< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Poll: are you going to buy the new Nikon mirrorless camera?

A quick poll: are you going to buy the upcoming Nikon mirrorless camera?


To refresh your memory, here are the Nikon V1 and J1 rumored specs:

  • The Nikon-F adaptor for their mirrorless camera will support autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses (AF-I is the older integrated autofocus technology before AF-S, read more here).
  • The available mirrorless camera video modes will be: 1928×1080 at 60fps and 30fps plus 1280×760 at 60fps. The continuous shooting rate will be 10fps.
  • The camera will have both phase and contrast AF detection
  • 10.1MP
  • ISO range: 100-3200 (with H1-6400)
  • CCD sensor (not sure about that) – the whole mirrorless line will be called CX, similar to DX and FX
  • Both cameras will have 2.7x crop factor
  • 3 in. LCD screen
  • The J1 model will have a built-in flash
  • The V1 will not have a built-in flash but it will have a multi-accessory port which will support external flash and a GPS device
  • There will be no traditional flash hot shoe on both models
  • There will be a F-mount adapter
  • Both cameras will probably be made of plastic
  • Full HD movie with many additional features
  • EXPEED 3 processor with 600 megapixels per second processing power
  • The four mirrorless lenses are (most with choice of colors, except the 10-100mm):
    • 10mm f/2.8 pancake lens
    • 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens (very short and portable)
    • 10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
    • 30-110mm VR
This entry was posted in Nikon 1. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://StandDevelopment.com Axel

    Mmmmm, colored lenses… Uh, no!

    • Not Surprised

      I think it sounds pretty good. I really like the idea of a compact interchangeable lens camera — if its truly compact. Listen up Nikon — your success in this project will depend on PANCAKE lenses PANCAKES PANCAKES PANCAKES. Stack them up.

      You can have a pancake zoom, if possible — but don’t rest on the zooms and don’t make fat boy primes. Bright lenses? That’s what the F-mount adapter can be for. You need slim pancakes to win. f/2 up to f/4.

      • Henrik1963

        +1. Small is key. It is not DSLR vs EVIL. IT is EVIL vs Canon G9, 10, 11, 12…… or the like.

        IF this new mirror-less can produce nicer pics than the good compacts – Im in.

        Using F- mount lenses is just icing on the cake

        • JY

          +100

        • carpandean

          For Nikon, with it’s 2.6-2.7 crop factor, you are probably right. However, if you don’t think that the decision is already EVIL vs. DSLR for many now and will become the decision for many more in the near future, you are kidding yourself.

          I’m not a Sony fan, but many of the technologies in the NEX-7 (e.g., very high resolution, high refresh rate OLED EVF; very fast focus, etc.) show that the disadvantages of EVILs are dropping off quickly and the advantages are still there. Entry-level DSLRs will be an endangered species in less than five years, and the rest of the levels will go soon after.

          • Henrik1963

            Sure Sony NEX is small. But only if you want one small pancake lens. If you want anything with some reach the thing becomes huge.

            I like the idea of a small sensor camera with better IQ than good compacts.

            Lets be honest. Canon G12 or the like makes good pics. The Nikon EVIL should be at least as good with a larger sensor. I don´t see why not.

            What I don´t see is a Sony Nex replacing my D90.

      • ausserirdischegesund

        +1!

  • ZDP-189

    Need a fourth option “Hell No”

    • z

      Same here. A camera that is a blatant backward steps from every other company(except what used to be good pentax)…

      • Tonio

        How is it a step backward? This could be a true alternative to the pocketable camera with poor image quality and the non-pocketable interchnangeable lens camera. So far, every interchangeable lens option is either too big or offers no significant IQ advantage over a pocket camera (I.e. Pentax Q). Sure, Nikon could build a DX or FX interchangeable lens camera but it would be just another camera that isn’t significantly more portable than a DSLR. If i wanted a decent fixed lens camera which takes good pictures in good light in my pocket, i have an iPhone. The only other useful option might be an Leica M style camera (i.e. The smallest FX camera you could build) but while th press would love it, no one would buy it.

        • regular

          I have a full-frame camera and it is pocketable. It is called a Olympus XA.
          In fact it is so cheap I have 4 of them, so I always have one in my bag.

  • Jason

    I am not sure how anyone can answer that. There are no hard facts known about the camera or it’s potential image quality.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      Everyone has to obey the laws of physics… Nikon is no exception, no matter for how long one may have been shooting with Nikons.

    • regular

      shallow depth of field is a key factor.
      1/2.7 ratio will not make it.

  • R!

    …AND F….K NO!!!!!!!!!

  • turbotron

    how ’bout that disingenuous B&H ‘deal': 1.25% back in store credit when you spend $2000. for three days only…run don’t walk.

    not sure how stupid B&H thinks we are.

    • MJr

      damn … 25 bucks !!! !!

    • Ren Kockwell

      +1
      Is this what passes for a deal now?

  • Cadu

    a mirrorless camera is just a toy for rich kids

    • Joel

      Funny, that’s what I figured D3S’ being carried by teenagers were :)

      The mirrorless systems make a great travel camera for enthusiasts who really don’t want to carry their D700 around with the family. I’m certainly looking forward to owning one, however I wont be picking it up unless it’s APS-C sized and using the Sony 16mp or 24mp sensors. And yes, before any of you spout off about Sony’s Nex7, I am thinking about buying one of those, but I’m waiting to see what Nikon produce as I’d rather re-use my lovely DX F glass if possible.

      • Sky

        There is f-mount adapter for NEX… although without AF obviously. :)

        • http://www.flickr.com/farbrauschen/ farb.rauschen

          And there’s even one you can tilt

          • Victor Hassleblood

            F##king shit, Jesus Christ,

            could everybody just look at Mr. farb.rauchen’s Flickr-stream. Gorgeous. He is an artist.

