< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon mirrorless camera price estimation

According to Nikkei (via Reuters) Nikon's mirrorless camera + lens combo will cost between 70,000 - 100,000 yen or between 900 - 1,300 USD. US prices are usually slightly lower than the MSRP in Japan.

For comparison, the Sony NEX-5N, Panasonic G3 and Olympus E-PL3 kits cost $699 each. The Pentax Q costs $799 and Samsung NX200 kit costs $899.

Maybe this is the media report Nikon had in mind with their latest news update.

Here is another article from Bloomberg (similar to the one from yesterday) on the growing mirrorless market and the lost opportunity for Nikon and Canon.

Update: and another article from Reuters on the same topic:

"Shares in Nikon Corp rose for the third straight day on Friday, after market speculation about the company's launch of its first mirrorless camera was boosted by a report in the Nikkei newspaper that the new product would be on the market by the end of the year."

This entry was posted in Nikon 1. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Tim Buschar

    How much for all the other lenses?

    • Mock Kenwell

      That’s an outrageous price if true, especially if
      a) the lenses are as slow as reported
      b) the operation is as slow as reported
      c) the sensor is as small as reported
      d) the camera is geared toward graduating noobs on a budget as reported.

      Granted it’s a launch price, but it still won’t come down where it needs to be after a few months. The only ones who would pay that kind of sum would be professionals and enthusiasts, and even then only if the camera has some amazing new “gotta-have” technology. If this thing isn’t using some new low-light, curved sensor or something, this is a colossal misread.

      I might add that I’m definitely open to this kind of camera, but almost every report we have on it to date would have to be wrong.

      • gt

        +1

        Its a glorified coolpix as far as I can tell

        • LGO

          Take out “glorified” and you would be 100% accurate.

          • Jonas

            Coolpix XLS ( Exchangeable Lens System) …

            • no-nikon-no

              on the bright side, you will have pancake teles

        • ISP ©

          + 10 000 big fuss around an up scale cool crap…

      • Paul

        Nikon could have commanded this price if they launched before the X100 did. Now that just looks ridiculous.
        I was fully expecting a $699 price point.

        • D-RiSe

          oh please you can pick up a panasonic gf3 with pancake lens for 550 euros, the nikon has a smaller sensor and slower lenses… it’s a coolpix with changeable lenses.. why would annyone want to pay more than say 400 euros for that?

          • Sky

            Well, there are 2 groups:
            1) Blind Nikon fanboys
            2) People with too much money buying random gear whenever they hear something good about it (assuming that Nikon-biased reviewers will post some good reviews of this new system)

            • catalin

              +100

            • haha

              Blind fanboys? U r wrong, Nikon is losing all their fanboys bcos they ignored the segment that are the fanboys which is the D3, D700 and D300s successors range.

          • Ren Kockwell

            I would pay it if the overall package was truly pocketable and if the IQ and operation were top notch. But it does not appear that either of those things will happen.

      • Michael

        There are a lot of strange comments going around here, for example that this is an outrageous idea, or that Nikon should conform to m4/3. These comments make no sense to me.

        Why would Nikon conform to m4/3 and make its lenses compatible with Panasonic and Samsung cameras. Lenses is what Nikon is best at. Nikon would be shooting itself in the foot.

        I don’t get this m4/3 system at all. It’s goal is to compromise quality for size. But isn’t DX that compromise? None of these m4/3 are pocketable. Sony’s NEX cameras beat the sh*t out of m4/3 and are approx. the same size. Still, they are not pocketable, and if it goes around the neck I’d rather carry a D7000. The D3100 is already too far on the compromise in my opinion, because it’s not pocketable, nor does it comfortably in the hand. These smaller cameras are just designed to lure in people who had a point and shoot before.

        So if Nikon sees the opportunity to make a camera as pocketable as a compact camera, but with a nice set of lenses, I think they are on to something. If it can have a mid-range zoom lens, a fast prime for low light, and some wide angle/fish eye, it will appeal to a lot of people – as long as it’s pocketable. And with this 2/3 sensor size, that should be possible. And that’s why I think it might be a lot better than m4/3, instead of aiming for a crippled DSLR, it aims to be a great point and shoot.

        • Anonymous

          +1

        • AtlDave

          +1

          I go hiking a lot and rarely take my SLR along due to its size and weight. It takes better pictures than my S95 but really gets in the way. On some vacations I like to travel light and leave my SLR and lenses behind.

          I bought an Olympus EPL2 with the 2 kit lenses hoping to replace my compact with it. After trying to like it for 6 weeks I ended up selling it. While much smaller than my SLR it was still too large to take the place of my compact. When I could take a larger camera I strongly preferred the OVF and better handling of my D90. A DX or even FF mirrorless camera is not going to be of any use to me if it is sitting in a drawer along with my SLR.

