Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon V1 comparison shots added to dpreview database

By dpreview staff on Oct 15, 2011 at 01:15 GMT

We've just posted studio test samples from the Nikon V1 - the Japanese manufacturer's enthusiast-targeted small sensor mirrorless camera which is built around what the company is calling a 'CX' format 10MP CMOS sensor. In the process of working on the forthcoming in-depth review of the V1, we have shot our standard studio test scene. To allow easy comparison with its peers, we have now added these shots - both out of camera JPEGs and processed RAW files (with Adobe ACR 6.6 Beta) - to our comparison tool, found in our existing reviews. The V1 can now be selected from the pull-down list within any review or in our standalone comparison tool.

Click here to see the Nikon V1 compared to its peers

310
I own it
35
I want it
36
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 228
12
krikman
By krikman (Oct 15, 2011)

So main question will be the lens. Nikon CX need a good lens to use.

0 upvotes
krikman
By krikman (Oct 15, 2011)

Amazing! much better than JPEG previews seen before. Nikon won the race. ISO 3200 usable. And as always you meet the choice - good quality studio shot or perfect responce for great reportage photo. While not so perfect in professional low ISO studio work, is seems good for ISO 3200 reportage shots.

I want it.

1 upvote
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 15, 2011)

Looks about 1 stop better than Olympus' offerings even though it has a smaller image sensor. Well done Nikon!

6 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 15, 2011)

ahahahahahahahah!!!!

2 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 15, 2011)

...are u serious ??? ;)

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Oct 15, 2011)

well it´s obvious that nikon aims this camera on people with a viewing handicap....

8 upvotes
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 15, 2011)

I always wondered what market Nikon were aiming for with this camera. Now I know.

3 upvotes
CarlPH
By CarlPH (Oct 16, 2011)

maybe he was congratulating Nikon for a DIFFERENT Camera.. :)

0 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Oct 15, 2011)

These studio shots usually all look about the same to me, but this little Nikon looks surprisingly good at iso 1600 (raw). The thing they did, somehow, compared to the competition, if you check shadow areas and the paperclips, is keep really clean blacks, good contrast. It even looks better than the 5n in those areas. Other cameras beat it in resolution, it appears (no surprise).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Oct 16, 2011)

Notice that the Nokon images are softer i.e. less detail indicating some processing of the RAW image - i.e. the RAW is not really RAW.

1 upvote
David G Peterson
By David G Peterson (Oct 15, 2011)

One thing that I forgot to add in my previous posting is how great this little camera would be telephoto lens use. With Nikon's great lens know how and the smaller sensor I can see them coming out with some amazingly compact yet high quality long lenses!

1 upvote
David G Peterson
By David G Peterson (Oct 15, 2011)

The V1 looks a lot better than I expected but with the price where it is....the Sony NEX-5n with the OLED viewfinder is only a little more!....I don't think I'd actually buy the V1 just yet. It would be a lot of fun to play around with however!

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Oct 15, 2011)

some comparison:
Pentax for reference only
Oly kept from default comparison
NEX-C5N with std lens is in the same price range as J1.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5639653565/photos/1472464/nikonv1

Nikon i smooth, but it looks like there should be some texture to the left of the head. Could it be so that asking for clean high iso images will give you washed out high iso images?

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Oct 15, 2011)

well you have to judge noise against smearing.
it´s the same problem you see with all the small sensor P&S cameras.

and those who say the V1 has good high iso noise seem to be happy with the smearing of details. ;)

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 15, 2011)

What smearing? At ISO 1600 look at the fur, the feather or the green and purple woven cloth. In fact you'll see that it's the 2 m43 cameras that have smearing and the V1 shows good detail.

If you're gonna slam the V1, at least be sure about what you are seeing.

1 upvote
Carl Decker
By Carl Decker (Oct 15, 2011)

I just compared to other mirrorless cameras at high ISO.
The Nikon V1 shots seem to be overexposed compared to other cameras.
This gives the Nikon V1 an advantage, because there is less noise in brighter areas with all digital cameras, and if you overexpose, there are more bright areas in the picture.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 15, 2011)

Sometimes a brighter image in these tests means the camera's actual ISO is a bit higher than the reported ISO. If that's the case, lowering the V1 exposure to match would actually make it look better.

