But who's to say where that sweet spot actually is? As much as you can argue that 4/3 is, I could argue that APS-C is, or this new Nikon CX. It's all about tradeoff, and how small people want the actual system to be. Again, all of those are arguments against m4/3 as much as they're arguments against the Nikon 1 cameras. Let's throw NEX cameras into the equation, and compare the top of the line Nikon, Olympus, and Panasonic, not bottom of the line (rounding up to the nearest half-millimeter, to make the chart easier to read):Most people here have talked about the "sweet spot" and most are aware of the IQ trade-offs. The feeling is that this has gotten too small, and that m43 is as small as one should go. Also, if the m43 sensor had better DR, I don't think hardly anyone would have many complaints (other than noise, which I've even see people complain about on a Canon 5Dii over on POTN!)
But the real issue is body size trade-offs. There is QUITE a bit of drop off moving from FF to compact DSLR to m43. Not that much at all from m43 to this new Nikon.
Nikon J1 (w/out EVF) 106mmX61mmX30mm, 277g
EPM1 (w/out EVF): 110mmX64xxX34mm, 263g
Nikon is providing no size advantage, yet you are likely losing some IQ and DOF control.
Panny 14mm 2.5, equivalent to FF 28mm 5.0 (DOF)
Nikon new prime: 10mm 2.8 equivalent to 27mm 5.6 (DOF)
Close, so again Nikon is providing no advantage, and losing about 1/4 stop in DOF (likely negligible on a wide angle. Don't feel like working the DOF Master this morning, so let's call it even). Lens performance will be something to test, but Nikon is really providing nothing at all on paper at least. Tests, of course, are the proof in the pudding.
And the EP3 is priced too high, as is the GH series, for those who want to do stills (it's a good price for a video rig). This Nikon system could likely have lower IQ and is priced as high, if not higher, still. Why bother? Size isn't different enough (see above).
Agreed Nikon P&S = POS. Only time will tell how this system works out. Here's one, completely solid data point that I am completely sold on: I am not buying one. m43 is on the edge of my preference for DOF control, and I hate kit lenses, so there's nothing more for me here. If you buy one, let us know how it performs. I am always interested in learning about new systems, even if they are not for me. It will be interesting to see the first real world results.
Sony NEX-7 120 x 67 x 43 mm 415g
Olympus E-P3 122 x 69 x 34mm 321g
Panasonic GH2 124 x 90 x 76mm 392g
Nikon V1 113 x 76 x 44mm 294g
(The Olympus is excluding protrusions, the Nikon is including them, btw. If only Panasonic had the GF7 out to put in that list, instead of the GH2)
Well geez, look at that difference! I think your argument is more pro-NEX than pro m4/3! Or, would you agree that maybe overall size of the body vs sensor size isn't the almighty determinant? Now, you have to worry about lens size, plus the Olympus doesn't have a viewfinder, etc. I'm still trying to convince my dad to buy in to m4/3, and get himself an E-P3. I still love the system. I'm just saying, don't call the kettle black.
The Nikon has pretty solid video modes as well, btw. You aren't paying that MSRP for a stills-only camera.
I have to disagree with your math. APS-C is also taller than 4/3, and has a larger surface area.Psh, as if APS-C is actually any larger than Four-Thirds. It's only wider than Four-Thirds because it has a different aspect ratio, but that won't affect the image quality of the center capture portion. If there's a difference, it has to do with sensor TECHNOLOGY, not sensor size.
Yet Canikon users still bash Four-Thirds for having a smaller sensor, while they brag about the size of their own APS-C systems? Full Frame users actually have something to talk about, but Full Frame users don't bash APS-C cameras for only one reason... because the APS-C cameras have the same "brand name" on their cameras as the Full Frame. Stupid, if you ask me...
The same reason APS-C doesn't get bashed much for having smaller sensor (essentially Four-Thirds size but wider), is what might save Nikon. The Nikon 1 bears the Nikon name.
Numbers from Wikipedia:
Nikon APS 23.6 x 15.7mm
Canon APS 22.2 x 14.8mm
4/3 17.3 x 13.0mm
Even the smaller APS sensor, the Canon one, is 28% wider and 13% taller, giving a 46% larger surface area. It's not as significant as the difference between APS and full frame, or full frame and medium format, but it's still quite different. If Nikon manages to secure a sensor that's as advanced as the D7000 for this camera, it's going to pack a punch.
Plus, "Canikon" users don't bash m4/3. In fact, many of them have m4/3 cameras, including me. Also, full frame users aren't bashing APS. It's actually the opposite: I see much more non-4/3 bashing here than I see bashing of m4/3 on all other forums I frequent combined. This forum brings up "sensor warfare," "us against them" a ton. Rather, I see D700 users, for example, often touting the advantages of APS-sized cameras as much as they're bragging about what they have.
Whoops, too late, we've already all bought Panasonics and Olympuses :smile:Definitely better launch then I was expecting. Looks as though they want to fight it out with m43s and did a decent job out of the gate.
Nikon fans tend to be pretty loyal so if the IQ shows itself to be pretty good, might just keep Nikon people from buying a X100 or m43 or NEX so all in all a good effort.
Canon must surely react now as well...
I wonder if we are headed now towards a format war that may not be settled until 2 or 3 3rd party lens manufacturers get behind 1 of them in a big way.. reminds me of the recent blu-ray vs. hd dvd situation.
I do think though that the price point is off a bit on the high side for the Nikon ILC compact.