Nikon 1 V2 mirrorless camera will be announced next

Nikon 1 V2

Nikon 1 V2 mockup

The next Nikon announcement will be for the Nikon 1 V2 mirrorless camera. This is not a surprise after the huge price V1 drop reported few days ago. Similar to the J2, the V2 will offer only minor improvements over the V1 (the V1 already has the 921k dots screen). There is some talk that the V2 model may have WiFi and GPS capabilities, but it is still too early to be certain about the details. Expect the official announcement before the end of 2012. This may not be the only new product introduction before the 2013 CES show that will take place in early January 2013.

Oh, and DX format is not dead yet.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Nameless Stooge

    I don’t think there will be a true D400.

    It would make the most sense for Nikon to condense their lines down to 3 DX 3 FX lines.

    What could happen (and would make a bit of sense) is the D5k line taking the D7k’s current position and the D7k replacement being the highest end DX camera.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      These are true stories. Only the numbers will have been changed to protect the product differentiation.

    • Named Stooge (Benny)

      Ahhh, but Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, not condensation.
      As my dear Aunt Emma once said to me…”Benny, variety is the spice of life,
      ….but don’t tell your Uncle Dilbert I said that.”

    • Anonymous Maximus

      D400 – flagship DX, new ultra low light sensitive sensor to set a new benchmark among crop sensors, 18 mp

      D6000 – D7100 & D5100 merged into a single model, 24mp sensor from D3200

      D3200 – will keep as, no need to upgrade for a while

      • tom

        I would be first in line for that new D400 !!!!

      • Jabs

        One simple flaw – Nikon does not replace a body with one with a lower number as in D6000 replacing D7000. Other than that – OK – agree!

        • Tom G

          Like the D700 ====> D600 ???

          • Jabs

            Sorry but no one has said that the D600 is a replacement for the D700. It is indeed released later though.

            • Chris

              Well the FX lineup was D3S, D3X, D700

              It is now D4, D800/D800E, D600

              I don’t think they said the D800 was the replacement for the D3X either, but thats what everyone upgrading D3Xs to. There were three FX bodies and now there are three different FX bodies. The D600 is as close as your gonna get to the D700 for a while. You said here yourself that the FX run is over for now. It is superior to the D700 in many ways. The biggest limitation is fps. That was purposeful. The D700 took too many sales/profits from the D3 line. Nikon realizes their mistake. Heck the D600 sensor is better than the D4 sensor!

            • Jabs

              Hey Chris – That is four bodies – lol.
              Things have changed for Nikon and so have the sensors that they use. The D3X is a better built body for hard professional use and still a great camera, but the D600 sensor is newer and better. The D700 also has better build quality than the D600, so indeed Nikon has juggled their lineup’s placement against each other and the competition.

              I think that the D4 and the D600 are aimed at different markets and for different purposes. The D4 is a fast, low light and high ISO purposely built professional camera that the D600 cannot match.

              The D3X and D700 are still in the Nikon lineup in America plus are still fantastic bodies too.

              I actually think that the D700 was a stroke of genius from Nikon but now instead of two similar specced bodies like the D3 and D700, Nikon has gone wide and fast with a D4 and D800/800E to perhaps neuter Canon’s 1DX and 5DMK3. Great strategy too – surround and conquer them!

              Seems like Nikon has released more FX bodies than any one else too recently. What is amazing to me is how the older Nikon’s outperform most of the other new FF or FX bodies on the Market and thus a testament to Nikon’s Engineering prowess which is often laughed at here – Oh well, their problem.

              Let’s wait for the D4X and maybe a 24 megapixel FX body with D4 strength (maybe) but not expecting that, as we would then be back to the D3/D700 competition between two Nikon bodies.

            • Chris

              Yes, Nikon obviously changed to lineup to prevent crossover. But thanks for the review. Still looks a lot like the D600 is the D700 replacement, even thought the number is lower.

              And both the D3X and D700 have been officially discontinued for some time. Just because there is still stock around that they have to sell doesn’t preclude that.

            • JVC

              @Chris: +1

    • Smudger

      “Oh, and DX format is not dead yet.”

      It’s just being left to wither on the vine.

      • Fred

        DX is not dead – it just smells funny.
        Frank Zapper

        • Stu

          LOL, both funny

          • Tolling Bell

            Both tragic.

  • Paulo G

    What does it means “Oh dx is not dead”? Can you clarify a bit more your idea? Do you think that D400 will appear soon? Can you be a bit more clear?

    • Pablo Ricasso

      I’ll guess they will call it a D7100 or a D9000. I’ll guess that they will save the 400 for a low featured full frame. But this is a guess…

      • Anonymous Maximus

        “low featured full frame” Sigh… Isn’t D600 well enough low featured for FX?

        DX D400 is the natural successor to D300(s). It should have a higher priority among other dslr relases.

        • Big J

          Well ya got a point. Although I think that chances are a D7000 successor will be released because enough pro stuff has been released this year. They might wanna save it for next year and release a good DX camera, but not pro yet. Making Nikon kick ass for years in a row.

          • a4

            Guys, when will you start facing the fact that there isn’t going to be any D300(s) sequel any more? 🙂

            • Rob

              For it is written one day the mighty PRODX will return and all D90/300/300s users and Tokina 11-16 owners will fall to their knees and rejoice for the upgrade. Great sacrifices of Canon FF will made to appease the god NIKON so that throughout all eternity PRODX will remain in the line up.

              Mighty is PRODX
              Hail NIKON

            • Dr Motmot

              Nikon is not a God, it is a business.

              There is only one true God: the Flying Spaghetti Monster

        • Dimitrii1130

          think of a D3200 with FX. This could be a D400.

          D7100 could be extremly fast and just 16mp like D4.
          D5200 24mp and better than D3200 (not difficult)

          who needs a D400 called DX if there is a great D7100?

      • 103David

        Let’s see now, “low featured full frame?” Hmm, that would be a one of the recent permutations of the Leica “M” series, wouldn’t it?

      • Fred

        D600 is to D7000 as D400 is to D5000 and D9000 is to D800

  • Jose

    Admind, why not a poll regarding what kind of DX camera nikon rumors readers would like

    • Pablo Ricasso

      That’s so easy. They want NIKON cameras. Anybody can see that.

      • Steve

        Actually, we want affordable lenses….

        • Frikke

          I think there are quite a few affordable lenses on the market already, they just don’t have ‘NIKKOR’ on the side.

          • DX is DEAD

            He also could get the Nikkor 35 mm F1.8 – but wait, he already has it! (like about 50% of all “pro” DX users)

        • a4

          Give me a brand Nikkor alternative to my 1.4/30 Sigma with a sane price tag and guess I need no more…

      • Kim

        Pablo Ricasso, am sure you did not understand Jose s QN. You may have answered just to show up. i do urge you to look at it again please.

  • Another minor update – come on Nikon put from the Rx100 sensor 20mp into the J3 & V3.

    • New Fad

      It says V2; what more could you possibly want?

  • AlphaOne

    Call it D400 or D7100, I don’t care.

    I need my DX, a D300 replacement.
    D3200 sensor in a D800 body.

    • c

      why would you want an old sensor from an entry level body in a pro-level camera

      • peterw

        Most camera-brands use as much as possible the same sensors, regardless of the type or quality of the rest of the camera. D200 had the same sensor as D80 and D40x. Makes sense.

