Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon 1 V1 and J1 review

By dpreview staff on Jan 20, 2012 at 20:27 GMT

Just Posted: Our review of the Nikon 1 V1 and the simpler J1. Nikon's first foray into the mirrorless market has produced two point-and-shoot targeted small-sensor cameras, the V1 and the J1. The more expensive V1 offers an electronic viewfinder and higher-resolution screen, while the smaller J1 features built-in flash and significantly lower price tag. Nikon's decision to use a small, 10MP sensor (with the speed benefits that can bring) caused vigorous debate when the cameras were first announced but this hasn't stopped the company's vast marketing effort persuding a lot of people to buy them. So, after painstaking investigation, we ask: 'are the Nikon 1 cameras any good?'

Comments

Total comments: 442
123
Carol Stee
By Carol Stee (Jan 21, 2012)

The Nikon 1 V1 is classified as an Entry Level Interchangeable Lens Camera but it isn't. At $899 with a kit lens it is really a Mid Range Interchangeable Lens Camera/DSLR, like the identically priced Nikon D5100 and the Canon T3i/EOS600, or other CSCs such as the Panasonic GX1 for $100 less, and the Panasonic G3 for $200 less. If it were compared with those cameras it would come up short, inferior in IQ and grossly overpriced.

13 upvotes
Pavel Sokolov
By Pavel Sokolov (Jan 21, 2012)

Or almost a half price of olympus e-pl2...

0 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Jan 21, 2012)

yes the only criticism I have is the price.. too expensive.. for the V1 that is..

0 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 23, 2012)

Agreed.. Nikon 1 V1 is overpriced at $899 based on it's performance and small sensor. You can get an Panasonic M43 GF3 via special sales that were in December with the F1.7 pancakeprime for about $599 which will give far better out of focus and image IQ. The GF3 body/lens is actually smaller than V1. Only thing is no view finder. If you pair the GF3 up with the Leica F1.4 you are still at the same $899.

0 upvotes
martink111
By martink111 (Jan 24, 2012)

I have that exact configuration (GF3 + 25mm1.4) and find that I use it more than my 50D now. Having a small camera is liberating, but I wouldn't make that switch without having a fast prime (and the associated shallow DOF to go with it).

0 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Jan 21, 2012)

Technical question - the first slow-motion video sample is smooth, but the lighting is flickery. Is this the camera, or the studio lights?

0 upvotes
pengch
By pengch (Jan 21, 2012)

The ONLY game in town has lower score? Canon, Sony and Panasonic are bigger co. more adds, Are you down with them? Great job!

I knew DPR will not give Nikon N1 high score but the score you give will hunt you for long time.

3 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Jan 21, 2012)

Is it me, or has the quality of Dpreview sample photos gone downhill since the days of Phil Askey? At least Phil put sharp and usable photos, not like the misfocused, blurry and generally poor picture taking of the current Dpreview staff.

1 upvote
Kirk Tuck
By Kirk Tuck (Jan 21, 2012)

In actual use the V1 is a very, very good camera. And the video is excellent. Even compared to the GH2 and the Canon 5Dmk2. It's in the same league. I find it easy to use, fast to focus, generally always on the mark for exposure and possessed of more than enough nice, sharp pixels. If you don't "get it" you probably haven't tried shooting one. It's like trying to explain the taste of chocolate to someone who's never had chocolate.

The camera can be set to increase contrast, sharpness and saturation in the Jpegs. It just takes the same practice to come to grips with settings as every other camera out there.

10 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2012)

I agree with almost everything that you said, and think DPR missed the mark on this review. You can't compare mature systems like Panasonic that have fast primes, to the brand new N1 system. When the Nikon releases faster glass, indoor photos and shallower DOF will be just fine Try taking an indoor picture with a GF3, and kit lens. If your lucky, you'll get ISO 1600 (or 3200) on a GF3, with awful unsaturated color and brutal noise. N1 high ISO images retain their color well.
N1 also has better DR range than most of the m43 cameras.

Video is quite good on the J1/V1 with nice manual exposure controls. But I have all three cameras, and it is NOT in the same league as GH2 and Canon 5D Mk II. Good video requires manual focus, which is difficult at best on the J1/V1. The codec is Nikon chose is OK, but AVCHD is superior.

Metering, AF, color rendering, and DR are all first rate with the N1. This is not the case with many of the other cameras that DPR rated higher.

1 upvote
pascoa341
By pascoa341 (Jan 21, 2012)

Which is exactly why it is correct that it has received a low score. As soon as Nikon releases decent, lenses (preferably smaller, because they are more or less the same size now as olympus lenses (and m43 has imho still better image quality due to the larger sensor). As soon as the lenses get better, the scores may come up.

1 upvote
vshin
By vshin (Jan 21, 2012)

Except that the smaller N1 sensor actually has better image quality than m43, DESPITE its larger sensor.

2 upvotes
panini98
By panini98 (Jan 21, 2012)

The N1's should be compared to M43 because M43 is the natural competition. And Nikon should be knocked for taking so long to bring this system to market.

The maturity of the M43 system and it's large system of lenses is an inherent strength of M43 against the competition because they were the first to market.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 22, 2012)

People keep calling the DR first rate and good, but the truth is that the Canon S100 compact and pretty much all compacts carrying the small Sony 1/1.7" sensor show better DR thanks to lower read noise. Just compare the deepest shadows, most prominent in high contrast and/or low light situations. Not much room for pushing there. An often overlooked issue, even in reviews.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
pascoa341
By pascoa341 (Jan 22, 2012)

M43 image quality of the newer 16mp sensor is better than V1/J1. From the reviewers conclusion:

"Good image quality (comparable to 12MP Micro Four Thirds sensor output)"

That's impressive for the size of the sensor, but the 12mp sensor is on the way out and already replaced in all but one camera of the current panasonic line up (GF3). Image quality is just not on par for the price/size yet. I hope Nikon sort the 1 line out, because it is potentially a killer system. The current offerings however, are not....

btw. Size of the sony NEX-5N and a Tamron 18-200 VC is not only smaller, but also lighter and cheaper than a J1 + 10-100. That's just not quite right....