          If Nikon wants to sell me a mirrorless camera it absolutely must be smaller than an m43 camera with the kit lens attached. It absolutely must provide better image quality than my S95. It absolutely must be more versatile than my S95. All DX cameras fail the first criteria. All superzoom compacts fail the second criteria. All big sensor, fixed prime lens compacts like the X100 fail the third criteria. The rumored Nikon could meet all 3. My biggest worry is that Nikon could make the same mistake Olympus did with the original 43 system. Despite the smaller sensor the cameras were about the same size as the competition with DX sensors.

          For people that place less value on compact size and weight I can understand why they want the Nikon mirrorless to be a NEX clone but with lenses that live up to the sensor. But it seems like most of the people that want the Nikon mirrorless to be DX are really waiting for the next FF SLR from Nikon and would not buy a mirrorless camera even if it was DX. Mirrorless cameras are for people that want a compact camera. If Nikon wants this to succeed they need to emphasize compact as they have done by apparently choosing a 2.7 crop factor.

          • PHB

            Ah but you don’t understand that 95% of the readers of this blog are bus drivers who live in a bedsit and spent half a years wages buying a D700 and are saving up to buy a lens.

            Until they get the lens they can’t take any pictures so they come onto this blog to tell everyone how wonderful their camera would be if they can use it.

            The constant boasting people make about their gear is just so uncool. It is not even as if a camera or a lens is particularly expensive. But they have to keep slipping it into the conversation. Guys, if you want a pussy magnet you need a Rolex or something you can wear and flash without being too conspicuous, how about some gold chains?

            What I want to see is a mirrorless camera that is light and pocketable and has some form of built in rear lens cap for making lens changes easier.

            If I want to take portrait shots with wafer thin DOF I will continue to use my D300 and 85 f/1.4 thank you very much.

            The m4/3 system looks to me like it was cobbled together to be as cheap as possible to produce, reusing existing components wherever possible. Sure you can put a larger sensor in there. But it won’t do a damn thing for the picture quality because its not an SLR.

          • Richard

            If you really want compact, get a Minox film camera, but be prepared for really poor IQ at 3×5 inches.

        • no-nikon-no

          then they should not have made the sensor this big. it can be further shrunken

          • AtlDave

            See criteria 2:

            “It absolutely must provide better image quality than my S95.”

            If it is going to provide better image quality than a S95 it needs a bigger sensor. At 3 times the area a 16mm sensor qualifies. A smaller one would not.

            This really comes down to whether you want this camera to replace your compact, replace your SLR, want it to replace both your compact and SLR or want to have a 3 different sizes of cameras to choose from. I want it mostly to replace my compact so the smaller 16mm sensor makes sense. If you want it to replace your SLR a DX sensor would make more sense. After having tried one of the m43 cameras I really think mirrorless cameras make much better compact replacements than SLR replacements. I plan to keep my SLR for right now.

            • PHB

              Why do you think a bigger sensor helps?

              The F-mount cameras are designed for an FX sized sensor. There are good reasons why changing to a smaller sensor creates problems.

              Imagine you have a slide projector and a screen. Do you expect the picture to change in any way other than size if you move the projector closer to the screen (and refocus).

              Larger sensors mean that you can have more pixels without hitting the diffraction/quantum limits. This particular format seems to me to be designed to support up to about 24MP comfortably which matches anything in the F-mount.

              If you want to have low light performance you are going to have to get yourself an f/1 or faster lens for it. I would expect to see those eventually, but hardly in the first release. If you want low light performance you need a big aperture and that is all.

              As for the price report, it is almost certainly nonsense. Lots of people in the company need to know the specifications of the camera and have physical access to prototypes. Only a handfull need to have accurate price information.

              The D3100 currently sells at a street price of $600 which is about where I would expect the mirrorless system to sit. The MSRP will be higher of course to allow for obligatory discounting. But the first editions off the production line are going to be for the consumer Xmas market.

        • Anonymous

          Great post. Very nicely stated.

      • Richard

        This just could be a train wreck for Nikon. It would appear that they have completely misjudged what the market wants and the price that it would be accepted at. Nikon are late to the party and do not appear to have a competitive product in a market that will already have many competitors with a wide variety of features from which to choose.

        Worse yet, just what projects have been set back by the allocation of resources to this unlikely to succeed project?

        This could be very bad news for Nikon.

        • Anonymous

          What a ridiculous post.

          So, if Nikon does not release a mirrorless, all the pros will stop buying Nikon dSLRs and jump to Sony’s ship?

          • Richard

            You are being entirely silly and absurd to boot. It would be a train wreck because, if the mirrorless offering does not sell and Nikon could have devoted the resources to a product that would have sold they lose all the way around because the other products were not developed and become less competitive or people simply soldier on with what they have rather than buying an “all new and improved” version of whatever.

            How the heck did Sony get in the middle of this?

            If the marketing people who made this decision are not correct it stands to be a major malfunction for the company.

            Go play with your Sony or whatever.

      • dgreene196

        Where have there been any reports of the operational speed of this camera?

  • joe

    so am I correct in understanding this is not an F mount?

