Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by Damien_Demolder, Sep 21, 2011.
That's that 3 or 4 mm is more than enough for anyone...
I look at these and the prices and really wonder who is going to buy them outside of Japan. Value for money they do not appear to be. To most serious users the small sensor makes them unappealing and the price is likely to deter casual users, who are likely using cameraphones. The adaptor looks a nonsenical option, fitting a huge lens on the front of something like this is in opposition to it's apparent concept, also the adaptor appears to contain a correction lens.
Along with the recent Pentax announcement, my own thought is that these are trying to fill a non-existant gap in the market, I cannot see them creating their own niche. The bodies are too small for comfortable use by many, personally I feel that a micro 4/3 or one of the existing csc cameras would do far better for most users.
Nick I have just been looking up some dimensions and for the record they are
PM1 - 110 by 64 by 34mm - 265 grams
Nikon - 106 by 61 by 30mm - 275 grams
Nikon pancake 10 mm f2.8 f2.8 - 55.5mm by 22mm - 77grams
Panasonic 14mm f2.7 - 55.5 by 20.5mm - 55 grams
I picked the Pany lens because its the nearest in EVF to the Nikon (28mm vs 27mm) One point I spotted as I read the specs was that the Nikon has a min. aperture of f11 vs f22 for the mFT lenses (presumably because of diffraction limitations)
None of this is meant to imply that the Nikon is a bad camera - I am sure it is not, but I know which I would rather have.
Of course one hugh advantage of the existing CSC offerings is that they already have a large catalogue of lenses, and we may need to wait a couple of years before the newcomer catches up.
Surely if you tried to print it say 8x10 you would notice. You need 7.2MP of good pixels to see the detail. This is why Nikon have picked this design. The sensor is big enough to focus a clean image onto with their optic technology. The sensor is also big enough to have a good noise curve ( I did a rough calculation and actually ended up with around 465ISO noise ceiling). There probably will be diffraction issues but alot better than a high compact. This is why it has only 10MP to avoid some of the issues. You get quality fall off when you squeeze silly numbers of pixels onto say 1/2.3" sensors or 1/1.7" sensor. Nikon have not fallen into that trap IMHO.
I think you are in for a shock personally. Nikon as you know have been in the camera business awhile.
Of cause the proof will be in the shots.
Just seen some pics of the New Nikon on another forum and it does not appear to have a hot shoe.
It is off my wish list
Where's the "pseudotechbabble" smiley?
Looking at the system brochure it seems the V1 is fitted with something called a 'multi accessory port' for things like the flash, microphone etc. but the J1 does not have the same option - it's built in flash or nothing...
Emotionally, I'm disappointed with this announcement. I’d like Nikon to be innovating and just changing the sensor size isn’t innovating. It adds to my feeling that they are falling behind and gives me a nudge in the direction of Sony.
Rationally, well that sensor seems to have a pixel density similar to, perhaps slightly greater than, the new Sony 24Mp sensor, so maybe it can produce good photos? We’ll have to wait and see. 10Mp is enough for most, though cropping opportunities recede a little and I wonder how it deals with DoF. But the EVF sounds unambitious and the controls… well I guess we need to wait for a review.
I was really hoping to see Nikon produce a CSC from the DSLR direction rather than the compact direction, as Sony initially did. Ah well. I wonder how Nikon’s coffers are for funding such developments.
So, twenty years from now is the ultimate enthusiast camera a lens barrel with all controls on it and a dinky little shrunken body holding the sensor?
As far as I can see the revolutionary aspect of these cameras is the frame rate and video capability. They really are great 'lifestyle' (count how many times they say that in the press release) devices.
Anyone looking at a Lumix G will see that m4/3 has a far better range of lenses, more competitive pricing, and a better range of models (ultra compact, compact, SLR type etc), and in the GH series darn fine video options too.
I like the look of them, but the downers I listed earlier are enough to keep me waiting for something that matches my desires better (G3 currently comes closest but I want in-body IS).
That would have been all too easy as I pointed out. Basically you would take a D7000 and cut all the optics out ie mirror, OVF & phase detect AF. Then have a mount that can use the DX lenses. Basically the NEX path Sony have.
This has required real design work. Bear in mind new lenses, new mount, new sensor, new processor etc
It fills a gap in Nikon range. They have basic compact, high end compact, bridge camera then dSLR. Big jump from high end compact to dSLR. So this slots in there instead of doing a high end bridge. It is clearly this is their reply to the Lumix G1 that appeared almost 3 years ago to the day in 2008. But improvement in optics and sensor have enable them to push the format further below the 4/3.
"Basically you would take a D7000 and cut all the optics out ie mirror, OVF & phase detect AF. Then have a mount that can use the DX lenses."
OK, how much? I might be tempted.
You forgotten the Nikon lens adapter.
That means a very big lens selection.
Also only the GH2 can get close in terms of pixels per image. 16MP x 4 = 64MP / 7.29 = 8.78MP
Nikon V1 10MP. It then comes down to noise ceiling. GH2 around 650ISO. V1 ? (my guess 465ISO)
I am fan of the Lumix G series I used to own a FZ50 high end bridge. But I have to admit this camera moves the goalposts abit along the field IMHO. I had wished for this design myself. I have already pitched the next Pentax Q will use a similar size sensor (I think the body design can take it). I think they will add a in-body EVF as well.
It's too late for that, there's only one smiley for it ...
Very funny. LOL
I see it's available in pink. Eek! Does that say something about the market it's aimed at?
Well, it would be ...
Note the line scores:
Better than the D3s with a smaller sensor. Then take the sensor in the P7000 at 5.7x7.6mm same number of pixels scoring 20 on the line test. The new sensor which benefits from the latest development is 2.7 bigger, with the same number of pixels. It about design and development. Take the D300s sensor at 12MP APS only scores 22. Now beaten by the D7000.
If we move away from Nikon only comparison the Canon 1100D same size sensor scores 24. Against a almost same size sensor of the D300s.
How silly of me, I have overlooked the countless ultra wide Nikkors worth using on a 2.7x crop sensor. How remiss of me.
Forget Pseudo technical babble this strikes me as complete nonsense
I have moved in precisely the opposite direction with lenses - I have excellent quality lenses and have moved to an fx sensor. I'm certainly not tempted to use them on a piddly little body and sensor like this 2.7x or no 2.7x!
This new direction is really not for me - now where's that Nikon 5D MkII equivalent.........?
Separate names with a comma.