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 23, 2012)

" By marike6 (Jan 21, 2012 at 20:30:08 GMT)
You can't compare mature systems like Panasonic that have fast primes, to the brand new N1 system. When the Nikon releases faster glass, indoor photos and shallower DOF will be just fine Try taking an indoor picture with a GF3, and kit lens. If your lucky, you'll get ISO 1600 (or 3200) on a GF3, with awful unsaturated color and brutal noise"

Sorry, yes you can compare mature systems like the Panasonic to the Nikon 1. Don't make excuses for Nikon 1's lack of fast primes at this point. At this point the depth of field pales in comparison with what you can get with M43 and their fast primes (Leica F1.4, etc)
Try shooting the GF3 with the Leica F1.4 indoors, you can use ISO 400 no problem. The same can't be said for the Nikon 1 at this time. The 1 doesn't look that good at 1600 or 3200 either.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Jan 23, 2012)

Sure you can, add the adapter and you can use virtually any Nikon lens made, and primes will be available soon.

0 upvotes
wyoming
By wyoming (Jan 21, 2012)

mmm... i don't understand this camera, of course thanks to the name of the brand it'll sell alot but to me it seems poinless.
you can't put in your pocket like a compact camera and it seems to be well below the m4/3.
nikon doesn't want to compromise the sales of the entry dslr but this sistem is useless. i'd buy even a pentax q over the nikon1.

5 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 21, 2012)

You obviously haven't tried an N1. It is in many ways better than the current breed of 4/3'rds.

1 upvote
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul
By Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul (Jan 21, 2012)

Why alway Nikon? I didn't know but I have here for 13 years too.

However on my test Nikon 1 video is better than D7000.

1 upvote
Michael Klein
By Michael Klein (Jan 21, 2012)

One last comment...is it just me or do those samples on the review...look like an amateur took them...and really washed out...could they make them any worse looking? The pics directly from the V1 look much better than that...and with a slight PP..they look amazing....come on dpreview....whats up with that?

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Jan 21, 2012)

we never PP out of camera JPEGs in our galleries. Why would me make an exception, after 13 years, for this camera?

15 upvotes
Michael Klein
By Michael Klein (Jan 21, 2012)

Well photographically the pics are aweful...a guy sleeping on a park bench thats the best you can do? Please...maybe nikon didnt sponsor you or something...the review...seems like you have something against Nikon quite frankly..and samples I get directly from the camera without PP...blow yours away..so either your setting were wrong or you have a defective sample of it.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 21, 2012)

Or people are overly defensive. I'll go for the latter.

2 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Jan 22, 2012)

Looks like you take it very personally. Too much words without proofs. Working for Nikon?

0 upvotes
JohnCarolan
By JohnCarolan (Jan 21, 2012)

Been using a J1 for a few weeks now as a carry around. Image quality for a compact is excellent. High iso amazing for the sensor size. Image tonality and dr very acceptable and preferable to any other compact I've used or seen. Speed of operation/focus is excellent and the silent shutter very useful.
Concerns over the user interface are being blown out of all proportion, the camera remembers whatever you last accessed. Only thing I tend to change is ISO, so 2 button presses and a spin of the dial is all that's required. Like with any equipment the more you use it the more adept you become with it.
Agree auto-iso could be improved but it's not something I use on my other gear either so not a big deal. I like the design ethic and the minimalism, although lack of grip not ideal so I bought a Franiec grip which has resolved that slight problem.
Hoping Nikon bring out some more primes.
Some snaps http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncarolan/sets/72157628649185661/

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 21, 2012)

very small size of photos...nothing to say. 1000*600 are good at the monitor even from very old 1-2 MP cameras.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JohnCarolan
By JohnCarolan (Jan 21, 2012)

these are fullsize
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncarolan/tags/fullsize/
note I'm not posting these as any sort of technical demonstration of image quality, I would refer you to the Dpr review for that sort of thing.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
SETI
By SETI (Jan 22, 2012)

Fullsizes are bad. Amen

0 upvotes
JohnCarolan
By JohnCarolan (Jan 22, 2012)

I suspect you have not used one or worked with the RAW files. Doing so might change your opinion. But maybe not.
Odd why people want to be so loudly negative about a mere camera that they do not even own or have first hand experience of.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

In case it hasn't already been posted here, I picked up this link in the Nikon 1 forum, and this article is an absolutely perfect review and indictment of this "DPR Review".

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Jan 21, 2012)

In my experience, when someone writes "I'm already receiving email asking me for my thoughts", they actually mean "no-one has asked me for my opinion, I'm just making that up, in order to look more important". This Brad Hill is a complete nobody, his photographs are mediocre and I don't give a toss about his opinion on anything.

Viz Thom Hogan with his "numerous top photographers keep asking me how to use my camera" nonsense. Or any journalist who claims that people strike up conversations with them on the train about esoteric political topics.

It's a common journalistic device, in order to avoid having to admit that the following text is just a lot of hot air.

6 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

Man, you have some really unique experience.

edit: I mean that you seem a very intellectual sort to whom almost everyone should listen.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lbjack
By lbjack (Jan 21, 2012)

Indictment? A bit melodramatic, methinks. Nor is it an "absolutely perfect" (more drama) review of the DPR review. Brad Hill is a nature photographer and says his comments are purely from that point of view. DPR is not reviewing the V1 as a nature camera, but as a generic mirrorless camera, which is what it is and what Hill acknowledges.

It's not a perfect review because it bases its what you call "indictment" on something DPR repeatedly cautions: If you want a complete view of DPR's review, then you must read the complete review, not just the conclusion and score. (By the way, he admits his average score comes down exactly the same as DPR's.)

So, aside from quibbling about what an "average" photographer is, Hill's review of DPR's review is much ado about nothing.

1 upvote
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Jan 21, 2012)

LOL!
That was an awesome and accurate assessment Ashley!

