Nikon 1 Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens delayed, a new professional mirrorless camera “might happen one day”

Nikon-1-Nikkor-70-300mm-f4.5-5.6-VR-lens
Nikon-1-Nikkor-70-300mm-f4.5-5.6-VR-lens-front-element
Nikon Japan published another apology that the 1 Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens is not yet available because of the large demand from customers (they issued a similar note for the V3 camera back in July). The lens was supposed to start shipping on June 26th, but I have not seen any lenses in the US yet (a batch was received in Europe over a month ago). Update: apparently there was a shipment in the US back in June.

At a recent interview at Photokina with Amateur Photographer Nikon defended their Nikon 1 system and the lack of large sensor mirrorlesss camera. Nikon did not exclude the possibility of a new high-end professional mirrorless system:

And a high-end mirrorless system would need to win acceptance from professionals and many loyal enthusiasts – as well as offering the same ecosystem as DSLR.

"We race Formula 1. There are no second places here."

"Yes, it [a professional mirrorless camera] might happen one day, but we cannot offer a second best solution for professionals…"

Pictures credit: hotohaus.de

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

    omg FIRST

  • doge

    So they’re basically saying no ‘professional’ would be caught dead with a current Nikon 1 camera?

    Great job!

    • akkual

      No. They are saying that professionals wouldn’t select EVF lag and catastrophic battery lifetime for their main camera at the moment. Of course pros can use whatever they like, but the fact is that mirrorless do not yet suit well for the average daily professional usage.

      • doge

        So no pro would be caught dead using a Nikon 1 camera. Okay, got it.

        • Ken Elliott

          I’m a pro and I use a V1. Akkual has it right – the MAIN camera tends to be a DSLR for all the well-known reasons. The V1 doesn’t cut it as a main camera, but it’s great to have as a speciality camera. 60fps, long reach in a tiny package, 400 fps movie mode, and plenty more.

          I think the Nikon 1 series is Nikon’s testing ground for making things like on-sensor PDAF work. I suspect Nikon is waiting on components to mature (EVF lag, for example) before they launch their pro mirrorless camera. It does sound like it will be an F-mount, or highly compatible with existing gear.

          • true

            you make some great points, especially regarding the testing ground. It just might be that nikon isn’t as hasty as other manufacturers when it comes to mirrorless. They’re just waiting for other ppl to do the research and strike with their own offering when the time is right (that is, when mirrorless can actually track a flying bird properly / other action etc.)

            • Ken Elliott

              The V1 is already capable of tracking birds in flight. It really is an amazing little camera, crippled by some silly mistakes, like not being able to turn off auto-review. It feels like it is the training ground for a new design team. They have some great ideas with superb execution (AF), and some “how-did-they-miss-that?” issues.

              I think they are mostly waiting on outsourced components (like the EVF, battery and CPU power efficiency) to get good enough to meet the performance targets. They will drop it on us like they did with FX cameras – take forever, then execute a strong multi-product evolution.

          • merops

            “I think the Nikon 1 series is Nikon’s testing ground for making things like … work”
            I agree with this. I think the Nikon 1 is the dress rehearsal for a larger sensor mirrorless. Especially if they move to a new mount for APS-C/FF mirrorless they need to get it right first time.

          • MyrddinWilt

            I agree that they are waiting for the right time to go pro but I don’t see an F-mount mirrorless as being remotely possible or even much of a good idea.

            The advantage to mirrorless is that wide angle lenses don’t need to be retrofocus to avoid the mirror sweep. Using the F-mount loses all of that. Nikon might make an FX sized pro sensor but it would be a new mount with an F-mount adapter like they have done with the CX. It is also possible that they would do a DX sensor on the CX sized mount, it probably has the clearance.

            A much more urgent concern than the sensor is the CPU power. What sets the D4s apart from the Df isn’t due much to the sensor, its the massively powerful processor that makes it slicker to use and allows a faster fps etc.

            Nikon has to get the pro CPU right before it does any additional sensors and those probably won’t make the difference you seem to think they will.

            • Ken Elliott

              The disadvantage of the short flange distance is you put that space right back in the lens. Look how big those Sony E-mount lenses are. Since I carry more lenses than bodies, the longer lenses consume more bag space.

              But the case for a mirrorless F-mount camera is very simple. It fits right in with the rest of my Nikon system. It is far more important that it works with the rest of my kit and fits my hands well, rather than being thinner.

              I’d prefer that Nikon go back to the modular style of the F4 and give us an interchangeable sensor/lens-mount module. When they are ready to give us a new mount, they simply add a new sensor module. This also allows for a move into medium format at a reduced risk. But I think you are right that they are much more likely to create a new all-electric mount and use an adapter for F-mount lenses.

          • neversink

            I use an AW1, and once you go beyond ISO 400 the noise is horrid, although noise reduction helps a bit. I would never use the AW1 in my professional work. It’s just for fun when I go kayaking…..

          • FL Guy

            Definitely agree that Nikon is just testing the water with the 1 System.

            At the same time, it’s frustrating the in some ways half hearted attempts on the V1/V3:
            1) no AEB – really? on a $1200 camera?? (V3)
            2) Weak EVF with major lag?? a $400 bridge camera can do better, but Nikon can’t??

            No higher FPS APS-C camera (serious 7D competitor)??

            I’ve been considering switching to Nikon – partly for the 1 system actually and potentially having a small system to APS-C & FF ecosystem with some commonality & ability to share would be great.

            However the absolutely glacial pace of Nikon’s progress outside of the FF arena, and seemingly being more concerned with protecting existing camera sales than attracting new customers is really frustrating me, making me at least hold off, and seriously consider and potentially adopting other, possibly lesser brands, because they seem more interesting in providing better options now.

            In my view seems like this glacial approach and predominate focus on the FF market, is costing Nikon sales now, and customers for the future, and providing a HUGE opportunity for Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung to serve the market that Nikon seems uninterested in serving (or perhaps unable as some have suggested).

            A shame though – and something of a missed opportunity for Nikon it seems to me.

            • Ken Elliott

              There is a long history of Nikon doing this. Others innovate and deal with the problems of being early. Nikon seems to wait until it has all the pieces in place, then delivers a really solid product. It sucks waiting for them to deliver, but they deliver a very robust product if you can wait. I’m not sure the Nikon 1 system fits their past – the V3 should be better than it is as a 3rd generation product.

            • FL Guy

              Yeah sucks as you say, on both counts.

              Sucks if you’re looking to change brands as I am (every ~20 years for me) while Nikon is ‘figuring things out”.

              And agree – I was expecting much better from the V3, especially given that it was the 3rd attempt.

              Makes me think they just weren’t serious about the V3. (Or that they didn’t want the V3 to be _too_ good)

            • whisky

              you’re right that the V3 should have been a better
              3rd generation product. many potential N1 customers already await the V4.

              had Nikon designed the V3 with fewer barriers, (i.e. the weak battery, microSD, no hot shoe or CLS, marginal low light performance, etc.) not only would they have attracted many new customers, but they would have sold a lot of upgrades from the V1. none of the barriers are deal killers, but combined they’re a high bar to overcome.

        • ZoetMB

          Why are you making a big deal out of that? Aside from every other issue with the camera, what pro would want to shoot with a sensor that is only 13.4% the size of 35mm and 31.2% the size of DX? A pro might use a Nikon 1 as a walk-around camera when they’re on a trip with their family, but they wouldn’t use it for a pro assignment.

          Besides, there’s another factor. Regardless of what can be actually achieved with any camera, there’s a psychological factor that makes it necessary to use equipment that the client doesn’t think they can afford or know how to use on their own. This was especially effective when pros shot with 4×5 Graflex cameras or even TLR Rollei’s and the like with strobes, etc. When a pro shows up with what looks like an amateur camera, the client thinks, “what am I paying for?”

          • Thom Hogan

            Do you realize how much cropping is done on some pro work, and that’s even with really long lenses. Sports photography is a good example, as pros tend to have restricted places they can shoot from. This is one of the reasons why many pros used to love the D3/D300 combo, by the way. Instant 1.5x crop that gave up virtually nothing. It’s the reason why people like Peter Read Miller are high on the Canon 7DII, too.

            Basically, you pick the tool for the job. Sometimes that tool will be a smaller sensor camera.

            • MyrddinWilt

              Oh Thom, don’t let the fact that you take pictures for a living and write books on photography fool you, you are not a ‘professional’, that title seems to be reserved for folk who choose their cameras based on numbers they don’t understand.

              There is a reason DX underperforms and it isn’t the sensor size. Its the fact that F-mount is designed around an FX sized sensor and putting a smaller one in causes lens designers real trouble at the wide end. And the wide end is always a problem on an SLR as the lens design has to be short focus.

              Leica gets the results it does because the rangefinder design is better at the wide end. Look at the elements they use in their lenses and they are nowhere near as extreme as you will see on a Nikon 14-24mm or the like. If Leica made those lenses they would be $30K.

              What is conspicuously absent from the Nikon2 lineup is the big wide short focus lenses the format is best at. If Nikon was shipping f/1.0 primes at 5-10mm then there would be an argument that maybe we want a bigger aperture. And then there would maybe be an argument that it is better to go for a bigger sensor and stay at f/1.0 than go with a wider focal ratio (which would take us back to retrofocus).

              But whining about the sensor size like it makes a difference in itself is just ignorant. The sensor size is relevant only insofar as it imposes constraints on the lens design. If we aren’t seeing lenses that push those constraints, why worry about them?

              It is pretty obvious that dropping a larger DX sensor into the Nikon 1 package is a minor engineering effort. Nikon has do deliver a professional CX package getting the autofocus etc etc right before a larger sensor size is relevant.

              If folk are only interested in numerical specs they should go Canon. That is their schtick.

            • Thom Hogan

              To be clear, I’ve moved away from selling photos; there’s just not enough money in it for us old timers. You have to shoot considerable quantities and often have to give up basically all rights to make a living doing that these days, and I just don’t want to live that life of constantly haggling over prices and rights any more. Not to say that I don’t still do an occasional contract or sale, it’s just not my main business these days.

