That 18-50 version was very compelling for me at the time. I could be interested with the right specs. Now I’d much prefer a really competent, really compact prime version.
I shot nikon for decades but abandoned the brand a couple of tlyeads ago for small compact and light. I love my Ricoh GR iii and Iiix but I would buy a compact Nikon in a minute if I could use all the Nikon picture controls I used to use. No zoom needed just a small lens —maybe 30 or 35mm and an ability to add filters. Let’s return to 52mm. Dust proof and weather resilient please.
There's a growing trend among young people to enjoy shit. Are you aware that used Canon Powershots from the early 2000s are supposedly increasing in price? Some even switch to film, but not the good kind when you properly expose, develop in a C41 3-bath at exactly @38.8°C, noooooo! They want expired film, developed in a cat piss at room temperature to be scanned with a potato to ensure green-tinted shadows, blown highlights and exaggerated grain.
Is that what they call ensh*itification?
A few years ago we used to say that mediocrity is the new black, like LBD.
IQ is certainly secondary to other camera/lens properties like being small/flimsy or being cool looking.
My issue with these DL cameras is that the sensor is just so small and that a slightly larger camera would allow a larger sensor and significantly better results. The lenses don't have to be that large with the wide and normal zooms. It's not like a lens with a 24-600 equivalent that needs to use a 1' sensor to keep the camera at a practical size.
EB-1 wrote:
Is that what they call ensh*itification?
No, far from it. Somewhat the opposite actually.
Enshittification would be overprocessed smartphone pics using AI in ways that no one asked for. The worst offenders were those Samsung phones that, when you took a picture of the moon, would replace it with an AI-generated version.
Main cameras of smartphones (not UWA or Tele) can rival the IQ of 1“ type sensors, but many would prefer the more real look you get out of cameras like these.
I agree 1" is an interesting choice given the popularity of the X100 series (APS-C), GR series (APS-C), and even the new Panasonic L10 (M43-ish). But that said, the RX100 series has been popular for ages, and the IQ from them is quite nice. People are even seeking out old Nikon 1 series cameras lately.
Nikon probably sees a niche that can be filled, and I'll bet their focus is strongly on Asia. Remember how everyone in the west shat all over the Fuji X Half and it went on to do incredibly well in Japan and China?
Have you actually shot a 1” sensor? In reasonable light its output is very good and likely fine for 90% of users. We are a minority here. Low light, 800mm equivalent? High framerate & shutter speed for sports? Prob not, and plenty of other uses will benefit from FX. But 1” is plenty for a lot of imaging taking.
fjablo wrote:
No, far from it. Somewhat the opposite actually.
Enshittification would be overprocessed smartphone pics using AI in ways that no one asked for. The worst offenders were those Samsung phones that, when you took a picture of the moon, would replace it with an AI-generated version.
Main cameras of smartphones (not UWA or Tele) can rival the IQ of 1“ type sensors, but many would prefer the more real look you get out of cameras like these.
I must be too far behind the times to understand the process.
I do understand that there are billions that cannot afford or have interest in high grade cameras but want better images than a smartphone produces. The phone has the AI processing that can be quite useful in cleaning up noise, creating the aritifical borkahs, etc. Of course it can be overused. I have several Galactic S25 type phones but did not image any celestial bodies. I have not noticed any overt AI on other subjects, but rarely use the phone other than to make a record of objects' spatial locations in the field. I have no doubt that a 1" camera would be better, but obviously Nikon decided not to market it back then for a good reason.
EB-1 wrote:
I have no doubt that a 1" camera would be better, but obviously Nikon decided not to market it back then for a good reason.
EBH
Nikon didn't cancel it for marketing reasons but because the main processor had a technical problem which they couldn't work around and rather than spend the considerable amount of money to make a new processor they decided to cancel the project. This was at a time when Nikon had multiple buggy products and features and their sales were not great, either. The compact cameras were on a big decline at the time.
Nikon had Keymission action cameras which gave reportedly a seriously buggy user experience, and the Snapbridge app in its first year also did not work well on their DSLRs, and it took some more time to get it fixed enough to be usable, even today it can be problematic though I would say it can be ok for hobby usage, as long as you have some patience. Keymission cameras were discontinued quickly. They decided to cut their losses. But ultimately if these products hadn't had the technical problems they might have been successful.
I think Nikon is very good in programming the firmware for their proprietary processors but they're not great at software for general-purpose computers, and Snapbridge also had/has the issue on iOS that when the user switches to another app, wifi connection to the camera is lost. It's very annoying and maybe not entirely Nikon's fault.
1" sensor cameras can produce very good results with today's technology. E.g. DJI's products (drone cameras etc.) are an example that it's perfectly possible to produce professional image quality from this size of a sensor for stills and video.
I’m sure there’s a viable target of phone photographers who could be tempted to step up to a ‘real camera’, either because of the better controls, more ‘authentic shooting experience’, better ergonomics, even the hopefully better aesthetics. As phones are getting bigger these days, a small compact camera can even compete on size to an extent.
I think this is a marketing problem as much as it is a technical one. Price it right and put it in front of the right audience on social media, etc., and Nikon will have a competitor to the Sony RX100 series. Speaking of, in my country, the RX100 is priced similarly to the Nikon Z50II — there’s surely room to compete there.
I also imagine there’s a market for a Fuji X100-style fixed lens camera with better autofocus.
shinyobject wrote:
I also imagine there’s a market for a Fuji X100-style fixed lens camera with better autofocus.
I agree, I nearly bought a Fuji XF10 at one stage when I wanted a compact camera - small, light, APS-C sensor and fixed 18.5mm f/2.8 (28mm FF equivalent). At the time they were expensive and hard to find, and the reports of terrible AF put me off so I bought a used RX100 instead - its ok for what it is but has the ergonomics of a bar of soap.
An APSC compact with a sharp fast wide-ish prime and modern sensor/AF performance would be tempting for the times I don't want to carry a camera bigger than pocket size.
EB-1 wrote:
Is that what they call ensh*itification?
My explanation of ensh*ttification would be if your favourite photo editing software was bought out by a larger corporate entity, and over a series of so-called 'minor updates' they gradually degraded its performance and features while charging more, filling it with ads and turning key features into overpriced subscription 'extras', even if those features were part of the base package when you bought it.
Eventually they would push that attack too far and alienate too many customers, then scrap it (or 'end support') as unprofitable and either launch a 'new and better' even more expensive alternative with the features they removed from it, or buy out the next competitor filling the gap they left in the market, and repeat the process all over again.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
1" sensor cameras can produce very good results with today's technology. E.g. DJI's products (drone cameras etc.) are an example that it's perfectly possible to produce professional image quality from this size of a sensor for stills and video.
For serious photography while on travel, my kit consists of the Nikon 1 V1 system. Although released in 2011 it still performs beautifully and recent developments in noise reduction programs resoved its major shortcomming. My three zooms gave 18 - 300mm coverage and I can get the lenses, two bodies, flash, and GPS adapter in a small camera bag. The whole kit weighs no more than my Z8 with the 24-120.
I would absolutely buy a 1" sensor compact from Nikon, provided it were handsome looking, well built, and reliable (i.e., no spontaneously combusting lenses as plagues the GR series). IBIS, absolute sharpness, dynamic range, etc. are much less important to me on these types of cameras. As someone else said, the dream would be a new Coolpix A. Hoping the rumored FF fixed lens compact can sorta-kinda-maybe fill the Coolpix A-sized hole in my heart.
