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

311
I own it
35
I want it
35
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 228
12
frosti7
By frosti7 (Nov 13, 2011)

which lens is used on the nikon?

0 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 4, 2011)

Why did you do this Nikon. Your just going to decimate your own DSLR market with this short lived range.

V disappointing I must say... Mirror-less systems will not thrive long term....

0 upvotes
Pierre Daigneault
By Pierre Daigneault (Oct 22, 2011)

Images look great.....close to performance of M4/3....shame it is not a superzoom and has interchangable lens....otherwise I would purchase.

0 upvotes
CentipedeCarpet
By CentipedeCarpet (Oct 20, 2011)

Call me crazy, but this camera feels like an intentionally inferior product. With the small sensor in an overly large (m4/3 sized) body, and with overly large but not very fast lenses, they can get people who just want the Nikon name on their new high end camera to buy a 1 series unit as an upgrade to a P&S. Then over time as they get more skilled with using the unit they start to notice the flaws... and eventually do the smart thing and get a DSLR.

Make the 1 series too good, tho, and you compete with your own entry level DSLRs, because those same people might be too happy and not need to upgrade.

0 upvotes
backfire hurts
By backfire hurts (Oct 20, 2011)

it looks very ugly

0 upvotes
RickBuddy
By RickBuddy (Oct 19, 2011)

Is there such a word as super-dupercilious? After reading all the Jeff Albertson wanna-be posts I think we need that one.

Looks like a neat little pocket camera. It could be a consumer video camera masquerading as a Nikon still camera. I'm not going to rely on the videographer too much; I'd prefer to see what it can do on its own. Right now it looks like a 1" single-CMOS sensor video camera with interchangeable lenses. And, small, too. Good for bug pornos I imagine.

Hey, if you're an artist, then it's a tool. If you're whining, then you probably are a tool. And if you're whining about the price, well then you're a tool in a poor man's kit, aren't you?

1 upvote
chocjellybean26
By chocjellybean26 (Oct 19, 2011)

Got them in store today, didnt have a chance to play with them yet. But they look plastic compared to the others in the hybrids. Very plain body. And I also thought the eyepiece looks very odd

0 upvotes
vin 13
By vin 13 (Oct 19, 2011)

anyone else thing the top of it has the look of nuclear sub?

2 upvotes
AvanGarde
By AvanGarde (Oct 18, 2011)

Nikon, you screw it up.It would be great camera if

-LX5/X10 body size
- in body lens 24-120mm 2.0-3.5 razor sharp

It would kill then LX/XZ/X10/S100 in one shot.Whats the point using such small sensor if body is big and heavy ? lens big and heavy ? This is not pocketable camera if I want something that big I would go m/3 if I want to shoot high ISO I would go Sony APS.Its expensive and with poor ergonomics - no grip! , dumbed down controls ! Nikon should fire people responsible for this dud.

0 upvotes
whoodle
By whoodle (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm not gonna criticize the performance or the 'concept' of this system.

But the DESIGN is just shockingly pathetic. It has none of the retro-charm of the PENs, it's just 'slabby' ...and the GRIP...my god, that is just awful!! No contour, no texture, no rubber.

UGH...it looks like it would be downright annoying to hold all day, and also very 'droppable'.

Don't get me started on the viewfinder.....

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Oct 17, 2011)

Nikon should have put this sensor in a thin fixed lens compact. Maybe somthing like the canon S100. If they had, the camera would have been revolutionary. Instead they put the sensor in a huge body (for the sensor) and priced it so there is no compelling reason to choose it over an MFT/APS mirror-less camera.

0 upvotes
al porfido
By al porfido (Oct 17, 2011)

The camera is a joke, if Nikon were serious they would have had 24 mega pixels, if they were joking, 14 mega pixels, but 10 mega pixels?
Come on this is a$99.00 toy camera!

2 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 17, 2011)

You trolling on purpose, or just out of ignorance?

2 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 17, 2011)

Toy camera? It should fit your needs perfectly, then...

4 upvotes
al porfido
By al porfido (Oct 18, 2011)

So when was the last time you bought a new camera with less pixels than your previous camera?
This camera will soon be replaced with a higher pixel count.
It is a marketing strategy by Nikn to get all you DUMD people to buy more cameras. A 10 mp camera is worth about 100.00-150.00

0 upvotes
Rex_W
By Rex_W (Oct 28, 2011)

Well it is pretty apparent from your comment about pixels that your view of the camera is a waste of space. Pixels are something the general public are fixated upon, photographers worry about many other things before they think about pixels. Having too many pixels is a problem!

0 upvotes
rsf3127
By rsf3127 (Oct 17, 2011)

JPEG:

V1 and the M43s@ISO1600=NEXC3@ISO3200

1 upvote
thephotobox
By thephotobox (Oct 17, 2011)

I think the samples look good. I also think Nikon was smart to go with this sensor size. Like they said, this camera is for p&s users. Take my parents for example, they have a DSLR, but they never use it because it's too big. When traveling they want somehting small. And while the body of something like the E-PM1 is tiny, the sensor size still calls for a larger lens. Even more so for the NEX. The Nikon J1's smaller sensor allows for a smaller lens, and that makes a difference. Even from the V1 to the J1, drop the EVF and it's that much more appealing to carry around. People who care about large sensor size have a lot of choices out there. There's no shortage of options. But people who want portability with good results can make use of this camera. Same for FujiX10, decent quality with portability. Let's not forget that the iPhone is the most used camera on flickr.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 17, 2011)

Clearly you "get it".