              Can’t agree with the DX mount being too small. That’s not DX’s problem. The lack of lens support is DX’s problem, period. Count how many third parties have done things that Nikon hasn’t even come close to doing for DX. In three lenses I can show you just how much Nikon is pushing DX: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, and the original Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

              Nikon doesn’t need to ship f/1 DX lenses. It needs to try shipping something faster than f/3.5-5.6. Anything really. Are they really afraid they can’t market FX if they did that? How embarrassing is that? ;~)

            • MyrddinWilt

              I think the NR comments ‘professional’ is David Bailey and the ten or so people who make a good living at the craft. The reason I can afford any Nikon gear I like is precisely because I don’t try to work as a professional art photographer.

              Problem with designing DX wides is the rear elements has to clear the FX mirror sweep. I agree they should try harder. But I can see why they don’t bother.

            • spicynujac

              Setting aside the conclusion that just because F-mounts were designed for one system, they work more poorly on another system, I don’t think it’s fair to say F-mounts were designed for FX sized sensors.

              The F-mount was developed in the 1950s for film cameras. Nikon’s first DSLR was the Nikon D1, a DX camera introduced in 1999. The first FX camera, the D3, wasn’t introduced until 2007. So you are saying Nikon developed a whole new technology and built product lines exclusively around it for 8 years, and continues to do so today, using a flawed or inferior system that isn’t really compatible with the lens mount they chose to go with?

              Since we’re talking F-mounts I’ll bring up a more relevant point: The size of the F-mount and all the Nikkor lenses in existence today is based upon one thing: The size of a 35mm rectangle of film. It is *NOT* the ideal size for a digital photo sensor, whatever that may be. As technology improves, a sensor of film quality or better can shrink smaller and smaller.

              As far as Nikon lacking wide angle solutions and DX being inferior, I shoot DX with a Sigma 10-20mm and other than being a little soft at the edges, it’s as wide and good as I want. I don’t quite see your point here–are you saying that there are superior FF wide angle lenses but not DX? 10mm gets me pretty darn wide.

            • ZoetMB

              Sure, and had there been a true D400, I would have bought that over the D800 since I shoot a lot of music shows and need the crop. (And crop on the D800 gives me more resolution than I had on the D200 as well as better low-light performance). What it comes down to is what is going to provide the better image: cropping down to 13% of the D800 image or using a CX sensor? I would bet, especially in non-ideal lighting conditions, that the D800 would be better even though (or maybe because) resolution would be higher on the CX, since they’re shoving 14 or 18MP into a sensor 13% the size of full frame and 31% the size of DX.

              And so far, I haven’t seen any pros at the ballpark shooting CX instead of Canon with a 600 or 800mm.

              And I say that as someone who would LOVE to have a smaller, lighter system. I just don’t think that smaller lighter system is going to be one with a tiny sensor.

            • Thom Hogan

              Okay, you’re shooting music shows. How much resolution do you need? An 8mp CX done right with the right lenses would have solved the problem, probably.

              But this brings up one of the things I worry about with Nikon: they don’t see the specialties well. They keep shooting broadly, with shotguns, in their products. This is one reason why people are seriously wondering today WHICH Nikon FX camera Nikon wants them to buy: D610, Df, D750, or D800? They all feel like broad-based shotguns instead of focused. Yet at the level these cameras sell, most serious buyers ARE focused in what they’re using cameras for (and/or are willing to have multiple tools that do different things).

            • neversink

              Thom – You left out D4s in your list of Nikon FX cameras….. I use D800 and D4. Although I am not switching to the newer versions of these cameras, the D810 is tempting, and perhaps it is one of the better mid-camera upgrades Nikon has made in a long time.

            • Thom Hogan

              I was commenting about a narrow price range of options. The D4s is out of most people’s realistic price range, and too narrow an option with too many strange differences (battery, card), as well.

            • spicynujac

              Why exactly isn’t a CX sensor sufficient? Take a look at some of the early photo results from professional photographers using the new Iphone 6 just released this week (Sept 2014) and tell me a small sensor is insufficient. A smaller, lighter system will be built around a smaller, lighter sensor. Sensor quality improves drastically over time. The sensor in my Nikon 1 AW1 is better (except in low light) than my old Nikon D40x. The D7100 sensor is phenomenal and blows away the old generation FF Nikon DSLRs (D700? I haven’t shot them head to head). Give it time, and CX of today will approach the quality of the sensor in the D800. Nikon is waiting until the technology matures to release its professional mirrorless.

              Professional work can and will be done on DSLRs for the next decade. Just as computing work can be done today eschewing tablets and smart phones and apps and using a desktop computer, but most technology workers don’t choose to do so. I think there will be a big change coming in the photography world. The DSLR will be as film cameras are today–a useful tool that can produce brilliant results but mostly superceded by something smaller/faster/lighter/cheaper. The only question is how many years until this happens.

          • reductron

            I’d add that the psychological factor applies to the photographer too. There is satisfaction in handling the D800 I don’t get with the V1.

            • Andrew

              And that is why some people are all over the Nikon Df camera because it gives them the retro feel, nostalgia, and they know you cannot find that awesome 16 MP full frame sensor in anything other than the flag-ship $6,000 D4 camera. And don’t forget that inner satisfaction knowing that as a purist, cameras should not have built-in video 😉

            • Rob

              I’m 47 years old. I started playing with cameras when I was about 10. Bought a SLR when I was a teenager and was in the school photo club. 10 years ago I needed photos for an art promotion project, client bought me a Canon Powershot. Since then I have owned a Nikon D40, D90 and a P7100, all great cameras. I like checking specs but I have never ever looked at video performance prior to buying a camera. If a camera has video, great. If it doesn’t I couldn’t care less, probably never will. I would say that for me video specs represent roughly 1% of the value of a new camera.

            • harvey

              but I get greater satisfaction when I use a crop camera in some form and my image blows the doors off someone who used FX … I smile.

          • JPR

            ZoetMB, I totally disagree with you on the sensor size. I use V2 everyday for pro work as long as the light is good for use up to 400 ISO. My photos are published every week by many magazines.

            On your second paragraph you might have a point, but customers choose Pros for their style and their results, not for their equipment.

      • Thom Hogan

        Those aren’t actually the real faults of the V3 for a professional, speaking as one ;~). The V3 certainly has plenty of shortcomings that should be addressed, but it’s quite usable for a number of situations that a pro might want to shoot in. I still don’t know why every golf photographer doesn’t have one, for instance (60 fps silent).

        But I’ll repeat myself here: the real issue is that Nikon isn’t very connected to its customers, so I’m not sure how they’d know what would or wouldn’t work for them. At the moment, for example, CanonUSA spends more time with me then does NikonUSA, by a hefty margin, and they actually listen. Doesn’t mean that Canon will do anything better than Nikon, but it does increase the odds if that’s true across all the pros out there and those comments are cogently filtered back to Japan.

        • Fabrizio

          Thom,

          I know you keep record, how long did it take for the D3 to be presented after the famous (and famously misquoted) statement by Nikon’s president (we will only produce FF when it makes commercial sense, etc.)? What they just said about a mirrorless pro camera sounds like a deja-vu, and I am beginning to wonder whether they have one in the pipeline (D5 or D400???) 😀

          • Thom Hogan

            Three years, I think. But Kimura-san was also misquoted by most people posting on the Web, too.

            I think it unwise for anyone to think that Canon or Nikon is either incapable of or not actually prototyping virtually any camera idea that comes along. There are plenty of such ideas that never make it to market, and I’ve seen a lot of them over the years. We’re talking about two large, well-staffed, highly capable technology companies. They can make anything that’s possible if they put their mind to it.

            The issue for me lately has been this: does Nikon (and Canon for that matter) really have a clear sense of what it’s customers want? Because even if you CAN produce something, the reason to do so is if it solves customer problems and sells well because of that.

            It feels to me that Nikon is being a little too paternal and trying to dictate what we should want and at what prices, and that these product decisions lately are more for Nikon’s benefit than the customers’.

            I’ll use the usual topic around here: D400. Nikon is clearly pushing FX. And they’re pushing it down into D400 pricing territory. Yet there’s no D400. This is a decision Nikon more made for Nikon’s purposes (apparent ownership and dedication to the 35mm frame size), not the customers’. There was nothing wrong with the D810. There was nothing wrong with the D610/D810 pairing. There IS something wrong sticking a Df and D750 into that same pricing space.

            • Fabrizio

              I totally agree that Kimura-san was wildly misquoted, and continues to be to this day. And, I was hoping you’d say the gap was 1-1.5 years, bummer 😀

              I recently re-read a lot of discussion that has been taking place on Nikon’s strategy in the last four years, including (in fact, mostly) many of your own comments and articles, and I am beginning to take a slightly different view of what you call paternalism (which it is). In essence, I wonder whether Nikon is just being a bit cocky. Can it be that it is getting ready to pull another trump card à la D3? I.e., that their strategy is to “manage” expectations by letting the noise and the frustration build up knowing that they will in the next year or two pull another ground-breaking camera that will suddenly send everybody in awe as the D3 did? Such as, a D5 with autofocus built in the sensor, super fast shooting and autofocus, pro-level EVF and whatever else they may be toying around with in the R&D rooms? I was further intrigued reading an interview with Goto-san in 2010, in which he stated Nikon was working on an alternative to AFS, which “is expensive and too big. We are currently investigating a new system for the future. To give you an idea, Panasonic Optical, for the G system, have a lighter and rapid motorization. This is one of the solutions and hope to quickly find better processes.” Are they maybe nearly ready to introduce a re-invented, for want of a better word, autofocus system? This after all would fit with their 8-year pattern with high end cameras (D1 series ground-breaking, D2 less so, D3 again giant leap, D4 less so, D5+D500, knock on wood …) Or maybe, they are ready to pull a trump card with a D5-V5 combo that puts the final nail in the DX coffin…

              I know, I know, I am putting a bit too much faith in Nikon 😀

            • Andrew

              Nikon keeps improving their algorithm for producing cleaner, high ISO pictures (JPEG) so long as they keep getting faster EXPEED image processors, as would happen with the next EXPEED 5 processor.

