text:
very Promising news. I'm not a fan of Nikon 1 cameras, while IQ and picture quality are disappointment compare to other compact system cameras, but With the same size sensor of Nikon 1, Sony rx-100II has an incredible image quality. even comparable to new 4/3 cameras. I think Nikon 1 has a great potential. also, sensor size is perfect to make a COMPACT camera. Nikon AW1 and it's successors can become really attractive for those, who likes extreme sports, water and snow sports, hiking, diving, rafting and etc.
I would buy one for my summer holiday on the sea.
God job Nikon!
Nikon AW1 First Impressions Review
Well now here's a pleasant surprise - Nikon has released a rugged, waterproof mirrorless interchangeable lens camera - along with a pair of equally tough lenses - for a starting price under $800. Those familiar with Nikon film cameras may fondly recall the days of the Nikonos, with which the company dominated underwater photography from the 1960s onward.
The AW1 is essentially, if not exactly, a ruggedized version of Nikon's 1 J3. It is waterproof down to 15 meters (49 ft), shockproof from up to 2 meters (6.6 ft), and protected against cold as low as -10 degrees Celsius (14F). It is announced with two lenses - equally ruggedized versions of the 11-27mm (30-74mm equiv) and 10mm (27mm equiv) optics that already form part of the 1 System lineup. The AW1 is compatible with all 1 System lenses, but it will not be water, shock or freezeproof with a non-ruggedized lens on the front. The waterproof lenses, however, will not be compatible with other 1 System cameras.
Nikon AW1: Key Specifications
- Waterproof, shockproof and freezeproof
- 14MP C-format (2.7x crop factor) CMOS sensor
- 3-inch LCD with 921,000 dots
- Built-in GPS with compass, altimeter, and depth meter
- Action Control system for underwater/gloved operation
- PASM shooting via 'Creative Mode' menu
- 15 fps burst mode with continuous AF, 60 fps with single AF
- Full HD 1080p video
Nikon's 1 System has been around for a couple of years now, and although we weren't entirely convinced by the initial pair of cameras - the J1 and V1 - they did offer some unique (at the time) hybrid autofocus technology, and some cool features. Ultimately, they also did exactly what Nikon wanted them to do, providing intermediate and novice users with better-than-compact image quality plus the ability to add lenses and system accessories if needed.
The asking price for the initial offerings was a little high - especially for the V1 - but since then the system has expanded sensibly, and current low-end 1 System cameras like the S1 and J3 are reasonably priced and well-positioned, with the V2 offering a much more compelling 'step up' option than the original V1.
Although we don't have access to sales figures, we understand that the 1 System is doing pretty well for Nikon. As such, we honestly didn't expect the company to significantly change the recipe quite yet. Arguably, Nikon didn't need to do much beyond adding lenses and periodically updating its entry-level, intermediate and advanced 1 System cameras to keep its target demographic happy. In an industry which is increasingly characterized by caution, this would have been perfectly normal.
And that's why the appearance of the AW1 is so refreshing. When we were shown the new camera at Nikon's American HQ recently we were very pleasantly surprised. Some of us are old enough to remember the famous Nikon 'Nikonos' waterproof film cameras, and although the AW1 certainly isn't a Nikonos (it's only rated to operate at 15m underwater rather than 50m, for a start), it has the potential to occupy a similar niche. What this means of course - assuming the AW1 performs well in our tests - is that it could make the 1 System genuinely interesting to enthusiasts and owners of other established systems. It might not be an evolutionary product - the AW1 is extremely similar to the inexpensive J3 in terms of specification - but its existence does evolve the 1 System.
If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).
Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.
We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X, Y, and Z and ideally A, B, and C.
This article is Copyright 1998 - 2015 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.
very Promising news. I'm not a fan of Nikon 1 cameras, while IQ and picture quality are disappointment compare to other compact system cameras, but With the same size sensor of Nikon 1, Sony rx-100II has an incredible image quality. even comparable to new 4/3 cameras. I think Nikon 1 has a great potential. also, sensor size is perfect to make a COMPACT camera. Nikon AW1 and it's successors can become really attractive for those, who likes extreme sports, water and snow sports, hiking, diving, rafting and etc.
Where's the EVF?!
hey -- there isn't one~! You shoot using the rear LCD screen~! It's easier to do than you think~!
For underwater using the LCD is ok I think. But for everything else an EVF is better.
EVF useless for underwater or action shots. Even an LCD can be useless. Ergo, a GoPro lacks even an LCD. Shoot wide and WYSIWYG. AKA P&S.
Not planning to go underwater with it. Just wanted a rugged compact raw camera with EVF/OVF for outdoor use.
A standard hot shoe there would have saved the day though because I can put my Voigtlander 28mm OVF there. But knowing that Nikon 1 system has its proprietary hotshoe, this will never happen.
Rear LCD just doesn't work for me somehow. I've given it many honest tries.
Ages ago, the only viewfinders available were made from bent wire, in the form of two rectangles you looked through. The rectangles were mounted one behind the other in the line of sight, and their sizes depended upon the lens angle. When you visually aligned the rectangles to cover each other, what you saw through the frame was an approximation of what the camera sees.
Outside of a slight parallax problem when shooting close, the system worked well, and there's no reason it won't work now. It was called "Sport Finder".
DIY... quick and easy to make and use.
I don't agree with Jkoch2. I have a J1 with the Nikon WP-N1. Using the LCD was just fine as I only use it for composition. Of course the WP-N1 is a contraption compared to the AW-1. I wonder if it's too late to sell it on eBAY?
Even if I bought it, I don't think I could bring myself to submerge it.
You sound like a very interesting person.
LOL . . . but how about those times that it might get accidentally submerged . . . like taking it out for a canoe ride where you might go for an accidental swim . . . :)
The camera's greatest protection against failure under water is precisely the fact that few people will dare take it very deep. Too much to lose.
...is for GoPro ~!!!
Hah- this is the GoPro's competition now ...
Ok now Nikon has had the foresight to release a dedicated UW camera with relatively large sensor that shoots RAW and has the bonus of IL, how long before the numskulls at Sony, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Pentax and Samsung wake to themselves. And if they do, how long will the AW1 have in the sun to shine and will it be enough to save the Nikon mirrorless ecosystem?
Whatever, this should have happened 3 years ago.
15m is hardly a hardcore UW camera. The IL part is good, but a DLSR + UW housing is the way to go (and has been around for the longest time). The small buttons and dials is also a minus although the UW housing is not a lot better. It would be interesting to see a digital RS or Nikonos.
Where did I say anything about hardcore? Not in the least bit interested in a hardcore set up and I suspect a lot of people just want to dabble and 15m is plenty for me. My ears won't let me go much past 10m anyway. It's also not just about being an UW camera, but is a rugged camera for plenty of outdoors work. I wish I had had one of these a few times on my Iceland trip when it was a hassle to quickly setup rain gear on the big DSLR combo.
Not hardcore enough for me. Not saying you said hardcore.
I don't think Nikon had the notion this would "save" their mirrorless. I also don't think there's the global demand for a waterproof IL CC you might think there is. Fact is, the overwhelming amount of recreational photographers don't reach for a waterproof camera to go play in bad weather. Sports buffs aren't going to use it during play. It's a niche item. Cool, sure, but niche.
Totally disagree - as someone who takes a camera every time I fish, kayak, hike this is EXACTLY what I have been waiting for - something light, compact, better image quality than 1/2.3 sesnor tough cam that cah handle saltwater splashes, wind blown sand, rain and fish slime.
I bet when these reach the shops they will sell very well.
Yeah there is a global demand for a raw shooting tough camera, and Nikon makes this more attractive by making a tough camera with a bigger sensor.
You mean that you don't want one, that's fine.
I for one am sick and tired of jpeg only tough cameras.
This is an excellent high ISO sensor, so great for a dark and stormy night or underwater.
And just to repeat: raw, raw, raw + raw.
If these things don't matter to you don't have to buy one.
Have any of the reviewers of these "underwater" cameras actually tried to change a setting while underwater? It's virtually impossible to read anything on a lcd screen while diving. That goes for just about all the "underwater" cameras I've tried so far. And of course, I've tried them underwater. Not in a hotel room...
Or tried changing lenses underwater?
Cant say I have trouble but depends where you're diving and what the issue is.
Changing lens underwater wise, no other camera allows for that either really, other than 'wet' lenses that go over the front of a port. There are various ways for managing those.
Where you try ? at the pool or at the sea ? and what is the depth ?
Give more info
Try a scuba diving mask.
Dive mask won't make the LCD readable if the sun is to your back. Swimming upside down won't help much, either, especially if your snorkel floods or scuba bubbles block your view. Beneath a certain depth, pressure causes some control buttons to collapse or cease to function.
Good job Nikon. Never have actually thought anybody would come up with an interchangeable underwater camera. I think this will bring back excitement to the 1 model. Regular 1" cam faces fierce competitions(RX-100, NEX, m43). By adding this not only weather sealed but water proof feature, the market for Nikon 1 is now expended to GoPro territory. What a come back. Let's see how the market will response. Technical greatness doesn't guarantee sales success.
Nikonos reborn, it sounds like the hospital fooling the charity. This is a huge toy, in some way, but we are far away from a rebirth of the "Nikonos". Maybe some day, but when I see how much they charge in normal usual cameras for a double portion of sensor, the "Nikonos" would not be payable anyway.
Given Nikon's extremely poor track record with its "waterproof" Coolpix AW cameras (AW100, AW110), there may be some hesitation towards this new offering.
Given the fact that Nikon made and sold the Nikonos for years, I'll bet they can make this body+lenses waterproof.
And remember of course that say the D4 and many Nikon SLR lenses have excellent weather sealing today.
If I recall correctly, Nikon did not design the Nikonos but bought the design from a company that specialized in underwater equipment.
Given the fact that the Nikon 1-J3 sells for $250 why are they bringing out more new models? I thought Nikon announced they were to seriously rethink their Nikon 1 line due to poor sales most of which the decline in their sales was due to decline in Nikon 1 sales.
Their Digital Nikonos was plagued by leaking, flooding, corroded electronics...
I have an AW110. It's never leaked.
I already raised the point that Nikon was not the originator, in a reply OldArrow explained in detail that yes the first design came from somewhere else, but then Nikon spent years doing modifications and different versions of the camera bodies and lenses.
Do they give warranty for the leak proof ?
@CaseyComo: The fact that the problem may be in quality control rather than the principal design is not exactly consoling. Have you taken yours down to the advertised depth of 59 feet?
Nikon shipped a digital Nikonos, when and for how long? There was an AF Nikonos.
@HowAboutRaw... Don't forget that Nikon botched the two models thoroughly: IVa and RS. The former had an unthought-through seal which they quickly exchanged for proper o-ring in mod. V. The RS was completely frustrating, as someone forgot that, whatever the ocular size, there simply is not enough light to view TTL. Besides, their special rings were PITA to service, and all that at a price which simply had no logic.
Thus, it seems that contemporary "tough" cameras are designed by yet another team which has not had much contact with such camera users. People do buy such things to actually use them in the field, and the designers should learn from their experiences, and also take into account their wishes / needs.
The very fact that they nowadays use some IP standards which connect the water pressure limit with exposure time restriction shows that the cameras are sealed / shaped either wrongly- or purposefully so.
And that, IMO, is not exactly being honest to a customer.
Despite being fond of Nikon products, this seems too little too late. I don't see what is superior in this to other options out there. I would never take this diving if it can only be used to 15 m. I know scuba diving isn't all of underwater use, but 49 ft seems limited. What am I missing?
You're missing a lot. This isn't just for use under water.
Just good for snorkeling or shallow reef dives, but still a step forward in a good direction. But, anyway, this camera has a lot to offer, it is not only scuba diving, but more outdoor adventure that is targeted, rafting, for example, cave exploration, sports you do in dirt and wet situations. I think that this camera can be very successful among adventurers, and, it has a larger sensor, a good one, and it shoots raw.
There is a reason why they mentioned 49 feet limitation. In all practical purposes, it can go well beyond that.
@ppronovo, what you're missing is that Nikon already covers scuba diving with the WP-N1 waterproof casing for the J1 and J2 models or WP-N2 for the J3 model to a depth of 40 metres (130 feet).
Dives more than 49 feet are no good for photography, unless one brings lamps to compensate for loss of red wavelengths and darkness. Otherwise, everything looks blue-gray, gloomy, and murky. Air tanks last less time at greater depths, and you incur risk of bends or rapture of the deep. No fun. Not much to see. Not worth the trouble. Stuff for ALVIN, not me.
lovely concept but I would rather invest in underwater case for upcoming Full Frame NEX or alternatively Fuji (with their excellent low light performance). Large sensor is the key for good underwater photography or video. Just don't expect exciting results with your f5.6 Nikon lens - equivalent of f 15.1 on full frame!
The light gathering of the lens is the same regardless of the sensor size. f5.6 is still f5.6 on the smaller sensor. The depth of field is what changes.
Oh how many have said, "but you can buy a case".
Cases for DLSRs start at around 1000usd.
Then "upcoming full framed Nex", heard that a lot, and it's not impossible. However unless Sony wants to take the Pentax route, Sony is going to have to do entirely new lenses for any such camera.
If cases are your thing for underwater shooting just get one for that Fuji XE1.
There sure are a lot uses for this new Nikon that don't involve actually being underwater. You know like in heavy rain.
So a lovely concept, and likely very good execution by Nikon.
Look you'd have a point if good case didn't add bulk and significant cost; bags can avoid some of those problems but not cases.
Yet another person who, faced with either rugged compact cameras or this AW1, argue for a bigger camera and casing. It's not either/or. There has to be a middle ground - which used to be held by the Nikonos.
Quite apart from the cost of a casing, the sheer size and weight of the things is a deterrent to many outdoor users. Hopeless for mountaineering, caving, kayaking etc. Try stuffing a DSLR in a casing inside your life jacket. We need a slightly bigger camera with real 'O'ring sealing to cater for diving pressures and really rough conditions.
I agree with you about the potential for an NEX FF in a small casing, but let's wait and see the camera first. FWIW I really can't see the point of debating equivalent apertures between formats for UW use. It's not about shallow DOF UW - it's usually more about getting enough light and actual depth of field.
Rod McD:
Reread the big F stop light gathering mistake in the original post--the OP confused DOF with light gathering.
Silly me I missed that huge mistake by the OP.
There's also that not-so-insignificant kick to the groin the rumored Sony FF NEX will cost. Can't wait to see all these Sony FF NEX fanboys taking $4000 worth of ILC into the sea to shoot little fishies. lmao
Good luck hiking or kayaking or caving with your FF camera and 2kg housing!
At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.
So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .
No, not at all silly at first glance.
And that Panasonic doesn't shoot raw, has a slow lens, isn't good in lowlight.
Right glad you see the reason for a big sensor, now shoot raw.
And try increasing the shutter speed to fix blur problems, there was a world of action photos before auto sensor/lens stabilization.
As an accomplished D800 user I know all about RAW.
As far as increasing shutter speed, that's hard to do without running the ISO way up on such a small sensor so that the results become, well, less than tolerable.
And yes I was part of that world before auto sensor/lens stabilization and one of the cures was fast glass, which none of these AW compacts have (even f/2.8 is not so fast), along with a flash, otherwise the picture was just not attempted.
If there ever was a place where VR would be beneficial, this has to be it.
And with this Nikon 1 system you really can use ISO 6400. So don't be so quick to dismiss this system. This is very good in lowlight, probably better than a D800. (I guess Aptina may know something Sony doesn't) So yep you can increase shutter speeds to fix blur.
See this is one of the few cameras where the listed top ISO is actually useable, yes I'm sure, and yes you'll need to shoot raw.
@abrasive== so true, but then there'd be no reason to get the upcoming AW2 which would have that useful feature, for a price.
I think your comment was exactly right. This is a great camera for people who occasionally drop their camera. I, for one, never plan to drop the camera, so I rarely have the waterproof housing on when it happens.
AS far as HA RAW claiming the ISO 6400 will be better than the D800, I can't imagine that will be true. (No matter how much you like grain...)
