#1 system

I've been shooting with a Panasonic GF1 in addition to my Canon 5D for over a year now. It's a great camera. Granted, if I have my 5D with me, I'm going to use it almost 100% of the time, but there are certain situations where I'll bring the GF1 and not the 5D.

The GF1's mirrorless system and Micro Four Thirds sensor allows for great image quality in a much more compact body than a DSLR. Unfortunately though, with every update to the GF-line Panasonic is moving away from serious photographers and instead targeting those who want something more like a point and shoot. The GF2 was smaller and shed many of the GF1's physical control dials. The GF3 is even more optimized for shooting in automatic modes.

So I was very excited about the rumors that Nikon would be releasing a mirrorless system. As of yesterday, it has been officially announced.

Nikon's Solution

Looks promising, doesn't it. While it doesn't have the physical control dials that makes it easy to change modes on the GF1, the Nikon does sport simple, sleek design and will surely be built with solid construction. Above is the J1, the smaller and cheaper of the two models being announced. The V1 is a little bit bigger, a little more expensive, and it adds a built in digital viewfinder.

The problem is, they're both useless.

Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh, but they're not serious alternatives to Micro Four Thirds cameras. Instead of using a Micro Four Thirds sensor, they've gone with something halfway between Micro FT and the sizes used by point-and-shoots. Nikon, it seems, is intentionally dumbing down its mirrorless system so as not to cannibalize its low-end DSLRs.

This chart from DP Review shows a variety of sensor sizes (not to scale), so you can see for yourself. A smaller sensor size means smaller photocells (if the resolution is the same). End result: more noise, less sharpness, and ultimately, a lower-quality image.

So what now?

The Micro Four Thirds system has a ton of potential. Nikon has decided not to use it at all. Casual photographers, who just want something better than a point-and-shoot, won't care—they'll probably never know the difference. But for more serious photographers (often looking for a second camera), sizing down to a Micro FT sensor is a big sacrifice in and of itself. The option to go even smaller, but with the same exterior size, is simply not appealing.

The GF1 was a phenomenal camera and it brought back some of the magic of the Leica M4. But the Micro FT options have unfortunately become worse since its the GF1. We can only hope that Canon, who is currently rumored to be doing R&D with the system, comes out with something that can be taken seriously.

If Canon made a good Micro FT camera, it might cannibalize some entry-level sales. This is undeniable. But I also can't see how that would hurt. I bought my GF1 for the same money as an entry-level DSLR. The V1 is more expensive than the entry-level Nikon DSLR.

So, Canon, just price your new Micro FT camera as a direct competitor to your entry level DSLR and don't cripple it. Even better, actually make it a good camera.