              They have nailed the auto-focus performance of their cameras which is major, and removed the anti aliasing filter (AA Filter) in their high megapixel cameras like the D5300, D7100, and D810 giving us sharper pictures. I think the next major breakthrough will be in non-bayer sensors like a new 54MP sensor that has purportedly been developed as may be seen in a future D900 camera. If Nikon releases non-bayer sensors in their 24 MP mid range cameras – that would be a major breakthrough for the masses.

            • Thom Hogan

              AF-S is a broad categorization. Nikon already has multiple motor types in various AF-S lenses. Just changing the motor doesn’t really change a lot, moreover, I’m not convinced that speed of moving the focus elements is a Nikon problem now or in the foreseeable future.

              How focus is calculated is a bigger problem. Panasonic currently uses a database approach–it is curious that Nikon wasn’t first at that, since they’ve done data driven systems for a long time–that uses the defocus characteristics of the lens to determine the same information phase detect does. This nets them the same “which way” and “how far” information phase detect does, and isn’t restricted to the central area.

              That said, you still have performance issues. Focus is constrained by the rate of information it receives, the accuracy of that information, and how you respond to it. Panasonic needs fast sensor transfer and fast focus motors to come close to matching AF-S/PD. Plus fast ASIC calculations.

              But let’s assume that a D5 (in 2015) is mirrorless. What problem does that solve, for whom, at what cost, and how does it disrupt the market? Simple answer, it doesn’t really help on its own.

              First, to be truly disruptive, it has to be fully legacy supportive, which means an F-mount. So the camera isn’t smaller.

              Second, it’s a pro camera targeted at a declining population of users who are becoming more price sensitive. Like the D3, it would need a companion at a more consumer price that did 90% of the same thing (e.g. D300).

              Third, if we’re talking about needing new lenses to really make a focus breakthrough we all know how fast and how transparent Nikon is with new lenses ;~) (and see 1). Ever seen a Nikon lens road map? Six lenses a year max? Yeah, any hint of a new mount means problems with that formula.

              Fourth, is focus the “big problem” that needs solving? I know we all kvetch about it from time to time, but the thing that’s completely broken from a modern view is workflow, and Nikon just really broke DSLR workflow even more. If I gave you an either/or option (improve autofocus or completely overhaul workflow) which would you pick? Time is money, after all.

              I have a lot of faith in Nikon that they’ll come up with additional compelling technologies. That’s what they’re best at. They ARE an engineering-driven company, after all. But more and more I’m convinced that iterating and inventing technologies is currently a dead end for cameras. We’re still taking film canisters (cards) out of cameras and handing them off to a processor (raw converter, after winding through an ingest program and browser). We aren’t putting more useful metadata in the image data (who, what, where to name three). We don’t connect well to the modern wireless world.

        • Andrew

          The issue of Nikon is a little bit of a quandary. But I think I am finally figuring them out. At one level they appear as an insular company, caught up in their own internal musings about the state of external affairs. At another level, they release products that demonstrates absolute engineering brilliance. The D810 is a major accomplishment, dispelling the question that you can have extremely high pixel count while maintaining close to industry leading low light performance (that is, incredible image quality (IQ) at high ISO with stunning auto-focus abilities in extremely low light situations). Plus you get all this with a reasonable frame rate that is workable in a lot of sports situations.

          But all of these accomplishments (above) does not satisfy us. I for one feel like holding out on the D750 until all the specs above from the D810 can be incorporated in a D750 class body while others (many professionals) want the D750 to have inherited a D810 body. So this is the first big problem that Nikon has, manufacturing cameras that meets our individual preferences.

          The second problem that Nikon has is logistics. Nikon has outsourced the D800/D810 ($3,000+) 36 MP full-frame sensor and needs to maintain enough production capacity to keep costs low. They likewise need to maintain enough production capacity to keep the cost of their D4/D4s ($6,000+) 16 MP full-frame sensors low. They have tried to partially do that with the Df, selling it at $2,750. But notice that in order to protect the sales of their D4 cameras, they did not incorporate video capability in the Df. Someone at Nikon came up with the clever idea but rather excuse that it is a retro camera to justify the move – but that was a diversion, though they did make it look retro.

          Unlike the D4’s sensor, Nikon has not found a way to do the same thing with the D800’s sensor. If they came out with another retro camera incorporating the D800’s 36 MP sensor without incorporating video capabilities there would be an uproar. Now if the Df’s sales were massive, then the same may have been done with the D800’s sensor. That is, why not replicate a winning strategy?

          Now all of the above brings us to the D400 (DX) and D700 (FX) replacements. Any camera that Nikon releases in the $2,000 to $2,995 price range with a full-frame 24 MP sensor with pro body and 8 fps performance will significantly impact D810 and D4s sales causing potential massive loses due to a need to recover the development costs of their 36 MP and 16 MP full-frame sensors. It is because of these reasons that the D600, D610, Df, and D750 all have non-pro bodies and some scaled back features – though the D750 is an exciting camera with new capabilities. Nikon is trying to feed us with a lot of lunch while many of us are asking for steak. The steak will come – both the D700 and D400 pro bodies, but it will take another 1 to 2 years until the research and development costs of the D810 and D4s sensors have been paid for.

          So it is not that Nikon is not listening to us. It is that they know that they cannot give us everything we are asking for right now. I think the earth-quake and floods really affected their business operations significantly, plus the massive resources allocated in developing the Nikon 1 series. Now couple those with the costs of developing the D4s and D810 sensors, and I would think these issues have constrained some of the things Nikon can do. Having said all that, I consider the D810 as the perfect camera that far surpasses anything the D700 gave us except frame rate. The D810 is in my opinion, the best camera ever made! Nikon should be proud of the D810, it is their flag-ship camera, regardless of price.

          • Maji

            Very nice analysis Andrew.

            • Andrew

              Thanks!

          • Thom Hogan

            Yes, I believe you’re mostly right in that analysis.

        • Spy Black

          I think Ken Elliot above is correct in assuming the Nikon 1 system is a testing ground to eventually release a mirrorless pro body. I just hope they make it with a recessed chamber so it can readily take the existing Nikkor line.

        • akkual

          Definitely many pros will find mirrorless useful on various situations. I, too, enjoy my mirrorless Sony on street photography. However, if we average pro jobs, the modern DSLR is the king. Nikon probably sees that providing a mirrorless pro camera atm. would end up being either useless to most or too specialized to bring any real profits.. and after all, the profits are what Nikon aims at.

          What comes to this Nikon / Canon / whomever listens to their customers, it’s really difficult to say anything about that by one person. I am sure that Nikon / Canon etc. listen to their customers to a certain level, but at the end, it’s the complex equation of customer wishes, level of technology, manufacturing line capabilities, development team visions, r&d budget etc. that make out the final products. I am sure that Nikon / Canon would love to do just the right tailored camera for every pro and use case, but it’s just not possible efficiently or would cost so much that no-one could really afford those cameras (at least with the current level of manufacturing and technology).

          • Thom Hogan

            Mirrorless has slowly nibbled away to become about a third of interchangeable lens camera sales, which has eroded the Canon/Nikon duopoly a bit (perhaps down from 85% to 75%). From one viewpoint, that’s not enough erosion to stop doing what you’ve been doing.

            I could argue, though, that they’re not doing what they’ve been doing quite as well as they should ;~). Ironically, one of the attractions to many in the mirrorless world besides smaller/lighter is lens selection. DX and EF-S have plenty of telephoto options, sure, but in the 24-200mm range where most people shoot virtually all the options are variable aperture zooms or not quite right primes.

  • Mike M

    I’m kinda surprised with the 1000 dollar MSRP that it’s so popular. Obviously building a 810mm equivalent lens is probably no cake walk but man, I can’t see spending a grand on a 1 system. I really hoped it would be unpopular and cheap refurbs would come down the line.

    • SteveHood

      The one big advantage to smaller crop cameras is the lighter long zoom possibilities. I am surprised it took so long for companies to figure this out. For the same reason the Olympus 300mm f4 will become popular as well even with a much higher price.

    • Thom Hogan

      I’m unsure how popular it really is. It seems more that Nikon held down production too much, and then worsened that problem by doing disproportional distribution (e.g. few to UK or US). After overstocking the V1 and V2, Nikon made the opposite mistake with the V3. Maybe the V4 will be distributed about right ;~).

      • Maji

        I still see the v2 being sold around in the $600+ range (new). I think when it was released, the body only was around $750. So, it is has not taken that bad of a hit. Perhaps if you take off your sunglasses that seem to always criticize Nikon, because they don’t spend enough time with you ;~) , you will be more objective that you were known to be before you got spurned by Nikon.

        • Andrew

          Well, apparently he is doing what you are doing right now, and that is criticizing Thom. Actually, he has every right to criticize Nikon and in most cases he is correct. At least he provides good reasons for his criticisms. And I am sure he does not mind your offhanded remarks, it comes with the territory.

          • Maji

            I wouldn’t have criticized Thom if he had not written, “I said so…” in his every post. I don’t think he is correct in most cases. He was spurned by Nikon which is clear from his statement and all his posts sounds like a disgruntled spouse. Nikon has introduced some great models recently and if their market study says so, I am sure they will introduce other models that many want. However, it should make business sense to them.

            • mikeswitz

              Maji, I don’t always agree with Thom but I think your characterization is a bit harsh. I think, as anyone would, Thom gets really tired of never, ever having Nikon listen to him. He’s pissed because they essentially ignore him even, if some within the company agree. You would too.
              Nikon is insular. They don’t listen to their customers. They know that and they don’t care. I think Thom once said Nikon knew years ago that a D300 would make a lot of money but that was not the direction they wanted to go in. That can be very frustrating for those who want to stick with aps-c dslrs.
              Steve Jobs did exactly the same thing. He was famous for telling consumers what they should want, not what they were asking for. For the most part he was pretty successful at that strategy. Remember the Newton. Despite what Jobs said, nobody wanted it. Cut to a decade later, the iPad. Press said nobody would want it, it was just a big iPhone (which the press also predicted would flop) without the the phone. #Wrong.
              Bottom line, Thom, in my opinion, is right more often than not. And even when he is (in my opinion) wrong, he reasoning is sound. His perspective is different than yours, which is not a reason to dismiss him merely as “someone who has been spurned by Nikon.”

