«

Rich <> wrote:
>Compared to any of the other mirror-less cameras (apart from the diminutive
>Pentax which has produced some very erratic quality in sample images) the
>Nikon comes up somewhat short. However, if people like a solid product, I
>handled the V1 and found it to be as solid as the old Panasonic GF1. The
>freakish thing was seeing small, pricey PINK lenses that are available for
>the cheaper model Nikon.


But the pink lenses will fit either the J1 or the V1, as they have the
same mount.

You say you like the solid build of the V1, I say it looks ineptly
designed (who on earth signed off that EVF "bulge"?) and the finish is
cheap. I was particularly disappointed by the poor quality of the
Nikon branding, "1" and "V1" on the front of the camera, the engraving
on the lens and the flimsy four way control pad.

However, the one I handled was a pre-production sample, so it might be
that the final version could be better, except for the EVF bulge.

On Oct 15, 5:49*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Compared to any of the other mirror-less cameras (apart from the diminutive
> >Pentax which has produced some very erratic quality in sample images) the
> >Nikon comes up somewhat short. *However, if people like a solid product, I
> >handled the V1 and found it to be as solid as the old Panasonic GF1. *The
> >freakish thing was seeing small, pricey PINK lenses that are available for
> >the cheaper model Nikon.
>
> But the pink lenses will fit either the J1 or the V1, as they have the
> same mount. *
>
> You say you like the solid build of the V1, I say it looks ineptly
> designed (who on earth signed off that EVF "bulge"?) and the finish is
> cheap. *I was particularly disappointed by the poor quality of the
> Nikon branding, "1" and "V1" on the front of the camera, the engraving
> on the lens and the flimsy four way control pad.
>
> However, the one I handled was a pre-production sample, so it might be
> that the final version could be better, except for the EVF bulge. *

The word, "minimalist" is going to appear in regard to the Nikon. One
of the Nikon reps was very incensed that people out there have already
consigned it to the waste bin, saying it will fit two markets very
well, those with DSLR's needing a high-quality back-up and those
migrating from P&S's who don't want DSLR's. We'll see...

RichA <> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 5:49*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >Compared to any of the other mirror-less cameras (apart from the diminutive
>> >Pentax which has produced some very erratic quality in sample images) the
>> >Nikon comes up somewhat short. *However, if people like a solid product, I
>> >handled the V1 and found it to be as solid as the old Panasonic GF1. *The
>> >freakish thing was seeing small, pricey PINK lenses that are available for
>> >the cheaper model Nikon.
>>
>> But the pink lenses will fit either the J1 or the V1, as they have the
>> same mount. *
>>
>> You say you like the solid build of the V1, I say it looks ineptly
>> designed (who on earth signed off that EVF "bulge"?) and the finish is
>> cheap. *I was particularly disappointed by the poor quality of the
>> Nikon branding, "1" and "V1" on the front of the camera, the engraving
>> on the lens and the flimsy four way control pad.
>>
>> However, the one I handled was a pre-production sample, so it might be
>> that the final version could be better, except for the EVF bulge. *
>
>The word, "minimalist" is going to appear in regard to the Nikon. One
>of the Nikon reps was very incensed that people out there have already
>consigned it to the waste bin, saying it will fit two markets very
>well, those with DSLR's needing a high-quality back-up and those
>migrating from P&S's who don't want DSLR's. We'll see...


An incensed Nikon rep? We've had exactly the same reaction here.
Dealers are very critical of the product because of its small sensor
and low pixel count (combining to give disappointing performance) and
the ridiculously high price.

The Nikon reps are *very* defensive. They have been well briefed and
all chant the same mantra: "It isn't about the sensor size, and it
isn't about the pixel count. It's about the performance."

Yes, the camera has stunning AF performance. Yes, it can shoot 60
frames per second. Yes, the lenses have very effective VR. But while
these features are welcome, the problem is the market positioning.

