View Full Version : Nikon 1v1, wow
whatever
10-28-2011, 19:50
This camera I think hits the mark. I'm glad I didn't spring for the Fuji X100. This camera with it's 4 new lens available, including a 10mm and LCD viewfinder is near half price of the X100. Next stop, a local Nikon dealer.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27504/Nikon-1-V1.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs
EthanFrank
10-28-2011, 19:52
I hope you enjoy it! However, given the size of the sensor, and thus the high crop factor (2.5x IIRC), 10mm lens isn't really remarkable.
Jamie Pillers
10-28-2011, 20:17
I played around with the Nikon today at the local camera store. My initial reaction is that its just another re-work of cameras like the Canon G series. But I've read that it has new bells and whistles under the hood that may be special. However, I'll likely not discover those since I have the X100 already. I can say that the Nikon viewfinder is not nearly as nice as the X100's hybrid optical/electronic vf.
whatever
10-28-2011, 20:47
I played around with the Nikon today at the local camera store. My initial reaction is that its just another re-work of cameras like the Canon G series. But I've read that it has new bells and whistles under the hood that may be special. However, I'll likely not discover those since I have the X100 already. I can say that the Nikon viewfinder is not nearly as nice as the X100's hybrid optical/electronic vf.
This is a good point, I would like to compare the two. The strange thing is all of my local camera dealers ( southern Ca. ) don't deal Fuji. This is a subject you don't see much written about. Even the big box guys don't carry the X100. I have to assume most people bought the X100 on line. I have a Fuji 3D/W3, on line was my only option to purchase.
digitalintrigue
10-28-2011, 20:47
The X100 has an APS-C, the Nikon has a tiny sensor. These cameras are not in the same market segment...
Archlich
10-28-2011, 21:19
Handled one last week, ISO 3200 looks fine (on the screen), did not like the construction - you can feel the plastic, plus it's really bulky in depth. The pancake is cheaply built, in many ways inferior to the metallish NEX pancake, although I highly doubt if anyone will ever actually use that bumpy focus ring.
The viewfinder is so-so, comparing to the latest offerings from competitors.
At least the thing focuses in low light and is ultra fast indeed. Unlike the X100 with which you have always to struggle.
jsrockit
10-29-2011, 03:44
This camera I think hits the mark. I'm glad I didn't spring for the Fuji X100. This camera with it's 4 new lens available, including a 10mm and LCD viewfinder is near half price of the X100.
If price is your main concern, then fine... but comparing this camera to the X100 is silly. Is it about bargain shopping based or perceived specs or the best tool for the job?
At least the thing focuses in low light and is ultra fast indeed. Unlike the X100 with which you have always to struggle.
My x100 is quite sufficient for both AF speed and reliability in low light. I was shooting ISO5000 at f2, 1/30th the other night and had no problems.
Also, $900 for the v1, just under 1200 for the x100... not really half the price, or even close to it.
This camera I think hits the mark. I'm glad I didn't spring for the Fuji X100. This camera with it's 4 new lens available, including a 10mm and LCD viewfinder is near half price of the X100. Next stop, a local Nikon dealer.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27504/Nikon-1-V1.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs
Hi, Nikon person!
jippiejee
10-29-2011, 05:01
Nikon being afraid to jeopardize their lucrative entry-level dslr sales, launched the most disappointing compact of the year with this small-sensored point and shoot, happily leaving it to the other camera makers like Sony and Olympus to offer compact dslr-quality asp-c cameras. But if you like the Nikon 1, enjoy!
andredossantos
10-29-2011, 05:27
At this point, I'd rather just use my IPhone than any camera with a small (p&s size) sensor.
Moriturii
10-29-2011, 05:32
The X100 has an APS-C, the Nikon has a tiny sensor. These cameras are not in the same market segment...
They are. You don't categorize cameras by something poxy as sensor size. These two cameras, that happen to have different size sensors, and also they are in different colors, are marketed to more or less exact same category of buyers. They are in the same segment. Serious amateurs / great 'pocket' cameras for pros.
... If the sensor, if it's size of a pin or a large format size, can deliver great quality pictures at various ISO settings, thats it! That is all that matters. It has done it's job and it is good.
Common sense isn't very common.