I have not used either, so I can't say for sure, but there are some laws of physics to deal with. Also, about a hundred thousand camera reviews from people who know a lot about image quality.
Faster AF, maybe.
Low Budget Dave:
Well I have raw samples from both.
And the D800 is shadow noisy above ISO3200.
Guess you always print from D800 files at a resolution beyond 300 dpi.
And it's not like the Nikon 1s are noise free at ISO6400, they're just producing useable files, which is stretch for the D800.
HA Raw: I looked up some samples from the DP review of each, and the D800 completely buries the V1 at every ISO.
The color is similar at 6400, but only in JPG. In Raw, the chroma noise on the V1 is overwhelming. The resolution on the D800 is outstanding, even at 6400, while the V1 is only usable for telephone-size screens.
I admit that a lot of people are obsessed with sharpness, and miss out on the artistic look that can be obtained from the V1. In addition, the V1 might deliver better images for hacks like me, because of the blazing fast AF. (Also, since it is smaller, I might actually have it with me, if I bought one.)
But for sharpness, dynamic range, color, and low-light capability, the D800 is hard to beat. If your V1 works better, then there is a chance that your D800 needs service.
Low Budget Dave--
Um, this is the 14MP sensor from the Nikon 1 V2. (So a different model.)
So get some raws from that camera, and extract away. Albeit: it will be close. (I don't think DPReview has raws from the 1 series V2.)
I'm not interested in the D800 having better IQ at say ISO 400, I'm sure that's the case, well depending on the lens too.
And as I said, if printing of course the 36MP camera affords more tricks, like printing above 300dpi.
As mentioned elsewhere - sort of a good weatherproof design which would be of little use for serious underwater purposes. I think people tend to forget that even a camera with a waterproof rating of 15 meters is only good for 15 meters "if" it isn't bumped hard against coral or equipment, etc. The reason waterproof watches are rated at depths which no diver would ever reach is that the shock of a good thump against a hard object at depth exponentially increases the depth requirement instantly. I use a little old Olympus with an underwater housing at depths to 100 feet and am quite secure knowing that it will withstand fairly hard bumps and not leak. I would not use this new Nikon as a camera for diving - perhaps for snorkeling at 20 feet or so it would be perfectly satisfactory.
Once upon a time all underwater equipment was tested to at least 150% rated pressure, and often worked well at over 200%. Such devices (breathing regs, cameras, diving instruments etc.) could withstand a lot of rough usage.
Things used at extreme (pro, non-sport) depths were sometimes liquid-filled, or had some arrangement for gas adding, as a means to compensate the pressure difference. There were helium vents on some diving watches for the surplus gas to escape when returning to surface pressure.
In short, all depth / pressure problems have been solved ages ago; all it takes is to apply the same knowlege and principles. Forgotten?
But since camera water ingress renders the Warranty useless, the manufacturers seem to think they'd sell more cameras if they used risky sealings.
Replace the funny rubbers for o-rings, replace push-pin commands for rotated or magnet switches, use proper form and material for the camera box, and there's the perfect u/w camera they think nobody needs...
expect to see non-water-proof housing be developed for the camera.
Ha ha, very funny :)
The idea is not that stupid, at least in a sense that you can do a cheaper waterproof housing for deeper dives, and, if it cracks, you just go up, before it floods, you're up at safe level, and the pressure has come to normal for the camera to withstand it. So, in some way you need a less elaborated housing. Chinese have housings at "normal" prices, around 125 to 200$. The housing industry, like Ikelite, wonder that they have low sales, but when I see the material invested and the price they cost, they are 5 times overpriced. Maybe with less profit and more sales, one could redress that situation and make real profit with housings. Housings cost often much more than the camera you put in there.
@Shamael... Consider the pressure differences, and you'll see that a cracked housing at -60 meters floods so quickly that you won't be able to reach -15 meters before the camera caves in as well.
The housings make things cumbersome and complicated both in work as also in maintenance. Properly made amphibious cameras are better in many aspects, and the same principles applied to the manufacturing of housings can easily be applied to produce the camera body / lens cases. The final product is 2/3rds smaller, more compact and easier to use and mantain. That was the core of Nikonos worldwide success.
I'm still wondering why Nikon does nothing to repeat that success, considering millions of divers around. If nothing, there is far more divers now than before... and Nikonos offers the means with readily solved water-related problems for production of full-frame-sensored digital version. I'm thinking of Nikons V model, which would be the best for the purpose.
And don't forget accessories... :)
water-proof housing is not only for water-proof but also easier underwater operation, like we have on-land for better video operation.
would like to have a handle on each side of the camera and hold it like a steering wheel. though like many pointed out, the camera may have been designed for casual use than serious underwater work.
Desperate move to save the lackluster 1 System. Now what?
Huh? The 1 System works quite well for me... Excellent little combination with which I get great hand-held results at over 800 mm equivalency with a system which doesn't cause me any strain at all to carry and use. Lots of great features. I use many different cameras including the Nikon 1V - find it quite satisfactory myself...
Commercially lacklustre.
Optimal Prime:
You have sales figures worldwide for the Nikon 1 system?
No it's not a huge seller in the US, but the US is not the only market.
Even you've admitted it's far from a lackluster system.
It's a good system facing real competition from: Sony, Fuji, Samsung and of course even more from Panasonic+Olympus. No I didn't forget Canon, would probably mention Leica (Ls and Xs) before Canon.
Now Nikon has done something to really distinguish this system, well this variation.
aaah...fun with two-word phrases. let's see///
I want to see the manual to see wether or not it states not to change lenses under water.
Go ahead, but the camera might not work too well after that.
it may be a good idea to have water filled between lens and sensor and wireless communication with the lens. but we'll always need watar there or the optical design will be different.
Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.
It doesn't look like a camera I would take it for diving even in shallow waters. For that, I still prefer using a camera with a real underwater housing. Never mind if a camera like the G12 or G 16 has a smaller sensor. With its proper underwater housing and image stabilizer, it will do better underwater. Those who have used this combo have taken very acceptable images.
If one want to really go professional would have to use a full frame camera in a professional underwater housing. That would be a totally different ball game at much higher prices.
Professional equipment are never cheap.
This camera is still under the amateur category. Unfortunately, it is neither here or there.
It maybe just good as a rugged camera for outdoor use.
white shadow--
I like the "here and there" possibility of having this camera with me in the rain at night.
This is a perfectly good camera for snorkeling, rafting, sailing, and shallow scuba diving. The problem with say the G16--it can't shoot at high ISOs and this camera can. So yes this camera has big advantages even for simply snorkeling.
As you say: There's real photogear for diving, and no this camera isn't going to replace that gear.
> 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling
Seriously? You must be pretty hardcore to snorkel on your own breath deeper than 15 m.
> 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling
>>Seriously? You must be pretty hardcore to snorkel on your own breath deeper than 15 m.
Agreed, 15 meters is 49 feet.
That's what I was thinking.
guys, when you see a rating like 5 or 15m, it often is static pressure. A watch rated at 50m in theory should be fine for most divers, but they routinely flood because the dynamic pressure is higher.
Given the cost, and the limited rating, I'd be reluctant to push it.
Just make sure you don't use the 15 m snorkel with this camera and you should be alright.
Needs a homing beacon to find it when you drop it.
Will it come with a float strap?
FINALLY. Someone who gets it.
Maybe a CO2 cartridge with balloon and distress beacon accessory. Take pics of your legs caught in a fishing net or capsized boat and inflate.
You can make a float strap out of styrofoam and zip-ties+the strap of course.
It would be interesting @ $700. Perhaps in a years time it will be that price.
It will be $400 for X mas....(2013!)
Jerome Nolas,
Very unlikely.
Oh, get thee behind me, Satan!
Very shortly: I like it yet I think it's an "incomplete" camera. Merging the V3 with the AW110 would have had more sense.
I'd like an EVF, a hot shoe for flash and something more; a good grip wouldn't be bad either
Second: Let's take the small size as a bonus but now Nikon please try to realize one of photographer's dreams, a 20-200mm lens with adequate aperture (which would turn in a 7-70mm more or less) or at least a 7-49 (20-140mm) f/4 or faster
I don't know, it looks pretty good to me. I've got grand kids - lots beach and swimming pool activities. This could be just the ticket. I hope the under water photos are better than those we saw during the summer roundup.
Cool feature !!!
but Nkon forget the most important thing ......image quality first !!!
the sensor is to small to invest in this system...
I call it a system....because it's an interchangeable lens camera
Are there any APS-C or FF cameras that (absent a pricey encasement) will survive a 2 meter fall or 15 meter submersion? In the <$2,000 realm, the only current competition comes from 1/2.3" sensor cameras.
What you are calling a "too small sensor" is quite a bit larger than the sensor in ANY OTHER rugged camera. In fact, several times larger.
A Nikon 1, wet or dry, will beat the pants off an Olympus Tough, Pentax WPS, Sony WP, Panasonic TS, or any other similar camera.
The only way to top this sensor, is to buy a waterproof housing for a 4/3 or larger DSLR or MILC camera.
Nikon nailed it.
I'll just put a qx100 on a used peanut butter jar and weigh it down to the depths while watching the puzzled faces of little nemos in a tab on a boat. Or. . . I'll just buy this one and the ft1 so i can use my nikkors while on dry land too.
It's not a Nikonos but it offers a whole lot more than any of the other "rugged" cameras.
Too much emphasis here on diving - this will also be great for canoeing, white water rafting, kitesurfing, mountaineering, ice climbing, bad weather, any outdoor stuff....and then in civilised conditions you can still mount any Nikkor lens on it.
I don't need waterproof so much as tough and portable...and then I still want to mount it on a tripod for the odd landscape or macro and use it with my long lenses for wildlife and make the occasional decent sized print. Can't do all this with any one other camera on the planet right now. Would have preferred to see an enthusiast model like the V1/V2 dolled up with a waterproof casing and mount but this "1" might do the trick anyway.
If you 're thinking its a niche diving/snorkelling product and the market is too small to be viable - think again
Even if you don't intend to dive, it's nice if the camera will survive if the canoe capsizes, or if a wave knocks you down. Would a model that is simply "weather sealed" endure a full submersion, or even a fall?
Weather sealing is also applied to cameras which have variable volume (e.g., lens changing length), and such cameras have some means of allowing air to enter and exit the volume. Those can't be submerged, as opposed to "waterproof", which operate within the constant volume.
Dive-able cameras would also be very good for surface sports, like Nikonos was, provided you didn't use the lens reserved for underwater use (like 28mm or 15mm UW Nikkor). The 35mm and 80mm lenses had flat ports, thus were used above and under the water.
Many of us would need a camera that can stand the 80+ meters depth pressure, and we also know why underwater housings are not the same as an amphibious camera. So far, no manufacturer seems willing to recognise the number of divers worldwide, and produce something in the old Nikonos quality and abilities. And with FF sensor, no less.
Right this isn't a really serious dive camera.
Though I don't dive and have no particular interest in ever learning to dive more than say 40 feet below the surface, I believe you when you say there's a market for something like a full framed digital 2014 version of the Nikonos.
However given the considerable development expense, and the fact that camera models can radically change in 24 months, I can see why Sony, Nikon, and Canon have avoided developing such a system. Sales could evaporate really really quickly, particularly since this would be an expensive body and system--like Nikon D4 pricing. The camera companies realize they're not likely to sell the hundreds of thousands of units which would be required to drive the price down.
A 2014 variation of an APSC sensored Silicon Film adapter, with external WiFi control+viewing panel which can be velcroed to the back of a real Nikonos body seems like a more promising idea.
I somehow think the real reason is like always: trying to sell out all the technology already produced before coming up with some "revolutionary" new system.
Considering what's already available, let's say someone guts out the Nikonos V and puts in digital innards. Old lenses would fit, the sensor could be full-frame, and all the usual bells and whistles would have more than ample place inside, plus a really huge battery. The only thing that would be new is the glass where the film door is, so one can see the monitor.
But seriously, it is not difficult to make a really tough casing anew (smaller). Equip it with reed-switches for dialing the functions, and put the same Nikonos lens mount to the front...
The camera could go well below 80 meters, sport a FF sensor, and open the lost market anew; for new (zoom) lenses, slightly changed strobe units, same add-on lenses... Even GPS, if it boosts the sales. Basic config should not cost over $500...
That would go like proverbial hot cakes.
Gutting the old Nikonos 5 and putting a sensor in it is fine idea, for those who are willing to shoot manual focus (I'm one).
A full framed sensor would be problematic because of vignetting in the corners--film being much more able to deal with that than sensors.
This is why I said APSC sensor in addition to a 2014 version of Silicon Film+an external waterproof WiFi viewer controller for the Silicon Film innards.
Well, until Nikon came up with AF lenses, I'd be perfectly willing to use manual settings. The data on the monitor would suffice, and the whole would still be easier to use than the film version.
I also think the FF sensor would do well, but only the tests could show that for certain. Of course, APSC sensor would be happy with usual Nik lenses the way they are...
And I'd put the complete digital electronics in the Nikonos V casing, not only adapt it with Silicon Film. The commands would need to be redirected entirely for that purpose. Anyway, my point was, if Nikon already has tested and proven casings for camera and lens(es) that solve almost all water / pressure problems (unlike the new "rugged" cameras), the knowlege should be used and followed with digital models.
Most of all, I'd like to see the half-baked sealing "standards" relating pressure exposure time to maximum depth rating forbidden by law, since it has no logic other than sinking the customer.
I'd bet Nikon is thinking people are wedded to AF. (I'm not--but that doesn't mean much I grew up focusing manually.)
I thought of the system you described years ago, when I had a Nikonos. But back then ISO 800 was about the top for an APSC sensored camera.
I also wasn't really impressed by the optical quality of that Nikonos V's lens, so the lenses need some work.
HowAboutRAW... I have used all Nikonos models with all the lenses they produced, also with their accessories and those of other manufacturers. True, that was the most serious line of amphibious cameras of the time, and many SLR systems produced better images - but at a cost. The casings for SLRs used different ports for almost each kind of lens, and the cost of the complete range was about twice or sometimes thrice the Nikonos (bar the RS, which was up front too expensive for what it offered).
I want to urge Nikon to awaken their hibernating experiences and produce a new Nikonos, and I'm suggesting that the model V is/was best suited for the purpose. If they used the principles in a V-like case, and used the same lens tubes to incorporate electrically + manually controlled zooms (which they already have), they'd be the World's top in this special photo gear again.
Why they don't do it... that's anybody's guess. Sooner or later someone will see the light (in the depths).
Or not... ;)
I'll use this on the boat and on ski outings! Looking forward
This looks to be a very interesting application for the Nikon 1. Often I am hesitant to bring good equipment to the shore where the wind can drive sand and spray into the camera. Also, shooting in blizzards, this sounds attractive too. Fine grains of snow that can find their way into lenses and camera bodies. I can imagine a lot of applications here.
So far I have two Nikon 1 V1s. Appreciate what they truly offer. Smaller, yet with a quality sensor that gives me great versatility via the FT1 adapter and my Nikkor FX / DX lenses.
Not a perfect system but a useful photographic tool.
There is 40m rated housing available for the RX100 for under $200.
Seems like a better way to go.
and one can drop a RX100 in the housing from 2m in the water, too.
Definitely. Sony RX100 is $600, the housing rated to 40m is $190
And you can connect external lenses to it underwater.
The Sony RX100 is very slow when fully zoomed. This Nikon's sensor is better in lowlight than the first RX100's sensor; this may have changed with the new more expensive, not cited in your example, RX100ii.
Cases add bulk, expense and complication.
Then best not to cite Ebay pricing for something that may fail and you may have to return. In the US, cite the Amazon or B+H price.
