Sony FE system is more aimed at people whjo might be persuaded to buy a DSLR
The only thing is that Nikon announced that they are working on an FX mirrorless. I haven't heard anything official about a DX mirrorless camera which strangely enough might be able to use the CX mount.
--
Cliff
does ANYONE have a link to where Nikon officially announced they were working on FF mirrorless??
Here is
something but it doesn't especially refer to FX. Just mirrorless in general.
Exactly
The FF mirrorless came from rumor mongers
Patents don't mean diddley
from:
"On the product side, we should compete in the mid-range and high-end DSLR. We aim to be the top in a genre, and earn profits even if sales are down. For a smartphone generation, we put out a very Nikon-ish mirrorless camera which is superior to rivals in quality. Making the best use of industrial lens technology, we would like to overwhelm them in lens quality. On the other hand, we need fun."
we could believe Nikon are just going to resurrect the NIKON 1
I think they should. There's a lot of sense to the Nikon 1 system, and it was what kept Nikon afloat during the twin disasters when they couldn't make cameras in Japan or Thailand. I just think their marketing focus got a bit confused and they failed to develop the range of lenses it needed.
Rubbish !
Obviously you have a different view.
It was still born and a disaster from the start , horrible ergonomics and silly prices .
As I said, in the early days, the Nikon 1 system kept Nikon alive, when it couldn't make cameras in Japan or Thailand. The 'ergonomics' as you call them, were actually well designed, just went without a mode wheel (like top-end Nikon DSLRs). In fact, the first ones were good to use in M mode, with separate controls for shutter and aperture that were well placed.
No, the controls/ haptics were awful and not worthy of the name Nikon .
You can keep on saying it, but I found they worked quite well. This is what you might call 'a difference of opinion'. There is no reason that everyone has to accept your opinion.
Correct , nor yours.
Indeed, but I've never insisted that they do.
Nor me , just an opinion
Good, then we can stop discussing it.
Badge engineering at its worst, poor on a fixed zoom lens P and S , let alone a ICL system masquerading as the next hot ticket from Nikon !
It wasn't in any sense 'badge engineering'. The Nikon 1 series were a completely original Nikon developed product, they were not some generic OEM product with the Nikon badge applied.
Correct . I should have said 'a me too with bells and whistles ' but wearing a Nikon badge
That would have been better.
The Series 1 was an embarrassment to Nikon's illustrious history . if you liked it great , but since you never owned one you could not have liked it that much !
I disagree. It was not an embarrassment at all. It was a well conceived system with, unfortunately, some flaws.
Nikon should know better by now surely ,they have been making successful cameras since 1948 .
One would hope, but somehow they frequently make unsuccessful cameras, even with all that experience.
Tiny buttons with no feel, and no grip to the original body -later versions had a grip but were still flawed in so many ways by then the whole Series 1 mess was irrelevant .
Days were when no camera had a grip. I have my old FM2 sitting on the desk in front of me. Guess what - no grip.
The FM2 was a not comparable in any way and could be held perfectly in the traditional manner as well you know .
It doesn't have a grip, though. And the N1 has better located and easier to adjust controls.
Yes it did as an accessory drive if required. .http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fefmshared/md12/index.htm
That was a motor drive, not a grip.
No it was both and had a dual function as a grip and drive . It was used in both roles or often just to improve the handling as a grip in single shot mode.
I don't believe so. One of the major selling points about the FM and FE was that they were compact. They were Nikon's answer to the OM cameras. By and large in those days people did not use grips.
Surely you jest? Yes they and I did.
I didn't say nobody did, I said that by and large people didn't. Only if they fitted o motor drive, and the motor drive had a 'grip' more or less by accident, designed to put the motor shutter release somewhere where the photographer could use it. The early ones clearly were not designed functional to be a 'grip'
If it was a 'grip' it would be properly shaped and covered with leatherette,
Move onto the FE, the MD-12 shows that Nikon realises that people have to put their fingers round the shutter release extension, but it's still not profiled or positioned to be a proper 'grip'.
For a start, your hand is now too low to allow you to get easily at the shutter speed knob, and your access to the aperture ring is impeded by the position of the MD shutter release.