I struggle to understand why most people find this so hard. I have many friends for whom this would be the perfect camera, and the price will be down by Christmas. It's not the perfect camera for everyone, but the target demographic is huge.

4 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Oct 17, 2011)

"People who care about large sensor size have a lot of choices out there."
Actually ppl wanting to spend that kind of money have a lot of choices out there, even if they don't care at all about sensor size.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 17, 2011)

Amen. Spot on.
I do worry about the price however, especialy as Nikon have just implemented price fixing in the USA.

0 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Oct 17, 2011)

The smaller lens of the Nikon is a 10-30mm.

Who wants to spend $700-$900 for 20mm of focal length control?

That same lens allows for no DOF control. It can't provide for the smallest amount of background blur on a portrait.

Your parents would be better served by a Panasonic LX5 or Olympus XZ-1 which have F2.0 and F1.8 lenses with huge zoom ranges.

0 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 17, 2011)

nikon 10mmf2.8 is bigger and heavier than 14mm f2.5 panasonic, pansonic x lens 14-42mm is smaller than nikon 10-30mm...
there's no lens size advantage with nikon system vs MFT.

0 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Oct 17, 2011)

It's not the sensor size alone that dictates the lens size. The Samsung NX range of cameras use the same APS-C sized sensor as Sony's NEX range, yet they've managed to produce a range of very high-quality pancake primes for the system.

Nikon have succeeded in creating a camera which is essentially the same size as Samsung's NX100, yet has a sensor with a quarter of the area. Quite a remarkable feat.

2 upvotes
thephotobox
By thephotobox (Oct 17, 2011)

When Samsung can fit an on board flash into the same size body it might be an option, but adding a flash onto a hot shoe is added bulk. Granted, the flash on the J1 isn't all that strong, but it's there. I am, however, impressed at the size of NX 20mm-50mm. And I had forgotten about the collapsing Panasonic lens, that's also quite impressive. The GF-3 might be a strong competitor for size vs quality...

0 upvotes
Rex_W
By Rex_W (Oct 28, 2011)

Interesting comment as I belong to a camera club where several of the older members are buying GF & G series cameras because they can no longer carry or steady their APS dSLRs. The performance and compactness of these live view cameras is of interest.

0 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (Oct 17, 2011)

It compares nicely I think with image quality but not price point. I don't feel compelled to switch from Olympus even though I have a bundle invested in Nikon lenses.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Oct 17, 2011)

Crumby image quality.

"not aimed at enthusiasts" say Nikon

Who pays this kind of money and ISN*T an enthusiast??

4 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 17, 2011)

Methinks Cassius is protesting way too much....why do you care?

0 upvotes
pizzolog
By pizzolog (Oct 17, 2011)

Because we are photographic enthusiasts, dear Cassius.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 17, 2011)

He must be a m43's user.

0 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Oct 17, 2011)

This camera was created for a market that doesn't exist.

People just have not yet realized that they want spend over $500 for a camera with no depth of field control.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 17, 2011)

No DOF control? I have DOF control with my XZ-1 because it has a fast lens. But turn my XZ-1 up past ISO 400 and the noise is horrible. Try to shoot anything that moves with the XZ-1. If you're lucky 1 out of 10 will be sort of sharp. That's why people will spend $$$ for this camera. And for the cost-conscious, there is the J1.

1 upvote
pizzolog
By pizzolog (Oct 19, 2011)

No Mr. Marike6, this is about The Nikon V1 & J1, a very nice camera that takes really nice photographs BUT it costs too much. The consensus is the V1 & J1 can not compete with other cameras at its price point.

0 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Oct 17, 2011)

Mirrorless Fever !!

0 upvotes
GirinoFumetto
By GirinoFumetto (Oct 18, 2011)

I never thought that a jumping and clapping mirror in a camera were a desiderable think by itself.

0 upvotes
Boris F
By Boris F (Oct 17, 2011)

Simple arithmetic:
To be the same noise level with 4/3 they need to reduce resolution to 8mp, and 5mp to be compatible to APS sensor.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 17, 2011)

No doubt about it. Nikon should have been more closer to its enemies.
With the current prize and body, I like this to have a m4/3 sensor at the same or less megapixels (if Nikon 1 system is to not eat DSLR sales) .
If they insist the 1" sensor, I would like it to have 5MP resolution with a zoom lens, reducing weight, size, and cost.

0 upvotes
Poss
By Poss (Oct 17, 2011)

I can't believe Nikon missed a DSLR refresh cycle for this...

4 upvotes
rudymnv
By rudymnv (Oct 17, 2011)

I think they didn't miss DSLR cycle, hopefully D800 will be presented by end of month (October 24-26), also canon presenting their new flagship camera ( Tuesday ), it will be very interesting end of year...

0 upvotes
Thomas Traub
By Thomas Traub (Oct 16, 2011)

I had the V1 in my hands a few days ago and there were two things that suprised me:
- the speed of the autofocus
- the very realistic, quick and sharp Viewfinder. Althoug I prefer an optical viewfinder, this one is the first I could imagine to use.

