Nikon 1v1, wow

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by semilog

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..

[Lss]

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.

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.

[Keith]

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]

Originally Posted by Nikon Bob

I really enjoy Kai's reviews and this one was no exception.
Bob

usually entertaining, but an ignorant schmuck

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by fireblade

usually entertaining, but an ignorant schmuck

Yea there is nothing sacred with him.

Bob

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by fireblade

usually entertaining, but an ignorant schmuck

wow! the internet really intrigues me sometimes.

[fireblade]

Originally Posted by emraphoto

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]

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'.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by fireblade

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]

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]

Look around, there are starting to be some very positive reviews on this little beast.

[Danlo]

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 ! ! !

[gavinlg]

Finally played with one. The AF is instant. Like blazing instant. Pretty impressive.
Still don't like it though
I would consider recommending one to my mother.

[dabick42]

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]

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]

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.

[jsrockit]

In hindsite, the V1 is a better camera than most of us thought it would be...

[rbelyell]

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

[GaryLH]

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/niko...ced-on-may-15/

Gary

[Exdsc]

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.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

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

[sailor]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

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]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

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]

Originally Posted by sailor

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

[sailor]

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.