If you just used the camera by itself, no 'grip'.
The FM series were workhorse cameras used for many many years by legions of photographers and most pros used them with grip drives attached . Ditto the OM series cameras which also had a neat and handy small grip/ drive accessory.
No one ever called them 'grip drives'. That's a phrase you made up to push your position. They were 'motor drives' which happened to have an extension for the motor drive release, (because the camera shutter release was a mechanical device actually connected to the shutter mechanism, and couldn't operate the motor without firing the shutter)
http://www.kleptography.com/rf/ Richard Franiec makes grips for cameras that need them .
Sure, those that want can add them on.
If one is aiming for compactness and pocketability, no grip beats grip. Possibly if you were trying to hold the camera like you would a gripped one, clenching it in your fist, it explains why you didn't get on with the controls.
Nobody , not even you I suspect , can hold a camera with a clenched fist .
You clench your fist round the grip. It's a completely different hand position than you'd use for a camera without a grip.
Not good enough ,get a grip !
As you say above, you can if you want. They did add a grip to the V2, kind of removed the whole point of the camera.
Sure some of the sensor tech was good . but in the wrong product .
Canon were right to go with APS-C.
An ICL system with a 1" sensor is either a vanity project , or a futile exercise in not cannibalising same brand lines- a recipe doomed to failure .
I disagree. the 1" sensor is right at the small end of what's usable for more serious photography, if provided with the right set of lenses. Unfortunately, Nikon didn't.
Okay, my turn to disagree and vehemently . Who do you think would buy into such a system ? ICL systems are generally for pros and enthusiasts and a 1" sensor more suited to fixed lens zoom models .
I know a few people who bought into the Nikon 1 system, one of whom was a Canon FF DSLR user. The reason was that it gave a very compact and effective carry anywhere camera capable of action photography. At the time, there wasn't such a thing. The problem was the lens availability. Many serious photographers seem happy with f/4 on FF as their limit on DOF and light gathering, That required f/1.5 on the N1, and it took a long tine for such a thing to arrive. For zooms, many are happy with f/3.5 on APS-C which needs f/2 on N1, again, this did not materialise. On the other hand, such speeds tend to prejudice the size advantage, but the advantage of an interchangeable lens camera is that you can fit a compact lens when you want, you're not stuck with something the size of the FZ1000.
Sure, a 1" camera can't do what a FF one can do, but the system was never intended to do that.
All covered very well by M4/3s , no need for a 1 inch sensor system .
So you think Nikon should have gone for mFT? Interesting. It's interesting that you think that 1.35x difference in crop factor makes so much difference.
No not me , the market has decided - Series 1 a flop, M43/s not.
Now it is, due to Nikon's confused marketing and failure to develop the lens system it needed.
Lipstick on a pig is no solution, as Nikon and others have discovered .
25 lenses, and any amount of marketing BS from Nikon would not have saved the N1 from ultimate ignominy and eventual demise.
I disagree, but you knew that, didn't you?
I thought you may, but am still surprised at your refusal to acknowledge market facts .
I'm not refusing to acknowledge any 'market facts'. In fact, you haven't presented any 'market facts', just your speculation and interpretation. It is not a 'fact' that '25 lenses and any amount of marketing BS' would not have saved the N1. It is your unsubstantiated opinion.
M4/3s is often criticised for having a small a sensor , so how is an even smaller 1" sensor system going to overcome that handicap ? Who would buy expensive glass for such a system in serious numbers?
The mFT sensor is perfectly fine for what it's good at, as is the 1" sensor.
IMHO you are at cross purposes again and confusing the issues .
M4/3s, sensor and mount, is a complete and comprehensive stand alone system ,supported by two major companies and for many is' good enough' to rival larger sensor formats /systems . The sensor is also used in serious video camera applications.
Exactly, and I say that the problem with the N1 was that Nikon never developed it into a 'complete and comprehensive stand alone system'. It was 'complete' but they never developed the lenses needed to make it 'comprehensive'.
A !" sensor in any camera you care to name is none of the above .
None of what?
