Nikon unveils V1 and J1 Mirrorless Cameras

[Haydn1971]

Actually, you guys are missing the point here... Have you seen the tiny size of the 110mm zoom that gives a 35mm equivalent of nearly 300mm in a lens the size of a standard 18-55mm ? The range also has a powered zoom for video. Whilst this ain't my thing, I can see it flying out the door as a fancy carry anywhere camera system for folks that don't wish to lug several kg around everywhere.

 

[Loswr]

Actually, you guys are missing the point here... Have you seen the tiny size of the 110mm zoom that gives a 35mm equivalent of nearly 300mm in a lens the size of a standard 18-55mm ? The range also has a powered zoom for video. Whilst this ain't my thing, I can see it flying out the door as a fancy carry anywhere camera system for folks that don't wish to lug several kg around everywhere.

Right. But, have you seen the size of the 150mm zoom in the Canon PowerShot SX40 HS that gives a 35mm equivalent of over 800mm in a lens the size of a standard 18-55mm?

The smaller you make the sensor, the smaller the lenses can be...and the lower the IQ. There are always tradeoffs. I agree with gmrza on this - it's a tough market segment outside of Japan. Most people here would be less than thrilled with the IQ delivered by the CX sensor. At least Nikon released a 'fast' wide angle prime (10mm = 27mm FF-equivalent), but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive.

I think Nikon read the Wikipedia section entitled, "...Bridging the gap in sensor sizes," studied this plot:

...and decided, hey, that's where we should put our new sensor format!

 

[K-amps]

....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....

I never knew there was a correlation as direct as that. So if I have a 24-105 f4, is that like f6.4 on a APS-C sensor; or do we need to consider other factors too.

Just learning here... cause then my f4 lens on a 5D is not too bad compared to his 70-200 f2.8 II on his 7D (f4.48 equivalent ?) or should other factors dwarf this correlation?

 

[liberace]

....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....

I never knew there was a correlation as direct as that. So if I have a 24-105 f4, is that like f6.4 on a APS-C sensor; or do we need to consider other factors too.

Just learning here... cause then my f4 lens on a 5D is not too bad compared to his 70-200 f2.8 II on his 7D (f4.48 equivalent ?) or should other factors dwarf this correlation?

This is in terms of Depth of Field only. If you google depth of field and sensor size you should find several calculators to help you.

 

[Loswr]

....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....

I never knew there was a correlation as direct as that. So if I have a 24-105 f4, is that like f6.4 on a APS-C sensor; or do we need to consider other factors too.

Just learning here... cause then my f4 lens on a 5D is not too bad compared to his 70-200 f2.8 II on his 7D (f4.48 equivalent) or should I consider other factors too.

Basically, yes. But to be clear, the crop factor applies to aperture in terms of depth of field for equivalent subject framing...so, f/2.8 on APS-C gives you the same depth of field that you'd get at f/4.5 on FF, for the same subject framing. The reason is distance - the crop factor means a narrower angle of view, so to match the framing you need to be further away with APS-C, and that extra distance means a deeper DoF.

Many people don't realize this. A great example is people who state they won't upgrade to FF until the 24-70mm has IS, because they want a FF equivalent of the very nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. What they don't realize is that such an equivalent exists...and is actually better spec'd - the actual FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is a 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS plus on the 5DII it will out resolve any APS-C sensor.

The effect of crop factor on aperture does not apply to exposure, though with the better ISO performance of a FF sensor, you can bump up the ISO to compensate for the loss of a 1.3-stops of shutter speed.

 

[skitron]

The video OS looks abysmal judging from Nikon's own clips...looks like NEX wins that battle hands down. Plus NEX has APS-C and option for 'real' lens. Hopefully Canon ignores the Nikon formula and goes squarely after Sony.

 

[K-amps]

....... but f/2.8 on their CX sensor is equivalent to f/7.6 on FF...not very impressive....

I never knew there was a correlation as direct as that. So if I have a 24-105 f4, is that like f6.4 on a APS-C sensor; or do we need to consider other factors too.

Just learning here... cause then my f4 lens on a 5D is not too bad compared to his 70-200 f2.8 II on his 7D (f4.48 equivalent) or should I consider other factors too.