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

lbjack, I think what Hill says is that the DPR review is meaningful only to people like Ashley who shoot still life. He is saying that this kind of shooter is not the norm in his experience, and that DPR is doing an injustice to lumping people into the "average user" group, as they perceive it to be. In other words, the DPR review is pertinent only to that type shooter, as the DPR reviewers (and Ashley) seem to be. Most people, and I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary, are not still life shooters. And for those people the V1 grades in much higher than anything else of the mirrorless persuasion.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Jan 21, 2012)

I see no problem at all about this system. I only think that Nikon should turn it their common compact system, and not an exclusive, an apart system, and make it mass produced and price-competitive.

This sensor size should be used in all Nikon compact and ultra compact cameras. No smaller sensor than that, unless it's a Nikon camera-phone. Unfortunately, these two first launches leave much to be desired (they are the same [or even bigger] size of much bigger sensor and more versatile alternatives), but the core of it is well defined.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
jwalker019
By jwalker019 (Jan 21, 2012)

I have an XZ-1 (too slow and noisy), NEX-5N (too slow and awkward ergonomics) and a D3 (pretty much perfect, but too big and heavy). V1 would be perfect for me *if* Nikon had put an APS-C sensor in there and cleaned up the ergonomics.

I see this as a dead end because of the one-off sensor. Maybe next round they'll switch to APS-C and add a few more buttons (fingers crossed)?

1 upvote
J Parker
By J Parker (Jan 21, 2012)

As excellent as DPR's reviews are, I've learned to never judge a camera unless you have actually used it extensively enough to come to an intelligent conclusion based on your individual shooting style. Over the years, I've had some pleasant surprises with cameras I would never have considered based solely on reviews. I'm looking forward to checking out the camera for myself. Check out Steve Huff's site for an equally controversial review (he gave it a strong thumbs up).

5 upvotes
Tom Frerichs
By Tom Frerichs (Jan 22, 2012)

Amen to your "conclusion based on your individual shooting style" That qualification seems to be ignored in so many of these comments. We all shoot photos for different reasons and have different needs, but so often it appears that unless our shooting style matches closely with the commentor's, we are not "serious photographers." Mmm. Maybe we could add a definition. Unless your camera has full swings/tilts, you aren't a serious photographer. of course, that _would_ remove 97% of all readers of this site from consideration. (grin)

0 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Jan 21, 2012)

nothing new :-) as expected, quality loses to the current 4/3rds . folks, please remember, physical rules = reality. image sensor size = rocks.

1 upvote
zapatista
By zapatista (Jan 21, 2012)

From the summary of the review, 1st bullet:
Conclusion - Pros
- Good image quality (comparable to 12MP Micro Four Thirds sensor output)

Most of the "current 4/3rds" (I'm assuming you mean MICRO 4/3rds) use the 12mp sensor. I've used nex/m43 cameras extensively and will not be owning a N1 camera anytime soon. Think about what you post or make a better statement to support your assertion.

3 upvotes
Kirk Tuck
By Kirk Tuck (Jan 21, 2012)

according to this review the V1 is better at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than the m4:3rds. I don't have dog in the hunt since I own both..

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 21, 2012)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The PEN 4/3'rds have old sensors by now which are easily trumphed in many ways by the N1s including high ISO capability, AF precision in low light, high speed capture and video.

0 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 23, 2012)

"By AnHund (Jan 21, 2012 at 23:02:53 GMT)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The PEN 4/3'rds have old sensors by now which are easily trumphed in many ways by the N1s including high ISO capability, AF precision in low light, high speed capture and video."

The 4/3 have a new 16mp sensor that trumps the Nikon 1 sensor. GX1 is one of the cameras with this sensor etc.. it's replacing the older 12mp sensor as the cameras are updated. If you want High ISO you won't be choosing a M43 or Nikon 1, you will want a APS-C or Full Frame DSLR.. proper tool for the job.

0 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 23, 2012)

"By Kirk Tuck (Jan 21, 2012 at 18:26:43 GMT)
according to this review the V1 is better at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than the m4:3rds. I don't have dog in the hunt since I own both.."

High ISO's of 1600 and 3200 are not why you would be choosing a M43 or NIkon 1, LOL! Got to use the proper tool for the job. If you are going to be shooting at high iso's, it's either an APS-C or full frame sensor, Sorry, bigger is better (sensors) when it comes to shooting low light-high ISO

0 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Jan 21, 2012)

Say what bad and what good about this camera. I have made my decision to buy a Nikon V1 two days ago. Within two days I have begin to test connecting all my old SLR lens. 7 of them including 2 Tamron lens. There all works... and giving good pictures. Wow my long lens is becoming even longer and the birds is within reach now. There all can auto-exposure and some AFS can autofocus. To day I even get my old Meade ETX90 telescope connected directly to V1 via FT1 adapter and F mount. Wow I just found out that the auto exposure funtion on V1 works in all. WoW again now I can also rewrite Digiscoping. Before I use coolpix now I can connect directly to the telescope without an eyepiece. I almost ended buying 4/3 like some of you folks munching about big sensor. If I followed I envy some of those V1 or J1 users enjoying the fun now. I really thanks Nikon for design this system. Actually it is a good decision for me after all. Nikon user.

1 upvote
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 23, 2012)

The Nikon V1 is a decent camera, but not for the high $899 they are charging. For my style of photography, I would take a GF3 with Leica F1.4 (equiv FOV of F2.8 on full frame) for same price anyday. Only negative is no view finder.

0 upvotes
HeavyDuty
By HeavyDuty (Jan 21, 2012)

OK, I just finished a quick read of the review. Speaking as a V1 kit owner that bought same to supplement DSLR and Leica RF gear, these review phrases jump out at me:

"... But quite honestly, after waiting so long for a mirrorless camera from Nikon, we expected something more polished than the 1 System in its current form..."

I agree - this camera really needs to go back into the oven for a firmware rebake. Most of the annoying characteristics - auto image review, oddball auto ISO choices, F button that isn't assignable, no live histogram, etc. - could likely be handled very easily with a firmware update.

"... If you want to shoot moving subjects in good light with a small (ish) camera then the J1 and V1 really are the only game in town, at least as far as mirrorless models are concerned..."

Describes me to a T - my V1 is an everyday carry cam for when I don't plan to be shooting anything in particular. It's very competent at shooting action and just as good at urban landscape.