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

        The d5100 is too big for travel?

        Maybe your iphone or a Go Pro is better value for trips than this mirrorless. If the lenses are small, you can loose then on your bag gotch?

        cheers!

        • SZRimaging

          If the system size is about the same as a P&S with better quality and interchangeable lenses, I’ll consider it.

          And as you said, it would be great for travel. I travel by train, plane and motorcycle, and room can be a premium. Having this small of a system would be great!

        • Joel

          I use my D700 with the 50 or 14-24 for travel, and yah, it’s a little big.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      And you shoot with some expired film in a shoe box with a hole on it?

  • frager

    wrong poll: should be

    yes
    no, not interested in mirrorless
    no, specs too bad compared to other
    dont know yer

    • Sky

      Yep. It’d be very good to have different options for people who don’t care about mirrorless and the rest voting for “no”.

  • Robert Falconer

    If I really want a quality mirrorless, I’m going to buy a Leica M-series camera.

    The end.

    • no-nikon-no

      why buy a leica m9 for? its 2007 technology for 7x as much as the nex7, but not 7x as good.

      instead buy a nex7, invest your money into leica-m lenses, and wait until the leica m10 to come out. lenses will hold its value, digital cameras are garbage in 4 years.

      • jarda

        Or better Ricoh GXR Mount. Nex7 IQ is bad with wide angle M mount lenses.

        • no-nikon-no

          would love to see gxr vs. nex7 side by side images. all settings same, and same lens.

    • Ren Kockwell

      Yes, definitely. Let’s all travel back in time 50 years when there was no AF. Those days were so much better. And while we’re at it, let’s pay an outrageous sum for it. Nothing could make more sense than taking the most modern technology to revive a most antiquated one. Great idea.

      • nikon man

        Are you the real rockwell or a fake one? (insert questioning face)

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      You obviously haven’t used a M series camera…

      • Robert Falconer

        @genotypewriter

        He obviously hasn’t. :)

        Sometimes less is more.

        Sometimes it’s actually easier to manually focus than do it automatically.

        Sometimes it’s more efficient to rely on your own brain, rather than the camera’s.

        That said, I agree the M-series cameras are overpriced. But there’s something about fine mechanical engineering with only enough electronics to enhance the tool. It gets out of your way. The more bells & whistles these electronic DSLRs offer, the more I find they actually slow me down for certain types of photography. I don’t need 346 modes, 17 custom functions, 79 cross-type autofocus sensors and 18fps.

        It disconnects me from my subject if I have to constantly think about what my machine is thinking about. I want to spend my time making photographs, not making decisions about all the various settings permutations that might suit me better in any given situation.

        But of course, I can only speak for myself. :)

        And yes, hopefully the M10 will address the shortcomings of the M9.

  • Joe Brasco

    No thanks! ….Fx Mirrorless

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

      Yes, the Nikon rangefinder!

      • rhlpetrus

        It’ll come, but it’ll take a bit …

  • http://www.hetfotoatelier.nl Peter Rothengatter

    already bought the fuji x100 ;-)

    • John Richardson

      Does it focus?
      See the GRID Episodes 18-20 lol

  • Mikel

    I don’t understand why they only issue great consumer rangefinder cameras when the only pro rangefinder camera in the market is the Leica I think that there is an obvious maket for pro rangefinders but no one dares to exploit it, why? I still use my old Contax G1 film camera to do some jobs, and if I had the money to spare for paying my self a Leica and all it’s gear I would use it with no kind of doubt as much as I use the DSLR’s and I am sure that many pros would do the same. I am hoping for the day that Zeizz-Ikon or Rolley decide to build a body with a competitive sensor or Epson decides to upgrade the MP of their old RD-1 (despite I am a nikon defenser I also defend and prefere the quality of german cristal in the lenses like the ones of Leica or Karl Zeiss Tessar) Gush! it seems incredible that 10 years after everything has gone digital there is only one decent rangefinder system in the market!

    • no-nikon-no

      not decent. its the best. but 2007 tech.

    • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

      In my heart I can empathize with you, but I’m betting the market for such cameras is vanishly small compared to the market for DSLRs and consumer digitals. I don’t think it’s accident that Nikon stopped making rangefinders years ago. If there was big demand for them they’d still be making them. And Nikon rangefinder prices back then were very expensive, not terribly cheaper than Leicas, undoubtedly due in large part to low volume. Nikon probably sells as many D700 cameras in one hour as Leica sells M9 cameras in a month.

      Given the huge amount of research and development needed to develop and maintain top-caliber cameras and lenses I can certainly understand Nikon’s not making rangefinders any more.

      • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

        And for almost any practical purpose a good mirrorless serves about the same purpose and has overall the same advantages as a good rangefinder. With much newer technology, at a much cheaper price point.

        • no-nikon-no

          and in a mirrorless what u see is what u get. evf of the nex7 is much improved. rangefinder you have to get used to each lens, and wides need an external vf.

          i still like the rangefinder idea, but something like a hybrid rangefiner where the other viewing end is the evf, so what you see will be what u get.

          • Robert Falconer

            What Leica need to do is develop a contemporary version of the modern rangefinder that Contax used in the G1 – that would offer the best of both worlds.

            If you’ve ever looked through the viewfinder of an M3, you’ll understand why many folks gravitate to rangefinders – large, bright, clear viewing; the ability to see your subject coming into frame even before they actually arrive in-frame; a sense of connectedness to the subject…and so forth.

            An electronic screen disconnects me from my subject, I find. Optical viewfinders – whether SLR or rangefinder – are much better, IMO.