Nikon thinks the 1 System is a masterstroke because it opens up a new
market between p+s/superzoom at one end and DSLR at the other, without
overlapping with either. They are really, really pleased with
themselves. Dealers, on the other hand, are scratching their heads
wondering how to market a system that, in terms of image quality,
seems to fall short of Four Thirds and definitely well short of NEX.

But who knows? Nikon may be right and the dealers wrong. The dealers
are very keen to sell them, they just aren't sure who to, and how.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:53:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
: On Oct 15, 5:49*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: > >Compared to any of the other mirror-less cameras (apart from the diminutive
: > >Pentax which has produced some very erratic quality in sample images) the
: > >Nikon comes up somewhat short. *However, if people like a solid product, I
: > >handled the V1 and found it to be as solid as the old Panasonic GF1. *The
: > >freakish thing was seeing small, pricey PINK lenses that are available for
: > >the cheaper model Nikon.
: >
: > But the pink lenses will fit either the J1 or the V1, as they have the
: > same mount. *
: >
: > You say you like the solid build of the V1, I say it looks ineptly
: > designed (who on earth signed off that EVF "bulge"?) and the finish is
: > cheap. *I was particularly disappointed by the poor quality of the
: > Nikon branding, "1" and "V1" on the front of the camera, the engraving
: > on the lens and the flimsy four way control pad.
: >
: > However, the one I handled was a pre-production sample, so it might be
: > that the final version could be better, except for the EVF bulge. *
:
: The word, "minimalist" is going to appear in regard to the Nikon. One
: of the Nikon reps was very incensed that people out there have already
: consigned it to the waste bin, saying it will fit two markets very
: well, those with DSLR's needing a high-quality back-up and those
: migrating from P&S's who don't want DSLR's. We'll see...

What DSLR user wants a backup camera that won't take the same lenses as his
primary camera? For that matter, who's going to actually buy a new backup
camera? Doesn't everyone use one of his old cameras as a backup?

Bob

Robert Coe <> wrote:

>What DSLR user wants a backup camera that won't take the same lenses as his
>primary camera?


My backup camera won't take any of my Nikon lenses. It is a Canon
Powershot G9.

The Powershot G Series sells in very large numbers to DSLR users who
want a backup camera.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:51:25 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2011-10-15 14:11:29 -0700, Bruce <> said:
:
: > Robert Coe <> wrote:
: >
: >> What DSLR user wants a backup camera that won't take the same lenses
: >> as his primary camera?
: >
: >
: > My backup camera won't take any of my Nikon lenses. It is a Canon
: > Powershot G9.
: >
: > The Powershot G Series sells in very large numbers to DSLR users who
: > want a backup camera.
:
: My digital bag looks something like this; Nikon D300s "workhorse DSLR",
: Canon G11 "something compact when I need it", Nikon D70, "lifeboat
: DSLR". ...

The disconnect between Bruce's opinion and mine may be a matter of
terminology. To me, the D70 is your backup camera, since it backs up your
D300s. Your G11 serves a different purpose, which I wouldn't call "backup". If
the G9 really is, by my definition, Bruce's backup camera, I suspect it's
because he's eyeing a camera that doesn't exist yet, such as the putative
D800. Most serious photographers (and the evidence suggests that Bruce is one)
wouldn't dream of being without a second camera that accepts their preferred
lenses.

: I had seriously considered getting a D700, but the funds have been
: spent on other stuff.
:
: Now I am still weighing my pro & con points for moving to FF. and I am
: finding fewer and fewer personal pros at this stage. The D300s does
: fine for 19x13 prints (even the D70 let me print some decent 19x13's),
: and I don't do that much low light shooting. Well, not another $2K
: worth of low light shooting.
:
: Sigh! Maybe next year.

My thinking pretty much mirrors yours. I maintain a FF wish list at B&H, but
it's almost entirely hypothetical. It would cost me more than $8000 to
implement it, and every rationale I've come up with to spend that kind of
money is unconvincing.