            • Maji

              Let us agree to disagree. I don’t see any reason why Nikon should listen to Thom. They should listen to their customers. If there is enough demand for a D300 successor that Nikon can make money off, then they should do it. I don’t think the clamoring for certain model by a few hundred vocal readers on photography forums are a statistical representation of the market. Bottom line is that Nikon should make cameras and market those that make money for them. Perhaps they need to institute a better field research team. However, a “I told you so because twenty years ago I worked in the tech industry” blogger is not the best person to listen to, in my opinion, and it appears that Nikon agrees with me too. Good for them.
              I do agree with you that Thom have had posted some useful information in the past. I don’t read his blog any more because just as he did here in most of his posts, “I have been repeating…” is tiring. If he just posted the first part of his arguments/logic etc and skipped that “I said so..”, I won’t be criticizing him. I think that he needs to realize that he is now a past tense in Nikon’s marketing and advisory committees and move on. Perhaps the Canon people who are now spending more time with him will listen to him more and he can hang out with them and share with them his experience from working in the tech industry few decades ago. At least, I won’t have to read “I told Nikon that…” any more.
              Sorry for sounding harsh, but I believe Thom needs to realize that many of his readers, like myself, has got turned off by his “I said so..” and stops saying it.

            • Andrew

              Maji, your tirade against Thom is not doing Nikon any service. Whoever at Nikon that shuns Thom should be fired! But seeing that I am not that ruthless, they definitely should be reprimanded. It is not good for someone like Thom’s caliber to have such negative words to say, it shows that the public relations people at Nikon are not doing their job. Such behavior would make me very disappointed. Nikon needs people like Thom and they should do everything to cultivate a good relationship. They should also embrace criticism.

              Your response is showing me that you are not sounding harsh, you are sounding hurt – there is a difference. Thom has every right to post at this forum just like you do, but you can still ignore his comments. Just leave the man alone and go your way if you cannot stand him. When you attack Thom, you are also attacking me and every decent person that visits this blog. You do not own this blog and neither does Nikon. Nikon is a great company and has many great engineers, artists, professionals, and workers working there – and I am sure many will be saddened by the discussions we are having here.

              Again, this is not the place to fight Thom, leave him alone! I like Thom and I feel that he is a great guy.

            • Maji

              Andrew, thank you for keeping our discourse civil. I am sorry if my criticism of Thom has hurt you or anyone else. However, I will not stop criticizing a poster if he or she posts on a public blog. However, if I use curse words in the heat of the moment, I need to apologize. However, I will not apologize for criticizing anyone with whom I don’t agree and he/she posts here or any other public forum.

              Thom is a gentleman and used to be a great resource. However, the current Nikon management for some reason has decided to go with newer or different people. What is wrong with that? Maybe time for new blood.

              For example, Nikon gave the D750 to a select group of photographers to try out before releasing. I guess they did not chose Thom, and I don’t see why someone should be reprimanded for that. I see that they gave one of those units to an upcoming young artist named Josh Cripps. I have seen his work on Flickr before and like it. Nikon’s current management probably likes his style and gave him one to test out. I see nothing wrong with that.

              Anyway, if you like Thom, I don’t have any beef with that. We all have our likings/dislikings. However, just like you are criticizing my criticism of Thom, and I am encouraging you to have this discourse, please don’t ask me to stop criticizing anyone or any company or product that I don’t like or agree with. If someone posts on this or any public blog, he/she should be ready to face criticism by someone who does not agree. I am glad we are not in China or one of those countries where they don’t enjoy this freedom.

              Thank you Peter for letting us having this conversation here. I have done my best to keep it civil and cordial. If you don’t agree, please let me know as it is your blog.
              Again thank you Andrew and mikeswitz for your continued civil discourse. I hope I can be nice guys like you two. Definitely these forums needs people like you all.

            • yes, thanks for keeping it civil guys!

            • Andrew

              Maji, I like you too! Thanks for being a great guy. Sincerely.

            • mikeswitz

              Maji, don’t you see? Thom IS their customers. He’s asking for the same cameras they want. Nikon is saying “we don’t care what you want, sales be damned. We are going to make great cameras and in the end you will be glad we did.” They could be right, they could be wrong, only time will tell. It pisses Thom off. It pisses long time Nikon shooters off. Personally, I have no problem with Nikon’s plans. They are making great cameras just like they predicted. Shot themselves in the foot with the D600 though. Just like Thom said.

            • Thom Hogan

              I’ve had a simple stance since I started supporting Nikon products on the Web 20 years ago (yes, it’s been 20 years now): ask for the best possible products, made with high quality, and supported well.

              When those things don’t happen, I ask for better.

              If you go back and read my old material, you’ll find I was highly critical of Nikon in stupid decisions in the 90’s, too. For example, the decision to move the exposure compensation button from its normal position on the N80. Note that it moved back on the very next model ;~).

              Am I never wrong? Nope. I’ve made many wrong calls in my long career. But frankly, if you’re not ever wrong, you’re not taking ANY risk at all, nor are you being honest. I try to correct myself when I’m made aware of something that is wrong. I fix things on my site all the time, and I often take back opinions: when the D80 came out I highly recommended it. After using it for a year, I began backing off that, and eventually declared it the worst of the Nikon DSLRs in the decade (hot pixels, high ISO noise, amp noise, exposure too weighted by focus point, and so on).

              (As for the Newton, Jobs was against it, actually. That was more a Scully project.)

            • ZoetMB

              I bought the N80 in early 2002 after not doing much in photography for a number of years. So even though I had previously owned both a Nikkormat and an F3 (and using Olympus after that), I never noticed that the N80 moved any buttons around and I found it quite easy to use. When I compared it to what Canon was pushing in the same price class at the time (probably an EOS- 7 ELAN), I found the Nikon far superior in both usability and construction.

              So I think the question is whether the N80 was designed for previous Nikon users or new Nikon users. If it was for the latter (and it probably was because it was near the bottom of the line at that time – only F50 or F60 users would have potentially upgraded to it), then it didn’t matter.

              Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of that particular change, if it makes sense for Nikon to try new user-interfaces anywhere, it would be at the bottom of the line, since those are the users most likely not to have upgraded from similar bodies.

              I also found it was a very easy transition going from the N80 to the D70. Whether any button positions were changed between them, I can’t remember.

            • Thom Hogan

              Actually, that gets to the heart of what “Nikon” is and what made them successful. They attract NEW users because they’ve catered to ESTABLISHED users, simple as that. Because Nikon kept the legacy mount, kept the button/dial interface intact, kept compatibility almost everywhere, the serious Nikon user base highly endorsed their products (including me). When they deviate to try to find new users, they diminish what they built the brand on.

              I don’t believe the Nikon brand (let alone the Coolpix brand) is worth more today than it was at its height. That’s dangerous if you want to stay a consumer-focused company. And that, too, is part of the problem. In the 80’s and 90’s it wasn’t consumer focused, it was industry focused (Precision Division). But when it turned to a consumer focus in the digital age, it’s been diluting the brand reputation, not enhancing it.

              Coolpix is just dying.
              Nikon 1 was never established well.
              DX feels abandoned.
              FX is about it, though if you look at almost all the lenses that were introduced at Photokina that you might want to mount on your Nikon FX body, none say Nikkor on the front, so there’s something wrong there, too.

            • Andrew

              Well, the Nikon brand may not be what it used to be at its height, but I am more impressed now with Nikon’s technology, build-quality, and aggressiveness than at anytime in the past 30 years. I feel that their technologies have now matured with the recent release of the D5300, D810, and D750. This makes me wait in great anticipation for the D7200.

              I think people are quite intelligent and know that the Coolpix is what it is, cool 😉 With respect to the DX, many professionals have settled with the D7100. Sure it is not a perfect solution for others, but my sense is that Nikon is in a state of transition and they are aligning their technology for the perfect DX product. The recent products Nikon just released are what Nikon has needed to make their strong brand even stronger. I see the D810 and D750 creating great excitement in the marketplace.

            • Maji

              Thom, I am glad you are posting here. We may have a difference of opinion and I may be criticizing you. However, that should not be taken as an attempt to muzzle you. I hope that you never feel muzzled by anyone and speak your mind, just as I hope I can.

              Just as you (and most of us) take risk and sometimes mess up, I am sure Nikon (and other companies) do that so. However, for some organizations it takes time to reverse course. I hope Nikon sees the value in your criticism and corrects their mistakes.
              My request to you was not to keep on repeating “I said so…” because I found that distracting from your message. However, you have every right to your opinions and posts. Please keep on posting.
              Thank you again.

            • Thom Hogan

              Anyone that knows me knows that I don’t feel muzzled, ever. You can ignore me, if you want, but that won’t stop me from voicing my opinion.

            • mikeswitz

              Everything you say in your response is true, which is why I said to Maji he is being too harsh. My point was though, that Hogan and Nikon approach camera manufacturing from two completely different perspectives. Yours=”Why don’t you give us the cameras we all so obviously want. Theirs= “We are going to give you the cameras we want to make and eventually you will be happy with them.”
              No one likes to have their quite valid opinion ignored year after year, which is why I said you were pissed. Not that I blame you, but you do become a bit redundant.
              That was/is basically my defense of you (not that you need my defense) to Maji. Bottom line, Thom, is your blog is one of the best on the inter webs. I think its fair to say….. keep it up.

            • Thom Hogan

              Redundant = Consistent ;~).

              I had a Japanese manager tell me to my face not to long ago that I didn’t need a better workflow. He’s wrong. That’s EXACTLY what we need after all these years. At some point someone will prove that and watch how fast everyone tries to copy it (and get it mostly wrong, probably).