2 upvotes
HeavyDuty
By HeavyDuty (Jan 21, 2012)

Oh, and because I ran out of room:

DPR, your score doesn't really match up with your comments. I think your scoring algorithm needs a rebake, too.

1 upvote
dark goob
By dark goob (Jan 21, 2012)

Also: there is no way the image quality is "comparable" to FourThirds cameras. It doesn't even compare to the XZ-1, which isn't even an interchangeable lens camera! The Olympus E-PM1 can be had for $150 less than J1... and it kills it, quality wise.

1 upvote
HeavyDuty
By HeavyDuty (Jan 21, 2012)

We must be on different planets.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

The E-P3 I owned was not as good at ISO3200 as the V1 I own. How do yours compare?

1 upvote
jwalker019
By jwalker019 (Jan 21, 2012)

You must have read a different review or not looked at the samples. Nikon is comparable to the m4/3s and wipes the floor with XZ-1.

1 upvote
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 21, 2012)

dark "bad" troll...

1 upvote
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Jan 22, 2012)

You must be living in in your own world.

0 upvotes
Michael Klein
By Michael Klein (Jan 21, 2012)

Dpreview, I thought Aprils fool wasnt for a few more months...its amazing to me the hate comments posted here...where half of those posting, have never picked up the camera or tried it. To me the camera does everything I hoped for..and the pictures it takes are awesome, or is this just a troll parade. A few have posted awful skin tones...as a matter of fact, I've never gotten better skin tones from some of my DSLR's i've used and P&S camera's...where are these opinions coming from....well at least these comments are making me laugh...I know the truth..you guys need to find out.

4 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (Jan 21, 2012)

I have used the camera. I think the criticisms of it are justified. Does that mean it's a terrible camera? No, it's a decent camera. If it takes pictures you like, then don't feel too bad about having spent alot more than what a better camera would have cost.

6 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Jan 21, 2012)

I played with a J1 (at Target :P) and after trying to find manual focus and ISO I decided it wasn't my thing.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

Right, MK. I think the real criticisms come from people who aspire to "making art". And I believe this includes the reviewers. Taking pictures is more than that for most people. I can't imagine a lot of people are moving up from P&S to make art. I suspect most have a growing child, and they want photographs in all kinds of situations. The V1 has short comings to be sure. But the positives far outweigh the negatives.

0 upvotes
smallcams
By smallcams (Jan 21, 2012)

@ BackInTheGame
"I think the real criticisms come from people who aspire to "making art". And I believe this includes the reviewers. "

Are you joking? Honestly, are you?

DP Review staff post the most pedestrian, mundane, uninspired pictures imaginable. Perfect for the gear-junkies who incessantly post here that sweat pixel level sharpness, noise levels at ISO 10,000,000 and meaningless scores at the end of these same old camera reviews.

If this segment is aspiring to "making art" then they've got a LONG way to go.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
mka78
By mka78 (Jan 21, 2012)

disappointing camera, I though nikon would produce something similar to the NEX as long as it is so expensive, this does not meet our expectations

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

The NEX can't AF very well. I felt it was actually atrocious, and even the Oly focuses better. Why would Nikon want to build a camera with a crippled AF system?

1 upvote
dark goob
By dark goob (Jan 21, 2012)

Nikon paid them not to post this review until AFTER the Christmas buying season. Undoubtedly!

0 upvotes
nz769r
By nz769r (Jan 21, 2012)

Come on dark goob! Get real! Oliver Stone and you need to get together and make another Conspiracy Theory movie.

2 upvotes
HeavyDuty
By HeavyDuty (Jan 21, 2012)

Haters gonna hate...

2 upvotes
panini98
By panini98 (Jan 21, 2012)

And fanboys gonna fanboy...

3 upvotes
zubs
By zubs (Jan 21, 2012)

for a camera with a smaller sensor than m43 and nex, and costly. Sorry I wouldn't bother.

3 upvotes
ar bee
By ar bee (Jan 21, 2012)

dpr is spot on:
the IDEAL camera for "hockey mums", that is why we bought it and we like it !!
it is SUPER fast, picture quality is good enough for very large prints, handling is simple, offers a LOT of settings if the user wishes to make use of it.

I do agree however: price-wise not competitive, choice of lenses is very limited and the auto ISO chooses strange settings from time to time

well done Nikon!
(im not a Nikon sales/ affiliate)

1 upvote
Andrew Booth
By Andrew Booth (Jan 21, 2012)

Bottom line - these are fashion cameras, that don't offer the photographic control that anyone serious about picture taking would aspire to.

Let's look at depth of field of the lenses compared to full frame:

The Series 1 10mm f2.8 lens is equivalent to a 27mm f8 lens
The series 1 10-30 f3.5-5.6 is equivalent to 27-81mm f10-f14

This is a joke. 81mm f14? Try getting good background separation on your portraits with that!

And even if you use a fast full frame Nikkor via an adapter (say a 50 f1.8), you're still shooting at an equivalent of f5 due to the crop factor.

6 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Jan 21, 2012)

If portraiture is very important to you, why would you ever use a kit zoom?!?

1 upvote
MikeNYC
By MikeNYC (Jan 21, 2012)

Andrew is right. It doesn't matter what glass you put on it, you'll have to work pretty hard to get shallow depth of field.

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

"but this hasn't stopped the company's vast marketing effort persuding a lot of people to buy them"

You are insinuating the people who buy these cameras are sheep, sucked in by advertising. Why would you use such language? It is almost as if you have an ax to grind, and it belies your other insinuation that DPR is a debunker of "snake oil", as in "So, after painstaking investigation, we ask: 'are the Nikon 1 cameras any good?'". If you are going to trash a camera you should try to be a little more circumspect about it.

On the other hand, the way you say it saved me a lot of time reading, which I used to type. I tried the cameras you suggest are better, and you were wrong. I will say that you must be persuasive if you are able to get Nikon to provide these cameras for free in order to have them trashed. The D7000 and now the 1 Series. Truly you are Nikon killers. Lucky for the "sheep" that these are actually great cameras. Are you going to receive a D4 for free? Amazing!!!