... and a V1 is not a camera that you use 5 hours a day .... if you realy do that, than you need another tool

6 upvotes
danaceb
By danaceb (Oct 17, 2011)

Even though marketed for the enthusiast and not pro, I think the Nex 7 is that tool. OLED screens do not strain the eye as lcd's, and all higher end evfs have a strong correction so your eye is not focused close.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Vertigo_101
By Vertigo_101 (Oct 17, 2011)

Very interesting Thomas.

What is the perceived size of the V1 viewfinder ? similar to a D40 for instance ?

0 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 16, 2011)

there is nothing so good as an optical viewfinder. you want to put you eye 1 inch to monitor all day long? not me, thank you

1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 16, 2011)

Actually I think the current EVFs are as good as any of the entry level SLRs, better even. If you have an FF SLR, then there is still a way to go, its true.

2 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 16, 2011)

i just dont like the idea of monitor so close for a few hours a day. doesnt matter if it is 600 kpx or 2mpx... but thats just me

1 upvote
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 17, 2011)

Interesting response, Ivan. The only person I can think of who looks through a camera viewfinder "for a few hours a day" is a pro or an extremely serious amateur. Do you seriously believe that such a person will be using a camera like the V1? Anyone, amateur or pro, who uses a camera that intensively would be looking at a camera with a full frame sensor. A toy like the V1 would only come into consideration as a point and shoot backup and as such would see very limited use, far removed from hours a day...
The V1 is what it is and it is not targeted at people who are using a camera all day long. There are much better tools out there for that.
Personally I think the EVF is one of the V1's best features.
Finally, Ivan do you use a camera all day long on a regular basis? If so, I hope you have something better to work with than a point and shoot.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Oct 17, 2011)

An EVF with optics is not the same as putting your eye 1" from a monitor. By that logic, your eye is also 1" from the ground glass of a SLR.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Oct 16, 2011)

It's like putting the power of Formula 1 inside an AMC Gremlin or Ford Pinto.

5 upvotes
Poss
By Poss (Oct 17, 2011)

...and it's just as ugly...

0 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 17, 2011)

My cameras are tools, not a fashion statement.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 17, 2011)

Sure Jorgen and your (future) wife/gf is purely personality.

0 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 17, 2011)

Whatever you do, don't tell YOUR "(future) wife/gf" that you're actually comparing her to a camera...

1 upvote
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 16, 2011)

Nikon deserves much praise. They managed to launch a bland looking, expensive camera that can almost compete with micro four thirds! Congratulations. Their next task will be much harder, finding people who will actually stump up the cash and buy that thing...

Why didn't Nikon just make a micro four thirds camera?

12 upvotes
Don Wiss
By Don Wiss (Oct 17, 2011)

>Why didn't Nikon just make a micro four thirds camera?

(1) Because if you push the technology on the m4/3, you would end up with a camera that could compete against the more profitable DSLRs. By keeping the sensor smal,l Nikon can be sure it doesn't get adopted by the pro-consumer crowd.

(2) Because a proprietary format is always more profitable than an open standard. Minor players don't have the market power to get a proprietary format established and have to adopt a standard.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 17, 2011)

(1) All they'd have to do is leave out a (built-in) Viewfinder.

(2) But they are NIKON, that should be enough. Sure they might lose some lens sales from third parties, but if they offer good Nikkor glass for m4/3 they'll sell plenty lenses to Oly and Pana users too. Why would some obscure 'new' system with bad reviews sell more than the magnificently popular and widely accepted m4/3 with a huge collection of glass here NOW, not just promises. Or in Nikon's case no indication at all that there will be anything for it in the future, rather than just another throw-away 'compact'.

m4/3 is a 'proven' system, there is no doubt it will be here for a very very long time to come. Nikon 1 on the other hand, DOA ? Who would invest in that.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 17, 2011)

"Why didn't Nikon just make a micro four thirds camera?"

Because they have not been a major commercial success, offering very little in real terms over an entry level SLR (including space saving) and because they would have to join the minority-led MFT consortium which Nikon, Canon, Sony and Samsung will never do. MFT is an orphan format which has already been "beaten" by mirrorless APSC, convincingly IMO.

OTOH 1" sensors fill a yawning gap between digicam sensors and APSC. MFT is so close to APSC that it competes directly but never quite gets there. N1 bodies may not be much smaller, but lenses will be, hence there is a clear separation.

Far more likely Nikon are working on mirrorless F mount cameras utilising the new PDAF tech to make them blindingly fast. They can still be smaller than DSLRs and with a lens, not much larger than NEX (especially with telephoto lenses).

3 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Oct 17, 2011)

"MFT is an orphan format which has already been "beaten" by mirrorless APSC, convincingly IMO. "

This is comical false.

MFT cameras from Panasonic and Olympus are gobbling up ILC market share in the Japanese market.

Nikon is running scared. And the Nikon 1 is their answer?

0 upvotes
agcunha
By agcunha (Oct 16, 2011)

In my point of view the best ISO performance is Fuji x100. I have first generation Sony Nex-3 and the ISO performance seems better than this Nikon. I reckon they are late...

