QuarterToDoom: Even though I'm staying away from the Oly cameras atm since I hate anything Sony (ie the Sony sensor) you cant deny even if you're a m43 hater that Olympus and m43 is leading the charge to give consumers what they want and evolving camera technology at a very rapid pace. Just look how they evolved since the E330
I agree. Also, advances like this change arguments about IQ. As sensor technology improves, smaller sensors make more sense.
Dan Tong: HDR is an attempt to properly expose various parts of a photographic shot. Of course our eyes do this without our awareness because sensitivity is controlled locally in the retina as well as the fact that the eye scans a scene and does not necessary stay locked in position, so that the eye can adjust to local variation in brightness.
We also need to keep in mind, that the eye's highest acuity region (the fovea) is always brought to bear on areas of interest in the visual field.
Surprisingly, the eye has a built-in constant, micro-tremor,, which when eliminated (stabilized images in laboratory experiments done with people) leads to the disappearance of the image altogether.
Hence Olympus's idea once again gets us a bit closer to the "perfection" of biological visual performance -extremely fast, focusing, rapid auto exposure.
But the narrow dynamic range of media applies equally to both non-HDR and HDR images, yet only one kind of image looks fake. So the display is not the cause of this.
The problem for me is that there is never a real-life situation where my eyes can handle bright bright sunlight and dark dark shade at the same time. First one, then the other, but never both at the same time. HDR attempts to do this.
Yes, our eyes are better than cameras, but our eyes have limitations too. I think one of the reasons that HDR images look "fake" is that our eyes do not have that much dynamic range.
I at least have trouble seeing well in the shade if I am in bright sunlight, and vice versa. Yes, my eyes adjust quickly, but at the moment I look from one scene to another, I'm lost. Yet this is the kind of problem that HDR handles easily.
Personally, I'm OK with noise, underexposure, and overexposure in many images. It's what my eyes see. I'm fascinated with this technology, but I don't think it will show me what my eyes see. It is more like looking into a microscope, seeing things that my eye can't see.
YouDidntDidYou: Something similar would be good for scenes with multiple white balance segments...
I know what you're saying, but our brains are smarter than computers. We can see where white balance problems are, but how can a computer?
It's a harder problem to solve than the problem that Olympus is solving here. A computer can see over or under exposure, but a computer can't see the true color of something.
I don't think that this exposure feature allows you to choose areas by "painting" on the screen beforehand. You just get to choose which areas to under or over-expose based on luminance in a histogram.
Let's say that you have an exposure that is half daylight, half incandescent. You have a light yellow item in daylight and a white item in incandescent. How do you tell the computer to correct one set of pixels and not the other, particularly if they are roughly the same luminance? I don't know. I guess it could be done, but it's a tough, tough problem.
derekkite: How different is this from spot metering and attaching the metering to the focus point?
I believe this is a different idea, unless I don't understand it correctly.
Any type of metering, spot or whatever, gives you a single exposure value, a single combination of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO that will (orwon't) produce the best exposure possible for the photo. You can meter however you want, and come up with 1/60 s @ f3.5 and ISO 100, for example, but when you click the shutter, that exposure is then applied to the whole photo, i.e., both where you metered and where you didn't meter.
This idea instead allows you to apply different exposure values to different areas of the photo, based on luminance. In other words, let's say that with a combination of 1/60 s @ f3.5 and ISO 100, you would expose your subject's face correctly, but blow out the background. With this idea, the camera would recognize that the background is too bright, and not value all of the luminance information it receives for those pixels. You get a correctly exposed subject, and background too.
How would you do something like that? You can measure luminance information, but I don't see how you could determine mathematically what type of light was hitting each part of the scene.
Sdaniella: I've long advocated for custom multi-ISO selection based on range of EV luminance 'zones' for a single capture (not multiple different time exposures)
I figure if one can have 'digital ND' filters that are custom selected to follow luminance contours in real-time, not a physical filter with just straight gradients, then we'd do away with pp altogether, and even RAW.
these ideas are long overdue. surely sensor tech and image processing can already do this even at the pixel level ? (Canon)
it's paramount that 'natural DR' be achieved in a single exposure to exclude blur of moving subjects on a given background (dynamic or static)
I think you're right about ISO "brightening", but are you sure there even is such a thing?
My opinion is that the ISO settings are largely meaningless on the cameras I use. An ISO 1600 shot at 1/60 s has almost the exact same noise characteristics as an ISO 400 shot at 1/15 s. If the noise characteristics do differ slightly, it seems to me to be due to a different tone curve that the camera uses for a given ISO setting, not increased sensor sensitivity. In other words, you have sensor sensitivity, period, and bumping up ISO just underexposes the shot and (maybe) causes the camera to use a slightly different tone curve.