0 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Jan 21, 2012)

You are quoting only what suits you. The correct sentence runs like this:
"Nikon's decision to use a small ...sensor (with ...speed benefits.. ) caused vigorous debate ....but this hasn't stopped the company's vast marketing effort persuding a lot of people to buy them"
So Nikon continued their successful marketing inspite of strong debate. What exactly was wrong with what DPR wrote?
Of course you are free to prefer the 1s to other cameras. But insinuating yourself that DPR trashes the camera is quite wrong and may only help you in ignoring the valid and detailed critiicsm they have provided.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 21, 2012)

Wow, a Nikon fanboy maybe?

I think the review is quite balanced and fair, Nikon made some very strange decisions with this camera. Went for a small sensor, not necessarily a bad idea, but did not manage to take advantage of this and make a compact body and small lenses. Pricewise the camera falls in the enthusiast class, but does not have any manual controls demanded by enthusiasts, etc. They were probably protecting their DSLR line, but IMO this was a wrong decision. Compared with the D3100 the bodies are virtually the same size, ot even better with one of the entry level Pentax DSLRs with one of their limited pankakes, the V1 will be far behind in quality and speed!

6 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

To paraphrase, "Nikon's mistake in using a small sensor...". Are you reading this stuff? This lead in to the "REVIEW" is dripping with it. They could just as well have said, "it's junk, so don't bother with the review."

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

Everlast66, if you can compare the V1 to a D3100 you truly don't know anything about the V1. The AF system in a V1 is light years ahead of entry level DSLRs from any manufacturer. And when you get down to it, if it ain't in focus you missed the shot.

0 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 21, 2012)

@ BackInTheGame
"...The AF system in a V1 is light years ahead of entry level DSLRs from any manufacturer..."

Wow that is a statement! Even Nikon are not claiming that the V1 focusing system is light years ahead of DSLRs! It is an innovative system, but all it does is that if there is enough light it takes advantage of phase detect logics using some of the sensor pixels as sensors as PD is much faster than contrast detection. when there is not enough light it switches back to good old contrast detect focus and I doubt that it can beat Olympus or Panasonic in that.

As for DSLRs they use a dedicated sensor and chip to phase detect and no mirrorrless camera can compete with that. Even a 6 year old D40 will beat it on phase detection.

2 upvotes
panini98
By panini98 (Jan 21, 2012)

Yup, "BackinTheGame" is a fanboy. Which means his perspective and opinion is not credible.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 21, 2012)

Nikon 1 is the worst design, sensor and conception in mirrorless world. IMO.
I can say it without any review.
No design - to say honest...Crop 2.7 is the silliest way. Where is the advantage?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
15 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Jan 21, 2012)

troll!

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 21, 2012)

Can you parry a blow?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/754|0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/745|0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/740|0/(brand3)/Fujifilm

It's a level between m4/3 and Fuji X10

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 21, 2012)

Have you used one? Simple question.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 21, 2012)

Nikon 1 are in EVERY Photo shop world-wide. Easy to handle it. I've just come back from such shop where I've played with Nikon. It's just unserious toy-camera. And I had converted RAW files from Nikon 1 and I don't see any advantage over P&S cameras with RAW. 1 stop better noise - it's all.

6 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 21, 2012)

You can argue as much as you like, but people have said it - when numbers are talking even gods are listening. The market is the best judge - two-three months after release the camera is already sold half price, even the Christmas period didn't help. It was released near 600 pounds mark in the UK, and can already be found for around 350 pounds.

8 upvotes
DioCanon
By DioCanon (Jan 22, 2012)

agree in everything except on the worst design!
PENTAX worked hard to excel in this category
and I dont think is fair to rip em off from this achievement!

1 upvote
drdanno
By drdanno (Jan 21, 2012)

Everything in the "pro"column is what counts for me (IQ, AF, EVF etc)
most things in the "con"I couldn't care less about (no filter effects,
no in - camera RAW conversion, hey thats why I shoot in RAW and use lightroom).
As far as design - I love it compared to the quasi retro feel, and as far as handling - the V1 has enough bulk and heft to feel secure whilst the small size makes it easy to carry one in one hand ( what I couldnt with my d90).
As far as changing shooting modes, ISO,focus mode: although missing a dedicated control its extremely easy and quick to change settings even on "the go"and in the middle of shooting.
A perfect camera? ain't no such thing , not in this price range, not even the M9 . Well maybe the D4 but that's a different story altogether.

4 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Jan 21, 2012)

Agree, the 1st three "Pro's" are really strong, the con's are mostly small stuff.
Whether or not it is attractive at its price point is another matter.

1 upvote
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Jan 21, 2012)

"A perfect camera? ain't no such thing , not in this price range, not even the M9 . Well maybe the D4 but that's a different story altogether."
You might be missing the point of the DPR review: They don't state that the 1s are bad cameras, only that all other camera offer you a lot more for the same price, if the AF in good light is not the utmost priority for the user.
Starting talking about M9 in this context is rather a joke, isn't it? The M43 or Nex already outperform the J1 in most aspects.

4 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Jan 21, 2012)

Splendidly put, the closest thing to sarcasm, I really enjoyed this review very much, thanks!
"you'll encounter the warm, welcoming and considerate faces of the J1 and V1 that quietly usher you away from the noisy, confusing and intricate world of exposure control and towards a clean, bright future where you only have one button to worry about - the shutter release."

2 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Jan 21, 2012)

And try to find portraits made with Nikon J1/V1 - the worst skin tones I ever seen!

2 upvotes
Dan Victory
By Dan Victory (Jan 21, 2012)

I am a Nikon pro body user and was looking forward to a lighter alternative. I was excited by this camera when I first saw it (I am a fan of the old Minox 35 film system with the minimalist carbon fiber type bodies). But for the price, this is not a competitive quality image taker. It does some things that my Fuji X100 does not do, but I feel that this is just a very poorly positioned product strategy when it comes to price, image quality and aesthetics. Does the pro side of the business talk to the amateur side of the business? They should, and they may learn something.