        By the way Apha One, there is a camera out there with a body like D800 giving about the same quality sensor on DX as 3200: it is called D800 (in cropmode).

        • AlphaOne

          D800 in DX mode give less than 16mpx. Might as well get D7000 (but that’s long in the tooth now).
          I probably can deal with that, but the frame rate is only 6 fps max. That might be the minimum I can take, but I usually use and really like the ability to take 8 fps. With too much compromises, I was not willing to pay for the D800.
          The D600 just won’t cut it.
          Well, I’m hoping they won’t use the “exact” sensor of D3200. An improved sensor that is, better dynamic range, lower noise in higher ISO, etc.

          Nikon can’t ignore the current D300/D300s users who refuse to upgrade/downgrade to the current offerings. We have specific needs.

          • Of course Nikon can ignore them – the whole area is a moving target and D300(s) is being / will be left in the dust with full frame and will soon be caught up and exceeded by Nikon 1 variations.

            My guess – and hope – is that Nikon will drop the relatively minor and silly DX crop factor and concentrate on FX and CX. Go Nikon!

            • Kyle

              My guess – and hope – is that Nikon will drop the relatively minor and silly DX crop factor and concentrate on FX and CX. Go Nikon!

              I’d rather they drop the relatively minor and silly CX and put DX in the Nikon 1 system. Go Nikon!

            • Big Eddie

              I’d rather that Nikon go with MF….and maybe a silly
              little FX crop, so the fanboys have something to play with.

              REAL men, after all, are MFers…

            • It’s all good – I bet we all know whose ‘rathers’ will win out :-). The DX and its oversize mount was a temporary solution – read ‘dead’ – from the day it was introduced and with the way sensors are improving, MF just ain’t needed and with the cost of development, just won’t happen. Sorry, guys…

            • Plug

              So real wildlife/bird photographers are relatively minor? Get out in the wilderness and get your hands dirty. If that is not your area of expertise then stick to the cameras you need and do not lecture to others who have different needs.

            • I said the “crop factor”, Plug, not the usage. R-E-A-D and don’t lecture to others if reading is a challenge.

            • Plug

              I have a D800 and I have a D7000. I have a 500f4 and I have a 300f4. When hiking the D7000 with 300 is a more practical solution than D800 with either 500, or with 300 and in crop mode. Using the D800 in crop mode is simply a lesser solution. I did read your post carefully and commented on its implications. If you couldnt see those implications then that is not my problem.

            • Well, I can only comment on what you state and did in fact see the implications, but discounted then in your case. I’m astounded that your ‘logic’ – such as it is – stops at DX.

              So to spell it out for you in the same vain as your point, hiking with a CX crop factor and equivalent lens will be that much better as a practical solution than with a DX, for the same reason(s).

              Hence, concentrate on FX and CX. Go Nikon!

            • Plug

              And the IQ of the V1 (I own and like that too) together with a 180f2.8 say to give the equivalent reach of a 500 on FX would be a sensible solution. Because wildlife can move unpredictably cropping is often necessary. The 10 megapixels of the V1 is not very suitable for that as I shoot to try to print at A3+. Oh well, I give up in trying to explain why DX is plainly the best for my needs. It is only my hobby after all. I am not going to tell you how to do your job but I am sure you are the kind of person who would like to tell me how to do mine.

            • You are a joke, Sir or Madam. I start by guessing that Nikon will drop the relatively minor and silly DX (1.5) crop factor and you end up being sure that I’m the kind of person who’d like to tell you how to do your job. Just amazing.

            • Michel

              Amusing little tete a tete guys, now kiss and make up….

            • * Muah! * … but that was for you, Michel :-)!

            • Plug

              Yes, a lot more civilised than many disagreements here…XXX 😉

      • Smudger

        Do some research.

        The D3200 sensor is stuningly good, but totally wasted in a low end body.

  • MB

    Great, buy new and “improved” V2 today and wait for it price to drop by half this time next year …
    DX format is not dead yet but it could happen anytime now 😉

  • Bavid Daily

    Gor Blimy Mate …

    I needs a tart wiv no clothz orn to photograph slouching over a Mini Cooper in London tahn but cahnt get me ‘ed rahnd all this digital crap.


    Where’s me F3 and box of Tri-X Gorn?

  • Dave Stewart

    A little throw-away remark at the end of this post, “Oh, and DX format is not dead yet.”

    You’re such a tease!

    Come on, tell us what you know!

  • Camera

    Hello, Admin. Are you there? Hello?

    Any clues?

    • Only clues for now, nothing reliable. And I hate to post clues.

      • Camera

        Admin, thank you again. We want to let you know that we appreciate your good work on Nikon Rumors website.

  • Joshua

    for the love of god spill it admin…

    • Which ‘god’?

    • I need more info before I can post this online. It’s too early to consider this as a reliable info.

  • Unhider

    For the first time, all DX bodies of the same generation will share the same sensor:

    -D5200, $799
    -D7100, $1199, enthusiast DX, with same swivel screen as D5200
    -D400, $1699, pro DX, with 8fps, same build and movie features as D800

    DX still makes a sense. Built-in 1.5x teleconverter, bigger pixel density for cropping, smaller and lighter bodies and lenses, also cheaper. Good ISO performance, too, as D3200 is only about 1 stop behind D600.

    • tom

      Why would I pay 3X the cost of a D3200 for a D400 if it has the exact same sensor? I want not just more megapixels than the D300 & D7000, but better low light performance!

      • El Aura

        Just look at the trends for the DxO ‘Sport’ ranking (filtered to one sensor size), you know what to expect pretty much in next few years. And even there I would expect the trend to slow down rather than continue at the pace of the last decade:

      • Plug

        It isn’t just about the sensor. More robust, faster fps, two card slots and in particular, faster autofocus. Three times the price is unlikely after the initial cost which will inevitably come down.

    • Mike

      Not a chance. The new DX line will have a vastly improved sensor.

      • RC

        Vastly improved DX sensor? I’m frankly not that impressed by the difference jumping from the D300 to the D600, so if you think the next DX sensor is going to offer anything significant, I’m afraid that’s most likely not going to happen.

  • D400

    I knew it 😉

  • Maybe this camera will be finally what I’m looking for for a compact. I’m not very fond of de Lumix’s.

  • bjrichus

    D400 … Ha!

    They’ll put a DX sensor in a Coolpix body and introduce a new lens mount incompatible with everything else … again!

    • bjrichus

      Sorry … could not resist that sarcastic comment.

      All the delay over not knowing about the next DX body is killing me!

  • One More Thought

    I don’t think Nikon knows what to do with the V series; it seems to have been planned before all of these other companies came up with better mirrorless alternatives and now they are left flatfooted.

    For those more basic users coming from compacts who want better image quality but no more hassle, you have the superior Sony Rx100…simple, small, no need to worry about changing lenses, etc. In other words, the convenience of a compact with a far better sensor.

    For those looking for a better and more complete system, you have m4/3 and Sony NEX, at competitive price points. These offer larger sensors, in the case of m4/3s an excellent lens selection, and even NEX has a better lens selection.

    Whatever your objective and budget, I can find you something better on the market from other companies.