Given the native market here, it kinda makes sense that Nikon would do something this tiny. I mean, there are point n shoots about the size of a deck of cards now. To give potential buyers in that segment something that is more "pro" is good positioning. I rather think that the Japanese are waiting to see what happens with the Sony experiments in Nex -land. If they go FF in a year or so and it flies.... That will be a shakeup. {For my part, I think a digital Nikon RF will happen}
They are. You don't categorize cameras by something poxy as sensor size. These two cameras, that happen to have different size sensors, and also they are in different colors, are marketed to more or less exact same category of buyers. They are in the same segment. Serious amateurs / great 'pocket' cameras for pros.
... If the sensor, if it's size of a pin or a large format size, can deliver great quality pictures at various ISO settings, thats it! That is all that matters. It has done it's job and it is good.
Common sense isn't very common.
Considering the nikon 1 series doesn't have even an external mode dial with PASM modes, and offers very little in the way of manual control, it's not really markets to serious amateurs or pros. Nikon themselves have said it's marketed to people upgrading from a point and shoot but not confident enough to go to a DSLR.
andredossantos
10-29-2011, 05:59
If the sensor, if it's size of a pin or a large format size, can deliver great quality pictures at various ISO settings, thats it! That is all that matters. It has done it's job and it is good.
Common sense isn't very common.
Not sure if Im one of the ones due to my mention of "tiny" sensor but let me clarify. A small sensor doesn't make a camera bad per se. I just think that the sensor in my phone is good enough where carrying a p&s with a comparably small sensor is redundant.
whatever
10-29-2011, 22:29
The old my sensor is bigger than your sensor story.
Now where have I heard that before?
chrismoret
10-29-2011, 23:31
Spotted one yesterday at our local photo store window. Putting all the comments together I should leave it just there.... :-)
size of the sensor matters.
I hardly put up with my aps-c based nex5, can't imagine a 2,5 crop factor...
the more the sensor size decreases, the more the image results flat to my eyes.
so, for me no N1, thanks :D
It is a camera aimed squarely at getting people who are nervous about interchangable lenses into more serious photography. Yes, the secrets lie 'under the hood', not in the sensor, but the ability for reasonably good video and image capture from video or fast sequence. Its like saying to your novice rebel fighter 'here is a machine gun and if you fire off a clip one bullet will hit the target'. What novice wouldn't want one of those? I wouldn't call it an enthusiasts camera, it is for rank amateurs.
Steve
size of the sensor matters.
I hardly put up with my aps-c based nex5, can't imagine a 2,5 crop factor...
the more the sensor size decreases, the more the image results flat to my eyes.
so, for me no N1, thanks :D
+100
I use aps-c cameras all day long at work, and coming home to a full frame 5d there is a big difference in spacial rendering with the larger format. Sort of how 6x4.5 negs look so much more 'real' and smooth than 35mm negs.
jsrockit
10-31-2011, 03:50
I just think that the sensor in my phone is good enough where carrying a p&s with a comparably small sensor is redundant.
But Andre, you do have to admit that certain P&S cameras have better ergonomics and are funner to use / more versatile.
DigitalRev Nikon V1 review (http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom#p/u/0/7CMdoE7BfRE)
Had to laugh at this - almost exactly mirrors my feelings about the camera.
Nikon Bob
10-31-2011, 04:19
I really enjoy Kai's reviews and this one was no exception.
Bob
I think that review was interesting. One guy was obviously a photographer and the other a gear-fondler. If you keep ISO at 1600 or below, the camera has some interesting features. Note that the photographer guy immediately went for the 10-100mm lens, which, although it makes the camera non-pocketable, is about the same size as the Zeiss 24/2 for NEX. He also poked fun at the hobbyists and their pockets full of prime lenses. He also enthused about mounting F lenses on the camera (???). If you use the 70-300 lens, the long end would be at 800mm-equivalent.
The gear-fondler shows off the "poor DOF" using a zoom lens at f/5.6. Duh.
To put things into perspective. The sensor is small, but not tiny. Its 3 times the size of a Canon G12 sensor, its half the size of a m43 sensor, its slightly less than a third of a APS-C sensor, and slightly larger than 1/8th of a full frame sensor.
andredossantos
10-31-2011, 05:47
But Andre, you do have to admit that certain P&S cameras have better ergonomics and are funner to use / more versatile.
Ive honestly never used a small P&S that Ive liked. I have had one of those Nikon Px000's for a couple years now and loathe it. The slow focus and all internal menu system drives me insane. I find that the iphone's ergonomics are nice! It is relatively simple with all touchscreen commands and the tap to focus function.
