Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon J1 real-world samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Sep 22, 2011 at 07:36 GMT

We've published a gallery of 23 images shot with the Nikon J1. We've shot a selection of images using the Nikon J1 - the simpler of the company's two 'Nikon 1' cameras. Combined with the 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, we've taken a variety of real-world images in a variety of light conditions. Given all the controversy the J1 and V1 have generated, we thought it made sense to look at some of its images. We've also included 5 raw files for you to examine.

Samples gallery

There are 23 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Nikon J1 Preview Samples - Posted 22nd September 2011

Raw files for download

Here we provide raw files from the sample shots we take, to allow you to apply your own workflow techniques and see for yourself the benefits of shooting in raw mode.

109
I own it
11
I want it
24
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 352
123
thx1138
By thx1138 (Sep 22, 2011)

The photos show why this camera is no better than a P&S. Every single shot has almost infinite DOF. Even at f/3.5 there is zero subject isolation. I can possibly understand the sensor size, but cannot understand the lens choice. You have to ask yourself why go to the trouble of developing this system in the first place and giving it supposedly great AF, fast shooting and then saddle it with lenses that are the reason you'd want to move on from a P&S in the first place. It's like putting a 300hp engine in a corolla but leaving it with stock tyres, brakes and suspension. The lens speed should have been in proportion to the sensor size.

I cannot see what possible niche this is wanting to fill. What person would want a camera with such high AF performance and speed, yet be totally undiscerning about lenses. What person wanting to step up from a P&S would want to pay more than products that have bigger sensors in cameras that are not bigger and are far cheaper?

6 upvotes
greg57
By greg57 (Sep 23, 2011)

100% with you on that one. This is doomed to fail...

0 upvotes
zato
By zato (Sep 22, 2011)

The V1 will be a great video camera for YouTubers.

1 upvote
zato
By zato (Sep 22, 2011)

Especially with the 10->100 zoom it would be a creative mini studio cam.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 23, 2011)

Hardly "mini" since that lens is heavier and similarly sized to APS-C zoomlenses covering that range. Read: relatively large and heavy.

2 upvotes
walberty
By walberty (Sep 22, 2011)

The higher ISO shots look good from a noise standpoint, and generally the photos are okay looking. However, the Elmo picture looks really bad. Is it my monitor setting or is the red fur completely blown out?

The phase dectect/contract focusing is a neat idea, although am I correct to say that it is not original (see Ricoh)? Although obviously their implemenation is unique and patented, so kudos there. As others have pointed out it seems that the major issue is in the packaging. It holds no real size advantage (yet at least) to the M4/3 system or NEX and the photo quality will likely be similar over time. Will a p&s upgrader go with this camera, a cheap DSLR, a M4/3, NEX or something like the Fuji X10? Interesting to see where things go, but man the camera market is getting out of hand with too many models and systems so look out for some major fallout.

5 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Sep 22, 2011)

...I was just thinking the opposite: I just calibrated my monitor within the last week, and it looks good and detailed to me.

I'm not crazy about the high ISO stuff, but I haven't used a P&S or camera direct jpegs in years and wanna see what the RAW look like through ACR/LR. Probably won't see an Adobe update that includes it until Dec. is my guess.

0 upvotes
walberty
By walberty (Sep 23, 2011)

Thanks micahmedia for the feedback. So it is my monitor after all. You make a good point regarding the RAW file support. I guess there is no harm trying, but most likely you'll have to wait for Adobe to provide an update as you pointed out.

1 upvote
walberty
By walberty (Sep 23, 2011)

micahmedia, I just processed 0043 NEF in Paintshop X4 without any issues. I am impressed. At ISO 3200 I did not have apply much in the way of noise reduction. Some grain, but nothing horrible. The dynamic range is good too. I used the preserve hightlight setting and the exposure was adjusted down a just a bit. Speaking of exposure, while not a challenging setting, it nailed it nevertheless. While the colors are washed out it is was easy to fix the color balance and add a bit of saturation. It also sharpens up well without a bunch of artifacts. I'll try out some of the other shots. I discovered that my 4 year old son goofed up my monitor settings , it's back to normal if not fully calibrated.

0 upvotes
dsmcl77
By dsmcl77 (Sep 22, 2011)

Hope that canon doesn't do the same mistake and stick with APS-C sensor, should they go for this type of cam.
I do not understand nikon here, so far they probably had the (sony) lead on sensor & IQ...

3 upvotes
Jackie Q Acomson
By Jackie Q Acomson (Sep 23, 2011)

If I want to buy an EVIL camera, I would buy any make except Nikon and Pentax.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Sep 22, 2011)

So far the IQ is not up to scratch with the best single lens compacts like the LX5, the XZ1 and the G11/12.

But people will pay more for a purple nikon if Ashton Kutcher has one.

4 upvotes
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Sep 22, 2011)

A lot of pictures on a grey day will often look dull, needs some sunlight to compare...

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 22, 2011)

I did try shouting at the sky, but sadly it didn't work. We'll expand our samples in the coming weeks :)

7 upvotes
Anthias
By Anthias (Sep 23, 2011)

a grey day is ok, it helps show what the lens is like wide open. i think it is the senosr size / lens aperture that is letting it down

1 upvote
PatrickP
By PatrickP (Sep 22, 2011)

This camera is basically designed for people with a lot of fast / long nikkors and wanna go lighter and longer , not the P&S / mirrorless crowd actually....

with the f-mount adapter :

slap on a 24/1.4G and it becomes 70m f/1.4, with AF
50/1.4G becomes 135mm f/1.4
85/1.4G becomes 230mm f/1.4

all of the above combined with the camera weight about 2 pounds in a fairly small package. even with the 24/1.4 , shooting at f/1.4 it's A LOT of subject isolation. at f/1.4 you would hardly ever shoot above ISO800....

also:
70-200 becomes 190-510mm f/2.8 VR
70-200 VR2 + 2X TC becomes 380-1080mm f/5.6 VR. (think telescope...)

i can't say i'm not excited....

