capteneo: This conversation confirms what I've long believed about the DPReview community: that it consists mostly of tech-heads who care little for the craft of photography. Many of the comments below are predicated on the belief that with expensive equipment comes good photos (a convenient fiction for all of these hobbyists with pricey kits!); few take the perspective that photography is, in fact, art. When you hire a photographer for your wedding, you're commissioning an artist to bring his vision to bear on your event. If said artist is conscientious, the process will surely require much time, effort, and gear. But that's not the point. You're paying for the art, not the bodies and lenses and flashes. Wedding photography is not some mercenary business, like plugging holes in leaky pipes. It's an artistic endeavor. If you're happy with the results that $2000 of raw gear can buy, more power to you. For those who take photography more seriously, the eye of an artist is worth paying for.
I doubt that most pro photographers are any good as artists. There's just so many of them...
skrulm8: As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.
I mean, for $3,000 I can buy two 550Ds, a Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and rent the two flashes out. I'm sure there's relatives of mine with hands that have fingers on them, who would gladly take the pictures for free. For the few potos that need post processing, I'll do it myself.
And, yes, I've done wedding photography myself.
Here's my business, @Biggs23 - http://brelil.blogspot.com/. But I feel you're answering a comment nobody made.
@Loring von Palleske - Well, apparently, it's not worth it. I'd just build a website and lure people in with organic traffic. And I'd get a real job for the other 300+ days clueless people don't want to spend a car's worth on pictures.
And, how about this. Why not spend that $3,000 on renting, say, 7 fully equipped DSLRs, and giving them to whoever's most competent and willing among guests, to take loads and loads of pictures? I bet there would be many more good ones than from a single photographer and his buddy.
Shooshanddo: I definitely can understand her. I would like Beyonce to sing at my wedding but some told me that she is asking for one million $ for 15 min. Than I asked Spielberg to shoot with a digital video camera a 30 minutes movie of my birthday, an he asked 2 millions $. And another time I asked my bank for a 30 years loan, they gave me that immediately. Wow banks are good. they gave me 200000$ and after 10 years I have already paid 150000$. So i went to them and asked to pay the remain 50000$ in cash, and you know what they told me???? that I have to pay 180000$ more. So just guessing that after 30 years I will have a 30years+20years = 50years old house and I have paid the Bank at list 3/4 time more. Than again I become really mad when I saw MTV's program sweet 16 and a * a father paying half a million$ for a night party for a 16years old spoiled child. 99.9% of us professional photographers are struggling to survive economically, 0.01% are doing good and maybe one in a million is famous.
well, then I guess you can't really make a living from photography... and shouldn't even try to
As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.
Clarrie: It will be interesting to see the specs of the inevitable Sony SLT A99.
that translucent mirror thing is a disaster... it means that whatever sony comes up with, it's going to be 30% worse in low light than its peers... not my kind of tradeoff!
BW18: Have a Canon and I love it (5D). Someday when I have the $$ I will get a second body. I am a photographer. It is frustrating to hear that all the camera manufactures are adding video. Perhaps there is a need for some, but give me a break! While reading this article it sounded great until "…it's clear that Canon has had movie shooter in mind." If I want to shoot movies I will use a movie camera! Thoughts anyone?
And how much would a movie camera offering similar quality and lens selection cost? Would you be able to get it for less than ten 5D Mk IIs?
Identity: My Nikon V1 consistently gives me sharp, well-focused, well-exposed photos in all sorts of challenging conditions. Color rendering is lovely, high-ISO performance is much better than expected with remarkably little loss of color fidelity, in a package that's small enough to fit in a big pocket.
I've very happy with it. I agree that it could use some firmware tweaks, more lenses, and a lower price, but the fundamentals are incredibly solid.
being the smallest sensor EVIL isn't exactly solid fundamentals. i think a sensor like that belongs in only the cheapest of IL cameras
Superka: I don''t understand what for and whom for this camera. While many of photographers are waiting for cameras with big sensor, fast prime lens (interchangable or not) in a small body, seems neither Nikon, nor Canon gonna satisfy us.