That being said, Ive never used any of the "photographer friendly" P&S' like the G10 or the Ricoh GRD's. Maybe I'd like those better?
Nikon boast its got the fastest AF ever (compared to what?). You can simultaneously take HD film and full quality stills. I think a number of these features are possible due to the smallish sensor, as its less demanding of processor capacity. As this article would seem to confirm: http://www.slashgear.com/nikon-defends-1-series-sensor-size-compromise-22181896/
jsrockit
10-31-2011, 06:12
That being said, Ive never used any of the "photographer friendly" P&S' like the G10 or the Ricoh GRD's. Maybe I'd like those better?
Yeah, you may like the GRD or LX5/DLUX5 better...but then again, who knows? They are ultimately still small sensor cameras that are ok.
DigitalRev Nikon V1 review (http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom#p/u/0/7CMdoE7BfRE)
Had to laugh at this - almost exactly mirrors my feelings about the camera.
There were really two opinions in that video - to put it pointedly, that of a professional photographer who used it to take pictures and seemed quite impressed with how smoothly and fast it operates, and that of a professional gear reviewer who took shots of a bottle on a box at f/4.5 and f/5.6 to discuss bokeh, talked about "Lady Gaga styling", and made dick size jokes about the size of the sensor. Both people liked the quality of the images. Now which of the two almost exactly mirrors your feelings?
It seems that if you care about sensor size and spec sheet comparisons, the camera is not for you, but if you care about ease of operation, it might be. I must say I'm beginning to like the 1 system, if only for the controversy it generates.
Frontman
10-31-2011, 07:21
I think the new Nikon was primarily designed for the Japanese domestic market, primarily the female market. Recently photography has become more of a woman's hobby in Japan. There are several women-specific photography magazines currently being published, and there are programs on daytime TV discussing digital photography featuring things like compositiion and digital editimg.
The new Nikon looks like it was designed to be an accessory, easily decorated with stickers, ribbons and doodads (don't laugh, I've seen it often enough), and which comes in enough colors to be able to match your favorite name-brand bag.
shadowfox
10-31-2011, 07:41
Personally, I think a small sensor nowadays only make sense if you have a unique form factor that is very conducive to large DoF -dominated shooting style, like most street photography.
A very good implementation of this concept is the Ricoh GRD line of cameras, those have simple lines, less bells and whistle to attract attention to itself, compact with large hand-grip area like their ancestor, the GR-1 series.
The new Nikon, from all that I've read/heard/seen about it, is not one of these. It's more like me-too colorful P&S with ability to use different lenses. Totally depending on brand name recognition to push the sale (sail ?).
I'd even pick a NEX over this. :)
The only digital P&S I like (love?) is the GRD3. It has a fantastic 28mm lens, which performs great right from f.19 and means that more often than not, you will be shooting at low ISOs, where the small sensor limitations are less noticeable. That and size/portability, ergonomics, and customizability will often outweight the small sensor issue for me.
The Nikon 1 seems to fail on the size factor, especially with any lens other than the pancake. If you're getting APS-C sized body, might as well get the APS-C sensor as well. The super fast AF is nice but not enough of a selling point for me considering, again, size of body to size of sensor, and price.
EDIT: Shadowfox beat me to it! :)
NickTrop
10-31-2011, 07:52
Ive honestly never used a small P&S that Ive liked.
I think the whole small sensor category is not worth spending money on and to do so is silly (See Fuji X10 - though it is damned cool looking...). Every one of them will result in small sensor IQ quality with little meaningful variance - which is good enough. What good are all these manual controls if you can't use them to do anything with them? You can't blur out the background to isolate subject or do anything very creative so they're largely pointless in this regard. Yet - every manufacturer has an "upscale" point-n-shoot category whose prices bump up against their unversally excellent APSC entry-level compact DSLR offerings. The PnS value is they take an nice pic and fit in your pocket. Period. They are truly "take anywhere slip in your pocket" cameras. And actually, these are good street photography tools, since they're more discrete than any Leica, completely silent, and fit in a shirt pocket. Alls I want in a digital PnS is 1. min f2.8 lens (there are faster lenses but they're not worth the extra couple hundred bucks for the spec. - See "can't do anything with it...") 2. and one that gives you a decent ISO 800 and 3. it has a contractible lens and the camera fits in your pocket comfortably. F2.8/800 covers a lot of ambient lighting ground, Got a used Fuji F20 (the "forgotten" Fuji F) - love it. $80 used, mint. F2.8, good ISO 800, great flash for this category with a "fill flash" mode that can isolate subjects using a flash fill light in lieu of bokeh. Let the suckers pay DSLR prices for manual controls you can't do anything with, really. I know there are newer/better compact point-n-shooters but I haven't kept up with it because I know they're not going to give me pics that are better to any real way than the cheap used F20 I've had a few years.
