DuxX: A good camera with incompetent sensor. The minimum size of the sensor for any serious camera should be APS-C. Sorry Nikon.
Shame no one told Magnum photographer Alex Majoli, when he shot his award winning images with an Olympus compact, which he deemed 'competent'. http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844
I see so much rubbish from photographers who buy the very best gear, only to thrill web forums with another gallery of their dog sniffing flowers in the garden.
I was talking to a landscape shooter the other day who uses a hand-made large format camera, with a lens that cost about as much as my house. Is that 'competent'? Why not drag that around on vacation?
fPrime: Can this really be ISO 400? Viewed at 100% original size the skin of the primary subjects looks waxy and plastic even while there is as significant grain in the OOF bokeh areas.
Gotta agree, the level of NR here is unacceptable. Looks like a file from a superzoom bridgecam circa 2006. I would seriously have considered this camera, ticks a lot of my boxes. Just not acceptable quality though, is it?
Highlights are very blowy too
AVISAN: Oddly, I see a lot of comments about the quality of this camera and the price point it represents. The lamenting about the the past Kodak products has me somewhat puzzled. I was once the proud owner of an Instamatic camera with the famous flash cube. I don't remember that camera being compared to the 35mm cameras of the time, yet they were wildly popular with many families and I can't tell you how many high schooler's carried them to school events. It looks to me like Kodak as usual. I think they can make it work if they keep it simple and inexpensive. Good luck to them, I'm glad to see they're still around and kicking.
Just want to second that... Kodak film and kodak cameras were two very different propositions... completely different companies I believe. Through the 70's, 80's and 90's I rattled my way through plenty of cameras, Kodak were very much the cheap and cheerful end of a cheap and cheerful market. Don't let nostalgia cloud your memeory. For cameras... we really have never had it so good.
Would I buy it, bet your ****** **** I would.
If you have to spend cash to get entred, well, that's not OK. That the prizes are only relevant if you got a iphone, that's pish-poor.
Why would you buy that? The appeal of the Nikon 1 range was, for me, primarily size. Why has if been inflated to the size if a bridge cam from 2007 when it could be pocket sized.I was hoping that Nikon would keep the series as-is, but pop a P/A/S/M dial on top.There was a lot of speculation that the 1 series was designed with not hurting DSLR sales in mind, this might actually boost DSLR sales... Looking at this in the show room, wouldn't you think "well, if I'm going to buy this, I might as well go the whole hog?How do Fuji Get this sort of thing so right, so often, and all other manufactures just can't? Pentax Q, Just huh? Sony Nex, it's tiny...ta-dah, it's massive and unbalanced? Canon EOS M, the behemoth of mirrorless, slow, megalithic proportions and lumbering performance? Panylmpus, Neither fish-nor-fowl... but fun, and so nearly right it hurts? Nikon..close first time, worse second time?Where's my 1 inched Fuji? I've got money?