makofoto: Forgot to ask him about the Sony A7S. It would be amazing to see what he could do with it!
Probably not enough resolution with the Sony. The D800 is fairly close to medium format. Also while Sony has some great lenses, they are still not at the caliber of some of Nikon's better lenses like the 14-28
I have always been a big Canon fan for the majority of my life. Theyused to produce some of the best SLR bodies and lenses. But times have changed and other manufacturers seem to be improving their technology where Canon is somewhat stuck in the past. That's not to say that these sensors are poor, because they are very capable, but for the money there are much better options depending upon your needs. Canon lens line-up is long in the tooth for me, where is a new 50 1.8 or 1.4 ? Where is a new 85 1.8 ? These lenses are aging and need to be replaced. I think other manufactures are producing better JPEGs, delivering better color, handle noise and DR better. I dunno maybe I am a bit hard on this company, I just want more out of them I guess.
I picked up the J4 recently for $399 on sale (same sensor as V3). I also picked up the Olympus OMD-EM10 and Sony NEX 6 from Amazon (thanks to Amazon's amazing return policy). I ended up keeping the J4 and returning the other two bodies for the following reasons: 1) The J4 is faster and more accurate in focus 2) The J4 touch screen is better than Olympus 3) Nikon's color and metering is better. While high ISO noise is better controlled by Olympus and Sony, the high ISO grain is nicer leaving more detail on the Nikon. Overall unless you pixel peep, the Nikon images look better in print than the other two bodies. Olympus has some strange color hues and often clips highlights whereas the Nikon seems to do better in the highlights and the Olympus in the shadows. The Nikon has a sharper kit lens, the IS works better, and I love that the "lens-cap" is built in. The Nikon menu system is better than Olympus and the minimalist design and handling makes for a better travel companion.
rrr_hhh: Huh ! What ? They should rather take care of their sensors !
And they don't even have enough clue to put a mirror less body in the package !
I agree the lens selection is quite nice and mature with both systems. Sony does color really well and I like their deep tones. I dunno I though about returning to m43rds but in the end I think the images lack something, I can't quite put my finger on it and others have noted the same thing. Maybe I'll try the EM10, time will tell, I agree it's a system that has lots to offer (touch shutter, IBIS, fast high quality prime etc). I agree with your assessment of canon color, I think Canon is tuned to deliver nice greens and really pretty skin colors, but Canon has fantastic white balance and overall is accurate, yet punchy. Olympus color IMHO is hit or miss, sometimes beautiful and sometimes the wb is screwy and the color hues are all over the place.
I do disagree about your one point regarding DR, any camera on the market today has suffient DR for any situation, and a good photographer (not camera) is the difference between someone who can capture a scene and some one who cannot, I can take beautiful pictures with a P&S even in high noon sun, it's all about reading the light. Having more DR is always welcome. You were also comparing the A7R which has 12 megapixels to the 6D with 20 megapixels, shaving that many pixels is obviously going to mean larger photo sites, but the 6D sensor will still have more resolving power and is better suited for landscapes which you used as an example.
@rrr-hhh, I do understand I myself have been on the fence on my next SLR purchase and I'm all over the map from Nikon FF or DX, or Canon FF ad APS-C. I had an Olympus OMD EM5, just never cared for the pictures, kinda had this digital look wheras the bigger sensor looks more organic. I used to love Nikon and may return, but Nikon colors are hit or miss for me and sometimes hard to get right in post. I do have a fondness for Sony (loved my NEX 6) and was looking at the A7, but Sony is a gamble for me. Canon has always produced some of most consistent pictures of any body I have ever owned, I guess it's just 'old reliable' for me. I am pretty sure in the end I will get a Canon SLR again, their controls are superb, menus clean and simple, superb ergonimics, and of course a wide lens selection. It's the whole package for me even if the DR hasn't changed much in the last few years.
I hear the aging sensor argument all the time and yet I find the most attractive pictures (subjective, I know) still come from canon cameras whether it be on the thousands of posts from POTN or random galleries I view on Flickr. I just don't see the same quality results coming from mirror less bodies whose sensors are "supposedly" miles above Canon. Is it the users, the lenses, or something about Canons processing I just don't know, but after years of trying Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and various other brands I find myself returning to the supposedly "aging" sensor even though I admit that on paper and according to various reviews the other manufacturers are better....
I hate when company's do this. Basically they are saying; you know how our 1.2 lens has crappy bokeh, well here we fixed it by adding a filter, all you need to do is give us $500 more and your good to go. Shame on you Fuji.
vladimir vanek: nothing special. just trying to keep up with the competition plus a few bulls**ts in their own mouth again, like NFC wasn't necessary before, but now it's a wow new feature. :) nokia has been implementing NFC for a mere 4 or 5 years now. :D another one: "we don't need bigger displays" :D and the phase detection feature makes me smile. but many people buy as per specs alone...apple was my no. 1 tech company....some time ago. too sad.
No there is a difference. Where other manufacturers created a half baked product, Apple implements something usable.
peevee1: With similar E-PM2 kits at $250, Nikon thinks people are going to line up for V3's inferior image quality at 4 times the price. Riiight...
Thank you peevee1, you just proved my points. I actually have written raw conversion software, so I do know a thing or two about dynamic range. There is such a thing as highlight dynamic range, it's the range above the midtone point, some camera's deal with this area better than others. You noted DXOs score which is problematic and proves my point: How much of the dynamic range is in the shadows vs. highlights ? You also note the DXO color score, this score isn't about color accuracy, it's about color depth which are two different things. Everyone including dpreview notes that while Olympus color is attractive (subjective), it's also not accurate. Noise is also a problem, you can see visible smearing at high ISO on Olympus sensors whereas Nikon shows a very tight grain pattern (film like) which is more easily dealt with in post. DXO scores are flawed but it's no use, people follow the pied piper, no one thinks for themselves anymore.