    • Ruben

      Well, nothing confirmed. But yes, we are pretty 99% sure it’s a different mount.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      no, the mirrorless will not have a F-mount but it will be compatible with F-mount lenses probably with an adapter

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/ shigzeo

      f-mount wouldn’t be prudent if Nikon wanted to keep the small size of mirrorless camera. F-mount lenses have to have a long distance between their back optical lenses and the sensor. Mirrorless cameras can have a very very shallow distance. The best would be to have a new mount that could accept a reasonably sized adapter for f-mount or anything else, unless Nikon were just making a new SLR with the return to their old f SLR sizes (something I’d go for).

      As they won’t, I’m done with the DSLR bizz and will probably get a NEX or if Fuji come out with the fabled m-mount mirror less (of any sensor size), I’ll jump.

  • jerl

    That seems a little high. For that price, you could easily get a good m4/3 or NEX system with a much larger sensor. I can’t see this selling all that well. For comparison, just imagine the sales figures of a APS-C sized camera selling for $10,000.

    • plato

      Sigma SD1

      • Ting Tian

        man, that is basically what i wanna say

  • ian

    For 1300$ it better be aps-c

  • yakker

    So almost as much as a NEX-7 with lens?! Better be one phenomenal lens on this thing.

    • Sky

      phenomenal lens won’t help with this sensor.

      Ok, it might help if Nikon makes something like f/0.75 to catch up depth of field disadvantage.

      • PHB

        f/0.75 is quite possible on a rangefinder design.

        On an SLR the mirror sweep means that the rear element of the lens has to be quite a distance from the focal plane. Hence a retrofocus design is required and those big, bulging ultra-wides.

        A short focus design is much simpler and much more compact. The coverage required is practically zero and so it is completely practical to have a huge aperture.

        If you take a look at the legendary f/0.7 that Kubrik used to shoot Barry Lindon it really does not look too exotic up next to recent f-mount designs.

        The bigger question is whether Nikon would bother and for what type of lens. The EVIL format is not going to compete for sports photography for a decade or more. For birding the advantage of EVIL is going to be long reach in a smaller lens. That pretty much leaves landscape and portrait.

        Portrait is going to be pretty much a draw, I can’t see either format having a major technical advantage. For landscape the EVIL format will (eventually) have much better wides and ultra-wides.

  • The invisible man

    What about : “buy a D900 DSLR and get a mirrorless camera for free !”
    Sound good to me !
    :)

    • Richard

      You mean like Nissan dealers were giving away a car if you bought one of their pickup trucks because they were otherwise unsalable?

  • http://ryanmlong.com ryanmlong.com

    I can’t see this being an intelligent move on Nikon’s part unless the sensor is APS-C or bigger. It would in now way compete toe to toe with the NEX without an f-mount and without a APS-C or FX sensor; and certainly not at that price point. Otherwise, why not buy a point and shoot?

    At any rate, I’ll reserve judgment until the thing actually is announced, but the rumors are leaving me in a great position to be surprised i.e. with my hopes anywhere but high at the moment.

    • Sky

      Nikon tries to make compact with all disadvantages of dslr AND compact?

  • Steve

    Oh man, at that price, it’s gonna be a very hard sell. Nikon have totally messed up their entry into mirrorless.

  • grumps

    If they can bring to the market all at once 2 fast zooms at f/2.8 and very fast primes at f/1.4 covering the range of 24mm, 50, and 85, it’ll change the game!

    If they cannot, it’ll just be another camera! I expect the latter coming from Nikon today, shame really!

    • gt

      1.4 on such a shrunken sensor won’t give a very shallow depth of field. sure you can get low light performance, but you’re not going to be blowing out the background

      • grumps

        You’re absolutely right, but I’ve always got it in my head that I “want” a FF sensor or at least an APS-C. It just goes to show how far wrong Nikon has gotten it!

      • BornOptimist

        That depends on the lens. A 85f1.4 will give you a equ of +200mm, and this will give you shallow DOF. Also when it comes to tele lenses size is not that critical (because noone expect a 200mm to be small), so you can probably use fast F-mount lenses as telelenses. It will not make sense to use a 200 f2 on this camera, but you can IF shallow DOF is what you seek, and you have nothing else to use.
        On the flip side, there are situations where you want large DOF, and that is problematic with a DSLR. You can stop down, but you soon enter diffraction limits (f16 is diffraction limited on DX sensors).
        Personally I use a P&S for macro shots when I document my work, just because of the shallow DOF with DSLRs.

  • Carlos R B

    This got be some joke….unles they pull off some big surprise IQ wise….2.8 crop and the lenses rumored will scare many, almost all customers…..samsung has a great option at 900 usd and some pretty good small lenses…

  • http://www.juandiegojr.com juandiegojr

    Nikon mirrorless = Nikon FAIL.

    A camera with lower and lowered Nikon APS-C specs and with your Nikon actual lens didn’t work or the focal lenght altered by the sensor size, at the price of a reflex… No thanks, hope that asians love it and run with unicorns. I still prefer Sony NEX and Carl Zeiss.

    This have no sense, FX lens, DX lens and mirrorless lens???? WTF???
    Loyalty is becoming an high price.

