Nikon 1 V3

[brian_f2.8]

Um yes. I'm talking about sports. I don't see fuji making 500mm lens. For weddings sure point has been proven. Maybe in time the technology will catch up but not now.

 

[TheLost]

Um yes. I'm talking about sports. I don't see fuji making 500mm lens. For weddings sure point has been proven. Maybe in time the technology will catch up but not now.

The technology is here today... You are shooting a DSLR for sports because Nikon is telling you that's what you need.

Put a DX sensor on V3 internals and tack on a F lens mount and you'd have a camera people would buy.

18mp
171-point AF system (w/ 105 on-sensor phase-detect auto-focus points).
20FPS
40 image RAW buffer

Nikon can make this camera... it has all the parts it needs.

Side note: Lets talk about that FPS.. the buffer fills up in 2 seconds @ 20fps.. 4 seconds @ 10 fps.. ~7 seconds @ 6 fps.. that's dang impressive IMHO.

 

[pixmedic]

Um yes. I'm talking about sports. I don't see fuji making 500mm lens. For weddings sure point has been proven. Maybe in time the technology will catch up but not now.

Olympus has a 300 mm f/2.8 m4/3 lens, which is 600mm equivalent in FF.

I'd say that "in time" is today.

 

[TheLost]

Let's compare it to cars. Would Porsche make a 50k model that is comparable to a 150k model? Is a Cayman a 911? Of course not.

It could be, if Porsch didn't cripple it for "strategic cost". Same with the Canon 6D

Porsche originally 'crippled' the Cayman because they wanted a car placed between the Boxter and the 911... However, LOTS of people (like me) think the Cayman is BETTER then a 911 due to its balance and weight. They listened to their user base who thought the 911 was getting to big and heavy.. and they made a car people wanted. (you also haven't shopped for a Cayman for a while.. cuz they aint $50k... try closer to $80k)

Short answer... Porsche makes cars targeted for specific owners. Nobody know's who Nikon is targeting their cameras at...

 

[pixmedic]

I thought Nikon was targeting their cameras at photographers

 

[molested_cow]

If I am looking to replace my D700 with something with video, this may be an option simply for the size and weight. Of course, I will probably hate it at first for the lack of physical controls.

 

[brian_f2.8]

As soon as I see someone at a NASCAR, Indy Car or PGA event with a mirrorless camera I'll let everyone know.

I have no interest.

 

[pixmedic]

As soon as I see someone at a NASCAR, Indy Car or PGA event with a mirrorless camera I'll let everyone know.

I have no interest.

Eh....
It wasn't that long ago that people said mirrorless would never be suitable for weddings. Give it some time...
I imagine it would be pretty nice to be able to shoot those sports using gear that weighs 1/4 of what the photographer is used to carrying around.

It will be interesting to see if anyone does start using mirrorless and what the results are like.

 

[Derrel]

I thought Nikon was targeting their cameras at photographers

Yeah, one might be tempted to think that, but Nikon is also clinging tenaciously to the laaaaaast of the point and shoot digital crowd. IMMSMC, Nikon in 2013 was #1 in sales of small, affordable compact cameras world-wide. The folks running Nikon are still trying to hang on in a declining market segment. There are places in the world where d-slrs are simply out of reach of the majority of citizens (developing world, China, etc.)

This whole $1,200 compact, smaller-than-APS-C, smaller-than-m4/3 even market, where the Nikon 1 series falls in the camera hierarchy...there really is not much competition from other camera makers. Maybe that's why Nikon thinks they have a shot with the 1-series. MOST of the serious mirrorless cameras today are m4/3 format (2x FOV factor), OR APS-C (Fuji X-series, with 1.5x FOV factor). As some speculate, it's possible that Nikon does not want to "validate" the m4/3 format by competing head-to-head with all the other players, like Panasonic, FujiFilm, and Olympus to name a few; by keeping the 1-series "separate" from the m4/3 and APS-C sensor cameras, AND with an adapter link to Nikon F-mount, Nikon keeps the 1 series competing in its own, small pond.

