Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hi CarlosI'm with Brad on this one: Glad I pre-ordered the NEX-7.
Ok, good point. The range on the 17-50 isn't unreasonable at all. Using the same battery is good. I just went out and bought a couple more batteries for my GF1 for my long hike. Didn't really want to, but it was cheaper than buying and Olympus camera and more batteries.Nope, only a WA zoom is needed. Already a 17-50, standard zoom for DX, would be a 46-135mm (35mm eqv.). It wouldn't be the same of course, but in situations that aren't too demanding but still important to get the shot, it could work fine, and it takes up considerably less space than an extra DSLR body that most likely won't be used.
Edit: The V1 uses the same battery as the D7000, unlike Panasonic who launches a new battery for almost every single camera. This also means that battery live will probably be very decent. I like this more and more :
Not to me. The Nikon execs stated in the release press conference that the sensor was a 100% Nikon product and not a Sony offering. The sensor size is directly related to Nikons (in)ability to produce large high quality sensors. They just don't have that capability right now. So this is what you get, a camera that is "crippled" (in terms of crop factor and DOF) by a sensor that is "too small".As a system, the main issue I see is sensor size.....so that decision is a bit of a mystery to me.
Any evidence to back this up? Pretty bold statement.The sensor size is directly related to Nikons (in)ability to produce large high quality sensors. They just don't have that capability right now.
Just look at history. Nikon has been using Sony sensors in all of their DSLR's for quite some time now. This is due to Nikon's inability to produce these large sensors themselves (If they could they would, right?) I always hear from Nikon shooters. "Sony needs nikon to make it's sensors profitable." I think that used to be true, when Sony was just getting in the game. However Sony's market share has been increasing every year, and thanks to the NEX line, last year Sony sold more cameras than anyone except Cannon. That's a lot more APS-C sensors being sold and put into Sony cameras....Any evidence to back this up? Pretty bold statement.
This reminds me in a different way to a good post (completely unrelated) I read a short time ago.A paradox within all this is that integration between DSLRs and EVILs may be the turning point for some. Both Nikon and Sony are clearly addressing this, while Olympus and Panasonic are almost entirely abandoning the classic DSLR, except for the superb E-5. With Nikon, a combination of the V1, the D7000, whatever comes after the D700 and an F6, I will have four different media/formats that can mostly share lenses as well as batteries and chargers. I assume that the D700 replacement will also take SD cards, which adds another shared element (except the F6, which for some reason only accepts some ancient, canister based storage medium). I may not be a typical user, but as a "constant traveller", system integration has enormous value. The less I have to worry about bringing the correct accessories for the cameras I'm going to use, the more I can concentrate on what really matters; taking photos. The crop factor of the "1" system might not be ideal for shallow DOF, but it will turn any large aperture 35 or 50mm lens into a rather decent portrait tool. I can't really see what's not to like here.
No Terry, not an opinion, a fact. LMGTFY Show me one example of a Nikon DSLR sensor, designed and manufactured totally by Nikon in the past 3 years. Nikon simply hasn't had the ability to produce sensors larger than 1/1.7" until this camera.OK Lonnie, so just an opinion.
Yes Lonnie,No Terry, not an opinion, a fact. LMGTFY Show me one example of a Nikon DSLR sensor, designed and manufactured totally by Nikon in the past 3 years. Nikon simply hasn't had the ability to produce sensors larger than 1/1.7" until this camera.
Thank you for helping me make my point. Why do you think the Pentax Q doesn't have a full sized (m4/3 or larger) sensor? It's the same reason. Sony wants to dominate the Mirrorless ICL camera business and they aren't giving away that advantage by selling sensors to a competitor.Lonnie,
As far as I know, even Canon, among many others, uses Sony sensors for their p&s cameras, and Pentax uses a Sony sensor in the K-5. Sensor manufacturing is big business for Sony, and I would be surprised if they locked themselves out of that market.
