I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system? Locked

Started Jun 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 822
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to REShultz, Jul 2, 2013

REShultz wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Given the fact that sensors are already approaching their theoretical limits as far as efficiency, the difference will likely always be large between MFT and Nikon 1, if Nikon 1 even withstands the test of time.

IMO, the MFT standard is really the perfect balance between quality and portability. The Nikon 1 sensor is just a little too small for a system camera.

You may very well be correct. But for a person who has read the M43 forum for a few years now, the irony of reading this is that all of the same arguments were made against M43 from the APS-C (see Nex) crowd, and posters here defended the system with vigilance... only in some cases to turn around and make the same argument against the 1 system...

I'm not speaking of you specifically of course, but it's been very interesting to watch things come full circle-- the new sensor provided the perch from which M43 shooters could attack the same IQ limitations they used to defend just a short time ago!

I would say you were right if there were any obvious size advantage between the Nikon 1 system and MFT cameras, but I don't see it.

For instance, I can pick up a small MFT camera with a viewfinder (same size as a Nikon 1 camera) plus a 45-175 or 35-100 lens, which are tiny and don't extend, and I have a small, light and very capable package.

For Nikon 1 to be worth it, the lenses should be proportionally smaller than MFT lenses for any given focal length range (true focal lengths not 35mm eq. focal lengths). The reason why true focal lengths should be used when comparing sizes is because the Nikon 1 system has to generate a smaller image circle, so they should be able to theoretically create smaller lenses at a given true focal length. And the fact is that if both MFT and Nikon 1 had a lens with the same true focal length, you could just crop the MFT sensor to 1 inch, and create an image with the same 35mm eq. focal length as the Nikon 1 system.

So, in summary, are the Nikon 1 lenses really proportionally smaller for the same true focal length? Based on what I've seen, I'd have to say no. We know that Nikon won't get the camera bodies smaller than the smallest MFT cameras, so their only option is to make the lenses smaller.

Another thing to consider is that, while the Nikon 1 system hasn't been around as long as MFT, they've still had time to create more lenses than they have. After all, MFT hasn't been around that long either, and they have a very nice selection of lenses.

Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow