Nikon 1 V3

brian_f2.8

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
60
Location
USA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
So Nikon released a new mirror-less camera tonight. Does anyone have an opinion about this? I thought Nikon would have tried to build something that would compete with the XT-1. The DF was a flop. FUJI and Olympus are doing well with their vintage style mirror-less looking camera's. While some will say that why would a Nikon build a new camera that is competitive to their own DSLR, I will say that mirror-less cameras are no where near DSLR's capabilities.
 
Not bad only 1200 for the body and 10-30 (according to DPR it includes viewfinder and grip!) and 1K for the new 70-300 WTH???? Nikon has been hitting the bong apparently a bit too much...
 
provides u the fastest burst with autofocus at full resolution in its class. small grip, sharper image. It has tilting touch-screen LCD with built-in Wi-Fi....
I m looking forward 4 it.....
:D
 
I plan to buy this camera, more suggestion please about it.
 
Here are a few things i found a bit... disturbing (not sure that's the word... maybe 'troubling' is better)

<quotes from Nikon's press release>
the Nikon 1 V3 is a D-SLR owner's dream come true
Capture thrilling views of sports, fast action and spontaneous moments with game-changing continuous shooting speed: 20 fps at full resolution with full autofocus performance.
The Nikon 1 V3's Hybrid AF System uses 171 AF points for contrast detection and 105 AF points for phase detection to lock onto your subject the moment it enters the frame with virtually zero lag on the camera's LCD display. Few cameras are better suited for fast action photography than the Nikon 1 V3.

Hey everybody!!! Meet what Nikon whats to be your new D400!!

It's strange how often they used the word 'D-SLR' in that press release.

And OMG the price? Granted that $1.2k price is with the viewfinder and grip.. but.. really?

And WTFudge?!? $1k for the new 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR 1 series lens?!?!?! That's double the price of the f-mount Nikon 70-300VR!!

Nikon missed the target with this one.

PS. In 6 months when the V3 is $399 and the 70-300mm 1 lens is $199 i'll probably buy it :)
 
I want to see how well that 20fps works in a high school stadium at night when the lighting sucks. Especially with f5.6 as the best aperture. Why the hell won't Nikon just do a D400?
 
There to busy F in around with mirror less and entry level DSLR that don't need updating.
 
Why the hell won't Nikon just do a D400?
1. Maybe because the vast majority of their DSLR sales are entry-level DSLR cameras.

2. Maybe because their market research showed them the market segment a D400 would serve (prosumer) was to small and that market segment was ripe an entry-level full frame camera (D600).
 
I am thinking that a 20 fps camera's lenses would need to have a VERY robust and sophisticated automatic diaphragm OR, since the camera uses no mirror, perhaps the lens will stop down to shooting aperture and stay "closed" as long as the shutter is depressed. Decades ago, Nikon developed the first battery-powered "motorized" camera, way back in the 1950's, and within 10 years made all Nikkor lenses with ball-bearing diaphragm mechanisms, so they could handle the stress of being used on the motor-equipped F-series cameras. But 20 fps? I think that might warrant a different lens diaphragm system than the 35mm-system lenses are using. I really have not checked into this new 1-series camera yet. Might read what's available later today.

As far as a $1,000 70-300 VR lens designed specifically for this new camera; that is expensive, but it might, and I say might, be the result of making a very high-quality lens with superb optics. The higher the initial retail price is on a Nikkor lens, typically the higher the lens's image quality turns out to be. That's long been a "thing" with Nikon's lenses, and especially the zoom lenses. High retail price allows more-complex, better-performing, and better-constructed lenses. I don't know yet, but the new 70-300 VR "might" be a professional-grade lens, made small, and made with slower maximum aperture so as not to make it huge and heavy. 70-300mm has long been the province of "consumer" type lenses, but keep in mind, Canon currently has a $1,429 70-300mm f/4-5.6-L IS USM lens...

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens 4426B002 B&H Photo Video

This Canon 70-300 has two Ultra Low Dispersion lens elements, and a floating element design (floating element lens design is a Nikon optical invention, dating to the 1960's...) to improve image performance from close range to far. It's a "pro-grade" lens design, even though the majority of 70-300 lenses sold are either beginner-level, or consumer-level.
 
I agree, I feel they have done a ton of research and found that more people are now buying entry level dslr's(D3000/D5000 series) or mirrorless cameras. I bet they sell way more of those than a D4/D800 each day. So why invest into a mid level, to please a specific market. Of that market who wants a D400 some may leave when the 7D MII comes out but in reality they know Nikonians are going to stay. In a way they are doing a good thing for people who are currently working. They are making your options black n white. They are going to widen the gap between a pro body and a dslr camera.


I love my Fuji XE-2, its not going to replace my sports gear but it takes good pics of my daughters, scenery and its fun to use.
 
The only reason I would consider a mirrorless is if portability was more of a priority than DSLR camera features. Once you start the DSLR system, it's just doesn't make financial sense to start a new system under the mirrorless platform.
 
Why the hell won't Nikon just do a D400?
1. Maybe because the vast majority of their DSLR sales are entry-level DSLR cameras.

2. Maybe because their market research showed them the market segment a D400 would serve (prosumer) was to small and that market segment was ripe an entry-level full frame camera (D600).
Then I have to ask how small is the market for a D4s at $6500 price tag. I believe if Nikon build a D400 and priced it reasonably it would be one of there best sellers along with the 7100 and entry level models.
 
Last edited:
DarkShadow said:
Then I have to ask how small is the market for a D4s at $6500 price tag. I believe if Nikon build a D400 and priced it reasonably it would be one of there best sellers along with the 7100 and entry level models.

Nikon says that D4 production at the Sendai, Japan plant tops out at 5,000 D4 cameras per month. So...there are 60,000 flagship models per year. These are "halo products" to amateurs and hobby shooters, and as such they provide a "lure" to the brand, as well as form an important part of the kit of high-level, high-visibility shooters.

Second, after high-end flagship camera have been replaced by newer models, those same bodies filter down to advanced amateurs, who buy them at very reasonable prices, and further perpetuate the Nikon mystique. You want a D3s? I have seen clean used ones as low as $1850 here in town, from a "real" brick and mortar store, Pro Photo Supply.
 
$1850 for a D3s wow that's a bargain
 
$1850 for a D3s wow that's a bargain

Yes and I've been looking all the time. Their site isn't always updated. I just missed a set of
Pocket wizards lol.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top