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

Correction:
f/1.4 becomes f/3.8 (vs FX equivalent in terms of noise and DOF)
f/2.8 becomes f/7.6

Therefore:
24,50,85 f/1.4 become roughly 70, 135, 230 f/4
70-200 f/2.8 --> 190-510 f/8
and with 2x extenter --> 380-1080 f/16

7 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 22, 2011)

Since when is aperture number an indication of noise?

An f1.4 stays and f1.4, no matter what body you put behind it. A f2.8 lens does not "become" a 4.0 lens. And it will be a big step forwards from the kitlens in the Nikon 1 system. You're making it look like it is not and that the lenses are becoming -less- practical.

While for fans of long teles and in good, normal light, this a great combo.

1 upvote
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Sep 22, 2011)

Yes and no. 1.4 stays 1.4 as far as light goes but it does change when you start talking DOF.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

Since the day that people learnt that light comes in discrete portions called photons :). They also learnt that the major component of noise in the final image is determined by sheer number of photons collected on the imaging sensor (due to something called Poisson statistic).

As an example, a "crop" camera with 2.7x crop factor and 10mm f/1 lens will collect the same amount of light as 1x crop camera with 10*2.7=27mm f/(1*2.7)=f/2.7 lens, within the same exposure time. Angle of view and DOF will be the same too. Essentially the image from both cameras will be identical.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

Mike, say 10mm f/1.4 will collect less light (overall, over the sensor area) than say 27 f/1.4 on a 2.7x sensor. Both lenses have the same angle of view on the corresponding sensor => given the same exposure time the (photonic) noise will be higher on the smaller sensor.

0 upvotes
abadona
By abadona (Sep 22, 2011)

?! I am sorry but this is the point. Why would I put a small camera to let's say mine 24-70. It makes no sense. I would have been interested in getting at least 4/3rds if not aps for my pocket, with a couple of good primes. But getting a 10mm F2.8 when Fuji x10 will have 2.0 at the same setting will cost me cheaper, much cheaper. The choice becomes painfully obvius. I will have to either go with Fuji x10 and or get Ricoh system and shoot with leicas

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

See also http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=38743364

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Sep 22, 2011)

No. shooting at f/1.4 in a 2.7x crop sensor it's not A LOT of subject isolation. And for the asked price, m4/3, NEX and NX offer more.

0 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (Sep 22, 2011)

So by your logic, a 24mm f/1.4 lens on a D300 with a 1.5x magnification factor is a 36mm f/2? I don't buy that. It's still a 36mm f/1.4 lens. I think the people are mixing up sensor size to teleconverters that WILL affect apertures.

The amount of light hitting the sensor is the same on a FX, DX, and the new mini-sensor. However, if you throw a teleconverter on a lens, then the extra lenses decreases the amount of light that's passing through.

0 upvotes
Carsten Saager
By Carsten Saager (Sep 22, 2011)

Correct for DOF, wrong for light gathering. While it is true that those lenses collect less light in absolute terms, this loss is exactly compensated by the smaller area that needs to be illuminated.

Noise might be higher because of the smaller photosites, but that hasn't have anything to do with the optics.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Sep 22, 2011)

GRWARGHHH! Let me attempt to set the record straight about DOF: Smaller sensor also means the likelihood of more image magnification, which also means you're magnifying the diameter of the circles of confusion.

2.7x image crop only means 2.7x stops less depth of field if you're printing at 37% the size of full fram. POW.

But (to take a phrase from Levar Burton) don't take my word for it. Try it and see!

1 upvote
javaone
By javaone (Sep 22, 2011)

So what people are saying is that if I take a D3x and crop down the image the backgrounds will magically get sharper?
Or get more noise?

I must try that in Photoshop. Some how I don't think so.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

@nathantw , you are absolutely right about 1.5x crop factor. 24mm f/1.4 lens on a DX camera will give you essentially the same final image (in terms of noise, DoF, and angle of view) as 36mm f/2.1 lens on an FX camera, provided both cameras are set to the same shutter speed. Of course the ISO on the FX camera will have to be 1.5^2=2.25x higher than on the DX camera to get the same exposure. In other words you could say that ISO100 on a DX camera is equivalent to ISO225 on an FX camera in terms of noise. If you don't understand the theory, you can compare the results of DX and FX sensors of the same generation at dxomark.com :).

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

@Carsten, the same aperture will give you the same brightness (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture ), not the total amount of light. I.e. f/1.4 lens on a 2x crop sensor will collect 4 times less light than on a full frame, simply because of 4x smaller sensor area :). 4x less light hitting the sensor means 4x less light hitting each pixel (imagine for simplicity the same pixel count for both sensors) ==> higher noise on the smaller sensor. Simple, isn't it?

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 22, 2011)

@javaone, yes you'll get more noise (if you of course view the original and the cropped images at the same final size).

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 23, 2011)

@micahmedia, your circle of confusion also comes from a smaller diameter lens, doesn't it (given the same optical f-number)? :)

All in all you'll get more DOF with a smaller sensor at given aperture at given final output size. Specifically log2((crop factor)^2) stops more (i.e. about 2.9 stops more DOF at 2.7x crop vs FF camera)

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 23, 2011)

@micahmedia, your circle of confusion also comes from a smaller diameter lens, doesn't it (given the same optical f-number)? :)

All in all you'll get more DOF with a smaller sensor at given aperture at given final output size. Specifically log2((crop factor)^2) stops more (i.e. about 2.9 stops more DOF at 2.7x crop vs FF camera)

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 23, 2011)

@micahmedia, your circle of confusion also comes from a smaller diameter lens, doesn't it (given the same optical f-number)? :)

All in all you'll get more DOF with a smaller sensor at given aperture at given final output size. Specifically log2((crop factor)^2) stops more (i.e. about 2.9 stops more DOF at 2.7x crop vs FF camera)

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Sep 23, 2011)

@ppastoris: ok, lets see a demonstration of these effects in actual images.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 23, 2011)

P.S. at this point I am probably going to stop commenting in this thread in the interest of my time.

