Nikon 1v1, wow

[andredossantos]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

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?

[Ezzie]

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-defen...mise-22181896/

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by andredossantos

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.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by fdigital

DigitalRev Nikon V1 review

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]

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]

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.

[v_roma]

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]

Originally Posted by andredossantos

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]

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

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by rxmd

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.

[semilog]

Kirk Tuck bought one, and he's impressed.

In his second post on the camera he notes that:

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."

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by semilog

Kirk Tuck bought one, and he's impressed.

In his second post on the camera he notes that:

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.

[semilog]

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]

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]

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

[Keith]

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.

[peterm1]

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]

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.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by semilog

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?

[semilog]

Originally Posted by fdigital

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]

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]

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.

[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

[semilog]

Originally Posted by 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>

[dct]

Originally Posted by claacct

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!?