Jefftan: the whole design concept is wrong. It is too bulky, no IS, weak O-ring seal, low battery life
What is needed is a tough version of Coolpix A, Ricoh GR and RX1R (with IS and wireless charging of battery)that is what the camera market neededeasily sold for $1000 and more
this is a failed first attempt. hopefully more to come
Olympus TG-2 which I own is an underappreciated camera. It is great up to ISO 400There is a trick that I use to get shot at ISO 400 handheld when ISO 800/1600 is required. Use the continuous shooting mode at ISO 400, take about 10 shots and usually at least 1 will be sharp. Best tough camera at the moment
You seem to be confused - 11-27 zoom ALSO gets darker as it zooms, and stays much darker at any FL it shares with TG-2 (of course TG-2 has better range both on wide and on long ends).When shooting indoors or landscapes in low light, wide angle is the most useful, it is what any reasonable person would use - so it is f/2 vs f/3.5.And very few people waste their vacation time processing raws - I guess Nikon users have to, but most will simply return camera with bad JPEGs to the store, like my friends did with their P510.
brian57: Peevee, I wouldn't buy it either, as I said. But the why is easy. Much better sensor and resulting IQ and according to the review, much faster in acquiring focus and getting the shot than the lower level Olympus TG-2. If people have the cash to burn and a gambler's attitude that it won't leak on you at some point, it sounds like a pretty sweet UW camera.
"Much better sensor and resulting IQ"
But its zoom lens is f/3.5 at the best instead of f/2 - here goes the IQ advantage.Faster focus only works in bright sunlight, at lower light Nikon 1 system is pretty bad.
brian57: I have not had much luck with waterproof cameras. I had two different Canon's and both died within a year or so due to leakage. My current solution is a housing made for the Canon S90, which i'd moved on from as far as daily usage. It fits my need as a reliable waterproof camera that won't leak with it's excellent o-ring seal. I would never spend this kind of cash on a camera to put into the water without a dedicated housing for it after my two failed attempts at this sort of UW cam.
Is the housing small and light enough to put the camera IN THE HOUSING into your pocket?
"I have an AW1 and have compared the images from it to those from a compact camera with a small sensor and there's a huge difference - the AW1's images are much cleaner."
You have probably compared at the same ISO - but TG-2 would use ISO 4 times lower even without stabilization, 8-16 times lower with. Which IQ will be better then?
Black Box: Check camera for an hour, smear it with silicon, assemble, go dive for half an hour, go back, wash it and dry it, charge it for three hours. Find out it's leaked and broken. Pay another $1000. Repeat. I'm sorry but it looks like too much trouble for the doubtable pleasure of taking murky, color-drained photos of some half-eaten fish.
Don't forget to spend half of your vacation processing and endlessly adjusting its RAWs because its JPEGs suck. ;-)
pocoloco: I am not so convinced a compact camera could not have captured that unique moment : http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3225500706/photos/160652/turtle?inalbum=beneath-da-surface
"No, your five year old tough camera doesn't shoot raw and can't be used at ISO 1600 easily."
But Oly TG-2 and Pentax WG-3 will use ISO500 where AW-1 with 11-27 will use ISO 1600 - and will look better. And it is not even counting image stabilization, just the lens brightness and sensor tech.
Leandros S: "One big disappointment is that neither lens has Vibration Reduction (Nikon's term for image stabilization) built-in. While this isn't a huge deal on the fast 10mm prime, I was surprised to see that the 11-27.5mm zoom lacked this important feature."
Hmm... let's think... when surrounded by massive volumes of water, is my camera still shaky? Actually, no. Let's think again... if I had loose VR lens elements in my system, might it lead to shutter shock? Quite possibly yes. So should I be including VR? I'll let you answer that one.
"Hmm... let's think... when surrounded by massive volumes of water, is my camera still shaky? Actually, no. "
Let's get a little less imagination and a little more facts. Watch the video. The camera clearly shakes. But you would know that if you ever snorkeled.
ShatteredSky: So far I am not convinced that this is much better than the TG-1 I own, except noise. But it misses the wide-angle, and the macro capabilities ... A 24-120 equiv. zoom would have been nice to go with that ... or if Olympus may finally add RAW to the TG-3, and a slightly bigger sensor. I would not mind a larger size, even a RX10 sized fixed-lens 24-120 beast and 1 inch sensor would be nice.
RAW does not add as much to small-pixel cameras as it does to large-pixel cameras - noise floor in those pixels is too high to take advantage of extra bits.
Otaraka: I find the entire prospect baffling myself. Its not really a 'cheap' snorkelling camera, its not really useful for scuba or keener underwater types who might be willing to pay more due to its depth limits, for a variety of reasons - odd lens ranges, low depth limit, etc.
One really popular reason for an underwater housing vs 'all in one' for these kinds of depths is you can test the housing without the camera vs trying to convince Nikon after the fact that it leaked, and you can also fully concentrate on image quality rather than 'ruggedness' - you can even put a leak detector in, which would be pointless for thise. I can see a lot of complaints in the future with this setup unless it really is 'rugged', and with a removable lens setup, Ill bet you see more with this one than most.