I'll post a link to a good review of the theory behind "effective" ISO or "effective" noise apertures when/if I find it in English (there's a good review in Russian though -- http://www.afanas.ru/ROF/rof3.htm ).

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Sep 23, 2011)

@ppastoris: I think it doesn't all mean what you think it means. Lens diameter effects the final image circle, but it does not have anything to do with circles of confusion. Clear aperture and any restrictions by an iris will have effects, and element diameter directly relates to light collection (and, at times, internal reflection!), but not circles of confusion, which are determined by the way the elements refract the light.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Sep 23, 2011)

...and final image noise is not purely a function of megapixels/surface area. Sure there's that whole light collecting in buckets model you hear oft referred to, but besides that is ADR, signal amplification, and heat. These things are constantly getting better and better and have nothing to do with anything on the other side of the shutter.

The proof of the puddin is in the tasting. Get out and eat more. Everyone. It's good for ya.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Sep 23, 2011)

@micahmedia, last post for the day. :))

1) DOF. I didn't quite understand what you meant. If you want to see how the DOF depends on the sensor size see this article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#.E2.80.9CSame_picture.E2.80.9D_for_both_formats

2) Noise.
Of course, final image noise depends on the sensor technology. But, roughly, provided the same sensor technology, the noise in midtones will scale with the sensor size exactly like I described above ( i.e. ISO100 of a 2.7x crop sensor will be as noisy as ISO100*2.7^2=ISO730 of a fullframe sensor of the same generation).

If you want some experimental results compare m4/3, DX, and FX cameras from the same era on dxomark.com. You'll see that m4/3 ISO100 is about equivalent to DX ISO200 and to FX ISO400, plus minus less than half a stop. Just don't compare a modern sensor like in Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D to an older full-frame of e.g. Canon 5D :). I'd compare say Nikon D700, D90, and m4/3 from the same era.

0 upvotes
f_stops
By f_stops (Sep 23, 2011)

"So by your logic, a 24mm f/1.4 lens on a D300 is a 36mm f/2? I don't buy that. It's still a 36mm f/1.4 lens. "

I see this type of comment frequently -- " a 24mm/1.4 is a 36/1.4 on a cropper"
It is so wrong. A 24mm/1.4 lens is a 24mm/1.4 lens.

Take a 24mm lens off of a FF and put it on a 1.6 crop, it will give the same effective field of view as a 36mm on FF. If you actually put a 36mm/1.4 lens on the FF camera, cameras will have the same field of view. And the 36mm/1.4 has less depth of field than the 24mm/1.4. To get the same depth of field, stop down the 36mm by the multiplier of 1.6. - about f/2.2.

24mm/1.4 lens on a CROP sensor gives the same depth of field and field of view as a 36mm/2.2 lens on FF. The 24mm/1.4 is still a 24/1.4 lens. Now take the 24/1.4 lens on a 2.7 crop sensor. This will provide a field of view as a 64mm lens on a FF camera.

Does a 24/1.4 have the same DOF as a 64mm/1.4? Of course not. A 24/1.4 has the same DOF as a 64mm/3.8 on a FF camera.

2 upvotes
Jackie Q Acomson
By Jackie Q Acomson (Sep 23, 2011)

Only mad people would put on f1.4-lenses on a small-sensor camera.

0 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 23, 2011)

@Jackie
My tiny and handy Switar 25mm f1.4 on my E-PL1 does an excellent job. You call me mad? Small sensors, means smaller lenses usable.

0 upvotes
Don Wiss
By Don Wiss (Sep 22, 2011)

The marketing people have a word for it: "product differentiation." The m4/3 format has the potential to challenge the more profitable DSLR sales. Even having it come in all these colors is to keep the DSLR crowd from switching to them.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Sep 22, 2011)

Good grief, these are awful. Yes, it can take an odd 3200 ISO shot, but all the lower ISO shots are mediocre _at best_. And what about the infallible focus these are supposed to have? Where is it here? http://g1.img-dpreview.com/E061A20FE10C45699A5990B3EBB56D10.jpg And considering the ISO number, it looks like it was shot from a Canon SD1000 with a dusty lens.

I was excited about this upcoming camera. I expected electronic shutter and was happy to hear I was right. But I was also hoping for full manual controls, small, bright lenses, and a good IQ. Instead we get this overpriced gender-confused point-and-squirt for whom exactly?

10 upvotes
Don Wiss
By Don Wiss (Sep 22, 2011)

How computerized are the lenses compared to the m4/3 lenses? How much correction is being done in firmware?

0 upvotes
Brian_Hert
By Brian_Hert (Sep 22, 2011)

Looking at the full sized shot of the coffee cup, you can see substantial blurring from the software. It looks like whatever they do to get a softer background is like a bad photoshop filter.

Still, for the size and intended market - if it can take good highspeed shots indoors, I could see some people buying it.

I certainly won't be abandoning my SLR for it, but I might consider getting one for my daughter.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Sep 22, 2011)

But not your son? Come on. Don't fib. Enough of this "real men don't like little cameras" stuff. You'd be the one to use it.

2 upvotes
Copiare
By Copiare (Sep 22, 2011)

Not impressive, the camera does not handle highlights well. Look at the images that included the sky on an overcast day. No detail and the edges are not well defined. Some people are calling this better than M4/3 and Sony's NEX?

The new Nikon is definitely not better!

Nikon, you really blew it!

7 upvotes
bgshutter
By bgshutter (Sep 22, 2011)

WOW!!! at 3200 and 6400 impressive for a small sensor camera! I wonder if they would make adapters for other lenses other than a nikon legacy mount...???? hmmmmmmmm (¬__¬)

0 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Sep 22, 2011)

These look really nice, average, but nice. For $500 with a kit lens this would be a good deal.