    So the 1 series is pressured from below and above…I can’t see how it can survive in its current incarnation…and that may explain why Nikon is only making very small iterations in its lineup…because they know they are going to be getting rid of the 1 series in the future and replacing it with something else…

    • One More Thought

      Correx to above: I wrote “I don’t think Nikon knows what to do with the V series…”
      I meant “I don’t think Nikon knows what to do with the 1 series…”

    • v1owner

      “Whatever your objective and budget, I can find you something better on the market from other companies.”

      Thanks for the offer.
      (1) Built-in EVF (no klunky add-on)
      (2) Full mag alloy body (with sturdy lens mount for tele to 810mm-e with adapter)
      (3) 27-300 equivalent in one or two good lenses (no longer than 2 inches)

      Budget GBP 557.99.

    • Jabs

      @One More Thought – the flaw in your logic comes about from you and many here not understanding the Photographic Market yourself.

      1. Micro 4/3rds has been trumpeting some mantra as to being the future of photography while always not being equal to not one FX body but also DX. To be the future, you have to start at where they are currently and then beat them clearly or you are merely dreaming!!!

      2. Smaller and smaller bodies often lead to usability issues NOT solved yet and thus Micro 4/3rds looks to me like a solution looking for a problem.

      3. There has been no solution for the performance gap between Nikon’s and Micro 4/3rd’s and that is the real problem. Cuteness and size without a SYSTEM = you have the bragging rights (in your head too) but not the needed performance rights or advantages. How come NO Micro 4/3rd’s or NEX bodies frame faster than Nikon’s top FX DSLR’s? What then is this advantage that they supposedly have in fps and response due to no mirror flapping up and down?

      4. There is not one Micro 4/3rd’s body that I have seen outperform even the lowest end Nikon DX body, nor do they hardly have any lenses worthy of Pro use to me. Where are the very short focal lengths, fish-eyes, the fast primes and the long lenses PLUS the TC’s and Macro’s? Where are the fast framing rate bodies that can even match a Nikon 1???

      5. The Micro 4/3rd’s has not approached their products as a System but have come from the P&S mindset wherein you give them lots of updates and newer tech from smartphones and then try and act like you are ahead, thus making traditional DSLR’s seem ‘old school’ and dated perhaps in their mind.

      6. There is not that much difference in price between a Micro 4/3rd’s body and a DX Nikon and not much difference between a Nikon 1 and ANY Micro 4/3rd’s or NEX body. We are like splitting hairs in the real world and thus pointless.

      7. Nikon has the right approach in my opinion – design a System and then add to it plus improve it = what the Micro 4/3rd’s group should have originally done. Why did they not design a complete system wide Flash System like Nikon has and then also include something like CSL in their bodies? Where are things like diopter adjustments in their electronic SCREENS or Electronic ‘prisms’ for eyeglass wearers plus where are the high end LED Screens plus higher res. panels to make screen based focusing easier and clearer?

      How in the heck am I to trumpet myself as a replacement for another device when I cannot match it currently and perform worse than it to such a degree that it is laughable? Sorry but this is not Mighty Mouse or such cartoon parodies but the real world wherein Micro 4/3rds needs to show a System with things that work better than both FX and DX or they are dreaming!

      One can talk about replacing older Tech, but you have to clearly beat them FIRST before most people take you seriously.

      • One More Thought

        m4/3’s has a lens selection that is far far superior to the Nikon 1 series. It’s not even close. They have fast primes, nice zooms, etc. And some of the lenses…like the new Oly 75, the Oly 45, the Panny 25, are world class.

        m4/3’s uses a larger sensor and that makes a big difference…it easily outperforms the N1 series, esp. the sensor in the Olympus OMD EM5.

        There is a lot more selection in the m4/3 market…with the N1 series you basically have 2 choices in bodies.

        Given the fact that Nikon is not exactly advancing the N1 series in huge leaps, it even calls into question if Nikon is going to be supporting this product line that much into the future.

        m4/3 may not be the holy grail of photography, but it is way ahead of the N1 series at this point. Far better lens selection, larger sensor, more selection and choice…all in all a more mature system.

        • Jabs

          @One More Thought – Apparently you again missed the point. The Micro 4/3rd’s cameras were supposed to point towards the future as in replacing current DSLR’s and all that they have done is replace P&S cameras as a step up unit. The Nikon 1 is NOT a competitor to them, but the low end DX Nikon’s, Canon’s and Pentax plus Sony are what THEY are trying to replace or make obsolete.

          That is what you don’t get – PLUS the Nikon 1 System with the F mount adapter has more lenses than it, albeit in a very expensive way. The Micro 4/3rd’s has no standard flash system and worse AF and framing rates than DSLR’s while trumpeting the supposed superiority of this mirrorless format and pointing it towards the future as the replacement for the DSLR = epic fail. Like the other poster said – only your pocket benefits and just barely.

          Success in photography = A SYSTEM = ask Leica that, as they lost to the Nikon F back then and so does the newer ‘Leica idea’ Micro 4/3rd’s format. All an attempt to wrestle the crown back from Nikon and Canon by making them seem old school or dated technically but rather clueless as to why they lost in the first place and making the same mistakes again this time.

          You need to be superior to beat your competitors in photography as this is not Music wherein the inferior but smaller MP3 format and devices ran over the CD. The Micro 4/3rd’s format basically cut its own throat and future by being based on a particular small sized sensor and reminds me of the competing formats to 35mm in the film world back then. Lost too!

          Look at the latest Sony FF compact as an idea of being foolish. Small and over priced and more expensive than a D600, almost the price of a D800 body yet it allegedly does not have continuous AF!!! You sacrifice size for performance and you end up being more expensive. What then was your aim? Cuteness or being a boutique brand???

          Where are the faster mirrorless bodies since this was supposed to be ushering a new Era of speedier and smaller cameras that would make traditional DSLR bodies look and be antiquated. Perhaps you also lost sight of their claims then!

          • John

            My guess from his comments is that Jabs has not actually tried anything that is m4/3, although seems to know everything about it.

            I have the D7000. I have the D800E. I also have a D700 for sports and have used the D100, D200, and Nikon film cameras. I have MF film. I have tried (meaning actually used for a period of time) the Nikon 1, the Sony mirrorless products, and the OM-D.

            The D7000 was to be the backup body/travel camera once I got the D800E, but you know what? It isn’t really that much smaller than the D800E.

            The OM-D is much smaller. Plus I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the OM-D w/ the 12mm and the D7000 with the Tokina 11-16. Maybe the D7000 with a good WA prime would be better, but that option is not available (Samyang may have a solution, in manual focus). Jabs says these are coming. I am not so sure, and the wait has been too long and I have abandoned DX at this point as a result. How many pro type DX lenses do we have? When was the last one (hint: it wasn’t the 18-300!)? When did we get the 17-55? Over nine years ago. Where is the 50-135 f/2.8? Anything PC-E? A portrait lens? The 50 1.4 is a bit short and it will be closer to a f/2.0 DOF than a f/1.4 as a result of the smaller sensor. How nice would an updated 180mm f/2.8 with the mythical D400 be for a sports shooter?