            • mikeswitz

              Consistantly redundant :=

            • Andrew

              Maji, Thom is frustrated with Nikon and you are frustrated with Thom, something is not right with this picture 😉

              Thom has every reason to be frustrated with Nikon and it is also OK for you to be frustrated with Thom. But abusing him in public and attacking him personally is not the best way to deal with your frustration. You should take the time to analyze his arguments and determine where you agree with him and where you disagree. Then pay him compliments for what he is doing right and gently suggest to him where his views may be wrong and give him the reasons why.

              When you read my articles (yes, articles!), about 75% of the time they are favorable to Nikon, but Nikon has frustrated me – and more often – than any other company. The people you love are the ones that should frustrate you the most because your expectations for them should be greater. That is the relationship that Thom has with Nikon.

              What you are trying to do is to silence Thom by aggressively attacking him, that is not healthy and neither is it right! If you do not like his views, then do not read his articles – ignore him and save yourself a lot of grief. So please stop attacking him in public or in private. You should never value a product (not even your beloved Nikon cameras) above people. People are much more precious and delicate than goods. In all you do, never do anything to hurt another person. We should all get our priorities right in this regard! You can start by apologizing to Thom – he deserves your apologies.

            • Maji

              Andrew, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I like your analysis and that what you have stated. You have managed to criticize me without antagonizing me, and I commend you for that. However, I think if someone posts on a public forum, all of us don’t have to agree with him/her, no matter who he/she is. As for reminding Thom that, I have done that previously and he replied that he is too old to change his ways. It was on this forum. I did not mean to come out as harsh as I sound here, but I think Thom needs to just post/reply etc. and stop saying that “I said so…” I think if one posts in a public forum, then one has to be ready to face criticism too.

            • Andrew

              Maji – there is nothing wrong with Thom saying “I said so”, really! If Thom said something in the past, are you saying that it is inappropriate for him to say that his predictions were correct? This is a normal part of human communication. Let me give you an example. A mother says to a child, do not climb over the fence – you may fall and get hurt. And guess what the child does, climbs over the fence and indeed falls and gets hurt. The mother has every right to say “I told you so”.

              Now, it is possible that you may have a special sensitivity to the phrase “I said so…” and as a result, your grievance with Thom is exacerbated by that phrase – creating in you an unpleasant emotional state. The solution is pretty simple, you should change your behavior as opposed to requiring Thom to change his behavior. All you have to do is stop reading his comments, it is that simple. People who try to control another person’s behavior through aggression or force end up being a detriment to themselves and others.

              I would conclude by saying that “I said so” is not a phrase that is worthy of criticism. That is Thom’s way of expressing his analysis and its outcome. Being in a public forum does not give you, me, or anyone else the right to personally attack another person.

      • Andrew

        Thom, don’t mind Maji – at least you criticize Nikon constructively providing lots of insightful information. But instead of weighing his augments against yours, he shoots off the mark and targets you personally. He does not seem to realize that an insular organization like Nikon is made all the better by thoughtful provocateurs. Keep up the good work!

    • whisky

      are you kidding? the 70-300mm CX is probably the best of the 70~300mm ish’s Nikon’s ever designed … and i’ve tried them all. the VR is outstanding, and on the 1″ sensor well worth the money if, that is, you’re interested in the niche it was designed for. JMO.

      • Mike M

        I never said it was bad, just expensive, though so is the rest of the system, relative to what you get. It could well be the sharpest 70-300 ever made, it’s still a variable aperture that is f5.6 on the long end and it only works with cameras that are about 2 stops worse than a good DSLR today. The 1 system is somewhat a boutique product based on price, I love it’s performance/size ratio but the “retail new” pricing is just not something I can swallow.

        • whisky

          yip, it’s rich. no doubt about that. but if you can get past the price/N1 performance factor, it’s killer. especially if you work a niche that it fits.

          nikon could have built a thriftier 70-300mm slow aperture zoom, and even a faster one — but i doubt they could have built a better one. JMO. 🙂

          • Mike M

            I’ve really enjoyed the refurbished products from the line I have (J1, 10-30, 30-110, 10 2.8) and the 18.5 is reasonable though I’ve been holding out for a refurb or used to save a few bucks, I’d really like the wide and the 70-300 but they’re both too rich for my blood. I’d like to pick up a V1 or V2 but I don’t use the system enough to be worth it.

    • mikeswitz

      Different cameras for different applications.

  • ZoetMB

    Sounds like b.s. to me. We know the Nikon 1 cameras didn’t sell well and many that were sold were heavily discounted (at least in the U.S. where the last time I checked, you could still get a red S1 from B&H for $199), so where is the demand coming from?

    However, if the real reason is that Nikon is having some production problems and is being careful not to release defective units, I suppose that’s a good thing.

    • SteveHood

      They likely significantly lowered production of the new product so it looks like there is demand. This also helps them to keep prices/margins high.

    • Thom Hogan

      “Sell well” is a relative statement and quite subjective, I think. Technically, Nikon 1 has been the second largest selling mirrorless system in the US based upon actual sales receipts. But Nikon also overpriced it and overstocked it, which left lots of hanging inventory that ended up getting sold at reduced prices.

      I hear through the grapevine that the previous head of NikonUSA didn’t want to bring the S2 and J4 into this country, and wanted the V3 units scaled way back. Corporate eventually overrode the first two pieces of that.

      Still, the real issue here in the US is how Nikon is pricing and marketing the Nikon 1 models. They haven’t gotten either of those things quite right.

      • Robert F.

        The problem is two-fold as I see it:

        1. The 1-Series is the answer to a question relatively few were asking, I think;

        2. Pricing hasn’t been accurately set, as you infer.

        • Thom Hogan

          Nope, simpler than that: #2 along with a #3 (right lenses).

          I said when Nikon introduced the Nikon 1 that it should have been called the Coolpix Pro. Had it been, and had it also been reasonably priced with the right lens choices, think about where all those LX100, RX100, G7 X, ad infinitum “pro compacts” would be.

          Nikon’s problem is that they’re afraid to compete with themselves. This even seems to go for marketing across businesses (marketing the 70-300mm CX for birders versus the scope business, for example). This is classic “out of control upper management.”

          Upper management is the one that has to resolve all the sorts of problems that Nikon has been having lately. They haven’t rationalized the product lines, they haven’t said “no” enough nor have they said “yes” enough to possible products. There appeared to be a “let’s see how many boxes we can ship” attitude towards the end of Kimura-san’s leadership, probably in an effort to be “the number one seller of cameras.” That this happened at the time of the collapse of the camera market isn’t a coincidence, either. I think Nikon thought they could sneak in and take #1 away from Canon.

          CONSUMERS ultimately decide what sells and doesn’t, and whether product lines make sense. Nikon has gotten caught by that, and both pricing and product decisions caught up to them.

          • Robert F.

            Never liked the name Coolpix to start with, so I think it was wise to stay well away from that.

            But I agree, Nikon doesn’t want to compete with themselves and risk cannibalizing DSLR sales. But as another industry pundit recently pointed out: if you don’t eat your young, someone else will.

            • Thom Hogan

              Seems pointless to spend 20 years trying to build a brand name (Coolpix) and then completely wimp out on it at the end. Name means virtually nothing now.

            • whisky

              i have to agree coolpix, coolscan … always sounded very contrived in the same way many other asian products have tried to appeal to their users.

              wrt product name, Nikon dropped the ball, and it still seems they haven’t picked it up again. JMO.

            • Robert F.

              I don’t disagree with you. I just think the name Coolpix is awful. Awful for marketing, awful phonetically … awfully unsophisticated, etc, etc.

              Time to move one to something more apropos.

      • It sure was easier to figure out a marketing plan back when the only thing that took pictures was a camera.

        • Thom Hogan

          I suspect that a few people at Leica might think otherwise ;~).

          Marketing plans only get complicated when you think you’re “doing all things for all people.”

          • Agree, Thom, when you’re a public corporation and you lose your cash cow it’s easy to fall into the trap of trying to be everything for everyone. As for Leica, they’ve ultimately carved out a unique niche for themselves. Not sure I’d have done it that way though.

      • ZoetMB

        I think the bigger issue may be that they haven’t made the case to consumers why they should buy the Nikon 1 (which I guess is the marketing issue), although I don’t necessarily agree that it should have been called the “Coolpix Pro” because that might have left consumers with the impression that it’s just another pocket camera that could be replaced by a cell phone camera. (Does the Coolpix A sell well?)

        With the S1 still selling at B&H for $199 (although only red ones left), even I would admit that’s a really incredible deal (less expensive than more than half of the Coolpix line) and yet, they’re not sold out. IMO, it’s got to be because both consumers and retailers don’t understand what it is. And at $600 does one buy a J4 or a D3300?

        I can no longer find the post, but someone on here claimed that there are no Nikon1’s at the Photokina booth. Is that correct? And if so, does that mean that Nikon is dumping the line? Even if it hasn’t been a success, I would find that hard to believe. After all, look at all the Coolpix cameras still “current” (except Japan has only 9). Guess we’ll know more at the PhotoPlus show at the end of October.

        • Thom Hogan

          First, Coolpix USED to mean highly competent camera (remember the twist-and-shoot models?).

          Second, note that the Nikon 1 S2 is basically another pocket camera, and to a large degree that’s always what the J models were, too.

          Third, if you’re going to have three different LINES of interchangeable lens cameras, you have to differentiate them properly, and the Nikon 1 models were NOT DSLR Lite, they were Coolpix Pro when they were introduced (low mp count, mostly consumer lenses, limited control, etc.).

          Fourth, there’s your line: “customer don’t know what it is.” What’s a 1? How’s that compare to a D? Or a Df ;~)? Or an A? What the hell are we to make of that kind of marketing?

          Basically, right now the Nikon 1 is a good candidate for a Harvard Business School case study in marketing.