        • ausserirdischegesund

          Well .. the OVF experience of “looking through a glass window” is something completely different, than say a EVF or DSLR finder. I think that is one reason for the Fuji X100’s success.

          When I compare my Nikon or my GF-1 to my M Leica, it is a completely different experience.

        • Ren Kockwell

          +100. I love my old rangefinders, but you guys who seem to think there’s a market just because you want one, well, you need to take a look around. M4/3 has exploded, not sales of old M3s. Price point, video, AF—the list goes on and on about why the M9 couldn’t sell in a mass market. You may not want video, face detection and panoramic scene mode, but everyone else on the planet Earth does.

          Hilariously, the X100 that everyone seems to be praising as an example of a viable RF, only looks like one. Otherwise, it’s a modern digital camera.

          • Robert Falconer

            M4/3 has exploded, not sales of old M3s. Price point, video, AF—the list goes on and on about why the M9 couldn’t sell in a mass market. You may not want video, face detection and panoramic scene mode, but everyone else on the planet Earth does.

            Actually, good M3s are very hard to come by – and those available for sale at reasonable prices sell quickly. Just have a look at eBay if you don’t believe me.

            As to the M9, Leica sells every one they make, and they are typically backordered. More of a niche market, I agree, but then again, at the end of the day it’s horses for courses.

    • mikel

      I understand perfectly what all of you mean with the commercial reasons. I still could live with a digital viewfinder if I had to, but I am a bit tired of wearing 9-15Kg of gear on my back when I do street photography or a close feature, my Contax G-1 Karl Zeizz Tessar lenses are a fraction of the weight then any of my Nikon, no need to say the camera (A Leica is quite heavy but not as much as my DSLR). Lens quality is a key issue too. If we would apply todays technology to a rangefinder lens it would be simply great, retrofocal lenses as in the DSLR wear much more glass then any rangefinder efecting overall quality, making them harder to design, and adding the hated extra weight. Things like viewfinder, AF, etc. are not new to a rangefinder and I think they should not be a key issue, I know that I refere a lot to my Contax, but it’s a extreemley small camera, light, with a huge lens quality, titanium body and it has motorized zoom viewfinder, AF, etc. I don’t mean it has to be that small, but I am sure it is possible with our day technology to do something decent with a light body, the EPSON R-D1 is an example, the only pity is that it has 6Mp and a conversion factor of 1.5. But it was totally discontinued. :(

      Anyway, as you say, probably Nikon whon’t ivest in research of such a camera since they would have to design camera, lenses and the full line of accessories, but if they would, I would bother to save some money to buy it, no doubt, while I can advance that, for what I see about this one though, I still prefere much more the Olympus Pen, though I would not buy any of them to work with.

  • Filen

    Admin can you make after that another poll. Would you buy a nikon mirrorless if it has same characteristics but APS-C sensor?

    • no-nikon-no

      no i would buy the midget sensor instead.

    • BornOptimist

      We can reply to your comment here.
      I would NOT buy a mirrorless with DX (or APS-C) sensor (but I will buy a CX).

  • http://www.jansberg.com Henrik Jansberg

    I am not sure of the purpose of the mirrorless – other than being small. It would be nice to have a small camera that would work well in low light.

  • http://www.BogdanSandulescu.Ro fotograf Iasi

    I will never buy a system with 2.7x crop factor and interchangeble lenses; i don’t see the point of somethyng like that. :|

    • Anonymous

      Great for birding, and it is much less noisy. Maybe you don’t do birding, so it ain’t for you, but some people will have a need for it or want it.

  • hulkmcracken

    not for me as i am waiting for the D300s replacement to see if it is worth it over the D7000, which will also be my first DSLR :)

  • Diamondh13

    I think this is the wrong place to put such a poll… people here are beyond the amateur level and as you can see (including me) are anxious to get the next FX model so no wonder to they overlook the mirrorless cameras.

    • Anonymous

      I am in the same position, waiting for FX and not able to consider mirrorless. It’s my opinion that most are not giving the Cx sensor enough credit. Just because it’s smaller than the 4/3 doesn’t mean IQ will be worse. Cameras are like recipes, that rely one more than a single ingredient and benefit from synergy. The small form factor, good video, good IQ should make this a winner to use, if you can get past the my sensor OS bigger than yours debate. This comparison is similar to the FX DX contests. Different horses… Here you another tool from Nikon, enjoy it.

      • mikel

        Wrong, as smaller the sensor si worst quality, specially in low light it is a physical matter, it is not casuallity that the ISO rate doesen’t go further then 3200 and that the sensor is 10Mpx. Anything that makes better the image is what they can do with firmware and it’s algorithms. And I don’t understand why a pro or an amateur photographer would whant a camera with what you could bearly shoot in a room with artificial light having to use a crappy flash with the technology that sorrounds us today. Obviously it’s a question of price, a larger sensor means more money, but would I spend money in a new lineup of lenses for a camera that doesen’t stand to work in any evirornment? No, seriously, for that I will continue to shoot my holliday picutres with my film rangefinder and leave this camera for consumers to believe it’s a real bargain, when bargains don’t exist in photography.

        • BornOptimist

          It’s not the sensor size that matters for IQ, but pixel size. Given the relative low pixel count on the CX, I predict it will be at least as good as the new 24MP Sony sensor noise-wise.

