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

Started Jun 30, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,497
Re: Not Exactly
In reply to Aspenz, Jul 1, 2013

Aspenz wrote:

As a user of the V1, I can safely say that you're better off with a 1 system camera. I'd dissect the scenario for you (assuming your alternative is the GX1):

Image quality of the V1 is superb, I'd dare say at most 10% behind that of DSLRs. The point to remember is to shoot in RAW because V1's raw files are very tweakable and expandable. Frankly, I think the image quality of the 1 series should be better than those from the micro4/3 sans the likes of OMD5/EPL5. Its dynamic range is actually significantly better than most of the m4/3 cameras, in the case of the GX1, the V1 is 8.42 vs 7.25 on high quality DR. ISO performance is shown to be about the same for the GX1 and V1 (as again found on imaging-resource) which is alright.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/GX1/Z00160_ACRauto_Step_2.png

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONV1/Z0100NR0_ACRauto_Step_2.png

The IQ of the V1 is good, not superb and I do speak from experience.  Today's technology for the Nikon system is as good as older technology on the m43 in the same way that today's technology on m43 is as good as a year or two old technology on FF.  The hard, cold facts are that the image quality of the Nikon 1 system is as much behind the m43 as m43 is behind the FF.

Having said that, since this guy seems determined to keep his D300, it makes perfect sense for him to buy a V1 to complement it.  He does not need the better technology since he has a FF behemoth for those special occasions.

You speak of the 20 f1.7, the counterpart of the V1 is the 18.5 f1.8 offering around the same field of view and depth and it's very sharp even wide open, at about slightly less than $200.

Coming off the DSLRs I'd say the 1 system has the closest match in terms of spot-on focus and blazing focus speed. It's possibly the only mirrorless system that tracks continuous motion well, here's a photo of a very fast and erratic bird that I had trouble even getting it into the viewfinder; the multi-area continuous focus managed to catch it in the fleeting moment it was on screen.

The lenses are also very light and you'd be able to carry its native lenses and then some with no problem at all.

This is by no means trying to diss the m4/3 cameras, but I just feel the need to clear any misconceptions from people that have not tried the 1 system cameras. *Btw the only reason I'm in this part of the forums is because of the 'top threads' thing cropping up, I've no intention of being an ass, in fact, I do think the m4/3 system has a lot going for it as well*

lancespring
Senior MemberPosts: 2,469Gear list
Re: Be careful if you get the latest M4/3 gear
In reply to David Banner, Jul 1, 2013

David Banner wrote:

My interest in the 4/3 and/or Nikon 1 is for a lightweight compact walkabout camera.

That is a description of the Sony RX100 or RX100 MkII, not those cameras.

Get it and be happy.  Plus you will get amazing video too.

.

 lancespring's gear list:lancespring's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +1 more
Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,497
Re: At this point, go for the Nikon 1 system
In reply to David Banner, Jul 1, 2013

My suggestion is:

If you are going to keep the D300, go for the Nikon 1 system as a travel, all round camera.  You will enjoy it, it is good enough for most situations and it will complement you D300.

If in the future, you find that you really like the MILC and it is meets most of your needs, then it would make sense to sell the D300 and step up to a better (but more expensive) MILC system like the m43.  By that time with PDAF, it will do 99.9% of what FF does and be a good, lightweight substitute.

David Banner wrote:

I'm not too interested in the V1, so I meant J1 or J2 or J3. J2 didn't look that much better, neither does J3 actually. J1 is cheaper now.

Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 989
Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Aspenz, Jul 1, 2013

Aspenz wrote:

As a user of the V1, I can safely say that you're better off with a 1 system camera. I'd dissect the scenario for you (assuming your alternative is the GX1):

Image quality of the V1 is superb, I'd dare say at most 10% behind that of DSLRs. The point to remember is to shoot in RAW because V1's raw files are very tweakable and expandable. Frankly, I think the image quality of the 1 series should be better than those from the micro4/3 sans the likes of OMD5/EPL5. Its dynamic range is actually significantly better than most of the m4/3 cameras, in the case of the GX1, the V1 is 8.42 vs 7.25 on high quality DR. ISO performance is shown to be about the same for the GX1 and V1 (as again found on imaging-resource) which is alright.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/GX1/Z00160_ACRauto_Step_2.png

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONV1/Z0100NR0_ACRauto_Step_2.png

You speak of the 20 f1.7, the counterpart of the V1 is the 18.5 f1.8 offering around the same field of view and depth and it's very sharp even wide open, at about slightly less than $200.

