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.
RichRMA: The molded polymer (scratchproof, how does THAT work, it's plastic!) lens is probably (at most) $3.00 in large quantities. Still, those who think of them first...
Actually a similar idea has been presented before using simple ball lenses, around 1mm in diameter, held in place by a piece of foam. Shown to be useful to determine blood type. Optics probably worse.
ThePhysicist: Actually you don't need such a massive rig to get decent magnifications. All it takes is an old telephoto lens, a basic infinity-corrected microscope objective and an adapter to mount it on the filter thread.Check these sites for details:http://macrosmuymacros.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=32&lang=enhttp://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12147
Anyone interested in such photography should examine the photomacrography.net forum. In fact some folks there regularly use butterfly wings for lens benchmarking. But not all butterfly wings are as nice. Similar pics are also doable using a reversed wideangle lens on a set or two of extension tubes (or on bellows). In fact a kit lens at the wide end of the zoom works too, though is not as sharp.
So, where's Nikon 2?
ecm: The viewfinder on the V3 is distressingly similar to the VF-2 viewfinder I was forced to buy for my Olympus E-PL1. I'm having flashbacks to an odd-shaped lump of a camera that wouldn't fit into any bag, constant worrying about whether the finder would get broken off, and losing the hotshoe to something that should have been integral to the camera.
I'm on my third mirrorless in 4 years - I will never buy one without a built-in viewfinder ever again.
I think this one does look a bit less odd on the camera. I wander if the image is as good at the smaller EVF size? But I find the occupied flash shoe an issue. In addition to the inherited incompatibility with my SB-800 (both wired and wireless). I'm looking for my first mirrorless. But N1 doesn't seem to offer anything competitive, except for the firesale items (but they're not discounted without a good reason). No advantage due to compatibility with my old Nikon gear either.
straylightrun: $1000 for a 70-300 telephoto lens.....?
> Oh hey, aren't Canon charging as much for some of their 70-300s? Even a bit more for the L. But that one happens to be sharp at the long end, unlike most such lenses including the Nikon FX and DX VR. The MTF of this one doesn't seem to look promising, does it?
keeponkeepingon: Looking at the camera the first thing I notice is the controls on the left hand side forcing two handed operation for frequently used functions such as image review/playback.
One thing I don't get about the one system is that the smaller sensor size does not seem to translate into much smaller camera size. Sony's NEX 3n is smaller than the V1 and V2, about the same size as the J1 and the 16-50 power zoom is almost the same size as Nikon's kit lens. So you pay just as much (or more) for a smaller sensor in the same sized package. The main difffernce would then be the AF but with the A6000 sony seems to be catching up on that front tool.
> This is a second camera for Nikon DSLR users.
Vx should have been second cameras for Nikon DSLR users. But Nikon is very persistent in not making it happen.
abortabort: Not a 1 Series shooter, but there is also the 18.5mm f1.8 (50mm equiv) which isn't anywhere near as expensive as the 85mm equiv 32mm f1.2 which would probably appeal to enthusiasts. Also, unlike Sony, Olympus, Panasonic etc, this now has the longest lens available (in equiv) to any other mirrorless system, tied with arguably the fastest focussing, best tracking body means this 'could' be interesting to the telephoto birding/sports crowd.
Also they have developed the AW1 which is obviously the only naked underwater ILC on the market.
So I think to some extent they are gunning for the niches where their system of being really fast but also a small sensor, actually have some advantages... Which is not so much in competing directly with other 'enthusiast' mirrorless.
Just a thought anyway.
I think this camera will become interesting at $300 clearance sales.
RichRMA: The 70-300 lens costs 2x what the current DX lens costs for the DSLRs. That's pretty extreme.
Well maybe it wants to compete with the Canon 70-300L?
RRJackson: I wonder how much DxO got paid to ignore the multi-sample noise reduction of the RED sensor? Or are they going to start testing everyone's camera based on multiple exposure HDR imagery?
They surely do mention it. But they don't comment on the impact of this on motion blur in action shots (not freezing motion). While this may even be beneficial for video, comparing such results with still cameras may not be fair.
lenseye: 'our reason to exist is to push the envelope'
If there ever was a bull$hit cliche this is it...
> Oly used to have f/2.0 zooms for 4/3" SLRs. now they are doing f/2.8 versions.
As long as they are bigger&heavier than their canikon FF F/2.8 counterparts, there is not so much point doing them
fberns: When I took a look at the NEX-6 in a shop when it was new, mostly it was the viewfinder that I found less good than a DSLR's one. So I thought I might go mirrorless possibly even with the very next model because of a step-up in terms of viewfinder resolution and -speed (lag). But gosh - now it's a step down instead of an improvement. Seems I'll still have to stay for some time with my chunky DSLR...Thank you Sony, this way I won't spend any money on a mirrorless. Not yet.
> do you read other reviews, all reviews I saw so far stated the evf had less lag, better optics, better image.
I realize resolution isn't all there is to EVF. But I think at this point resolution is still an obvious issue.