      • Douglas Green

        The reality is, Nikon delivered a mirrorless system that has some very interesting, but highly specialized traits, and then completely botched the sales and marketing of those cameras, as well as the implementation itself in the first generation of product. As a result, folks like myself – even though I was firmly in the Nikon DSLR camp at the time – shunned it – in favor of Sony, Fuji, or Micro 4/3 systems (my personal choice). Now, eventually, Nikon 1 system gear hit the fire sale, and I picked up a V2 body and an FT-1 adapter, and use the system as a specialized Birds, wildlife, and fast action system using a DSLR 70-300mm lens that becomes an effective 190-810mm lens. But I would not have ever bought this at the prices that the Nikon 1 was SUPPOSED to sell for. Just as an amazingly cheap (when bought on fire sale clearance), fast focusing long telephoto rig that compliments the Micro 4/3 gear that does everything ELSE better. But the obvious fact is, Nikon has intentionally crippled the Nikon 1 up until now. They have almost pathologically refused to offer a 1 System body with the level of operator controls that any serious user would want, and they have also tied their horse to a 2nd rate sensor manufacturer – even given the small sensor size that they bet on. But the truth is, it would be VERY easy, from a technical perspective, to make Nikon 1 competitive: Just drop a better 1″ Sony sensor with PDAF pixels into a V2 or V3, and offer the same sort of control features that are in a D7100. And then price the thing to market, instead of $400 above market, and sell it on it’s merits.

    • Capitano Dick

      DPreview stated that there are no Nikon 1 series cameras any more at the current Photokina stand of Nikon.
      And several sources say that the Nikon V 3 is already discontinued.
      Photokina rumors tend to talk about the complete end of any Nikon 1 cameras.
      Alleged reason: practically zero demand.

      • Oh wow, I will look into this.

      • Tobias

        What DPReview stated is not true. There is a special Nikon 1 series booth at photokina. I’ve been there yesterday and tried a V3. Not many people there, but the two booths for DX didn’t have much visitors either. Most people wanted to see the FX cameras.

        • ok, that makes sense – if they did not have a Nikon 1 booth in Photokina, it means the system is dead

      • I just checked dpreview’s report and they did have a Nikon 1 camera picture in their Photokina booth report.

  • Nuki

    Oly has done it with perfect grade and maturity, why cant nikon do it? Because of reasons! Reasons with; why did they made D600 and D800 like that in the first place!

    • Mrpong

      Nikon can do if they want to. It is no about technical constraint, but business or marketing people are too conservative.

    • Thom Hogan

      And Olympus sells fewer m4/3 cameras in the US than Nikon sells Nikon 1’s ;~). Just getting a product dialed in well isn’t the only issue a company has ;~)

    • mikeswitz

      They made my D800 just fine in the first place. Plenty of “grade and maturity. My Fuji X-Pro1 (which I love) needed some “maturity” when i first got it. What’s your point?

  • Mrpong

    We all know that DSLR segment decreases gradually every year. Thus, relying only on FX DSLR bodies is too risky.

    IMHO….in the long run….only way for Nikon to survive and fight against its competitors is to jump into mirrorless segment with larger sensor based on F-mount.

  • Randy

    I have this lens. I got from Tempe Camera in July. Its a great well built made in Japan metal lens.

    I see a lot of potential for the Nikon 1 line. It could very well become the game changer to digital photography that 35mm was to film photography. There was a time when very few photographers could imagine giving up their Rolliflexes and 120 film for a Nikkormat and some repackaged movie film.

    I would like to see a few fast primes added to the Nikon 1 lens line.

    • I tend to agree. It takes a shift in expectations and for viewers to start accepting it. There’s a learning curve involved, almost as if viewers need to “catch up” with the shift in what some would call “quality”. Don’t confuse quality with characteristics. Images made with a Nikon 1 are not necessarily worse than those from a D810, just different. Look at prints by people we consider “masters of photography” that were made from 35mm negatives. Ralph Gibson, Michael Kenna, Bruce Davidson, Robert Frank, Henri Cartier Bresson, Gary Winogrand. Many incredible images from these folks are, upon close examination, totally lacking in the qualities that come from medium format film and larger, yet they are beautiful and engaging nonetheless.

    • Narretz

      I think you are absolutely delusional. The Nikon 1 system has basically no advantages over the current generation of m43 / APS-C mirrorless. It’s not significantly smaller, the sensor performance is obviously weaker, lens selection is subpar. Granted, AF is great and the video features too, but it’s in no shape or form a “game changer”. It has been flatlining for 3 years now!

      • spicynujac

        Nikon invented the CX format because it didn’t want people to have the range of existing m4/3 lenses from Olympus/ Panasonic to buy. Otherwise I feel fairly certain they would have gone with this established standard. This pissed me off, but it worked, and I bought 4 Nikon 1 lenses for my AW1.

        The lens selection is technically subpar, but they do have most areas covered–good wide angle, good fast prime, this new telephoto (no macro yet but one is rumored). But keep in mind m4/3 is 6 years old and CX is new. I think Nikon 1 can help revolutionize photography–not because CX is superior to m4/3 in any way, but because of great AF, video, and innovative things like the underwater AW1. All they need is a 4th gen body that fixes so many complaints coming from the CX users.

        I still consider going Fuji or m4/3 or even D750 sometimes, but Nikon lured me in with something no other company offered–underwater AW1. The problem is that’s a small niche and they really need to step up their game to compete with m4/3 which is established and entrenched and offers some advantanges (Olympus built in vibration reduction, larger sensor size, larger lens selection, lens competition, etc.)

  • Herman

    whoever put together their roadmap over the past 3 years need to be fired 10 times in a row

    • arachnophilia

      i would hire that guy, just so i could have the pleasure of firing him again.

  • arachnophilia

    anyone see the new samsung body?

    20mp, 15 FPS, some 200-ish on-sensor focus points (150-ish of them contrast detect), and nearly full coverage of AF points?

    if it said “nikon” on the top, i’d buy it. at this rate, if it said “canon” on the top, i’d still consider it. second place is better than not competing at all.

    • MonkeySpanner

      Why is it a problem that is says “Samsung” on top of it? Nikon and Canon both would have to develop a new line of lenses for a new mirrorless platform like this. Samsung has a head start – not a lot of lenses – but the ones they do have are well regarded. I agree this is a very good (on paper) body. Lets wait and see the reviews and see how it focuses. If it is good – this is a game changer.

      • MonkeySpanner

        BTW – this is a new 28MP BSI CMOS sensor. Never been done in APS-C before (or any format larger than 1″). The sony 1″ sensors are BSI CMOS – and very well regarded. This sensor could be spectacular. Holding breath for test results.

        • HF

          Tried it a Photokina today. Was not impressed (but was probably not with newest firmware: camera hang up and focusing a model on a swing didn’t turn out well at 15fps), especially with build quality: the camera I had had cheap plastic wheels (could move them in axial direction) and the 4-way controller was looking cheap and felt flimsy, too. Didn’t expect that from a 1500 Euro body. EVF looked nice on the other hand. Maybe it’s because I use a Nikon D810 all the time.

          • MonkeySpanner

            Well that is disappointing to hear. I would expect Samsung to be able to put together a tight package seeing as they have expertise in this area. Hope production models don’t show the same cheapness. Also hope the AF system was just having a bad day. It would be a shame to have 15fps and crappy AF.

            • HF

              The model was swinging towards me at low velocity. AF was changing between background and model all the time. Compared to other mirrorless I used it was decent. But using the D810 with 50/1.8 I had with me it was no problem at all. The NX1 had the new 50-150/2.8 attached. Felt good, focussing was a little slower than 50-140/2.8 on XT1 I tried, too. But that is difficult to prove as the locations where in different areas and I didn;t see it directly side by side. But the build surprised me. Would like to here opinions from other people who had a chance to try it.

            • MonkeySpanner

              New body – new lens – new sensor array – maybe the firmware of both have not been finalized yet.

            • Maji

              Or perhaps Samsung is not ready for prime time yet…

              I do hope that this creates enough pressure on Nikon to release an updated D300 level DX camera. I don’t need it, but I feel there is a gap there in Nikon’s lineup that they can fill and make some money doing so.

            • MonkeySpanner

              Nikon did release an update to the D300 – it’s called the D750.

            • Maji

              I don’t think D750 is an update to the D300… FX vs. DX, build quality etc. are different. However, I consider the D750 to be an update of the D750, but giving up the AF-On button, higher fps with grip, and cheaper shutter (lower life and lower max shutter speed). However, it did give it an improved AF and of course a better sensor. Also, just body (no grip) fps is higher, but then many will complain that they need it, even though most of them did not own the grip.

            • MonkeySpanner

              And the debate goes on. I think FF is the new “high end aps-c”. I don’t think Nikon will ever release another aps-c body with the build and speed of the top pro bodies. The D300 was a product of it’s time. Nikon was still coming out of an era when the top body was a crop body. Yes, I know the D3 came before the D300 (I think). But still they were in that mindset. I don’t think we will see that again.

            • DX user

              The D3 and D300 came out at the same time (announced Aug 23, 2007).

            • MonkeySpanner

              OK. Great. So same era.

            • DX user

              No. D750 is an update to D610.

            • Andrew

              I think the next logical camera in line is the D7200 since they have updated all their other cameras. Hopefully they come out with it in the next few months. Then after that it is anyone’s guess. If they do come out with a D400, I suspect it will be a year from now.

            • HF

              I think so, too. I personally would have limited fps to lower values (e.g. 8-10fps) and concentrated more on the software/hardware implementation of the tracking. But the people aggressively advertised it w.r.t. highest fps at Photokina.

          • Maji

            The grass is greener on the other side till you reach the other side 🙂 Thank you for posting your first hand experience.

            • HF

              By the way. I really liked what I saw from the D750. I especially liked the deep grip, felt even better than the D810. Had to wait for 45 minutes to get to the camera, lots of people tried it sticking their cards and lenses in/on it. GAS! (Another cool thing is to attach all the Zeiss lenses to your camera. 135/2 APO is awsome!).

      • Andrew

        Samsung destroys markets. They make me too products and lower the price until they hurt the competition. Not that they do not have some innovative products, but in photography, they will not get my money! In photography, I would advocate supporting a few strong companies like Nikon, Canon, and Sony and not support just any company that comes to saturate the market. I have bought Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, and Olympus cameras (including Sony camcorders), and I am happy with those brands. Let Samsung make their thousands of other products, they do not need my help.

