Is there an advantage to the 1" sensor? Opinions requested.

I have been experimenting with cropping images to "increase the FOV / equivalent FL".

For example if the image is cropped by 50% in length and with a 4 meg images results with the FOV of a lens with twice the focal length. This is the same FOV of a 1" sensor. The Nikon V1 would produce the same image as the cropped 4 meg but would be 10 megs.

Take a look at these images from a safari taken with the Nikon V1.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50442032

Thinking of getting the V1 ($300 with 10-30mm lens and $200 for an adaptor for Nikon lenses that supports AF & AE).

Do you think this is a sensible alternative to the NEX C3 with an adaptor for Nikon lenses and cropping?

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

What? Do you mean cropping to increase the DoF and equivalent FL?

Because cropping only decreases the FoV.

Honestly, the images are very meh and show exaggerated contrast (very obvious in the wooden figurines pic) and local contrast (very obvious in the iguana pic). You might notice that the black levels allow for little shadow detail. Perhaps this is a matter of PP, but for documentary pics of this nature, I wouldn't do it this way; I'd want to show everything as much as I could.

I'm going to take back this comment for now as I realize that my work computer monitor is probably not the best to judge contrast and black levels.

Personally, I don't think the Nikon 1 is a sensible alternative to either the NEX nor m43, but that's just me. If your be-all-end-all is getting a long effective FL and a narrow FoV (i.e. birding, wildlife from afar) in a small package, then perhaps. And I do hear that the Nikon 1's on-chip PDAF is very effective (undoubtedly aided by its inherently deep DoF). But you're sacrificing a lot of things.

Well, I think using the right lens is the best way, but if you are at the limit then cropping is fine.  The V1 looks like a great deal for a crop sensor camera that has fast AF with many Nikon lenses.

That being said you can always crop a larger sensor, but can't do the reverse.  The issue with the V1 is the small sensor means even a 35mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a full frame with a 95mm f/4.8.  So the main benefit to this type of sensor is if you want telephoto with physically short lenses.

I think the V1 would be nice for someone wanting fast AF in good light and high frame rates, etc.  I think the NEX is more flexible overall with the larger sensor.

Eric

--

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

And the pentax q would give even more pixel density. (12MP with 5.5x crop)

You only get autofocus with AF-S lenses.

Could be - the devil is in the detail of the lenses you will use.

--
Erik

It has got to be better than a P&S sensor, but not as good as the sensor size the NEX uses.

--
Glenn

I'd give small sensors two clear advantages: Macro and fast tele.  You need more depth of field in macro photography, and you can build much faster longer lenses for smaller and cheaper if they only have to cover a small sensor (e.g. Panasonic FZ200).  When N1 builds lenses for these (and stops thinking their cameras are worth $800), it's worth a look, but if you're going to have to use DX/FX lenses to get these results, most of the advantage is negated.

I'm personally looking forward to the day Nikon get their eureka moment and realise they can actually out bridge all the bridge cameras out there with their N1 system.  A 1" sensor-covering 35mm/f2 macro lens (cost=$2-300?) would give you a 95mm/f4 macro equivalent on FF but brighter.  A 50mm/f1.8 would make a great 135.  Both of these are proven to be able to be made very cheaply on DSLR sensors, so would be less glass and cheaper on a 1" sensor, as the advanced compacts have shown how to do it.  Even a 70-200/f4 (cost=$500?) would give a 190-540mm tele zoom and shouldn't cost a bomb.  Then they already have the budget 10/2.8 (27mm equivalent) for walkaround purposes.  They do have a 85mm equiv f1.2 portrait prime supposed to come out soon which will be probably ok (but overpriced), but I'd get a $50 legacy 55/1.4 for APS-C crop over that any day of the week for portrait purposes.

The problem is they're trying to compete in the main consumer segment with kit lenses and some standard primes and there's really no advantage of the 1" sensor there over m4/3 or APS-C.  Flat images, low DR, the only advantage is their fast AF but nobody remembers the AF, it's the pictures you take that are remembered.