  • Alfonso

    Very Expensive if > 600 usd

  • C

    I think Nikon should launch FX mirrorless first, and then launch 2.5x mirrorless some months later. It helps provide better image that Nikon is producing distinctive and luxury imaging product if they launch FX mirrorless first. 2.5x is not a bad thing but if Nikon launch 2.5x first, all the Nikon pros will be stabbing the new Nikon mirrorless so that making the launch of Nikon mirrorless a failure giving a bad first image of Nikon mirrorless.

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    I am not impressed. The sensor is too small and the world does not need another incompatible proprietary lens mount system. Micro 4/3 is a better concept.

    • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

      For pro´s your argument is valid, for amateaurs no.

      Nikon make more money with the low end consumer than with the high end. That´s the strategy, forget the pro´s who already have their gear, let´s attack the best market share.

      • yakker

        Going after volume makes sense, but I’m not clear why such an “amateur” buyer would go for this instead of a P&S. (Not that I’m disagreeing, I agree that’s what they are doing, I just don’t understand why the target consumer would buy it.)

        Would be nice if someone recognized that since everyone is targeting the amateur with their mirrorless offerings so far (other than maybe Sony with NEX-7, but they have no high-quality lenses) maybe that’s a segment worth pursuing.

        • broxibear

          Hi yakker,
          “Going after volume makes sense, but I’m not clear why such an “amateur” buyer would go for this instead of a P&S.”
          The buyers in this market already have a point and shoot inside their mobile phone. They don’t want another box to carry around that’s basically identical to their phone…but somebody at Sony realised that they are prepared to pay more for something desirable and different, like the NEX range.
          Sony marketing is one of the best around, it’s something they learnt from the massive success of the Playstation.

      • Sky

        Only issue is that Pros shape opinions and direct crowds towards one or other solution. If everyone will read reviews of Nikon mirrorless it deserves and than they’ll read reviews of m4/3, NX or NEX camera than how one would buy into Nikon and company would make any money over the R&D costs?

      • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

        Sorry, IMO this is nothing but a glorified compact that is nowhere near the level of micro 4/3.

      • Richard

        $1,000 plus is not the low end of the market.

  • Merv

    It’s going to have to be much smaller, have great image quality, and be simple to use (i.e. very good auto modes) to make it a success within the mass market as it looks like it is more expensive than the D5100. Hopefully, our current flashes will be compatible with this Nikon mirrorless camera.

    • Trevor

      No disrespect, but please do explain to me why people want a hotshoe on these cameras? I thought the whole point was to be compact. An SB800 sitting on this thing would be horrendous.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/ shigzeo

        But at least you could use one, or go wireless with radio slaves and PC adapters. Not having a hotshoe hamstringings any camera with upward poise (as the Nikon EVIL camera seems to be at its projected price).

      • broxibear

        Hi Trevor,
        You’re right this market does not need or look for a hotshoe…the buyers in this market are not enthusiasts or professionals.
        People seem to be confusing two different markets and think one camera will cover them both, it won’t…that’s why Sony have the NEX-C3, NEX-5N and NEX7. Sony know the NEX-C3 is going to be the big seller while enthusiasts/pros might pay a premium for features like a hotshoe on the NEX7. Here in the UK the NEX-C3 inc 18-55 is £406, the NEX7 inc 18-55mm lens is £1150.

      • Ken Elliott

        The hot shoe is for an optical viewfinder when used with super wide angle lenses. The early Leica cameras had a shoe for a viewfinder, but there were no flash contacts on the shoe. That is why the shoe is generally over the lens.

        Glad to have it.

  • SongEmu

    So. What you’re saying is: For once, Pentax actually beat the Big 2 to a product category that very few people want… and Nikon’s still diving headlong into that segment.

  • venancio

    what?? is this mirrorless thing better than D5100 with kit lens at $764 (B&H) or D7000 with kit lens at $1334 (Aden Camera Canada, less if paired with 18-55mm)? oh, it’s the “compactness”… but really? anyway, if it has the image quality factor, so be it… Canon and Nikon are still holding out on the FX, knowing that Sony is ready to jump in with the much improved full frame a900 successor… seems like we have to hold our breath again till we’re blue in the face, smurfed or simply coolpixed…

  • Trevor

    I gotta believe they are going to end up pricing a mirrorless body and kit lens between a D3100 and P7100. $900 is way too much; $1,300 is in the realm of insanity.

    I still think it’ll be $550 for the kit. Street price will quickly be $499. That would sell well.

    • BornOptimist

      No question – The price will be higher than D3100!
      I predict it will be even higher than D5100 as well, so USD 900 for the camera with a kit lens (10-30) is not far from the truth I believe.
      After all a E-P3 with kit lens cost that, and that is 3 years old technology in 3rd iteration. The only thing that has changed with that camera is increased readout speed from the sensor, and a lightly more powerfull cpu.

  • MK

    all that waiting. for nothing haha. no f****** way at that price over other systems; especially m43 and x10. i guess phase AF costs cash money aplenty?

  • Robert Falconer

    Swing and a miss…?

    It’s hard to believe Nikon could have so grossly miscalculated with this new product, but I have to agree with others here: there is little or nothing appealing about it.

