RichRMA: Time for Nikon to release a REAL DX mirror-less. No 19fps with a mirror.
AFAIK even the mirror-less often don't reach the fps of their sensors, and despite the absence of the mirror there is the issue of object tracking because of what the shooter sees in the VF in burst mode. Nikon's attitude seems to be to stick with the mirrors until they're knocked out of the market. I think they could've been more successful even with N1 if they wanted to.
maksa: It seems that won’t work in photography. Nanolens reflects falling beam for a particular angle, while in traditional lens the reflection angle depends on falling angle in any point of surface. As far as I understand, nanolens can focus only parallel beams, thus its use is very restricted.
Well, the wording is very specific regarding three single wavelengths, and even the image for these three looks odd. I suspect they'd show the result with continuous-spectrum light if they were good. If they are not, this might be useful for projectors using these three wavelengths.
Beat Traveller: I like the idea behind the new real world test, but calling it 'real world DR' seems a bit of a stretch to me. In the Nikon D750 review a similar test under studio conditions was called 'exposure latitude', which I think is a fairer name for what you've done here.
I'd stop short of calling it real world DR because it's not exactly clear where the extra latitude after the exposure to the right comes from. The benchmark you use for evidence of increased DR is lower noise in the corrected exposure, but because this test involves software it's biased in favour of the camera with more pixels for the software to work with. At the very least there needs to be a comparison of what both cameras look like with a 'normal' exposure, to fully show the reasoning behind exposing to the right.
Keep up the good work!
"It would be interesting though to see what the a7s and a7r files look like though as you progressively let the highlights clip."I don't think there is much interesting to see. Current cameras don't do much about highlights clipping. Some recent raw converters do have practically useful "highlights recovery" methods which don't actually recover anything but rather use certain guesswork to transform hard digital blowing of channels into smoother saturation. For instance LR since version 4. This often makes blown images look much better (though fails sometimes; Raw Therapy offers several different methods). I think it would be great if the makers would find ways to overcome current processing limitations, which currently tend to be narrower than sensor DR, and to include "highlights recovery" stuff into JPG processing, for the benefit of masses shooting in harsh light ;)
_sem_: How about smaller lossless compressed raw files?
The canikon way, not the Sony way ;) Storage is indeed cheaper, but the computers are not shoveling shiploads of data that much faster than a few years ago.
How about smaller lossless compressed raw files?
_sem_: Any news regarding the raw compression and shutter shock issues?
Oh I see that was mostly A7R related http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5080http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-shutter-vibration-issue-explained-by-joseph-holmes/http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sonya7rshuttershake-part3.htmlI guess this one has EFCS. But it has a new IBIS system, and various IS systems have been associated with shutter shock issues even in the off state, so I think this should be checked. It'd also be nice if they manage to make the shutter more silent.
Any news regarding the raw compression and shutter shock issues?
Gareth Bourne: I'm not impressed by this. I have a Nissin i40, and I don't think I'd swap it. If you're interested in a small but powerful travel flash, with wireless high-speed sync, full manual mode, etc. then check out the Nissin.
Well it's good to see 3rd-parties offering better alternatives rather than just cheap knock-offs ;)Godox Li-ion speedlights are interesting too...
So, finally a more serious "travel flash" update to the SB-400... adds tilt (180deg only), higher GN (24 vs 21), LED light, CLS incl remote option, manual mode; has autoFP and a short pulse. Mind: no zoom, one TTL mode (probably TTL-BL not plain TTL), recycle time not listed but probably reasonable.http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/speedlights/sb-500/spec.htmClosest competition: http://www.nissindigital.com/i40.html
AndyC105: Raw power output is only half the story - just as important is how fast the flash recycles. I'll be interested in some comparisons with manufacturers units once people are using them.
more data here: https://www.metz.de/en/lighting/flash-units/system-flash-units/mecablitz-64-af-1-digital/data-sheet/mecablitz-52-af-1-digital-canon.htmlClaims 1.8 s recycle time on NiMH cells, 190 full pops on one charge, no data on how many consecutive pops before overheatingEDIT: looking at the URL it seems that the datasheet if the 52 AF-1 is linked in the page of the 64 AF-1.
yehudakgtbnet: No HSpeed mode?
