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
Octane
By Octane (Jan 26, 2012)

Just tried to reproduce the odd panning jitter that was mentioned/shown in the review. My J1 doesn't do that at all. No matter how slow or fast I pan, it is smooth and no stuttering. Maybe your cameras had an older firmware.

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (Jan 26, 2012)

What they do have is the architecture to build something rather more interesting to the sort of photographers who read this website, if they add a fast modest zoom and a dial or two, Its not this though, The feature set looks more like marketing engineering to avoid damaging Nikons other product lines, something Canon took more of a risk with with the elegant G1X.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
gartblaum
By gartblaum (Jan 25, 2012)

See the newly posted user report about V1 from Colin Steel

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/01/24/traveling-light-in-myanmar-with-a-nikon-v1-by-colin-steel/

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 25, 2012)

That was a fantastic report, and it reminds me that while I love the V1, I also loved the E-P3 and the NEX 5N (just not as much as the V1). I wish I could own them all. I think I would have used all three on a trip like that, but I would never have gotten the look and feel that Colin has in his photos. Terrific.

0 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Jan 26, 2012)

Wah.. seen those lovely post. V1 exceeds my expectation. I must take my V1 out to give a try.

1 upvote
pvphoto
By pvphoto (Jan 25, 2012)

In recent time, except few minor exception maybe Nikon is just lugging behind Canon on all fields. and also behind Sony for sure.
Nikon needed years to abandon 10-12MPix DSLR cameras and it happened also only because they have to keep tempo that Canon and Sony put with their 15-18 Mpix cameras. All Nikon innovation is something like: going from 6400 ISO to 12800 ISO, putting more AF points in AF sensor etc. and that kinds - nothing substantial and breakthrough.

Canon is making G1X on with 14.2 Mpix and 1,5 inch sensor, metal body and much more and sells this for 799 USD and Nikon is pretending that it is in its own world (I am NIKON) trying to sell V1with 1inch sensor - 10 Mpix (history for sure) and lens that is nothing impressive and size of Olympus for same focal rang in M4/3 for 800 USD.
Probably they are not too serious but market is not place for jokes.
Nikon should stop living in their own world.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 25, 2012)

Nikon "lugging (sic) behind Canon"? Have you looked a DXOMark recently. Nikon DSLRs like D3x, D3s, D700, D7000 are the absolute cream of the crop for IQ: High ISO, DR, Color Depth.

Likewise, Nikon lenses like the holy trinity - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 are the absolute gold standard in modern SLR lenses. Canon makes great lenses, but there is no answer to these Nikkors from them or Sony. Lagging behind? Not even close.

3 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 25, 2012)

LOL. It's so easy to cram megapixels on a sensor. But tell me? which is more innovative? PDAF on the sensor or a lethargic CDAF? 10MP not pushing on Nikkor lens center resolution when used with FT1 adapter or only one slow lens? Superb video quality with finally an efficient autofocus in a camera of the type, or wobbling, hunting, shivering and plenty of jello effect video we see in some other cameras (Sony is doing fine here)?
I always wonder why people (or fanboys) never take the time to check their claims: You say that M43d lenses aren't bigger than Nikon 1: consider this: For a telezoom equivalent at least to a 70-300mm focal length, these are the length/diameter of mirrorless offerings:
Nikon 1 30-110mm: 60/61 mm
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm: 70/100mm
even Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm: 62/90 mm
Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3: 64/108 mm

And The Nikon 1 lens is at 3.8 and tack sharp at 30mm!
If you're not interested, please pass your way, but stop moaning and trolling.

3 upvotes
MikeNYC
By MikeNYC (Jan 25, 2012)

I don't know who is lagging behind who, but IMHO the real credit for innovation goes to Fuji. It is too early to say, but for someone like me (who uses mostly ultra wide to normal lenses) Fuji X-PRO1 has the potential to replace my Nikon SLR.

1 upvote
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Feb 1, 2012)

Canon is lugging behind Canon on all fields. I may get you wrong. Canon is now working under pressure what the next mirrorless camera can complete with Nikon's sucess in their new mirrorless cameras. The ball is round that's all and see who will row faster. Nikon has the right format to build faster AF, small camera, small brighter lens, high ISO and low noise. It is a matter of time that everybody will like the small sensor. Nikon is heading on the right path.

0 upvotes
zoomring
By zoomring (Jan 25, 2012)

The V1 with the kit lens priced at $449 makes sense, priced at $800+ , it's a total joke.

Also the lenses are a hideously big for the sensor size, almost the same size as 4/3 lenses despite the fact that their imaging circle is 1/2 the size.

I know the horse is dead and I should stop, but seriously the only prime Nikon introduced is an F/2.8 ???