  • Dandydon

    If true, why not buy a D7000? Much more camera for the money.

    • Richard

      …or almost anything else.

  • Dandydon

    Nikon Rumors – Where there are no mirrors, what good is the smoke?

  • JPOita

    The price will 60% of that if based on prices on Nikon Direct Japan online store, for instance, they have the d7000 with 18-105 kit at $2300 (¥178.000), but the real price on japanese online stores is about $1400 (¥108.000).

    With the kit D5100 with 18-105 kit it costs on Nikon $1.150 (¥119.800) but online in Japan you buy it at $740 (¥57.800).

    Same with the D3100 with 18-55 kit, on nikon direct at $770 (¥59.800), on online stores at $500 (¥38.000).

    So my guess if they say 70,000 – 100,000 yen, the price on stores will be about 40.000 – to 75.000 or less ($510 to $950).

  • R8R

    Maybe they will release more than one mirror-less model…

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      Yes, this is correct – Nikon will release two different mirrorless cameras.

      • Giorgio

        Sharing the same (small) sensor?

      • RichST

        Anything more specific other than 2 cameras? For a system that’s just days away Nikon has kept a surprisingly tight seal around this thing, you would think more specs would be pouring out. Do we even know how many megapixels the thing will have?

      • LOL

        One will be red. ;)

        • so so

          +1 :P

        • Anonymous

          +100 :)

  • One More Thought

    As everyone else has remarked, the price seems way to high, unless it has some radical new tech in it.

    • broxibear

      Hi One More Thought,
      “radical new tech” isn’t going to be enough.
      The competition is the Sony NEX-3N, Olympus E-PL3 and Panasonic GF3, these cameras are targeting different buyers inside this market. The Sony with better image quality and distinct design, the Olympus with quality materials and retro styling, and the Panasonic that’s more cute and ipod like…all these cameras are similar in price.
      Even if this Nikon mirrorless has the image quality of a D3s it still won’t sell if it’s double the price of the competition.
      The only other mirrorless cameras in this price bracket are the Fuji X100 and NEX7…these are niche cameras not mass market cameras.

      • Sahaja

        At this price I’d certainly rather have an x100 or a NEX-7 – or even the NEX-5n

    • Richard

      Even if it has ‘radical new tech’ the price takes it out of the target market where the volume of sales are to be had.

  • Huggs

    Noooooooooo!!!

    • Huggs

      Seriously. No.

  • paf

    Bring on the Pronea series of the 21st century!

    What a bunch of crap.. So we will get to pay more than for a DSLR that contains more parts including a mirror. Where is the logic in that? Competitive products you say? How about dem’ financial estimates — where will the profits come from? How about overpriced semi-coolpix products like the EVIL camera.

    But than again, it’s amazing what kind of crap people will spend fortunes on….

  • Mike

    I’d take a D3100 in red over this if that’s the price.

  • http://www.4togadget.com/ HotDuckZ

    Thinking to sell some of my huge lens. :)

  • north

    Might as well just go with the X100 instead.

    • LOL

      Wait for the X200, should have interchangeable lenses (or the “big brother” to the X100 if that comes out).

  • Hrm..

    Nikon is ripping people off. The D700 has long due and they’re still cocking up stupid products at a ridiculous price point. Someone needs to get fired… The only revolutionary outcome from their side of R&D was the video feature in the the D90 and they had been slacking ever since. Really take a look guys… anything groundbreaking afterwards ? owh D3s at 12 mpx with 720p ? low mpx for noise balance ? thats just some marketing crap… and excuses. I’d do 4k video or at least 2k video and 24mpx on the next flagship and thats gonna kill canon sony hands down and even poke red in their cherry pop…

    • LOL

      That comment would have looked much better in ALL CAPS RAGE!

  • http://www.pixyst.com Pixyst

    This is just amazing. Knocking a product before it even launches let alone gets reviewed.

    • Yagion

      +1 LOL. Folks take rumors too seriously

    • Anonymous

      Goes to show that admin should change the name of this site to NikonWhiners.com. What do you say Admin?

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

        I think everybody will stop whining once the FF cameras starts rolling out. We may still be few months away from that point.

        • A thought

          +100

        • broxibear

          “I think everybody will stop whining once the FF cameras starts rolling out.”
          Yeah, that’s going to happen lol…it’ll just be the start of the whinning about the cameras not being good enough, the hot pixels, the price, the availability etc etc etc…not to mention the “when’s the D5 coming out ?”

          • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

            no, I don’t think so – there are not many people that complained once the D700 and D3s were released

            • Richard

              Sure there were…but they worked for Canon. ;-)

  • Bip

    Expensive stuff = good stuff.

    It’s definitely worth a look for that price point as I am sure Nikon must have offerred something very interesting to command a higher price.

    If Nikon is retailing this product at $499, then it may just be an advance coolpix with interchangeable lens.