3 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Sep 22, 2011)

Ho-hum pics.

1 upvote
kaipu
By kaipu (Sep 22, 2011)

Now only D4 and D4x can save Nikon.

0 upvotes
Jackie Q Acomson
By Jackie Q Acomson (Sep 23, 2011)

If Nikon still has the current CEO, nothing can save Nikon.

0 upvotes
Neoasphalt
By Neoasphalt (Sep 22, 2011)

ISO 6400 is not bad at all, but on sample 3 is a bit too much noise for ISO 100. But photgrapher is not the best for shure.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 22, 2011)

Shure the headphone manufacturer? I've never worked for them.

6 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Sep 22, 2011)

Folks, the Times Square pictures look as if shot at late afternoon. The streets are in semi-shadow. The soft illumination is either indirect, reflected off buildings, or from a cloudy near-twilight sky above. This may explain what may appear to be odd WB or saturation. This is not anything a full frame sensor would automatically overcome, or that one would not see in a P&S too.

Any eggs you eat near a tinted window, illuminated by light reflected off a blue or grey building, plus overhead flourescent lamps, will look like something out of Dr. Seuss.

This is the drawback of all "real world" shots, unless we have comparable shots taken by different cameras all on the same day and time, and at the same place.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 22, 2011)

A hazy morning, actually. Most of this gallery was shot in the hour between waking up and checking out of the hotel to fly back to Seattle. The evening shots were taken in Seattle, after landing, and before going to bed.

0 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Sep 22, 2011)

Mr. Britton is there a possibility to share more nefs?

0 upvotes
Hide Takahashi
By Hide Takahashi (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm a bird shooter and I think J1/V1 are best suited for a photographer like myself. I use D300/ 300 f/4-AF+TC 1.4 but I always feel I need more reach.
500 f/4 VR would be an ideal lens for me but I just can't afford a $9000 lens. With V1/300 f/4,I can get 810mm in focal length and with the TC 1.4x, 1134mm. And fast AF is a huge plus to track fast moving subjects. Nikon claims its AF is faster than D3s? Wow!

If this cam can take a descent image quality in that focal length,I will seriously consider to get one. $9000 vs. $900. I think my choice is clear.

5 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Sep 23, 2011)

Yes I agree with you. I am also a bird photographer. I think this camera will help me a great deal. One up for Nikon. It so much lighter to carry compare SLR and long lens. Now this will be small camera and long lens X2.5.

0 upvotes
EPICphotography
By EPICphotography (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm a nikon D7000 user.. Noise is not a big trouble for me.. I always wait for Nikon for their mirrorless system to be announce and im happy they did..

All system has their own speciality and loyal followers... Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony... Most are still using FILMS mainly professionals... Most are into LOMO movements... Grainy pictures... Of course LOMO cameras are cheaper to invest compared to EVIL...but being fair why don't you judge their pictures for being grainy and noisy?

So please... Photography is about the image... Even if you're a "PROFESSIONAL" taking pictures with clean high ISO if your picture when being viewed and people don't have that feeling like "WOW..." just throw away your system and shut up... Don't be so lame... Don't GO through life, GROW through life... Most people sells photos online and gain money... Camera is just a tool... What important is YOURSELF...

This system has an advantage... At 6400 the image is better than m4/3..
Just trust ur System.. :)

7 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (Sep 22, 2011)

I've just been waiting for a small body to stick on the end of my Nikkor glass to use for video in a package that can fit in a book bag. I've already got a D-SLR for everything else.

5 upvotes
JEPH
By JEPH (Sep 22, 2011)

That camera is here. It is the Sony NEX. 'Not trying to be funny at all, but that is the reality-the adapters exist and are being used. Of course-there is the flange distance-the same "problem" as using any lens sourced from an SLR system.

1 upvote
PederT
By PederT (Sep 22, 2011)

Have you tried manually focussing old Nikkors on a NEX? The new NEX-7 looks promising with it´s viewfinder, but I fear the price. I need either viewfinder or autofocus for my glass. I think the V1 will be a fine addition to my D300 / FE2 / 10+ Nikkor collection.

1 upvote
obican
By obican (Sep 22, 2011)

I use old FD glasses with a Nex 5, focus peaking takes care of it, most of the time anyway. It fails where the contrast is too high, but then you can use magnification via a custom button and check the focus. It's not the most practical solution, but it works most of the time and I'm happy with it.

1 upvote
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Sep 22, 2011)

did they say that the F-adapter will allow for AF?

0 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 22, 2011)

Yes. AF with AF-S lenses.

2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Sep 22, 2011)

You don't have to get a NEX-7, they make much cheaper models (the 7 is twice as expensive as the next most expensive). Manual focus is straight forward with "focus peaking" where it highlights in focus areas with markers (and/or you can zoom in and look as well).

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Sep 23, 2011)

Don't forget there is autofocus and autofocus. Remember how well (especially speed wise) autofocus works in live view mode on Nikon DSLR's.

0 upvotes
Bexter
By Bexter (Sep 22, 2011)

If they released a macro lens and ringflash for this it could be a very competent macro camera as you can get such good depth of field but still good bokeh due to a prime lens.

Otherwise I think your money is better spend on a Canon G12.

0 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Sep 22, 2011)

there is a great macro lens for this one
40mm f/2.8 dx.
it will be just great on this camera for macro

0 upvotes
Bexter
By Bexter (Sep 23, 2011)

Will any existing ringflashes work with it though? I doubt they will make a ringflash specifically for this camera.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 22, 2011)

Thinking that a Canon S100, and the like, have better IQ based on the above samples is completely misguided. Look at these sample images http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/v1/sample.htm to see real "real world" images, not like the snapshots from DPReview.

