Michael S.: First "bad" spec that I saw already and can't be ignored even by good IQ the camera might have:
F2.8-5.8 stabilized zoom...
This should have been something like f2.0 - f4.0!
In that case, the lens would have been bigger. You can't have it all.
Robert Newman: Nice but expensive camera. I think I would opt for the new Canon 18mp machine over this however. Actually, I still use my Mamiya RZ67 and my 4x5 Sinar P along with an Epson 700 scanner for a variety of work. I don't get the dynamic range of a good digital SLR and clearly there is some quality lost in going from analog film to digital for final printing, but there is plenty of resolution and for studio or architectural shots, there are times when I prefer this approach. It forces me to compose more carefully and meter more intelligently than I might if I just used a DSLR. My main camera is a Canon 5D2, but like all tools it has limitations and when I have time and a specific application for medium or large format images, film can still make sense.
I must have misread the title "Tell us why you still use a medium format film camera".
I'd swear it said "Nikon D4 Overview".
MonkRX: @ Manny - Mirrorless Cameras employ the same size sensors (of the same generation of technology), similar level processors. Technologically, they are the same.
The only gap DSLRs have over Mirrorless is Auto Focus technology (arguably more accurate on mirrorless, but slower), and exposure/metering (again, arguably better on Mirrorless, since the entire sensor does metering).
The latter is the only thing that could possibly effect image quality.
m4/3rds and APS-C DSLRs have no apparent technological advantage that couldn't be employed in a Mirrorless camera.
@martya Not a exactly a big surprise that the images from recent 24MP sensor out perform those from a 4 year old 12MP APS-C sensor and a 7 year old 12mp FF sensor.
Mirror or no mirror really has nothing to do with that difference.
Brandon Feinberg: Anyone know who this song is by.
You can find it on the original Vimeo page in the description.
Jan Jelinek - Do Dekor
pentaxmesuper: @Michael König: greats videos, a little bit to fast, go in contact to bavarian TV BR3, produce a new volume of "space night" including the fantastic music of space night II-VIII and sell this on bluray 1080p. :-)
I feel the speed made the images more powerful. In space, you would expect everything to be slow, like all the other footage we have come to see by now.But this time, it's not. It looked, sounded and felt like another planet all together.
I am seeing a strange green cast on the cheek, towards the right ear. A bit of posteration? I goes from soft pink to soft green very sudden.
I hope jpeg-compression is to blame.
tomkaten: I found the music totally unfit as well. No disrespect to its composer or those who enjoyed it, but images from space, IMO, should have space music. I even went as far as to replace it with something a bit more to my taste and now I have a watchable video. You can find it below, if you care to see how it looks.
And I have again the very same right to express my discontent when others edit an original video with their own material so, I quote, "it becomes watchable". So what's the fuzz?
And the enumeration thingie, you clearly don't see that when you answer someone in that mathematical way, you open the doorway to sarcasm. Be a sport and take it.
People who claim they can end a normal discussion by calling the other "a troll", are the true trolls of this world.
And 'a quick browse of my posts", just shows I clearly have an opinion about people having no respect for the original work (calling it "cheap crap" for example"). Nothing more.
And now you post a link where you edit the music to make it work better for you - how is that not claiming it's better now, btw? I comment on that and you get all defensive. Next time, don't post the link if you can't handle opinions.
I'm not arguing, I just gave my opinion. Like you gave your opinion about the original score.
If you post a link somewhere on the internet, people might just click on it. Don't you think? Especially, when you alter an original piece of creative work and claim it is better now.
Great enumeration skills, btw.
I actually clicked on your link, expecting some original piece of music. Maybe classical. Or some ambient.
I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.
Those powerful images really deserve more than some copy pasted cliché soundtrack from the mid 80s.
jmmgarza: Nice photos horrid music.
@ CamerLabTester. You're calling the music "cheap crap". I'm saying "it fits the video".
Who's close minded?
Bet you call pictures taken by others you don't like, also "cheap crap".
