 months ago)

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
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (10 months ago)

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
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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
Lin Evans
By Lin Evans (10 months ago)

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
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

6 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (10 months ago)

Ha ha, very funny :)

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Lin Evans
By Lin Evans (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (10 months ago)

Commercially lacklustre.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Optimal Prime:

You have sales figures worldwide for the Nikon 1 system?

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

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

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

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

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
wus
By wus (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

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

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

Professional equipment are never cheap.

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

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

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

white shadow--

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

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

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

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (10 months ago)

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

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

13 upvotes
Zigmont
By Zigmont (10 months ago)

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

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

Agreed, 15 meters is 49 feet.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (10 months ago)

That's what I was thinking.

2 upvotes
kelpdiver
By kelpdiver (10 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
hc44
By hc44 (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

FINALLY. Someone who gets it.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Trollshave:

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

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Jerome Nolas,

Very unlikely.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (10 months ago)

Oh, get thee behind me, Satan!

0 upvotes
Dodi73
By Dodi73 (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
pgphoto_ca
By pgphoto_ca (10 months ago)

Cool feature !!!

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

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

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

0 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (10 months ago)

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

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

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

Nikon nailed it.

8 upvotes
atelier O
By atelier O (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
JamesVo
By JamesVo (10 months ago)

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

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

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

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

11 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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

7 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

OldArrow:

Right this isn't a really serious dive camera.

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

OldArrow,

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

OA--

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Farmer in the Dell
By Farmer in the Dell (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
bobfather48
By bobfather48 (10 months ago)

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

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

Not a perfect system but a useful photographic tool.

7 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

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

Seems like a better way to go.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (10 months ago)

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

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

supeyugin1:

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

Cases add bulk, expense and complication.

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Deardorff
By Deardorff (10 months ago)

14 degrees? ABOVE zero???

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

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

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Deardorff
By Deardorff (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

OldArrow,

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

OldA--

Right water freezing is not the reference point in Fahrenheit.

32F above 0F is H2O freezing.

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (10 months ago)

It wouldn't surprise me.

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (10 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

I did it this morning.

8 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Nikonparrothead
By Nikonparrothead (10 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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

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

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

2 upvotes
Nikolausz
By Nikolausz (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Nikonlausz--

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

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

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

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (10 months ago)

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

6 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (10 months ago)

Nikon 1 is actually very popular in Asia.

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

9 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (10 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
GSD_ZA
By GSD_ZA (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
win39
By win39 (10 months ago)

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

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
fuxicek
By fuxicek (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

There are other uses for decent photos than FBook.

0 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (10 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (10 months ago)

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

9 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Boissez
By Boissez (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (10 months ago)

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

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

3 upvotes
Beachcomber Joe
By Beachcomber Joe (10 months ago)

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

73 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (10 months ago)

Well done, sir.

6 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (10 months ago)

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

15 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (10 months ago)

haha, that great

4 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Artpt
By Artpt (10 months ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Mahmoud Mousef
By Mahmoud Mousef (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

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

9 upvotes
erik6
By erik6 (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
gescolar
By gescolar (10 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Do a lot of scuba divers dive below 30 feet?

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

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

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

1 upvote
ryansholl
By ryansholl (10 months ago)

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

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

6 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (10 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
ShatteredSky
By ShatteredSky (10 months ago)

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

Cheers

3 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

OldArrow:

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

Many people snorkel and do light scuba in shallow water.

Interesting enough Nikonos history.

0 upvotes
Langusta
By Langusta (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

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

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

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

7 upvotes
ShatteredSky
By ShatteredSky (10 months ago)

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

Cheers

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Shatter--

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

0 upvotes
ShatteredSky
By ShatteredSky (10 months ago)

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

Cheers

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

ShatterdSky--

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

0 upvotes
Langusta
By Langusta (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ShatteredSky
By ShatteredSky (10 months ago)

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

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

Cheers

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

ShatteredSky:

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

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

0 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (10 months ago)

Look up Torture Tests.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

jkoch2:

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

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

Nikon probably just killed that market.

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

2 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Andy W:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (10 months ago)

Andy:

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

Just saying someone would ask.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Valentinian
By Valentinian (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (10 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (10 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
hydrospanner
By hydrospanner (10 months ago)

Um...guys?

A flash is in the works.

1 upvote
domina
By domina (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (10 months ago)

Did you even bother to read the specs?

3 upvotes
Total comments: 587
1234