I have an XZ-1 which is great, but I know that it doesn't have the IQ of this large sensor camera. As far as DOF, wait until Nikon releases some faster lenses, or adapters for Nikon F lenses, and you'll see shallow DOF.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Sep 22, 2011)

I am not impressed with Nikon's samples either. They are good photographs though.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Sep 22, 2011)

unsuprisingly, the images are noisy and lose color at iso's over 100. typical P&S image quality. this is a very fast P&S which should be great except for the price.

additionally, investing lenses for this system would only do good for video.

1 upvote
terryoregon
By terryoregon (Sep 22, 2011)

Why is the ISO not showing up on some of the higher ISO photos?
Not showing up when I download it either, using Thumbs Plus.

0 upvotes
lgaines
By lgaines (Sep 22, 2011)

That usually means that it's an expanded ISO setting. Mean Hi-1 or basically ISO 6400

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 22, 2011)

Confirmed. I'll manually add the ISO into the metadata shortly, but if you don't see a value, it's ISO 6400 (h1)

0 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Sep 22, 2011)

Capture NX2 (2.2.8) reports iso "+1 above 3200" for those.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 22, 2011)

I've now added it as 6400 (though technically the camera considered it to be Hi 1 - 6400 equiv.)

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Sep 22, 2011)

...I see it fine in my browser with FxIF and once downloaded with irfanview. In irfanview the ISO for the 6400 shots shows up further down the metadata. And this is true for early 1 system shots on the Nikon site and others around the web.

0 upvotes
pjsalty
By pjsalty (Sep 22, 2011)

I am very impressed with the speed....if Nikon had built a camera this fast on the m4/3 format to take advantage of the larger sensor and those nice m4/3 lenses then they would have my attention. I'm sure there is more to come from Nikon employing the fast focus and recording, but the competition might catch up in speed soon.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (Sep 23, 2011)

Nikon want you to buy their lenses not "nice m4/3" lenses

1 upvote
obican
By obican (Sep 22, 2011)

The thing is, nobody actually needs this camera. That's why there are 20+ comments below, trying to justify this camera by saying "great for soccer moms", "might come in handy for birders", "50 1.4 on this would be a good portrait lens" etc.

1 upvote
zanypoet
By zanypoet (Sep 22, 2011)

small sensor + slow lens = IQ?? = DOA

7 upvotes
Light Adrenaline
By Light Adrenaline (Sep 22, 2011)

The images aren't awful and the noise and the noise handling (for limited test images of course) isn't bad. I'm pulling from memory, but my E-PL2 wasn't any stronger even at 800 and didn't look as clean at 3200. Of course a blue color cast on a breakfast plate is not exactly an industry standard for such illustrations, but it's at least admirable. Now, is it admirable for $650-900? That's another story. If you're coming from the DSLR market, we'll likely be hoping for more. Of course if the tech is great here, the new flock of DSLRs - whenever they may arrive - might be significantly better. If you're a point-and-shooter, this will almost certainly be a major improvement unless you're using the very best high ends like a G12 at which point you'd be gaining the lens flexibility and shooting speeds. I'll admit, I don't hate these images. Though I'm not sure someone forking upwards of a grand is going to take a lot of pics of eggs and peoples ankles from behind. Ha!

2 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Sep 22, 2011)

You know, lengthy well-written posts like this are basically wasted effort. Your points are sensible and you make them well, but the post as a whole is just going to get buried under a mountain of tosh. Over time you're not going to build a reputation as an expert prognosticator, you're just going to be ignored. You need short, punchy posts, with "blows X out of the water" and "sux toy lol" etc.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm not sure what tosh is, but otherwise, spot on. The "fan" phenomenon has gotten completely out of control with digital. And then there are comments like "It's built like a tank" which sound cool but don't acutally mean anything.

0 upvotes
Doug Frost
By Doug Frost (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm completely underwhelmed by these samples. Interchangeable lenses notwithstanding, there are a number of compact cameras that outclass the Nikon 1. The new Canon S100 is smaller, less expensive, has a faster lens and higher IQ. It can even produce a passable bokeh at the short end. You can forget bokeh entirely with the N1 system.

I don't know what Nikon was thinking. Did they really believe that compact camera owners would consider the ability to put an assortment of mediocre lenses on a mediocre camera an upgrade?

4 upvotes
ipribadi
By ipribadi (Sep 22, 2011)

CX is not that much smaller than m4/3 and still waaay larger than 1/1.7" on the S100.

What Nikon is doing wrong is not coming up with lenses that showcases its advantage over P&S.
The initial 4 lenses they released are very limited.

If I were Nikon I would for sure release a wide angle zoom (7-25mm f2.8-3.5), a fast short prime (15mm f/1.2), a fast long prime (30mm f/1.4) and a fast std zoom (10-30mm, f1.8-2.5)

Fast lenses are a must for small sensor cameras, it helps both DOF control (bokeh) and low light IQ.
Nikon released none of these (fastest is f2.8, widest is 10mm) and thus the sample shots speak for themselves.

Yes a premium P&S (XZ-1, LX5, S100, G12, P7100) could have done those!

3 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 22, 2011)

I would sincerely be surprised if the Canon S100 offered better ISO 3200 files. The RAW files posted outperform my E-PL1, which has a slightly bigger sensor than the Nikon 1.

And you claim the Canon S100 is even better?

I don't understand why people continue stating facts that don't make any sense. At. All.
Just jumping on the wagon? Being bored? Who knows.

1 upvote
Atlasman
By Atlasman (Sep 22, 2011)

Subject isolation is not a consideration—actually, neither is the camera!

1 upvote
Doug Frost
By Doug Frost (Sep 22, 2011)

Even my three year old Canon S90 takes better looking pictures.