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 16, 2011)

THere are differences in foucs between images from these cameras. The V1 focus is up front, the robot on the right is best, the card in the back is worse re detail, all ISOs. V1 shows very good high ISO, well-done Nikon. It laso holds colors better in ACR compared to the m43 cameras as ISO goes up.

0 upvotes
rudymnv
By rudymnv (Oct 16, 2011)

There is some difference in DOF ( different sensor size, lens, aperture, that explains why v1 have larger DOF), I don't think dpreview makes an error with focus. However there may be decentering problem with V1's lens in upper left corner (label just beneath bottle cap, upper-left checkerboard).

0 upvotes
Steven Noyes
By Steven Noyes (Oct 16, 2011)

Olympus PEN E-PL3 seems to strike, by far, the best balance. The Nikno's base ISO 100 noise is very high to almost be distracting. It does hold the noise and by ISO 800 is starting to come out ahead. The V1's ISO 100 noise is almost troubling.

But overall, the IQ difference are very small between the different models.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Oct 17, 2011)

The nikon struggles against the XZ1 and g12 actually: dial them up at 200 ISO. Colour, detail, sharpness and gradation all better IMHO than the V1.

1 upvote
J1000
By J1000 (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't see it, Freddy. The only difference I see in color and detail are the difference in resolution and manufacturer's defaults, like sharpening and color. We shouldn't expect a huge difference at ISO 200. The place to look is ISO 3200+.

0 upvotes
zwania
By zwania (Oct 16, 2011)

No, my vision is pefect. Some of you people need to go down to Target and ask the pharmacist for some http://www.frmpc.com/teknolojiforumlari.htmobjectivity pills. I realize you love your Olys, etc, but there's no way that much noise/washed out contrast could escape your notice. Or could it?

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
odl
By odl (Oct 16, 2011)

You know what I love? The painted look to the Nikon files. Now i own the D90, a850 and Pen bodies, so i have no dog in this race. But the Nikon isnt perfect, and while it may have an advantage today, a "catchup" in sensor technology will leave it behind in terms of pure sensor performance...

Then you get all the benefits of m43rds:
- Five companies currently producing lenses (more to come)
- Better DoF control on the m43rds bodies
- Large Line-up of lenses that actually exist
- Two body manufacturers offering a range of body styles and options
- A real hot shoe
- Arguably the best video on a DSLR to date

But hey, buy what you like, it is a free world. Everything else is just hot air.

Ab

-

3 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 16, 2011)

and lets talk about benefits of dslr:

``- Five companies currently producing lenses (more to come)``
for dslr we have: nikon, canon, sigma, tamron, tokina, samyang, sony, pentax. thats 8, maybe i missed some....

``- Better DoF control on the m43rds bodies``
better on aps-c not to talk abot ff sensors.

``- Large Line-up of lenses that actually exist``
nikon has 169 lenses that work on every camera they produce, canon i thing 166.

``- Two body manufacturers offering a range of body styles and options``
thats the matter of ergonomics.

``- A real hot shoe``
yes, every dslr have one

``- Arguably the best video on a DSLR to date``
cant argue on that, but i do use a sony dv cam for video, and nikon dslr for photographs.

1 upvote
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Oct 16, 2011)

The only problem with your argument, Ivanaker, is that no one here is talking about DSLRs, odl was comparing one mirrorless SYSTEM to another.

Ok, actually there are others... The rediculous statement that five companies are producing lenses for DSLRs... odl, was referring to lenses made for a specific platform m43s. If you can't figure out that difference, you really should take some time to reflect upon it.

If you think DSLRs are great, more power to you. But the V1 isn't one and neither are the other -----> mirrorless <---- systems. They can never be by definition.

0 upvotes
chocjellybean26
By chocjellybean26 (Oct 17, 2011)

There aren't 5 companies of 4/3 though, so there aren't 5 total companies making for the same mount. Olympus and panasonic are 4/3. Sony and samsung are aps-c. Nikon different again. 3 different lens mounts

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Surefoot
By Surefoot (Oct 17, 2011)

for micro 4/3 i see lenses from Panasonic, Olympus, Leica, Cosina-Voigtländer, Samyang, Sigma (new models announced recently). Not counting SLRMagic...
So that's quite good so far for such a young system.

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 17, 2011)

For Nikon F mount I see lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Samyang and Nikon. In all cases the ranges are a great deal larger. So what's your point? In a year or two, there will be other makers of N1 lenses too, plus with the Nikon F adapter I can use all the above.

0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Oct 17, 2011)

With that logic, there are hundreds of lenses available for m43 to use with adapters, albeit manual focus only. But then again that isn't the point... NATIVE lenses that EXIST are what the other poster was talking about.

0 upvotes
Feud
By Feud (Oct 16, 2011)

You can take good photographs with it, or any of those against which it is pitted. I have an EPL1 and have no desire to change up or across, but I wouldn't be disappointed if the little Nikon was my only camera.

2 upvotes
kwtse
By kwtse (Oct 17, 2011)

Neither would I with a S95.

2 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Oct 16, 2011)

Dispute the poor quality and very ambitious pricing, look on the bright side, in the final review this may be the first interchangeable lens sub full frame Nikon that dpreview isn't compelled to again include their now famous Nikon aps-c caveat:

"...an odd quirk that first appeared way back on the D300. ...what it won't then do is readjust the diaphragm 'live' if you change the aperture setting. ...This behavior is, simply, a bug (albeit a long-standing one)..."