But judging from on-line forum responses, the 1-series is not taking the world by storm; Panasonic OWNS the niche that emphasizes mirrorless camera video; Olympus has the gorgeous OM-series; Fuji has the sexy X-series, with a camera for almost EVERY level of shooter; Sony has tried everything it can think of, and has made some very fine cameras, both interchangeable and fixed and fixed-mount zooms. Nikon is off in a separate niche, which is so far, not really garnering much buzz from the on-line camera press, or the web, or the tech web sites, or the photo magazines. Nikon, and Canon, both are the leaders overall, and are not really willing to go whole-hog in the mirrorless fray. The EARLY pioneers, Panny and Oly, have already captured a lot of mind share and market; Fuji is the darling of the camera press and many serious shooters; Sony has its fans too. The Nikon 1-series and the Canon M...ehhhh...not much traction...

 

[pixmedic]

The only advantage I can see for the nikon 1 is the FPS. In every other category it is actually behind even last year's MILC offerings from olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji. Probably Sony as well.

The price tag on the V3 was pretty surprising. Maybe nikon Is hoping people will take it more seriously if it is more expensive.

The v1 with 10-30 lens for $150 is tempting though, and I've seen that deal online a few times now. Now that I have the Olympus mirrorless, I don't really see myself getting the nikon.

 

[runnah]

The real problem is that they have product line bloat. 18 DSLRs, 8 Nikon 1 series, 34 Coolpix. That's 60 different products to develop, market and produce. Having that wide of a product line confuses consumer and prevents a clear focus on future development.

My personal opinion is that cutting the DSLR offering in half would do them a big favor. Having 10 DSLRs between $500-$1000 that are only slightly different is very silly.

 

[brian_f2.8]

Very good point Runnah, that was Apple's approach. While Dell offers 50 different desktops, Apple gave a few options. This ensures manufacturing quality by only producing fewer models, increase quality control among many other things. Again, I would love to be a fly on the wall at Nikon meeting and see their logic. Lets say one thing about all of this, its nice to have options with photography.

 

[TheLost]

Lets say one thing about all of this, its nice to have options with photography.

Agreed.. but whats the best Nikon option for a sports shooter? There really isn't one... its a choice of compromises.

 

[JerryLove]

The real problem is that they have product line bloat. 18 DSLRs, 8 Nikon 1 series, 34 Coolpix. That's 60 different products to develop, market and produce. Having that wide of a product line confuses consumer and prevents a clear focus on future development.

My personal opinion is that cutting the DSLR offering in half would do them a big favor. Having 10 DSLRs between $500-$1000 that are only slightly different is very silly.

Agreed. I see the same problems on the Canon side.

Not only is there an apparent lack of differentiation, there's also (due to "strategic cost") stupid crippling that's prone to occurring when devices are so similar. Creating a clearer "here's who should buy this one" differentiation would be better.

Though in the specific case of the Nikon 1 V3 the problems might look more like this:
People that want to spend $1k+ on ICL cameras from Nikon will buy DSLRs. A mirror-less that could compete there would be offered in DSLR-like form factors and competative sensor sizes.

Everyone else doesn't understand the difference between a Nikon 1 and a Nikon CoolPix (except that the latter is cheaper, smaller, and they don't need to go buy lenses); but the point-and-click market is getting eaten alive by cameraphones.

Anyone who does fall inbetween these likely got a micro 4/3 camera for less money... making more, less expensive, lenses available.

 

[brian_f2.8]

Agreed.. but whats the best Nikon option for a sports shooter? There really isn't one... its a choice of compromises.

At what level? Mom n dad taking pics at soccer, a D7100 will do just fine.

At pro level when there are other shooters your photos will be matched with? You want top of the line D4/D4s. If you are shooting basketball with a D7100 f3.2, 1/800, 1600 ISO and a guy next to you could be a'using a D4 f4, 1/1250, 3200 ISO.

For argument sake ignore all other variables such as timing and position. The camera will perform better.