3 upvotes
Doug Frost
By Doug Frost (Sep 22, 2011)

@Caleido - just jumping on the wagon? Not hardly. Who cares what the ISO3200 images look like when it can't even produce a decent image at ISO400? Ya, the Canon is better. Even my old S90 produces sharper and contrastier images than the N1. Nikon has it all wrong. They think compact camera owners are going to flock to this thing as if all they care about is the ability to swap lenses with no regard for whether they're actually going to get better looking pictures because of it. The Nikon 1 system is a joke. Within a year Nikon will be practically paying people to take them off their hands or dumping them into landfills.

3 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 22, 2011)

@ Doug.
So... the Canon is better because the default settings have higher saturation and contrast? Right. Am sure the D3x is also worse than a D3100, because the images are less punchy. And we all know it will be impossible to change the saturation and contrast settings of the Nikon 1 to our personal preference. Nikon won't let us. Of course. You make so much sense it almost hurts.

0 upvotes
Doug Frost
By Doug Frost (Sep 22, 2011)

@Caleido - default settings? And exactly what would those be? Playing with contrast and saturation settings won't fix anything if the sensor sucks. And if these samples are any indication, the Nikon 1 system is incapable of taking good looking shots at any settings.

0 upvotes
NineFace
By NineFace (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm Nikon boy but I'll tell all my friends and family to stay away from this hopeless system.

7 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Sep 23, 2011)

Likewise I use Nikon. I would recommend my friends take a good look at this themselves. The speed of focussing, the innovative picture taking options, all translate into getting loads more great family and kids photos. Don't kid yourself that most people are out there doing arty landscapes or formal portraits and worrying about the pixels. They aren't - they want their family memories in sharp focus, all eyes open, capturing the critical moment - not the "opps, he moved before I got the shot" moment.
Sensor size? Get a life!

1 upvote
EvanZ
By EvanZ (Sep 22, 2011)

Ok. No bokeh?

1 upvote
TangoMan
By TangoMan (Sep 23, 2011)

The bokeh of the 10-30 is exquisite, however the lack of background blur makes this hard to notice.

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Sep 22, 2011)

It's better than 1/1.8" sensor in compact cameras - but - at the price of V1/J1, I expect better! Take a look at DSC_0052 (ISO 500), there is already color banding in the reflection on the columns. The image looks heavily processed. Yeah, if you like that 'photoshoped' looks in those higher ISO shots, it's decent! I want photos from my camera, not paintings.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Sep 22, 2011)

http://www.43rumors.com/nikon-versus-micro-four-thirds-comparison/

for the mentally challenged who still think the nikon system is smaller then m34...

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Sep 22, 2011)

smaller camera size of course... not sensor size. :D

0 upvotes
Light Adrenaline
By Light Adrenaline (Sep 22, 2011)

I agree, the argument is almost entirely for the sensor being smaller than the m4/3 by a fair margin. The body is similar in size and in some ways smaller for sure.

0 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 22, 2011)

Why use the Nikon body -with- EVF to compare with a body without an EVF and post those pictures?

They "accidentally" forgot about the other model, the J1, which actually IS smaller than the Olympus.

They mention it in a small link below. How convenient.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (Sep 22, 2011)

It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-j1-vs-v1-vs-olympus-pen-mini-e-pm1-comparison-17471

The J1 and the EPM1 are compared. J1 is slightly less wide but has more depth (EPM1 cheats a little bit with its portruding lens mount). Paired with their respective kit lens and the J1 doesn't extend by much. Though not shown, the Panasonic 14-42 X lens would the E-PM1 smaller again.

1 upvote
Simon97
By Simon97 (Sep 22, 2011)

Pretty decent I'd say. The zoom lens does show falloff near the edges, but nothing serious. High ISO performance is pretty good. Looking at the last pic of the neon lit scene at ISO3200, I was expecting mush, but There is a pretty clean image with sharp details. I'd guess this camera has a Sony built sensor.

The shot with the candy signs shows pretty good detail. I'd like to see this camera with a good prime.

I'd say Nikon made a neat little system that compares with 4/3rds quite well. I applaud them for going 10mp to stay out of the pixel race. Prices are a concern, but they will hopefully drop.

0 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Sep 22, 2011)

"..Looking at the last pic of the neon lit scene at ISO3200, I was expecting mush, but There is a pretty clean image with sharp details..."

Yeah with a final touch of blotchy finish. Nice. That's a pretty decent rip-off.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Sep 22, 2011)

Bulkiest, most expensive point-n-shoot ever.

6 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Sep 22, 2011)

The Elmo shot is the perfect example of why not to buy this camera, no depth of field.

I sold my Canon SX120 and bought a m4/3 because I was tired of taking pictures like that.

With at least minimal background blurring very simple compositions like this become much more interesting to look at.

What we have here is a picture of Elmo and a picture of the green electrical boxes. I don't want to see detail in the green electrical boxes. I'm not asking that Nikon design a full frame portable that obliterates the boxes, I just want them blurred more than they are in that shot.

I and others are not going to buy the J1 if it can't perform this simple photographic effect.

7 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Sep 22, 2011)

I think you meant, "too much depth of field", not "no depth of field"..

My Micro Four Thirds camera wouldn't do much better at the same aperture and subject distance. Frankly, to get much real DOF control I'd bypass even my APS-C dslr and work with fast glass on a full frame sensor.

You're not going to get much depth of field control from any truly compact camera. And although Sony and Samsung have compact APS-C bodies, the lenses for the larger sensors are bigger and heavier and I don't think those systems are truly compact.

0 upvotes
bryanbrun
By bryanbrun (Sep 22, 2011)

Look at the shot: it's 3.5 aperture. There is no discernible blurring of the background, and the camera was quite close to Elmo.

My E-PL1 at 3.5 aperture is going to provide some of the blur the building in that photo.

3 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Sep 22, 2011)

Really quite sharp images, and I guess they have taken their time to make sharp, telecentric lenses to go with the allegedly class leading AF which we are yet to really have a comparison on.