You know, I have never been able to find that important snippet of information in any of the Nikon asp-c camera manuals, odd that.

0 upvotes
Mato34
By Mato34 (Oct 16, 2011)

Asking to dpreview staff:

Photos were taken at 34 mm f/4.5 using 30-110. Was this the best aperture found regarding IQ at this focal length? Did you saw diffraction blurriness closing more?

Thanks!

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Oct 16, 2011)

Reilly's ranking at 1600 raw:
Nex
Nikon
G3
Oly trailing badly
Well done, Nikon!

5 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 16, 2011)

Reilly need a new pair of glass! ;)
do you see the very poor corner performance, the yellow strips, no sharpness and so on...???

2 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Oct 16, 2011)

No, my vision is pefect. Some of you people need to go down to Target and ask the pharmacist for some objectivity pills. I realize you love your Olys, etc, but there's no way that much noise/washed out contrast could escape your notice. Or could it?

3 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Oct 16, 2011)

But the resolving power of the V1 trails quite a bit from the other three. Take a look at the Martini bottle, down where the label has the angel blowing the trumpet with the banner "Premiati con". Look at her face with the V1, not much detail in there. The Oly doesn't lose anything in there. Of course, this is to be expected with the size of the sensors involved.

But I think your characterization of "Oly trailing badly" is disingenuous. I mean, if that's the way you feel, so be it. But I just don't see it. I will say I'm somewhat impressed with how Nikon has kept down the noise level even though they have a smaller sensor...unlike Sony's APC sensors...which is why I have my doubts on the NEX-7...but that's another story.

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 16, 2011)

Dear Mr Grossi, firstly there is no way you can seriously suggest that the Oly MFT high ISO performance is better. It is really rather poor. Secondly, if you put a kit zoom on the Oly then the corner performance would be comparable. And finally, why are you trying so hard? This camera is aimed at consumers, not gear heads. The world does not revolve around you or me.

The camera is aimed squarely at soccer mums and dads and people looking for something which can keep up at kids sportsdays, holidays and outings. Resolution is far less important than focus tracking, video and simplicity and in this case the Nikon beats everyone. Not everyone wants to buy a DSLR and telephoto lens just to keep up with their kids on a soccer pitch.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 16, 2011)

Olympus E-PL3, Panasonic GF3 - lens used Oly 50 3.5 Macro
NEX-C3 - lens used Sony DT 50 1.8
Nikon N1 - lens used Nikon 30-110 3.8-5.6

So you have a macro lens, and a 50, one of Sony's sharpest, against a telephoto zoom! That Nikon did as well as it did speaks volumes about the IQ/resolving power of the V1.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Oct 16, 2011)

It has nothing to do with sharpness. All cameras in this price range are more than sharp enough these days. We're talking about noise and retention of color and contrast at ISO 1600, which is why the pros lug around full frame cameras. The Nikon holds up better than I would have thought possible given the small size of the sensor.
The Sony is best, as one would expect. I'm not buying any of these cams, so I've got no axe to grind...

0 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 16, 2011)

Dear CriticalI,how can you say"...The camera is aimed squarely at soccer mums and dads and people looking for something which can keep up at kids sportsdays, holidays and outings..."and" ...Resolution is far less important than focus tracking, video and simplicity and in this case the Nikon beats everyone"...at that price???
If i put a the oly kit zoom I'm sure I'll never see that very bad corner performance...and lack of details.
From dcresource:" I think the Nikon 1 cameras don't offer as much bang for the buck as the Olympus E-PL3 or Sony Alpha NEX-5N (both of which are $699). In closing, if you're moving up from a point-and-shoot camera and want the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, then the Nikon J1 is worth considering. More hard core users will probably want to look at one of the other cameras I've listed below."
This camera could sell well only for Nikon logo on it...that's what I think.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 16, 2011)

Focus is not same for these cameras. Besides, Nikon was shot with a budget zoom. Wait until they release a fast prime normal FL lens. For those saying it can´t produce detail check the samll robot, where focus seem to be, or the blue plasti gem on top of box in center. It beats all other there, and stays so as ISO goes up, with better colors as well.

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Oct 16, 2011)

Either DPR adjusted export defaults or the Nikon's RAW here is heavily cooked (they do have a history of that). Smearing and blotchy instead of noisy/grainy...

So while JPEG and RAW output is relatively noise-free, especially for the sensor size, the detail lost to the low MP and NR make these images still inferior to m43 and mirrorless APS-C rivals. If you never crop, like the size w/ lenses, can afford the price and just want clean small print JPEGs, then it's probably a fine choice.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 16, 2011)

Dear Sensibill, perhaps you are not looking too clearly at the noise smearing in some of the other cameras, or the shadow blocking, or the inability to distinguish colours at higher ISO.

And Mr Grossi, comparing the price of the V1 with an Oly EPL3 with the additional VF option and the price is not so far different for the one lens kit. Oly prices have also come down a long way from their introduction.

The J1 is far more comparable and still has superior subject tracking AF, which is one thing people with kids struggle with a lot. If the Nikon 1 can make that simple and relatively foolproof, that's quite an achievement.