0 upvotes
michaelrz
By michaelrz (Oct 15, 2011)

The V1 holds up very well against the best of the 4/3s. This is quite remarkable.

Nikon acted very wisely to limit the sensor to "just" 10 MP and resist the megapixel craze.

I wish I could say the same about Sony and the NEX7...

5 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 15, 2011)

Totally agreed. I am rather surprised by how well the ISO 3200 RAW images hold up against the m43.

The new Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor, on the other hand, is a dud... at least in the hands of Sony. It'll probably perform better in the Nikon D400. ;)

3 upvotes
SteveGJ
By SteveGJ (Oct 15, 2011)

The photosites on the Sony NEX-7 sensor are 30% bigger in area than the Nikon 1 series. But then when did facts overcome received wisdom? The Nikon 1 series is not primarily aimed at still photography.

1 upvote
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Oct 15, 2011)

It doesn't hold up well if you put in the G3 or GH2, especially raw. It doesn't come close if you take the raw from either of those and either downsample to 10mpix size or upsample the V1 to G3 or GH2 size. If the size/weight of the Nikons were an advantage, I'd concede the image quality hit. Since there really is none with the V1, what is the point?

0 upvotes
djec
By djec (Oct 15, 2011)

the far left of the frame seems to perform very badly in terms of resolution / sharpness.

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Oct 15, 2011)

jupp noticed that too.
for example the sign on the top of the bottle looks very ugly.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Oct 15, 2011)

Shooting raw the V1 does markedly better than I anticipated. Frankly though, the way the camera looks on the exterior handling wise raises serious doubts about it's ability to please any enthusiasts.

Bet another model is coming soon that will attempt to do so. I'd bet lots of clams on that.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
harry
By harry (Oct 15, 2011)

Absolutely. Just like the Sony NEX-7. I actually would prefer Fujifilm's retro-design for X-10/X-100.

0 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (Oct 15, 2011)

It is one stop better than the G11. Not bad, but it needs to be smaller and closer to $500.

4 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 15, 2011)

It seems more like 1.5 to 2 stops better. :)

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Oct 15, 2011)

Too bad all these technical excellence mumbo jumbo inside this pill box won't be appreciated by moms and dads, grandpas and tourists who just wants a nice looking well designed camera body... and choosing between an array of well built goodies, will give this poor V1 clunker a pass in the store shelves.

2 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Oct 15, 2011)

Nikon doesn't deserve this much criticism when the V1 appears to produce great IQ. I'm not a Nikon groupie. I have no horse in this race. I used to own a Nikon DSLR system, but I've sold it all and intend on sticking exclusively with my Fuji X100 for now. In fact, I am more likely to stick with Fuji when/if they release their own ILC.

From what I can see, Nikon is NOT behind Panny and Olympus in image quality, particularly when you go to ISO 1600 and beyond. In the comparison, zoom in on the threads to the left of Mickey Mouse. Look at the RAW files at ISO 1600 (and beyond) of the Nikon V1, Oly E-PL3, Panasonic GF3, and Sony C3. The micro-4/3 sensors are rubbish. Absolute junk. Nikon has done a fantastic job with the sensor, especially considering its size.

And yes, the V1 isn't much smaller than the micro-4/3 cameras, or the Sony NEX cameras. However, the lenses are, and they will be the difference-maker when it comes to overall size.

2 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Oct 15, 2011)

Using the GF3 as a comparison point is a joke. Use the G3 or GH2 and you'll see a marked difference. Your rubbish comment is rubbish and the weight and size differences are basically nonexistant.

Yes, the V1 has better quality than the prosumer fixed lens bridge cameras, but it is either as big and heavy or heavier than m43 models and they have a much more varied and mature lens offering.

2 upvotes
compositor20
By compositor20 (Oct 15, 2011)

I was worried with m43 performance! at low iso, only gh-2 have a slightly advantage at pixel level in chroma noise... but in luminance noise the v1 is actually a little better.