However major FAIL in launching such slow zooms against fuji, sony and the main event at this party: mFT. The dof is much deeper than mFT even, so no wonder the focusing looks sharp.

ISO3200 is really nosiy and DR looks suspiciously about as good as you can get with such a small sensor.

0 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (Sep 22, 2011)

Wow.

No grass, leaves and almost no hair in these pictures.

Fine details in leaves/grass/hair is were small sensor CMOS sensors often fall short.

How about some available light pictures of people? O

Or at least a dog or cat?

Thanks!

0 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Sep 22, 2011)

The NR in JPEGs is much too high. In RAW, things look MUCH better.

0 upvotes
Vertigo_101
By Vertigo_101 (Sep 22, 2011)

What software can process these raw files today, please ?

0 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Sep 22, 2011)

Colors are a bit off, but it can be done with:
UFRaw
Raw Therapee might work as well
Apple: Raw Photo Processor

For judging noise, output is good enough.

0 upvotes
Vertigo_101
By Vertigo_101 (Sep 22, 2011)

thx !!

0 upvotes
3than
By 3than (Sep 22, 2011)

Hmm...it seems that noise isn't the issue but rather a lack of bokeh. These are probably very nice cameras (the birders comment seems right on to me) but there are some other very good alternatives in that price range...both entry-level DSLRs and rangefinder-esque mirrorless cameras with larger sensors. (I know...not competing...but they are price-wise.)

I doubt that this system (or the similar Pentax one) will really have a lot of success, but I could be wrong. It is an interesting development...

How about a full-frame mirrorless camera not made by Leica? Am I the only person who would be interested in that?

1 upvote
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Sep 22, 2011)

Creating bokeh via in-camera algorithm for cameras with lower-sized sensor might succeed when quality goes up. Not now, but, say, in 10-20 years' time ...

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Sep 22, 2011)

interested! mated with bright compact primes, and with the same phase detect sensor so with adapter I can mount and AF my existing FF primes, i'd be in!

0 upvotes
Vertigo_101
By Vertigo_101 (Sep 22, 2011)

D7000 : 44 kpixels/mm2

7D : 54 kpix/mm2

G3 : 70 kpix/mm2

V1 : 87 kpix/mm2

S100 p&s : 293 kpix/mm2

SX40HS bridge : 431 kpix/mm2

This place the V1 in the large sensor class.

1 upvote
obican
By obican (Sep 22, 2011)

This means I can shoot with a G3 and almost crop it to V1 size :)

1 upvote
obican
By obican (Sep 22, 2011)

Also, another problem with the sensor size is that we have to buy 1-mount lenses to use on this camera. F-mount is also adaptable, I know, but I think of it as being pretty useless.

Also DOF is too large to create the effect that everyone seems to like. Even if these sample pictures are impressive at high ISO levels such as 3200, they still look like as if they came from a cell phone or point and shoot camera.

2 upvotes
Vertigo_101
By Vertigo_101 (Sep 22, 2011)

if you crop a G3 shot, you will probably also get almost the same noise level. Anyway, my point is precisely that V1 and m4/3 have similar pixel densities. The v1 sensor is very different from a p&s.

This body might become a must-have for birding. It's essentially a TC-27 (or TC-18 on DX) with no F-stops loss.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (Sep 22, 2011)

Really? Large sensor class means you can play with small DOF. Try to do this with this toy.

0 upvotes
Brunaita
By Brunaita (Sep 22, 2011)

With my Nikkor 50 mm 1,4 (also 135mm) a very nice portrait camera

0 upvotes
Vertigo_101
By Vertigo_101 (Sep 22, 2011)

I thought about the DOF issue all night.

DOF will increase compared to a dslr if you use shorter focal length to get the same field of view from the same distance. I agree this shows in sample street pictures shot e.g. with the 10-30mm instead of a 28-80mm.

DOF will also increase if you use the v1 on the same lens as with your dslr (say 300mm f/4), and use the crop factor to shoot from a longer distance while filling the sensor with your subject.

But if you use the v1 with the same lens as with your dslr, and from the same distance, just to crop the view instead of cropping in post-processing, the DOF will be unchanged (tested with dofmaster). This should be interesting for birders equipped with AF-S tele primes*. The DOF will be maintained but the density of pixels on the bird will be higher.

* note that the DOF with the (v1+bare lens) will be the same as the (dslr+bare lens), i.e. not as shallow as with the ( dslr+TC+lens).

0 upvotes
Cuongdka
By Cuongdka (Sep 22, 2011)

Yes, pixel density plays a good role in IQ development, i agree and also the lenses :). V1 system is missing the lens factor for now...Soon we will see how Nikon deals with it...

0 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Sep 22, 2011)

The 5 RAW files look great! Noise-wise they destroy MFT - just compare the ISO 3200 E-PL3 lab shot with the ISO 3200 sample shot in RAW. Stunning!

2 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Sep 22, 2011)

RAWS, they look good indeed, better than canon s95.
pity not having more DOF but they didn't developed
this camera for someone like me. ufff, that's actually
a relief

ô

0 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Sep 22, 2011)

Did you compare ISO 3200 with MFT? (E-PL3 lab shot vs. Nikon 1 RAW sample)

1 upvote
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (Sep 22, 2011)

I should think they look better than the S95 ... it costs bloody twice as much!!!!

1 upvote
zipcode
By zipcode (Sep 22, 2011)

Why is everyone saying a P&S with better capabilities? It is not small. Weight and size is comparable for example with nx100 (body only). Couple the nx100 with the 30mm f2 pancake and you have a camera that will be at least as small as the smallest V1 can get, and at around 300$ with better low light capability due to the fast lens (can't comment on sensor yet, I'm pretty sure the nx100 sensor will have colour and dynamic range advantage maybe, but maybe not noise).