          • mikel

            It’s the pixel pitch that matters, but you cant do a 2,7 10Mpx sensor hoping to have a great deal of quality, I am almost quite sure that the raw image that will come out of this sensor whon’t even have the quality of the raw images I get from my old D200 (no need to say of my D700). I think it is imposible to hope that a 10Mpx CCD sensor as small as this can even dare to make a raw image as a 24Mpx FF CMOS for 4 reasons:
            1- The pixel pitch will be aprox. the same, so no practical matter on this case.
            2- A FF has 2.7 more surface then this one of Nikon, so despite the same noise (always talking about raw images, not the processed raw, but the real raw images that come out from the sensor), so in theory, for having the same noise appirance, you would have an image 2.7 times bigger.
            3- CCD is not a feeded sensor a CMOS is, that makes it much more efficient in low light conditions.
            4- I doubt that Nikon will use the best part of a CCD sheet to cut out the sensor of it’s camera (they always reserve that part for pro cameras). While I am sure that Sony uses the best part of the CMOS sheet to build its 24Mpx sensor.

            I seriously think that if there is some kind of improovement regarding the mirrorless camera vs. the Sony sensor, that will come from the firmware and the noise reduction algorithm, but not for the raw material it self. I hope to be wrong but I hardly doubt it.

            • BornOptimist

              The pixel pitch doesn’t say anything about the area of the sensels, and THAT’s what counts.

            • mikel

              Well, ok, add too the pixel size, that is directly related to the separation between pixels, you cant mount pixels to close one to an other because they interfere echeother, so I doubt that any builder in our days with the megapixel war going around will do photodiodes smaller then the strictly necessary to have maximum pixels in minimum space avoiding interfirences. Anyway to my point of view this will still be something closer to a large consumer compact camera but with interchanchable lenses rather then an attempt to do some prosummer or pro product.

            • PHB

              It is actually the aperture of the lens, the angle of view and the resolution that matter and not the physical sensor dimension.

              But this business about low light. Crap, back in the film days we thought 400 Iso film was fast.

              I dont take pictures of birds at night. I use a tripod for landscapes. If i really wanted low light performance i could easily take stack shots and post process.

              F1.4 is wayyy too fast for iso 200 which is the lower range on most current dslrs. I am far more often wanting to have a lower iso response than higher.

          • LGO

            Not knowing what the selling price will be, my primary complain with the Nikon mirrorless is the rumored slow lenses it will be released with.

            With a small sensor, Nikon should be able to design fast lenses and still keep it small, compact and light. But Nikon squanders the size advantage if the Nikon morrorless will be released with only slow lenses.

            Take the 10-100m f/4.5-5.6 as an example. The user will hit the lens diffraction zone at the long end of this zoom lenses unless he always shoots wide-open at f/5.6. The 10-100mm at f/5.6 is basically a one-aperture camera at the long end.

            Furthermore, whatever advantage the Nikon mirrorless will have with a fast PDAF/CDAF auto-focus will be lost with slow lenses.

            • BornOptimist

              LGO, you have said this before, and I have also replied to you before. This is a system. Everything doesn’t have to come at once. If you look at the patents there are faster lenses there. What’s missing are wide prime lenses.
              I can agree that I also would have liked small fast lenses, but the fact remains, a slower lens will be smaller and cheaper to manufacture. It’s quite obvious that Nikon want to show a SMALL CSC, so the smallest possible lenses will be announced. They are cheaper to manufacture, and I’m 100% sure Nikon want as wide customer base as possible. You loose fewer customers by having it smaller and lower priced, than with better specification, larger and higher price.
              What would have been nice is a development plan to show what kind of lenses they are working on (they don’t have to reveal any timeline).

            • LGO

              I agree that it would be nice if Nikon would release a lens roadmap .. but already knowing that Nikon will not deign to do this, then there is little point in understanding that Nikon will eventually release faster lenses at “some future time”.

              We have many choices out there and Nikon needs to release a camera system now that have the specifications, features and price that can compete in the market. Absent this, the Nikon CX will gain little market traction, specially if it is priced higher than the competition. Furthermore, the m4/3 competition is steadily improving and offering very good features at attractive price points and has a wide selection of fast lenses including some very good pancake lenses. Why get the CX at all?

              Case in point: I currently use a GH2 and an X100 as my compact camera. Both cameras have fast lenses. Both have EVF while the X100 also has an OVF. Both cameras have standard hot shoe flashes so i can use my SB700, SB800 and SB900 with it. Hopefully, Nikon will be astute enough to support a wireless flash commander on the CX to enable Nikon CLS/AWL.

              The X100 is primarily my still camera while the GH2 is primarily my video camera . The GH2 though also works well enough as a still camera relative to my D3100, D7000 and D700 when outfitted with the 20mm f/1.7 and the 14mm f/2.5 pancake primes. I have a m4/3 14-140mm f/4-5.8, zoom that I used for video when the light is good. I also use my F-mount lenses on the GH2 with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8, Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8, Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 and the Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 as among my favorite F-mount lenses for video use with the GH2.

              I have held back getting more m4/3 lenses expecting that the Nikon CX System will have enough innovative features in still and video that would finally allow me to stay with Nikon for most of my needs once the Nikon mirrorless is released. I expect that the lens will initially be limited but I did not expect the initial lens selection will be so crippled.

              The very poor selection of lens lineup that will be available for the Nikon mirrorless gives me absolutely no reason to get the CX system this year, next year and even the year after that as I would not know what lens will come and when. For this reason, I will no longer hold back getting more m4/3 lenses which will further entrench me in the m4/3 system. Getting Nikon at this point will not be a step forward. It will not even be a step in place but rather, many multiple steps backward.

              The GH3 is expected late this year or early next year. It is expected to feature a much improved sensor compared to the GH2 and is expected to come with global shutter. It has a wide range of native m4/3 lenses that one can choose from and the new “X” series means that even the zoom lenses will be small, light and compact. This effectively neutralizes the CX advantage of having small, compact and light lenses possible because it uses a smaller sensor.

              In sum, I do not see anything at this point that Nikon can possibly offer that would make me choose the CX over the m4/3 current and near-future offerings. I will have FX and DX, and m4/3 but not CX.