The 1D X is launching in March.
stevelatinner: Who wants a stupid mirrorless camera? Just a way for manufacturers to spend less money making cameras.
I think that the best thing about these CSCs is that they will mount practically any old lens there is. My 550D, on the other hand, will only take M42, OM, F and a few other less interesting mounts. There is no FD support and it's difficult to get the manual focus lenses for video that I want.
In this regard, CSC ir very good value for money. Unfortunately, they're not really good for video. The NEX-5N does, what, 28 MBit/s? The 550D with Magic Lantern easily takes 70-100 Mbit/s videos if you use an external audio recorder. But these mirror-less cameras will not give you zebras, cropmarks or support for log color space any time soon, will they?
Desifinado: I don't see the advantage of a tiny camera with a protruding, non-retractable lens. Seems to have the disadvantages of both form-factors, without the benefits.
There are benefits, of course. But they're all cosmetic. Good job, Nikon!
jesse2: Still no full-time AF for video shooting?
Manual focus is working just fine for Hollywood.
I don't know why anyone would choose this over a proper small sensor compact like the Canon S95.
ezradja: Those who claim this J1 / V1 image is good enough to compete with other EVIL should check their eyes or stop drink that kool aid. Tried the imaging resource comparison between J1 and G12 (yes prosumer G12) and its evident that the bigger sensor slightly win and the smaller sensor (G12) lose. Compare the J1 image to the same price range (and size) NEX-5N and oh boy, stark different in image quality, dynamic range, noise etc. This arguably proved that the bigger the sensor, the better the image quality, but why bother with smaller sensor if the body and the lenses are similar in size? The argument that smaller sensor would effected the body and lenses should not be mention because of physics. You just can't make ultrawide lenses small, if you want ultra wide in Nikon 1 system you at least should make 5mm and of course with bright f (1.8-2), guess what, that lens gonna be big, well enormous to be precise.
Oh, yes, a 5/1.8 lens on this camera would be absolutely huge. It would have an internal diameter of a massive 2.8mm. Wow, scary... the outer element would be the size of a finger nail on the pinky.
Hide Takahashi: One of some concerns about this new cam is the lack of DOF. I was wondering if this cam never can take a photo with a nice bokeh?On Nikon's site,there are some sample photos. Scroll down till you see a butterfly shot.
Click on view smart photo selector sample.
This one photo clearly shows that V1/J1 can take a photo with a beautiful bokeh. I just don't know if smart photo selector will always produce a photo like that or not. Probably not. But at least,with the right lens,the right settings,it could produce a good DOF.
DOF only depends on the absolute diameter of the lens opening. So, to match the pretty bokeh of a $30 manual focus 58/2.0 lens on a DSLR, these little Nikons would need to have an aperture of f/0.34 at 10mm, f1.0 at 30mm (this is close to the 58mm lens on an ASP-C body) and f/3.5 at 100mm. Good luck with that... at any price.
pjsalty: What is the function of the projector? To project images onto a wall or screen?
Is anyone really going to blow a bunch of cash on accessories for a camera with a 1" sensor? I'll be very interested to hear what the iq is before I leave my m4/3 cameras.
I have this dream of using ultra large apertures (say f/0.7) to film my productions in natural light. I know this can't be done on a full frame camera because the depth of field would be too shallow for movies. So I figure I need a smaller sensor to get the large apertures at smaller apreture diameters...
I was hoping that this is exactly what the Nikon's mirror-less system would provide. After all, isn't it vastly cheaper to make large aperture lenses for small sensors?
Well, apparently not, because instead of that they give me a low resolution 1" sensor compact with slow lenses, and do so at the price of a 550D with a really nice set of f/2.0 lenses.
Looks like a pretty bad deal to me.