This is very different from the film days, when ISO 1600 film was a completely different emulsion, with completely different sensitivity, from ISO 100 film.
olyflyer: Very interesting. I always wondered why we can't control the exposure in even higher detail, at pixel level. I understand that currently that's too much to ask, but I believe it is coming some times in the future.
I wonder if what you're suggesting could be done with a layer mask in-camera. I'm thinking hypothetically, two identical shots, the second exposed through an inverted grayscale layer mask of the first shot. You might even be able to do it with one shot, with a sub-exposure, then converted to an inverted layer mask, and then the rest of the exposure. The layer mask would determine what to do with the rest of the luminance information, either add it to the exposure, or average it.
Mahmoud Mousef: Who isn't impressed by just how much has been done here compared to previous releases? I am trying to remain composed, but I'm pretty blown away at the work they have put into this one (at least from what I'm seeing so far).
My only real disappointment is of course: 1) price2) accessory port is still being used for the flash.
The flash is the big one. If this had a standard hotshoe, I'd be VERY eager to jump on one at the inevitable $600 price as its successor is announced. As stated by more astute observers, the Nikon 1 system does some things very well and is really in a class of its own in those areas. If you aren't interested in these areas, well then you can grab a $500 DSLR or mirrorless instead.
Now the only question is how much the V2 will go down :)
I'm not impressed.
The V3 is a nice camera, but too expensive, and little has been done compared to previous releases. The marquee features then were the same marquee features as now.
C-GREEN: I don't normally do this but after DPReview came out with this I felt the need to say something. What I don't understand is why all the complaining. I used to come to DPR for information and knowledge but recently all I here is griping and complaining!! If the new V3 is not the camera for you then don't buy it!! When i'm in the grocery store shopping and I see that one cereal cost more than the other I don't write a blog about it. I get the cereal I want and that's it. Get a grip guys "please"! If you think it's over priced or under valued then again don't buy it!!
OP = unclear on the concept.
This site is like a consumer reports site. The whole point is to talk value for money, capabilities, etc.
stromaroma: I admit, I bought a V1, to use with my existing long Nikon lenses for wildlife etc. I actually bought 2, the second one came a year or two later. I use the other one with the 10-30 because it's small for out in the wilderness. I hate big cameras. Dynamic range isn't good, there's poor subject OOF isolation, changing exposure compensation is the most irritating thing I've ever seen on a camera. But it works.
I basically bought them because of my existing lens set, and because the EL-15 battery is also compatible with my D7000, so I can save some $$ and weight there.
Would I buy one if I wasn't already invested in Nikon? Very unlikely with the new offerings from other companies like Fuji. The only way I justified buying my two V1's was because I got the first one on that crazy firesale which was like half the original price. The second one I bought as a return, but it was basically brand new, for less than half the original price. I would never buy a V3 at the price they are asking.
Also, you had glass...
The native glass for this system is ridiculously priced. They want $500 for f3.5 kit-type zooms.
Jon Ingram: @ Richard Butler. I agree with you. You bring up some solid points about the newest V-camera. I would love to love this camera, but with sub-par external controls and limited glass, there is no way I would pay the asking price. Your article is a good summation of why many Nikon fans are hesitant to buy into this system.
Limited and EXPENSIVE glass. They are asking $500 for f3.5 kit-type zooms.
I am not a Nikon fan, but this system has interested me from the beginning. But the price of glass is a deal-breaker. It's amusing how many people are talking about the fire-sale prices that the bodies fall to, as if they've discovered some secret that they can cash in on. Rubes...
Reilly Diefenbach: Do the Pentax fans really need a review to tell them they want a 24MP Pentax?
What's a "new photographer", somebody who knows very little about photography and is susceptible to advertising?
Right, run time doesn't matter on computers. That's why tech companies pay high salaries to guys to write algorithms that shave milliseconds off of the run time of common procedures. I guess you like waiting 4 times as long for a complex filter to work on a 32 Mp image as it takes to work on an 8 Mp image, which is all you need to print at 13x19 anyway.
You don't "need" 24 Mp camera to take pictures of your cat and print at 8x10 than you "need" a Hummer to run to the convenience store for a gallon of milk.
Denis of Whidbey Island: What? No shot of the UPS driver handing over the package? Let's hope this is not a harbinger of more unboxing sequences in the future.