  • J

    Hell no! But I’m sure as fuck buying the new 300/4 VR if that’s going to happen anytime soon! 8-)

  • anon743

    No thanks, IMO another cheap toy just like the Pentax Q
    Even Sony does a better job with the NEX7, but regional restrictions with video recording cripples it

    But even if Nikon releases a mirrorless APS-C/FF I won’t go for it. Having lived with the traditional SLR era it’s naturally another DSLR to continue the path, not EVIL

  • Georg

    Would I buy this camera? Depends..

    The most important specs – size&weight – are not known yet. The other specs are “just” rumored.

    What I like about the known facts:
    – F mount adapter
    – phase AF (don’t know how they manage that, but sounds good)
    – 10MP (no blown up 16-24MP crap)
    – 60fps video (good for action sequences)
    – 10fps continuous shooting rate
    – good starting lenses

    What I miss but I think it will be ok (at least in future)
    – fast wide angle zoom and some fast primes
    – 24fps Video

    What I miss and I hope it will be ok
    – Nikon TTL wireless flash triggering

    What I fear I won’t like
    – size & weight?
    – flash? (Beside the size and weight – it will be a main concern if wireless TTL flash is possible or not)

    What I think about this system
    I already own one Nikon FX, one Nikon DX DSLR and several old Nikon SLRs (F3, F4, F100). I want a much smaller and lighter FX body than D700 (eg the size of the FX size :-) F3 but I fear Nikon will never build that, at least not in the next 10 years) and a high quality replacement for the best compact camera in the world (Fuji F31fd). I use DX very seldom, I go FX or compact size. For that reason it is important if the new CX is small and light enough to replace my compact camera. If yes, I will buy it. If it is too big like all Nikon cameras, I will buy a Canon S95 or Panasonic Lumix LX5.
    If the CX don’t support the Nikon wireless TTL flash system it is not worth more than the two compacts mentioned above. If yes, and size and weight is ok, I would pay real money for that system.

    Let’s see..

    • Anonymous

      I think you are going to like this system. I believe it will blow the doors off the compact cameras like the respectable S95 & the G12. The CX will probably be mire portable and better at video than the NEX line. Those NEX lenses are too big! They have to be big to cover the big sensor and in my subjective opinion, they look pretty stupid too. They remind me of the iPhone with the adaptor that let’s one use your Nikon lenses. Just ridiculous.
      I might be interested if I had money to burn, but I don’t so I’ll be saving and praying for a good D800.

      • Georg

        If the CX will be as good as I hope for, I would not say I burn my money. See, I already have a D700 – today I don’t see any reason why I should get a D800 except the new FX is as small as a F3. With the D700 I own a big, high quality camera. What I really do need – as an complement not a replace – is a small, lightweight quality camera.

        What will a D800 do better than D700?
        More MP? Nice to have but I do not need.
        Video? Nice to have but rather on a compact, m4/3 or maybe DX but not on FX.
        More fps? Could be a reason if it will be >10fps.
        Better light sensitivity? If is is better than D3S it could be a reason why I would consider a purchase.
        Size and weight like F3? I definitley would buy a new FX and ignore the CX.

  • Smudger

    Nah.

    No yellow body, no purple lenses. I’ll pass.

  • JJ

    Hi Admin, can u try to find out if a there is a Flash Commander mode that works with Nikon’s existing Speedlights? Either by the built-in flash in the J1 or via the external flash in the V1. Thanks!

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

      I doubt it.

      • LGO

        Nikon would be throwing away one of its inherent advantages in the Nikon ecosystem if the Nikon CX will not support and enable the Nikon CLS/AWL.

  • simpleguy

    said it before , and ill say it again , cameraless not mirrorless
    please NR admin , send this poll to nikon , maybe than they will finally get the point , we dont need it , dont want it , and dont care about it
    DSLR now !! :(

    • bart b

      Speak for yourself, I and many others do want this mirrorless camera and don’t give a sh*t about a new ‘way to expensive’ DSLR.

      Just be patient, in 2012 and 2013 all your wishes will come true !!!

  • D40-owner

    Basically… of course not.
    As a “serious amateur” or “enthusiast” or “gear head with some vision”, I only consider two options for a camera:
    1) The best I can afford, don’t care about size/weight. Depending on your budget, that’s a D7000, a D700, a D3s. If I’m going for quality and a gear bag, portability is secondary.

    2) Portable compact for travel. Here the criteria is “the best image quality you can fit in your pocket”. And right now that’s an S95 or a Lumix LX5.

    If the camera doesn’t fit a pocket, then why settle for a small sensor?
    If you don’t have the cash, just go for a D3100. It’s small enough for a purse, and will eat your compact for breakfast.

    • ausserirdischegesund

      I have never had a compact camera I really wanted to put into the pocket of my trousers or shirt. Putting a camera into your jeans pocket basically is a recipe for breaking it.

      On the other hand, if I wear a jacket, even my analog M4 Leica will fit without too much bulge where the small prime is. And so will any MicroFourThirds camera or this Nikon CX. A Nikon D40 (or 3100) will not, because the lens sticks out too much.

  • Monkey Nigh Mow

    If it really has a x2.7 sensor. Then no.

    If it’s retro styling and has a APS-C (or even better FF) sensor. Then YES SIR!

  • andy

    I plan to get the sony NEX-5N with 24 1.8 and 50 1.8 but I’m waiting to see what Nikon have up their sleeves first. I don’t expect the ISO performance of the Nikon to come close but there is one thing that could make me go for the Nikon; that’s if the new system is really small like the pentax Q and has reasonably fast primes that are also compact.