            So to me, the OM-D with a very good prime lens equals the D7000 with the best wide angle option available in IQ. Plus it is half the size and weight. Conclusion: The OM-D has beat DX for what I was using DX for. Does it do AF-C well? No. Does the D7000? It is better, but still not great. That is why I moved to the D700. Does the OM-D do AF-S as fast as the D7000? Yes, plus it allows the use of the entire frame for AF-S. Does it have a flash system? Yes.

            Point is, any of the areas where the OM-D come up short for me, DX comes up short as well, and I am going to be use FX in those situations. Does anyone serious about this only have one body? No, there is not one camera that satisfies all requirements the best. If one makes compromises to go with only one body, and it is DX, then compromises are also made with lens choices.

            OM-D image quality vs the Nikon 1? No contest. Sure with a $250 adapter you can use all sorts of lenses on the NIkon 1? Does this help with wide angle? No, an expensive 14mm AF-D becomes a less than useful 38mm. Do you have AF-C when you use the adapter? No. The Nikon 1 is a fantastic P&S replacement with great AF performance when using one of the two zooms. That is it though. Between Fuji, Sony and m4/3, mirrorless will replace DX DSLRs in a smaller package with equivalent IQ. Phase detect AF will soon give AF-C performance as good as DX. Which one will depend on what you want the tool to do and how the controls suit individual tastes.

            And a system? Have you ever looked at the lenses available for 4/3? You make a big list of supposedly missing lenses. Many you listed are in fact available. To be fair, where is your list of missing DX lenses?

            This is what you claim:

            “There is not one Micro 4/3rd’s body that I have seen outperform even the lowest end Nikon DX body, nor do they hardly have any lenses worthy of Pro use to me. Where are the very short focal lengths, fish-eyes, the fast primes and the long lenses PLUS the TC’s and Macro’s? Where are the fast framing rate bodies that can even match a Nikon 1???”

            Have already discussed IQ. The Oly 12mm 2.0, 45mm 1.8, 75mm 1.8 primes are all pro level lenses and are pretty fast. And the Panny 7-14 f/4, 12-35 f/2.8, 35-100 f/2.8, 100-300mm, 8mm fisheye (plus a 150 mm f/2.8 on the way)? All part of the 48 m4/3 lenses listed at B&H. So you have some nice, pretty fast primes at 24mm, 90mm, 150mm equiv and fast zooms at 14-28mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm equiv. You have a decent option to get to 600mm with more if you like to use an adapter to use some of the many of 4/3 lenses. Where are the equivalents for the “DX system” which has been around longer?

            The OM-D is my first non-Nikon camera. Ever. And is does everything that I used DX for and does it just as well in a smaller package with better lens options. It is not for sports. It is not for low light. Neither was the D7000. Would I rather stay all Nikon? Sure. Would I have a D400 if there had been one a year or two ago? Definitely. But Nikon DX is moving forward very slowly or not at all. I think most of the future Nikon DX will be on the mirrorless side if they are not too late. And they will need smaller lens offerings to compete in that market.

            • Camera


            • Jabs

              @John – There indeed has been a tremendous increase in the performance of the Micro 4/3rd’s bodies especially the new Olympus OM-D, but they cannot even compare to an old body DX Nikon body like the D7000 much less a better performing image wise, newer D3200.

              Look at these and perhaps learn my point:

              1. OM-D

              2. D7000

              3. D3200

              Here is the more relative fact to me:
              The OM-D is more expensive than the D7000, a better camera plus is almost twice the price of a D3200, a much better performing camera than the D7000 as far as image quality is concerned – thereby making my point. Last generation DX bodies have no competitors from the Micro 4/3rd’s even when they match it or surpass it in apparent megapixel resolution, as the sensor is too small to compete with either DX much less FX.

              What you personally like as a body is your choice, but when we compare price/performance and flexibility, then Micro 4/3rd’s always loses. YES, Nikon needs more DX lenses but there are more 3rd party DX lenses available than any Micro 4/3rd’s body has.

              Thanks for your arguments as they were well thought out too.

            • Jabs

              @John – Last Comment perhaps.

              OM-D – 12 bit output

              D7000 – 14 bit output

              D3200 – 12 bit output in a newer higher resolution sensor and still beating BOTH cameras.

              Now, I wonder what the newer Nikon DX bodies will do after they use 14bit output -vs- the Olympus OM-D?

            • Jabs


              1. The OMD is a lot worse in performance, AF and throughput than a D7000 = fact.

              2. The V1 is a lot faster than the OMD and thus you are comparing it to two better cameras for your scenario though it (OMD) outperforms the V1 in image quality barely.

              3. Both the OMD and D7000 have the same meagaixel SIZE but not the same sensor sizes.

              4. OMD is more expensive than a D7000.

              You choose as you wish and state what you like here but performance is my main merit and on both counts it loses to me. Too quirky, too limited and reminds me of the OM-4T of the film days, a camera I hated for being just as quirky = one trick ponies.

            • Jabs

              Here is what you really missed plus others here too:

              1. The OMD does not have a DX sized sensor but a Micro 4/3rd’s sized one, though they have similar megapixel counts.

              Effective pixels – 16.1 megapixels
              Sensor photo detectors – 16.9 megapixels
              Sensor size – Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm) = 224.9

              2. D7000

              Sensor photo detectors (Mpix) – 16.37
              Sensor size (mm) – 15.6 x 23.6  = 368.16

              They are different sized sensors and formats plus the D7000 is considered one of the best DX cameras on the Market and with performance way ahead of any Micro 4/3rd’s body and even better than some FX bodies.

            • John

              Well it is clear that Jabs has not actually tried the OM-D or other compatible product, but is somehow enough of an expert to say why it is such a bad product. This has included several statements of “fact” that are false.

              First it was that there are no m4/3 lenses. Then it was that there are more 3rd party DX lenses for Nikon DX than the total amount of m4/3 lenses available. Then the the OM-D AF is bad. AF-C is, AF-S is not–it is comparable to the D7000 and the Nikon 1, plus you can use any part of the finder as a focus point. Now it is that the D7000 sensor is way ahead of the OM-D. If you look at the output that is clearly not true. Also now is that the D7000 sensor is even better than some FX bodies. Really? Would that be the D4, D800/E, or the D600? Are those not the current Nikon FX offerings? Why do people buy them is the sensor is worse than that of the D7000? And throughput? As an argument FOR the D7000? The buffer fills in about 2 seconds! Many people have this complaint. If you want throughput you don’t use the D7000 or the OM-D!

              I had the D7000, and have D700, D800E and the OM-D. I have used them all extensively and that is what my conclusions are based upon–actual output from each product. Cost? For what I sold the D7000 and my DX specific lenses for I was able to buy the OM-D, kit lens, the 12mm and 45mm prime and have cash left over. I can provide a dozen test shots for a D7000 w/ Tokina 11-16 and the OM-D with the 12mm. Each of the 12 compares the same scene and are taken only seconds apart. The only one that was picked at a higher rate than random guessing was the one at ISO 3200, where I would not use either camera! Could the new $3000 Zeiss 15mm on the D7000 make a difference? Sure.

              And yes, the OM-D sensor is smaller than a DX sensor. I think everyone here already knows this, and isn’t that the point? Smaller sensor means smaller body and smaller lenses. And it is being done very little sacrificing of IQ.