6 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 25, 2012)

LOL, and it's selling like cakes. Check the last sales statistics. If you're not interested in the EVF, you can have J1 for 600$ and even less. For lens size, I'm lazy to answer again, that's plain wrong. Look my comparison above. Facts beat perceptions.

2 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Jan 28, 2012)

Yup Nikon 1 system is also selling well in my country. I came to know it from a photographic store.

0 upvotes
digitallollygag
By digitallollygag (Jan 25, 2012)

Bravo, DPReview for your excellent review of these two underwhelming, overpriced cameras. Nikon can look forward to Kodak's fate if they keep pumping out this kind of crap.

4 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 25, 2012)

I just checked, and most people moaning on Nikon 1 are Canon users !!! do you feel so sorry seeing Nikon looking out of the box?

3 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Jan 28, 2012)

Why are they doing this. I never bark at other camera makers even though their system is a bit lagging. I do advice this people to concentrate on taking more good photos instead of comparing equipment. Good photos is the product of the equipment. This will only make sense.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Jan 25, 2012)

The editors at Motor Trend (car, SUV & truck magazine, USA) don't always know what the people want either. The Ford Explorer (SUV) was redesigned last year, Motor Trend has been finding fault with it even before driving the first prototypes and have continued to dump on it even today rating it last in its class. They recommended that it needed an update just months after being on the market.
In last months issue of Motor Trend they state they don't know why, but the New Ford Explorer has been a sales success.
Customers drive products, not journalists.

0 upvotes
infosky
By infosky (Jan 25, 2012)

Journalist definitely don't drive the products.

But, customers don't drive the products necessarily. Most of the time, marketing does.

If I had spent ~$1000 for a decent camera, I probably will fall in love with it after the pain of wallet has subsided. The question is why you should spend $1000 for a camera just for fast focusing and decent pictures if you have not had.

I thank dpreview for their helping the consumers to overcome Nikon's massive marketing effort. I would consider V1 an excellent product if it costs ~$600.

I am guessing Ford explorer does not cost 50% more than a similar SUV.

2 upvotes
vshin
By vshin (Jan 25, 2012)

The V1 costs $850, not $1000. This is actually less than the retail price of the E-P3.

3 upvotes
infosky
By infosky (Jan 25, 2012)

You are right. V1 costs $850. My mistake. The $1000 package includes additional lens.

I was comparing it with Panasonic GF3 or G2(~$580) which were reported to have similar IQ.

0 upvotes
vshin
By vshin (Jan 25, 2012)

Well the V1 also has an EVF. If you add the cost of an Olympus VF-2 EVF, that adds another $200 to the GF3/G2. The overall value is comparable.

0 upvotes
vshin
By vshin (Jan 25, 2012)

Or I should say the Pana LVF1 EVF, which is also very good.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm beginning to think the reason for the it's size is design for a larger sensor in the future. They better do it soon.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 24, 2012)

That wouldn't make sense, what would they do with all their lenses that only support a 1" sensor?

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Jan 24, 2012)

Because the next step is DX, with the existing collection to start with.

1 upvote
Octane
By Octane (Jan 24, 2012)

Time after time the reviewers get stuck and stubbornly elaborate on what they consider such a big con that they completely loose sight of the whole picture. This camera has groundbreaking features and performs amazingly well for a very reasonable price. Giving these cameras one of the lowest overall scores for comparable cameras is just a major fail on dpreview's side.

4 upvotes
sesopenko
By sesopenko (Jan 24, 2012)

A very reasonable price? If somebody doesn't need the high framerate then the V1 is completely outrageously priced compared to the competition. Sure, they're breaking new ground in a few areas but there are other manufacturers breaking ground in other areas and they aren't charging the ultra-premium price that Nikon's demanding.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 24, 2012)

It seems like you've lost sight of the whole picture, focusing on a few headline features rather than taking the camera as a whole and comparing it to the competition.

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (Jan 24, 2012)

Add an EVF to the competition and what do they cost??

1 upvote
Octane
By Octane (Jan 25, 2012)

@sesopenko
"If somebody doesn't need the high framerate..." That's a totally random statement. That's like saying, "If someone doesn't need an interchangable lens..." You can't randomly make up a customer that doesn't need what makes this camera special and then say 'oh see it's no good'.

No one 'needs' high speed shooting. No one needs to take photos while recording video. No one needs a super fast AF, but guess what, if you get it all in your camera it turns out very cool when you have it available. Who 'needs' all features of a camera ever?

No one says this camera has everything you can think of and has the lowest price of all. But rating it with such low overall score is just a fail on the reviewers side.