  • ausserirdischegesund

    Basically I think this system will be less a DSLR replacement (maybe Nikon will do hat in a few years to make their own version of the Sony 77) but rather a “serious compact” carry around all day camera. A camera that is better than the iPhone, but not so heavy as to use it only if you *plan* to make photos beforehand.

    Many people use compacts like the G12 or the Ricoh GR-D for that now. A 2.7 crop sensor by Nikon will be *much* better than either of these. That it is interchangable lens is more or less a bonus.

    For me the most important thing for this system would be more primes, especially a 12mm or 14mm (32 to 38mm) moderate wide angle, preferably f/2 and very compact (pancake), because that is the lens I can live with as a “only” lens.

    If they release a 14mm f/2, and make the kit cheaper than 500 Euros (street price) then I probably might buy it.

  • Arthur

    I’d love to have one, but I rather buy a new lens for the money!

  • Pabxhan

    With a 2,7x crop factor? i´ll stick to my mirrorless phone

    • John

      Uh, your mirrorless phone has a far far smaller sensor that the 2.7x crop factor sensor.

  • softondemand

    I hope nikon reads this poll so they will reconsider releasing the mirror less over d700 replacement.

  • broxibear

    Keep reading posts about size, and how much smaller or bigger a mirrorless is than a dslr or other mirrorless bodies, so here are some size comparisons…
    D3000 compared to GF1:
    blog.danielneeley.com/uploads/2011/02/020-080.jpg
    blog.danielneeley.com/uploads/2011/02/018-080.jpg

    NEX5 compared to GF1:
    imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPGF1FRONT.JPG
    imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5/ZCOMPGF1TOP.JPG

    M4/3 vs Q vs NEX:
    3.bp.blogspot.com/-1gu_v-LAvjo/TgNYg9ly7bI/AAAAAAAABhQ/Op-YXx5v6Cs/s1600/Size.jpg

    Fuji X100 comparison:
    enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Fuji-X100-size-comparison.jpg

    Panasonic GF1 with Lumix 20mm f/1.7, Samsung NX10 with Samsung 30mm f/2, Sony NEX5 with Sony 16mm f/2.8:
    seriouscompacts.com/attachments/f41/412d1281273814-mirrorless-camera-size-comparison-nex5-nx10-e-p2-e-pl1-gf1-g2-p1060446-jpg

    There are plent more size comparisons out there but it gives you an idea of how they compare.

  • Levi H

    I’m actually kind of curious about this mirrorless camera now. My wife and I bought a P300 a few months ago, and at first we thought we liked it. However, after using it more we find we always want better pictures quality. This mirrorless could be a good carry around, especially since we already have some great nikkor lenses we’ve invested in.

    BTW – I don’t fully understand the AF-I, that doesn’t have anything to do with AF-D does it? Thanks!

    • georg

      No, AF-D ist the old srew-type Autofocus which require a motor in the camera. The lens itself has no motor but only the mechanics.
      Current Nikon cameras with motor are: D3, D3X, D3S, D700, D7000, (D300 – don’t know if D7000 is a replacement)
      So, if you have a D3100 or D51000 you need a AF-S or AF-I lens or you can not use autofocus.

      • Levi H

        Yeah, I get the AF-D – screwdriver thing, I just thought that maybe AF-I was another word for it, I had never heard of AF-I before. I’m guessing that is what my older 70-200 VR uses? Since it’s not classified as AF-S?

        • BornOptimist

          AF-I was used on larger tele-lenses. No zoom lens (afaik) used AF-I motors. The shortest lens with AF-I was a 300mm. There was also a 400, 500 and 600mm version.
          Your 70-200 is a AF-S.

  • Magnus

    I could consider one of these cameras for macro shooting if the price is right. It’s a struggle to get enough DOF with my D700 and 105mm macro lens without focus stacking. If you use an F-mount lens adaptor and for instance the new Nikkor AF-S DX 40/2,8 on this camera, you’ll probably get a pretty decent quality, the same field of view as I get with my combination, and additionally be able to get much closer if you need to. The most serious macro shooters could still stick to their full-frame camera, use focus stacking and get a better overall quality, but as an amateur without the patience for that kind of time-consuming macro photography, I’d be happy to sacrifice some of the image quality for more DOF for macro work.

  • Scott Cramer

    I don’t see any point to the mirrorless system. If I want the best quality in a lightweight package, I’ll carry the D7000, D5100 or D3100. If I want compact, I’ll carry an LX-5 or S95 or even something like a Nikon P7100. How about put the mirrorless sensor in a P7100 and call it good. If you need interchangeable lenses, get a DSLR. I carry my D7000 when traveling, climbing rugged mountains, ski mountaineering, ice and rock climbing, mountain biking and other outdoor persuits and I have never really thought of carrying that camera in those environments a burden.

    Here’s what I’d like to see: FX replacements for D700 and D3s. FX version of lightweight pro-sumer camera, perhaps D8000? Keep DX alive for those who need or want it. Next, stop coming out with all these silly compacts every 6 months. All you need is say three or four with at least one or all of those shoot RAW. Next, ditch mirrorless and put that sensor/technology into a P7100 for pro-level compact shooting. Next, a rangefinder similar to Fuji X100 with either fixed or pancake interchangeable lenses and an optical viewfinder.

    Thanks for listening Nikon to what we really want and not succumbing to herd mentality.

