Barney Britton: Apologies for the dead link which was in place a short time ago - it should be fixed now.
The higher the iso's get the more preprocessing there is in RAW files...to combat noise, moire and fine details - the smudging also comes from lenses and lens profiles being applied to RAW files...either way there is a Smudgyness to the files compared with the olympus files as they come into lightroom with adobe's processing. I stand by my reasoning as to why I personally wouldn't buy this camera. For the same money you can get one of the cheaper Panasonic or Olympus models without much image quality compromise and be able to upgrade your lenses to some of the finest mirrorless lenses around.
Thanks - I just downloaded a few to compare and I am afraid my opinion is still the same...it doesn't come close to the OMD EM1 for instance...very smudgy at higher iso's
Check this review out - comparison of iso's - I will reserve judgement till I see the RAW's for myself... http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-v3-full-review-24870
Looks to me that iso100-200 is comparable to Micro 43's but anything above is rather soft and smudgy... A step up from the previous iteration but still wouldn't persuade me to drop Micro 4/3's... and I shoot Nikon professionally.
Wow! Fantastic update...I can now use all my old 4/3 glass again. Probably as fast as it ever was... Very happy indeed...
This is not only a D600 problem but apparently the D800 has the same issue. In fact my D3X has terrible dust issues - very frustrating that Olympus seems to have solved the dust issue yet Nikon with all their R&D money cant sort this out...
facedodge: According to this depth of field calculator,(http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) the 32 f/1.2 will have a dof of .77 Feet.
This is equivalent to an 85mm lens on full frame set to f/3.2 which has a dof of .78 feet. (At f2.8 the dof is .7 feet)
This is still very good and should be produce excellent results... Especially in low light as the advantage of f/1.2 is maintained in terms of exposure/shutter speed.
Depends how well it shoots wide open...how sharp and how much drop off...?
Rather disappointed that the Video hasn't been looked at in this update too...24p please....
It would be good if they reduced the overall effect of the the clarity slider back to what it was before - it is now pretty heavy handed and not only adjusts exposure but introduces saturation which it didn't before.
Not much love for Adobe - this is another example from Adobe on how not to make friends and retain customers....just wish there was another "game" in town to compete with them properly. They are an extraordinarily arrogant company. Just look at the cost differences of software for UK users despite complaints over the last 5 years.... If the software was priced better they would reduce the incentive to "steal" software. Most young Photographers use 'stolen" software as the cost is out of the ballpark for them.
Corel make some great products but why not for Mac? Coreldraw is the only program I miss since working on a Mac....
Lets face it....if you are a terrorist wanting to photograph a building are you going to set up a tripod??
There is sharpening applied as with every other camera on the market including my Nikon D3x however there seems to be surprisingly little noise reduction applied. Either way its a non issue to a pro as if you process the images in lightroom or any other Raw processing program you can apply as little or as much or either as you require. Not sure who why such a big deal has been made over this?