              Many years ago most of us communicated by landline telephone. Then came the first mobile phones. Detractors said they would never work. They were expensive, the signal was bad and frequently dropped, and the clarity was often poor. Then came cell phones. Still cost more than a landline phone, had less receiver power than the first mobile phones, and still had issues with signal and call clarity. Now we have smartphones. Where is the market now for landline phones? What drove the market? Certainly not performance. The only advantage at all was portability, and that was enough to drive the market to where it is now.

              If you try a Fuji, NEX, or an OM-D and don’t like it for some reason that is fine, everyone has different needs. That is why I have three different digital camera bodies and a Mamiya 6, each one does the best job for a specific use. Just don’t tell everyone how awful something is that you have never actually tried. Or that it is awful because that company made something 20 years ago that you felt was quirky.

            • Jabs

              @No one in particular here but mere food for thought as in – BEEN there and know better now!!!

              A couple of things that I have learned about photography, people’s personality and their equipment choices over the years.

              1. People pretty much follow similar patterns from each Era – meaning as they did or was done in the film Era, so do they do in the digital Era. Before it was about not looking professional to fool the person whom you wanted to photograph, so buy a small Olympus OM 4T, a Leica or a Minolta CE and look like a dork with a toy camera. Now, they translate that to buy a Micro 4/3rd’s and get the deciding moment by catching someone unaware of your photographic prowess (or lack of it – lol) and thus you get better candid shots (yeah right).

              2. Most professionals are focused on related bodies and concentrate on adding the required accessories to extend the capabilities of this System instead of trying to fly in multiple directions at the same time to either be everything to everyone or sate some innate desire to belong. Nowadays, we have so much gear choice but very few who know what a camera System entails and thus mere clueless ‘gearheads’ trying to belong and share the experience, as they say.

              3. The average professional or one well versed in cameras can choose a camera body much quicker than the average person, as they know what to look for and how the layout and missing functions impact this usability thereby making life miserable for them. With the Internet, it becomes very simple to determine this plus we have tests and images to compare easily.

              4. Many use dissimilar bodies like they approach life – I have this one for golf, this one for the Club and this one for the Supermarket, for example in clothes. Being not aware of the strength of consistency, they often prefer to evoke and elicit Ohhsss and Ahhsss from onlookers as they fuddle and fidget with cute gear while not really knowing how to properly use each item, as the learning curve is high per item, so now with say three dissimilar and varied sized camera bodies, they are dumb or wanting in three or more categories.

              5. All things to all men and master of not one body or discipline is where they usually end up, as they never or seldom look at the purpose of a camera. To many it is an extension of their gregarious personality and a sign that they have arrived within a certain clique’ or social level. Nouveau riche’ or camera junkies and without the wherewithal to understand why one complete system with bodies, lenses, flash units, meters, tripods and heads, filters and things like matte boxes = a professional photographer -versus- a collector of gear trying to LOOK professional.

              6. The majority of photographers who have multiple types of camera bodies are thus mostly poseurs trying to look the part as they often do not take the time nor have the needed discipline to learn ONE camera and thus see life as multiple cameras in varying sizes for their different moods, apparently – lol.

              7. Esoteric choices usually mean that nothing they have works together as a system, works or functions similarly nor compliments each other, so when you pick up each body, you have to rethink your approach and thus waste time. Their aim usually covers them not being good at what they do, so they ‘dress to impress’ in multiple bodies to convey a certain image or panache’ to the foolish onlooker.

              A camera is a tool and most are what – ???

            • Jabs

              The real problem here to me in one long sentence – Incompetence and lack of skill as an excuse for needing or wanting lots of multiple sized bodies because one is unable to exploit the functions of a camera system, so people instead make excuses and try and steer us to various bodies to cover their own inability, so now we blame the camera instead of the operator.


            • John

              Well, apparently Jabs knows everyones needs too!

              Not sure what any of that has to do with biking up a mountain in the Rockies and being able to do it a whole lot easier (or at all) with 5-10 pounds less gear. I guess the real reason I have the OM-D must just be a lack of skill.

              Many professional photographers are currently making money by using the OM-D as one of their options. I guess that is a result of their incompetence.

              Jabs should start a website and just tell us all what tools we should buy for our needs and our unfortunate skill levels. Think of all the time that would save everyone from actually going out and trying different tools to see how they work!

            • david

              doesnt mr rockwell already have that site 🙂

            • Jabs

              Actually I am trying to tell you NOT to tell me what to get and for all of you to not tell us here what to get, as most of us can decide for ourselves. You like OMD and I like Nikon’s – fine and whooptehdooo!

              You and others here need to back up your claims with facts as I can tell the difference clearly between a D7000, D300 DX shot and a Nikon FX shot easily = my competence from years of shooting – and YES, I can tell the shots made on a Micro 4/3rd’s body from others as they are slightly better than a V1, the subject here, in case you all forgot. I can also tell the difference between a 12bit shot, a 14bit shot and a 16bit shot from a Medium format body, hence my personal comments.

              Camera size is one thing and personal, while performance can be and is being measured and FX far surpasses any Micro 4/3rd’s body and that is fact. Even DX beats it. I go by measurements and performance.

              Time to end this charade as personal choices is akin to trying to decide if someone’s wife is pretty or ugly – BEAUTY is in the eyes of the beholder no matter how ugly she really is – lol.

              Love is more than looks!

              Lighten up will you!

            • Jabs

              Here is a short assessment of the OMD:

              “However, despite Olympus’ claims about improvements in continuous autofocus and subject tracking capability, we found the system too slow and unpredictable to develop much enthusiasm about. If you’re careful about making sure the camera has locked onto a subject, you can expect to get a couple of sharp shots out of a burst but the results are patchy and, for the kinds of ‘grab the moment’ shooting you’d want it to work for, the results simply aren’t reliable enough. The EM-5 is far from unusual in this respect (Continuous AF isn’t a strength of contrast-detection AF), but for such an expensive model, and one for which Olympus is pushing the continuous AF capabilities, it’s a disappointing result.

              Tracking is a particular disappointment. If you specify an AF point, the camera will usually ‘lock-on’ to the correct subject but it gets very easily distracted. No matter how distinct the subject might appear (being the only red item in the frame, for instance), the camera will often decide it’s much more interested in the background after a couple of frames. …. ”

              My Comment now –
              Reality versus claims here in a Test – some of us can read and comprehend very well.

            • John

              That is NOT an assessment of the OM-D. It IS an assessment of the OM-D AF-C capabilities only. Again, another false statement. Good that you want to end the charade….

              I have consistently and repeatedly said AF-C is not good. AF-S is very good. If I need good AF-C, the D7000 is not good enough either, that is where I use the D700. It does do AF-C well.

              If you have decided to look at internet reviews instead of making objective conclusions about your own images, and think you can be unbiased for a bit, try one of several unbiased reviews as below. After all, some of us can read and comprehend very well 🙂


              The conclusions match quite closely what I observe, it is not a one body solution, but it is a fantastic tool with very few negatives, for many real applications. Could just be one of those incompetent photographers who makes money with his cameras I suppose…..