    • pdc

      This really needs a response, and it comes from someone who has been a Nikon shooter since the early 1970s. The point Scott, is that wherever we can reduce the mechanical complexity of a camera and lens system with electronic components we can build a more reliable system at less cost and in much less space. Hell, I came from the era of computer punch cards (and you’ll probably have to look that up), and all my programming and use of a bloody great IBM 370 required rooms full of sorting and collating machines, card readers, tape drives, bus-sized printers etc etc. Now I have that much power on my desk, the results are better and they come faster. You need to take your head out of the sand lad. Mirrorless is now 40% of sales in Japan and it is growing rapidly everywhere, except perhaps in the US which seems well populated with dinosaurs. I have kept the best of my Nikon glass, but for 3 years I have been shooting Panasonic G1/GH2 and am very interested in Nikon’s foray into the mirrorless realm, particular if this is the first shot, and they can quickly come to market with a larger than APS-C based system so that I can get back to the IQ levels we had with 35mm film, but with all the advantages of sensor-based photography and cinematography. Nikon and Canon realize full well that the electronics giants (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung) are stealing a large march on them and they will have to re-invent themselves if they are to survive more than a few years. This is Nikon’s first move. I really hope they have a lot more planned, and we can only trust that Canon are now well advanced in designing mirrorless systems.

    • John

      Well, what Nikon needs to do with the 2.7x crop sensor is to produce both interchangeable lens bodies and fixed zoom lens bodies to please both the advanced amateur/enthusiast (who want interchangeable lenses in a really compact body with very good IQ) and the P&S upgrade folks who are not wanting a DSLR nor interchangeable lenses, but want better IQ than any of the current small sensor compacts can produce.

      I have a D700 and a D300 and am interested in something slightly bigger than my LX-3, but way smaller than my D300 (body and mounted lens) while having IQ somewhere in-between.

      This 2.7x crop system could work for me IF, and that’s a big IF, Nikon does not cripple the system with sub-par lens specs and sub-par body specs. Unfortunately this is what they seem to be doing – shooting for the cheap seats right out of the gate.

      I want a 2.7x crop body with 10MP, excellent EVF, built-in flash, accessory port, buttons/dials for quick access to the things a photographer would use most, tiltable LCD, and NEF output.

      At a minimum, for lenses I’d want: (FX equivalent focal lengths of course)
      – 24-105/2.8-4 walk around zoom (collapsable). 28mm is not wide enough.
      – 20/2.8 pancake wide
      – 105-300/3.5-4.5 zoom
      – 35/2 pancake
      – 50/1.8 pancake
      – 80/1.8
      – Macro lens of some sort
      – Fish-eye lens (if Samyang can make them for m43 why can’t Nikon for CX?)

      Any lens slower than f/5.6 is already at or past the diffraction limit, so there is little point.

  • Trevor

    ONLY if it is below the cost of a D3100. If so, I’ll pre-order right away from B&H for my wife. If it’s $800+, never in a million years. I won’t pay a premium for smaller, but I’m willing to sacrifice IQ if it gives me and my wife something we can take along easily instead of a DSLR.

  • http://blog.reflex-photo.eu Fred

    if the sensor is so small, never … will go to 4/3 which they said was a too small captor … (!)

  • jon

    What a wasted opportunity to dominate the compact RF sized interchangeable camera market with a pro quality camera using FX or DX sensors. A fresh new set of compact quality lenses plus adaptors that could use DX and FX lenses to their full potential.
    Instead it appears they chose to make a fancy point and shoot sub compact. Think of the R&D budget and resources spent on this. Pity.

    • pdc

      Well, as I pointed out they can readily double the measurements of everything in this 2.7 crop factor CX system and blow us all away with a 1.35 crop factor EX system. The R&D has been done at 1/2 scale.

    • Anonymous

      You can’t have it all! At least not yet… As I see it, putting a FX sensor means large and heavy lenses that have large image circles. The smaller the sensor the smaller the lenses. Here you have what looks like a reasonable compromise. Looks to ms like NEX is too big! Way too big.

      • jon

        FX sized sensors do not need massive zoom lenses. Leica M9 or film cameras like the Contax G2 have small compact lenses that cover the full image circles. As I stated above, Nikon could have produced a professional compact camera with a set of compact lenses and still have the ability to use FX and DX lenses via adaptors. I do not believe that a 2.7 crop factor camera is going to produce the results avail from the NEX-7 or even the NEX-5N or even the 4/3rds cameras. We shall see what magic they can come up with.
        Sure it may beat the point and shoots, but that is not a very high bar to set.

  • Jose

    Amazing, around month ago many declarations regarding how Nikon and Canon aren’t in the wave of new technologies let to Casio, Olympus and others, the market of mirrorless cameras. Today the survey indicate that 70% on the people who participated in it ,were not interesting to buy a mirrorless camera. ???????????????

  • D700guy

    If there had been a radial button to select that read “Fuck no” I would have selected that. But I had to settle for just “no”.

  • Soap

    Where is the “No, Unless Nikon’s EVIL + 18mm pancake lens is price competitive with a G11″?

  • John

    I’m very interested in the concept and the system. IQ significantly better than my LX-3 and overall much more compact that a D5100 + lenses (not just the body only, but the body PLUS lenses which tends to make the system not very compact).

    I voted, “don’t know yet” because the specs are just rumors at this point and even if the rumored specs are true I’d like to see their body and lens roadmap.

    For me neither rumored body is attractive because I want/need/must have a built-in EVF AND built-in flash for a truely portable system. Heck, my old loveley CoolPix 8400 had a built-in flash, built-in EVF, swivel screen, hot shoe and a great 24-85/2.8-4 fixed zoom. Now if Nikon just took those specs and made the sensor larger and made it with an interchangeable lens I’d be hooked for sure. But somebody in the marketing department apparently is not a photographer. A higher end body needs to be configured like the NEX-7 which has all those things.

    Nikon needs to make up for lost time and the rumored specs of these bodies does not show that they feel they need to. Even if they are catering to those who want to upgrade from a P&S a body with an EVF and no built-in flash just does not make sense.

    I certainly hope that the rumored specs are innacurate for Nikon’s sake . . . .

  • SZRimaging

    I’m waiting to reserve judgement until I see the system and the results.

