New Nikon 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 Announced

Nikon wouldn't make a lens like this unless it had considerably bigger plans for the 1 series in the future. Expect better featured bodies aimed at enthusiasts in coming releases, methinks.

At last year's PMA in Melbourne, I had the chance to handle the Nikon V1 and Oly EM-5. The EM-5 blew me away and it is in my camera bag right now, but the Nikon V1 surprised the heck out of me. I was not expecting something so small yet so responsive. I'm not sure where Nikon's direction is regarding model stratification, but if they have the pros and enthusiasts with their DSLR range, the consumers with the Coolpix range, then the 1 series is ... where?
 
I have had a V1 now for a few months with the 10 30 and the FT-1, (which is/was almost as expensive as the V1 body)
I do not find it anything special and in fact I prefer my Canon S95 in lots of ways, for me it has not had anywhere near the impact that say the G1 or EP-1 had.
Sizewise it is not particularly small. IQwise nothing special and with non V1 lenses, (i.e. Nikon AFS stuff), the AF speed at longer reaches is slow

I expected the x 2.7 crop to be especially useful when used with the FT1. I have used it with the FT1, plus 50mm f1.8G, 70 300mm, 300m f4 and 70 200 f2.8VR plus a few others ....... not really impressed at all.

It is useful to carry around with my DSLR in the same bag as the battery is the same as the D7100, D7000.

an annoying aspects is that you have to remove the (expensive) Nikon grip if you want to remove the CF card or replace the battery

I dislike the controls, in fact I cannot think of anything that I like about the camera.
Even on a tripod it is a pain to use

There is no way I would spend anything over £200 on a lens for the V1 and IMHO it will fall by the wayside in this mass compact market. Nikon significantly reduced the V1 body price when the V2 was launched, which did upset quite a number of people who had recently bought the V1. I think Nikon have made a mistake with trying to push this system into such an expensive price bracket.

Maybe it has some use for digiscope user?

(Coming from a dedicated Nikon SLR user ....... since 1979 and probably before)

as you have guessed, I am not a fan, just IMHO
 
Lenses for all the formats are getting smaller. The tele zoom you showed for Micro 4/3 is a relatively new one and much smaller than other MFT tele zoom options that came before it. No doubt a tele zoom can be made much smaller still than the 30-110 for the Nikon.

True enough -- though, if you compare it to the Pentax, I'm not sure that there is that much more room for the Nikon to shrink down. Presumably, it would have to be bigger than the Q lens.

The smaller formats give up their size advantage when they try to match shallow DOF and low light capability by going with faster lenses, eg 32/1.2 for 1" vs 45/1.8 for 4/3. On the other hand, if they are willing to give up shallow DOF and very low light performance, the smaller sensors will always have the potential for smaller lenses.

Yes, and for those who need or want shallow DOF, it's a question of where they need it and how much they're willing to pay to get it...

Nikon 1:
Shallow DOF portraits with fast expensive glass​


m4/3:
Shallow DOF portraits with fast glass
Shallow DOF normal & wide with fast expensive glass


APS-C:
Shallow DOF portraits with cheap glass
Shallow DOF normal & wide with fast expensive glass


FF:
Shallow DOF portraits & normal with cheap glass
Shallow DOF wide with fast glass


Every user has their particular needs. APS-C and m4/3 cover my sweet spot (portraits) without venturing into expensive glass territory.

Only when comparing with full frame DSLRs. The Sony RX1 shows that there is no size advantage of the Voigtlanders over full frame mirrorless systems of the same angle of view, DOF, and low light performance.

True, but it took a lot of expensive engineering to get it that small. Smallness is much easier with smaller sensors.

In any case, it's nice that big sensor cameras are finally back to the size of their film counterparts. I'm still waiting for a digital FF Olympus Stylus Epic with 35mm/2.8 lens, but we're pretty close now.

If shallow DOF is the main objective, full frame is the way to go. If you want a very small kit and just occasional shallow DOF, the Nikon 1 System makes sense too.

Agreed. :)
 
I've had a V1 for a while, after picking one up with a 10-30 for under $300 new. I also have an RX100, E-M5 and others. I would have to say I'd never pay retail for a Nikon 1 system camera, nor $$$$ for the new 1.2 lens (though understand that this might be right for others). The V1 has a couple of great qualities and I can't overstate it's autofocus as being the best on any camera I have. I also find the RAW files respond really well.

I did buy the 18.5 1.8 which is a lovely lens for under $200, though I perhaps don't see myself going any further at this stage. The RX100 for the most part is simply a better alternative minus the interchangeable lenses.

I still have no idea where Nikon is going with this system based off it's price point. It's simply not competitive. As has been mentioned, perhaps Nikon have big plans for this format, however I don't think frequent releases of new models & variants with only negligible upgrades will do them any favours either (OK, the ergonomics of the V2 was a substantial upgrade) I think the 1" sensor has plenty to offer, and DOF differences between 1" and M43 aren't anything to write home about, and I don't think shallow DOF is why most people buy into either of these systems. I'd like them to hold back, and come to market with something really exciting, like sony did with the RX100.
 
Hmmm, I agree for the camera body choice because that's where the fast AF and FPS are based, but would part company as this is where the lens is at variance which the whole compact rationale of the format. Why stick a V8 into a mini-body - interesting tour-de -force. Unless this signals that Nikon are going to try to aim the "1 format" at high end amateurs rather than soccer moms ...

I don't think that the 1 needs to be significantly smaller than Micro Four-Thirds; that's a presumption that we all made because the sensor was smaller. But hands are hands, and Nikon may very well have decided upon this size so as not to be seen as too small. And in any case, the 1 series is significantly smaller than DSLRs, and that's the important comparison, not Micro Four-Thirds, because that's where the market opportunity is. Nikon's not trying to steal market share from one of the smallest pieces of the pie. I believe that the 1 Series is Nikon's life raft should DSLR sales sink. For both soccer moms and enthusiasts.
 