Basically, yes. But to be clear, the crop factor applies to aperture in terms of depth of field for equivalent subject framing...so, f/2.8 on APS-C gives you the same depth of field that you'd get at f/4.5 on FF, for the same subject framing. The reason is distance - the crop factor means a narrower angle of view, so to match the framing you need to be further away with APS-C, and that extra distance means a deeper DoF.

Many people don't realize this. A great example is people who state they won't upgrade to FF until the 24-70mm has IS, because they want a FF equivalent of the very nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. What they don't realize is that such an equivalent exists...and is actually better spec'd - the actual FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is a 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS plus on the 5DII it will out resolve any APS-C sensor.

The effect of crop factor on aperture does not apply to exposure, though with the better ISO performance of a FF sensor, you can bump up the ISO to compensate for the loss of a 1.3-stops of shutter speed.

I was thinking the exposure, but this clears it, thanks neuro and Liberace

 

[UncleFester]

Just saw this on Engadget!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless-cameras-10-1mp-cmos-2-7-inc/

Nikon made a smart business move, to develop a small sensor body, with fast focus and speed. As sensor technology improves - the physical size of the sensor is less meaningful, allowing nikon to provide smaller better quality lenses, and keep costs down. I believe most consumers are not seeking interchangeable lens systems, and do not want to lug around a MFT body and lens. Nikon gives us a smallish body, with super fast performance.

I think this is a very smart business move.

Of course it is! Big corps couldn't survive many dumb moves. This is clearly aimed at a target audience. Just look at the colors. They'll sell everyone they build.

The kicker is...there are dslr users who've bought into this idea and irregardless of it's shortcomings, will just have to have one to "throw in the bag". It's win/win for Nikon. They know this. They're not dummies. And they'll laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Gothmoth]

Of course it is! Big corps couldn't survive many dumb moves. This is clearly aimed at a target audience. Just look at the colors. They'll sell everyone they build.

well i think i can talk enough customers into buying these cameras if i want too.

BUT if i do my job and give proper information to my customers, i think most who are willing to buy into a system would buy a different camera.

there is not much beside the name, 60 FPS, the yet to seen AF, that makes this looks good compared to a PEN.

 

[mackguyver]

Interesting move by Nikon but I think the pricing is way off for those wanting to move up. I followed this path from compact to 5DMkII and while I went back (in size) to buy a Panasonic LX-5 for my pocket, I can't imagine paying these prices (i.e. more than a small SLR) for a travel or upgrade path camera. I realize they can't cannibalize their entry SLRs, but without high IQ, I don't see a compelling upgrade path.

 

[Flake]

Many people don't realize this. A great example is people who state they won't upgrade to FF until the 24-70mm has IS, because they want a FF equivalent of the very nice EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. What they don't realize is that such an equivalent exists...and is actually better spec'd - the actual FF equivalent of the 17-55mm is a 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105mm is wider, longer, faster, and still has IS plus on the 5DII it will out resolve any APS-C sensor.

As a FF user I want a FF version of the 17 - 55mm. No equivalent stuff just that focal length as is! Maybe to replace the 17 - 40mm L but I'd even forgo the 55mm for a new fast wide angle with IS.
Just to put it the other way around 17 - 55mm is 10 - 35mm on crop, I wonder how many crop users would be interested in that focal length.

 

[Loswr]

As a FF user I want a FF version of the 17 - 55mm. No equivalent stuff just that focal length as is! Maybe to replace the 17 - 40mm L but I'd even forgo the 55mm for a new fast wide angle with IS.
Just to put it the other way around 17 - 55mm is 10 - 35mm on crop, I wonder how many crop users would be interested in that focal length.

We may see one, I'd guess it will stop well short of 55mm. Nikon added VR to their 16-35mm UWA zoom, although it's f/4. I believe that IS could be added to the current 16-35mm without a substantial increase in size. But a 17-55mm f/2.8 with an EF image circle would be closer to the current 24-70mm in size and weight.

Would crop users would be interested in a 10-35mm lens? Sure...if it was optically as good as the current 10-22mm and didn't cost much more.

