(unknown member): "but this hasn't stopped the company's vast marketing effort persuding a lot of people to buy them"
You are insinuating the people who buy these cameras are sheep, sucked in by advertising. Why would you use such language? It is almost as if you have an ax to grind, and it belies your other insinuation that DPR is a debunker of "snake oil", as in "So, after painstaking investigation, we ask: 'are the Nikon 1 cameras any good?'". If you are going to trash a camera you should try to be a little more circumspect about it.
On the other hand, the way you say it saved me a lot of time reading, which I used to type. I tried the cameras you suggest are better, and you were wrong. I will say that you must be persuasive if you are able to get Nikon to provide these cameras for free in order to have them trashed. The D7000 and now the 1 Series. Truly you are Nikon killers. Lucky for the "sheep" that these are actually great cameras. Are you going to receive a D4 for free? Amazing!!!
Yup, "BackinTheGame" is a fanboy. Which means his perspective and opinion is not credible.
HeavyDuty: Haters gonna hate...
And fanboys gonna fanboy...
(unknown member): In actual use the V1 is a very, very good camera. And the video is excellent. Even compared to the GH2 and the Canon 5Dmk2. It's in the same league. I find it easy to use, fast to focus, generally always on the mark for exposure and possessed of more than enough nice, sharp pixels. If you don't "get it" you probably haven't tried shooting one. It's like trying to explain the taste of chocolate to someone who's never had chocolate.
The camera can be set to increase contrast, sharpness and saturation in the Jpegs. It just takes the same practice to come to grips with settings as every other camera out there.
The N1's should be compared to M43 because M43 is the natural competition. And Nikon should be knocked for taking so long to bring this system to market.
The maturity of the M43 system and it's large system of lenses is an inherent strength of M43 against the competition because they were the first to market.
vshin: Here are all the rated cameras that were compared with the N1 in the review:
Sony NEX-C3: 74%Sony NEX-5N: 79%Panasonic GF3: 71%Panasonic G3: 75%Olympus PEN E-PM1: 71%Olympus PEN E-PL3: 72%
Nikon J1: 67%Nikon V1: 69%
Is dpreview really saying that both N1 cameras are "worse" than all of these other cameras? So despite all the positives and capabilities that are unique to this system, the cons are so awful that it drags the rating to the bottom? I don't quite see how the reviewers came to this conclusion. A casual customer is going to look at these numbers and think that the N1 is the worst camera in its class.
Yes, casual customers are going to think the N1's are the worst cameras in their class.
It's actually very simple. They are going to think the N1's are the worst cameras in the class because the N1's really actually truly are the worst cameras.
Richard Franiec: The reviewer(s) went out of the way to downplay the lens decentering issues. Going through five copies to pick one unit performing as it should is a little stretch. To say that soft corner/border does not matter in "real life" shooting is a deception in my book. Even if the difference is not easily distinguished, the worst thing is knowing about the potential problem and probability of the lemon which is statistically 80%.I think the disservice of the review is twofold:1.Telling the potential buyer that no matter how good or bad particular camera copy could be it does not make the difference in final IQ.2. Helping manufacturer to get away with obvious deviation from expected quality standards for relatively expensive flagship model.
That's kind of like saying...
Benz A goes 0-100 in 6.04 secondsBenz B goes 0-100 in 6.03 secondsBenz C goes 0-100 in 6.01 seconds
Would you rather have the best out of the tested bunch or the worst one?
Truth is the difference between the 3 is so small and indistinguishable, that the difference between 'best' and 'worst' is not relevant. No one is able to consistently differentiate between the sample cameras under REAL LIFE conditions; the differences are so small they are not relevant for most people.
photo nuts: There were some initial rumors the S100 was >1 stop better than the S95. Well, that's all horses**t. Better than Olympus XZ1/Panasonic LX3, same as Canon S95/Nikon P7000 and worse than Nikon J1/V1.
What a shame.
XZ-1 is easily the best at ISO100- ISO400.
Interesting.I've seen real world comparison photos on other camera sites between these new Nikons and the competition and the competition looked clearly better on those other comparisons- sharper and less noise than the J1/V1.Here the Nikons hold their own. What gives?
I find the camera comparison tests much more helpful than these sporadic compact camera reviews. (If there were more compact camera reviews it might be a different story because then we can do the comparison ourselves)
Sure the FH7 is an OK camera, but how does it compare to comparable Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oly, Pentax, Fuji cams is the million dollar question.