But, looks aside... The placement of the shutter button looks very awkward. Recessed and too close to the edge on such a slim camera. Unless you have very feminine hands I can't see how that would be ergonomic at all.
High performance optics? First reports indicate the 10mm to be a poor lens with poor edge performance. Who cares if it has low distortion if it is crap anyway.
I don't classify slow zooms as high performance optics. YMMV.
I think they will sell just fine in Asia. I think they will sell less in Europe and the North Americas. The average customer and sales rep are still caught up in the MP race and will scoff at the camera - as will the discerning enthusiast, but for different reasons.
Nikon managed to make the competition look better by releasing this amateurish toy product with NO value for the alternative users or enthusiasts.
When Pentax came out with the Q, I did not know what to make of it -besides the obvious photo jargon against it. With Nikon jumping into the real small sensor idea I paid more attention. If Canon also follows suit, we will have a new small format (or format range) endorsed by big names.
And we should not underestimate the power of brand and marketing: as much as we in these forums scorn at it in pure photographic terms, the general public (also guided by many very eager store salespeople) will probably see this as THE alternative to DSLRs and may even dismiss the NEX and m43 as fringe cameras.
While corner softness, CA, bokeh and wide-open performance are terms the majority of people who print 4X6's and post on facebook do not have in their vocabulary, shutter lag, big size, out of focus images and long waits between images are. And that is what Nikon went after here.
I think this may have been a pretty smart positioning by Nikon here, only time will tell.
As a sidenote, given that RD like this takes a long while to become product, unless I missed a years worth of rumours, the introduction of Pentax's Q system just before Nikon seems like quite a coincidence...
just sayin...
Sep 23, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
My opinion is that this camera like the Pentax Q and undoubtedly somethign similar from Canon before too long, is really an attempt to keep some camera sales at the low end. Point and shoots are fast becoming obsolete with cameras in iPods, iPhones and scads of other devices with the same sensor as P & S's and serving many, many people's needs. Camera companies have to offer something to the masses for them to bother buying a camera. Nikon attempt here seems pretty good--keep it small, make it easy to use, make it more responsive than a cell phone, make the pictures look better than a cell phone. The only stumble seems that it is a little high in price for this market, but I bet there will be a lower cost version before too long. From my perspective, however, this is a non-issue as it is a camera for a much less experienced and less demanding user than I am. That certainly doesn't mean it won't be successful. It just means that I can't see myself buying one.
I think the only reason this Nikon camera has been announced is that the company has commited itsself to it a few years ago .
R&D takes time, some people's careers depend on it being released, that's all there's to it, imho.
One can buy a Sony Nex or Samsung NX100/200 for less, have better IQ than a Leica M8, and it's about the same size .
Apart from a few internet photographers, I don't see how anyone can buy that thing .
I see good point about its position in the market in terms of performance like speed, build. The real problem is the PRICE.
I will also buy that Asia will be the major market for this. but it faces very steep competition in that price range. I am curious what Canon will come up.
When X-100 come out, it really 'wow' in terms of performance, build, looks and novelty. you seldom see people say it will fail, and lots of suggestion to improve it in the future. It is a product, people want to buy and turns out it is an extreme success. I can't image what will happen if next generation has interchangeable lens system. It has really bright future.
That is the system start with right concept even though it lack some funcy computer process power and shining pink body color.
The point I am trying to make is: Something is wrong with Nikon's move since it introduces so many contradiction and Criticism about the system indicate its unwell future.
I see so many people trying to defend them like Masahiro Suzuki does. You can't tell us what we want, what we need. You build something what we want.
I see no similarity between this and Ipad and Iphone, which I personally use since its introduce.
upon further examination of the specs, i think the nikon 1 could do well if they drop the price a couple hundred and really push what high frame rate means for family and sports photagraphy, the focus speed, shutter lag, silence, and of course the nikon name in their marketing. there is no reason for the target group to even know that µ4/3 and NEX exist. at their current price though, the only market is enthusiasts who won't be impressed by the image quality and comparison to other mirrorless cameras.
sebboh wrote:
there is no reason for the target group to even know that µ4/3 and NEX exist. at their current price though, the only market is enthusiasts who won't be impressed by the image quality and comparison to other mirrorless cameras.
Only problem is that if the target group is shopping for the camera at say Best Buy , they will know the Sony NEX and u4/3 exist as these stores also carry these cameras.
I agree about the price. If this Nikon offering was many hundred dollars less, it might have a chance. I think it needs to be around $400-$500 with kit zoom lens for the intended market.