That said all said, I like this new Nikon. - Wouldn't spring for one but I think it's interesting how it blurs the line between still and motion capture and has a unique feature set. I always like when a manufacturer takes a risk and tries something new that's useful.
Nikon Bob
10-31-2011, 07:52
The Nikon 1 system has some unique features combined with some compromises. Traditionally large sensors have had the advantage of better high iso performance and image quality. Things change quickly with digital and maybe that is changing too. The performance of this small sensor seems pretty good all things considered. It is not for everyone but to dismiss it out of hand at this point might be a bit rash.
Bob
There were really two opinions in that video - to put it pointedly, that of a professional photographer who used it to take pictures and seemed quite impressed with how smoothly and fast it operates, and that of a professional gear reviewer who took shots of a bottle on a box at f/4.5 and f/5.6 to discuss bokeh, talked about "Lady Gaga styling", and made dick size jokes about the size of the sensor. Both people liked the quality of the images. Now which of the two almost exactly mirrors your feelings?
It seems that if you care about sensor size and spec sheet comparisons, the camera is not for you, but if you care about ease of operation, it might be. I must say I'm beginning to like the 1 system, if only for the controversy it generates.
I agree with Kai's opinion. If you want a camera that can shoot video and still frames at the same time, or bad quality slow motion videos, the nikon 1 is interesting for you. If you want a camera that is small but has the same manual control and creative capability as a proper full-sized camera, the nikon 1 is not interesting. I am the latter. Hence why I use an x100 as my 'small camera', not a nikon 1.
Kirk Tuck bought one, and he's impressed (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/10/nikon-1-counterintuitive-crazy-and.html).
In his second post on the camera he notes that (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/10/nikon-v1-part-two-wet-performance.html):
I've read a bunch of comments on the web about these new cameras and it's amazing (and depressing). According to the "experts" this camera can't do much. And what it can do they suspect it can't do well. If you really want to know what a camera can do take one out and shoot some images with it. Because, as they say on the web, "Your Mileage May Vary."
Kirk Tuck bought one, and he's impressed (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/10/nikon-1-counterintuitive-crazy-and.html).
In his second post on the camera he notes that (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/10/nikon-v1-part-two-wet-performance.html):
I don't mean to sound like an A*hole, but Kirk Tucks older work done with medium format film cameras is SO much better than anything he has shot with a digital compact. I sometimes like to drop in on his blog and find his opinions interesting, but if anything his photos are further proof to me that format size matters.
I guess it depends on what you're into - the nikon would be fine as a little snapshot shooter I'm sure, but it won't do what his medium format film cameras did for him.
Tuck recently bought back into a Hasselblad film system and fundamentally he agrees. He says he likes the square, he likes film, he likes the lenses, and he likes the haptics of the Hassy. So fundamentally he agrees, I think.
But no one is seriously comparing the Nikon 1 with a 503, 180mm lens, and Tri-X in HC110... You may as well compare an F3HP with motor drive to a Toyo field camera.
farlymac
10-31-2011, 17:42
I think we all look for the 'perfect' camera, all the while not realizing that what is perfect for oneself is anathema for others. That is why there are so many variations on a theme from the manufacturers, and why you see so many opinions here. Hopefully, the powers that be will not declare one certain model "The" camera, and abandon all other models, leaving us with little to choose from.
PF
ScottAlexander
10-31-2011, 17:46
I really, really wanted the mirrorless series to have a larger sensor.. that said, it is decent, but the controls and menu feel SO VERY CLUNKY
I had dreams about it being a digital S2, to take on Fuji ;)
After looking at the digital rev review it's not really that small!
The camera may not be to everyone's taste but at least it's a move in a different direction for Nikon who as Kai says are protecting what they already sell a lot of ... the DSLR!
And Canon will now have to step up to the plate and prove that they can think outside the mirror box ... interesting times IMO.
A couple of thoughts.