In many ways, the Olympus XZ10, in a case or bag, would be a better bet than the Sony RX100. You see the Olympus' lens is much faster when zoomed out than the Sony RX100's. And the Olympus is very good in lowlight, not quite up to the Sony but close and the fast lens would help the Olympus extraordinarily. Unlike the not great "Zeiss" on the Sony, the Olympus' lens is optically extraordinary.
Then this: "just use a case" repeated again and again is tiresome and not the point of this Nikon. You can simply use a case or bag with the current 1 series Nikons.
14 degrees? ABOVE zero???
That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.
Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.
Standard cameras work fine in very cold temps, but if you look at the actual ratings, most are like 35-95 degrees F.
It says -10C or 14F, so definitely subzero.
Farenheit 14 is NOT sub zero, it is 14 above zero. That is barely coat weather.
I always thought "freeze proof" was an odd spec anyway. The thing that goes bad at 20 degrees (on my cameras, at least) is the battery life.
-10C is sub-zero (10 deg Celsius below water freezing point), so there was perhaps a conversion error somewhere.
But what strikes me as funny is this ubiquitous stating of waterproof with dustproof. Doesn't the former include the latter?
On the other side, there is this time-limited worth of water pressure resistance... like 30min @ 10 meters and the like. This one is a purposefully built weak spot, since proper sealing has nothing to do with pressure exposure time, and why should it?
Anyhow, the industry seems to insist upon risky sealing principles, avoiding the age-old, proven systems which work for submarines as well as underwater housings. The reason it is not applied with tough series cameras is a sort of mystery - or is it just the way of making sure the cameras do not survive for too long?
There's no conversion error. It's just that in the USA 14 deg Fahrenheit isn't considered below zero.
Water-freezing temp is not the reference point ih F?
My error, then.
However, water-freezing point is important when speaking about mechanical and optical problems it causes, not to mention the battery becoming comatose.
Right water freezing is not the reference point in Fahrenheit.
32F above 0F is H2O freezing.
Much as I dislike the Nikon 1 range this one caught me as an interesting surprise - well done Nikon ! But its FAR too expensive at its RRP - perhaps a 50 % discount is coming as with all of the other Nikon 1's ?
It wouldn't surprise me.
Panasonic does similar price crash tactics...I've heard that it's because the Japanese market goes nuts for mirrorless compacts, so they try to make as much money as possible on that initial rush...then readjust the price to suit the more patient/stingy American & European markets a few months later.
Not even close to Nikonos. Just another frustrating attempt to avoid building something truly usable to divers. Funny silicone underwear, whatever the color, won't help.
Nikon already covers scuba diving with the Nikon 1 with the WP-N1 waterproof casing for the J1 and J2 models or WP-N2 for the J3 model to a depth of 40 metres, plus sundry waterproof spares/accessories such as spare o-rings, zoom-gear sleeves, reflection prevention rings, and even desiccant and Nikon-branded tubes grease.
Doesn't look like avoidance to me. Or are you claiming none of this is actually usable to divers?
A camera in the housing is not the same as an amphibian camera. So it is not the same theme.
I am saying that divers should not be additionally depth-limited by concurrent sealing / pressure resistance. Many people were more than happy using Nikonos cameras, among other things also because those were able to work perfectly at double the rated depth. I have taken both models III and V down to below 80 meters (9Atm) with no trouble. The strobe (Sunpak) was also not affected. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever not to repeat the same camera - only with digital innards.
Do not think that market for such a camera would be small; there are millions which would be happy with it, as the Nikonos was widely used in industry too (pro divers).
IMHO, the easiest way would be to gut the Nikonos V and put in the digital works, with a full-frame sensor. It could use all the former (excellent) range of lenses, etc. and should cost about the same as then, since mechanics are usually more expensive.
Drop it and it breaks , or submerge it and it leaks, and you're in trouble to prove you did not exceed specifications.
This is, AFAIK, the first relatively affordable digital camera - beyond the 2/3" crowd - that can be taken under the water without bulky, heavy & expensive housing. I do not say this often: "Well done Nikon!"
many people can do something great only when cornered. Nikon is a good example, Canon is an opposite one.
How are you supposed to hold a bar of soap underwater?
I've been instructed to buy the white with orange cover.
This looks like fun but I'm guessing somebody already makes a cell phone that works underwater. I wish I was joking.
You mean my S4 Active?
It doesn't go deep.
Has no impact protection.
Lens is the same all the time.
The sensor is weak.
No OIS coming...EVER!
But it works in shallow water!
And rain, splashes, sweat. even shower, etc
I kind of like where this is going. having owned two point and shoots with underwater housings (Panasonic TS-1 and Canon S-95) I can say that adjusting controls of a camera inside a housing isn't exactly easy. Yes, this is at best a snorkeling camera but it could also be the best snorkeling camera. And valuable for those who shoot, say, underwater portraits in swimming pools, etc.
I know there's a 1 system underwater housing for previous Nikon 1 cameras (a local camera shop has it) so there should be some idea of how useful the body is underwater. And until Nikon comes out with flashes, can't a third-party flash be used as well, since there are several that sync via the built-in flash of smaller cameras anyway?
for that price why would jou get an underwater housing for the Sony NEX-6 at $1600
And many others have made the point: "but cases already exist for mirrorless systems".
Assuming a case, not a simple bag with optical glass, controls are going to be bit more difficult to use with a case instead of a purpose built camera body.
Cases can also cost $500 for cameras this size and $2500 for DSLRs.
For 100 Euro/USD you can get a cheap but compact housing for nex-5:
Do you have link to a retailer listing something like that for that price.
In the USA, that's the price for a good watertight bag with optical glass.
I checked and I admit that Amazon US lists a Nex 5 case for $133; that's still an unusually low price. Think more like $300-400.
The 1 system was dead, but this actually delivers a small breath of new life. Having a niche product and pricing it like a mass-market product should ensure it gets a lot of looks at least from that small market and maybe even some looking for more flexibility.
Nikon 1 is actually very popular in Asia.
I would be more worried about m43, neither Oly nor Pana have made any profit from that system. The only thing propping Oly up is are their endoscopes.
Jogger wrote: "Nikon 1 is actually very popular in Asia."
It became popular only after they started selling old models at a price of a recycled toilet paper.
Hooray! They've found a use for the "1" system.
Nikon avoided the stupidity of a touch screen that does not work when wet like so many other "underwater" cameras. Now the question remains whether the LCD can produce a visible image in the bright sun or underwater. Can't wait for a test.
Appeals to me. Every time I shoot near/around a swimming pool someone has the glorious idea to do under water shots. I would prefer this thing over an expensive UW housing or a GoPro any day.
this is camera for me ..maybe?...I can imagine myself dive 3 m under the water, then shoot everything all around in 60 frames per second mode, while struggling with lack of air and then spend 3 hours on computer with two possible outcomes....first is, all photos are rubbish and i have to delete them or second, I find 1 maybe 3 briliant photos, put it on facebook, get a lot of likes and die happy...:)
15m? They must be joking! It's not a camera for scuba diving. Must be at least 40m. Not a Nikonos at any measure.
If you had bothered to read Nikon's advertising you would have discovered that this camera isn't aimed at divers - it's aimed at anyone who wants a ruggedised waterproof camera with 60fps for outdoor use. Scuba divers only make up about 0.0001% of outdoor sports enthusiasts.
Dpreview claimed that Nikonos is reborn. It's a joke, and not a Nikonos.
There is already 40m underwater housing for both the J1 and J3 models to cater to scuba diving, so you don't actually need this AW1 for that.
Just don't go that deep. The light is usually very poor anyway below 10m or so.
@supeyugin1: Is this the line where we claimed the AW1 is a Nikonos? "Some of us are old enough to remember the famous Nikon 'Nikonos' waterproof film cameras, and although the AW1 certainly *isn't* a Nikonos..."
The title of this article says Nikonos reborn?
Apparently not. Why even mention Nikonos here?
Maybe because it's a waterproof, submersible, interchangeable lens camera from Nikon?
And what was the last one to fit that description before this?
This camera is the result of Nikon misunderstanding their market research. Their research question was "What would you like to see us do with the Nikon 1 system cameras.?". Those queried overwhelmingly
responded "Throw them in the ocean."
Well done, sir.
Your comment is the result of your misunderstanding of what the Nikon 1 is all about. As one of my teachers used to say - never talk about things that you know nothing about, otherwise you'll look stupid.
haha, that great
@Joe, Great one. You deserve the post of the day.
Once in a while there is a well timed quip that earns lots of likes....very funny and thanks for the laugh....
Next research question asked..."Where should the WIFI system be placed?"...the focus group responds "up your keister!"
Months later, Nikon introduces a separate WIFI adapter, with a soft, rubberized and rather bulbous design.... :)
Badda bing. At the root of most great humor there is usually an element of truth.
I know that this comment's gonna be too "facebook'ish" but.... HERE, TAKE MY LIKE!
lol, this gotta be THE " Gold Award " comment of the year, thanks for the laugh!
I like the Nikon 1 system but your comment was hilarious all the same. Well done.
Even with this new release, Nikon can't keep up the breakneck development of the Canon EOS M line. :-)
As watch repairer i must say that even a 10 atm waterproof watch need to be controlled every year. Often the sails or O-rings need to be replaced. So what whit a camera ? Replace all the seals every year to be shore ? To use it occasionally for under water exploring it will be OK i think.
Yes, seals and O-rings will need maintenance and replacement. Dpreview should find out if Nikon will provide the service and what it will cost. Nikonos users typically carried replacement O-rings but I'd bet they won't be user-replaceable in this camera.
The Nikon USA web site shows an O-ring, an O-ring removal tool, etc., in the AW1 Waterproof Accessories section.
Waterproof to 15 m is useless for scuba diving. I don't understand which is the market for this camera.
Do a lot of scuba divers dive below 30 feet?
Yes I know that some do. But that's where a case and a really good in lowlight DSLR would be helpful.
It would be a good bit more expensive to engineer and manufacture a camera body and lenses for use 50 meters underwater, so Nikon would have to charge more money.
In the case of the Nikonos, I believe Nikon was relying on someone else's design and engineering from the 1960s, at least for the body. So all that was paid off years before the camera ended production.
Uh... for every 1 person that scuba dives 500 people snorkel?
Dunno, that might have something to do with it [sarcastic shrug]
gescolar, you need to get out more. The world of outdoor activities doesn't just include divers. I can't believe how myopic some people are.
The last 4 years or so I shot more than 3000 images underwater during snorkeling, so yes, this may be useful (for me). As for the market, well, snorkelers ... if there are enough of those ??
Yes, many dive a lot deeper than 30 feet, and they use a variety of lights to make fantastic photos. Nikon acquired the rights to reproduce Calypsophot (J.Y.Cousteau) and in their range of Nikonos series have made five models: Nikonos II, III, IVa, V, and RS (SLR).
Model II had a film transport problem.
Model III had it solved - film transport was very precise, and there were some other betterments.
Model IVa looked like everyday camera, but they used the impossibly stupid sealing system ("Quad X") to the back door.
That was changed in model V for a proper o-ring (something every manufacturer nowadays refuses to understand...)
And finally the SLR model (RS) was a flop again, same as IVa.
It was outrageously overpriced, TTL viewing was impossible in the deep / dark, and sealing was hard to maintain in the field - something that models III and V were excellent for, truly outdoorsy cameras.
Now we have monitors, but there seems to be no-one at Nikon who understands the rest of it.
Quote: "Yes, many dive a lot deeper than 30 feet, and they use a variety of lights to make fantastic photos." Right they use lights and cases.
Many people snorkel and do light scuba in shallow water.
Interesting enough Nikonos history.
We can expect lots of those to be listed soon on ebay...used but, in mint condition, after just a minor flooding.
Why did the Nikonos leak? No. So the "flooding" thing makes no sense.
It's a great idea, small camera, shoots raw, don't have to worry about use in the rain, snow, good video, good in lowlight, fast Af, doesn't cost $2500 plus another $1500 for a case+$1200 for a lens. Can easily be used when snorkeling, rafting, sailing etc.
Nikon probably just killed much of the small "tough" camera market--unless tiny sensors+tiny bodies+jpeg only are must have features. (And I don't want to read, "but the Nikon costs more". Raw would have cost Olympus almost nothing in the TG2 body.)
Yes, why oh why did Olympus not put the XZ-2 sensor and Raw in the TG-2.
The body would have to be bigger or the zoom less for that sensor to work in the TG series.
@HowaboutRAW:Yes, I am aware of that, but would not mind a larger size.
Right, I posited long ago that Canon could fit something in say the body of the G series. I also pointed out that Canon could possibly make the M APSC cameras waterproof.
It's not about the camera but user.
I guess average Nikonos user was more than just a snoorkling teenager. Now many users (consumers) of AW1 might not be sensitive enough for things such as a tiny hair on a gasket or lack of grase on the oring...
@Langusta: Yes, I fear the same. After each snorkeling trip (1-2 hours, down to 8 m) I soak the TG-1 in freshwater, dry it and the seals, charge the battery and let it completely dry with the card doors open.
@HowaboutRAW: Yep, was thinking of a tough LX7 ... or a tough E-PM2 with a bolted on 12-50 zoom (it is not extending during zoom anyway).
Right I own the Panasonic LX5 and almost always have the filter tube installed, with filter, so when I look at the camera body and tube together, I see box with an internally zooming lens, and of course that box could have been engineered to be entirely waterproof.
And in the case of the LX5, I see a camera which shoots raw, is useable to ISO1000 (with the latest firmware) and shoots excellent video and amazing lowlight video. Yes I know the video is only 30p and AVCHD Lite, but the CCD makes up for those failings.
Will anyone dare submerge a $1,000 camera and $350 lens to 49'1" or drop it from 6'7", just to see whether the items survive? Will anyone repeat the experience to see how long the seals survive, or degrade?
A relevant test for all such devices would be to drop them multiple times onto concrete and descend them on a line into the local harbor, on two separate dates (and AFTER the drop tests), while shooting video or time lapse. Scuba dives for each test would be too difficult, but perhaps be the only way to confirm whether the control buttons or touch-screen features work at all at any depth.
Maybe the traditional $235 U/W, shock resistant P&S models are a safer gamble. Buyer reviews of these cameras have a larger-than-usual quotient that assign 1 or 2 stars because of failure on the first or second dive.
Look up Torture Tests.
Look up the difference between "can withstand" and "must endure at the hands of every user".
The $235 WP tough cameras, have small mostly crap for lowlight sensors, don't shoot raw, don't have phase detect AF, and only a couple have fast lenses. How many of these $235 cameras shoot 60p video?
Nikon probably just killed that market.
Then most pocket tough cameras will be out shot by the likes of an iPhone is a case very soon. (Yes I know iPhone cameras don't have optical zoom, unlike say the $400 Olympus TG2.)
@jkoch2: "Will anyone dare submerge a $1,000 camera and $350 lens to 49'1" or drop it from 6'7", just to see whether the items survive?"
Yesterday I was at a Nikon UK press event where the assembled journalists did just that, and yes, the cameras and lenses survived.
Andy W:
Of course someone is going to ask this, so I will: Nikon really had a tank 49 feet deep at the press event? Or was it some kind of water pressure vessel?
Then right, yes people will test these kinds of things out, if they don't own them.
However owners don't have to test the extremes, but it's nice to know the bodies and lenses have some capacity to with stand abuse.
No, of course it wasn't 49 feet deep - more like 6 inches. But that wasn't the question originally asked.
Man, the comments on this are great. It's a shame John Cameron Swayze isn't around for Nikon to use.
Um, "submerge...49'1"" means forty nine feet and one inch, so that point was in the original comment.
Just saying someone would ask.
Fair enough. We'll send Jeff diving with it and see what happens...
Well done for Nikon, except.... its marketing stinks because you cannot buy just the AW1 and the 10mm (equiv. 27mm) ONLY.
Underwater snorkeling I would use the 27mm equivalent ONLY -is that me, or anybody else agrees?
(also a flash would be useful)
Under-water photography or video must be wide angle and at rather short distances. It's impossible to frame any narrower shots since you often can't see the LCD in the sunlight. Long focal lengths are also disadvantageous because murky water makes distant objects blurry, and even clear water robs red wavelenths beyond a small distance.
It has a pop-up flash. Or were you hoping for a waterproof external flash?
Anything but remote flashes are pretty much useless underwater because they illuminate every. single. little. piece of everything directly in front of the camera.
If they had the foresight to include means to trigger a strobe, I'll be surprised/impressed
A flash is in the works.
Connect with dpreview