And as I said, 10MP is more than enough for decent sized prints, especially as the target audience is not likely to be making billboards. I have plenty of sales of 13X19 prints from a 10MP Pentax K10D.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Oct 17, 2011)

You certainly have rose tinted glasses. EP3 and epl3, epm1 all better . Nikon is as noisy as a motorhead gig!

0 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Oct 16, 2011)

If the Nikon V1 had a F2.0 kit lens that allowed for DOF control, then it might have a chance.

The Nikon kit lens is 10-30mm at 3.5 max aperture on a tiny little sensor. This is weak, weak, weak.

Who wants to spend $900 dollars on a camera and end up with a grand total of 20mm field of view control with an aperture of 3.5 which allows for no DOF control?

No one. There is no market for the Nikon V1.

Nikon needs to release a real kit lens, without it the camera can't even compete with XZ-1, LX5, so just forgot about competing with the artistic control that the m4/3 and NEX allow.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 16, 2011)

Why do people expect Nikon to release everything that's ever going to be available in the new 1-system, from day one already? Give it some time, there are several lenses in the pipeline as we speak. Plus the fact that some DX/FX lenses will work out VERY nicely on a Nikon 1.

And, about those $899: as long as we're compairing with cameras like the GF3 ($599), the NEX-C3 ($649), and the E-PL3 ($699), they should really be compared to the J1 and not the V1. The J1 is also $649. Go figure...

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 16, 2011)

It's funny how that "tiny little sensor" is not only competing, but except for the G3, exceeding the performance of your m43 camera.

2 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Oct 16, 2011)

"It's funny how that "tiny little sensor" is not only competing"

It competes wonderfully at high ISO. Great!

I don't care about high ISO, anything under 1600 is fine and m4/3 does a good job with that. I don't take pictures with my F2.0 lens at 3200 ISO.

I care about putting a lens on the camera that allows for subject isolation, for basic DOF control without using a 100mm equivalent lens. Nikon created a system without DOF control using a gimped 10-30mm kit lens that no one I know as a photographer would want.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 16, 2011)

If you want DOF control get an APS_C, better, an FF camera ;-).

0 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Oct 16, 2011)

"If you want DOF control get an APS_C, better, an FF camera ;-)."

No I prefer a micro four thrids with the Oly 45mm 1.8 lens, or the Panny 20mm 1.7, or the Canon 50mm 1.4, or one of the other great m4/3 lenses.

The APS_C and FF cameras are too big.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Oct 17, 2011)

this was my expectation: how can they compete? Okay, they'll give one to Ashton Kutchner and it'll be a big hit. "not aimed at enthusiasts"? Who pays this kind of money and ISN*T an enthusiast??

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Oct 16, 2011)

High ISO RAW is very good except low in detail compared to others - perhaps some processing of RAW image performed (rumoured elsewhere) to reduce noise.

0 upvotes
Frederick Lim
By Frederick Lim (Oct 16, 2011)

Disappointed high ISO IQ.

1 upvote
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 16, 2011)

I agree with the following:

"Dpreview added the Nikon V1 comparison shots to the dpreview database. m43 still has a visible advantage over the Nikon sensor but I have to admit that the Nikon processor engine does really a good job in both JPEG and RAW. If they would have used a sensor as large as the m43 sensor than they would have probably beaten the current Oly-Panasonic quality."

http://www.43rumors.com/

My question is, why did Nikon use such a small sensor if they could have beaten "current Oly-Panasonic"?

As far as I can tell, the V1 is an anomaly and there is no way to explain the premium price Nikon is asking.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Oct 16, 2011)

A smaller sensor means a smaller, cheaper camera. Eventually. Price is always above market value prior to release, we'll have to wait a couple of months for things to settle. The way things are looking, the V1 will be priced under the GF3.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 16, 2011)

They beat m43, take the d3100.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Oct 15, 2011)

Nikon fanboys had better hope spending serious cash on better lenses improves the performance: sharpness, contrast, gradation/tonal depth are all struggeling against the g12 and XZ1. mFT is far better.

Also launching a camera with such poor ISO performance in the ILC sector now is just plain dumb.

2 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 16, 2011)

When "Nikon fanboys" need serious performance and high ISO, they understand that it's time to tuck away their pocket camera, and use their DX/FX DSLRs.

The concept of "using the right tool for the job" seems utterly lost on lots of people in this thread...

4 upvotes
Dolly
By Dolly (Oct 16, 2011)

Great response to the Oly fanboy. This camera is not meant to be a DSLR replacement. Nikon have DSLR's MFT's users don't have much of an upgrade path. The mass market that are going to buy this camera probably don't even know what DPReview is.

1 upvote
odl
By odl (Oct 16, 2011)

But Jorgen,
He didnt talk about "serious performance". The m43rds users also can pull out their FF cameras and go-a-shooting when they need to.

The right tool for the right job is exactly what it seems to be, a shifting scale. People are upset because instead of catering to the enthusiast (which most Nikon users here were hoping for) they catered to the consumer.

What does this mean? Well, we will for sure not see a mirrorless APSC from Nikon, as that would mean either using their DX lenses (too big) or creating a new mount (unlikely). So Nikon has stated squarely that they do not believe the mirrorless segment is any better than consumer.

