V3 vs V1

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
nunatak
Senior MemberPosts: 2,294
Like?
Re: (1) way too expensive, (2) poor sensor
In reply to antoineb, 7 months ago

antoineb wrote:

Still, I think various test shots done by reviewers show that (1) I can see a pretty clear difference in IQ both resolution and higher ISOs between a Nikon 1 and my Nikon D7000 (DxO score 80 ie 60% higher than the "1" line...),

i'll grant you if our audience is other photographers, we tend to nit-pick more than most other audiences. but does it really matter? a well exposed 12bit raw file from a 1" sensor, can still exhibit more pertinent IQ teased out from it than a not-so-well 14bit raw file from an APS-C, or for that matter, FF sensor. a lot of IQ differential is mitigated in post. for those  subjects which MUST benefit from a larger latitude of IQ capture, a larger sensor can certainly benefit that cause.

i don't look at the 1" sensor as a replacement for my primary system. instead i view it as an adequate replacement for my backup camera, or situations where a full sized camera makes it difficult for me to operate.

and (2) same thing when comparing it with a Sony RX100.

Size, weight, and speed: Here I'm not sure I follow you. The Sony RX100 is a good deal smaller and lighter than a Nikon 1 - yet is significantly cheaper.

you're right, but it's also not an ILC, and therefore won't integrate with my other glass. for slightly better image data, it trades off the high speed AF. there are always a set of compromises to weigh, but if IQ latitude (mostly peripheral) is of greater importance, then larger systems are the way to go.

Which means one is expected to pay a hefty premium for the Nikon 1 purely because of its fast AF and despite the fact that it is larger and heavier than a Sony RX100 (and has lower IQ).

there is a premium, and there is a trade off. if the choices were simple, we'd only have one grade of gasoline and eco-friendly cars. but as we are offered choices, the real question should be... does it really matter?

Bird and wildlife: ok maybe. One small issue though is that there aren't any zooms for the 1 so you have to use the adapter and Nikon glass (which restricts the market to existing Nikon DSLR customers) - but according to the user's manual you can only do one shot AF with the adapter, not continuous AF, which doesn't see ideal for nature-lovers?

well, technically, there are more zooms than primes, but i know what you're saying. Nikon is moving to fill that gap with the new 70-300mm Cx. and for wildlife at greater distances, speed is not as critical as reach. i find i'm almost always 200mm short regardless of what glass i put on my Fx system.

Another issue is that the battery life isn't great. And then this: if a sensor score around 50-52 is good enough for you, then an Olympus Stylus 1 has a 28-300mm f2.8 lens, built-in, and costs $700 - so it is a lot more convenient than a Nikon V3 while delivering similar IQ and for a lot less money.

i'll grant you there are a lot of barriers that make the V series anything but an easy buy. but value is relative. i wouldn't call any of the olympus, fuji, or nikon 1 MILC's a full system camera. they are a work in progress. which is why i view most every MILC as a secondary backup. they're each good for some specialized purpose at a particular price point, but all of them have limitations. one can spend a lot more money switching between systems as each evolve or devolve. if the nikon system is an integral part of your workflow, then the choice of an N1 as your secondary camera offers excellent value.

regardless of what MILC one chooses as their primary system, they're rolling the die. but if photography is more about learning how to take great pictures than about the gear you collect, any of these cameras will present newcomers greater opportunity than the technology offered just a decade ago.

Frankly, I am not wishing for Nikon to fail. Actually I find it frustrating that a company with so much obvious skill for IQ and image processing, AF, user experience, ergonomics, can have failed so miserable with the "1" line. From the outside it feels as if they left the development of the "1" in the hands of a team of people which excluded all of their better engineers in all the areas of development (except AF), and then also excluded the costing and marketing people so that the pricing got done so wrong (perhaps as a result of costs being too high). And then they thew money at several big marketing campaigns which was just more money down the drain.

i agree with this sentiment. it comes down to execution. Nikon can lead and be a GREAT camera maker, or they can follow and be a SUFFICIENT camera maker. planet Nikon is a few island's of excellence, in an ocean of mediocrity. the real excitement lies in the vulcanism Fuji, Sony, Apple, Google and a few other's have brought into the ring of fire. where art Canon in all of this? they seem content to play the frozen continent.

But again, I think that Nikon is a great company and I would have loved for them to do this well, instead of just providing a great case study of a huge failure to business schools students.

yip, that's the Thom Hogan school of thought ... he could be right, but he's also been wrong.

-- hide signature --

design guy

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