Let's take them in turn:
Developed into a complete and comprehensive stand alone system: well, we agreed that, didn't we?
For many is 'good enough' to rival larger sensor formats/systems. Sure the 1" sensor is 'good enough' for many. Many spans their time shooting around f/8 (FF), a 1" sensor can do that at f/2.8, so with f/2.8 available, a 1"sensor is 'good enough'. Ive seen the argument often that the 1" compacts and bridge cameras are 'good enough' for serious photographers.
Used in serious video camera applications: Sure the 1" sensor is. It's about the same size as a super-16 film frame, and several serious video cameras with 1" sensors are available:
https://www.cinema5d.com/panasonic-hc-x1-announced-4k-dci-1-inch-sensor-video-camera/
http://www.backscatter.com/Sony-AX100-Camera
https://www.sony.com/electronics/handycam-camcorders/hdr-cx900
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/...nch-sensor-12x-optical-zoom-and-4k-recording/
http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog...ces-three-new-4k-1-inch-sensor-video-cameras/
https://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera
https://www.digitalbolex.com
In fact, Sony makes a 4k 1" BSI video sensor for just this purpose, and I would expect there to be many more serious video cameras with 1" sensor.
Best to do a quick fact check before you post your opinions.
Nikon already canned the DL series before it even came to market citing lack of demand ,interest , cost/profitability/sales ratios or whatever and yet you still expect them to use the same sensor size in a revival of an already failed product line . Now that sounds like another brilliant Nikon decision - NOT !
Agreed, but the DL was not the Nikon 1. One inch sensors are doing very well in other manufacturer's product lines.
Name one that is ICL based and as comprehensive as M4./3s.
Different question.
No it's not , its on the money just like this new 1" sensor camera from Sony which you will note is not an ICL system but covers all the same bases plus decent video.
So again what benefit, an ICL 1 "sensor resurrected N1 other than smaller size , and Sony has that covered too with their RX range .
No, it's not on the money. Those cameras show that 1" is OK for some serious photographers. There is no reason why there should be any less OK with interchangeable lenses.
Except for the one fatal flaw in your argument , not enough interest in such a system to make it viable / profitable.
You want proof - CANON !
How is Canon proof of that?
JEEZ !See below!
They are the most savvy and currently profitable camera company and if there were big bucks in your fantasy system, Canon of all brands would be on the case immediately.
Hardly. Canon never has tried to fill every niche.
Canon like profit , are very successful and decided APS-C NOT a 1" sensor was desirable in a mirrorless system for it to generate interest and thus big sales.
You presume that to be wrong do you ?
I think Canon had a different situation. They had a lens mount system that was suitable for mirrorless cameras and an extensive APS-C infrastructure. APS-C was a no brainer, in terms of a mirrorless system. Nikon was and is not in that position. It's existing lens mount is fundamentally unsuited for mirrorless, so essentially it has no infrastructure to fall back on. The idea of going for more compact that APS-C would allow made a lot of sense.
Resurrecting any system with a 1" is no longer at Nikon's core, nor should it be.
Other people's views may differ.
THEY SURE DO !
Nikon lost its way badly straying from its core values chasing volume and demeaning its brand identity in the process.
Other people's views may differ.
Producing crap for the masses (COOLPIX /SERIES 1!!) was never going to work for long, but thankfully Nikon seems back on track with what it does well - top level FX/DX DSLRs and lenses. Bringing that ethos to mirrorless is anticipated and expected, for all the many oft repeated reasons.
What a condescending attitude.
Not really , the product failed .
The condescending attitude is the idea that they were 'producing crap for the masses'.
Undeniable , all landfill now .
I know quite a few still using them.
On your advice?
No, because they like them.
Despite better options existing ? The power of a name over common sense and logic.
You assume what you think would be a 'better option' for you would be for everybody. That's what I meant a bit ago when I accused you of condescension, talking about 'crap for the masses'. It clearly isn't 'the power of a name' since one of those people uses Canon as his main DSLR system, and grew up with Pentax in film days. It's simply that as a carry everywhere camera with action capability, the N1 has had very few competitors until recently.