text:
In 1862 our Congress passed the Morrill Act which gave every state some federal land which the states were then free to sell. As with all things regarding the federal government, there were a couple strings attached to the gift. The proceeds from the land sales were supposed to be used by the states to educate their residents in agriculture and mechanical arts. (Each state got 30,000 acres per Congressman). The other stipulation was that the work of the land grant institutions, created with the money from the sale of federal lands, must primarily benefit America´s family farmers. I wonder how those Congressmen would feel now when their beloved land grant system is often used against the very people it was intended to benefit.
Perhaps David Harvey summed up the problem best four years ago in his book, University Inc. Harvey wrote, "A revolution is a foot in higher education. Those who pay the piper, (corporations and governments) will surely call the tune. The relevance of universities is on the line. And a recent flood of books, commentaries and reports all depict the University as a deeply troubled institution."
Along with everything else these days, the cost of upkeep on the old Ivory Tower has skyrocketed, while federal formula funding has decreased eight percent in the last ten years. As federal and state funding went steadily down, college administrators were forced to find new revenue streams. They found the best fishing in the big corporate pond.
The cost squeeze has wreaked dramatic changes on college campuses across the country. Professors who used to teach three classes per quarter or semester can often be found these days teaching only one class: The rest of their time is spent researching, submitting grant proposals or working with the private sector to raise cash. The big man on campus these days is a fund raiser. Step foot on almost any large university and you´ll find the place has been sold to the highest bidder. Either Coke or Pepsi, but not both, might be sold in campus vending machines because they bought exclusive rights. Buildings are named after big benefactors. In Berkeley, Laura Tyson, previously of the Clinton cabinet, is now known as the BankAmerica Dean of the Haas Business School. Corporate logos can be seen everywhere. It has gotten so out of hand that the University of Missouri is derisively called the University of Monsanto. In some universities signage space in lecture halls and on computer screens is sold to corporate sponsors. Colleges in need of new labs work with corporations to build new buildings. Naturally, such benefactors expect to have input as to what is taught inside those hallowed and corporate- sponsored halls.
The universities have proven to be good fund raisers. In 1985 about $850 million was given by corporations to universities. In less than ten years that figure was multiplied by a factor of ten. The universities have now come to depend on that money and if it comes with strings attached, well then, so be it. That´s a price they´re willing to pay. The academics know which side their bread is buttered on and the result has been the creation of what critics call "The Academic-Industrial Complex." And they don´t mean it as a compliment.
The financial figures don´t begin to tell the whole story. As I travel around I´m often given the opportunity to speak to classes of college students. I am always amazed at how little they know about concentration, captive supply and globalization. It seems they are being taught so that they may be plugged right into the system: The corporate system. And most students I visit with see nothing wrong with that.
In 1980 this country´s politicians were concerned that we were not keeping up with the Japanese. So, they changed the ground rules. The Bayh-Dole Act was offered as an incentive, paving the way for universities to patent the results of federally- funded research. Lobbying on the bill was intense and the day was won by the Business and Higher Education Forum, a group of captains of industry who saw the universities as a cheaper alternative to building their own research labs. The Bayh-Dole Act allowed universities to subsidize big business by doing a lot of their research. More laws have since been passed that allow corporations big tax breaks for investing in academic research. The Bayh-Dole Act, and a continued lack of government funding for ag research, has forced colleges to make countless deals with private companies to the point where 60 percent of all funds for ag research now comes from corporations.
From 1980 through 1998 industry funding for academic research expanded at a rate of 8.1 percent each year. Before the Bayh-Dole Act was passed professors and researchers at universities produced about 250 patents per year. In 1998 they filed 4,800 patent applications. According to the Chronicle on Higher Education, in 1998 the top ten research universities held 1,921 patent licenses which earned the schools $370 million per year in licensing income. Universities started up 78 for-profit companies and many professors used their research to lay the foundation for their own new companies when they left campus to try their hands in the real world.
Familiarity has bred some contempt. At a conference several years ago a poll was taken of the researchers in attendance and the result was that the professors thought that 10-15 percent of the work being reported at universities was fraudulent, tipped in favor of the corporations or the entity sponsoring the research. It´s like beef checkoff money being given to a professor to research how successful the checkoff is. If you want to continue to receive those research funds in the future you´d better come up with a favorable report. Act on behalf of your benefactors and you are apt to be rewarded with lucrative speaking engagements and more research money.
This has created some doubt as to the reliability of corporate sponsored research. According to the New York Times, "Scientists who report research findings are expected to divulge any financial ties that might influence their work. But often they do not, according to the first comprehensive analysis of disclosure policies in science and medical journals. In reviewing 61,134 scholarly articles published in 181 academic journals in 1997, researchers at Tufts University and the University of California at Los Angeles found just one half of one percent detailed personal financial interests, including consulting agreements, honorariums, expert witness fees, company equity and stock and patents. It is possible," said the New York Times, "that scientists have few conflicts to report. But experts say previous studies have shown that as many as half of all academic researchers consult with industry, and roughly eight percent have stakes in biomedical companies related to their research."
This leads some to wonder: Is the university research system being compromised and were ag schools meant to become profit centers for universities?
The debate over the corporate/college relationship is heating up, sparked by comments like those of Jim Minert of Kansas State University. He allegedly referred to R-CALF, the grass roots organization for cow-calf producers, as "a radical fringe organization." Minert writes a column twice a month that urges producers to contract their production and thus become part of some packer´s captive supply. Minert also made the comment that "from a long-term perspective, concentration of the ag sector has provided innumerable benefits to society."
We do not know if recent million-dollar donations from Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill to Kansas State for a new grain center might have influenced Minert´s statements. Another Kansas State professor, Roger McEowen, said "I am concerned research results are skewed on the side of the hand that is feeding them."
Fred Stokes, President of the Organization for Competitive Markets, has long been critical of the role of academics in pushing us toward a world dominated by multinational conglomerates. Even before his organization was formed Stokes talked to this reporter about how universities were taking too much money from big business to develop new seeds, chemicals and genetically modified organisms. "I believe this violates the mission of our land grant institutions, promotes concentration of agriculture, and contributes to the de-mise of the family farm," says Stokes. "At land grant universities today the guy who puts up the loot is the guy who benefits, and that´s not always farmers and ranchers."
Professor Luther Tweeten struck back at Stokes during A Debate on the Structure of Agriculture, at Iowa State in September 2001. "When we pass around innuendo," said Tweeten, "as the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) does, for example, as to agribusiness, for people who are on the edge, that is enough to throw them over the edge. In a bunch of cases bankers were killed by farmers because of that atmosphere of innuendo and fear and hate and so we´re creating left-wing hate groups such as the Organization for Competitive Markets, that I think is very damaging to the country."
If this reporter knows anything it is that the OCM is NOT a left wing hate group!
This brings us to the latest salvo from academia. Senator Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) introduced an amendment, which passed the Senate 51-46 on Dec. 13, that would prohibit beef and pork packer ownership, feeding, or control of livestock for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. An analysis regarding the amendment was issued by eight economists from seven land-grant universities. They were: Dillon Feuz, University of Nebraska; Glenn Grimes, University of Missouri; Marvin L. Hayenga, Iowa State; Stephen R. Koontz, Colorado State; John D. Lawrence, Iowa State; Wayne D. Purcell, Virginia Tech; Ted C. Schroeder, Kansas State and Clement E. Ward, Oklahoma State.
The group came to several conclusions about the bill, that in this reporter´s opinion could go a long way towards fixing the problems created by captive supplies. Here´s a sampling of the professors´ almost laughable conclusions.
Pat Goggins, President of the LMA and one of the men bringing a class action suit against IBP says, these professors all have something else in common besides their opposition to banning feeders from owning cattle just prior to slaughter. According to Goggins all of these professors, and 30 more, were on a list as to receiving grants from the various packers. They could not testify in the IBP case, says Goggins, because "They had already been purchased."
I´m not saying these are evil people. No, not at all. But I am saying they are reacting to current market forces within the university system. Anyone reading their comments would be well advised to remember the old adage: You get what you pay for.
Office: 505/243-9515 • Fax: 505/998-6236 • NEW MEXICO STOCKMAN | P.O. Box 7127, Albuquerque, NM 87194LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST | P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, NM 87194
COPYRIGHT 2010-2013, RAINY DAY, INC. All rights reserved. Redistribution or commercial use of any editorial or images from this website is prohibited without express written permission from the editor. Reproduction in whole or in part without the express written permission of the editor is prohibited.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I can see them throwing him into a Tag Team with Yoshi Tatsu or somebody odd in that fashion when he returns.
Hey.. I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.
I am without regret I am devoid of shame I am the anti.Christ let em know the name