Firstly, not all small sensor cameras are "duds". I own a Panasonic Lx3 and am very impressed with its image quality although like all such cameras it struggles with low light and HDR situations.
I had a play with a Nikon 1 yesterday and thought that the image quality looked excellent in terms of resolution and color. I could not assess much else on the spot though. On that count well done Nikon. But for goodness sake, do we really need yet ANOTHER lens mount system. This is beginning to be a bit like the early days of 35mm when every man and his dog bought out a new camera mount.
Having said all of the above, I think the camera is not to everyones taste. In particular in my case I thought that aesthetically it was about as attractive as a bus full of baboons' bums and it would be about the last camera I would rush out and purchase on these grounds alone. But everyone to his own and I suppose Nikon is gambling on its rather odd look being quirky enough to get peoples' attention and support.
nightfly
10-31-2011, 20:11
It might be a fine camera in isolation but in the current marketplace, I'd either sacrifice the interchangeable lens for something that is pocketable or give up a little size and get a bigger sensor.
I guess there is a segment of the market that wants interchangeable lenses and a smallish sensor, Japanese women apparently, but it's sort of baffling to me.
However, I guess people who predominantly shoot old, manual focus film rangefinders aren't a real powerful market segment either.
Tuck recently bought back into a Hasselblad film system and fundamentally he agrees. He says he likes the square, he likes film, he likes the lenses, and he likes the haptics of the Hassy. So fundamentally he agrees, I think.
But no one is seriously comparing the Nikon 1 with a 503, 180mm lens, and Tri-X in HC110... You may as well compare an F3HP with motor drive to a Toyo field camera.
Thats true, but you can lesson the gap with format size - i.e. sensor size. So my fuji x100 is pretty similar to my 5d/1d in output - I could use either and get similar results. Something like the nikon 1 is a whole step or two below any aps-c or full frame sensor camera - I couldn't use one alongside my 5d indistinguishably for instance. This isn't a huge revelation I know, but even m4/3 cameras (with a good lens like the panasonic 20mm) can be used alongside a full frame camera and deliver similar results. At the same time they can also act as a straight up beginner point and shoot for someone who knows nothing about photography.
Nomsayin?
Thats true, but you can lesson the gap with format size - i.e. sensor size. So my fuji x100 is pretty similar to my 5d/1d in output - I could use either and get similar results. Something like the nikon 1 is a whole step or two below any aps-c or full frame sensor camera - I couldn't use one alongside my 5d indistinguishably for instance. This isn't a huge revelation I know, but even m4/3 cameras (with a good lens like the panasonic 20mm) can be used alongside a full frame camera and deliver similar results. At the same time they can also act as a straight up beginner point and shoot for someone who knows nothing about photography.
Nomsayin?
Sure. But try shooting sports with your X100, then try the new Nikon.
They have very different strengths.
nightfly
11-01-2011, 07:50
Besides the early Coolpix with the rotating screens which people really dug, haven't all Nikon's sub DSLR level cameras pretty much been misguided disasters? I think they sorta have to have something in this market but if it doesn't really infringe on their core business, so much the better.
Leica0Series
11-01-2011, 08:32
I think most everyone is just looking at this camera the wrong way. It's not primarily a still camera that also takes video; it's a video camera that also takes stills. Viewed in that light, it brings a lot to the table: stabilized video, an HDMI out, even power zoom (with the 10-100), two high-speed options. Its real competitor is something like the new JVC PX10.
I didn't realize how thick the camera is until I saw this video. I don't like it in white and it really looks stupid with the black back. Sensor is way too small. Don't think I would consider anything smaller than a u4/3 sensor. If sony had black lenses for their NEX cameras I would consider it, especially the NEX 5N. The 7N is just too expensive.
DaveO
I didn't realize how thick the camera is until I saw this video. I don't like it in white and it really looks stupid with the black back. Sensor is way too small. Don't think I would consider anything smaller than a u4/3 sensor. If sony had black lenses for their NEX cameras I would consider it, especially the NEX 5N. The 7N is just too expensive.
DaveO
And you know what they say about sensor size. </sarcasm>
Nikon always had a thing for soccer moms and Nikon 1 could be the first official soccer mom camera...
Does it work for baseball too? Or is it to fast!? :angel:
Sure. But try shooting sports with your X100, then try the new Nikon.
They have very different strengths.
This is true, the x100 is fairly specialized in what it does well. But, an e-p3 or e-pl3 will shoot sports just as well as the nikon..