Somebody read an article about the trendiness of unboxing videos and suggested this at a meeting. I'm with you. Once is enough.
Who wants 24 Mp? 16 is too much. It gums up the computer and makes file transfer, post-processing, etc. too slow. People who want 24 Mp are likely 1% people who think they need the resolution for some exotic printing need (and likely don't), and 99% people who do very little printing and have absolutely no idea what resolution images they need for anything.
Go look up reviews of 2 Mp cameras on the web, and print the sample images at 8x10. Report back. I'm betting you'll be surprised.
ZAnton: "The Nikon 1 V1 and V2 are two cameras that are not frequently discussed among camera enthusiasts."The only way they can change that is to make bright lenses for it. Bright zooms (f/2) AND very bright fixes (f/1.4).Otherwise Canon G1X mk2 is way better than Nikon 1 line.There are also Sony RX, Canon G15/16, and Nikon P7700/7800, although the last one is a tiny bit slower on AF than G16.So basically Nikon 1 loose to the whole bunch of the "normal" enthusiast P&Ss.UPD. Oh, that dark camera doesn't even have a hot shoe, so that i could mount my SB700? I assume the DPreview authors must rethink the market placement of V3. I don't see _any_ reason for an enthusiast to buy this camera.
Instead the kit-type zooms are f3.5 and $500. Ouch...
bobbarber: If you take the point of view that Nikon's strategy is part of a tug-of-war between a DSLR or mirrorless paradigm, I think that Nikon is bound to lose that one, long term. MIrrorless will continue to gain market share. On the other hand, if Nikon goes all in for mirrorless, they might have trouble competing with the likes of Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony.
Short-term, Nikon's strategy makes sense. But this reminds me of the 70s in the U.S., when the auto-makers continued to produce oversized, over-powered cars, when the trend worldwide was towards smaller cars, for good reason. The automakers basically killed off their business, and never recovered to where they were. And Nikon might not get bailed out by the government, either. Obviously, Detroit COULD have made great smaller cars initially, but chose not to.
You say other people defined the term mirrorless, not you, so you are not responsible for it. Exactly what I thought--you let other people do your thinking for you. There are so many problems with that approach to life, putting to one side discussions about cameras, that I don't know where to begin...
It is incorrect to call a whale a fish, even though you will find plenty of people who do so, and some may have credentials that appeal to you. "I've been a sailor all my life, and I know what I'm talking about, etc., blah, blah..." It is equally incorrect to consider compact cameras anything other than mirrorless cameras.
Your position is a combination of two points, 1) DSLR sales are strong, and 2) DSLR sales are shrinking (!), but not because of mirrorless cameras. 1) is plain wrong--DSLR sales are down, and 2) is only partially correct. The reason that DSLR sales is shrinking is because of competition from mirrorless cameras. You heard it here first.
You are what we call a "piece of work" in these parts.
I am not "recategorizing" cameras--YOU ARE!
Compacts are mirrorless cameras, because THEY DON'T HAVE MIRRORS! Get it? Categorizing compacts in any other way is intellectually dishonest, and leads to errors in understanding, which you apparently suffer from.
You point out the ILC sales are down by a million units or so in the past couple of years. THEY ARE LOSING SALES TO MIRRORLESS DEVICES. People are taking MORE pictures than ever before, not LESS. DSLRs today, at this very moment, are losing overall marketing share of all cameras sold, including cell phones, etc. to MIRRORLESS devices.
You have ARTIFICIALLY defined camera categories (or more likely, have let web sites, "experts", etc. do it for you) that support a FALSE idea that DSLRs outsell mirrorless cameras, because they have a LARGER share of a SHRINKING category. DSLR sales are DOWN. Nikon knows this. Canon knows this.
rrccad: Personally I think Nikon got it right.
If the goal of MILC is to provide a small travel / working kit with reasonable image quality, then over time, the Nikon 1 will do it better than certainly APS-C and full frame sensored kit - which will be burdened down by it's much larger almost DSLR sized lenses (for normal and above focals)
the Nikon 1 system system will produce the smallest kit of any of the MILC's - and for most cases, the performance and quality outside of a few raging camera geeks is more than good enough.
I agree with you that the quality is "good enough". It would certainly work for me.
But if they aren't expecting "raging camera geeks" to buy this, then who exactly is it marketed at? I don't buy the soccer mom explanation. The lens prices are outrageous! You get a slowish kit-type zoom for $500, and it gets worse from there! I don't see that kind of cost/performance ratio appealing to anybody outside of the "I defend the Nikon badge at all costs" crowd...