Thanks Viking79, will be going on safari next year and considering my options. I'll take the C3 & Zeiss 24mm lens and either a DSLR (Nikon 5000 or 5100)  with a Sigma 150mm lens, a Nikon 85mm lens and/or the V1to decrease the FOV of the lenses. Will also take my Nikon  50mm lens.

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

Erik, I have a Sigma 150mm, f/2.8, Nikon 85 mm, f/1.8, & a Nikon 50mm, f/1.4 all AF-S.

Thanks

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

Fuzzy, would I be better off cropping to 4 meg with the C3 or using a 1", 10 meg ssensors with the same FOV?

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

For wildlife reach, that 150mm on a V1 would give the same view as a 270mm on the NEX but with only 10MP. A Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM + LA-EA1 would give you more reach for the same cost.  Or better yet, the Nikon 55-300mm VR for yor Nikon wold get you reach and stabilization for less than the v1 combo  You'd really want to try the AF with legacy lenses for each adapter to see how practical they really are.

--
Erik

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

I look in there a fair bit Jerry. mainly because a few people shoot what I like in there. I'm impressed by what I see. Including nature and BIF's.

All the best Jerry and good luck with whatever you do.

Danny.

--
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3
http://www.birdsinaction.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nzmacro/

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, Nikon D5000, & NEX C3/Zeiss 24mm E Lens

Unless that teleconverter is very good, it might not be any better than cropping.  I have a couple of inexpensive TCs, and I don't think I ever decided if it was better with or without; I think in some cases it did seem better than cropping, but there was noticeable loss of detail, and it was harder to use (focus).  This is mostly with my DSLR, though.

--
Gary W.

Well, if you can get the picture in focus!  

Seriously, though, the smaller sensor's advantage is size, especially in the tele range.

--
Gary W.

Yes and no. The Nikon 1 line 1" sensors are a lot smaller than APS-C, but that isn't relevant -- it's just a matter of sensel size. Here's a little list of sensel sizes and approximate lens resolutions needed for Nyquist sampling:

• Sony NEX-5 (14MP) : 5um, 50 line pairs per mm
• Sony NEX-6 (16MP): 4.8um, 52 lppmm
• Sony NEX-7 (24MP): 3.9um, 64 lppmm
• Nikon 1 V1 (10MP): 3.4um, 74 lppmm
• Nikon 1 V2 (14MP): 2.9um, 87 lppmm

Very few lenses designed for full-frame 35mm resolve even 50lppmm at decent contrast across the entire (cropped) frame even at their best aperture. This doesn't mean IQ isn't slightly better with more pixels sampling, but it does mean the difference between IQ of crops giving the same angle of view will not be anywhere near as big as the pixel counts alone suggest. Most lenses are pretty much mush at smaller than the NEX-7 sensel size....

Do you need autofocus on Nikon F-mount lenses?

Personally, I think an EVF is critical for longer lenses so you can brace the camera against your face. Thus, the cheapest NEX option is the NEX-6. If you don't mind more bulk, the C3 with a rigid magnifying hood (the "V4" is less than $20 on eBay) will do nearly as well as if it had an EVF -- and then you get a HUGE EVF with mediocre resolution.

there is no advantage. you can do the exact same by "digital zoom", maybe back in the 6mp APS-C days there was some advantage in having a higher pixel density because there was headroom in the lenses. These days with 36mpx full frame, the sensor essentially captures everything that is there. "Better", higher resolution lenses have downsides, all the coatings and multiple lens elements, particularly in zooms, creates unnatural looking images. if you want the most compact reasonable system for wildlife etc. go for a reasonable aps-c dslr dslt or mirorrless.

...Nyquist limit, sensor size as the resolving power of the combined lens + sensor depends not only on sensels' pitch but also on noise; and contrast (esp. microcontrast) depends on DR, although in a somewhat indirect way - 1" sensors are at disadvantage there as well

jpr2

--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~