              Here is a small excerpt regarding AF-S performance and throughput:

              “The critical thing that makes a good camera, in my mind, is responsiveness. And the OM-D has it in spades. I think it’s the fastest-focusing contrast detect camera out there… It even shoots at 9fps, in RAW, with no buffer indigestion. Frankly, in good light, with a contrasty subject, it gives my D800E a run for its money…. single AF is – I would say easily class leading, and giving most DSLRs a run for their money”

              and IQ….

              “pixel level image quality is on par with the D7000, as far as acuity and noise goes; it may even be slightly better on the noise front.”

              “it gives better color and detail than my D700 at base ISO, and keeps up with it noise-wise to about ISO 800. It’s probably about as flexible as the D800E in that sense. In daylight, picking this camera is a no-brainer.”

              “It’s a game changer in its ability to combine excellent image quality – I’d say very close to the D7000 in every way, including high-ISO performance and dynamic range”

          • One More Thought

            Jabs: I did not miss the point…you are missing my point.

            My point is this: the m4/3 system is far far superior at this point to the N1 system. No contest. This post is about the Nikon 1 V2. So my point is to compare m4/3 with N1.

            I am wondering about the future of the N1 system given its superior competition. I am even speculating that perhaps Nikon is not too serious about iterating out the N1 series, given how little they have advanced the series in its first year.

            As to comparing m4/3 with DX, that is not my intent. I will echo what John said, which is that for many m4/3 is becoming a viable option to DX. Maybe not technically better…but people take pictures in real life, not go by DXOmark scores, or test patterns. As John noted, if you use an OMD with a great lens you get results that come close enough to DX, and in some cases maybe better than some DX setups.

            If you use an OMD you will know what I mean; it’s an incredible package.

            Also, please do not underestimate the importance of small size and weight. For many users that is huge (pardon the pun). So yes a size/weight advantage may be worth some tradeoff in IQ for many users. This will be especially true with the aging baby boomer population, which will be a key demographic with the money to buy nice cameras.

            The younger demographic has grown up using cell phone cameras, and so they too demand small size.

            Technology will surely advance, and that will elevate all formats, and that will mean that for most people all choices will be good enough…it will be a matter of system maturity, style, marketing, etc.

            • Jabs

              @One More Thought – Glad that we can be civil even when we disagree.

              1. The only thing that the N1 System has in common with the Micro 4/3rd’s cameras is that they are mirrorless. Totally different concepts to me and aimed at differing markets!
              2. Where it leaves them in the dust is in throughput via Expeed 3 as even the OMD is slow and too limited for me, as I am an F3HP and D700 shooter, so used to 8fps and quick reacting cameras. I would shoot with a Nikon V1 before I touched an OM-D, as it is too slow for me – again!
              3. The OMD seems to be the best or one of the best Micro 4/3rd’s bodies but too small for me as I have man sized hands and have never found a camera that I owned to be too large, as I shoot with MD’s and large bodies. Even a Yashicamat TLR is not too large for me, but of course most Medium Format bodies are a different thing (lol).
              4. My point has always been that the best of Micro 4/3rd’s do not even approach the best of last generation DX cameras like the D7000 and D5100 much less the professionalism of a D300s (though the D300s does not have the latest generation of sensors, I would still use it over any Micro 4/3rd’s body myself).
              5. Little dinky bodies I have always hated even in the film era and bought a few and hated them too including a few Nikon bodies. My brother has Leica’s, I bought one and sold the beast to him as the FA and F3HP outperformed them – Heck, even an N4004 and a N2000/2002 outperformed them. Same for the Minolta/Leica CL – cute cameras of questionable performance or one trick ponies to me as I don’t have time to play with a camera as I shoot and catch the moment.
              6. Size is overplayed while performance matters most to me as I don’t go out to be seen, I just go out to get the shot and that’s it. DX) means the ability to cross reference bodies in each Category and thus proves the fallability of the arguments here. If I want to be really small and functional, I use an L24 cheap camera and be done with it (which I do).
              7. I basically see Micro 4/3rd’s as ‘snobbish’ or ‘cutesy’ and not really that great plus maybe a dumb idea as the sensor is too small and they never thought of it as a System wide Standard with accessories and thus not for me. I would buy an NEX or a Fuji way before any Micro 4/3rd’s as speed is of the essence to me and NOT size.
              8. You are talking to a former NY person who has hung out with some of the best there at Duggal Labs and compared Chromes like Fuji 50D, 64T, Ektachrome 50 and Kodachrome 25 and hated print film. I basically shot only low ISO slides and in print film B+W from 25 ISO to 1600 ISO with filters and polarizers.
              9. I often shot with 3 bodies hung around my neck and thus this madness about size now is overdrawn to me and the talk of ‘whimps’ or people whom I call complainicons (like Transformers – the old TV Series). Sorry but if you can’t carry a five pound package all day, then you need a new profession plus some strength. Heck, I travel with two laptops and have no problem and I am not exactly young, so what’s all this nonsense about weight and size. Grow up will ya’ – LOL!

            • John

              Jabs, I am well aware of the test charts. I have seen them all and they were the root of my hesitation to switch. I believe and accept the work completed to generate these charts. But instead of looking at a bunch of charts, I decided to actually try the products (D7000 and OM-D among others) and compare the output. With the best sub $1100 lens for each. The Sony NEX-7 with the Zeiss 24mm was clearly better than anything DX, but I didn’t like the controls, limited lens choices, large lenses, and that the best lens (Zeiss) was 36mm equiv. I did not try the Fuji, but feel that the IQ would also be superior to DX DSLR. The Fuji lenses are quite good, but there are few of them. I think I would like the controls, but the firmware is quirky and there are questions about RAW support. Both are larger systems than the OM-D.

              OM-D/D7000 result: If you are shooting at or below ISO 800, there is no significant difference, and each is 16MP. I could find you a bunch of links showing the same thing from long standing reviewers who have taken images with each. The difference is to me, that I can take the OM-D with me on a big hike/ride and get a shot. A shot I would not have with a D7000 because it is too big to carry along. A shot that I previously had to use a P&S or a camera phone. Now I can get D7000 IQ!

              Will I use it for a gallery size print? No, that is what the D800E is for. Would I use it for sports? No, that is the D700 for me. But there are a lot of other photographic opportunities and the OM-D handles those very well in a very compact package.

              You say:

              “What you personally like as a body is your choice, but when we compare price/performance and flexibility, then Micro 4/3rd’s always loses. YES, Nikon needs more DX lenses but there are more 3rd party DX lenses available than any Micro 4/3rd’s body has.”

              I disagree. For me, the OM-D has more flexibility and that is worth something, and it is not the body, it is the whole system. M4/3 is also getting third party interest as well. Like Voigtlander, Sigma, Tokina, and Samyang choices already available. Include Panny and Oly and you have 48 m4/3 choices today. Schneider, Brenner Import un Grosshandels (shift lens!), and Zeiss to follow.

              Are you sure there are 48 3rd party DX lenses today? There are 48 m4/3 lenses available. B&H shows 38 non-Nikon APS-C F-mount lenses (plus only 16 from Nikon). The point is DX is over a decade old and has significant gaps. (What does it say that there are more 3rd party DX lenses for Nikon than Nikon lenses?) M4/3 has very few gaps today.

              Maybe you should try something mirrorless and make conclusions based upon the output? B&H and others have a good return policy if you find it unacceptable for your purposes.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              FX>DX>4/3>CX>p&s>camera phone (MF)!