 

[traveller]

Choosing the sensor size is a difficult decision for any camera manufacturer contemplating a compact system camera. There is always the tradeoff between a larger sensor with slower lenses and a smaller sensor needing faster lenses; somewhere must lie an optimal sensor size, the question is where? I don't think that anyone really has an answer to this yet. Perhaps there is no single answer, just as in film days there were multiple formats for different needs.

When this whole 2.7x crop factor was first suggested in the rumorverse it was widely panned, but my first thought was that with some clever lens design it could deliver some small fast zooms that would appeal to a wider audience than pancake primes on larger sensors. The problem with the route that Nikon has chosen is that the cameras and lenses don't seem to be much smaller than m4/3rds and the lenses are no faster...

I think that there are really two different markets here for CSCs, the 'better-than-a-compact' mass market (or should this now be 'better than an iPhone?) and the 'smaller than a DSLR so I can carry it when I don't want my full kit' enthusiast market. None of the current entrants (which is now almost everyone but Canon) really seem to know which market they're serving, so they're just throwing cameras into the market to see what sells. Panasonic m4/3rds bodies have been getting smaller and shedding enthusiast features, whilst Olympus and Sony are splitting the market into ever smaller segments.

All the camera manufacturers are facing the question of what will happen when the future generations of camera phones destroy the bottom segment of the camera market. The '1' system is Nikon's answer, but I'm not sure if they wouldn't have been better off with an APS-C size CSC and cover the lower end of the market with a decent fixed zoom lens camera like the Fuji X10. I think that Nikon's system will gain a following, but I don't thinks it's the killer move that will see them dominate this market like they do with DSLRs (along with Canon of course).

None of this really bodes well for Canon, I think that both of the 'big two' have perhaps left it too late to make a significant impact with CSCs; they'd best hope that all this turns out to be a sideline, like the original Olympus Pen. What can Canon now do? If they'd launched an APS-C CSC with some good lenses at the end of last year/beginning of this year, they may have had more room to stand out. As it is, the NEX7 looks like it will carve out the top end of this market (if Sony get their lens development into gear!), even if Canon launch next year it will look a bit 'me too' and will be two years behind even Sony in lens releases. I don't think that Canon would be welcome in the m4/3rds alliance; maybe they should join forces with Nikon in a 2.7x crop alliance!

 

[Loswr]

even if Canon launch next year it will look a bit 'me too'

That's why Canon will make a game-changing entry into the field. It's a common theme in innovative companies. Apple developed the iPad long before the iPhone was released in 2007, and Apple sat on it until other necessary developments and technological adjacencies paved the way (they were waiting on large LCD displays with lower power consumption and better battery technology, as the iPad prototypes had abysmally short battery life).

So, Canon is probably sitting on a full frame mirrorless camera...they're just waiting for the laws of physics to change so they can launch pancake lenses with a 43.2mm image circle.

 

[Gothmoth]

honest i think all this "too late" talk is nonsense.

it dosn´t matter that much.
the product matters.

 

[traveller]

honest i think all this "too late" talk is nonsense.

it dosn´t matter that much.
the product matters.

Maybe your right, Canon hasn't got to its current market leading position by being first, but by making the right choices at the right time. My feeling remains that the technologies for making CSCs a success are beginning to coverge; Sony has their new EVF, Nikon has some form of phase detect AF on sensor, Panasonic and Olympus are starting to get into their stride with capable yet compact lenses. At the moment, no one has everything so perhaps it is Canon that can get the right mix, as they did with EOS.

One thing that they can't afford to do is leave it too long, like Olympus did with AF, there are a lot of the 'enthusiat-wanting-smaller-second-system' crowd that have already given up waiting for Canikon and invested in either m4/3rds or NEX/NX. Once they have a lens collection, it will be a difficult sell to get them to switch. I'm pretty sure that when (and it's now almost certainly when and not if) Canon launch a CSC, they will go for it full throttle. The only thing that worries me is where this will leave the current EOS system (especially APS-C) because there are still many lenses missing or in need of updates.

