The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
And Nikon launches a Mirrorless....
- Thread starter sagar
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Carlos
So am I - (with Brad on this one). But I still think that this is a good move from Nikon with a sensible camera which will produce fine images without conflicting with their dSLR business. It certainly won't compete with NEX or m4/3 from an image point of view, but it'll be close, and it should knock the higher spec compacts into a cocked hat.
I'd say it's what the Pentax Q system should have been :ROTFL:
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.
Lars
Active member
As a system, the main issue I see is sensor size, for the reason of shallow DOF. All other spec issues are fixable in future products.
An m43 sensor wouldn't have made body or lenses much bigger, so that decision is a bit of a mystery to me. Clearly the marketing campaign focuses on the size of the camera body, perhaps the smallest replaceable-lens body on the market was a design criteria, which is fine, just not one I would have chosen if I had to compromise on sensor size.
A V1 certainly won't fill my need for an SLR system. Would it replace my compact - currently a G11? Nope, too costly, and not pocketable with the normal zoom.
Looking forward to seeing the next iteration. Until then, I am clearly outside the target demographic.
My wishlist: Make a similar camera with a DX-size sensor, its own mount (keeping sensor to bayonet distance small) and an optional F adapter. (Yes I know, that sounds like a NEX-7.)
An m43 sensor wouldn't have made body or lenses much bigger, so that decision is a bit of a mystery to me. Clearly the marketing campaign focuses on the size of the camera body, perhaps the smallest replaceable-lens body on the market was a design criteria, which is fine, just not one I would have chosen if I had to compromise on sensor size.
A V1 certainly won't fill my need for an SLR system. Would it replace my compact - currently a G11? Nope, too costly, and not pocketable with the normal zoom.
Looking forward to seeing the next iteration. Until then, I am clearly outside the target demographic.
My wishlist: Make a similar camera with a DX-size sensor, its own mount (keeping sensor to bayonet distance small) and an optional F adapter. (Yes I know, that sounds like a NEX-7.)
Lonnie Utah
New member
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".
Edit: Have you guys seen the v1 vs NEX-5N comparision at Pocket-Lint? It brings the :ROTFL:
Terry
New member
Any evidence to back this up? Pretty bold statement.
I certainly don't get the sense that this choice of size was "dictated"
Lonnie Utah
New member
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.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
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.
Terry
New member
This reminds me in a different way to a good post (completely unrelated) I read a short time ago.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/09/new_apple_advantage
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
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. It has never been revealed who makes the sensor for the D3s and D700, but it has been clearly stated that they are designed by Nikon, and although Nikon doesn't have manufacturing facilities themselves, there are others who do, also within Japan.
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. It has never been revealed who makes the sensor for the D3s and D700, but it has been clearly stated that they are designed by Nikon, and although Nikon doesn't have manufacturing facilities themselves, there are others who do, also within Japan.
Lonnie Utah
New member
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.
Terry
New member
Yes Lonnie,
Follow your own, very condescending, link and click on the third Link about the D3 and other full frame sensors.
Lonnie Utah
New member
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.
T
Tanegashima
Guest
Sorry.
1. Nikon (Nippon Kogaku) always was about lenses. They started manuf. lenses before cameras, the Nikkor brand is older than the Nikon brand, and the first camera that came with Nikkor lenses was a Canon.
2. Nikon, like Canon CAN make sensors, you don't know but Nikon makes IC steppers, the equipment used to make integrated circuits and other nanotechnology products like CPU's, RAM, CMOS sensors, etc. Sony can't. That's why Nikon and Canon have "toys" like Nano-Crystal coating (now Canon has it's own knock-off they call sub-wavelenght coating or whatever). In fact, Nikon was awarded by Intel, Intel is world leading manufacturer of highest complexity and most advanced IC's available in the world!
3. Sensors like the D3 series and D700 are Nikon's.
Lonnie Utah
New member
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.
Edit: From that same article...
http://www.chipworks.com/en/technic...echnology-blog/2008/03/dslr-sensor-economics/
T
Tanegashima
Guest
LOL!
So what?
Sony can't make lenses, Tamron does make them for Sony. :ROTFL:
Sony can't make IC steppers, Nikon, Canon, etc. make them for Sony. :ROTFL:
And when you put Nikon's "owner", Mitsubishi group, it's even more interesting.
Mitsubishi has:
Cars, Trucks, Planes, and Oil to run them, and makes and sells electricty too, as well as equip. to make the the plants to make electricity, and has houses (real estate), a bank too, so you can pay them, and, of course, to use the paper and plastic. And not forget Mitsubishi pencil, so you can write on their paper. And so many other things.
Sony may be big, but Mitsubishi is HUGE!