    • BornOptimist

      First of all, it’s not Nikon who set this price. It’s a just a rumor of the price point.
      Secondly, I agree with you, even at this price point it’s definitely worth to have a look at it.
      As you say a 499 product is just another advanced P&S, but if it’s 900 it must be something more. I personally do not have any hesitation to pay 1000-ish if this is what I have been looking for for a long time. X100, E-PL2 or GF2 was not what I have been looking for, and I have bought all of them.

      • Bip

        Agree.

        Should give this rumoured mirrorless a chance.

        Don’t understand why people are so quick to jump on conclusion.

        It’s one thing to judge a product after it was out; another to criticise it simply based on rumour.

  • henry

    Why didn’t Nikon ride the bandwagon for once and join m4/3?
    At this price, I wouldn’t touch this with a stick.
    At least with m4/3, I can have compatibility across different manufacturers.
    But with Nikon, I’d be stuck with system that’s been designed to be crippled.
    What a way to waste money.
    Prove me wrong Nikon, please.

    • Flash

      Did not want to p o Sony? Who is one of their suppliers.

      I am interested in seeing what features the little guy has, will have such as a global shutter, and great video performance probably.

      All this lost on me,even though I will get a new personal digital camera real soon. I think I will go use a old vest pocket folding film camera this winter I like B&W in the winter anyways, then get a new DSLR in late spring. Nikon should have at least announced one by then, if not …..Canon..no never.

    • broxibear

      Hi henry,
      I agree, it’s something I’ve been saying for years…I’m convinced Nikon missed a big opportunity by not going micro four thirds.

      • BornOptimist

        You see this from a customers point of view. From Nikons point of view joining m43 makes no sense. They want to sell both lenses and cameras.
        If there is one thing Nikon is known for, then that is backwards compatibility, and that is most certainly not possible if they’d join m43.

        • Flash

          Old Manual Focus Nikons work quite well with m43s. Their old rangefinder lens. even work. This is in full manual operation; but their is nothing stopping a real adapter being made that will allow the auto features of the lens to work.

        • broxibear

          Hi BornOptimist,
          I fully understand your point about Nikon wanting to sell lenses as well as bodies, but I don’t see people who already have a m4/3 camera and maybe a lens or two switching. If Nikon had joined m4/3 people could keep their current lenses and change bodies at some stage…and Nikon could sell lenses to owners of other manufacturers m4/3 cameras.
          I’ve got a GF1 and 16mm f1.7, if Nikon brought out a really good 45mm m4/3 I might buy that. I’m not changing system, but when my GF1 starts to wear or is damaged I’ll look at other manufacturers bodies but keep the 20mm…that’s one of the attractions of the m4/3 system.
          Maybe Nikon think too much from their pov and not enough about the customers ?

          • paf

            +1 on that. Giving the customers the ability to “transition” into a system instead of starting a new one all together would be the ONLY way to successfully enter the mirrorless market so lat in the game.

          • broxibear

            oops that should say 20mm f1.7…don’t know why I put 16mm, doh.

    • Dweeb

      Because Nikon don’t play nice with anyone. Remember the white balance issue? If they could get away with it now they’d have a special Nikon tripod tread on the bottom.

  • Robert

    The pricepoint for entry mirrorless camera should be below 499 Euro. Now in Germany D3100 kit 18-55 II cost 439 euro

  • Moth Flowell

    Nikon will shoot themselves in the foot…if this New Mirrorless Camera comes below 18MP!!! But one would assume two ways….They love 12mp. Get with the times Nikon…or they will be using Sony innards…We shall see in a few weeks. Why would Nikon Announce a press release earlier today..and in it…Nothing? What were they responding to? Do the high up at Nikon Land…read this mess here? OR did they get their panties all bunched up…what Reuters reported?

    IF Nikon announces anymore products from this day forward….and it comes with 12mp…Nikon is NOT REAL!

    • nobody

      12mp would be perfect for this type of camera with such a small sensor. But I can imagine they will use 14 or 16 for marketing reasons.

  • ALL CAPS SHOUTERS

    SUPER 16MM LENSES WILL BE PERFECT WITH THIS CAMERA! OLDER C-MOUNT VERSIONS ARE DIRT CHEAP! LARGER SENSOR THAT 2/3″ BUT NOT TOO LARGE! F**K RED SCARLET! YES!

  • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

    …and now why?

    Well, as former Canonist I was freaked out by how the best camera manufacturer did its business: the same camera at every iteration seemed like they’re in deep dark stagnation. I moved to new best camera manufacturer, to Nikon and now what? The same old story?

    • Bip

      What’s wrong with the current line up?

      You want the top of the line camera for Speed to shoot sport in low light enviroment, you have a D3S.

      You want the top of the line camera for X-tra pixel for large print studio photo, you have a D3X.

      • Sky

        Which is exactly how old? And: adding video as an “”upgrade”” doesn’t make camera a new one.

        • BornOptimist

          The age of the camera doesn’t mean a squat. In the years after the D3-serie (and D700) these has been exactly 0 (zero) cameras that beat them as an overall package. They are still the best still cameras on the marked. I can hardly see a major improvement over what these cameras can deliver today. An evolution – yes, but not a revolution.
          You are perfectly fine for another 3 years if you buy one of these cameras. They ARE that good.