I'll refer you to a contemporaneous opinion:
It's official: at long last, my weekend carry-about camera has arrived. And it's called the V1.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pagea733.html?cid=7-11666-11988
Producing camera for the masses does not in any way prejudice Nikon's ability to produce cameras for exalted people such as yourself.
Sarcasm!
Deserved!
Maybe what worries you more is that if 'the masses' have 'Nikon' written on their camera, you might seem a little less excellent.
Nikon have never been good outside their core , even in the film days .
Digital gave them an opportunity , or so they judged, to compete with Canon , Olympus etc . in fields other than DSLRS , hence Coolpix .
Apart from the early 950 which I I bought , and that model's immediate successors , Coolpix to this day has no identity and is little more than a 'me too' also ran.
This is true, but that doesn't mean that producing products with mass appeal would not be a good thing for Nikon to do.
Funny, it doesn't seem to worry Canon users.
Simply because Canon knows how to design and make attractive , viable cameras beyond DSLRs of all types inc video , and always has done since the film SLR era.
Not the point.
Very much the point . Nikon are, and always have been, not very good at making cameras other than ICL Rangefinders , SLRs and DSLRs .
I would disagree. They've made some very good cameras, but they fail to make them attractive to the market.
Please list these ' very good' Nikon fixed lens cameras you refer to.
Imaging resource awarded the P900 a camera of the year best superzoom award,
Sony and Panasonic have them beat on all counts in that market.
I don't deny that, but you're attempting to shift your ground. The question at issue here is whether Nikon can make good cameras other than ' ICL Rangefinders , SLRs and DSLRs'. I say yes. The question of whether they are market successes is a different topic.
Coolpix A seems to be a decent camera,
It was, and why was that ? An APS-Cs sensor that's why , NOT a 1" sensor . Surprise surprise !!
Nevertheless Nikon canned it and the Ricoh GR APS-C was was /is equally good and possibly still available. Another Nikon failure outside their core lines.
See above.
L340 offers good VFM and so on.
Invisible , nondescript fodder.
There is your condescension coming out again. That fact that it's beneath you does not make it not a good camera for what it is intended to do.
All of these are good cameras given what they are designed to do. just Nikon hasn't cracked the marketing.
Really? I do not buy that for a second , cream always rises to the surface .
No, it doesn't and very often bits of crap float around on the surface (if you really want to play inappropriate metaphors).
Marketing, no matter how persuasive cannot help clones, there has to be a touch of desire to own too. Sticking a Nikon badge on mostly also ran dross was never going to be enough and so it proved .
Your condescension coming out again. Why don't you just move to Canon? By your logic they are clearly making much better cameras all around than Nikon.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
Exactly. The N1 was a very good idea, initially well developed, with the best ML AF at the time of launch, but Nikon screwed it badly re lenses, They never released a fast normal-range zoom, for example. Also, they could have developed a more able body, it never happened. I think they thought that a more able body with a good lens system would compete with DX. They may be making the same mistake again, waiting too long and not wanting a new system to compete with their better dslrs. Meanwhile Sony is eating their FF market and Oly, Panny and Fuji their DX one. Mistakes mistakes mistakes.
NIKON 1 Series failed , end of story.
The question is why it failed, after a good start where it was for a while the leading mirrorless system by sales.
From my recollection it had a very poor start and was roundly condemned from the off.
Your recollection is incorrect, coloured, I suspect, by your prejudice against it from the start.
Perhaps you bought a pink one and thought it the bees knees .
No, I have never owned a N1 system. I have borrowed and used them. (not a pink one, though I do have a white Pentax Q)
Best not mention the Q , although i do l like and own Pentax DSLRs .
Why is it 'best not to mention the Q'?
Its not very good!
It's very good for what I use it for.
I meant, it's not very good as a general purpose system , which is the topic is it not ?
You didn't say that. No, it's not very good as a general purpose system, but then I don't use it as a general purpose system.
So again, even though you are an advocate for the N1 system and consider it had /has merit you did not buy it ?
It's a brilliant camera system but still not good enough for you ? Strange.