text:
Your shopping bag is empty.
Don't Miss Out..Sign up to receive updates on our newest collections, exclusive offers, and receive 10% off your first order!
only left in this size
Tailored Leg. A relaxed waistline, anchored by a tailored leg. A clean, unbroken wash of deep blue lends a classic look to this slender 5-pocket style. Zip fly with button closure.


text:
Rain and a thunderstorm from tomorrow evening to late Thursday night can lead to flooding
Rises at 5:27 AM with 14:49 of sunlight, then sets at 8:16 PM
Rises at 12:28 AM with -12:-39 of moolight, then sets at 11:49 AM
When it comes to choosing the perfect place for a camping trip, the US has no shortage of scenic and adventurous campgrounds to choose from.
A recap of the biggest announcements made at the commercial airline event of the year.
Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the US, these cities are the 'most fit'
Whether it's for fun, to get to work or for sport, bikes are becoming a more popular mode of transportation, and especially in cities where it's easy and safe to get around on only two wheels.
Incorporate these low-impact activities in your daily routine to help reduce arthritis and joint pain.
Escape the crowds of tourists and make your own tracks on a bike tour, the best way to uncover a region at your own pace.
For traveling fitness enthusiasts, sneaking in a jog while sightseeing is a treat of sorts. Transform your runner's high into an unforgettable experience with a trip to one of the following destinations.
From North America to Africa, these rapids are insanely challenging.
Nov 1, 2012; 5:00 AM ET As the world warms, due to a changing climate, there is a chance the sport of hunting and fishing could be affected. Valerie Smock has more on what could happen in the future.