7 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Jan 21, 2012)

What an ugly cameras, both ways: design and image production.

10 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (Jan 21, 2012)

Maybe the most elegant cameras on the market. Not nostalgia like (the nice) Fuji or Leica but purposeful no-frill minimalism. NEX and NX200 are close contenders.

7 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (Jan 21, 2012)

Digital Suicide people like you are the best thing about DPreview. No picture in the gallery, no challenge entry, no links to any photographs. In your case not even forum entries. Just tired predictable comments about cameras.

I think Nikon have done well to be brave here. Lets hope more great things follow

5 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Jan 21, 2012)

Take it easy guys, It is my actual opinion. It is a free world, isn't it? I actually own a Nikon camera, but its not my religion. Not like to some of you, perhaps.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Jan 21, 2012)

Absolutely right. I'm with you man =) I hate that holy wars and brand-addiction. Always shoot camera that best for me.

2 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (Jan 21, 2012)

I agree don't get stuck on brand loyalty. But its just odd the way that people have the time and energy to post rude comments about cameras with out anything to sugest that they have any interest in photography. But I really do get an odd sense of joy from the idea that there are people for whome cameras are sort of independent of photography. Happy to be rude about other people efforts at making cameras, no interest in sharing their photographs.

0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Jan 21, 2012)

Ugly ??? The only thing I like about this camera is the design.
I cant see a single reason to invest in this system.

Btw, no one seems to care that its only 10mp ! ?

0 upvotes
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Jan 21, 2012)

For me only a black J1 with his silent shutter is interesting. With the 10mm and remote control. Good set for street photography!

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
oselimg
By oselimg (Jan 21, 2012)

Those who argue about whether the J1/V1 or Sony NEX smaller neither is small. Sure the the body is small but once you put a lens on it no longer pocketable. So what is the advantage of having a small body? Still have to carry in a bag, change lenses, not to mention ergonomics and handling. Then it comes down to weight difference only. Now that's one advantage we can't ignore and important if you have to carry your stuff for for extended periods and it will make sense for a lot of people. But small mirror-less will kill SLR argument is a wishful thinking by gear worshippers. I believe there will be big professional mirror-less cameras lighter than current pro-slrs but it depends on the evolution of continuous af and evfs. Until then gear worshippers will have changed theirs for newer models many times over, boosting the research funds for a perfect evf/pdaf. I guess we need them.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
nanjil
By nanjil (Jan 21, 2012)

i beg to disagree. The reason got nex5n is that I cna put it in my belly bag with kit lens and it is going everywhere. I chose this scheme over conventional slr because of this portability. I am having blast with the nex

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Jan 21, 2012)

I wasn't comparing mirror-less with DSLRs. I am sure Sony NEX or similarly 1.5x/1.6x crop sensor mirror-less cameras have a lot going for them and they will get better in time sorting out shortcomings one by one. They might even replace the entry level DSLR segment completely. But I respectfully ask anyone if you are going to use one lens only and not take advantage of the sensor what is the point of buying ILC? Unless people are satisfied with a single mediocre range or/and mediocre quality slow glass. Compacts are cheaper with a wider range lenses.

0 upvotes
Shutterbug108
By Shutterbug108 (Jan 21, 2012)

I hope Nikon will put this 1-inch sensor into their future SLR-like bridge cameras and complete them big zoom lens, EVFs and built-in flashes. Then they will interesting to use.

6 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 21, 2012)

Well whats the difference. Why not make a large lens for it. The trouble with the bridge cameras is they need tiny sensor to offer big zoom range. By the way Nikon 1 System doesnt have 1" sensor, even Canon G1X APSC is not 1-inch in any measurement, L, W or H.

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 21, 2012)

@Naveed It is OK to call Nikon 1 system's sensor "1-inch" sensor. Wikipedia: "The sensor sizes of many compact digital cameras are expressed in terms of the non-standardized "inch" system..." and "The sensor size of the CX format is 1"..." More at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_sizes

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 21, 2012)

@Shutterbug

You have a good point. The sensor is small enough to put a faster or longer zoom in front than Canon managed on the G1X. A faster lens would make up for the loss of sensor area and the two could be quite evenly matched.

My perfect combination would be a P7100 body with a N1 sensor and a fast zoom.

2 upvotes
Shutterbug108
By Shutterbug108 (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't expect the lens to have a 30x zoom; I would be happy if it can zoom up to 15x ( 28 ~ 420 mm equivalent ? ), not just 4 to 5 times.

It would be beautiful if the 1-inch sensor bridge camera comes completed with a comfortable full-size grip and a Carl Zeiss or Leica branded zoom Lens.

0 upvotes
Jokica
By Jokica (Jan 21, 2012)

OK, we have read the review. Now, we can all forget the Nikon 1 system.

28 upvotes
Khizer
By Khizer (Jan 21, 2012)

Nice tombstone :)

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2012)

The oracle has spoken, has it? Sorry, I can form my own opinions, but thanks.

0 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Jan 21, 2012)

Aaaw. Hate such reviews published 5 days after I purchase something. Would much prefer being pampered and re-assured that I spent my cash right... ;-)

Anyway, for the little time I've had with J1, I feel that the review missed some of the unique selling points of the "1" system:

1. Design: there is a great effort here from Nikon on the design front. The overall system design (bodies, lenses, accessories, features, software/firmware) shows innovative thinking and a well integrated development process, including on the visual/tactile aspects. Very "apple" like devices!

2. Creative choices: Nikon did a bold move here away from traditional "command and control". There are indeed a lot of control points available to the user, but not in the "traditional" sense. The Nikon designers are shunning the paradigms that have been used ever since photography became portable (small body + roll films).

The mediocre rating reflects traditionalist review criteria.

4 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 21, 2012)

No Sir, I guess rating is more or less accurate, you couldn't give it higher than m4/3 not at this stage. I know its a good system a very good first move, that will last longer than anything else available on APSC. But even not traditionalist point of view, there are things missing on these cameras. And am not complaining on IQ, infact I am not complaining at all. But even to the modern standards, there is no Tilting LCD, they are not touch sensi, and sizes are not as pocketable as you would expect. So rating are not too generous, but not low either.