      • arachnophilia

        > Why is it a problem that is says “Samsung” on top of it?

        because it means investing in a new (and at this point, unproven) system. really, even if it said “nikon” on top, and didn’t have good support for F-mount lenses (at least through an adapter, with full functionality) i probably wouldn’t consider it either.

  • caneshooter

    I just wrote a piece about how I incorporate the Nikon 1 into my toolkit: http://www.jcridleyphotos.com/jcridley/2014/09/18/my-lovehate-relationship-with-nikon-1/

    • EnglishPaul

      Good write up and great pictures. Excellent set up for sports, birding extreme reach like you say. People are far too quick to dismiss ‘moan’ about these small sensor cameras.

  • benhosed

    “Yes, it [a professional mirrorless camera] might happen one day, but we cannot offer a second best solution for professionals…”

    But until Nikon figures out how to beat the awesome products that Fuji is turning out all that they will ever offer is a second best mirrorless solution….

    • Thom Hogan

      But this is the problem: the V3 and the X-T1 solve very different problems, actually. There’s room for both to be successful in the market.

      • Michiel953

        Just got a V3 for my wife. Great for filming our now 16 months old twins. I hope…

        • fjfjjj

          Cool story, bro.

      • Robert F.

        Neither Nikon or Canon are prepared to take a chance on mirrorless yet, largely because of the perception that it would represent a poor ROI, and that it might eat into their DSLR sales. Both of which are valid points.

        Unfortunately, the flip side of the equation is that mirrorless is here to stay, ultimately will be less expensive to produce … and as a serious alternative represents an inevitable move for them. Meanwhile, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, etc. are making gains in this realm every year.

        Dirk Jasper’s remarks about “acceptance by professionals”; “second best solutions”; etc. is a bit misleading, frankly. If and when Nikon determines this is the way to go — on a serious scale — they’ll likely pull the rest of the industry with them (except that the rest of the industry is ALREADY starting to go there). Or, if Canon makes that decision first, you can bet that Nikon will have something to show the public the next day.

        Bottom line: it’s not a question of “if”, it’s just a question of “when”. And Nikon is walking a tightrope determining when that “when” should be.

        • Thom Hogan

          Well, neither of us are privy to the actual numbers. However, remember that Nikon made a huge thing about how few parts were in the Nikon 1 models (2000, often >3000). In theory, if you do that kind of parts reduction right, you establish strong ROI.

          Witness what Sony has done with the A7 models versus their DSLRs. I’m pretty sure the ROI on the A7’s is higher on manufacturing basis, simply because the costs are lower. I’m not convinced that the development ROI was higher, either.

          Canon and Nikon did what any duopoly would do when threatened with a near disruption: they hedged their bets. At the moment, mirrorless total shipments are about one-third that of DSLRs, though actual sales at original price don’t come close to that.

          I can’t completely fault either company for entering the mirrorless market, but I can fault them for the details on how they handled that. Nikon actually tried marketing the Nikon 1 extensively (big dollar campaign), but the marketing was off target, especially given the price/performance.

          I’ve already said that Canon and Nikon DSLRs will eventually lose their mirrors. They’ll do so when no compromises are involved with that, and they’ll do that because it lowers costs. In some ways, all that cameras like the E-M1, X-T1, and GH4 are doing is showing Canon and Nikon what the future DSLR may look like.

          • Robert F.

            I think ROI requires much more than parts reduction. Though I suppose one could argue that the 1-Series may have also served as a test-bed for new technologies, not just the validity of mirrorless in the marketplace.

    • I can’t speak fully about Fuji because I only own and use a X100s, but I can tell you that I am totally underwhelmed by it. Build quality feels cheap (lots of reviewers praise it for its great build quality), the camera seems to clip blacks really fast, especially in JPG mode where it is supposed to be really good, handling is a pain, try turning on and off the built in ND filter, it takes ages. I only use it when my D700 is too much camera, like when meeting family and friends or when I really don’t want to be noticed due to the immensely loud shutter of the D700.

      A big part of the hype about the Fuji cameras is internet fuzz and really well done marketing and aesthetic design (the xpro1, x100 and x-t1 are indeed beautiful cameras). The other part is Fuji making lenses that people really want to use like the 56mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4 and 14mm 2.8. But this is nothing that you can’t find in Nikon land especially since the new 1.8 primes which are essentially the same size as their Fuji equivalents.

      • benhosed

        I own an X-E2 and an X-T1and the build quality of both of them are very nice. The X100 do seem to have a cheaper feel and look to them. I only shoot RAW no matter what camera I am using and I’ve been extremely happy with the images that come out of the X-E2 and the X-T1. As soon as Fuji decides to cram a full frame sensor in one of those two bodies Sony is done. The lenses the Fuji has been releasing are beautifully manufactured as well. They have a nice heavy feel of quality about them that you just don’t get with the Nikon 1 lenses. I have a Nikon 1 V2 and while the build quality is exceptional I’ve never been impressed with the image quality. That tiny little sensor seems to make for really noisy images. It may be great for taking snapshots while on vacation but that’s about it. This is probably why this camera spends a lot of time in my desk drawer instead of out being used.

        • Hmm I didn’t even get warm with the raw images of the fuji. I only shoot raw but since everybody raved about the JPGs I thought I ll give them a shot. Anyway I doubt we will see a full frame sensor from fuji any time soon. At least this is what lens releases like the 50-140 2.8, 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 are suggesting.

  • reductron

    Here is a true, alas crude, thought I had yesterday contemplating the future of cameras. I envision the camera shrinking to essentially few components: sensor, processor (e.g expeed7zxi), shutter, and a form of wireless communication. All inside a black cuboid. One button for On/Off and nothing else. All buttons, dials and controls familiar on today’s camera are relegated to software running on a portable device – be it a mobile phone, or a dedicated device/OS.
    The device would be natural-language ready. You’d simply tell it in your own language what you’d like. Example: set to S priority 500 WB cloudy zoom to 90 disable VR …. aaaaand shoot. shoot. continuous high shoot… stop. Off. (you pack ur stuff and move to next location.)
    The cuboid would simply attach to end of lens.

    • Thom Hogan

      I believe I wrote this before, but one of the MRD (marketing requirement document) specifications I wrote for the original Quickcam was “fewest number of parts to get data from image sensor to the Mac it is connected to at full speed.”

      It’s easy to add parts to products, it’s difficult to define products with as few parts as possible, and it absolutely requires that you think in both the software/hardware realm.

      • Michiel953

        It requires logical, analytical thinking and, assuming it’s not a one man job, actual communication between designers (and a firm lead) as well. Modern digitally driven products sometimes appear to have been designed by a random group of extremely intelligent but socially inept specialists.

        As they say, they “should get out more”.

    • whisky

      even simpler than that. you tell the camera what you want to take a picture of, and it guides you to the spot. the flip side to this is you tell your computer what you want, and it’ll manufacture the final image.

      • At some time in the mid-range future Google will have photographs of every conceivable subject from an infinite number of vantage points at all times of day and days of the year and will make it available as an extension of StreetView, Maps or Google Earth. Type in what you want and click away. Glad I’m retiring soon.

        • Robert F.

          Even with all of that, photography will not be over. The two will simply co-exist in parallel, because what you describe will be for specific applications. Every conceivable circumstance and situation cannot possibly be covered.

          • Sorry, Robert, I was being sarcastic.

            • Robert F.

              Your “prediction” might not be quite as far fetched as you imagine, actually. 😉

            • whisky

              here i thought you were being serious about the Hummel. 🙂

    • Jon Ingram

      Interesting thoughts

    • fjfjjj

      This would be great for intimate portraiture and red carpet alike. Turn your face a little this way. Open up a little. No, the aperture, not your mouth.

  • Mrpong

    We all know that DSLR segment decreases every year and is replaced gradually by mirrorless. Relying on FF bodies is too risk. In the long term, only one way for surviving is to jump seriously to mirrorless segment with large sensor (APS-C) based on F-mount. Maybe the resurrection of DX.

  • cppguy16

    Most professionals use a mirrorless camera as well, and it tends to be not Nikon or Canon.

    • Haha 🙂 No they don’t. I know quite a few professionals, and for certain genres (many events, especially low light, and sports of course) mirrorless is absent. In some genres, some professionals are investing into a secondary mirrorless system (I’m considering it too, eyeing Fuji’s offers). And some professionals have switched, among them a few high-profile ones that might give you the impression, but very few of my pro contacts actuallly use mirrorless full time.

  • Matthew Saville Baldon

    Considering how adamant Nikon was about the awesomeness of their D2X right up until they announced the D3, and then considering how game-changing the D3 was, I’m 100% certain that “Yes, it might happen one day” probably just means “hold on to your hats and glasses, because when we DO deliver, it will shame everything else out there…”

    Glass half full, yada yada…
    =Matt=

    • Lcky

      I half agree with you 😉

    • Robert F.

      Historically, there has been precedent for Nikon doing just that. So you may well be right. To under-promise and over-deliver could catch some competitors off-guard.

  • Roy Prasad

    A lot of interesting insights… Thanks to everyone for your comments. I’m a long-time reader, but highly infrequent poster… I’ll throw in my 2 cents’ worth.

    Over the years, I have accumulated a number of my favorite Nikkor AI-S and Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. I use all my AF Nikkor lenses with my D810, whenever I need autofocus. No-brainer. When I don’t have the luxury of time, when the environment is dictating me, I have to go into a production mode. Meaning, I need fast, reliable autofocus, and I trust my D810 (in the past, D4, D800E, D3S) to take care of business. Shoot first, ask questions later.

    But when I am more in control of my environment, and when I am not hurried, I love to use my manual focus lenses – be it a Nikkor AI-S or a Zeiss ZF.2. Problem is, it is a royal pain to use them with my D810. Nikon doesn’t even bother to provide a manual focusing screen. Even with Live View, the improved LCD resolution, and better “on the fly” JPEG rendition in the D810, manual focusing is simply not an enjoyable experience. So for all my manual focusing, I use my Sony A7R with a Novoflex adapter. The live view on the A7R with focus peaking makes it a breeze to nail focus every time. It is really a shame that I can’t use my Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 or 85/1.4 or my 1955 Jena Biotar 75/1.5 on my D810.

