I can get the no viewfinder but if you're skipping the viewfinder then at least have a flip screen. Pretty boring offering from Nikon here.

The entire discussion appears to me like bashing a new product without considering the facts. Least of all can I understand why the Coolpix A should be overpriced. Comparing all currently available wide angle compact cameras with at least 1” sensor size, only two products are less expensive: The Fujifilm FinePix X100 and the Sigma DP1 Merrill. None of them is as small and lightweight as the Coolpix A. Moreover, based on DxOMark data, the Coolpix A seems to have the best low-light performance among those cameras.
Since I use Capture NX 2 for editing DSLR photographs and do not want to switch software, I am happy that Nikon finally offers a compact camera with good low-light capabilities. This is definitely the one I have been waiting for.

nice camera, now I just have to wait for a nicer price cut :)

No EVF? No thanks. Once again, Nikon is introducing a camera that is overpriced by about 30%. If this had an EVF I'd definitely consider it. But the main reason I love my X100 is for the hybrid viewfinder. And image quality is outstanding. Sorry Nikon, try again.

One thing that really gets me frustrated with this camera, it is a detail that is important for some and not for others, but not in a category with such an opportunity to have a thread to put filter is too basic. What's wrong with this product manager, engineers who have the responsibility of designing this product, do not see these details? Do we have to make homemade adapters as it does for the RX100, or pay others for expensive adapters to be able to put a filter in front of the lens?
There are things difficult to understand. Or putting a thread for filters would change the price to $ 150 more? And then the Marketing people say this is a camera with pro's in mind. I've always said, we are paying more for less. It is the philosophy of the manufacturers.

Again and again - no built-in viewfinder - no camera. Be happy Fuji - competition is still blind. Competition still sleeping.

It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.

If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.

While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.

Well after the RX-1 has proven a market for this type of camera, perhaps Nikon is aiming at folks that can't afford the high price of that camera. Does that make it an RX-1 wannabe? Or if the RX-1 is, as some have suggested, a Leica wannabe, does this mean that this camera becomes a Leica wannabe wannabe?

Or does this post just prove that I should have had more coffee this morning before hitting the blogosphere?

What a wasted opportunity!
If Nikon would have brought out a digital copy of the F1 or S2 then they could heve seriously challenged the Fuju X series.

They advertise the camera as a street camera for professionals...but with no viewfinder as standard..and the one that is extra does not show focus points.

Do Nikon realise, that the majority of people who can afford this camera are over 40? and a lot of people over 40 wear distance glasses?

Using the camera at arms length to take a shot is not exactly what I call discreet when you are on the street...otherwise I will have to walk around with reading glasses..bi-focals are no good for this.

I expect big discounts for this silver elephant in a few months...in the meantime, I just might buy the X100s instead!

Why will I buy the Coolpix A? Well because it is exactly what I was dreaming that Ricoh would bring out one day in a GRD V.

It is APS-C, very small, and light, and it is thin. Substantially smaller and thinner than the X100s or the X2, and quite a bit thinner than any NEX with the coming 20mm f2.8 pancake.

"Thin" is important, because "thin" is the main metric for "pocketable". The X100s is desirable but it is much chunkier in all dimensions. That is the downside of the intergrated EVF.

The sensor itself is cool because we already know it opens the door to "best in class" quality, including in dark bars and dark streets, at a price point that is not out of this world.

I will also buy it because it has a 28mm equiv lens rather than a 35mm equiv, as that adds flexibility and opportunities to get "that" pic. I can crop 28mm, I cannot "uncrop" 35mm.

Finally, I will buy it because it has no AA filter, and a cool "non-retro" design, and the excellent Nikon UI.

28mm looks pretty sweet for me, reminds me of the Minolta TC-1 and Nikon 28Ti

The price is too steep though

I don't even think it needs to take ANY pictures to get a 73% rating. It just needs to communicate with other Nikon accessories and look smashing to get that rating, around here LOL ...

Wow , so let me get this straight . They put Sony sensors.in there dslrs and now copying Fuji . Let me no if I'm wrong.

I would be a buyer at a price of $700 and $150 for the finder. To get the functionality of an 18.5 f2.8 lens on a 16MP DX camera I would have to carry my 17-55 f2.8 on my D7000. If I were willing to step down to f4 I would have to carry it with the 12-24. Neither is going in any pocket. This camera along with the D7000 and my 60mm f2.8 and 35 f1.8 would make a nice, very portable kit.