I find it to be an excellent companion with the images. Random, endless and chaotic , but it all still fits together.Quite like the subject in the video.
Open your mind.
gw5815: I was there. The most amazing part of the demo was the crowd picture and poster picture, and both of those were legit. The Kevin Lynch pic was just the comedy at the end.
The demonstration was crazy crazy awesome.
That crowd picture doesn't look like genuine, all day blur at all. It has sharp edges and detail in it, it just doesn't look right.
Very Hopper-like indeed. I like it very much. The simplicity is powerful.
Tom Cody: It seems to me that DPR is being very biased on the new Nikon 1. If you remember back when the Nex 3/5 first came out, DPR gave them very low scores (65 or 66% I believe), then after a firmware upgrade, the score went up to 70%.
Here are a few quotes from the Nex 3/5 review:
…We weren't impressed with the cameras when we first encountered them but an unexpectedly significant firmware update has dramatically improved the shooting experience for enthusiast users…Where the NEXs really impress is the PASM modes where you can take full advantage of the large, very capable sensor…
Well, the Nikon 1 does not have PASM modes or a large very capable sensor, and no firmware upgrade will ever fix that.
So if DPR uses the same logic and reviews the Nikon V1 from the same perspective as they did the Nex 3/5, then you would logically expect a score <65%.
Don’t count on it, DPR is clearly is biased and I'm betting they will give the Nikon 1 a 70% +
Are you eleven years old?
PatrickP: This camera is basically designed for people with a lot of fast / long nikkors and wanna go lighter and longer , not the P&S / mirrorless crowd actually....
with the f-mount adapter :
slap on a 24/1.4G and it becomes 70m f/1.4, with AF50/1.4G becomes 135mm f/1.485/1.4G becomes 230mm f/1.4
all of the above combined with the camera weight about 2 pounds in a fairly small package. even with the 24/1.4 , shooting at f/1.4 it's A LOT of subject isolation. at f/1.4 you would hardly ever shoot above ISO800....
also:70-200 becomes 190-510mm f/2.8 VR70-200 VR2 + 2X TC becomes 380-1080mm f/5.6 VR. (think telescope...)
i can't say i'm not excited....
@JackieMy tiny and handy Switar 25mm f1.4 on my E-PL1 does an excellent job. You call me mad? Small sensors, means smaller lenses usable.
Since when is aperture number an indication of noise?
An f1.4 stays and f1.4, no matter what body you put behind it. A f2.8 lens does not "become" a 4.0 lens. And it will be a big step forwards from the kitlens in the Nikon 1 system. You're making it look like it is not and that the lenses are becoming -less- practical.
While for fans of long teles and in good, normal light, this a great combo.
Fotogeneticist: I've just been waiting for a small body to stick on the end of my Nikkor glass to use for video in a package that can fit in a book bag. I've already got a D-SLR for everything else.
Yes. AF with AF-S lenses.
Doug Frost: I'm completely underwhelmed by these samples. Interchangeable lenses notwithstanding, there are a number of compact cameras that outclass the Nikon 1. The new Canon S100 is smaller, less expensive, has a faster lens and higher IQ. It can even produce a passable bokeh at the short end. You can forget bokeh entirely with the N1 system.
I don't know what Nikon was thinking. Did they really believe that compact camera owners would consider the ability to put an assortment of mediocre lenses on a mediocre camera an upgrade?
@ Doug.So... the Canon is better because the default settings have higher saturation and contrast? Right. Am sure the D3x is also worse than a D3100, because the images are less punchy. And we all know it will be impossible to change the saturation and contrast settings of the Nikon 1 to our personal preference. Nikon won't let us. Of course. You make so much sense it almost hurts.
I would sincerely be surprised if the Canon S100 offered better ISO 3200 files. The RAW files posted outperform my E-PL1, which has a slightly bigger sensor than the Nikon 1.
And you claim the Canon S100 is even better?
I don't understand why people continue stating facts that don't make any sense. At. All. Just jumping on the wagon? Being bored? Who knows.