text:
Riddle me this, is this even possible.
Here is the scenario:
New startup company wants everything in the cloud, no hardware onsite except PC's/Laptops/Printers.
Is there a way to have an Active Directory server that is hosted in the cloud talk with the exisiting Office 365 and have 2 factor authentication?
Something tells me it could be possible but I can only find info for two factor authentication only if we have an AD box on premise.
Appreciate an assist.


text:
Villa Park
Barclays Premier League
(Attendance: 35,134)
Villa have made three changes for this afternoon's Barclays Premier League clash against Southampton.
Leandro Bacuna is back from a hamstring injury and will take the place of Matt Lowton at right-back.
Andreas Weimann returns to the starting line-up, replacing Grant Holt up front.
And there is a recall for Marc Albrighton, with fellow academy graduate Ciaran Clark dropping to the bench.
Southampton have made three changes from their defeat to Cardiff last weekend.
Artur Boruc is back in goal, while Nathaniel Clyne and Victor Wanyama return to the team.
VILLA: Guzan, Bacuna, Vlaar, Baker, Bertrand, Albrighton, Westwood, Delph, El Ahmadi, Agbonlahor, Weimann. Subs: Steer, Sylla, Tonev, Lowton, Clark, Holt, Robinson.
SOUTHAMPTON: Boruc, Clyne, Fonte, Lovren, Shaw, Wanyama, Schneiderlin, S. Davis, Ward-Prowse, Lallana, Lambert. Subs: Gazzaniga , Cork, Guly, Chambers, Hooiveld, Reed, Gallagher.
Follow all the action with our match console.