    Have we heard anything about accessories (i.e. a cable release) and if the lenses will be threaded for filters? If I can do bulb setting, but a 7 stop ND on there and shoot with a cable release, I might have a new travel camera.

    • andy

      Agreed

      Judging a camera by it’s specs is like judging a book by it’s cover.

      • Markus

        Indeed and just plain stupid…some peoples’ level of disappointment is getting higher than their IQ for not announcing a FF…probable not much needed for it.

        And we’re not even at the end of the year…

      • timmy t. testikles

        if the book’s cover said “400 pages of scientific data on the excretory habits of the sea cucumber!”, i think i could bloody well pass judgement without reading further.

        we know enough about this camera to know if it’s for us or not. miracles don’t happen from product generation to generation – this has a tiny sensor, the poor handling that accompanies such a small body, is expensive, and forces the expense of extra (and slow) lenses on us.

        • andy

          If I saw that title at a book shop, I’d definitely pick it up for a second look!

  • Benjo

    I bought an E-P1 with kit lens refurbished for $429 a year ago. Unless Nikon has lower-than-reported prices I don’t see how they can compete. They have a good name, but without the F mount (which obviously would make no sense for a compact camera), why would I not choose an established, cheaper, larger-sensored alternative? That’s the question Nikon needs to address. Then again, their compacts suck, and they sell boatloads of ‘em.

    And on sensor size…sensor tech will indeed make 2.7 crop sensors useable for quality work, but larger sensors will always have shallower DOF and take that same technology and multiply its advantages. Unless Nikon somehow make the lenses TINY (remember how much ‘smaller’ DX lenses were than FX? what, 15%?!?) I can’t understand their motivation.

    • John

      You are right – I checked my 16-85/3.5-5.6 AFS VR against the equivalent 24-120/3.5-5.6 AFS VR and the length and weight savings are only 10 to 15%.

      I suspect if Nikon had the flange-to-sensor distance reduced in their DX bodies they would have been able to make the DX lenses even smaller and had been able to realize the theoretical size/weight savings.

      I hope that Nikon does a good job with the CX bodies and soon comes out with a DX mirrorless body (with new mirrorless DX lenses) for those of us who want compact systems with very high IQ.

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

    I think nikon went for a small sensor because they already have a well established APS-C product line. They also have a good Coolpix line (in terms of sales). They saw opportunity in the sensor sized between the Coolpix and the DX line and they went for it. This will allow them to produce smaller lenses than the Sony NEX and Samsung NX lines (maybe even smaller than m4/3). We shall see.

    • matgay

      time to stock up on 30 mm filters and polarizers :)

    • Steve

      The 10mp CX sensor also happens to have the same pixel density as a 16mp m43 sensor and a 24mp APS-C sensor. Assuming the CX Sensor uses the same technology as the 24mp APS-C sensor then the DXOMark results would be the same for color, high ISO, DR, ETC. Too bad Nikon doesn’t have any fast 24-35mm equivalent primes planned.

    • Markus

      They already had a production partner which could deliver them a high quality small format sensor. The first test models were already there at the beginning of 2010.

      There was also the idea to make a high quality camera phone with a partner company, using this same sensor but I did not hear anything anymore about this project.

      In Japanthe market for small format camera with interchageable lenses is getting bigger and bigger.

  • http://www.delectablychic.com Cynthia

    Considering that consumers/non-pro users tend to look at MPs, they may find 10.1 a little low. Competitive cameras are all in the 12 to 16 range, some even higher.

  • padlockd

    I wouldn’t buy it even if I didn’t already have a D7000. Not enough fast primes. If you have a small body, what’s the point of putting a big zoom lens on there? That’s what DSLRs are for..

  • http://www.ispirit.hu iS

    I am long waiting for a mirror less camera from Nikon.
    10.1 MP almost acceptable.
    Crop factor 2.7x would be still acceptable.
    f 5.6 is simply not acceptable.
    I do not want to use adapters either.

    • MK

      the rumored zooms are so slow. same speed as m43, so performance has to be worse from a physics standpoint. they should have just released fast primes. 4.5-5.6 super zoom what is the point? lumix 100-300 goes from 4.0-5.6 half stop better. going to be larger but i would accept larger size for faster aperture.

      price is too high for lens selection that weak. no i am not going to be using f-mount thats not the point. an adaptor makes no sense – a novelty. you are going to be carrying around extra glass thereby defeating the purpose of the product.

  • Sandy

    Probably. Depends on IQ, which I expect will be quite good. A real pocketable camera, I’m in.

    BTW, 7% saying yes with another 25% saying maybe is HUGE numbers for nikon considering the usual type of people that post here. Nikon will do quite well with this camera if this poll is accurate

  • vinman

    I checked “not sure yet”. I AM planning to buy a compact camera in the next six months, but with Nikon’s history of marginal performers in that segment, I’m hesitant to get too worked up over this until we see some actual performance via images. I’d prefer to have a body that accepts different lenses, and the fact that this one may allow use of my fast G glass (with the rumored adapter) is a big plus, but the proof will lie in the pudding. Even without interchangeable lenses, the upcoming Fuji X10 looks quite promising and will be easier on the budget for that D700 update that we’ll get some day :-)

  • sflxn

    I hope Nikon does release this camera. I have no intention to buy it, but I’m very curious whether the majority of NR readers are right or Nikon is right about the market. Unless it’s released, it’s all speculation on whether it succeed or fails. Personally, I think it will bomb, but I can’t be sure till it gets released.

  • Bruce

    I’m sorry but if these specs are correct there is no way I’m buying a CX Nikon camera… 2.7x crop… are they completely MAD? Sticking with my Sony NEX in the small format arena.

  • Back to top