At high isos its true that m43 have more detail but they have coarser noise, colour blotches and blacks are noisier (although greys are the same between gh-2,g3 and v1).

As a m43 im waiting for a better sensor (if panasonic does black noise reduction and colour retention as well as nikon smoothed high iso raws then do it... i just want a setting that works great with lightroom 3 and it looks like panasonicds don't.

0 upvotes
Kwick1
By Kwick1 (Oct 15, 2011)

Man, those samples are ugly. Look at RAW ISO 400, then do the spot comparison on the dime where it meets the bank note queen's face. There's some serious moire on her face. Then the seal on the neck of the bottle in the top left. Super fuzzy, low rez. Compare this to the EPL-3 and there's absolutely no question that the EPL-3 is light years ahead of the V1. Nikon really blew it with this camera.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 15, 2011)

I also noticed the moiré. The softness on the left is probably a lens issue.
Despite all this, it seems that its strength lies in the high ISO range. So I would not say "they blew it".

0 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (Oct 15, 2011)

In terms of IQ and according to these samples, the V1 is quite similar to my 3 year old LX3 at 200 ISO.
It has a strange, unusual feature set, so I wonder how exactly Nikon is positioning this product. If they intended it for the "mass market", why is it priced so high? Conversely, if they aimed it at the "enthusiast" segment, aren't they concerned with the comparatively worse IQ?
On-sensor phase detect AF, electronic shutter and high framerates are very interesting technological developments, but they make this system a kind of a niche product. So does the price.
Puzzling!

1 upvote
Pangloss
By Pangloss (Oct 15, 2011)

In terms of IQ and according to these samples, the V1 is quite similar to my 3 year old LX3 at 200 ISO.
It has a strange, unusual feature set, so I wonder how exactly Nikon is positioning this product. If they intended it for the "mass market", why is it priced so high? Conversely, if they aimed it at the "enthusiast" segment, aren't they concerned with the comparatively worse IQ?
On-sensor phase detect AF, electronic shutter and high framerates are very interesting technological developments, but they make this system a kind of a niche product. So does the price.
Puzzling!

1 upvote
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Oct 15, 2011)

This is absolutely not true. Hold on to your LX3, I used to have one, and smearing shows its ugly face as early as ISO400. So people, I don't understand you, This sensors better EP3 sensor, and is comparable to G3 output in RAW. Even in JPEG it's better than the messy smearing, splotshing of Olympus sensor. Sure it doesn't have its resolution since it's only 10 MP, but I didn't expect it to be that good. Nikon, bring a body worth this sensor for enthusists.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Oct 15, 2011)

m43 is image for image and lens for lens the better system.

nikon 1 has nothing to offer beside the high framerate.
and that is something i don´t need.

1 upvote
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Oct 15, 2011)

People, please don't pre-order new cameras. Just wait and see what they are like. It might be good but, equally, it might be a load of junk.

0 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Oct 15, 2011)

I am impressed with V1 camera can do. Because of the price range, Nikon should revise the price inorder that we all can afford it. Look like I have to look for an alternative cheaper version.

0 upvotes
Thomas Traub
By Thomas Traub (Oct 15, 2011)

All 3/4-cams seemed to be a little bit better, but only a little bit. So the smaller sensor does a good job. But a smaller sensor should lead to a smaller body. But a smaller body does not make sense if you should be able to use the standard-Nikon-lenses with adapter.

For me, this is a confusing concept.

Very interesting is the comparison to G12 and LX5. The output in RAW is near the same and there is only a minimum advantage from ISO 400 to the Nikon V1.

This is not the point why I would change from a LX 5 or G12 to an V1. This cams offer 95 % of the IQ of the V1, are much cheaper and much less bulky.

1 upvote
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Oct 15, 2011)

My estimate is that V1 is performing 1 stop better than S95/LX5, and approx 0.75 stop worse than C3.
Quite what can be expected from the relative sizes of the sensors.