 

[dougkerr]

Hi, Peter,

About the only thing I saw of interest was the phase detect autofocus. I'd previously thought that was only possible with a mirror system but see in the Wikipedia article on autofocus it can be incorporated into the sensor.

There has been much patent activity by Canon over the last some while on doing that.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Mike Ca]

I am probably not the target customer base for this camera, but many enthusiast have a second P&S camera that they carry in their pocket for everyday use. These are things like the G12 or S95/S100. Both of those cameras have 7.5x5.5mm sensors. This allows them to have very compact fixed zoom lenses with good reach on both ends.

The Pentax-Q has a even smaller sensor at 6.2x4.5 mm, but the with the 27-83mm equivalent zoom lens, it certainly is not a pocket camera. Even with the pancake prime I don't think it would fit in your pocket. It is however very small and light, so it may appeal to someone that wants a step up from a P&S.

Now the N1/J1 has a 13.2x8.8 mm sensor, considerable larger than the Canon G12 or S100 and the Pentax-Q, but smaller than the mic4/3 cameras.

I guess these cameras and the bigger mic4/3 and APS-C size mirrorless cameras are not designed to appeal to me, cause I just don't see why anyone would buy one. Are they really going to be able to deliver anything better than the high end P&S like the G12 or S100? When you put a lens on them, they sure are a lot bigger and more expensive.

 

[AJ]

The lower end of the market could probably not care less about interchangeable lenses - they are perfectly happy with a compact.

The higher end of the market insists on image quality - these users already have DSLRs and need a pocketable camera.

I agree with you. I just don't see the market here. And here we have a brand-new sensor and brand-new line of lenses. Chances are, if this thing doesn't sell like hotcakes (probably won't) then prices won't come down in a hurry. Olympus PEN hasn't exactly taken the market by storm.

I think if you look at it as a point-n-shoot with higher image quality than its 1/1.7" brethren plus the ability to change lenses, well then it's kinda interesting. The price kills it though.

If you look at it as a mirrorless DSLR system with a miniature sensor and the same price as a proper APSC cam, then forget it.

what an epic fail.... i only hope canon will do it right.

Epic fail... I say probably, likely.

I sure hope canon gets a mirrorless system going with its APSC chips and an EF-S lens mount. Why manufacture a whole new line, no upgrade path? I just don't get it. Why not use components already being manufactured?

 

[gmrza]

The lower end of the market could probably not care less about interchangeable lenses - they are perfectly happy with a compact.

The higher end of the market insists on image quality - these users already have DSLRs and need a pocketable camera.

I agree with you. I just don't see the market here. And here we have a brand-new sensor and brand-new line of lenses. Chances are, if this thing doesn't sell like hotcakes (probably won't) then prices won't come down in a hurry. Olympus PEN hasn't exactly taken the market by storm.

I think if you look at it as a point-n-shoot with higher image quality than its 1/1.7" brethren plus the ability to change lenses, well then it's kinda interesting. The price kills it though.

If you look at it as a mirrorless DSLR system with a miniature sensor and the same price as a proper APSC cam, then forget it.

what an epic fail.... i only hope canon will do it right.

Epic fail... I say probably, likely.

I sure hope canon gets a mirrorless system going with its APSC chips and an EF-S lens mount. Why manufacture a whole new line, no upgrade path? I just don't get it. Why not use components already being manufactured?

The challenge is that these products are playing in the market segment between the G12 and the 1100D. What is likely to happen is that you land up with a product which is rather like a motorbike with a sidecar - it inherits the disadvantages of a motorbike combined with the disadvantages of a car, and only satisfies a small market segment. (Let's not try to pick apart my analogy - it is not perfect.)

This is a segment where I believe there is first mover disadvantage. (OK Nikon are not the first mover.)

Hopefully Canon will take a serious look at what the strengths of the G12 and the 1100D are, and come up with a product that carries the strengths of both of them, and which fits into the price bracket. That will be a tall order. This kind of product is trying to satisfy the high end of the compact market and the low end of the DSLR market - i.e. the most demanding users in the compact segment and the least demanding users in the DSLR segment. That is a marketing nightmare.

What does seem to be a promising development is the availability of phase detect autofocus in a mirrorless camera. That development may open the way to some more useful products.