5 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Jan 21, 2012)

Innovative design? Are you serious? THe J1 is IMHO looking like a fisher-prcie thing. Simplicity may be a good thing but then the Nex looks way better, uses metal and still retains a good functionality.

"The mediocre rating reflects traditionalist review criteria." sounds like old-school communist talk: reactionary capitalist attitudes :-)

4 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 21, 2012)

It scored higher than all the original Sony NEX cameras, so your point is? Everyone is free to choose, we don't need your help.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 21, 2012)

The J1 scores lower than both the NEX 3 and 5.

1 upvote
Superka
By Superka (Jan 21, 2012)

I don''t understand what for and whom for this camera. While many of photographers are waiting for cameras with big sensor, fast prime lens (interchangable or not) in a small body, seems neither Nikon, nor Canon gonna satisfy us.

7 upvotes
skrulm8
By skrulm8 (Jan 21, 2012)

The 1D X is launching in March.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 21, 2012)

Sensor size was sensible. Not much point of going for a mirrorless with a huge sensor, considering you wont be able to deliver on lenses. IQ for the size of the sensor is very good. Features are also good enough and specially the AF performance. The only thing is price and lens library. Lenses will increase and prices will only decrease with the passage of time.
All in all, very good start! Well done Nikon!

0 upvotes
nanjil
By nanjil (Jan 21, 2012)

why; I do not see having multitudes of sensors. nex has aps-c and doing extremely fine thank

0 upvotes
ttorda
By ttorda (Jan 21, 2012)

There is much to like about this very incomplete system. Not least as a companion to a good Nikon DSLR - especially when the FT 1 eventually turns up. Imagine a 300mm behaving like an 800 mm! Have a look at
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/01/17/some-nikon-v1-ft-1-tc-2-0x-400mm-f2-8-fun-2160mm.aspx/ ---amazing!
Tom T

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2012)

I actually think DPR got this one wrong. They kind of reviewed these cameras as Advanced P&S's, and even state in Good For sections, for "soccer moms". But then they clearly subtract quite a lot for lack of external, hard buttons as if the reviewers tried to use these cameras as DSLRs.

The Nikon 1 has a fairly brilliant sensor, with excellent color depth, and very good high ISO performance. That it doesn't equal the 16mp m43 sensors of the G3 and GX1 shouldn't even be mentioned as a minus. It took Panasonic 4 iterations to produce such a sensor. Why should the smaller, first generation Nikon 1 sensor be held to this standard? Brilliant video mode, great IQ and performance. The faster glass, and prime lenses be announced soon.

Next month we'll see DPR fall all over the new Canon G1X because it has a large sensor. I predict it will get a Gold Award. The slow focus, slow f2.8-5.8 fixed zoom lens won't matter or adversely effect the score at all.

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Jan 21, 2012)

And you can bet the Canon's G1X's fixed lens with poor resolution with a DSLR price won't matter either to DPR!

0 upvotes
GuptaD42
By GuptaD42 (Jan 21, 2012)

It may have taken Panasonic multiple iterations to get to the current 16mp sensor. But that _current_ 16 MP panny sensor is exactly what Nikon has to compete with _today_.

So, why would a buyer pay more for Nikon when he can get a better camera for lesser? Would you like to subsidise Nikon's slow response to mirrorless cameras and pay for Nion's arronagnce in pricing it higher than its more capable competition?

And, hope that they eventually improve in a couple of year's time. Of course, Sony, Panasonic and Oly will be sitting idle this whole time, right?

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2012)

@GuptaD42 I have a GH2 and a GF2 so your preaching to the choir. But I also have a J1 and IQ with this camera is outstanding. The J1 is competitive with the GH2 in terms of still IQ, especially regarding color and dynamic range, the achilles heal of nearly all m43 cameras.

Regarding price, Nikon has been running specials on the J1/V1 since the release date, bringing the price pretty much in line with other ILC offerings.

0 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Jan 21, 2012)

DPR got it right: The 1s cost the same as Nex and M43, deliver less, offer interchangeable lens option but with a crop factor making all normal Nikon lenses tele lenses.
If you want to compare with P+S then also take price into account! So the Nikon - intentionally - straddles between P+S and mirrorless and has drawbacks when compared with either.

2 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Jan 21, 2012)

Last in, first out.
Nikon J1 and V1, announced just recently and well after many other cameras and systems merely previewed here, now reviewed in full by DPR.
Long live Nikon!

Gosh, it's good to be the king.
— Mel Brooks [from History of the World]

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 21, 2012)

i am waiting for review of Q if that will ever come. There are 0.001 % chances that Q will be reviewed, given that Pentax is not Nikon, but still 0.001% is not 0, so I shall wait.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
iigb
By iigb (Jan 21, 2012)

it is because the Q doesn't interest anybody, being a toy camera and all.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 21, 2012)

it does interest me though. It would interest anyone who will look at it without brand bias. It is 10 times better tool than Nikon 1 system even if it is a toy camera. Have you handled one??

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Jan 21, 2012)

if the q is a toy camera the nikon 1 system is less then a toy system.

i mean even if they are both toys the q is still the cooler one.

i think both nikon 1s are ugly cameras because the only things that can make a camera beautiful are features, and this camera has none at all.

and iam talking about photographic features, i mean even the last cameracompany gets it now that we want manual controlls and a decent layout, people holding the nikon d3 etc menu up when it comes to this discussion.
i know there will be a more manual like camera, but why does nikon have to give us two cameras like those for the start?^^

1 upvote
kadarpik
By kadarpik (Jan 21, 2012)

I just looked into system with decent compact camera with better continuous AF and V1 was only the camera in the market with external microphone input. The system optical quality is enough for HD video and web/computer (90% images are viewed from computer screen) reproduction. Decent fixed aperture zoom would be nice option for it as well as stabilized pancakes. 10 mm is useless for video without VR. It is also nice to document other shootings with this camera. What I would like to see is exposure bracketing in 60 FPS mode as well as auto iso FAST/SLOW mode.

