V3 vs V1

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
antoineb
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,297Gear list
Like?
Big error on the compared weights of J1 and RX100
In reply to Scottelly, 8 months ago

Scottelly wrote:

antoineb wrote:

nunatak wrote:

antoineb wrote:

So yes, the "1" series offers wonderful autofocus, and solid AF in video. At the expense of image quality even when compared to other 1" sensor cameras.

i mistakenly thought the same thing. the real question people ought to ask, is any difference in IQ detectable? if so by whom, and/or is margin able differences in IQ correctable by someone who's PP skills is better than their photography skills? it's already better than most 35mm film available that was available in the silver age.

And for a huge price premium.

advantages in size, weight, and speed always command a premium. if these attributes don't benefit you, buy the clunker that's best for you.

So the market for the "1" is: people who mostly only shoot fast action (they will often be pros), but don't care much about the best image quality (but pros want that), and are happy to pay a large price premium. Sounds like a very, very narrow niche to me.

bird and wildlife photographers are often hobbyists. they care about quality, and so "good enough" is better than missing the boat entirely. the 1" is about convenience, and "good enough". if you're looking for perfection, try shooting 8"x10" film.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Image quality: yes you are right, even a sensor that scores only around 50 on DxO mark, will generally deliver better results than 35mm film did. 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...), 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. 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).

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? 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.

It is NOT a 28-300mm f2.8 lens. It is called "equivalent" to that. There is a HUGE difference. The new 70-300mm lens for the Nikon 1 system is not called a 189-810mm f3.5-5.6 equivalent . . . but that's what it is. You might as well compare the Nikon V3 to a bridge camera with a 50x zoom lens! There really is no comparison, and I think you're being silly by trying to compare the V3 against the RX100. If you're going to get away with that, I'll just compare the RX100 with the J1, which costs about 1/3 the amount of money and weighs half as much. Why would you buy the RX100 if it costs 3 times as much?!? It can't shoot at the same speed of the cheaper camera . . . and you can't even put a different lens on it!

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. 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.

Have you really looked at what Nikon is offering in their 1 system? I don't think so, or you wouldn't be saying this. I thought the same way a few days ago, before I started doing some research.

You can buy a J1 with two lenses for $229! That's got a good quality 10 megapixel sensor and the camera shoots at up to 60 fps! (stills!) It also does 1080 video.

Then there are other cameras, which are sold with at least 1 lens from $400 up to $1200. They offer more lenses now, and you can use the adapter that is included with the V3 to mount any of the dozens of AF-S Nikon lenses, which will work very well, focusing quickly on the V3 or any of the other Nikon 1 system cameras, of which there are many . . . V1, V2, V3, J1, J3, J4, and S1 (which comes in a bunch of different colors).

Hi Scottelly,

you wrote that the Nikon J1 weighed half as much as the Sony RX100.  I'm afraid that's not correct at all.  Indeed the Sony RX100 II weighs 281 grams.  As for the Nikon J1 it weighs 275 grams, body-only.  So add any lens to the J1 and it weighs a LOT more than the Sony RX100, not half as much.

What about the price?  Yes, true, IF you can find a J1 anywhere, and that's a tall order because after two years of heavy discounting most of the stock seems to be gone, it sells for about half the price of an RX100.  But that's not at all the LIST price intended by Nikon - it's the heavily discounted price that was necessary to clear an inventory of a camera that no one wanted (even at the deeply discounted price which makes it cheaper than a lot of so-so compacts, it still fails to sell much if at all).  Nowadays the modern equivalent to the J1, i.e. the J4, sells for about as much money as the RX100, with a basic kit lens.

But now if you want an 28-100 lens on the Nikon, it's going to be a lot more cumbersome and expensive.  (Yes, I know these are all "equivalent" focal lengths to 35mm film thank you).

 antoineb's gear list:antoineb's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus TG-610 Nikon D7000 +4 more
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