Sorry.Just look at history. Nikon has been using Sony sensors in all of their DSLR's for quite some time now. This is due to Nikon's inability to produce these large sensors themselves (If they could they would, right?) I always hear from Nikon shooters. "Sony needs nikon to make it's sensors profitable." I think that used to be true, when Sony was just getting in the game. However Sony's market share has been increasing every year, and thanks to the NEX line, last year Sony sold more cameras than anyone except Cannon. That's a lot more APS-C sensors being sold and put into Sony cameras....
To me it's very savvy for Sony to supply Nikon with sensors for their DSLR's. Because if you wanted to cripple a business competitor, what better way to do it than to make them "dependent" on a critically important part you supply them, and the sever the business connection. My guess is that Sony will continue to sell Nikon chips until the time where Sony can make a set profit level on their sensors, without having to supply Nikon. At that point they'll quit selling to Nikon. Thanks to the success of the NEX line, this time seems to be closer than ever before. Since Nikon has no or limited ability to manufacture their own chips (or at least large sensors), they'd better hope and pray that the folks in Tokyo don't ever decide to do this. (I also theorize that this might be one reason for the delay in the D700 and the D3 replacement cameras, that the business relationship is already starting to crack, and Nikon can't get sensors for these cameras from Sony....)
This new ICL camera and it's small sensor are the perfect indication Nikon's weakness in the market (to compete with m4/3 and the NEX). Nikon has seen the profitability of this segment of the market (small mirrorless cameras with big sensors) and were "forced" to introduce something or be left behind (Pana, Oly and Sony already have at least a two year head start). Yet since they have no ability to manufacture large sensors that the buyers in this market are after, they are stuck with this offering. I have no doubt that given their druthers, Nikon would have loved for this camera to have a m4/3 or larger sensor. But Sony's new cash cow in the camera market is the NEX line and they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by giving away that competitive advantage. Why would they sell sensors to a rival camera company for a product that would end up competing head to head with the NEX line?
I've said for a long time that if Nikon doesn't make some investment in sensor manufacturing, that one day they will be a lens maker and not a camera maker.
The one from nikonRUMORS? Didn't I say designed AND manufactured 100% by Nikon? Well, it's well understood fact that nikon may have "designed" the sensor (many speculate that Nikon simply gave sony the specifications they wanted), but it was manufactured in a Sony production facility. It's a well know fact that Nikon has no silicone wafer production ability of their own (Jorgen's post backs me up on this), so no matter how hard you try, you can't win this argument.Yes Lonnie,
Follow your own, very condescending, link and click on the third Link about the D3 and other full frame sensors.
http://www.chipworks.com/en/technic...echnology-blog/2008/03/dslr-sensor-economics/“Nikon have announced that they designed the sensor. Nikon has no wafer fabrication capability so they outsource the sensor production, but they are keeping the foundry close to their chests, so close that we must speculate to identify the source. The obvious choice would be Sony, who build the sensor used in the Nikon D2X, however there are no Sony markings on the device, and the device structure is markedly different from the other Sony CIS we have analyzed. We considered Matsushita/Panasonic the device structure has similarities to the Panasonic CIS we have seen, but it is sufficiently different that we have doubts that it is theirs. Thus we are speculating who else could be the manufacturing source. I believe Nikon would stick with a Japanese foundry. An interesting possibility is Renesas, they have close ties with Nikon, supplying several imager processor chipsets, they have a patent portfolio in image sensors indicating they have active r+d in this field, and they have the fab capabilities.”
LOL!The one from nikonRUMORS? Didn't I say designed AND manufactured 100% by Nikon? Well, it's well understood fact that nikon may have "designed" the sensor (many speculate that Nikon simply gave sony the specifications they wanted), but it was manufactured in a Sony production facility. It's a well know fact that Nikon has no silicone wafer production ability of their own (Jorgen's post backs me up on this), so no matter how hard you try, you can't win this argument.