Do you even know what you are talking about ? The V3 image quality is not inferior to the EMP2. In fact, the performance of the 1 inch sensor is better (better dynamic range in highlights, tighter noise performance, realistic color rendition). The EMP2 is garbage, I had one - poor build, poor Af, poor LCD.
The only people buying these crappy m43 cameras are old people on these forums, I have yet to see one in public.
AngryCorgi: I don't hate this camera. I think it "looks" sexy with the grip on it. But the price remains stupid given its performance. It simply is outclassed in terms of IQ by just about everything.
The camera has the fastest AF on the market, matching that of Nikon and Canon's most professional DLSRs. Sensor aside, the price is justifiable. The only thing outclassing the IQ of this sensor is APS-C at the moment.
Forever Young: Marketing 101: Create artificial shortage to make your product more appealing.
It wasn't an artificial shortage, Nikon really didn't expect the Nikon 1 line to sell as well as it has overseas.
Mike FL: Guaranteed that the V3's IQ is NOTICEABLY worse than Olympus E-PM2 @ISO 3200 and up based on DPR's Low-light sample shots.
FWIW: The old Olympus E-PM2 has almost the same size as this V3, and it is little over $300 with 14-42mm Lens.
LOL, the EMP2 is junk. Poor build, slow AF, poor LCD screen.
Marty4650: Everyone has different preferences. The real question is... who is this camera designed for?
This camera is confusing.
It is bigger than it needs to be. So it isn't the best design for a compact carry camera. It is more expensive than some semi-pro DSLRs are, so it isn't a good value. Is this camera worth more than an E-M5 or an X-E2 or a NEX-6? Because it sure costs more.
It uses a cell phone memory card, for some reason that no one can seem to understand. Perhaps they just wanted it to be different?
Having a separate and "optional EVF" might seem like a good idea on paper, but in reality it just creates the need to carry something else around. Something that could be lost, dropped or misplaced. This might be why Olympus has been more successful with their OMD line than their Pen line.
To me, it looks like this camera only makes sense for a Nikon fan who wants a "companion camera" for his Nikon DSLR, and cannot tolerate any other brand name sitting in his camera bag.
"Everyone has different preferences. The real question is... who is this camera designed for?"
Obviously not for you
"This camera is confusing."
I think you are the one who is confused.
SLOOPB: One has to really go out of their way to prefer this camera to other options available.
How so ? Honestly I have owned several mirrorless cameras over the last year and there is not perfect option. I bought a Nikon J3 with low expectations but it's the only mirrorless body I have owned that could capture focused pictures of my kids moving. I can use the entire line of Nikon lenses with this camera with no performance penalty. My former Fuji XE1 had poor focusing, my former OMD EM5 suffered from shutter shock and the build quality was quite poor (paint peeling to the LCD cracking). I had a Sony NEX 3N which had great IQ, but lens options are limited and expensive. It's subjective but the Nikon 1 line is probably the most balanced in terms of performance and quality and the 1 inch sensor is obviously where the market is heading.
retro76: One things these images don't convey is just how amazing the Nikon 1 sensor is when shooting raw.. I shoot raw and process my J2 images with Aperture and the images are very hard to discern from APS-C sensors at low ISO sans a hint of noise. Of course at higher ISOs the bigger sensors perform better no doubt. One thing worth noting is when I process Canon 60D, OMD-EM5, and my Nikon 1 files one thing I do notice is how much better the dynamic range is (in highlights) compared to the Canon and Olympus sensors.
Please point out the threads to me, maybe I have missed something along the way. I owned the OMD EM5 and the highlights were quite poor from this camera (shadows were great). I have contemplated going and trying m4/3rds again, but to convince me I need to see more than DXO data that shows that this camera has good dynamic range.
One things these images don't convey is just how amazing the Nikon 1 sensor is when shooting raw.. I shoot raw and process my J2 images with Aperture and the images are very hard to discern from APS-C sensors at low ISO sans a hint of noise. Of course at higher ISOs the bigger sensors perform better no doubt. One thing worth noting is when I process Canon 60D, OMD-EM5, and my Nikon 1 files one thing I do notice is how much better the dynamic range is (in highlights) compared to the Canon and Olympus sensors.
retro76: People don't want another monthly bill, it's just something else to drain the bank account every month, even if it is only $10. Adobe would be one better to simply lower their existing prices, I think you would see huge profits with a larger user base simply by selling PS for $99 which is where the price needs to be. Subscription models are for the most part a failure (sans products like Netflix, but video content is a different model). people want ownership and when times are tough or something needs to go that monthly bill will be the first thing out the door. I switched from Adobe to other products and to be honest, I am not missing a thing - if they want me back they simply need to sell products outright at lower prices with an affordable upgrade path.
I should note, average joe consumer which represents about 90% of the market is happy as can be using a .99 cent app on his/her tablet to edit pictures, so IMHO the future of Adobe looks very bleak.
People don't want another monthly bill, it's just something else to drain the bank account every month, even if it is only $10. Adobe would be one better to simply lower their existing prices, I think you would see huge profits with a larger user base simply by selling PS for $99 which is where the price needs to be. Subscription models are for the most part a failure (sans products like Netflix, but video content is a different model). people want ownership and when times are tough or something needs to go that monthly bill will be the first thing out the door. I switched from Adobe to other products and to be honest, I am not missing a thing - if they want me back they simply need to sell products outright at lower prices with an affordable upgrade path.