I would be in the market for such a camera and I find V1's image quality fine. But I cant accept no PASM, and no grip. Sorry.

0 upvotes
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (Oct 15, 2011)

Totally agree; if the V1 was (as it should have been) at least half the size and half the price, we'd be loving it ... but it isn't so we don't LOL!

Seriously though; I know camera manufacturers make more money from peripherals such as lenses (hence the reason why we're getting a raft of these new ILC's); but give me a camera of similar size to my S95 with a 1" sensor, forget the interchangeable lenses ... you've got my money!

0 upvotes
dgc4rter
By dgc4rter (Oct 15, 2011)

I have to agree with Thomas. Looking at the results I get from my G12, I see no reason why I could be tempted to swap this for a camera that's larger and far more expensive. This is coming from someone who owns two Nikon SLRs. Sorry, but until a manufacturer can bring out an ILC that can give us IQ and high ISO performance comparable to the full frame SLR options, I'm keeping my money in the bank. The Sony NEX-7 is almost there but you'd have to use a Leica M-mount lens with it to get results.

1 upvote
Sosua
By Sosua (Oct 15, 2011)

Nothing wrong with M mount lenses :)

1 upvote
HSway
By HSway (Oct 15, 2011)

The sensor fares very well and I believe the camera operation/processing will match it. As a whole though, the camera holds small sensor (will be always lacking at some aspect or point) of a low resolution file and it’s relatively very expensive. The look/body execution doesn’t look to be asking for this price either. It’s not really compact and light as well. The stabilized 10-30mm lens camera basically relies on.. is nothing special size wise but mainly its sharpness doesn’t seem to be that strong point one would hope for. What remains is the provocative price tag, higher than Sony nex apsc. Hm.

1 upvote
HSway
By HSway (Oct 15, 2011)

DP picking the best lens of the set is a good step. Another reviewer (Digitalcamerainfo) noted similar writing:

“The standard 10mm–30mm kits lens that we used for our testing did not fare well in the resolution department.”
“Sharpness with the kit lens was distinctly low..”

While the above quotes refer to other cameras jpgs so it’s good to take them very reserved, this, otoh, is their observation of some value that is in the line with the right choice:

“The good news for Nikon is that the telephoto lens appears to be sharper across the zoom range and a better lens overall. Unfortunately, you’ll have to shell out for the larger kit or buy the lens separately.”
The lens performing here would suggest it's very good indeed. But.. lots of buts if you ask me.

Hynek

0 upvotes
AvanGarde
By AvanGarde (Oct 15, 2011)

This is camera for set-to-AUTO-and-shoot P&S folks

1) Poor quality lens not only slow but also not sharp - compare it to LX5/XZ-1 to see difference, corners with Nikon are blurry and is not that sharp overall
2) Dumbed down controls
3) Poor ergonomics, even small grip on LX5 is useful Nikon looks like soapbox

Anyone who has any idea how to shoot photos will pick up LX/XZ or m4/3 not only they offer better quality/sharpness/ergonomics but also allow to -easy- set your settings with hardware buttons.

Nikon could make great camera but they dumbed it down and bundled with poor quality lens to protect their highend market.Not for me Nikon.

3 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Oct 15, 2011)

I agree. If I want a secondary, carry-around camera, lightweight, wide zoom range and good sharpness, the XZ1 or the equivalent new Fuji cost only half and deliver same or better image quality, with less weight.
P.S: Just noted that this is NOT the kit lens, but instead a more expensive lens. So the price tag goes up even further. For Nikon-afficionados?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Oct 15, 2011)

DPR,

please note RAW NR applied by Nikon over ISO 400 (as noted by DXOmark)

thanks

5 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Oct 15, 2011)

I have to admit, the IQ of the V1 is much closer to the E-PL3 than I expected - I actually find them very comparable (though the E-PL3 keeps the edge). My hat if off to Nikon for that.

Still this does not change my opinion on the design of the camera.

