|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nikon 1 Hands On Review
Pre production prototype http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/hands-on-nikon-v1-review-2 Spoiler conclusion: "It will be interesting to see how Nikon markets this camera. With a price point of £829 (including 10-30mm kit lens) RRP, this is a very expensive proposition for somebody who is used to spending less than £200 on a compact camera, while existing Nikon owners may feel disappointed by the small sensor size." Sep 23 11 08:09 am Link ...or, to paraphrase my esteemed colleague on another site, isn't that the camera that used to come free with a subscription to TIME Magazine? Sep 23 11 08:41 am Link The small sensor does not particularly bother me, but I was hoping for more external controls. It would appear that these cameras are targetting casual shooters. People shooting vacation or family photos, that for some reason do not want a point and shoot. I can understand why Nikon choose to go after this segment, which potentially is very profitable. Personally, I was hoping that the mirrorless Nikon would be more like a 'poor man's Leica M9', minus the FF sensor. A well built compact all metal camera with external controls for everything. That might have been a little too much to hope for. Sep 23 11 09:10 am Link Wish it had a few more MP's and I wish the flash use the CLS system. I also don't like the idea of certain modes being buried on sub menu's for the sake of keeping a minimalist look to it. Still it is intriguing... if I had unlimited funds... still I would wait for V2. Sep 23 11 09:21 am Link I don't understand why they went with this CX sensor. If they had used their DX sensor I suspect people would feel much better about the system. Sony is doing it with their NEX line. Hell, the Nex-7 has 24mp. How can a tiny sensor match that image quality? Sep 23 11 05:27 pm Link Tim Little Photography wrote: judging by the imaging-resource test images...it can't even match m43, nevermind the nex7. Sep 23 11 05:29 pm Link It's not aimed at us, it's aimed at the P&S crowd who want a little more... Let's face the facts, the majority of the people who are buying SLR cameras would really be better served with a P&S! Sep 23 11 06:42 pm Link Tim Little Photography wrote: 1) Nikon wanted a mirrorless product that wouldn't canibalize existing sales of F-mount cameras and lenses. Sony wasn't getting the sales it wanted with the Alpha, so that wasn't a concern for them. Sep 24 11 08:10 am Link ACPhotography wrote: If it's a camera aimed at the P&S crowd, why would they price it higher than every entry level DSLR and most other Mirrorless ILC cameras? Sep 24 11 08:50 am Link o k u t a k e wrote: Because they can??? Sep 24 11 09:06 am Link o k u t a k e wrote: I agree with ACR Photography... because they can. Sep 24 11 01:52 pm Link No hotshoe? Fail! I'd get the Canon G12 before the Nikon V1, for that reason alone. Sep 24 11 01:56 pm Link In an interview with DPReview, the head of Nikon R&D, Mr Suzuki explains they were targeting the P&S buyers when they designed these cameras and were aiming at the lower end of the market. Look at the last paragraph of this article!: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/328171 … mpressions Enthusiasts and Pro's will naturally be disappointed because they are not P&S and lower end. They will take their money elsewhere... The P&S buyers will love this camera... until they see the price tag. Well used to having a budget of $200, the P&S crowd will choke when they see the cost... at a time when a global financial crises is at the crossroads. The target market just vanished in thin air... Sep 26 11 01:00 am Link Raoul Isidro Imaging wrote: And aren't 'enthusiasts' at least a good 50% of the market? That camera is WAY TOO EXPENSIVE for the 'point and shoot' populous. And he's right... they definitely WILL take their money elsewhere... like to Sony and Panasonic. I'm predicting that camera will be a total flop and go down in flames in less than 3 years... Sep 26 11 01:12 am Link Select Models wrote: You are very generous... Sep 26 11 01:15 am Link Paul Bryson Photography wrote: +1, plus why didn't they spend their time developing a real camera? Sep 26 11 01:18 am Link NYC Photo Studio - NYC wrote: While I do agree that the Nikon name goes a long way, I still don't think it makes a lot of sense. Even Nikon makes better cameras for less money. Nikon can charge as much as they want, but that doesn't mean people will flock to buy it. Sep 26 11 02:40 am Link http://www.eoshd.com/content/4216/nikon … ge-quality Doesn't look good for the Nikon 1. I remain surprised at this camera from a company who generally I respect. I don't see who they were targeting. It has a limited sensor and slow lenses, so it's not targeting quality, so maybe they were heading for the lower end of the market? However, it doesn't have a low price, so maybe they were heading for niche? However, it doesn't seem to have niche features... So who are they expecting to buy it? The only conclusion I can come to is "people who don't know any better" and that's a pretty poor marketing decision IMO. It's a shame. I do think Nikon could have done VERY well in this market, but they've just made a mistake IMO. It's, simply, the wrong camera at the wrong price. Maybe it will still sell well to an unsuspecting public, but I suspect it will die off. Sep 26 11 02:55 am Link Phil Drinkwater wrote: I think you have just invented a new "niche" market segment! Sep 26 11 03:01 am Link Raoul Isidro Imaging wrote: Haha! Sep 26 11 03:08 am Link |