I like the 1-series for it's curiosity value, but I still find myself wondering where is the hook compared to other CSCs (noting that I consider shooting 30 frames in half a second to be about 29 too many).
 
I don't think that the 1 needs to be significantly smaller than Micro Four-Thirds; that's a presumption that we all made because the sensor was smaller. But hands are hands, and Nikon may very well have decided upon this size so as not to be seen as too small. And in any case, the 1 series is significantly smaller than DSLRs, and that's the important comparison, not Micro Four-Thirds, because that's where the market opportunity is. Nikon's not trying to steal market share from one of the smallest pieces of the pie. I believe that the 1 Series is Nikon's life raft should DSLR sales sink. For both soccer moms and enthusiasts.
Totally agree that humans have not evolved into tiny-handed techno-hobbits due to the advent of the microchip. It's more about proportionality (!) And I suppose the V2 shows a design more appealing to a more serious photographer by adopting a very DSLR form. I haven't seen one in a shop yet and certainly is close to E-P3 dimensions which are the sweet spot for me.

For me the attraction is all about a compact form, the high speed AF, deep high FPS and good enough image quality for A4-A3 format magazines. And yup, it would definitely go along for my son's saturday morning soccer !
 
Totally agree that humans have not evolved into tiny-handed techno-hobbits due to the advent of the microchip.

Dooneese comes close...

dooneese.gif
 
On the left, you have a camera that can AF moving subjects and unique high FPS. On the right, you have less DOF, slightly better IQ, lower cost, and a more mature platform. If I was a fledgeling photojournalist with a trust fund, I might actually choose the one on the left.

On second thought, to play your options back the "other" way: if M43 got the PDAF with the improved C-AF and high fps then Nikon 1 system wouldnt really much left to offer to compete as it would be same physical size as M43 with lesser image quality and less system choices.
And with Sony on board now to supply sensors to Olympus that is quite a likely eventuality I'd reckon ...
 
On second thought, to play your options back the "other" way: if M43 got the PDAF with the improved C-AF and high fps then Nikon 1 system wouldnt really much left to offer to compete as it would be same physical size as M43 with lesser image quality and less system choices.
And with Sony on board now to supply sensors to Olympus that is quite a likely eventuality I'd reckon ...

Oh come on ! Micro 4/3 does not have motion snapshot :)
 
On second thought, to play your options back the "other" way: if M43 got the PDAF with the improved C-AF and high fps then Nikon 1 system wouldnt really much left to offer to compete as it would be same physical size as M43 with lesser image quality and less system choices.
And with Sony on board now to supply sensors to Olympus that is quite a likely eventuality I'd reckon ...

At the moment, Sony's on-sensor PDAF in their latest NEX cameras are reported to be far behind Nikon/Aptina's 1" sensor, but that doesn't mean that they won't catch up. But even if they did, Nikon has marketing and sales might (and Ashton Kutcher, if necessary) that Olympus and Panasonic are sorely lacking. So much so that the potential technical superiority of Micro Four-Thirds is not enough to guarantee victory. As much as I like the Micro Four-Thirds system, their long-term success is far from guaranteed. I'm not writing them off by any means as I still shoot video with the GH2 and will likely get a GH3 someday.

And Chris (Yeats) that GIF is seriously disturbing LOL>
 
At the moment, Sony's on-sensor PDAF in their latest NEX cameras are reported to be far behind Nikon/Aptina's 1" sensor, but that doesn't mean that they won't catch up. But even if they did, Nikon has marketing and sales might (and Ashton Kutcher, if necessary) that Olympus and Panasonic are sorely lacking. So much so that the potential technical superiority of Micro Four-Thirds is not enough to guarantee victory. As much as I like the Micro Four-Thirds system, their long-term success is far from guaranteed. I'm not writing them off by any means as I still shoot video with the GH2 and will likely get a GH3 someday.

And Chris (Yeats) that GIF is seriously disturbing LOL>

Hmmm - in this new market segment virtually anything is possible, with the global economy still pretty weak, certainly no one seems to be getting rich on mirrorless, ie making a substantial dent in DSLR sales. If Nikon had gone out with APS in the V1 (with the same AF, FPS performance) then I think they would have sunk M43 and Sony NEX virtually overnight. Certainly the Coolpix A is not posing any threat in the AF arena. Wonder if they aren't pushing Aptina in that direction already - I would! But also Sony are not afraid of a challenge and are producing arguably the best sensors on the planet - I'm sure a small "upstart" company like Aptina outclassing them will be a goad them into at least producing something to match them.
 
I believe that the 1 Series is Nikon's life raft should DSLR sales sink. For both soccer moms and enthusiasts.

I think the above comment bears repeating.

Viewed as a business decision by a company trying to maintain it's long term profitability, the 1 Series was the most aggressive choice they could make, and was done quite early (given that their DSLR sales are still strong). The 1" sensors are the smallest size that deliver DSLR quality and focusing speed (at least for now) and can also do shallow DOF portraits with fast enough glass. That means that the cameras are the least expensive to make (of the mirrorless options) -- which makes them easier to turn a profit on, than the APS-C or m4/3 cameras they'd be competing with.

The gamble is on the portrait lens, which I don't know if they can afford to price competitively. Obviously, they're not pricing it competitively now.

Interestingly, they could achieve similar DOF performance at a lower cost from a 100mm-e lens... A 37mm f/1.8 could be priced more competitively. I suspect they are keeping this option in their back pocket, should the need arise.

Overall, they are pretty well positioned for the future.
 
Back
Top