0 upvotes
Azfar
By Azfar (Jan 21, 2012)

small sensor, bigger body than GX1 and Sony Nex. where is the 'small' advantage ? Not particularly a fan of its designing too. and then the price. Nope. Not for me.

7 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Jan 21, 2012)

Put a lens on that Nex and lets see which is bigger

4 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 21, 2012)

Agreed on the Nex.. some of it's lens (slow 18-55mm) are almost the size of Nikon DX DSLR lens, which defeats the purpose of a small camera/body.

1 upvote
thoppa
By thoppa (Jan 21, 2012)

Put the Tamron 18-200 VC on the NEX5N and compare that to the J1 + 10-100. Still think Nikon wins the size fight ?

1 upvote
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (Jan 21, 2012)

@Fulframer, looking at the pictures on page 4 of the review, the NEX system isn't even a half in longer then the V1 (with kit lenses - see the top view pictures) and the GX1 setup is actually smaller. None of the these approach the size of a Nikon DSLR, my D40 I use to have was still much larger.

1 upvote
Double Dust
By Double Dust (Jan 21, 2012)

Just put Voigtländer and Zeiss primes on the NEX-5n and you have a nice small set. And F 1.4 is possible...

3 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Jan 21, 2012)

Sony NEX = tiny cameras, massive lenses. The total package is LARGE.

Micro-4/3s = small cameras, average size lenses.

Samsung NX = cameras are the same or similar size compared to micro-4/3rd, as are the lenses. However, there are more small prime lenses, and that means the total package can be SMALL.

Nikon = small cameras, small lenses, but small sensor.

Fuji = Camera looks large, but all 3 available lenses are primes. The total package may be small.

I don't really think Sony "wins", just because it has a large sensor. Do you want a small camera system, or not?

I actually think Samsung's upcoming NX releases will mean that they'll probably be the best ILC line. Their JPEGs suck, but their RAW images are really good. Them or Fuji. However, Nikons are a great choice if you're after something small.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Jan 21, 2012)

Yep, Panasonic GX1 with 14mm/20mm or 14-42mm PZ will be much better choice

0 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 21, 2012)

Nowhearthis,

"@Fulframer, looking at the pictures on page 4 of the review, the NEX system isn't even a half in longer then the V1 (with kit lenses - see the top view pictures) and the GX1 setup is actually smaller. None of the these approach the size of a Nikon DSLR, my D40 I use to have was still much larger."

I said the Lens (slow 18-55 NEX) (not the body) on the NEX5 was nearly the same size as a Nikon DX lens which is true. Yes the D40 is much larger because of the body. But the Nex still can't be put in a pocket and still has to be worn on a neckstrap just like your old D40, thus defeating the purpose of a small camera. Where as the M43 with F1.7 fast pancake is truly a camera that will fit in a coat pocket.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 21, 2012)

Nice enough camera with good noise performance compared to M4/3 but little size advantage over E-PM1/GF3 which have some faster primes and larger sensor for better DOF flexibilty. E-PM1 may not be as pretty but has IBIS and is much cheaper.

Cheers

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 21, 2012)

Very good image quality and performance given the specs, but I still have the same reservations that I did when it was announced - high price, lack of exciting lenses, and lack of size advantage.

5 upvotes
zxtan
By zxtan (Jan 21, 2012)

To Barney Britton, (Part 2 of 2)

Frankly, I think Nikon has disappointed us (whether a Nikon fan or not) deeply this time in terms of performance & pricing because we all have waited so long for Nikon to come up with a prince to succeed to the king.

So tada, Nikon pitched us.... a queen. We r in photography, not chess. Hello?
What a joke, but then again, Nikon might well be the jester.

Joke aside, if Nikon really is a joker (haha.... ok, like I said, joke aside), which is almighty in many card games, then give us a PLEASANT surprise (like Sony & Fuji did) in the next launch to make up for the lost confidence many used to have in u.

p/s: Are you really wearing a fake Ray-Ban as spotted by some guy posting a comment in the Sony Nex review photo gallery? Like I said, I REALLY love DPR.

0 upvotes
zxtan
By zxtan (Jan 21, 2012)

To Barney Britton, (Part 1 of 2)

I really love DPR. But let me get this straight: Pentax Q is for "soccer moms" while Nikon 1 is for "BINGO GRANNIES" who would grumble all day for missing a couple of numbers (a couple of days if missing a number) for god's sake!

Femboys are dying for that 1 extra point to at least make it a silver award.
Personally, my rating for Nikon 1 is "Best.... Avoided"!

2 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Jan 21, 2012)

Reading all those comments really makes my day. Usually it is a very bad temper in such threads, but this here is lots of fun. Bingo grannies was new for me, quite funny post!

0 upvotes
Swingline
By Swingline (Jan 21, 2012)

The FT-1 might draw Nikon Dslr owners away from NEX and m4/3 cameras because of the greater compatibility allows them to double-up on the use of their lenses especially when coupled with PDAF. The current Series 1 cameras might actually be more attractive to advanced users.

0 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Jan 21, 2012)

I think these have real potential for birders and macro photographers, provided the right lenses. I was watching a presentation by a 50 year photographer, biologist, author of 16 books, and he uses superzooms for certain types of work precisely because of the large depth of field. The silent operation is a real plus too.

0 upvotes
hning
By hning (Jan 21, 2012)

The IQ of this camera is quite impressive for such a small sensor, and it makes me think that they anticipate that small sensors will get better and better.

However, I can't help but think that APS and MFT's IQ will get better and better as well, and that though the 1 system will always have good sensors, it will never be better than the others. I can't think of a reason why a smaller sensor can have a better IQ than a bigger one, assuming they're from the same period.

The biggest advantage to a small sensor is a (potentially) smaller body size, and this is far from it. If they made something the size somewhere in between these and the LX5, it would be amazing, a truly pocketable ILC, and I'd be first in line to pick one up.

Either that or the sensor in a Nikon equivalent of the LX5 or S100 or G10

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 21, 2012)

Exactly, a smaller sensor should have a smaller body, not in the case of the Nikon 1. The GF3 which has a sensor twice the size has a body the same size as the Nikon 1 or slightly smaller.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 442
123