          • Curt

            It makes a difference TO CONSUMERS – you know, the folks that buy your products. If Nikon doesn’t put any effort into improving or upgrading it’s line-up, the impression is that they are a sinking ship – like it or not.

            Wasting resources on an overpriced mirrorless is just not going to fly, especially when you are getting into the game late.

            • Juergen .

              Curt wrote (Nikon) “are a sinking ship”

              I hear that since some 35 years (or so) …

            • Richard

              +1

            • Robert Falconer

              It makes a difference TO CONSUMERS – you know, the folks that buy your products. If Nikon doesn’t put any effort into improving or upgrading it’s line-up, the impression is that they are a sinking ship – like it or not.
              That’s true. It’s also Nikon’s problem. The photographer’s problem is simply whether or not they can get the shot they need with their gear. If they could get that shot six months ago, then how does some new-fangled contraption from a competitor prevent them from getting the same shot today?

              The unfortunate problem with the move from film to digital is that some folks have become more equipment-obsessed than ever.

              Wasting resources on an overpriced mirrorless is just not going to fly, especially when you are getting into the game late.
              No argument here. I’m not impressed by this mirrorless effort, either. It doesn’t seem to excel in any area…though to be fair, we’ll have to wait for the full specifications. But at the price point suggested, yeah, I predict a bit of a flop.

          • Jet

            Look at Nex-5n images on IR

            It already does better than D700 uptill ISO 6400

          • http://www.pixyst.com Pixyst

            That assumes of course that those concerned are interested in actual photography as opposed to gear worship!

          • A thought

            +1

        • Robert Falconer

          I can go out with my Nikon F2AS (1978) and get better results than a lot of photographers I know who have Nikon D3s bodies. Age is irrelevant to picture making ability. It only matters in industrial competition.

          Is anyone here seriously trying to say that they can no longer get the shots they want with their D3 cameras or D700 cameras just because Sony or some other maker has come out with a camera that has more bells & whistles?

          Rest assured that when Nikon finally announces the D4 and D800 those cameras will be very impressive, and most of the indignant cries will be silenced…until next time. Then it’ll be rinse and repeat.

          • http://www.mrphotography.com.au MRPhotoau

            These last three comments are an awesome breath of fresh air. It gets very exhausting reading some of these comments on the occasion that I glance through these threads.

            Heaps of comments from people with faulty tools.

      • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

        Nothing wrong with current line up. These are the best DSLR on the market, but since Nikon became deaf to advanced user’s prayer, there’s no excuse. It’s more about philosophy, about company currence. Look at that: 1300$ for the interchangeable lens compact with sensor so small? Even Pentax Q looks worthy and shiny in comparation with Nikon EVIL. Why release expensive product which by all means will be ages worse than, to say, Sony one? It’s just stupid market positioning and I fear that this ridiculous policy will expand to DSLR line. Oh, wait, it did already! D3100 in red? No, thanks.

      • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

        Well for sports i.agree…For studio no! The Mark II has also stunning resolution and with the price of a D3X you can buy a 5d body the 35mm 50mm 85mm Canon primes, maybe the 100mm L macro too. If i have to choose D3X or this Canon combo, no doubts, Canon!

        • AnoNemo

          Bernardo,

          and this is what Nikon does not understand for over 3 years now.

          • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

            And maybe will loose more sales, and more great merchandising guys like Zack Arias, for simple changings they can make! A software to thetered shooting free, one “middle” fullframe with High Resolution and good price, it´s done, no more trouble with costumers. If the Mark III came before de D800, with better autofocus, and some new features (like high iso quality and better video options) there will be a lot of Nikon costumers (not the pros with D3x and D3s and huge lenses like Chase Jarvis) but the new pros who are on budget and waiting for the D700 replacement, and thats my friend, is a LOT of people around the world. Billions of dollars!

            Cheers!

      • Flash

        They need to get the performance of both d3′s in one camera. When they can do this they will have a d4. It would be to pricey for me (but my friends will buy them), but maybe a d800 could have the same performance for a little less.

        It seems Nikon will have a mirror-less almost like the Pentex. A rich womans toy. When sensor tech and software DOF improves significantly it could become a more main market camera. Unless, they have a breakthrough tech in there, can’t image what would escape the patent searchers but who knows. I do think they miscalculated a bit in thinking that it will be a big seller worldwide. I am sure it will sell very well in Japan and India.

      • Anonymous

        The problem with the lineup is that Nikon does not have a camera that can make a bad whiny photographer produce quality images. A bad workman blames his tools… so very evident here :)

        • Ralph

          I keep reading posts about “poor workman blaming tools” or similar. The frustration with Nikon isn’t about their current line not being great. It’s about progress, if al of us were as satisfied as some here claim, the wheel would neber have been invented. It’s also not about being so blinded that one needs to be a Nikon apologist.