I didn't realize how thick the camera is until I saw this video. I don't like it in white and it really looks stupid with the black back. Sensor is way too small. Don't think I would consider anything smaller than a u4/3 sensor.
I don't really see the problem with Nikon 1 sensor size. These cameras are probably not meant to compete with the bigger sensor ones on the same terms. Instead they offer a set of pretty interesting video and high-speed photography features (and some gimmicks) with a reasonably large sensor that actually gives very good image quality.
If none of those features add any value to you, then the sensor size may indeed become a deciding factor. For still photography only, this does not appear a high-end camera although it costs as much as some competition (and more than some entry-level DSLR's). But for combining still and video photography, the V1 may very well be one the best (consumer) products on the market.
I would like to try one. What I don't like is the size of the body and the price, the sensor size is no problem - I still have RD-1/M8 for my every day photography.
Nikon have some serious pull with the media. In the last few days I've stumbled over several writeups about this camera in non photographic publications.
Mind you ... one stated that the small sensor size was a disappointment because it led to a siginificantly smaller depth of field! LOL
fireblade
11-03-2011, 05:50
I really enjoy Kai's reviews and this one was no exception.
Bob
usually entertaining, but an ignorant schmuck
Nikon Bob
11-03-2011, 07:31
usually entertaining, but an ignorant schmuck
Yea there is nothing sacred with him.
Bob
emraphoto
11-03-2011, 10:36
usually entertaining, but an ignorant schmuck
wow! the internet really intrigues me sometimes.
fireblade
11-03-2011, 23:30
wow! the internet really intrigues me sometimes.
yes, i agree, guys like Kai should actually get a real job so his hands get bigger....my grandmother has bigger hands than him, and all she ever did was knit.
Bugleone
11-04-2011, 00:36
Amazing comments about Kai, so lets try to put some of them right ....he has small hands because he is of Chinese origin and if you take the time to really look at Chinese people you will doubtless notice that they tend to be small/lightly built people with nimble fingers etc.....
Secondly, although he IS usually very irritating and tiresome he is hardly "ignorant". In fact although he often appears to play 'dim' he also gives away his real thoughts with some of his remarks and asides and IS a serious camera user if not a 'photographer'.
Unfortunately, there are too many tiresome and irritating people in the media and, as things go, Kai is no worse than all the many on western TV channels and he IS at least talking about cameras to ordinary viewers and trying to keep things relevant to them,.......(??) At least his approach ios not completely fatuous like some US 'reviewers'.
yes, i agree, guys like Kai should actually get a real job so his hands get bigger....my grandmother has bigger hands than him, and all she ever did was knit.
lol what...
Ken Ford
11-04-2011, 17:43
I spent about an hour with a V1, 10-30 and 10 tonight. I was prepared to despise it, but... I don't. I actually liked it, quite a bit at that.
I'm unlikely to buy into the system unless they start coming out with fast primes, but the basic concept is valid to my eye. It could end up being a great system for web output - which to be honest is most of what I shoot anymore.
kshapero
11-13-2011, 09:05
Look around, there are starting to be some very positive reviews on this little beast.
Im starting to fear the risk of being beaten down by other photographers if I pull out my Nikon J1 on the street.. "ITS SO F*CKING UGLY, AND HAS A TINY SENSOR, ITS NOT GOOD! I T S N O T G O O D A T A L L ! ! !
Finally played with one. The AF is instant. Like blazing instant. Pretty impressive.
Still don't like it though :angel:
I would consider recommending one to my mother.
dabick42
01-18-2012, 14:15
I've read all these opinions regarding Nikon's latest offering with a sardonic smile on my face.
I jumped off the hi-tech bus years ago ( an F3HP with motordrive is by far the most modern camera I've ever owned or handled ) and I haven't the slightest idea about ( or interest in ) autofocus, sensor size, white balance or any other of the doo-dads associated with today's image capture devices.
It doesn't matter, though, because '' photography '' is a broad canvas stretching from Minox spy cameras to field camera ''woodies'' and there's room for all of us.
Sometimes I feel a bit sad that cameras have become just lumps of 'computerised rapid action plastic' ( CRAP, for short ) and human input into their use has sunk almost to zero.
I guess it's an ''age'' thing.
I remember when human input was 99%....
celluloidprop
01-18-2012, 14:20
Human input is still 99% - you can shoot almost any decent digital camera in manual, beyond that the brain behind the viewfinder still has to find and compose a meaningful image.
