beavertown: What a joke, Nikon can't even produce its sensors.
The only joke around here is your constant inane comments.
MikeReidDesign: Why do cameras cost so much these days? Seems like the prices keep rising every year.
"The J1's sensor has better IQ than V3." That's debatable. Higher rez vs SLIGHTLY more noise. Pick your poison, looking at the images users are posting in the V1 forum, they both are doing a fine job. As good images as posted in any other forum.
jorcar: What a fabulous price :)I own a Sony Nex-3N that costs 230€ so much better than this Nikon model.
Sure, if you like to shoot statues.
jkokich: If using a $900 lens "helps" this camera isn't worth the purchase price. Yes, I know all the stuff about the best camera is the one with you, but it's a camera, image quality is pretty important.
Then thank goodness the V series take great pictures.
ecm: So disappointing. As though bells and whistles will make up for spectacularly poor image quality. 76% is being charitable. And $900 for a fast 85mm equivalent? Please.
I simply pointed to you to extremely good photo's to refute your silly commentary about spectacularly poor images.
mpgxsvcd: The Sony RX100 MKIII and upcoming Panasonic LX8 will finally kill the 1-series line and I don't think Nikon will shed a tear. They never wanted this line to succeed. They simply wanted everyone to say "Mirror-less cameras are inferior so I will keep my DSLR".
In reality the other manufactures proved that mirror-less can be better, smaller, less expensive, and more versatile. Now Canon and Nikon just look like they have missed the boat. DSLR and mirror-less sales are beginning to decline. However, some mirrorless cameras are not declining as fast as most DSLRs.
MPG, really, then why can't the other companies do it?
photoguy622: Nikon should have come up with a better kit lens for the V3, like Fuji has on the X-E2.
This kit lens is a disgrace on an enthusiast level camera - average apertures and sharpness, power zoom and no filter threads.
Its sharper than the Sony its compared to if you look at the raw files.
In raw compared to the sony, a little bit more color noise, quite a bit sharper.
Sixpm: Instead of accepting the merit of each camera's unique design and character, people always compare to another and it's not that wise IMHO. I have used almost every camera that there is and still own enough to write this comment, I see that each camera (and lens) are synergies formed by each particular company's and designer's philosophy, this camera is intended for street, sports or action photograph and we should be viewed it as such.
Personally, having used the V3 and made prints to 60' x 40" (inches) have confirmed the print from this 'little' camera has the look and feel of the tradition film camera and when printed on the fibre material, one can hardly see any digital artefact (with all noise reduction switched off - from the untouched jpeg files).
I thought the V1 was good but the V3 is every way better in both handling and image quality (with film like grain noise) taken into account. I'm not a brand follower as to me all camera/lenses are just tools for me to express myself.
Henry and Smeggy, two of the biggest trolls on the site, what a surprise.
None of them have the AF with focus tracking that can compete with the Nikon V3. That going to matter for those who do more than snapshots.
I will get one just for birding, that makes it worth the price of the ticket alone. The V3 and CX70-300 cost over $2000, and is well worth it.
Look at the Nikon 1 forum at the BIF and other shots with the combo. Incredible. Hand held 810 mm equiv. with amazing AF. For low light I have my D600. For everything else I am getting a V3. I like how Nikon has reacted to the market and made the enthusiast model.
Now, either get the Sony sensor or tweak the Aptina, and it will be a do anything camera.
For what it does well, its worth the price alone. My $4000 gear bag full of FF gear can not do this as well as the V3 and cx 70-300:
Kaj E: A small step in the right direction. The final solution is to start selling the software again instead of renting it.
Adobe would get their customers back.
That 12.8 million installed base over how long a timeframe? How many active users. Adobe says over three million cc by end of year. Thats huge any way you look at it, despite the protests here
I am. Look at their stock prices, profits and industry reports.
Cc has over two million subscribers. It's a great success for adobe.
The lack of trust does not seem to extend much past DPR. 1.8 million subscribers. Up 405,000 between Jan and March.
AEPA: What the Nikon one is about and can do..http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53950702
Danny: Say NO(!) to CC software. You know why.
I say yes. I pay .30 a day for LR and PS CC. It's one of the cheapest things I do on a daily basis. It's fine if you don't want the cloud, but Adobe has made clear that LR will remain cloud free if you prefer and has even made it partially functionally if you opt out.
Stop acting like your on a Holy crusade, it software, not salvation.
Look through the Nikon 1 forum. Especially at the shots with this camera and the new 70-300. 810 mm handheld, with fantastic IQ in a small package. The AF on this camera is phenomenal. No, its not for everybody, but costs the same as high end Fujii, and this runs circles around it for AF and video.
hetedik: Excuse me, what Big Differences??? I don’t see anything that would make anybody to jump on the D810. Of course, if you have already some Nikon glasses, then you are happy for an upgrade now and then. But for all other people, the D810 doesn’t really give any “Big Difference” for this money.
Even worse, the D810 is a dead-end. The near future, for some companies already the present, is a mirrorless, hybrid camera, being good for still and film/video as well. The real future is a camera with the “right” ergonomics, taking only film, and we can self pick the best frame out of the 24/25/30… what we have per second.
I also believe this is paid “Camera News”. The real title should have been: Why Small Amounts of Money Obviously Make a Big Difference to the Nikon's D810 review :-)
I think, Nikon should use the money for product development instead of marketing. If Nikon’s strategy doesn’t change, I think, they are out of the marked in 5-10 years. Seriously.
John, do you actually read the tripe you write?