          Cameras now are about as good as shooting with Velvia 10 yrs ago for my work. Every yr the magazines would publish the latest comparisons of film formula showing gradual film improvement. It seems to me we have stagnated on film level quality for 10 yrs. Yes I know digital has other advantages blah blah blah, but the ultimately I care about large landscape prints and I have moved to medium format digital. I would have liked to have a D800 instead and get more pixels thn my D700 delvered.

          I did get great performance from my D700 but for landscape I want more pixels. The D3x cost just didn’t add up for me, my Pentax 645D cost the same as a D3x and included a lens. The D3x sensor should have gone in a D700 body yr ago.

          Where is the progress and when will we stop comparing film from 10 yrs ago and imagine where we would be with film using nano technology? I’m no advocating returning to film but stop apologizing for Nikon restricting the resolution and performance we all deserve s people buy the over priced D3x.

          Of course it’s Nikons marketing decision but we retain the right to call them on tha arrogance.

          As an aside the Pentax 645D is brilliant, my D7000 is equally so for non-landscape work.

  • PeterG

    Nikon is probably excited about this ‘mirrorless’ camera, which is in reality selling their customers a P&S for the price of a DSLR. The tiny sensor makes it absolutely worthless in my eyes. I’ll definately buy a NEX7 though. The larger sensor, focus peaking and Leica/Zeiss lenses, makes it a very interesting little camera. I’ll buy the D800 – when (if) Nikon get around to it.

    • Bip

      “The tiny sensor makes it absolutely worthless in my eyes.”

      Do you know that for a fact or you based your judgement on rumour?

  • Gem

    Is there a possibility that there might be two sensor sizes and only one has been leaked ie the smaller one? But the pricing is based on the larger one, that would make sense to me.

    • BornOptimist

      No, because that would imply another line of lenses. Not a chance.
      The sensor is one size common for all models.

    • Anton

      Yes,
      I could be that there are two sensor sizes: one full and the other croped. Just like the DX and FX. The lenses would match (@BornOptimist you can use an FX lens on a DX camera).

      • BornOptimist

        Have a look at the picture of the lens mount. There are no room for a DX or FF sensor there, so it must also be another lens mount also then?
        Mark my words – Not gona happen!!
        Same sensor for all cameras with this lens mount.

  • andy

    Maybe there’s something special about the sensor to justify the high price?
    Nikon’s patented full colour sensor perhaps?
    Curved image sensor?

  • Henrik1963

    Mirrorless sell well = good reason to build one

    End of story

  • Ke

    Yikes.

    Unlike most I didn’t write off Nikon’s mirrorless due to the sensor size. That sensor is still a lot bigger than what’s in the S95 & G12 & those a decent little cameras for snap shots. I was banking on the camera being cheaper than any of the m4/3 or other mirrorless cameras & it being basically just a really good compact. But that price is just ridiculous. Why on earth would you pick this over the E-P3 or Samsung’s NX?

  • http://johnoliverkoelschphotography.com John Koelsch

    Poor Nikon! …too little, too late…the NEX-7 has arrived…and to abandon their roots -the f mount indicates Nikon has lost their game

  • Dweeb

    Do Nikon still think they are Apple 25 years ago?

  • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

    Already bought a 60D with a tamron 17-50 and Nikon adaptor for use with my 85 1.4 and 60 macro D. No more worrys about video. Now Searching for An. Affordable D700 here in my country or a D3S…

  • The invisible man

    @Slow Gin
    English please…
    :)

    • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

      Ahhhh….the invisible leading the blind. ;)

      • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

        That was supposed to be threaded under @the invisible man’s comment

    • http://AdairCreativeGroup.com Ron Adair

      Ahhhh….the invisible leading the blind. ;)

  • Curt

    Wow. Underwhelming and annoying.

    Nikon may have pissed away any edge it had in high end cameras.

    I mean, good on them for doing a mirrorless. But making it inaccessible (price wise) to the majority of the market that would be interested in one is ridiculous. Nikon’s point and shoots are already regarded as overpriced and underperforming. I won’t even buy one.

    But to totally put off and ignore the DSLR market for mirrorless ain’t going to do anything. If Nikon doesn’t release upgrades/replacements to the D700 and D3-whatever in the next couple of months (before xmas), I fear they are sunk. Prosumers (like me) are looking to upgrade to something in the next tier. It looks like anything in Nikon’s next tier will be 3+ years old and aging further.

  • dave

    For $10 you can buy a bottle of propane gas and a blow torch with an igniter. But I’ll sell you this tiny box of matches for $12 – it’s a lot smaller and can start a fire almost as easily, and the box comes in different colors.

    For those who inevitably don’t get it, look up “analogy” in the dictionary.

    • Richard

      Actually, a better one would be a cigarette lighter for $3 or a box of matches for $5.

  • SZRimaging

    That pricing has to be wrong. If it costs more than the Q, who is going to buy it? For a consumer “bridge” camera, $1000 is way too high. Even the $800 for the Q is pushing it. Unless they are aiming at pros/enthusiasts as an everyday camera and plan to do a lower volume (like the X100), it won’t work.

    My bet, two models, one for consumers around $500 and one for high-end buyers around $900.

  • Back to top