      • El Aura

        The problem m43 solves is the coat pocket problem.

        • One More Thought

          The m4/3 solves the coat pocket problem…it also solves the aching back problem…the too conspicuous problem…

          • Jabs

            Answer this one question – Is the OM-D smaller or bigger than the Nikon J1, J2 and V1. Compare sizes with the OM-D’s MD and without, plus compare weights.

            • John

              The OM-D is larger and heavier than the V1

              According to DPR:


              383 g (0.84 lb / 13.51 oz)
              113 x 76 x 44 mm (4.45 x 2.99 x 1.71″)


              425 g (0.94 lb / 14.99 oz)
              122 x 89 x 43 mm (4.8 x 3.5 x 1.69″)

            • Jabs

              Then where is the claimed size advantage???

            • John

              There is not a size advantage compared to the V1. Never claimed there was. Just answered the question. I said the OM-D size advantage was relative to the D7000 system, and lens choice advantage to the D7000 system (that would apply to the V1 as well).

            • Jabs

              My comments were aimed at Jut One More Thought

  • Ronbo

    There should have just been one model with features real photographers wanted not engineers. No one wanted a non standard hot shoe or a 30 yr old slow flash sync for starters. Also not much choice in fast lenses. No vr on some as well. All Nikon had to do is just ask what photographers wanted then make it. Apparently that’s not how things work.

    • RC

      That’s one of the main things that put me off about Nikon’s system. I want to be able to use my regular flashes (like my SB-800).

  • Anonymous one

    Last time a nikon 1 camera was released (J2) there was a firmware update (just to shut the camera with the lens). Any chance for un upgrade when V2 appear?

  • an onymous

    Come on Nikon, make a lens interchangeable mirror-less DX format camera so we can use all the DX lenses, what are you afraid of ? ? ?

    • LOL… I’d guess that they’re not ‘afraid’ of anything. They just realize that a the minor difference between FX and DX crop factors is next to useless, especially since the DX lenses start out being hampered by the same sized mount. Toast the DX and concentrate of FX and CX!

    • Mike M

      One problem, if they make a mirrorless DX camera they have to either make an entire new line of lenses, or make a goofy adapter that makes the camera the same thickness as any other DX DSLR camera. Flange to film plane distance has to be maintained if you want to use the full range of focus of the lenses that are out there. This is why there aren’t a huge selection of DX and FX sensor’d compacts, because it also requires MUCH bigger lenses than using a custom smaller format sensor.

  • Jabs

    I think that Nikon is now concentrating on DX lenses first, then a release of several DX bodies plus maybe one FX body, perhaps early next year. The D600 has just come out and thus takes up valuable Production time and space, so due to the previous floods, new Production space has to be allocated to lots of new bodies and lenses.
    Here is how I see it:

    1. New V2 made in China and going to a higher megapixels but not as high as Sony’s new camera since that reportedly does not have Continuous AF (maybe cannot push all that data out at that megapixels) – but maybe a 14 to 16 megapixel body with AF on sensor and a few additional body controls to differentiate it from the J2. Maybe they include CLS functionality in the body to allow the use of Nikon speedlites too???

    2. D400 – DX Pro camera with maybe 18 to 24 megapixel sensor and fast fps plus high ISO using maybe an Aptina fabbed sensor.

    3. D7100 at 24 megapixels to replace the D7000.

    4. D5200 at 24 megapixels plus swivel screen and maybe even built-in GPS to replace D5100.

    5. Several DX prime lenses and some zooms plus a few FX lenses that are long due.

    6. D4X with very high megapixels plus maybe 4K Video and 16bit RAW using maybe two Expeed processors to handle all that output – YES, it will be very expensive too!

    Who knows though, as Nikon has been on a roll lately and much is dependent on what Canon and Sony do or release. The gap between Micro 4/3rds and DX plus FX is being purposely widened by Nikon and thus leaving them (Micro 4/3rds) to be perceived as low end cameras and it as the high end brand.

    Nikon can easily fight the Micro 4/3rds group with the Nikon 1 System and still retain its DX and FX lines as the D3200 aptly demonstrates. Better performance usually trumps small size!!!

    I also see 16bit output as the next area of contention at the FX high end and that would be great but huge files???

    • DX is DEAD

      > I think that Nikon is now concentrating on DX lenses first, then a release of several DX bodies plus maybe one FX body, perhaps early next year.
      > 5. Several DX prime lenses and some zooms plus a few FX lenses that are long due.

      You word in God’s ear, Jabs!

      The problem with DX isn’t the quality and performance of the DX bodies – which are fine – or their flashes but the range and quality of the DX lenses.

      Nikon’s FX glass is still terrific but they have a lot of catch-up to do to keep DX interesting for its users. However, all they introduce are gargantuan super-zooms (the 830g heavy 18-300mm) or redundant stuff (the 40mm “macro”).

      A prospective 16-85mm F4 just doesn’t cut it – what people need/want, as is witnessed by sales going to Sigma and Tamron, is a fast standard zoom with VR – and not an expensive 17-55 without VR. And for those knocking off VR: How come they offer a 16-35 mm F4 VR for FX but nothing similar for DX?

      The 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 is OK but it’s been overtaken by both faster (Tokina&Sigma) and wider lenses (Sigma) that give users more potential. Why does Nikon not offer something wider than 10mm for DX? Because it would compete with their famed 14-24mm?
      And why does Nikon still keep the expensive 12-24 F4 in their range? Because it is F0.5 faster than the 10-24 at 24mm? No – to suggest to potential customers that they have a full DX lens range (wide, versatile).

      However, it’s obvious that Nikon regards DX as either “simple stuff” for casual users or an entry drug for amateurs, a stepping stone on their way to FX.
      Problem is, their tactic is flawed: They think that their D600 is a good upgrade for DX owners. What they miss is that relatively new DXers (D90, D5x00, D7000) find not much improvement but still have to scrap their DX glass for it (or live with a 9MP crop mode..).
      The truth is: The D600 is a fantastic “first” DSLR because people would buy FX glass from the get-go. Yes, expensive, but the investmentswill pay off with time!

      • `/1nc3nt

        Because it’s built in almost standard Nikon professional quality and it’s works very well on FX as 18-24mm. That’s why the price is high, including it’s second hand.

        And why does Nikon still keep the expensive 12-24 F4 in their range? Because it is F0.5 faster than the 10-24 at 24mm? No – to suggest to potential customers that they have a full DX lens range (wide, versatile).

        • DX is DEAD

          > Because it’s built in almost standard Nikon professional quality and it’s works very well on FX as 18-24mm. That’s why the price is high, including it’s second hand.

          Now come on! Who buys it for FX when it’s only 18-24mm? That’s practically a prime lens without the advantages of one.

          If you step up from DX to FX you may continue to use it – agreed! – but you will lose the ultra-wide range. If you are a wide-angle nut then you will probably get one of the FX wide-zooms as quickly as possible anyway.

          Note that I don’t doubt that it’s solidly built but it never is as sharp as the 14-24mm F2.8 or a prime and obviously not as fast.
          One could also get the 16-35mm F4 VR for about the same price instead…

          And if you are a cautious DX fellow already planning to step up to FX in the future you may want to consider the Sigma 12-24mm F4,5-5,6 EX DG or the Sigma 12-24mm F4,5-5,6 II DG.
          They are a bit slower and may be not as good in the corners but cheaper and offer true ultra-wide angle on FX while offering a decent wide angle on DX (no other wide zooms for Nikon do that, AFAIK).