    In the ideal world, Nikon would have a D900 or something that was a completely EVF based mirrorless camera with an F mount. But absent that, I wish Nikon at least provided an optional hot-shoe mounted EVF.

    • Charlie

      It is pretty ridiculous that Nikon hasn’t started providing any camera systems with focus peaking yet. Panasonic is leading the pack right now with the gh4 imho. Sony’s cameras are pretty nice too.

      • Neopulse

        It has to due with licensing. You just can’t steal a patent or copy and expect to get away with it.

        • whisky
          • Neopulse

            Yeah, as does Fuji (although the focus peaking on the X-E2 I don’t personally like). They’ve had that patent technically since 2009. Will read more into it, but keep reading CCD rather than CMOS if you glide to FIG. 8.

            • whisky

              i don’t pretend to be a patent expert, but the line “… by capturing an image of a subject by an image-capturing device such as a CCD.” seems to imply CCD or similar.

            • Neopulse

              Yeah, it does say that up above the “CCD or similar” yes, but they make CCD sound like the norm somewhat. Like the canvas is to painting, even though there are frescos in the world. In the end, there is a patent ultimately yes for it. There is a patent also for swappable sensors and that hasn’t seen the light of our eyes yet sadly. Thank you though for posting this patent. It’ll be a great read.

      • Roy Prasad

        The challenge is technology. When you have an OVF, you have an unblocked optical path from the subject to the eye. There is simply no way to overlay any marks or peak focus highlights onto what you see in the OVF.

        So in the traditional DSLR paradigm (i.e., no translucent mirror, etc.), there are really only two methods to provide focus peaking highlights on an image: one, with an external EVF (e.g., hot-shoe mounted); or two, on the LCD back, in Live View.

        And I agree, it’s ridiculous that Nikon has not supported focus peaking through one of the above two methods, especially, in Live View – that requires no additional hardware. Really no excuse for it.

    • Curious that, for all your concern over image quality (ultra-premium cameras, lenses, implied tripods), you mention shooting jpegs.

      • Roy Prasad

        “you mention shooting jpegs” – I did not. That was your editorial.

        When you take a picture, even if you shoot RAW, what you see on the LCD is a quick-and-dirty JPEG rendering by the camera that is nowhere near ACR or Capture One in its sophistication. When you use Live View, what you see on the LCD is an even further simplified JPEG rendering that attempts to minimize the delay between real time and what you see in Live View.

        In the D800/D800E, that JPEG conversion was terrible, with hideous JPEG artifacts that became very visible when zoomed in. That seriously interfered with Live View. The D810 has a vastly improved JPEG rendering that may not be perfect in terms of WB, colors, etc., but at least, you can clearly see the features of your subject when focus is achieved, without being smothered by fuzzy JPEG artifacts.

        • My “editorial”? Really? Thank you for explaining your working terminology.

        • peter

          Would be STUPID to encode a jpg just to decode to the screen. Would only introduce latency.
          Still, they might to it that way, do you have any proof?

          • Roy Prasad

            Whether it is actually encoded into a *.jpg format is irrelevant, and no, the camera likely does not encode the image data as JPEG, only to decode it right back in order to display it on the LCD. The display controller is almost certainly driven directly from some Nikon proprietary image data format internal to the camera.

            The point is, what you see on the LCD is how the camera would save the image as a JPEG. In other words, the camera shows you the image as it exists after all the image processing is done, and just prior to the process of encoding into JPEG. That is why even if you shoot RAW, you see all the Picture Control effects in the LCD image, either in play back or in Live View.

            If you look at the LCD in live view with a loupe like a Zacuto Z-finder, on a D800E, the image is really mangled, with what appear to be JPEG artifacts. Perhaps they are not JPEG artifacts, but whatever they are, you see a lot of crappy structures that make it hard to tell if your image is really in good focus or not.

            On the D810, Nikon fixed it – you see very clean images now in Live View. You can also set the sharpness to max to facilitate focusing, and of course, that would have no impact on the RAW images.

  • Mrpong

    If it’s true that Nikon will convert their DX line into mirrorless format based on F-mount, this may be the smart move and interesting strategy for Nikon in long run. The segment for bulky DSLR bodies decreases every year. Currently it seems that they focus too much on FX bodies and leave DX users bewildered.

    • Matt012

      F-mount requires mirror. It cannot work without mirror.

      • As far as I know, F mount doesn’t require a mirror, but it was designed with a flange distance (to sensor) to accommodate a mirrorbox. What this means is that removing the mirror is not a problem, making thinner bodies is. However, I don’t really see that as a big problem. They could still do a body style similar to the Df (or maybe even a few millimetres thinner). For a pro system, you need that much to balance fast zoom lenses. Check out the size of the upcoming 40-150 Fuji F/2.8 – that lens would achieve the best balance on an X-PRO style body, which is very close in dimensions to the Nikon Df.

        • Bengt Nyman

          Agreed! Shortening the flange distance is neither necessary nor desirable. Getting rid of moving parts and mirror slap is. A Nikon FF, mirrorless pro body will be very welcome.

    • peter

      They will not make a mirrorless F-mount.
      But they will provide an adapter, just like they do to the 1 system.

  • Mike

    Nikon once said, outright, no to full frame sensor. Then it came. Here they are saying “mirrorless full frame will come one day” which basically means, in Nikon speak, that they are working on it. I think Sony’s success is showing them it can be done. But for Nikon the improved upon user experience and backwards compatibility over the Sony system is paramount.

    • Neopulse

      Not sure if Sony has had such success on the a7 series though. Barely 2 months after the release of the a7 and a7R they were throwing sales like crazy and at even crazier prices. Not that I’m complaining because honestly Sony always charges a premium on things they produce. I could be mistaken that the camera didn’t sell so well. Maybe they did, but they just wanted to create incentive in order to have people try or switch from the popular brands.

      And if they are working on it, I really hope they try it out on the next full frame generation in 2015. Whether it replaces a line or not, would like to see a “D500” (terrible name I know) mirrorless camera to test the waters. And I’m pretty sure they will be surprised.

      • Michiel953

        What’s a “sony”?

    • I know they said that, but you wonder how committed to DX they were, even then, as you look at the lack of professional options they created for the DX lens line-up. Actions speak louder than words.

      • Neopulse

        Yeah, but back then there were Full-Frame lenses and it was used on their DX sensors. Like the FF 80-200mm AF-D on a D1-2 cameras And I think the entry-level consumer DX came about in 2006. And I think there they actually started making DX lenses rather than just FF.

        • What I’m talking about are lenses like dedicated DX primes…14mm, 18mm, 32mm. F/2 or f/1.4. The kind of things we’re seeing from Fuji. They could have done it, but didn’t.

          • Neopulse

            Well that’s true. Damn true. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    • peter

      Could you provide a link backing up that Nikon ever said ‘no to full frame sensor’.

      • Mike

        No I can’t. But I have a good memory. And as late as 2006 people were asking “where is our 5D?”. Nikon users defended DX (vs Canon) as either the good enough format or it being the new way. In many interview snippets from execs done at camera shows, Nikon verbally threw full support behind DX and had no plans for FX sensors. So it wasn’t an outright quote that I presented, more a summary of what we were hearing pre-2007. Admin might have more access to some of those old interviews.

  • My wife got hers in June, here in Sweden, and a couple of others I know of have bought it locally, too, but mine hasn’t arrived yet!

  • I didn’t get the memo about pros being caught dead with the Nikon 1 system, because I’ve had plenty of photos published with the Nikon 1 V1.

    What many don’t realize is that publishing a photo in a magazine is not as technically demanding as a gallery print as there’s less apparent resolution, less color gamut, less exposure range, and so on, so a shot from a V1 that’s been well composed, well exposed, and not heavily cropped can get it done.

    http://www.whatblogisthis.blogspot.com/2013/12/nikon-1-v1-good-enough-to-be-a-cam.html

    The V2 and V3, with their usability improvements and increased megapickles are even better tools, and all of them are more than enough for the 2k-4k rigors of digital publishing to iPads and whatnot as well.

    That’s not to say that I’m content with Nikon’s progress with the system. Far from it. I’d love to see RX100 III level sensor performance in the 1 V4, not because I NEED it (see above) but because I WANT it. Shooting stories with the V1 is a bit of a highwire act – it’s a long fall if you get things wrong. I WANT better sensor performance as a safety net and to give me a bit more to work with in post, lifting shadows, recovering highlights, etc.

    Until then, I’ll continue to travel with DSLRs, but I can’t wait for the Nikon 1 system to grow up.

    • Well put. There are many newspapers using files shot with reporter’s mobile phones (Chicago Trib). Magazines are using Nikon 1s as you say, and similar small sensor cameras. Less room for error, but it can be done, and done well.

  • KnightPhoto

    I’ve had my 70-300mm CX since late June here in Canada. My dealer has at least 10 orders for more including a couple buddies once they saw what mine can do. Word is out on this lens.

    • KnightPhoto

      Meant to mention my buddies both bought V2 while they wait for the lens.

  • David Trachtenbarg

    Ordered one shortly after announced that arrived the end of July. Images seem sharper than 10-100 lens. One dissatisfier is inability to easily attach a tripod without the $50 Nikon adapter that is still on back order. Overall happy with lens.

    • whisky

      Adorama sent me my tripod adapter back in July.
      i haven’t seen another since.

  • Denis Lynch

    Nikon1 V3 Grip $99 on Ebay!

  • Captain Megaton

    Parsing these interviews is usually a complete waste of time. By their nature, these people are are being forced to say something while they can say nothing at all.

    If there is anything more to this than just a face value hypothetical, its possible (probable) that Nikon is looking into the idea of an F-mount, dSLR-style EVF camera. But then, they’d be foolish not to at least have it on the backburner for the day such a camera would become truly desirable.

  • Back to top