We recently made up a large print of one of Martha's pictures to give as a
wedding present, and it came out great. After it was done, I was surprised to
notice that the picture had been taken not with her 18MP T2i, but with her old
10MP XTi. The experience did nothing to persuade me that my own 15 and 18MP
cameras are insufficiently large.

As you say, maybe next year (or the year after). :^)

Bob

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:0f2d626c-5826-4de9-a0d9-...
>One of the Nikon reps was very incensed that people out there
>have already consigned it to the waste bin, saying it will fit two
> markets very well, those with DSLR's needing a high-quality
>back-up and those migrating from P&S's who don't want DSLR's.

Or more likely NOT fit either very well at all!

Trevor.

"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Robert Coe <> wrote:
>>
>>>What DSLR user wants a backup camera that won't take the same lenses as
>>>his
>>>primary camera?
>>
>>
>> My backup camera won't take any of my Nikon lenses. It is a Canon
>> Powershot G9.
>>
>> The Powershot G Series sells in very large numbers to DSLR users who
>> want a backup camera.
>>
>
>Usually, a backup cam would be something that resembles somewhat one's
>primary cam, both in image quality and performance, something like a 7D
>backing-up a 5D2, or something similar.


That's a matter of personal choice, Dudley. Tastes differ.

I own four DSLR bodies, a Nikon D3, a Nikon D7000, a Kodak DCS Pro 14n
and a Hasselblad H3D-39. I use them all for different purposes. The
D3 is great for high ISOs, the Kodak is incomparably good in the
studio and at low ISOs, the D7000 gives my telephoto lenses extra
reach when needed and the Hasselblad fulfils the requirements of a
3-year contract with a real estate agent.

To some extent, they all back up each other but at the same time, they
have a near equal part to play. The backup to all of these is the
Canon Powershot G9. I don't leave home without it.

It is soon to be replaced with a very similar Nikon Coolpix P7100
because of its significantly lower noise at medium ISOs and a 28-200mm
(equivalent) lens rather than the G9's 35-200mm.


>To me, the G-series cams would be more like the tool of last resort if the
>DSLRs were left behind, stolen or killed by some sort of unholy disaster...
>
>
>That's the part my SX120IS plays...


My G9 is a long way from being a tool of last resort. I sell news
images to local, regional and sometimes national newspapers, and the
majority of these are taken with the G9. So it isn't just a backup,
it is the camera that I would never want to be without.

Or, to be more precise, its D7100 replacement will be the camera that
I will never want to be without.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>My digital bag looks something like this; Nikon D300s "workhorse DSLR",
>Canon G11 "something compact when I need it", Nikon D70, "lifeboat
>DSLR".
>...and I also have a FujiFilm E900, which does as good a job with IQ as
>the G11, but has a pretty kludgy PIA menu system.
>
>I had seriously considered getting a D700, but the funds have been
>spent on other stuff.
>
>Now I am still weighing my pro & con points for moving to FF. and I am
>finding fewer and fewer personal pros at this stage. The D300s does
>fine for 19x13 prints (even the D70 let me print some decent 19x13's),
>and I don't do that much low light shooting. Well, not another $2K
>worth of low light shooting.
>
>Sigh! Maybe next year.


When the new Nikon DSLRs arrive, and at least one is imminent, you
will see a rush to the new models and there will be a lot of used D700
bodies available. Used prices will drop significantly.

But if you don't need one, you don't need one.

Robert Coe <> wrote:
>The disconnect between Bruce's opinion and mine may be a matter of
>terminology. To me, the D70 is your backup camera, since it backs up your
>D300s. Your G11 serves a different purpose, which I wouldn't call "backup". If
>the G9 really is, by my definition, Bruce's backup camera, I suspect it's
>because he's eyeing a camera that doesn't exist yet, such as the putative
>D800. Most serious photographers (and the evidence suggests that Bruce is one)
>wouldn't dream of being without a second camera that accepts their preferred
>lenses.


My reply to Dudley explains all. Please read.