Coming off the DSLRs I'd say the 1 system has the closest match in terms of spot-on focus and blazing focus speed. It's possibly the only mirrorless system that tracks continuous motion well, here's a photo of a very fast and erratic bird that I had trouble even getting it into the viewfinder; the multi-area continuous focus managed to catch it in the fleeting moment it was on screen.

The lenses are also very light and you'd be able to carry its native lenses and then some with no problem at all.

This is by no means trying to diss the m4/3 cameras, but I just feel the need to clear any misconceptions from people that have not tried the 1 system cameras. *Btw the only reason I'm in this part of the forums is because of the 'top threads' thing cropping up, I've no intention of being an ass, in fact, I do think the m4/3 system has a lot going for it as well*

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive. There's no way to get around the laws of physics here. Micro four-thirds cameras have just shy of a 1 stop advantage based on sensor size alone.

The second point to make is that because both Nikon and Panasonic/Olympus use Sony Exmor sensors on their system cameras, neither one should have an advantage based on sensor efficiency. But the truth is that based on dxomark scoring, it seems that Panasonic/Olympus actually have better sensors (per unit area) than Nikon in their most recent cameras, giving micro four-thirds not only the advantage of bigger sensors but better sensors. In fact, it seems Nikon has improved little since their V1/J1 cameras. To put it in perspective, the RX100 (not the mark II) actually outperforms the V2 (with the same sensor size). I can only imagine how far out of the water the mark II will blow the Nikon 1 system.

The third point, as has been mentioned by others, is that the micro four-thirds lenses vastly outclass the Nikon 1 lenses currently available. It's not even close. And based on dxomark testing of lenses, the Nikon 1 lenses currently available appear to be mediocre to poor performers.  A lot of people knock micro four-thirds lenses, but, based on objective criteria, the Nikon 1 lenses appear to not perform as well as MFT lenses.

About the only thing the Nikon 1 has any advantage in is its PDAF system. The advantage in video is strongly in favor of MFT BTW, in case anyone cares.

PLAMBERT
New MemberPosts: 19Gear list
Re: I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system?
In reply to David Banner, Jul 1, 2013

The M4.3 system uses bigger photo sensors than the little Nikon which means the picture quality ought to be better. Adapters are available for most makes of lenses to use manually on the M4/3 cameras.

I bought a 20mm f1.7 Panasonic lens for £200 ($300) on eBay. Results are v sharp. It's a serious system

-- hide signature --

phil

REShultz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Beach Bum, Jul 1, 2013

Beach Bum wrote:

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive.

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

There's no way to get around the laws of physics here. Micro four-thirds cameras have just shy of a 1 stop advantage based on sensor size alone.

If this were true, DXO would reflect it (again, comparing the older sensors).

The second point to make is that because both Nikon and Panasonic/Olympus use Sony Exmor sensors on their system cameras, neither one should have an advantage based on sensor efficiency. But the truth is that based on dxomark scoring, it seems that Panasonic/Olympus actually have better sensors (per unit area) than Nikon in their most recent cameras, giving micro four-thirds not only the advantage of bigger sensors but better sensors. In fact, it seems Nikon has improved little since their V1/J1 cameras. To put it in perspective, the RX100 (not the mark II) actually outperforms the V2 (with the same sensor size). I can only imagine how far out of the water the mark II will blow the Nikon 1 system.

The third point, as has been mentioned by others, is that the micro four-thirds lenses vastly outclass the Nikon 1 lenses currently available. It's not even close.

This has also been referenced. So how exactly are the posts so far inaccurate? I actually thought the thread was very fairly stated and objective thus far with both systems getting the credit they deserve.

And based on dxomark testing of lenses, the Nikon 1 lenses currently available appear to be mediocre to poor performers. A lot of people knock micro four-thirds lenses, but, based on objective criteria, the Nikon 1 lenses appear to not perform as well as MFT lenses.

Which lens? The 18.5 is excellent, along with the 30-110. The kit lens (10-30) was a dog, or at least my copy was.

About the only thing the Nikon 1 has any advantage in is its PDAF system. The advantage in video is strongly in favor of MFT BTW, in case anyone cares.

REShultz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system?
In reply to PLAMBERT, Jul 1, 2013

PLAMBERT wrote:

The M4.3 system uses bigger photo sensors than the little Nikon which means the picture quality ought to be better.

Again, the OP is entertaining the GX1. Let's be objective here and as accurate as possible for his/her sake. The GX1 has better low light capability than the V1, but the V1 has more color depth and dynamic range than it or the Olympus EP-3.

The new sensors are of course better, which I stated in my first post.

V1, GX1, EP-3

Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 989
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to REShultz, Jul 1, 2013

REShultz wrote:

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

That's true. I was comparing the best vs. best of both systems. But, there's another side to it. The OP is unlikely to stop with the GX1 on the MFT system. I think it's also important to look at upgrade potential, and there's no question in my mind about which system has the better upside. If you buy lenses of a certain system, you're more likely than not to be locked into that system.