Therein lies the rub , turns out you were not alone and not enough others, outside of the local and Asian market, , fell for the N1's touted charms either.
It's not strange at all. Given the cameras I have and the type of photography I do, the 1 series doesn't make much sense for me personally. That isn't to say it doesn't and can't make sense for others.
And the Q does ?
The 1 doesn't make sense for what I use the Q for.
Just out of curiosity what do you use the Q for, and why in preference to anything else. ?
It's really very good for finding the absolute resolving power of a lens. With those tiny 1 micron pixels and ability to fit an adapter for almost everything, along with focus peaking, it's not hard to find out how good a lens is, independent of the camera its fitted to.
I would say the reason is as I said, confused marketing and a failure to develop the lens system. Those two could equally apply to any new mirrorless system that Nikon introduces, and have substantially been true also of the EOS-M system.
No they could not ,
I say they could. What are you going to do about that? Stamp your foot?
No.
Just say I am more optimistic than you, and Nikon's recent DSLR releases look encouraging and bode well for their future.
Various Nikon statements over the recent past imply a move upmarket. Good .
I don't know. If there is a secure position as a niche producer, all well and good, What I would fear is that it would signal a contraction of the company which would leave them without the resources to develop products like the D850.
Other smaller camera companies manage perfectly well , so why not Nikon ?
I don't think any smaller company has managed to develop anything remotely like the D850, or for that matter the D500 or D5. Please do say which smaller company you were thinking of.
Nikon is not that small a company
Leica , Hasselblad , Fujifilm (cameras) have developed products which many now prefer to both Nikon and Canon.
Fujifilm is a larger company than Nikon (about three times the size). If you think that Nikon could survive on Leica's business model, then you must be joking. Apart from the M series (which caries a legacy reputation) their products are assembled from off-the shelf commodity parts or are exactly the 'badge engineering' you so much despise. As for Hasselblad, you must be joking. The company survives, just, on an infrastructure bequeathed it by Fujifilm, using whatever sensors Sony has available in its catalogue and keeps on going bust. Hardly a business model for Nikon.
Nikon is most unlikely to **** up so badly again in mirrorless,
I don't put any repeat ****-up past Nikon, unfortunately.
They can ill afford more .
Doesn't mean they won't do it.
and Canon's M system, with the M5 particularly , is doing fine for the present - lenses will no doubt follow as the Rebel DSLR series gradually fades away.
If, indeed, it fades away. But Canon is in the happy position that its mount system allows an effective and simple adapter.
Precisely, which is why Canon's move into APS -C mirrorless made /makes sense and Nikon's mirrorless efforts did not .
Nikon didn't use its existing lens system for mirrorless cameras.
But it had an adaptor just like Canon .
Rather a different kind of adapter for three reasons. One the relative crop factor was such that adapted lenses took on a very different function from that which was intended. Second, the adapter had to be much more complex, due, for instance, to the mechanical diaphragm linkage. Three, dues to the F mount lens protocol not suiting on sensor AF, the AF function was very limited.
Again , another 3 reasons why the N1 failed , you are not making a very good case for the defence , but an excellent one for the prosecution .
Well, rather it says that Nikon needed to develop a full lens system and not rely on adapted lenses.
Very unlikely for a 1"sensor based system , since they have consistently failed to deliver fast glass options dedicated to DX since 1999 and yet DX is part of their core !
I'm not sure that follows. In both cases, it shows a lack of focus and direction, which has led to the failure of the N1. There is no reason to think that Nikon was fundamentally unable to develop 1" format lenses, and in fact some of the ones it did develop were very good.
mFT doesn't have full functional adapters (Canon EF adapters are just becoming available, but they don't work very well) to anything, but it does OK.
?????? No idea what you are trying to say or claim .
We were talking about the Canon advantage in having a full function adapter to its existing lens system, something Nikon can't do. You then (for reasons best know to yourself) raised mFT as a counter example. I was pointing out that mFT also doesn't have full function adapters and has had to rely on its own lens infrastructure. Had Nikon developed as extensive a lens infrastructure as mFT (or even as Fujifilm) for the N1 system, it could possibly have succeeded.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
