Nikon Mirrorless

[JoeDif]

I was just looking over the specs for the Nikon mirrorless cameras announced today. So who thinks the may have blundered by offering a smallish sensor as compared to the Sony and m4/3 offerings?

 

[HPS3]

I don't understand why the sensor is so small. The new Sony Nex 5n uses the same sensor as the D7000 and D5100. Why didnt nikon use that sensor. I can't wait to see how the Nex7 does on high ISO noise management. I think 24MP is a little high, don't you. It shows the flaws in plenty of great lenses.

 

[zackiedawg]

I am thinking it's a missed opportunity, at least the first time around. I don't necessarily have too much issue with going to a smaller sensor - though it's not what I want, it could open up a niche not already filled - below that of the mirrorless SLR style APS-C or M4:3 sensors, and instead being like an upgraded high-end P&S - something to compete with the likes of the LX5 and S95, but with lens-interchangeability and a larger sensor.

However key to that approach for me would be to make the body appreciably smaller, made possible by the much smaller sensor. Instead, the V1 is LARGER than the EP3 and NEX5N, despite having 1/2 or smaller the sensor. That's the part I don't get - it simply didn't need to be that big...unless it was adding a large number of other advantageous features, like a body-driven focus motor, in-body stabilization, or huge battery life (none of which it has). Then you think maybe the lenses will be much smaller - but the kit lens is not even 1/2 inch smaller than the 'huge' NEX kit lens, and the 10-100mm megazoom, which is where the advantage should really become apparent, is actually larger and heavier than the Sony 18-200 megazoom for the NEX...and has less effective reach.

Everything about it so far is a mystery to me...other than that they weren't able to join the M4:3 format (likely Olympus' call since they know Nikon would cannibalize their sales) and didn't want to join APS-C (competition with other established mirrorless systems, and possibly cannibalizing their own DSLR sales).

The fact that it has many of the same criticisms as the NEX did when it debuted (too few lenses, too big lenses, not fast enough lenses, proprietary flash/accessory port, mediocre battery life), it also has a sensor 1/3 the size of the APS-C format...which would seem to give it more handicaps than benefits.

 

[zackiedawg]

I can't wait to see how the Nex7 does on high ISO noise management. I think 24MP is a little high, don't you. It shows the flaws in plenty of great lenses.

My guess is that the NEX7 will not compete with the NEX-5N on high ISO performance, even considering downsizing the photos to match resolution. Sony would be smart to emphasize this from the outset - that the NEX7's advantage appears to be for low ISO shooting - the samples seem to show excellent resolution and sharpness, and an almost 3-dimensional subject isolation with a good Zeiss lens - it'll be a great choice for portraiters and landscapers, but not necessarily for low light or action shooters. The NEX-5N on the other hand is tuned specifically to deliver excellent high-ISO results, but likely won't match the NEX7 at low ISO for ultimate pixel-level detail.

The NEX7 will likely get heat for not being a great high ISO camera, similar to their full frame A900 - but like the A900, the NEX7 and A77 should be very good low to medium ISO performers for people who want maximum detail. Anyone needing high ISO performance should likely consider other cameras for that purpose.

 

[photo_chick]

I don't think they bludered with sensor size if they can pull off the higher ISO's with low noise levels. Sensor technology is rapidly expanding and size does not matter nearly as much as it used to.

 

[Experiment_626]

Thom Hogan has an interesting take on this announcement; see the "Meet the One" entry here ...

http://www.bythom.com/index.htm

Scott

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I was disappointed. I'd much prefer the Sony NEX system with it's APS-C sized sensor. I like the extra DOF control I get with a bigger sensor.

 

[boBQuincy]

I am looking for a smaller camera to mostly replace my dSLR and the Nikon will not do. Micro 4/3 is already a small sensor compared to APS-C but the loss of image quality may be acceptable. 1" will not be.

Sony really upped the bar with their Nex-7, if it were by anyone but Sony I would have already placed my order. The increase in MP is not likely to affect noise, at least according to this study:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

Even though the Sony lenses are not small the camera is, the new Nikon gives away a lot without gaining almost anything. To me it is a big mistake but perhaps the reviews will show the image quality is excellent.