2 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Sep 22, 2011)

This is the 6th consecutive news item about this new Nikon, surely there must be some other photographic news worthy of a news post. Nikon have had a very good publicity run and the reaction had been overwelmingly poor.

Perhaps much of the unfavourable response spawns from the anticipation of something very special from Nikon in response to the game changing Fuji X100. The sales pitch plays on that anticipation, yet the offering itself delivers something well short - indeed both Nikon and dreview seem to be pushing this system very hard here, as if this community was the intended audience for thex system.

Small sensors behind slow lenses are not likely to win over photographers.

3 upvotes
Robert Hoy
By Robert Hoy (Sep 22, 2011)

Dpreview has said before they really like "new" products not just mild updates of existing ones. The Nikon 1 is a really new exciting product!

0 upvotes
pixel_colorado
By pixel_colorado (Sep 22, 2011)

Advertising money has a way of doing that. ;-)

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 22, 2011)

We haven't said whether we 'like' the Nikon 1 system - that will come when we review it.

There are three reasons we've published six stories about the new cameras:

1) It's a new mount from one of the biggest manufacturers - which makes it pretty big news. 2) Our coverage has been posted when it's been ready - it made no sense, having shot a samples gallery, to bury it in what was by then a 24hr-old news story. 3) Most importantly, lots of people have been reading. We write for our audience, not for anyone else. It's popularity, not advertising, that has driven our level of coverage.

3 upvotes
ThePartaker
By ThePartaker (Sep 22, 2011)

Well Nikon have shown their hand and it seems quite a popular oriented choice of a smaller sensor and large body! The lenses seem very slow and are not compatible with any other camera so you are buying a dead end. It will be interesting to see how Canon respond when they enter the market. I hope they get it right. In the meantime I am sticking with my Olympus XZ1 which gives me the best of both worlds!!

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Sep 22, 2011)

Those high ISO RAW files look preprocessed but I think that you can do better by using these rather than the JPEGs out of the camera which look overprocessed.

Cheers

0 upvotes
njkdo
By njkdo (Sep 22, 2011)

Dpr in doing a great job to try to give us a good reason to accept this product, Nikon have to be really grateful, but really if after 1000 post negatives they don't understand where is wrong, it is really ...people don't like DOT

2 upvotes
kkardster
By kkardster (Sep 22, 2011)

DPR has published 6 news stories in a row on the Nikon 1, so yeah, they're trying hard. I know it's a new direction and it's, well, Nikon, but if it were Samsung or Ricoh with the same system we'd hardly hear a thing or we'd hear that they are coming up short.

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Sep 22, 2011)

Come on - DPR, generally, devotes a separate article to each product announced. Some days ago there was a flood of several(!) articles in turn when Canon announced their new cams...

And you can't call DPR biased towards Nikon either - for example, check out their not-so-flattering P300 review.

4 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Sep 22, 2011)

I don't think they are doing this for nikon, or to promote Nikon, or anything like that. It's interesting because it is the birth of a new digital format which has it's own virtues, like the ultra-fast autofocus and continuous shooting. Also, as noted above, the pixel pitch at 10mp is a lot more than a compact, much closer to 16mp M/43.

I actually just tried one out and the autofocus is revolutionary. It's true, the lenses are too big and dark considering the smaller sensor being used, But with the poor ratings given to a lot of mirrorless lenses, it is always possible that these ones are better than average.

Anyway, I say all this not because I necessarily want something like this for myself, though it may make telephotos a lot easier to use amongst others, but more because this is a revolutionary product and therefore 'interesting' to a lot of of people seeing digital cameras develop.

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Sep 22, 2011)

If nobody read them, we'd probably publish fewer news stories about a complete system launch from one of the top two camera makers in the world that introduces brand new technology into products aimed at a wide segment of the camera-buying population. That's not bias. That's called editorial coverage.

1 upvote
Ohnostudio
By Ohnostudio (Sep 22, 2011)

Yeah really love the breakfast eggs. DPR what the heck were you thinking when posting this? Really disgraceful coming from you "experts".

0 upvotes
VadymA
By VadymA (Sep 22, 2011)

Hmm, P&S IQ without P&S convenience. They really think their customers that stupid?

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Sep 22, 2011)

I would say that once people realize that this camera does not actually compete with NEX or m4/3, but rather acts as top of the class P&S for amateurs that actually what their simple camera to deliver acceptably good high ISO and focuses fast, than all that bashing it received up to know may finally stop.

Look at the JPEG output - obviously tuned to optimize to suppress the noise and not to preserve maximal detail. Sure - the ISO 3200 looks a bit like painting, but at medium size it is perfectly usable (web, small prints).

Whoever hoped for high end mirror-less camera with large sensor and professional layout - THIS IS NOT IT. It is high end P&S that should make great video and bring you home nice snaps from your vacation. Just accept it.

1 upvote
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Sep 22, 2011)

"It is high end P&S that should make great video and bring you home nice snaps from your vacation. Just accept it."

Hard to accept it with the $899 and $649 price tags.....

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Sep 22, 2011)

Agreed. And as a P300 owner (already a not-very-bad P&S over ISO400), I can see these new cams produce way better images.

1 upvote
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Sep 22, 2011)

I personally don't consider interchangeable lens camera to the point and shoot category. I also think that if the suggested price will be close to 900$ there's no logical reason to buy this camera. Who would pay 900 pucks for a point and shooter?

"The Nikon V1 camera with 10-30mm lens kit will be available for a suggested retail price4 of $899.95."

0 upvotes
jP Guzik
By jP Guzik (Sep 22, 2011)

Why the disappointment? Most every dslr user I know, has or wants a 2nd (or 3rd?) walk-around camera that still offers a lot of control and great IQ. Nikon compromised on the sensor so as to not erode it's dslr sales. In doing so, they may not have satisfied anyone. Posters here may not be their intended target, but how often do novices seek our opinion on what to buy? And where's my D400?

1 upvote
Total comments: 352
123