      • El Aura

        Why in the history of time has Sigma always had a larger lens selection than Nikon (except for some primes)?

      • Jabs

        @DX is DEAD – Great comments but it is always hard to judge or figure out what Nikon is doing. Look how long we waited for a new FX lineup only to be blown away by not only a D4, but a D800, D800E and now a D600 – so four FX bodies in a row plus a few FX lenses.
        Now that is out of the way, maybe Nikon will focus on DX bodies and lenses that are sorely needed. I think that everyone might have their own list of expected lenses but Nikon seems to know what it needs and then can produce, so we just have to wait.
        I look forward to an updated 180mm F2.8ED, as it is one of my favorite lenses from the film era plus where are the 105mm and 135mm prime lenses? What about the update to the 300 F4.0 ED-IF zoom and a cheaper fixed F-stop zoom like about 50-300 F4.0 ED-IF VR2 AF-S?
        I think that 2013 might be the year of DX Releases and thus hoping for much, though I personally do not like DX, as I was raised on film with F3’s and 100% Viewfinders plus 8fps, so spoiled. I see the value of a Pro DX body, but I don’t think in ‘DX’ so not interested but since many are, then I expect it soon – maybe after Canon releases a new 7D version.
        What I look forward to in bodies is actually a D4X – go figure – lol.

    • Big J

      Wonder if Nikon already planned something like:

      FX line – Can be used on FX, DX and CX cameras.

      DX line – Can be used on DX and CX cameras also.

      CX line – For CX exclusively

      Even though you can obviously use DX on an FX camera, but just wanted to point out the use of using the “best” part of the lens along with the FT1 adapter. Think it helps the consumer find the right lens for what they want to use it for along with the choice of weight on top of that.

  • Troll Prozac

    I’m thinking a D400 with say 18MP or so with 6-10fps and the same AF as D800/D4 would be a good 2nd cam to a D800. Useful for birding and action.

  • Dave

    In a word… no. These websites pop up everywhere with fictitious specs for cameras that don’t exist.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    “DX is format is not dead yet”. True for sure, unlike Nikon 1 series was already born dead 🙂

    Why on earth Nikon chose that tiny pixel size for mirrorless, giving no better results than ordinary compacts. And their dedicated lenses for that size will leave no room for improvement & competition with Sony & others.

    Nikon should return from that mistake asap, abandon 1 series and manufacture something similar to Sony RX100, using the D600 sensor, and call it Nikon 2 !

    • Anonymous Maximus

      I meant RX100 or NEX-7 in their form factor, but in fact an FX or at least DX mirrorless, with a couple of new compact lenses and allow compatibility for existing optics with an adapter.

    • Calibrator

      > Why on earth Nikon chose that tiny pixel size for mirrorless, giving no better results than ordinary compacts.

      To not cannibalize their DSLR sales, that’s why.

      • Plug

        And to make a hell of a lot of profit.

        • Calibrator

          > And to make a hell of a lot of profit.

          Why is it that so many of those small but expensive cameras are popping up, with so many generations following one after each other faster than you can see? Because that’s where the money is right now!

          *All* mirror-less bodies are overpriced compared to a much more complex (mechanics!) DSLR with similar image/video performance.
          They are *way* simpler to make with much less parts and often toyish sturdiness. There are websites that specialize in tear-downs – have a look how simple they are constructed!

          All manufacturers – and especially Sony with their own sensors – are raking in the profits like there is no tomorrow. Nikon is no exception here, but was perhaps a bit too aggressive with their N1 prices. Aggressively expensive, that is.

  • N_IKON

    I do believe that Monday 8th october will be the day we will se what the new DX-camera will be like. For me I hope that it is the D7200. With 24,3 mpx and similar videospecs like D600. My wish! 🙂

    • Anonymous Maximus

      D400, my wish…

      * new 16-20mp sensor
      * low light performance on par with D700
      * D800-like body & functioning
      * 8 fps
      * $ 1700-1800

      • Big J

        Most likely would be $2000-$2200. And it’ll be better in low light than the D700 since it won’t be using old tech.

        • RC

          There’s no way a camera with a DX sensor will perform anywhere near the level of the D700. Just wait until the DXO ISO scores are posted.

        • dx

          if they price d400 at 2000-2200, they will sell 777 cameras and loose a lot of money. even 1700 is quite expensive, it should have some special feature like good autofocus in video like the a99 but 8fps just doesn’t cut it.
          and of course it will not have better ISO than FF. whats the point of using FF then?

      • dx

        DX with an oversized body like D800 makes no sense. get a grip man.

        • DX with its oversized mount makes no sense. get a grip man.

          It was born as a temp solution using the same mount as full frame – hence larger lenses than need be – where something designed as a system – like Nikon 1 and its mount / smaller glass all around – is how cameras should be designed. Combine that with the 1.5 crop factor that’s not that different from FX and DX should die… hopefully soon.

          This is especially true now that cheaper FX models like the D600 and its superior specs are available. Indeed, I’d guess that’s one reason for the D600.

  • Jabs

    Ignorant Wishes to me:

    What is the point of a small camera body that fits in your pocket and then when you pull it out and turn it on, it takes ages to focus and take a picture?

    What is the point of a small camera when many professional photographers depend on fill flash for most of their daylight shooting to stop motion while they run and gun? What is the point when the separate flash unit is larger than the small camera body then? Can the small body and flash now be stored in your pocket?

    What is the point of a small camera if you want to be obscure and hide from your subject and then quickly photograph them, when a longer lens from afar does a better job as then nobody sees you or your camera?

  • Paul

    Yodabashi camera in Hong Kong have “new” Nikon 1 brochures
    According to the spec it has a 20Mbit 13.2mm by 8.8mm sensor

    • They have the Nikon 1 V2 in their new brochure?

      • Paul

        according to my friend who visited the Yodabashi store on the 8th Oct

        he wrote…

        “May have a bit of a scoop though.
        I think the Nikon 1v1 is the new version. According to the spec it does have a 20Mbit 13.2mm by 8.8mm sensor, the same as the RX100. The brochure I got is only a few weeks old and has ‘New’ printed on it.”

        a bit odd that it is not referred to as the Nikon 1 V2in the “new” brochure

        • Cathy

          Strange indeed. And the price was? What kit lens did it have with it? The new one?

        • Can you get a copy of this brochure?

  • MB

    So no V2 announcement today …
    Good thing is it seems that nobody really cares …

    • Lex Author

      We dont care.. we only want D400 or D7x00.

  • No, not referring to this. Snapsort based their listing on an old rumor posted by Mansurov I believe. Just because they listed an unannounced camera doesn’t really mean anything.

  • LoveNikonBut

    Dear Nikon,

    Canon is going to release 7D Mark II in January
    – 24 Mpx
    – similar to 1Dx and 5D Mark III AF system
    – 10 fps
    – ISO 100 – 25600
    – FullHD video

    PLEASE DO SOMETHING! PLEASE RELEASE D400 – it’s high time!

  • Back to top