Personally, I feel that I have more control over my images in Lightroom than I ever did in a darkroom.
yanchep_mike
04-18-2013, 23:56
After reading all the different opinions (Small sensor, crop sensor, ergonomis, generally pretty negative) I got offered a good deal on a V1 Twin Lens Kit and being the gearhead i am i pulled the trigger. The V1 has a electronic viewfinder which i prefer instead of just the LCD. Got myself a cheap LTM adapter aswell.
Here is a shot with the Jupiter8 at closest distance, i like the 3D look of the Jupiter and i can not even see the sensor size, but mayby thats just me.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8258/8662754682_5f640e0e3b.jpg
jsrockit
04-19-2013, 04:16
In hindsite, the V1 is a better camera than most of us thought it would be...
rbelyell
04-19-2013, 04:31
i was excited by this camera, because of the crop factor, and wanted like heck to love it for tele work. that was until i used it. yes, it focuses very fast. yes it shoots more fps than any other cam i know about. emphatically no, its IQ at any iso cannot in any way compete with the x100, which i also have. frankly, i dont think its IQ is as good as the fuji x10, which i also had. it has extremely limited manual ability, and just totally forget adapting non nikon mount manual focus lenses to it as none, and i repeat none, of its exposure or focusing aids work with them.
having said that, i must also say that calling this or that comparison 'silly' or some other pejoritive is not helpful and i find it a tad discourteous. we're here to share info, conduct just such comparisons, and learn from each others experiences. there's no need for negative characterizations of others opinions.
tony
It appears that Nikon v1 sold like hot cakes once it was discounted.. It seemed that was when a lot of people on the forums here started to give Nikon its due on this camera. I have heard in Asia it has always done well.. It is a nice camera.. I am not interested in getting the camera, but from an outsider looking in on the action... I wonder if their price point is a bit high still... On the other hand it looks like Nikon is dedicated to the Nikon One line. They just announce a new prime lens a couple of days ago..
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/nikon-32mm-f1-2-lens-to-be-announced-on-may-15/
Gary
Nikon V1 files process noise even if you shoot RAW, which means the noise at high ISO looks like film grain. That combined with an interesting sensor, which produces very pleasing colors can result in slide film-looking images. This was shot at ISO 500 using the 10mm pancake.
http://i37.tinypic.com/51synk.jpg
totally forget adapting non nikon mount manual focus lenses to it as none, and i repeat none, of its exposure or focusing aids work with them.
That is really too bad. Looks like they purposely crippled it. Being able use legacy lenses would have made the cameras more attractive to a broader range of people.
Gary
i was excited by this camera, because of the crop factor, and wanted like heck to love it for tele work. that was until i used it. yes, it focuses very fast. yes it shoots more fps than any other cam i know about. emphatically no, its IQ at any iso cannot in any way compete with the x100, which i also have. frankly, i dont think its IQ is as good as the fuji x10, which i also had.
tony
I often wonder about the obsession with image quality. What sizes do people actually enlarge to as opposed to pixel peeping on a computer? As part of a ridiculously large collection of (mostly film) cameras, I have a Nikon V1 with the two kit lenses. The largest size I enlarge to is 18"x12" and, at that size, the V1, shooting at 100 iso, produces wonderful prints. So does my Olympus E3. None of the film cameras can live with either of the above outfits because I have to live with commercial scans (I gave up the wet darkroom years ago). Perhaps it would be better if I did my own scans but I doubt it. It doesn't stop me shooting film though.
Every camera I own is capable of producing acceptable prints as long as they are not being blown up to very large sizes. Remember that making a picture bigger does not make it better. The biggest drawback to quality is my ability as a photographer, not any faults with the hardware and I suspect that this will be the case with most of the people on here.
rbelyell
04-19-2013, 16:03
That is really too bad. Looks like they purposely crippled it. Being able use legacy lenses would have made the cameras more attractive to a broader range of people.