Anybody who want s to keep shooting P&S-like, but wants more image quality - this seems to be the camera to get (though only full review can confirm that)

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Oct 15, 2011)

the olympus sensor is an old chap.
it´s more or less the same since 3 generations of pen cameras.

the next m43 sensor will be much better.. and it will be still BIGGER then the nikon sensor. :)
as you buy into a camera system with nikon1 or m43 that should not be forgotten.

nikon1 will always have the smaller sensor.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 15, 2011)

Henry, and the NEX sensor is bigger than m43. And m43 will always be smaller. Fortunately, not everybody buys cameras based solely on sensor size.

0 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (Oct 15, 2011)

As a long term 43 user used to defending against the sensor size issue I find it quite ironic that m43 users are using the sensor size against others!

Let's face it, you can take great pictures with any of these cameras and after all, shouldn't that be what it's all about?

3 upvotes
Austin101
By Austin101 (Oct 15, 2011)

makes the E-PL3 look amazing

1 upvote
GeorgeZ
By GeorgeZ (Oct 15, 2011)

As was to be expected- very good compared to the much larger sensors but this could be seen in the first DCRP samples, only most people were so shocked at the "small" sensor they didn't want to see it.
Of course the PL3 looks better but not by much and at higher ISOs the M43 cameras don't have a real advantage.
Now the J1 would need to be really smaller (have to touch it to see) than the E-PL3 and much cheaper. IQ is fine, video great.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Oct 15, 2011)

Why is it less sharper than Olympus XZ1? Very good seen on the bottle.
Is it famous Nikon's jpeg anti-sharpening?

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Oct 15, 2011)

Nope, I was talking RAW. Ttake a look at the coin on the bottle. The sharpness of the engraving, particularly the horizontal lines in the background, is a stringent test. The XZ-1 engraving is sharp and clear compared to the LX-5, V1, and E-P3. Only when you compare to a DX sensor camera does the image become noticeably better. I used a D5000 to keep the MPixels roughly the same. It's possible that Nikon is using a far more aggressive AA filter on the V1 than the XZ-1 does, but it's also as possible that the XZ-1's lens is simply better. If anything, the XZ-1 should be limited in its sharpness by its poorer DR range sensor, and we may see this in the black levels elsewhere in the image. As suprised as I am about the XZ-1's performance, I am as impressed by the V1's performance in comparsion to u4/3 sensors. But this was expected - most u4/3 sensors are aging technology but this deficit is temporary.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Oct 15, 2011)

I have also compared RAW and had similar thoughts. But it should be quite embarrassing to be beaten by a compact, even a good one.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 15, 2011)

It performed as it should compared to other sensor sizes....but its price did not.
If this is to become a sports/action camera, this will need much faster shutter speeds requiring faster lens, bigger sensor, and less pixel count (4-6mp).

I think limiting the pixel count itself is enough to differentiate it from Nikon's DSLR line.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 15, 2011)

I think all the many "Nikon 1 is DOA" comments on release day need to admit that they made certain faulty assumptions based solely on sensor size. Remarkable all-around performance my the V1.

And this is my DPReviews software for this website blows the others away. Being able to do side-by-side comparisons is awesome. Great work again, DPR, thanks.

4 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Oct 15, 2011)

nobody said it will be utter crap.. still there are way better alternatives.

and nikons V1 is still way to expensive.

2 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Oct 15, 2011)

Is Nikon cooking their RAW? Look at this:

http://g1.img-dpreview.com/FEAB110F60064930B821C79CDF4DC0B1.jpg

by 400 ISO the detail in the card is smeared away. Or is the shot so totally out of focus that detail disappeared?

3 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 15, 2011)

Lens is crap.

0 upvotes
mosswings
By mosswings (Oct 15, 2011)

You know, I'm rather surprised and impressed by how much sharper the XZ-1 RAW ISO 100 and 200 images look in comparison to the V1. The black levels are clearly better with the V1, and the noise levels higher with the XZ-1, but for a 2x area increase in sensor size and 3 years newer sensor technology I would have expected better of the V1. Sigh.

2 upvotes
panini98
By panini98 (Oct 15, 2011)

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?