Let's see how good the build quality and IQ really are (apart from sensor-size limitations). If they are as good as they look, this is really a premium camera, a cut above both m4/3 and NEX, except maybe the E-P3 and NEX-7, both of which are much more expensive. Build quality doesn't come cheap.
For new products it doesn't. You can still buy a Super-Takumar for less than the cheapest AF lens available and you'll have a lens with better mechanics than pretty much anything on the market.
Build quality is something that we are likely much more aware of - and willing to pay for - than the target market for this Nikon (P&S upgraders). This segment has been fairly happy with plastic Canon Rebels for instance. That said, the NEX 5 is well built and even the NEX 3 did not feel overly cheap to me. Olympus and Panasonic cameras in the price range of these Nikons also feel very well made. I don't think the target market is going to pay attention to build quality unless a camera feels really, really cheap and I certainly don't think they would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a well machined, aluminum/ magnesium body. Different market I think...and that market is not going to be interested in the tiny sensor Nikon compared to what the competition offers. But I agree, the market will make the final decision.
I am not sure. Look how many people buy Apple computers now, compared to 10 years ago. There is crappy, there is good and then there is special. If the Nikon falls into the latter category, which the shot of the naked V1 might indicate, then I could imagine that there is a target market for it.
carstenw wrote:
I am not sure. Look how many people buy Apple computers now, compared to 10 years ago. There is crappy, there is good and then there is special. If the Nikon falls into the latter category, which the shot of the naked V1 might indicate, then I could imagine that there is a target market for it.
There are many differences though with this comparison. A consumer who buys a lower end Apple product (base iMac with quad core i5, 13" Macbook Pro with dual core i5 for instance) is often not giving up performance or better hardware compared to the PC competition AND is often getting better design and build quality. That's not even considering the software side of things. Thus, I think for the Apple analogy to work, the Nikon would have to offer the nice body we see in the shot of the naked V1 with at least a Micro 4/3rds size sensor. As it is now, It would be like Apple offering the same, nice industrial design but with bottom of the line processors.
There may be a market and I have been wrong before...like when I predicted the original iPad woud be a total flop!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Only problem is that if the target group is shopping for the camera at say Best Buy , they will know the Sony NEX and u4/3 exist as these stores also carry these cameras.
I agree about the price. If this Nikon offering was many hundred dollars less, it might have a chance. I think it needs to be around $400-$500 with kit zoom lens for the intended market.
but they're easy to miss at all the best buys i've been to and there is nothing on the best buy spec sheet to indicate the difference in image quality except the nominal resolution difference. a consumer there will see 3 cameras that look basically the same except for some style cues. if nikon markets well it could probably make a big difference.
carstenw wrote:
I am not sure. Look how many people buy Apple computers now, compared to 10 years ago. There is crappy, there is good and then there is special. If the Nikon falls into the latter category, which the shot of the naked V1 might indicate, then I could imagine that there is a target market for it.
what makes apple special is not build quality, there are lots of pcs with equal build quality. apple actually pays attention to design and has a cohesive strategy in their design which makes their computers special/attractive. no camera company really has that in my opinion. they all look like examples of feature bloat, too many focus groups and too many competing design sections. nikon is certainly not on the top of the heap in this respect – though they do seem better than canon to me.
sebboh wrote:
but they're easy to miss at all the best buys i've been to and there is nothing on the best buy spec sheet to indicate the difference in image quality except the nominal resolution difference. a consumer there will see 3 cameras that look basically the same except for some style cues. if nikon markets well it could probably make a big difference.
Not easy to miss at the BB in my area last I looked. The NEX's were prominently displayed as you entered the camera area. Sony also carries quite a bit of brand awareness with the average consumer as well of course. I would bet someone shopping at this price level will ask what the differences are and even the half-knowledgeable camera sales people at BB will know enough to mention the sensor size difference. Heck, the majority of non-photo enthusiasts I know would do some basic research before plopping down this kind of money.
Nikon would have to do some pretty serious marketing indeed - reality distortion field - mass hypnosis type stuff.
sebboh wrote:
what makes apple special is not build quality, there are lots of pcs with equal build quality. apple actually pays attention to design and has a cohesive strategy in their design which makes their computers special/attractive. no camera company really has that in my opinion. they all look like examples of feature bloat, too many focus groups and too many competing design sections. nikon is certainly not on the top of the heap in this respect – though they do seem better than canon to me.
snowboarder wrote:
Why are you still discussing this?
Time to move on, nothing interesting really here. As hot as Pentax Q.
I find the future possible direction that Nikon, Canon, etc. may take with their mirrorless offerings very interesting. Apparently, given the number of views this thread is getting, others do as well.