"and still it shoots raw unlike every other tough camera"
Well, every other camera except Nikon does not need to shoot RAW to have their JPEGs right. And the small sensors in those tough cameras do not have much information in their small pixels beyond what superfine JPEG allows (about 12 bits per pixel - 8 bits of luma channel per pixel and 8+8 bits of color info per each 4-pixel block). Even 12 bits per pixel is overkill with them.
So, compared to Olympus TG-2, this Nikon AW1 with 11-27 lens:1) much bigger - will not fit in your swim trunk pocket2) much heavier3) has worse zoom range4) has significantly lower battery life (which is already pretty low)5) has worse controls (which are already pretty basic in TG-2)6) has barely better equivalent aperture (adjusting for sensor size) while the sensor itself uses less efficient tech (Sony BSI in TG-2, Aptina FSI is AW1, right?), so noise in similar light and with similar shutter speed will be about the same7) has more seals prone to failure (as was an example in the article)8) has no image stabilization9) has broken Nikon JPEG engine (ugly at high ISO)10) costs about 3 times as much?
I wouldn't choose AW1 over TG-2 even at the same price, frankly. Why would anybody (except some rabid Nikon fans)?
dcperspective: No IS No Sale for me.
"It is a freaking 18-35mm lens, if you can't hold it steady at 35mm's your either shooting during an earth quake or you are worlds worst photographer."
You and 10 other people are so sure of yourself, but the thing is, 1/fl rule does not apply - it is APS-C, so the rule becomes 1/(1.5*FL), i.e. you need 1/53s on Nikon, 1/56s on Canon, but then the rule was only good for 1000 lines per picture height, and even D3200 has 4000 lines now - so if you don't raise shutter speed 4x further, all the way to 1/210s, you are turning your 24 mpix camera into 1.5 mpix camera. Can you have 1/210s without raising ISO pretty high in low light - of course not, even on f/1.8. And then f/1.8 might be (and often will be) to shallow for you composition - then what, keep it at f/1.8 blurring important things in the scene?And then there is video - handheld video is useless without IS (although in-lens IS - without rotational stabilization - is still pretty bad).
attomole: What bothers me is the size, its a lttle to big for street shooting, and what also bothers me is the implication does this mean we won't ever get a compact f 1.4 14mm 18mm 23 mm primes? Which it seems to, in which case FX still holds the edge and MFT / Fuji looks atractive altrrnatives to APS C
"Sergey, this lens coupled with a speed-booster won't offer any low light or narrow DOF advantages compared to its current behavior on APS sensors. Whatever will be gained by the "faster" aperture will be offset by the noisier and smaller 43 sensor."
Prognathous, current m43 sensors are certainly smaller but not noisier at the same ISO compared to Canon and Samsung APS-C and Sony DSLT. Even compared to Nikons with Toshiba sensors, the difference is much smaller than the image circle size suggest. So the advantage will hold.Low DoF (at this FLs at least) is DISADVANTAGE.
wherearemyshorts: Way too little and too late. Should it be called T2?
Should be called Number 2.
GaryJP: I can just see all the EOS-M system bashers grinding their teeth in fury now. "But I said the M system was no good. Why didn't Canon listen to me?"
(The M system is not for me, but that's another issue.)
"But I said the M system was no good. Why didn't Canon listen to me?"
Actually, Canon still kept EOS M firmly in "no good" territory.
dpalugyay: Dear Canon,Is this a joke? I'm glad I stopped waiting for you to make a real MILC. This is another (more?) pitiful attempt. By the way, on your next try, at least add an EVF or the ability to slap one on. Maybe borrow the outstanding VF-4 from Olympus.
Panel in VF-4 - epson. Optics? Electronics?
marike6: Sigma has some excellent lenses in its lineup, but in general, I didn't buy a Nikon body to slap Sigma and Tamron lenses on it. I have in the past, but lately I've been using all Nikon lenses. Rock solid AF and excellent color/contrast that Nikkors are known for.
It was the same when I shot Canon. Mostly, I didn't skip L lenses to go to shopping at the Sigma and Tamron counter at B&H. On DX, Sigma and Tamron have some sharp, compact and reasonably priced f/2.8 standard zooms. And Tokina has a few great UWA zooms. There are some great values in Sigma, but on FX, I mostly stick with Nikkors.
For the Df, I'll likely use a mix of G and AIS Nikkors.
And Nikon strikes again. So much for the 3rd party ecosystem.
jerry367: seems like a firmware update
Way less than Fuji does with firmware upgrades. ;-)
At least we know they did not invest much into R&D for that camera, or marketing in the US for that matter. And they will be able to sell a couple of these to their Japanese fans.Come next board meeting, "Are we in a mirrorless market?" "Yes, we have just released a new mirrorless camera and it is already paid for its R&D and made a profit" - BONUS.
reginalddwight: I think Canon made a huge mistake with the EOS M2 by forgoing a killer pink version.
They will announce one to a big fanfare and speeches about innovation - in a year or two.