Honestly I lost respect for the reviews here over the last three years and this one was just the last nail in the coffin. I've owned countless cameras in the past 25 years. he Nikon 1 is much better than 68%.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 25, 2012)

I don't think DPR lost sight of anything. These people take pictures, and they have their favorites. When you can make a side note of probably the best AF system available for under $2000, and perhaps the best non-Nikon AF available period, you have an agenda. That is the only possible explanation. To mention moving subjects and use the phrase, "the only game in town", speaking of the AF system, you have to wonder. Certainly they know that many people who buy cameras have children. And certainly they know that these children are generally in motion. Certainly they know that the NEX 5N, NEX 7 G3, and E-P3 are absolutely useless for these type photos because as they said, the Nikon 1 is the only game in town. Absolutely silly. I don't know for sure what is going on there, and neither does anyone else. Perhaps someday one of them will tell us what really went down.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
ChrisPee
By ChrisPee (Jan 24, 2012)

As I read the comments here, one of my conclusions is not to trust DPR reviews any longer.

5 upvotes
wlee829
By wlee829 (Jan 25, 2012)

I don't know if that's a valid statement. DPR is not the bible in camera reviews. It's a good guideline until you actually pickup the camera and use it and ultimately it's up to the end user's experience as to whether or not the camera fit's their needs.

0 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Jan 24, 2012)

having the ability to generate shallow DOF on out of focus subjects is often as important as having a focused subject. without this capability, in practical terms, the V1 would be less useful and therefore inferior to the m4/3rd of current offering even with the old 12 mp sensor.
Size of sensor, at the end of the day...wins.

4 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 24, 2012)

4/3rds are not very good at shallow DOF compared to a FF.

0 upvotes
wlee829
By wlee829 (Jan 25, 2012)

Anything is not good compared to FF while we're at it why don't we compare FF to medium format? There's no end to this frivolous commenting. People who are interested in the V1 probably don't care about DOF and are probably more worried about keeping everything in focus, for the few who need DOF, if they picked up this camera they will know how to get shallow DOF with this setup. Come on people, REALLY?

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 25, 2012)

Difficult to get shallow DOF with any of these, although m4/3 does give one more lens choices at the moment to make it easier. But if that is a great concern one would probably do well to keep a D700 handy.
I will say that a shallow DOF puts greater demand on the focus system, unless using manual focus, so it can be a catch 22. The V1 can handle focus, and the NEX can do better with DOF. Name your poison.

0 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (Jan 24, 2012)

This is the best comments section of the review. I like this review pouring in comments and some say not so good about the camera and yet you see so many of V1 or J1 users come out to say something good about the Nikon V1. Well nothing comes from nothing. Obviouly and of course it is a good camera and like by many users. It is about a week now after I brought this camera. I like using camera very much especially during this Chinese New Year, taking my grand daughter learning just how to walk. It is more than a fun camera. I am not use to the new concept of handling but after getting use to the operations and controls I begin to accept it. I love it more than I can say.

5 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 23, 2012)

Shame on Dpreview. I have always believed their judgements, but it happens that I had the opportunity lately to try a big number of mirrorless cameras and enthusiast compacts, and by far Nikon 1 system was the most satisfying. So I'm very upset for all those who would be fooled by this journalist masturbation. "oh! po po po, it's a camera for beginners, so I don't care about all the unique advances made by Nikon, like a sensor better than units more than double its size, or the best and most accurate autofocus in its category, or the fact that that sensor size permits the smallest 70-300 equivalent zoom, or that continuous autofocus in video never hunts, or that adapter don't compromise use of Nikkor lenses. Noooo! I punish Nikon for the conservative auto-ISO taking into account the small sensor; for the less perfect manual focus and lack of customization and no in camera RAW conversion, in a camera supposed to suit beginners and serve as a fun straight forward backup for enthusiast."

9 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 24, 2012)

Dpreview, If you weigh up these properties in the same way, I have lost all my confidence in your judgement. You're those who don't punish as harshly Olympus for the horrible wobbling in EP-3 video and strong NR, Canon for the soft S100 lens and for the erratic G12 autofocus choosing to focus on the background rather than the subject at telephoto, Fujifilm for the horrible flare in its X10 and F550 lenses and excessive chromatic aberration in their S100fs lens, Panasonic for their greenish yellow and brownish orange and ZS10 horrible sensor. You blame V1 for being big though sensor is smaller than other mirrorless, but forget that J1 is among the smallest ??? you underestimate that V1 EVF protrudes so little from the body compared to G3 and that it has an eye sensor, and no rainbow effect ??? You forget that most mums and dads request is to have a camera for photographing their running toddlers, and that Nikon 1 is the only system capable of coping with the task. I'm tired! Pfffffffff

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Martin_PTA
By Martin_PTA (Jan 24, 2012)

I don't own either of these two cameras, and I'm not sure what to make of the DPR review? What I can make something of, is the fact that the V1 costs nearly $1000, which I think is way too much for the offering - even if it is very nice. I'd be very tempted to seriously consider the J1 at $400 cheaper, though, if only it had a proper flash hot shoe, or even iTTL wireless commander function.