I have the E M-5 with three lenses: the kit 12-50, the pana-leica 25/1.4 and the panasonic 45-175. I thought I had all the practical focal lenght covered and didn't need another lens. Nikon told me I was wrong. With their Coolpix A Nikon suggests that a small and quality camera with a 28mm equivalent lens is a must-have. That had me thinking. So, today I purchased on ebay the panasonic 14mm/2.5 pancake lens. My E M-5 with it should be small and light (like Nikon suggests it has to be), it will be also almost 1/2 stop faster than the Nikon Coolpix A, and ....the new lens cost me $ 186 (vs. the Nikon $ 1,100 + $ 450 for the VF). Another thing, after I'll receive the 14/2.5 next week I'll have three primes with the same filter diameter of 46mm. Thank you Nikon!

The Nikon is impressively small.

Camera size comparison with X100S, Coolpix A, RX-100, and NEX-3N: http://j.mp/YNSpQJ

A lot of noise by the Nikon fanboys.
I think I have seen all this already ... oh yes, it was the 1 system release. There was a lot of noise, many publications (suspiciously positive and hyping) what a great camera it is. And where are we now:
The V1 was released at £800 in the UK, now selling for £250 just over a year later!!!
http://camerapricebuster.com/Nikon_Nikon_1_V1_+_10-30mm_Lens_pc.html

I am sure a similar fate will follow the Coolpix A as well. There are so many mirror-less cameras at the moment and Nikon should be trying much harder. Only if you look at how strategically the Sony products are placed, we don't even have to look at Fuji and Olympus products:
A compact with high quality sensor and lens at acceptable price - RX100
A compact full frame with outstanding lens but expensive - RX1
And the whole APS-C NEX line in the middle with interchangeable lenses and all price points.
And all this has been on the market for a while.

I'm very curious to compare the tests with this camera and Fuji X100S, indeed. Hurry up DP! :)

It's exactly like Thom said.. Not Enough.. For Too Much.. Too Late.

NX1000 + 16mm f2.4 + 20-50mm for $550 on BH. You could buy two of those kits for exactly the same $1100 and I bet there is no pratical size difference. Or buy the kit above plus the lovely 30mm f2 plus a fourth lens of your choosing and still have change for an evening at the pub.
Nice camera though and I think the 28mm FL is perfect for point and shooters, who buy pocket zooms but take 98% of their shots at widest setting anyway.

There's a short film about featuring Doug Menuez, who made the Coolpix A sample images on Nikon's website. Impressive work, nice little camera.

Copy and paste following link to check it out.

https://vimeo.com/61024582

Much better than that pathetic Canon EOS M

I don't think I've seen anybody explain why you shouldn't just get the NEX 3N and stick the 20mm pancake on.

The 3N comes with the 16-50mm lens for around £400. Sell the lens and fetch a decent price for it (£75 to £100).
Buy the 20mm for around £280, the combo will cost you a grand total of £680 max.

Both have: RAW,1080p 25 & 50p video, 4 fps max, built-in flash.

+s of the NEX: flipout LCD screen, 2x battery life, 1/4000s v 1/2000s, at least £300 cheaper. with 20mm pancake it's lighter than the Coolpix (!): 280 g v 299g (maybe this excludes the battery; regardless, the difference is not big either way). NEX-3N is 110mm x 62mm x 35 mm (55 mm with the 20mm lens); Coolpix A: 111mm x 64mm x 40mm. I also call this marginal.

+s of the A: higher screen resolution, hotshoe, ISO 25600 (v 16000) and more customisable.

Definitely the camera for Nikon zealots for this price.

when Nikon does something that could be interesting stuff, it is not payable. This camera is at least 350$ overpriced and follows the 1V2 in that matter, which is an ILS. And, they follow Sony RX1 policy, good body, no ILS. So, for a point an shoot, one can say it's solid overpriced. At 700 to 750, I get one since the size and format is ok, not the lens, here a 1.7 had made a better job. Do not forget that Sony gives you this same camera type with ILS for 500$, the latest Nex3 with 16-50 lens included. So, compare, and, it is smaller than this one, and has the same sensor base.

Digital reborn of Ti28. Nice camera and good alternative for Sigma DP1.

I find it interesting that Leica had the Minilux in the 1999-2002 era. It was about $700 US, in the range of the Coolpix A adjusted for inflation.

The original Minilux had a fabulous 40mm 2.4 lens. A lot of people saw the value in that camera. Those that did not initially, usually changed their mind after seeing the photos produced by the camera.

Why would the Coolpix be any different?

Oh, the minilux took 35mm film.

