Nikon mirrorless launch expected September 21, 2011

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Bruce, Sep 2, 2011.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    There is apparently less than three weeks to go to the announcement of
    Nikon's mirrorless system. The system is based on a sensor smaller
    than Micro Four Thirds (MFT).

    The Nikon mirrorless system will have an effective focal length
    multiplier of 2.7 compared to full frame/25mm film. The MFT sensor
    has an a multiplier of 2.0.

    Nikon must be hoping that the small sensor will prevent the new system
    doing much damage to the strong market for Nikon's entry level DSLRs.
    The launch will include two camera bodies and four lenses, including a
    pancake and a superzoom.
     
    Bruce, Sep 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    MG Guest

    A compact interchangeable lens system. Makes sense to me.

    Better than a Nikon P500. With much better ISO capabiltiy

    MG
     
    MG, Sep 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Tim Conway Guest

    Nice to have a smaller camera, but for critical uses, I'm afraid it will be
    a case of "I wish I would've brought the D3, D300, or D700 along instead".
     
    Tim Conway, Sep 2, 2011
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Savageduck Guest

    I guess you meant 35mm film rather than "full frame/25mm"?
     
    Savageduck, Sep 2, 2011
    #4
  5. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    I wonder if this announcement is as accurate as his last.
     
    PeterN, Sep 2, 2011
    #5
  6. Since 2005, I have owned a P&S that I carry at times
    when I'm not carrying my SLR. Sure, sometimes
    I might think "Wish I had my D700!". But more often
    I think "Glad I've got something better than my
    cell phone!"

    Life is all compromises, and bringing the full
    photo kit everywhere has NEVER been my
    habit. I carry it quite a lot compared to a lot
    of amateurs, but nowhere near full-time.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 2, 2011
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Rich Guest

    The dinosaurs would find a problem with your methodology.
     
    Rich, Sep 3, 2011
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Rich Guest

    From a sensor perspective, it's:
    1. Sony NEX and Fuji
    2. m4/3rds and Samsung
    3. Nikon
    4. Pentax
    Cynical and stupid of them. If the world goes for these, they'll only
    suffer. They've made mistakes before that cost them the number 1 spot.
    Lets hope they don't do it again.
     
    Rich, Sep 3, 2011
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    In your opinion, perhaps. But in the marketplace, a Samsung CSC with
    a 20 MP APS-C sensor ranks somewhere between a 16 MP Sony NEX-5N and a
    24 MP Sony NEX-7.


    The Pentax Q system is a joke. Coupled with the Ricoh takeover, this
    system suggests that Pentax has entered terminal decline.


    You cannot deny that a CSC with a 2.7X sensor is unlikely to do too
    much damage to the strong market for Nikon's entry level DSLRs. That
    would appear to the basis of Nikon's decision. Time alone will tell
    whether the Nikon CSCs will be a commercial success in their own
    right.

    I wouldn't consider buying one, and I imagine you wouldn't either, but
    we are not in Nikon's target market which is people upgrading from a
    point and shoot digicam with a tiny, noisy sensor.

    All we need now is for Sigma to offer lenses for the new Nikon format.
    ;-)
     
    Bruce, Sep 3, 2011
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Paul Furman Guest

    If it was a success, there would be no need to protect DSLR sales. I'd
    guess they actually think a CSC is not worth designing for 4/3 or larger
    but it's easy enough to come up with an interchangeable lens "P&S"
    small-sensor model at a price that makes sense for that market.
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 4, 2011
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    That's a good point.


    I think Nikon would probably have made an APS-C CSC if that market
    wasn't already well served by Sony and Samsung. The problem is, what
    could Nikon offer that was genuinely new and different and would not
    damage the profitable sales of Nikon's APS-C DSLRs?

    Full frame wouldn't be an option for Nikon because of high cost, so
    the only way to go was smaller. A 2.7X multiplier is only slightly
    smaller than Micro Four Thirds, and Nikon's sensors are likely to be
    significantly better than Panasonic's, so class-leading image quality
    is a distinct possibility, all without damaging the profitability of
    Nikon's APS-C DSLRs. It's a gamble, but probably one worth taking.

    Meanwhile, Pentax went smaller still. Much smaller. The Q System
    sensor is ridiculously small and cannot ever hope to compete on image
    quality with any existing CSCs, nor with Nikon's. So Nikon has a
    niche all its own, but still with the probability of matching, and
    possibly beating Panasonic and Olympus for IQ.

    The two remaining questions are, where will Canon and Leica position
    their CSCs? Information leaked from Canon suggests a sensor around
    the size of Four Thirds, or slightly smaller, with a 3:2 aspect ratio.
    Leica's own statements show their intention is to fit a sensor to
    their CSC that is APS-C size or larger. Full frame hasn't been ruled
    out. One of its key markets is people who own Leica R System lenses
    for which Leica doesn't currently offer a digital solution. This
    won't be a mass market product.
     
    Bruce, Sep 4, 2011
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yeah, it's a big step and Nikon is conservative, so will want to take
    their time and do it right. So this could be just a little fluff fill-in
    to bide their time.
    1/2.7 = 0.37
    24 x 36 -> 8 x 13 sensor
    50mm -> 18mm normal lens

    Should make a nice compact. Can nice lenses be made for that for a
    reasonable price which are significantly better than the very capable
    P&S lenses though? This really does reach the point where it wouldn't be
    very useful to adapt other lenses like people do with m4/3, assuming it
    has a high pixel count.

    hmmm...
    800mm wildlife super tele -> 300mm
    -that's still a pretty big lens compared to what P&S super-zooms can do
    with their tiny sensors.

    Better than m4/3? I don't get the sense that m4/3 is all that much
    better than P&S for not much less cost than an entry level DSLR and this
    will be an even smaller margin but maybe there is potential for better
    special purpose lenses to actually provide value, or maybe they can
    actually design the lenses to be *small* so the camera is small, unlike
    NEX or even m4/3. If not, it's just marketing crap.

    1/2.3" -> crop factor 5.62 -> half the size of this Nikon rumor.

    Nikon should go that route :)
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 5, 2011
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.