If this were true, DXO would reflect it (again, comparing the older sensors).

Again, I'm talking about best vs. best. And, from my interpretations (looking at low light/ISO scoring), the best of the Nikon 1 system doesn't live up to its potential (when accounting for sensor size) when compared to the best of the MFT system. Look at the low light/ISO scores for the GH3 vs the V2. The difference is bigger than would be expected based on sensor size alone.

Another thing to consider is that smaller sensors are often made more efficient to compensate for their smaller size, so one would expect the V2 to perform better (per unit area) than the best of the MFT system. But, they actually perform slightly worse.

Which lens? The 18.5 is excellent, along with the 30-110. The kit lens (10-30) was a dog, or at least my copy was.

I don't believe the 18.5 is up to the standards of a prime lens on the MFT system, again going by DxOMark scoring. Look at the field map of that lens. At all apertures, you get a little bit of green in the center and a lot of yellow in the periphery. You won't find an MFT prime lens with this profile.

Again, I don't know how much of this has to do with the sensor size (which is smaller and therefore less capable of resolving a sharp image with a given quality of glass) and how much of it has to do with the quality of the glass, but this is nowhere near as good as the MFT glass/sensor combo.

REShultz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Beach Bum, Jul 1, 2013

Head to head, IQ-wise, I think it's abundantly clear that M43 has more upside and agree with you.The V2 was a step down in IQ and needs to be rectified by Nikon.

But I try to look more at opening posts than compare systems head to head. Things get muddy though when you have a DSLR with great IQ like his, or a lower budget due to this being a second camera, or are absolutely set on DSLR auto focus, or any other number of factors.

Aaron Sur
Contributing MemberPosts: 986
Re: I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system?
In reply to David Banner, Jul 1, 2013

System compatibility and upgrade path is the main reason why I am  thinking of choosing the M4/3 rds as a second sytem to my DSLRs. two manufacturers with a wide choice of bodies  lenses and accessories is strong drawcard. I looked at the Nikon 1 system when it first came out being a coolpix , nikon DSLR user when I found out that my SB600 flash would not be compatible I walked away.

Aaron Sur
Contributing MemberPosts: 986
Re: I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system?
In reply to bryanbrun, Jul 1, 2013

You are correct about the 16MP sensor with IBIS being a very powerful combination.

This author found that with a 35mm optical equivalent lens on an OMD and D800e , the M4/3rds could shoot at ISO 200 compared to ISO 2000 on the Nikon's non stabilized fast lens giving the M4/3rds advantage in dynamic range.

link below

http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2013/5/3/nikon-d800e-and-olympus-om-d.html

Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,497
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to REShultz, Jul 1, 2013

REShultz wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive.

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

But this is irrelevant.  m43 looks better than FF when compared to older sensors too.  The point is to compare the present IQ of each.  When that is done, the result is clear:

FF is to m43 as m43 is to Nikon 1.

REShultz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Jul 1, 2013

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

REShultz wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive.

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

But this is irrelevant. m43 looks better than FF when compared to older sensors too. The point is to compare the present IQ of each. When that is done, the result is clear:

FF is to m43 as m43 is to Nikon 1.

So the needs and expressed intent of the OP are irrelevant... ok, got it!

Of course it is relevant. If a poster is considering an older FF and a newer M43, I cannot see how it wouldn't be relevant.

pcake
Contributing MemberPosts: 692Gear list
Re: I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system?
In reply to David Banner, Jul 2, 2013

David Banner - are you planning to shoot in indoor/lower light?  if so, the little nikon doesn't do as well as a micro 4/3.  btw, i've had the panasonic G3 (same sensor, i believe, as the GX1) and loved it.  i now have the E-PM2 with the VF2, and find it a great camera for well-lit stuff, but the EVF isn't all that accurate in lower variable light, although the pics are very nice - i find myself chimping when there are too many lower light changes to adjust the screen over and over and over.

 pcake's gear list:pcake's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Olympus PEN E-PM2
Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,497
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to REShultz, Jul 2, 2013

REShultz wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

REShultz wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive.

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

But this is irrelevant. m43 looks better than FF when compared to older sensors too. The point is to compare the present IQ of each. When that is done, the result is clear:

FF is to m43 as m43 is to Nikon 1.

So the needs and expressed intent of the OP are irrelevant... ok, got it!

So, why is that silly comparison between older m43 sensors and new Nikon 1 sensors relevant to the needs of the OP?

The point is not to draw false equivalences between one system and the other.