 

[ukcatfan]

I am thinking it's a missed opportunity, at least the first time around. I don't necessarily have too much issue with going to a smaller sensor - though it's not what I want, it could open up a niche not already filled - below that of the mirrorless SLR style APS-C or M4:3 sensors, and instead being like an upgraded high-end P&S - something to compete with the likes of the LX5 and S95, but with lens-interchangeability and a larger sensor.

Pentax beat them to this niche already with the Q. They are already selling this small sensor interchangeable lens camera. Personally, I don't think this niche is going to succeed, but the Nikon is not the first. With two brands in it though, maybe their marketing people know something we do not.

 

[JoeDif]

I'm thinking it may be priced too high for the casual photographer and the smallish sensor may be a detriment to the more serious photographer, although I haven't seen any image samples yet. I'm not sure who the target market is for this new system.

 

[zackiedawg]

Pentax beat them to this niche already with the Q. They are already selling this small sensor interchangeable lens camera. Personally, I don't think this niche is going to succeed, but the Nikon is not the first. With two brands in it though, maybe their marketing people know something we do not.

And actually the Pentax approach in general makes more sense to me...where the Pentax Q falls down a bit is that the sensor is just too small - it doesn't rise above P&S because it's using the same tiny sensor that ultracompact P&S cameras do...if they had even used a 1/1.7" or 2/3" sensor, it would have made a bit more sense to me...or Nikon's approach going up to 1". The S95 & LX5 show a decently larger sensor can be employed in a still-compact body...there's nothing about the Nikon 1's sensor that indicates a necessity for such a huge body relatively...with 1/3 the sensor size, they shouldn't require the same body real estate as a NEX with an APS-C. Especially because there's nothing else in that body that would require more room - such as stabilization systems, moving mirrors, or seperate AF sensors (which are built into the sensor in this case). Their lenses should be much smaller for the same focal compared to APS-C - then combine the fact that the effective focal is that much longer due to the 2.7x crop...yet the first lenses are roughly the same as M4:3 and NEX. At least the Pentax Q system has appreciably smaller bodies and lenses taking advantage of the tiny sensor.

I'd like to see Nikon get together with Pentax to solve both their approaches - Pentax's much smaller bodies and lenses built around Nikon's 1" sensor...THAT would be something different for the market that might fill a special niche. But comparing the Nikon 1 to current mirrorless cameras, you get the same size and weight, same price, same basic lens size, same lens collection size, same slowish lenses, and same adaptability to manual lenses...but with a much smaller sensor with much less high-ISO/low light capability and large depth-of-field (good for some things, bad for others). It's a fairly hard sell at least for DSLR users, who often want to replicate their DSLR's IQ in a smaller package. Aim the Nikon more clearly at P&Sers looking to move up but not ready to commit to large sensor shooting, and lower the price and body size to compensate, and they could have a big sales success, and not just based on the name on the front.

 

[rossb]

Even worse is I do not see a way to shoot in AP Prior, Shutter Prior, or Manual. I also don't see an offering with a hot shoe and a built-in flash. I'm a Nikon SLR user, I have no interest in this new format.

I'm glad I got a Lumix G3 M43 a few months ago to use as my small/light setup, it is very nice.

 

[thomas998]

Brings back memories of Nikon's Pronea system... it certainly set the world on fire now didn't it....

 

[Experiment_626]

Even worse is I do not see a way to shoot in AP Prior, Shutter Prior, or Manual.

No hard buttons, but those mades are available in the menus.

I'm a Nikon SLR user, I have no interest in this new format.

No, it's not for us die-hard SLR shooters. Wasn't meant to be. But it might be good for Nikon. As Hogan says on the linked blog I posted earlier, Nikon is one of the few companies left that is still mostly a camera company. They need to sell cameras to as many people as possible — including those who don't want or need SLRs but aren't happy with what they get from an iPhone or compact P&S.

Scott