Thom Hogan (Click here) just posted new tidbits about the upcoming Nikon mirrorless camera: “‘I’ve now been told by three different sources it will launch before CES, probably in late September, and it’ll launch with three lenses (wide angle prime, kit zoom, telephoto zoom). The lenses are reportedly “quite small” in nature“.
As you know the sensor will be smaller than the one used for the Micro Four Thirds cameras. So it will be much easier to produce very small lenses. From the size point of view the new system looks very promising. But will the sensor be good enough?
16 Responses
“From the size point of view the new system looks very promising. But will the sensor be good enough?”
And how much will it cost?
Small sensor == no good Depth of Field == no DSLR-alike photographs == no interest for me in this camera.
It can have stunning ISO 12800, and I still won’t care solely for the reason that it won’t be able to deliver DSLR-quality photos.
shallow DOF is possible with lower aperture lenses.
waouh two zooms to start :((
I guess they are first looking at the entry -level user segment
Harold
Not a surprise, probably a 35mm f2 equiv (street reporter powa !!) and the famous couples 18-55 and 55-200 olds friends slow cheap average zoom. I hope i’m wrong đ
just besause it is named “Nikon” many idiots will buy it. đ
I believe Nikon can maintain IQ from this relative large sensor. However, shallow depth of field and bokeh might not be as impressive as the large sensor. Nikon must produce a lot of large aperture lens such as f/0.95 or even larger (such as f/0.75 from Fujinon).
But the thing I concern more about is the flange distance. It directly affect the possibility of using lenses from other brand, including CCTV lens.
No normal prime lens? I’m disappointed.
actually deeper dof with a good image quality is interesting for some people (like me). in the streets keeping everything in focus should be much easier.
not everyone shoots wide open.
what a joke I think… I think I will pass
The sensor is only marginally smaller than (u)43: 2.7x vs 2x. And Panasonic sensors are the worst and slowest to improve, so I’m *sure* Nikon would be at least as good as u43 (and I say so as a Panny fanboy!)
What is disappointing is the lenses, but they must start somewhere, and I guess that what the masses want. Hck, even in u43 I still don’t have all the lenses I want and they are just 3: 20/1.7 (here from Panny since a long time) 45/1.8 (just released by Oly) and wide/2.8 (serious wide, not fake-wide at a mere 14 or 17mm – the 12mm is barely ok, and too gimmicky for me)
Over 3 different centuries camera makers have come up with âsmaller but good enoughâ equipment (extend that time frame if you count the portable camera obscura). Nikon are just taking another step along that established route â but one that could have major influence, I believe.
The Olympus 43 system failed for a number of reasons; it didn’t give much reduction in effective size from DX format. Even though micro43 has reduced overall size further, the overall balance is not very different to DX. A Panasonic G3 with standard zoom lens may be smaller and lighter than the equivalent Nikon D3100, but it’s not by a significant amount â they are both âstrap over the shoulderâ or âcarry it in a bagâ models used in an identical way. Even smaller bodies like the GF3 are not particularly stowable when the standard zoom is attached, and need a pancake lens to be compared to compact cameras. DX and 43 lenses haven’t turned out to be much smaller than FF lenses. Micro 43 only takes another 20mm off the length.
Perhaps Nikon with a 2.6/2.7 crop have found a better balance between size, portability, and quality. While some of us wanted something like a NEX with an F mount adapter giving AF with AF-S lenses, some unrealistically craved FF, Nikon are clearly moving in a different direction. They have no doubt considered threats to their P&S market from mobiles, upgrade paths, high end compacts, calls for pocketable cameras, and many other aspects. While they have built their considerable reputation on pro and enthusiast markets, they also have a considerable presence in the P&S compact market â is there no space in between?
Will the format be good enough? There is a trend towards âhigh endâ compacts (G12, S95, LX5, XZ1, etc), many enthusiasts use these and are satisfied. Nikon’s mirrorless will use a much bigger sensor producing better results.
Despite âproâ rumors this is not aimed at pros (even if it should be named Coolpix Pro â hopefully not, what an oxymoron), but I’m sure some pros will use it. Imagine if it has an F mount AF adapter. OK, a lot of lenses wouldn’t be much use, but 35 or 50/1.8 would become attractive fast short telephotos, and I imagine every owner of the 200/2 and 300/2.8 would buy one just to try out the experience of such fast super telephotos.
Success may depend on how small the lenses are, as well as IQ, but I think Nikon could have zoned in on a new successful market niche. Ultimately the market will decide, not forum posters. It may be the sensor also has applications for fixed lens âsuper compactsâ and could perhaps lead to Nikon finally coming up with that fabled Gx killer.
Tiny image sensors? No surprise here. There is no way that Nikon or Canon even would make an aps-c size sensor compact camera to gain market share that their dlsr lines ALREADY HAVE. By building a compact camera with a small sensor what they’re trying to do is to eat into some of the market of scraps that Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Samsung have. Why would Nikon or Canon spend money to gain market share when they have most of it already?