Gary
gary 'purposely crippled' is exactly what i thought as i mounted my zeiss sonnar 135 on it, only to find if wouldnt meter or provide macro image for focus! exactly!
tony
rbelyell
04-19-2013, 16:10
I often wonder about the obsession with image quality. What sizes do people actually enlarge to as opposed to pixel peeping on a computer? As part of a ridiculously large collection of (mostly film) cameras, I have a Nikon V1 with the two kit lenses. The largest size I enlarge to is 18"x12" and, at that size, the V1, shooting at 100 iso, produces wonderful prints. So does my Olympus E3. None of the film cameras can live with either of the above outfits because I have to live with commercial scans (I gave up the wet darkroom years ago). Perhaps it would be better if I did my own scans but I doubt it. It doesn't stop me shooting film though.
Every camera I own is capable of producing acceptable prints as long as they are not being blown up to very large sizes. Remember that making a picture bigger does not make it better. The biggest drawback to quality is my ability as a photographer, not any faults with the hardware and I suspect that this will be the case with most of the people on here.
wonder no longer! i'll tell you my thoughts very simply. they just dont look good. they not only dont look good when compared to my better cams, they dont look good when compared to the fuji x10. its got nothing to do with 'prints' and everything to do with 'argh that looks like crap', at least to me. yvmd.
as for 'pixel peeping', whatever that is, or consternation over why we want IQ, i find that rather a perplexing pov to be expressed on this particular site, which is substantially devoted to things leica or 'leica like' quality, or put another way, to top quality, most expensive hi res cameras and lenses. why do we use this multi thousand dollar equipment if not to achieve superior IQ? if we're truly not concerned about IQ, i suggest this is the wrong forum...we should be shooting plastic russian cameras with miniscus lenses and posting to the LOMO forum, no?):
my particular aesthetic is to replicate what i see, and thankfully, my eyes still see with clarity throughout a frame. i may choose against clarity for a particular purpose, but i dont want my hundreds of dollars equipment to make that choice for me. if 'every camera [and lens] we own' could produce equally gorgeous images, leica and zeiss would be outta business!
tony
rbelyell, thanks for the reply. I don't totally disagree with a lot of what you say. Each of us has our own reasons for taking photographs with our own preference for how we display the final output. I put some of my stuff online on flickr but my preference for anything I consider to be half decent is to produce a print. All I was saying was that the largest size I enlarge to is 18"x12" and, for me, the V1 produced beautiful prints, certainly comparable with my Olympus E3.
You obviously disagree and don't care for the look of the output from the V1. I take it that you were not able to fiddle about with the files in Photoshop or whatever to get anything you were happy with. Fair enough. You know the look you are trying to get and for you the V1 fails to deliver. I really don't have an issue with that.
I am not trying to say that quality is not important, just that it only has to be "good enough" for the final output. If I wanted to make large poster size prints, I wouldn't choose the V1. Similarly, buying a Leica M and only posting online or making 6"x4" prints is a total waste of money. It's horses for courses.
yanchep_mike
04-19-2013, 18:37
Sorry, did not want to start an argument here, all i was saying is that i think the camera is not as bad as some people say it is. I just have my 3 minutes fun with it and thats it. Being into film cameras i don't care much for digital anyway. It was only my personal opinion.
Have a nice day.
I've been watching these lately, and might give them a try. Not sure about the kit lenses, but several adapters for older MF lenses are available.
yanchep_mike
04-19-2013, 23:51
I just got a very good deal, the kit lenses are ok for most things but have not used them much. I am more into gear and like to play with the manual setup, i find the crop factor ok and it is fun using something different. This is with the Industar 50 at f4.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8253/8663757609_293dc8c039_c.jpg
Have a nice day.
rbelyell
04-20-2013, 05:37
I've been watching these lately, and might give them a try. Not sure about the kit lenses, but several adapters for older MF lenses are available.
ampguy, not sure if you read this whole thread, but the camera does not recognize any non nikon mount lenses, and thus does not meter nor provide any focus aid, even magnification.
tony
the lack of magnification is not ideal, but no metering or AF is ok. I am not shooting many sports these days.
does the preview on screen or in lcd show blown highlights or a histogram?
ampguy, not sure if you read this whole thread, but the camera does not recognize any non nikon mount lenses, and thus does not meter nor provide any focus aid, even magnification.
tony
rbelyell
04-20-2013, 07:31
no histogram, no exposure or focus support of any kind as far as i remember...
tony
yanchep_mike
04-20-2013, 15:18
No Histogram or any exposure metering in manual mode, no focus assist either. The brightness of the viewfinder kind of changes with opening and closing of aperture, but do not know if proportional to any exposure. You get the shutterspeed indicated, and number of shoots left, battery etc. So very basic, or crippled system.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.