Here are a few more samples, including the very nice image of the woman in the window (on Nikon's website, but not full-res) and others. Either that photographer's especially gifted or this is not your daddy's Coolpix or a bit of both.

Too bad I just bought a Fuji X20 because this camera is interesting for sure.

Other Coolpix A Samples (copy and paste link below)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/sets/72157632921362676/with/8531062486/

At first, i thought it is very expensive.
But my second thought, is it is just right price or maybe a little expensive.
To compare with sony rx100, it is about $450 more but it's senser is twice bigger. To compare with rx1, senser is smaller and there's big difference in price. To compare with fujifilm x100s, senser size is same but x100s has better looking with retro style and has optical view finder but nikon is much smaller body design. If some one wants smaller body with APS-C senser and doesn't mind little slow lens then it is worth it's price. But for me, I will choose rx100 or x100s haha...=33

+ Sample images are good for me
? AF speed, ergonomics and overall performance - unknown

I will buy this camera in half a year for half price (may be with free OVF bundled)

I like 28 for street work. Reminds me of the Ricoh GR series.

You can always crop a bit but you can't always stand back far enough. Don't need one, don't plan on getting one, but I can see why some people would love to have one of these in the bag with their SLR for opportunistic shots, and the sensor is well proven.

For Nikon users it's nice to have a compact that can exploit the same development parameters as their SLRs.

My only question is why don't they release a fixed lens zoom version of the 1 series (not instead of this but as a competitor to the RX100, which hits the performance/convenience sweet spot for a lot of users).

Any news on when they are releasing the A-II with a f/1.4 30mm (45mm equivalent) lens?

finallyl a compact camera with aps-c sensor which I was waiting for.
I'm getting one of these.

It seems that Nikon is determined not to make an APS-C mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Instead, they make the Nikon 1 and the Coolpix A. Interesting strategy...

Blame the f/2.8 on two things:

- Cost. Exotic lens elements and advanced aspherical shapes needed for fast and compact lenses cost a lot. But this is a fixed lens with limited controls and features priced at $1,100, or $1550 with EVF!?

- Size of the sensor. APS-C sensor means big lenses. Just compare the size of lenses with the same speed in NEX and M43 cmeras. An M43 camera can be significant smaller or faster as a result.

Also, Nikon picked a less popular focal length, 28mm, which in f/2.8 can be very small even for APS-C.

Most ofl the complaints of this camera or any NEX camera are due to this fundamental problem of making a small camera with a largish APS-C sensor. There is no cure for this physical limitation, or for the stubborn attitude in continuing with APS-C when makers change to small mirrorless cameras.

Once again, this shows M43 has the optimal trade offs in size (camera dn lens) and performance for small cameras. A M43 camera with 35mm f/2 will kill this.

Is there optical stabilization, I know it is 18mm but at this price??

The P330 has the VR designation, but I can not see on the Coolpix A?!?

It's a pity to read all these critics only based on the specifics. If the interest of a camera was based on those facts, what could be said about a M9?

Once a deep review will reveal the amazing IQ provided by an expert-like-controllable-pocketable camera,I hope we'll laugh at this wave of grumpy photographers.

And if this first shot from Nikon is not the perfect tool, we can see clearly that the whole market is on the way we all wish: an affordable "reflex IQ" in your pocket. Just a matter of -short- time. So why complaining that much?

While I'm a bit miffed at the 2.8 aperture choice, considering the other options available (it's not as if the x100 is a bad camera, after all), I am overall very pleased with Nikon and others for stepping up to the plate and producing cameras for those who want a pocketable camera with a sensor that is larger than my fingernail.

Wonder if those here claiming 28mm is not useful for this or that have seen the sample images:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/a/a/sample.htm

Honestly, don't most zooms start at 28mm? Do the above people not use the most interesting focal length on the zoom, 28mm?

Anyone who has ever tried shooting in a large city like Manhattan or the small streets in European cities with a 35mm or nifty fifty knows that you spend all your time backing up to get buildings or people on the shot. A wide angle lens on the street solves this problem and is pretty much standard on the most popular street cameras like the GRD. Besides, 28mm is actually a bit more interesting than a "normal" 35mm or 50mm FOVs.

Poor strategic move by Nikon, otherwise not a bad camera by itself.

If it had come out INSTEAD of the 1 system I would have bought it. But got tired of waiting for Nikon to make a mirror-less camera with normal controls (remember the stupid modes on the V1/J1).

A year after the compact RX100 with the outstanding Zeiss zoom lens (with advanced aspherical elements) and stunning sensor at half the price the Coolpix A does not stand a chance.

DOA!