For image quality:  FF > m43 > Nikon 1

For portability:  Nikon 1 > m43 > FF

The problem is that with technological changes, the differences between these systems in terms of sensor quality will diminish to irrelevance with time.  That is when things like Olympus' great IBIS or superb Zuiko / Panaleica glass or Nikon 1's rapid shooting will make the difference.

I honestly think that FF will slowly disappear or become a specialized format with time.

REShultz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Jul 2, 2013

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

REShultz wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

REShultz wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive.

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

But this is irrelevant. m43 looks better than FF when compared to older sensors too. The point is to compare the present IQ of each. When that is done, the result is clear:

FF is to m43 as m43 is to Nikon 1.

So the needs and expressed intent of the OP are irrelevant... ok, got it!

So, why is that silly comparison between older m43 sensors and new Nikon 1 sensors relevant to the needs of the OP?

Uhm... because the OP made specific mention of an older M43 sensor vs the Nikon 1.

The point is not to draw false equivalences between one system and the other.

I didn't. Read my first post. What I compared were a few cameras he actually made mention of. There is little point in getting into a contest about systems, when the OP has thus far not made mention of entering at the top level of M43. I did though, in my first post, inform him that the newer sensors were better and even urged him to look elsewhere than the 1 system if he thought he may leave his heavy gear at home more often than not.

For image quality: FF > m43 > Nikon 1

For portability: Nikon 1 > m43 > FF

The problem is that with technological changes, the differences between these systems in terms of sensor quality will diminish to irrelevance with time. That is when things like Olympus' great IBIS or superb Zuiko / Panaleica glass or Nikon 1's rapid shooting will make the difference.

I honestly think that FF will slowly disappear or become a specialized format with time.

Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 989
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Jul 2, 2013

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

REShultz wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

REShultz wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive.

Wrong. The OP mentioned older generation M43 cameras and when compared, the two are virtually a wash. Please take a look at the GX1 (mentioned) vs the V1 on DXO to measure competitiveness.

But this is irrelevant. m43 looks better than FF when compared to older sensors too. The point is to compare the present IQ of each. When that is done, the result is clear:

FF is to m43 as m43 is to Nikon 1.

So the needs and expressed intent of the OP are irrelevant... ok, got it!

So, why is that silly comparison between older m43 sensors and new Nikon 1 sensors relevant to the needs of the OP?

The point is not to draw false equivalences between one system and the other.

For image quality: FF > m43 > Nikon 1

For portability: Nikon 1 > m43 > FF

The problem is that with technological changes, the differences between these systems in terms of sensor quality will diminish to irrelevance with time. That is when things like Olympus' great IBIS or superb Zuiko / Panaleica glass or Nikon 1's rapid shooting will make the difference.

I honestly think that FF will slowly disappear or become a specialized format with time.

Funny, that's the way I feel about the Nikon 1.

But the truth is, the differences will never diminish or disappear. When Nikon 1 sensors improve, MFT sensors will improve by the same percentage. But MFT will always have the 0.85 stop advantage that comes from the larger sensor size.

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.

REShultz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: Wrong and misleading IMO
In reply to Beach Bum, Jul 2, 2013

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!

Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 989
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.

RealPancho
Senior MemberPosts: 1,020Gear list
Re: I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system?
In reply to David Banner, Jul 2, 2013

David Banner wrote:

Hi, I have a Nikon D300 and several lenses but they're used mostly for portraits around the house and special events like pony competitions, dance show, etc. For travel, vacation, and walking around I find them too big/heavy to take with me. So I've been making do with a cheap Canon compact and my old LX3 (I love the B&W of the LX3).

I'm debating about buying a more capable yet smaller and lighter system. If I sell my Nikon 18-200 I can pay for part of the new system.

I'd like to get a camera such as the GX1 and a 50mm equivalent prime such as the 20mm f1.7 and a super zoom like the 14-140. I think these two lenses would cover my travel needs and allow me to travel light.

I'm not familiar with 4/3 models but here is what I see:

Panasonic GX1 - I definitely want a very small camera, I don't need a viewfinder

Panasonic 20 1.7 - This is $400. Why so expensive? Any better alternatives?

If this is your idea of expensive, you will not like m4/3.

Panasonic 14-140 - Walkaround zoom is $680.

All together this adds up to be about $1200. I'm comparing this with something similar from the Nikon 1 system which is a lot cheaper. for the same price I can have a 10-30 kit lens and the FT1 adapter which would allow me to use my Nikon cameras. I don't know if this is possible with 4/3. So I'm leaning a bit towards the Nikon 1 but I'm still researching it and I'd love to get some feedback from the 4/3 crowd.

Thanks!

-- hide signature --

Frank

 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads