WACONimages: Glad this V3 got bashed so much by people who even don't have touch or try this camera, neither did I. But that will make the prices drop soon probably.
Always the battles because of sensor sizes, price, size, weight versus sensor size etc. If you want or need a full-frame sensor camera, buy a dslr, buy a Sony A7(r). So many options and choices.
The Nikon 1-series take a different approach, especially this V3. If it is not for you, thats ok of course!, but why bash this camera or the 1-series as a system.
I make a living with photography and use different gear for different assignments. This V3 will soon be added to my equipment, because it can do stuff other cameras can't and other cameras probably can do stuff this V3 can't.
So stop all the negative comments. You don't like look further or/and elsewhere. If it is for you, enjoy the 1-series cameras.
I never touched/shaked hand with Hitler but I know he is not for me. at least he doesn't have a standard hotshoe on his head.
JanusB: What I don't understand is this: Why is it necessary to make 3+ independent exposures for an HDR image when it's already possible to read out the sensor data during exposure. It should be possible to save several images every second for the whole time of the exposure. Then back at home you could decide which exposure times you want to use for your HDR image. This would also speed up the process of capturing the required exposures to the point were hand held HDR photos should have perfect sharpness in decent lighting conditions. But apparently you can't do that. Where is the logic flaw in my thoughts?
the purpose of Oly's patent is data compression and it's also more convenient and saves time of post processing for entry level users who don't care much image quality.
Dan Tong: HDR is an attempt to properly expose various parts of a photographic shot. Of course our eyes do this without our awareness because sensitivity is controlled locally in the retina as well as the fact that the eye scans a scene and does not necessary stay locked in position, so that the eye can adjust to local variation in brightness.
We also need to keep in mind, that the eye's highest acuity region (the fovea) is always brought to bear on areas of interest in the visual field.
Surprisingly, the eye has a built-in constant, micro-tremor,, which when eliminated (stabilized images in laboratory experiments done with people) leads to the disappearance of the image altogether.
Hence Olympus's idea once again gets us a bit closer to the "perfection" of biological visual performance -extremely fast, focusing, rapid auto exposure.
our vision is made for environment recognition, which is much more than image capturing. why HDR images look fake is because the HDR processing is different from the one behind our eyes and dynamic ranges of displays (any media including prints) are too narrow to look real.
NCB: I'm fascinated by the number of comments about small chip, etc, when there hasn't been a single test, let alone a comprehensive review, performed with the camera. Are people only interested in specs these days? m4/3 used to suffer for precisely the same reason, and possibly still does.
photograph is more about framing/perspective than image quality, while camera/lens are more about image quality (including fast response to capture the image) and cannot do framing themselves.
but there are people who don't care much image quality and don't care cost performance and 4/3" and Nikon 1 are designed for them.
select: they should have made a camera with aps-c sensor and Nikon dslr mount....that would have been a smart thing to do... having so many lenses available...
D7200 with 20 fps AF-C and 1080/60p ?
SRHEdD: Put aside brand and format rivalries for a minute, and realize what this might have potentially been if Nikon had used a m4/3 chip and mount. That's all, just think of where this might have gone, the lens possibilities, the possible combinations of lens and camera, etc.
THAT would have been a breakthrough "enthusiast's" camera.
what value can 4/3" sensor or m4/3" mount can bring is the question.
falconeyes: Thos Olympus patent seems to be useful only in scenarios like the firework, where you can afford fuzzy regions of under- or overexposure.
True progress (I mentioned it many times before) will come from digital sensors: sensors which continously use, e.g., column-parallel ADC, to read out lines and add up their values in digital pixel registers. This will allow for digitally implemented well capacities and native iso level as low as ISO 1, with accompanying huge input dynamic range.
In the future. Today, the required memory on sensor-chip is too expensive for the amount of pixels we got.
may be it's not so useful for fireworks (InTheMist; black card) but continuous readout sounds good.
Sdaniella: I've long advocated for custom multi-ISO selection based on range of EV luminance 'zones' for a single capture (not multiple different time exposures)
I figure if one can have 'digital ND' filters that are custom selected to follow luminance contours in real-time, not a physical filter with just straight gradients, then we'd do away with pp altogether, and even RAW.
these ideas are long overdue. surely sensor tech and image processing can already do this even at the pixel level ? (Canon)
it's paramount that 'natural DR' be achieved in a single exposure to exclude blur of moving subjects on a given background (dynamic or static)
8K/60p will be the standard video, 8K/300p if 5-shot exposure bracketing is needed for each of 60p frame.
RussellInCincinnati: Further validation of some of the concepts used by Eric Fossum's Quantum Image Sensor approach. In the QIS case, you read the sensor so often that perhaps each pixel-well only needs to hold a super small number of electrons (i.e. need only record accurately the perception of a super small number of photons).
Once you start thinking about it, who wouldn't want all our cameras to work by storing a zillion small subexposures and then stacking however many you want as needed for a given rendition--if there were no prohibitive costs.
an ideal sensor should have least bits per pixel (2 bits) though those pixels may be very much different from pixels we have now.
the result is a higher digital number per area (sensor frame) for stacked shots, and it comes back to what we are familiar with: deep well depth (not per pixel but per area in unit of frame area = 1).
then we can immediately see it's better to store all the frames separately and do stacking in the post ("whatever can be done in the post better be done in the post" rule applies), for moving subjects and camera shake.
in-camera stacking is more a method of data compression when it cannot be handled by the electronics (like 8K/240p all-I raw). human brain does the same/similar but our brain won't evolve as fast as semiconductor.
ISO adjustment can be done in the post and we have so called "single shot HDR" already and it's especially good for sensors that are "ISOless."
at the same focal length and f-numbers, lenses for smaller sensors could be a bit more expensive for narrower angle of view demands more precise barrel and accurate smooth movement.
but this price is too much.
bakhtyar kurdi: The only use came to my mind with this camera is bird photography, mount my 70-200/2.8 on it and I have 540mm 2.8 with VR under 2kgm, or my sigma 100-300/4 and I have 810mm f4 for under $40000, I think it will be better than super zoom bridge cameras. but wait six months until I find an open box for $280.
pwilly: Comparing Apples to Apples, the tiny sensor comments are just uninformed. A tiny sensor like a 1/3.6” has a 5mm diagonal. 35mm has a 43.3 diagonal, APS-C is 30mm 4/3 is 22.5mm and 1’ is 16mm. Micro 4/3 folks frequently claim that there is little advantage to FF vs. 4/3 in most photos and that is true. Unless you are looking for extreme low light, or very narrow DOF an equivalent photo can be taken with 4/3. So with just about half the diagonal 4/3 is sufficient.The Nikon 1 sensor has 71% of the diagonal of 4/3. Once again if we are talking equivalent photos the Nikon 1 sensor can take the same photo, but then add the stunning AF tracking and for action there is nothing like it.
for sensor size, all cameras from mobile phones to cropped medium format lineup straight and can be compared easily.
Dimit: Gentlemen, the fact is that it's worthless investing in a 1'' system.Eventually pay too much for a limited potentiality.1'' is perfect for ''just go out and get excellent snapshots'',therefore just built-in lens (RX100 success).The more m43 and apsc give you,is an initiation to invest in lens,simple as that.
I think Pentax Q is the most worthless and Nikon 1 is the second worthless (value for money). Pentax Q is the best in term of pixel resolution, and Nikon 1 scores second, again, followed by 4/3".
Edymagno: Poor Nikon. They produce a totally outstanding camera just to convert it into a real commercial flop by Micro SD card. Nikon needs desperately a new management.
it does have some advantage by sharing same media with smart phones.
GRUBERND: i think the point the author and most of the commenters are missing:
this camera was not built for you.
not for your use-cases, not for your demographic, not for your culture, not even for your country. drop some expectations and biases how a camera is supposedly to work or be used and we all might be in for a treat.
don't take it too seriously "enthusiast" or "pro" models. have a good laugh instead.
brownie314: The price strategy from Nikon is truly baffling. But the good news is that we will probably be able to pick up V3's on fire sale in about a year with kit lens for about $350. I have a V1 - bought on fire sale - really cheap. It is good, but IQ doesn't compare to other mirrorless systems. If Nikon is going to make me compromise on IQ, then they had better give me a system that is at least price competitive with some of the cheaper mirrorless systems that have much better IQ.
agreed that 1 Nikkor lenses are overpriced similar to or more ridiculously than 4/3" ones. but that's the point of both of the systems: f-number cheating.
yabokkie: I don't think price is a big problem for Nikon may not know the best price themselves and may just search for it downwardly, no problem unless f-number cheating works for the lenses like we see with most of the mirrorless mounts.
I don't think 1" sensor is an issue for we better have variety and it's good that Nikon volunteered for it. 1" sensor should be good for 8K with either moderate primes (f/2.8 equiv.) or super-hyper-ultra zooms. the problem is rather the mount design, which is worse than m4/3" that wide angle lenses cannot take advantage of short back focus (46mm equiv. flange back compared with less than 30mm for Sony, Fuji, and Canon mirrorless mounts, the back focus should be more than 5mm shorter).
didn't I say Nikon 1 is worse than m4/3"?
mpgxsvcd: Nikon tried their best to kill the 1 series but it simply won't die. That is because there actually is a market for mirrorless unlike what Nikon and Canon want you to believe.
People will buy a well thought out mirrorless camera.
dual-pixel AF is now the only solution for mirrorless.
Jogger: A discussion of actual sales would be helpful.. e.g. the 1 system is actually viable in Asia.. maybe not in America-centric DPR, where DSLRs still rule. Even Panasonic and Olympus have NEVER made a profit from m43 and will likely never recoup the costs.. why no rant about that?
m4/3" is a great pioneer of mirrorless and mirrorless will have future. but that doesn't mean m4/3" is good or will have future. m4/3" is good for fast AF compared with other mirrorless cameras and good video (Pana bodies).