0 upvotes
Cheezr
By Cheezr (Oct 15, 2011)

maybe it is just my monitor but i am quite surprised at how good the high iso looks. all things considered pretty impressive and more than enough for their target audience.

0 upvotes
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 15, 2011)

Have a look at the top of the Martini bottle where it says "By appointment to her majesty the queen". Big fail for Nikon compared to the others if you ask me, at any ISO. How can they expect to compete with cameras with much larger sensors? Is the Nikon V1 a lot cheaper than micro four thirds cameras?

2 upvotes
Rich
By Rich (Oct 15, 2011)

I think that's a lens issue, the corners seem quite a bit softer than the center of the frame

0 upvotes
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 15, 2011)

You are right. Disappointing nonetheless. Nikon can do better.

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 15, 2011)

The V1 is shot with a zoom lens and the other cameras are shot with a 50mm prime stopped down. Perhaps the zoom was set in a way that it has a shallower DOF.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Oct 15, 2011)

That is not a DOF issue. Do remember the Nikon has more DOF to start with as the sensor is smaller. What it looks like is a quite dreadful lens. Hopefully it is a one off issue as otherwise the lens is a waste of space because that is not even right at the edge of the frame.

0 upvotes
Zillinger
By Zillinger (Oct 15, 2011)

I sense bias toward Nikon images in these responses. Magnumgf clearly stated the differences. Is any one on this forum paid to promote Nikon?

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Oct 15, 2011)

How else do you explain closer items in the photo being sharp and more distant items being more blurry? The 4/3 cameras don't have much DOF advantage over the V1 and their lenses were stopped down more in the test.

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (Oct 15, 2011)

Some spectacular Moiré on the face of the banknote at base ISO RAW which hints at a light AA filter, but conversely there's not much detail on the coins... Probably due to the lower pixel count.

Focussing on the coins again I thought it wasn't great at ISO6400 either, but I've just been looking at the Bailey's bottle and the V1 is clearly able to keep up with the best there. The shadow noise on the V1 is clearly far better than the Panasonic and Olympus, and possibly even slightly better than the Sony; which is surprising considering the differences in sensor size.

Purely based on that group of test shots personally I'd go for the Oly PL3 myself, as there's far more detail at base ISO, and it's better at ISO800 too.

I rarely use ISO6400 so that's not important to me, but that's where the V1 and Sony shine.

The V1 looks like a good available light camera, if you're not printing billboards ;)

1 upvote
odl
By odl (Oct 15, 2011)

Not bad, except by iso 1600 even in raw you can see the NR smearing away detail.

So, not smaller, lack of lenses, and they nearly manage to equal an older sensor design... For a lot of money...

I am sure people will buy it, I just dont think it is worth it.

Ab

1 upvote
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Oct 15, 2011)

I think I am impressed..

3 upvotes
ovatab
By ovatab (Oct 15, 2011)

Nikkor 30-110 zoom VS all others 50mm primes. Is it a fair comparison?

0 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Oct 15, 2011)

We tried all three 1 system lenses that are available so far and found this one to be the best. We actually found it to be very sharp at this focal length (around 34mm) and aperture (4.5).

4 upvotes
ovatab
By ovatab (Oct 15, 2011)

OK, thank you. Have you got mount adapter FT1? May be NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G with FT1 is sharper than 30-110@34mm.

1 upvote
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Oct 15, 2011)

we don't, and we have no ETA for one either.

2 upvotes
Rich
By Rich (Oct 15, 2011)

Most of the image is OK but the upper right and left corners are pretty soft. How much worse is the 10-30?

0 upvotes
Graystar
By Graystar (Oct 15, 2011)

The only way I'd buy a V1 is if it comes in it own burl veneer casing!

4 upvotes
Franklin
By Franklin (Oct 15, 2011)

I am not as picky. I would buy if it is $200 instead of $900.

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Oct 15, 2011)

Well... m43 cameras should be ashamed of their sensors. Sad. Very sad.

If only Nikon has supplied any interesting lenses on launch too. And did something about the price.

4 upvotes
Total comments: 228
12