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
An eccentric New Yorker abandons his upper class life to lead a more bohemian existence. He meets a young girl from the south and her family and no two people seem to get along in the entanglements that follow.
Rated PG-13 for sexual situations including dialogue, brief nude images and thematic material.
Visit the official site
Cast: Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson, Ed Begley Jr., Kristen Johnston, Henry Cavill, Larry David
Produced by: Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum
Directed by: Woody Allen
Written by: Woody Allen
Running time: 1hr 32min
Opens: Jun 19, 2009 NY/LA


text:
Last week I came up with a limerick about Obama (here) and got some really good ones sent to me in response, below are some of the ones I thought were funny and/or very clever:
A Kenyan imposter that you know
Said, "Screwing is one thing I do know,
A woman is fine,
And sheep are divine,
But Larry is numero uno.
Before he took office as president
Obama, congressional resident
was hired for voting
but spent time devoting
his efforts to mark himself present
He got elected because of his race.
To the White House, a once beautiful place.
Spreading his Obama stash around,
Driving the country into the ground.
Never letting a crisis go to waste.
Obama, a man of no worth
With his wooky of oversized girth
Rode his ghost written books
And his sound bites and hooks
To election with no proof of birth
There once was a man from Mombasa
Who lived in a very fine casa
He thought he was king
And loved the left wing
Al Qaeda, Hamas, and La Raza
This last one was a bit unorthodox...A trilogy of sorts, the last one doesn't work technically, but I really liked the effort
Obama's the fellow they picked
They chose him because he's so slick.
A fast talking schemer
the ultimate dreamer,
but BP has taught him new tricks.
While he's off putting balls on the green
with new skills even he's never seen,
BPs working swiftly
with skills new and nifty
to bring in more cash for their queen.
They pay 20 billion
to make a few trillion,
and then disappear from the scene.
Now I don't want to spoil it,
but the gulf's a huge toilet
and I wish it was all JUST a bad dream.


text:
Monday, April 1 at 8:00 – 10:00 pm and
Tuesday, April 2 at 8:00 – 11:00 pm on Ch.5.1
A Special Co-Presentation of FRONTLINE & INDEPENDENT LENS
Follow Robin Charboneau, an Oglala Sioux, on her journey of discovery, heartbreak and redemption.
In a special two-part series, acclaimed filmmaker David Sutherland ("The Farmer's Wife," "Country Boys") creates an unforgettable portrait of Robin Charboneau, a 32-year-old divorced single mother and Oglala Sioux woman living on North Dakota's Spirit Lake Reservation. Sutherland follows Robin over three years as she struggles to raise her two children, further her education and heal herself from the wounds of sexual abuse she suffered as a child.
Robin's battles in tribal court with her ex-husband for custody of the children, even after he is convicted of abusive sexual contact with his daughter, illuminates how serious this problem is on the reservation. Her quest to heal her family, find a man worthy of her love, build a career and fulfill her goal of returning to her reservation to help prevent the abuse of women and children, takes her on an intimate and inspiring journey full of heartbreak, discovery and redemption.
Sutherland's film of Robin's journey is told with the disarming intimacy that riveted viewers of his previous films. Viewers gain access to heartbreaking scenes of Robin returning her children to her ex-husband after a Mother's Day visit; of intimate discussions between mother and daughter about how Darian can protect herself from further abuse; of the agonies of Robin's young son, Anthony, as he struggles with the emotional pain of not being able to see his father; and of scenes deep inside the relationship between Robin and Darren, as they face their conflicts and their fears.
"As in my other films profiling rural poverty," says Sutherland, "I was trying to reach out to another forgotten corner of the American landscape, this time to put a face on a Native family so that we could see them close-up with all the detail that illuminates the rich reality of their lives."
Robin's ultimate emergence as a powerful public speaker on abuse provides a final sign of her growing emotional health and personal triumph as both a professional and a mother.
KIND HEARTED WOMAN is a special co-presentation of
FRONTLINE and INDEPENDENT LENS


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
This story of a World War II romance in the Scottish highlands develops in a gradual but lyrical manner as Janie (Phyllis Logan), a Scottish woman married to a cold and remote man, starts an affair with Luigi (Giovanni Mauriello), an Italian confined to Janie's small community until the war is over. Luigi has two other compatriots to keep him company, but none of the Italians speak English, and life in exile is lonely. Although the townspeople continue to distrust the Italians, Luigi and Janie are kindred spirits, so when they meet, their mutual need is unconsciously acknowledged and sparks are ignited. Whether an illicit wartime romance will endure or not, that is another question entirely.~ Eleanor Mannikka, All Movie Guide
Rated No Rating .
Visit the official site
Cast: Tom Watson, Phyllis Logan, Gianluca Favilla, Giovanni Mauriello, Denise Coffey
Produced by:
Directed by: Michael Radford
Written by: Jessie Kesson, John Francis Lane
Running time: 1hr 58min
Opens: Jan 01, 1983


text:
Developer: Ubisoft Montreal
Publisher: Ubisoft
Engine: CryENGINE 3
Release Date: NA: September 4, 2012, EU: September 6, 2012
Genre: First-person Shooter
Far Cry 3 is the upcoming sequel to the 2008 video game Far Cry 2. It is currently in development and is due to be released September 4th 2012 in North America, and September 6th in Europe.
Far Cry 3 takes place on a tropical island found somewhere at the intersection of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. However, Patrick Redding, a Ubisoft story designer, mentioned that an Antarctic setting is a possibility for future games. The main goal of the game is to escape from the islands (as there will be more than one, mentioned by Dan Hay) and their crazed inhabitants. [Source]
Far Cry 3 returns the series to a tropical setting, similar to the first game. Players will assume the role of protagonist Jason Brody, a tourist who has been stranded on an island chain in the grips of violent local conflict for years. Jason has been separated from his girlfriend and, in his search for her, developers have stated he will have to deal with a wide cast of mostly unstable characters who have been trapped on these islands for some time. In the short demo trailer that was the first footage released of the game in development, Jason interacts with one such character, named Vaas (voice, mocap and facial motion capture by Michael Mando), who gives an unsettling monologue about the nature of insanity before trying to drown Jason by anchoring him to a cinder block and throwing him into a natural pool of water that has clearly been used repeatedly for this purpose. Early developer interviews provided little about Jason's backstory, aside from the fact that he possesses a strong skillset as a combatant and survivalist that give him a fighting chance in the desperate circumstances he constantly finds himself in during the events of the game. More recent interviews have hinted at a change to the story in that Jason is now emphasized to be a man out of his element, with no particular training who just happens to be caught up in the island's chaos as he searches for his friends. At the same time, the story will try to invoke that after a time trapped on the island, it will start to have an effect on the protagonist, showing another side of Jason's personality, according to producer Dan Hay. Developers have also stated that the intended tone of the game will be one of realism and intensity and an attempt to invoke a visceral and constant feeling of danger in the player. [Source]
Official website: http://far-cry.ubi.c...home/index.aspx
Facebook: https://www.facebook...oft.FarCry3Game
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/farcrygame
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/farcrygame


text:
- Musician's Friend Best Selection, Price & Service. Guaranteed.
Call our Gear Heads
at: 800-449-9128
Call our Gear Heads
at: 800-449-9128
Results 1 - 6 of 6 matches
Lighting stand extends to 12'. Black aluminum with T bar.
Get your lights up in no time!
Provides a sturdy foundation for your gear and hides your mess. It's best suited for supporting DJ consoles...
Collapsible L Stand with table/case clamps.
Odyssey's F-28 foldout DJ stand is best suited for supporting racks, cases, and consoles and it folds away...
Looking for a quick set-up for your DJ equipment? The Odyssey's FZF5437T Flight Zone fold-out stand is for...
Our product catalog varies by country due to manufacturer restrictions. If you change the Ship-To country, some or all of the items in your cart may not ship to the new destination.


text:
Never Enough
George Ragula
Newark, NJ
'66 C2 Coupe
2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
My obsession with Vettes started as a kid, when I saw one roar down the street while looking out of an apartment window in Brooklyn, New York. That was 1956. Since then I've owned several Corvettes and have become an avid enthusiast. My interest in the marque has led me to put this collection together. It includes a frame-off-restored '66 427 Milano Maroon coupe, a '95 Aqua ZR-1, an '08 Victory Red Z06, and, the most recent addition, an '09 Jetstream Blue ZR1-all in stock condition. That's a total combined horsepower of nearly 2,000 under one garage roof! They're all beautiful in their own ways, with awesome handling and power when you get to the newer breed. I can't get enough.
Extreme Jake
Ronnie and Kelly Kunkel
Vaughn, MT
'77 C3 Coupe
We bought this Corvette after it had been in storage for 11 years. For its restoration, our friend Gayle Sumner pulled the engine and installed a new 350. I removed the luggage rack, the antenna, and the factory-keyed alarm system for a smoother look. I also customized the car with an '82 custom front end, a 5-inch cowl hood, "Lambo" doors, Atomic Orange paint, and a black interior. A friend and artist, Mike Storrusten (Great Falls, MT), airbrushed the large "Extreme Jake" skull on the hood and a spine down the back. He added the "true flame" effect around the skull, spine, and custom center console inside the car.
View To A Thrill
Tony and Cindy Roslund
Carlsbad, CA
'99 C5 Convertible
When my lovely wife and I got married many years ago, we were an all-Vette family. She drove a '76 T-top, and I drove a '67 coupe. It's surprising the amount of things the two of us and the cars had in common. We held out as long as we could, but when our firstborn started to develop a hunchback from being confined to the limited seating of the midyear coupe, ergonomics won out. With the kids grown up, my search for another Vette ended with this perfect '99 automatic convertible, which is great for cruising the 101 Freeway.
Apple Of Our Eyes
Jim and Valerie Wickham
Manchester, NH
'90 C4 Coupe
We've owned our Vette a little over a year and are the second owners. It has about 57,000 miles and is in excellent condition. Even in the apple orchard, the deep-red paint grabs attention. The car is solid to the core and a bushel of fun to drive. It's been a great pick for us.


text:
Star Tracks
Kardashian turns heads in N.Y.C. Plus: Kellie Pickler, Tom Cruise, Heidi Klum and more
Credit: FameFlynet
Published: Tuesday Mar 26, 2013 | 05:00 PM EDT
More from PEOPLE
Latest News!
- PHOTOS: Jill (Duggar) Dillard Shares Sweet Family Moment with Son Israel
- Read the Cover Story: Growing Up Kennedy!
Exclusive Family Photos from White House Nanny
- Facebook Photo Helps Mother and Son Reunite, 15 Years After He Was Kidnapped: 'It's a Miracle'
- Kim Kardashian West: 'I Don't Do Fillers or Botox When Pregnant'
- Kourtney Kardashian Steps Out as Photos Surface of Scott Disick Getting Cozy with Another Woman


text:
What defines an easy challenge?
What factors combine to create a difficult challenge?
If you were designing the 2008 FLL Challenge, what types of missions would you add to challenge teams?
What defines an easy challenge?
What factors combine to create a difficult challenge?
If you were designing the 2008 FLL Challenge, what types of missions would you add to challenge teams?
An easy challenge is one that does not require exact placement or difficult maneuvers (be it complicated motorized attachments or advanced navigation).
For example - scoring the non-competitive 15 points on the Satellite mission is very easy because: 1) It does not require accurate alignment 2) It is an easy straight shot from base 3) The manipulation required is at a medium height. Difficulty Rating 1/10
A harder mission would be retrieving the Uranium. It still is a straight shot, but then you'll have to rely on alignment. They are also semi close to a wall, so you'll have to make sure it doesn't interfere with your manipulator. Difficulty Rating 3/10
A hard mission is the Solar Panel. Precision is required. If there's a straight shot from base it's hard to get. Not gentle and you'll knock the panel off the house while trying to place it. Difficulty Rating 7/10
What would I have done to make it harder? How about for the corn and uranium missions, if you moved the red loop (as opposed to the neon-green or yellow) you lost all points for that mission. We'd see some really cool tools there.
Instead of bringing the rail car back to base by hand, how about with the robot (while fully out of base).
Maybe place the wind turbines on the sandy beach west of the house.
The sheer number of actions required this year will prove to be difficult for most. I think that we'll see some interesting solutions for the missions that require precision.
That's a great question, Larry. Of course, we all realize that any particular challenge will be easier for one team than another, because of experience, skill, etc. However, missions will usually be relatively easy or hard compared to other missions for most teams. For example, the Atom Manipulation challenge last year was one of the hardest challenges for most teams.
I think the two biggest factors that determine a challenge's difficulty are (1) the accuracy required by the robot in manipulating it successfuly, and (2) how complicated of a mechanism the robot needs to use to manipulate the model.
Jonathan, I think that the accuracy required and the complexity of the required manipulator are similar/the same. If a mission requires precision then most of the time a complicated manipulator (perhaps just in concept) will be required. The other important factor is location. Think if the oil rig was facing the west wall with only a 2" gap. Direction and location adds a whole new dimension (as seen by the direction of the house).
>I think that the accuracy required
>and the complexity of the required
>manipulator are similar/the same.
Not necessarily... for example, the Buckyball/Bone mission last year required quite a bit of accuracy to get the ball right in the bone, but the mechanism could be as simple as something that dropped a ball - in fact you could have even made a simple tray that the ball would roll off of when the robot banged into the bone model. As long as the robot's accuracy was sufficient, the ball would roll right into the bone. :-)
Now take the Solar Panel on House mission this year. That requires about as much precision as the bone mission, but the mechanism for putting the Solar Panel on the roof has to be quite a bit more complex, since it has to lay it on an angle and let go of it gently (as well as putting it up high instead of dropping it).
Location is definitely an important factor, but I think of it as included in the accuracy factor. If the location is far away or in a tight spot, your robot will need more accuracy to manipulate it successfully.
As someone who decided not to take part in FLL...
...I was very disappointed by the number of challenges in previous years that are of the form:
- build a complex mechanical arm
- point your robot in the right direction
- press the button
I'll decline to comment on whether the mechanical engineering aspects are more or less difficult than the programming aspects but I, for one, find them less interesting.
By contrast, I find the mechanically-simpler but programming-sophisticated robogames challenges far more compelling.
I'd like to challenges that need more use of sensors and logic than brute force. Perhaps with a requirement that you do all of the challenges without touching the robot between missions.
Any mission that requires turning should be at least a 5/10 because the robot is at the mercy of the friction gods. Every mat is a little different, and every spot on the mat is a little different (especially after multiple runs of the same mission). So a turn of 400 degrees on Mat A may just do a 90 degree angle, while on Mat B may spin the robot around completely. Of course, this is a good reason to use sensors instead of just motors to get the robot in the right place.
>Not necessarily... for example, >the Buckyball/Bone mission last >year required quite a bit of >accuracy to get the ball right in >the bone
I disagree that this mission required much accuracy at all and would rate it's difficulty 2/10. Most teams approached the mission model from one of it's two sides. Getting there is easy and the side of the bone was large, making it hard to miss. Even with proper alignment, approaching the bone from the front made this a very simple mission.
>Now take the Solar Panel on House >mission this year. That requires >about as much precision as the >bone mission
You really think that the Solar Panel is the same difficulty as the Bone? The Bone had a large drop area compared to the size of the deliverable (maybe 10:1). The solar panel is 1.5-2:1 The smaller the ratio, the more difficult the mission because higher precision is required.
>but the mechanism for putting the >Solar Panel on the roof has to be >quite a bit more complex, since it >has to lay it on an angle and let >go of it gently (as well as >putting it up high instead of >dropping it).
I agree that the mechanism required is more complicated. This contributes to it being a more difficult mission.
>Location is definitely an >important factor, but I think of >it as included in the accuracy >factor. If the location is far >away or in a tight spot, your >robot will need more accuracy to >manipulate it successfully.
Location (as well as manipulation difficulty) attributes directly to the mission difficulty. The harder the mission, the harder to do it accurately. "Accuracy factor" = mission difficulty.
Linda - I agree that turns make missions difficult, but not enough to make the difficulty 5/10 (across the board). With proper programming you really shouldn't see more than a few percent difference. Turning 90 degrees vs 360 is significantly too much difference. Even 90 vs 180.
Wow, I haven't had that kind of experience at all, especially with the new NXT motors. Our turns were quite consistent, give or take a few degrees - nothing like the example you gave. Maybe the design you were using was causing the differences in turns?
I'm not sure you're understanding me. I think that both the accuracy required in completing a challenge and the complexity required of the attachment influence the dificulty of a challenge. And I think one does not necessarily depend on the other. So for the Solar Panel mission, I certainly don't think it's as easy as the Bone mission, because it requires a more complex attachment, even though it has a similar required amount of accuracy.
Let me give you a simpler example of the difference between accuracy required and complexity of the attachment. Suppose the Oil Drill mission was in the different location you talked about (facing the west side with only 2" to spare). You could still use the same attachment you used when it was in the other position, but your robot would have to be more accurate in getting to the right position for the attachment to manipulate the model... see what I mean?
You're right. The NXT is much better at making turns consistantly. I guess I am still paranoid from the 2005 Ocean Odyssey challenge. The mats were so bad that FLL shipped new mats from a new manufacturer to all the teams that qualified for the World Festival. The teams had a few weeks to reprogram their robots on the new surface so that the world tournament would be more equal for all. The mats last year and this year are pretty good, but my mind keeps thinking "turns are evil."
"So for the Solar Panel mission, I certainly don't think it's as easy as the Bone mission, because it requires a more complex attachment, even though it has a similar required amount of accuracy."
IMO, In no way did the bone require anywhere NEAR the amount of accuracy the Solar Panel needs. Many teams approached the bone from one of the sides, allowing for a great amount of leeway. Most of the (few) failures I observed were from teams approaching from the end and not using well developed alignment devices, or using mechanisms to deposit the bucky ball that imparted too much speed to the ball during the delivery. I asked several teams that failed how long they had been in FLL and ALL were rookie teams.
Approaching the Solar Panel is quite a bit different. The robot will be placing the panel on the roof from a distance and so any degree of mis-alignment at the robot will translate into non-miniscule linear variations at the roofline.
Accordingly, if we could gather statistics, I'd be willing to bet that a MUCH higher percentage of teams successfully performed the bone mission than will perform the Solar Panel mission.


text:
Meeting and Exceeding Standards and the Toughest VOC Regulations
We've found innovative ways to make coatings that are compliant in the most stringent regulatory requirements. A wide selection of our products meet VOC guidelines for industrial and architectural applications.
Sherwin-Williams Specifications Library
Use our library of Finishing Schedules (in editable CSI format) as guides for specifying wood finishing, painting, and waterproofing systems. The schedules cover interior and exterior finishes, stains, and more.
Local and National V.O.C. (Volatile Organic Compound) regulations have been taken into consideration, but because these regulations vary greatly around the country and are subject to change, we suggest verifying product selections meet the requirements of the area in which they are to be used. If the project is located within the OTC, CARB, SCAQMD or other VOC regulated regions; one must comply with the regulations regarding VOCs. It is always recommended that you consult with a Sherwin-Williams Company Representative or call our Sherwin-Williams Architectural Services Department before finalizing the selection.Division 9 and 7 Finishing Guides
- Standard Specifications
- Ozone Transport Communication (OTC) Specifications
- California Air Resource Board (CARB)
- South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
For more information, visit your local Sherwin-Williams store or see your Sherwin-Williams sales representative.
Visit the ARCAT website for our 3D color and product models that can be downloaded into BIM applications.
Sherwin-Williams is the first paint company to offer seamless integration with Autodesk® Revit®. Learn More >