Now the shortcomings of the V1 are the smaller sensor less DoF control, limited MP (important to some), large body and lenses (for a smaller sensor and MP), currently limited lens offering for enthusiasts, odd controls for enthusiast (saw one yesterday).

Compared to all the other cameras in the segment, it is a letdown.

Ab

0 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Oct 16, 2011)

are you kidding! you guys make me doubt that these forums are full of manufacturers representatives. Not even a chance that the OLY sensor is better than the Nikon, especially at high ISO. Look at shadow area in ISO3200!!! It's true that Oly has better resolution in low ISO, based on its advantage in megapixels, but don't tell me that those smudgy splotshy pixels at ISO1600 are better than the Nikon, period!

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 16, 2011)

The m43 crowd seems in panic.

1 upvote
kwtse
By kwtse (Oct 17, 2011)

I have been a user of Nikon since D100. But its response to MILC is quite disappointing.
There is always a market for V1/J1, just how big that would be. I am afraid that I am not too optimistic. At least I would not recommend it to my friends over M4/3 or NEX.
Sorry Nikon, try harder next time.
Canon, the next show is yours.

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Oct 17, 2011)

If I owned an Olympus MFT system I would be panicking for quite another reason:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15330870

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Oct 15, 2011)

Hmm, there seems to be some shadow smoothing in the RAW files at higher ISO's. Notice the brush like round (larger) blotches in the deepest parts of the dark box with the coloured threads. Reminds me of the D5000/D90 type of smoothing.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 16, 2011)

There is some, but check the colors (for example the robot, where focus is) and detail, it´s there. The focus is up front, compare roobot and card in back.

Anyway, not an APS-C competitor, Nikon certainly knew about it, but far ahead of any fixed lens conpact and close to m43.

1 upvote
Carol Stee
By Carol Stee (Oct 15, 2011)

The Nikon V1 costs $200 to $300 more than the 'peers' it is compared with. With a kit zoom the prices are:
Nikon V1 $899
Panasonic GF3 $599
Sony NEX-C3 $649
Olympus E-PL3 $699
It can't compete with similarly priced cameras:
Olympus E-P3 $899
Panasonic GH2 $999
Nikon D5100 $899
Canon T3i $899
Or even cameras costing $200 less:
Sony NEX-5N $699
Panasonic G3 $699
Which shows that it is ridiculously overpriced.

10 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 15, 2011)

At least, the V1 seems to have an AF-system, that doesn't make DSLR users cry with frustration...

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 15, 2011)

And the V1 has a viewfinder which the Pany GF3, NEX-C3, E-PL3, E-P3 do not. A more better price comparison would be for the Nikon 1 J1 for $649, which is in the same ballpark as the above.

5 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 15, 2011)

I really dont get this mirrorless cameras and their prices.
for 500-1000$ there is d3100, d5100, 1100d, 550d with just about everything better.

2 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Oct 16, 2011)

The whole point of mirrorless cameras for me is the small size and also E-PM1 <$500 should be on this list.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 16, 2011)

Thanks for taking the time to list the prices.

I never realized how ridiculously over-priced the V1 was until I saw your list. It cost as much as the D5100 and T3i !!! Nikon is MAD!

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 16, 2011)

"struggling against the g12 and XZ1 and "Poor ISO performance"
(I assume you need high ISO performance).

Change NEX-C3 to G12, turn the ISO to 1600, and what do you see?
The G12 isn't even in the running. The V1 is showing less noise, with as much or more detail, without the heavy smoothing that's clearly seen in the E-PL3 and GF3.

Look at the spools of thread in the shadows. Look at the fur. V1 holds the detail while the others use smoothing to makeup for noisy sensors.
I'm starting to believe people see what they want to be, but the crops don't lie. Except for the NEX-C3, the V1 is a clear winner, and that with the E-PL3 and GF3 using /macro lenses/!

0 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Oct 17, 2011)

and you forgot about the samsung NX which cost under $500. And still outperform it.

0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Oct 17, 2011)

Marike... you mention the V1 has a viewfinder and seem to forget the G3 which slams the V1 all over the map or are you leaving it out for a reason? I'll agree that the V1 has better image quality than the G12 (a step in the wrong direction compared to the G11 IMO) but you have to be joking or there is something wrong with your monitor or vision if you think the V1 is better than the G3. The V1 simply costs too much for such a dumbed down camera. 3-4 years ago it would have rocked the world for the price, but now it simply has too much superior competition and is too big and heavy compared to it.

0 upvotes
Jorgen E
By Jorgen E (Oct 15, 2011)

The V1 actually holds up VERY well against the larger sensor competition.

Would like to see the results with a really good lens, like the 35/1.8 DX, the Micro 40/2.8 DX or -- why not -- the 50/1.4

And kudos to Nikon for not participating in the megapixel race. 10MP is (more than) enough for this kind of camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Oct 15, 2011)

Not going to happen anytime soon as there isn't even a release date for the adapter.

1 upvote
duartix
By duartix (Oct 15, 2011)

Good show by Nikon with the readout speed and IQ, but not even close to the best m43 sensors (G3/H2) as some are saying around here.

1 upvote
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 15, 2011)

yellow stripes across the face is the new art filter from Nikon....;)

0 upvotes
Davidgilmour
By Davidgilmour (Oct 16, 2011)

I thought she was chinese!