It has HSS. But it doesn't use Li-ion batteries ;)
DWM: There is no Capture NX-3 since Google remains intent on world domination. Google bought NIK and didn't license the NIK software to Nikon (control point technology). As I understand it, the underlying RAW conversion in NX-D is the same as it always has been, just with SilkyPix on top of it. So if you don't like Adobe's ACR result you can always use NX-D and output a TIFF to further process in your choice of software. Personally, I've just gone to Lightroom.
I recall Fuji camera owners were quite frustrated at one point in time when SilkyPix was the only raw converter that would properly deal with EXR and X-Trans raw files. Does anybody know what this frustration was about specifically, and if it still applies to NX-D?Is it worse than ViewNX?
SteveS: I hate sidecar files!
Erhm. I think the practice of editing the originals is sometimes even more problematic. On a few instances, NEFs edited with NX were not recognized by DxO OP.
beavertown: 1200 bucks for this IQ?
Why don't they just put a smartphone sensor in it?
> And don't look at raws shot with the kitzoom.
Kitzoom alternatives in the lens lineup are one problem here. - No better & faster one available- Nothing comparable to the lenses of the RX100 series available.
grumpycat: who will buy this thing???
V3's full electronic shutter is indeed much faster than most of the alternatives. But it still a rolling one, no EFCS afaik, and with scan time (0.012s?) not fast enough for everything. And there's a bit of IQ penalty compared to the Sony 1" sensors.
Sonyshine: A brilliant little action and wildlife camera from Nikon. I really , really want one!
Why is the EVF a separate extra?What on earth were they thinking of with Micro SD cards?
The retail price is hysterically funny - no way will I pay anything near what they want for this camera when my V1 can do most of the things the V3 can do.
I still think this camera is a (potential) winner but Nikon's marketing department need to take a long walk off a short pier...
> after having held one how anyone can call this camera large is beyond me, it's a usable size.
It is not large in absolute terms. But, with the lenses, it is not as much smaller than m43 offerings as one might expect. Not to mention the size and kit lens aperture comparison to same-sensor-sized Sony RX. I do believe that Nikon 1 lens design standards are above those of compacts, eventhough the image comparison doesn't show obvious superiority... but I think Nikon 1 might be much more successful if they offered similar compact and fast lenses.
I don't care about micro SD at all. But the pricing, the external EVF, the flash incompatibility, the limited compatibilty with F-mount lenses (central AF only), the relatively large size considering the sensor size... If the rest was done right, N1 could live with the limitations of the small sensor, catering to those preferring small sizes (though I think Nikon should consider a APS-C mirrorless N2 line to replace their smaller DSLRs over the next decade).
glenn capers: What I never understand is the mentality of people that submit samples ov the Nikon1 v3. You spend 2000 dollars plus and shoot a a kid on a bike, a person walking up the stairs, an escalator, and a memorable aspirin box.
Nothing about pictures figure out. Or maybe it is the writers that fire off a few frames. If I was Nikon I would stop sending you cameras to review. The pictures are embarrassing. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-1-v3-real-world-samples
If I was Nikon I would stop sending DPR cameras to review if I didn't intend selling many of them in the first place. Can't blame Nikon if V1 missed the target, but the third iteration, heheDPR could've mentioned the possible appeal to rich birders.
EssexAsh: and my trusty old fuji x10 blows them all away.
That old Fuji can't clean up noisy shadows. But it surely can tame blown highlights in wide-DR scenes when light is plenty.
RichRMA: It's still a glorified Coolpix, really. I can't really see the point in having interchangeable lenses on a camera like that, except for novelty purposes. Nikon and Canon; the DSLR "boom" isn't going to last forever so would it really threaten your entire existence to release at least 1 (no pun intended) serious mirror-less?
> The rx100 shows what can be done when you focus on image quality instead of gimmicks.
In fact, the rx100 lens boosts the max aperture on account of optical performance and heavily relies on distortion and CA correction, like most P&S lenses (considerably more than typical m43 lenses). However, for some (particularly P&S upgraders) the benefits outweigh the side-effects, and it would surely be good if such lenses were available in N1.