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Oct 15, 2011)

What are the yellow stripes across the face of the woman in the bank note? They appear in both JPEG and RAW images.

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

who cares? it`s a nikon with a small senor. fanboys will love it.
other have abandon it already.... :)

no honest, i wonder too about sharpness and these yellow stripes.

3 upvotes
stanic042
By stanic042 (Oct 15, 2011)

colour moire?

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Oct 15, 2011)

Moire: I thought so at first, but usually notes are not printed with pattern screens. May be this one was... Hard telling not knowing!

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Oct 15, 2011)

It's funny how to m43 users the V1 is a "small sensor" toy, yet when the NEX crowd makes the same argument against m43, all of the sudden it "holds it's own", and is "good enough". The V1's sensor is only 6 mm smaller diagonally than m43s, and the m43 is 8 mm smaller than APS-C. Yet the Nikon has a "small sensor"? In many instances like DR and high ISO, the V1 bests the m43 sensors of Oly and Pany. Aren't these examples used by m43 to support their arguments? "My EPL-3 is only 1-stop worse at high ISO than the NEX-5", they assert. "Looks like the smaller m43 sensor is holding it's own. And the lenses are smaller". You can't have it both ways.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Rockchan
By Rockchan (Oct 16, 2011)

The lens of m43 will be smaller (have a look at Panasonic 14-42 new lens). Therefore, there is a reason for m43 to have a smaller sensor than NEX. However, what is the benefit of using a Nikon 1 now? Sensor is smaill but lens is not small.

0 upvotes
limuhob
By limuhob (Oct 16, 2011)

The pattern is visible in another Nikon camera too. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1989716302/photos/1474310/shot

0 upvotes
magnumgf
By magnumgf (Oct 15, 2011)

From reading throigh this thread the conclusion seems to be that the V1 is the camera to buy:

1. If you shoot raw at iso 1600 or higher.

2. If you are willing to take the risk that this small sensor system is a dead end that dies an early death leaving you with obsolete equipment. (Nikon seems to have done a good job with this sensor. Does that not suggest to you that there is a lot of untapped potential in bigger sensors such as micro four thirds? Why didn't Nikon just use a micro four thirds or bigger sensor and put the same level of technology into it? It should have easily beaten current micro four thirds offerings giving a good reason to actually buy this thing.)

3. If you have good Nikon lenses that you can use with the V1. (The lens used for the samples is a dud so I suggest you avoid it.)

4. If you like the styling of the camera.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Oct 15, 2011)

I don't think Nikon would have easily beaten micro 4/3 with a bigger sensor. Micro 4/3 sensors are 1.35 times bigger than the 1" Nikon sensor, but also have more pixels. The latest 16 MP ones have pixel density that's 18% higher than the Nikon sensor, and still have superior image quality. V1 IQ is similar to the 12 MP micro 4/3 sensors. They have lower pixel density, similar to Nikon, but it's also outdated technology. Therefore I'd say Nikon is actually a step behind.

The IQ is also about 2 stops better than Canon G12, which is also consistent with the pixel densities of the two sensors. Another point that Nikon technology is on par with other manufacturers in 2010, but not a breakthrough by today's standards.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 15, 2011)

C3 is the best. Oly and Pana are sharper, but that is bcs of the lens. Nikon is better then both oly and pana, a full stop better. and if 35mm 1.4 was put on it it would be the best camera in this comparasition. Good job Nikon, now lets wait for canon.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Oct 15, 2011)

...can you show me where do you see a full stop better????
"... Oly and Pana are sharper, but that is bcs of the lens..."...yessss
MFT have the best lens of all mirrorless system...and u can have best picture, not like Nikon or Sony where the corners ar so soft...

0 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (Oct 15, 2011)

Please let me know where to buy the stuff you are smoking.
I'll have a dozen!

1 upvote
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Oct 15, 2011)

``...can you show me where do you see a full stop better????``

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_v1&masterSample=dsc_0304&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_v1&slot0Sample=dsc_0304&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=sony_nexc3&slot1Sample=dsc00987&slot2Camera=oly_epl3&slot2Sample=p8100509&slot3Camera=panasonic_dmcgf3&slot3Sample=p1000128&x=0&y=0

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

..sorry but I cant see your link....
But from what i see it's impossible see what you said.
I see Olympus is better and G3 and Gh2 much better with a 16mp sensor versus 10mp Nikon

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Oct 15, 2011)

Does it record 24fps?

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

http://i.imgur.com/pKZCz.jpg

:(

0 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Oct 15, 2011)

It records movies amazingly well and won over the competition (G12, LX5,...) when it comes to photography, but its price and proposed design play direct against mirrorless, which cost the same or less. If they launch one with an enthusiast-for design with less dark lenses and/or a built-in zoom compact and ask for a justified price, then would be perfect.

0 upvotes
policeman0077
By policeman0077 (Oct 15, 2011)

the lateral optical performance seems not very good.
the mark of wine is a little blur compared with other cameras' samples.
Due to low resolution?

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Oct 15, 2011)

crop 2.7 from Nikon are equal to m4/3 in terms of noise. the resolution is close too.

1 upvote
policeman0077
By policeman0077 (Oct 15, 2011)

GF3 is embarrassing with bigger mos.....

1 upvote
Total comments: 228
12