3 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 24, 2012)

Don't underestimate the autofocus in Nikon 1 cameras. For strikes, street photography, action shots, children, it's the only viable mirrorless. Olympus E-PL3 was a mess from that perspective (though I like its colours) and even Nikon own P7000 let me down. J1 rivals my D90, in focus efficiency and is a lot of fun to use. When you want control on your camera, get yourself a proper DSLR, lenses will make the difference. With Nikon 1 system, it's all about capturing the moment, and having it on you all the time for that shot opportunity.

0 upvotes
wlee829
By wlee829 (Jan 25, 2012)

Ultimately it's the end-users experience that makes the camera. I love the m4/3rd's cameras but can truly appreciate what Nikon has done. Would I ever buy one, probably never, would I recommend it to people, most definitely!

1 upvote
vshin
By vshin (Jan 23, 2012)

Does anyone recall another camera that received the worst dpreview rating in its class while receiving nearly unanimous praise from actual photographers?

So who is right here: journalists or the photographers?

15 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 23, 2012)

Depends whether you are a photographer or a consumer ;)

1 upvote
vshin
By vshin (Jan 24, 2012)

Depends whether the consumer believes taking good pictures is more important than numbers on a spec sheet.

1 upvote
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Jan 23, 2012)

More of a fashion statement than a great camera. Not for me. Now, if I was Lady Ga Ga or Elton John?

3 upvotes
Walt Schwab
By Walt Schwab (Jan 23, 2012)

LOL... one of the dumber statements of many so far.

You tried one yet?

10 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 23, 2012)

@ Walt Schwab
What a stupid question?!? Yep, I've tried it and it's not a bad camera, but there are much better offerings out there! ..from at least 3 other manufacturers. Have you tried what the competitors products? Why can't some fanboys accept constructive critique?

9 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 23, 2012)

Isn't one dumb comment enough without someone trying to compete?

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jan 23, 2012)

Yeah, if you were lucky enough to photoshoot Lady GaGa or Elton John, what camera would you bring?

0 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 24, 2012)

you would be richer, and funnier :)

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
ThePartaker
By ThePartaker (Jan 23, 2012)

Is it me or can anyone see a review of what it is like to focus through the electronic viewfinder? I would like to know what this is like if anyone has the camera.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 23, 2012)

Manually focus? It's the same experience as trying to do so on the rear LCD which is to say that it's not easy at all - the live view feed is too low resolution to give a decent idea of critical focus.

6 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jan 24, 2012)

as it's the case in all other ILC s ??? but you're not used of being so critical about it.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 25, 2012)

Barney might not have noticed, but the V1 has a range finder indicator, just like Nikon DSLRs. For really good manual focus I suggest a manual focus camera. Nothing else works as well.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 25, 2012)

@ BackInTheGame
" ... For really good manual focus I suggest a manual focus camera. Nothing else works as well. ... "

Wrong! The NEX line of Sony cameras are absolutely brilliant for manual focusing using the focus "peaking" feature. Most of the time on my NEX 5n I've got one of two Super Takumars 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 with a no-name adpter bought for a tenner. No need to say that focusing these has been an extremely positive experience, and focus is always on the right object where it is wanted.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 23, 2012)

Nikon is to be commended for its ability to ship its goods and have them in stock for buyers in a relatively short time after product announcement. Whether it's because it delivers faster, or simply waits longer before announcements, I don't know. But other companies that unveil products, but can't deliver them for six or eight months, out to learn something.

Soccer moms rule the roost and will quickly sideline and silence the know-it-all types. However, it would have been nice to see a "sports mode" offered on a quick menu with higher ISO and / or faster shutter.

2 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Jan 23, 2012)

No disrespect meant, but I don't care what soccer moms want. I'm an enthusiast & I want an enthusiast camera, period. I don't object to the J1 being as it is, the soccer moms have their easy to use model customized for them, but the V1 should be customized for enthusiasts. When you start getting to a certain level & class of product ENTHUSIASTS rule the roost.

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 23, 2012)

So don't buy one! Why be offended? I am fairly sure Nikon didn't do this just you upset you.

1 upvote
wlee829
By wlee829 (Jan 25, 2012)

@CriticalI Agreed! @larrytusaz, you may be an enthusiast but you probably will never be a photographer. it's not the equipment but it's how you use the equipment that makes a photographer.

0 upvotes
ispress
By ispress (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm starting to come around to Nikon's approach with the 1-series. Many of their engineering choices make senses as a complete package, and the price on the V1 really isn't bad considering it incorporates an EVF. The glass seems sharp and the design is very attractive. Plus the IQ belies the sensor size. However, the lack of customization and Nikon's decision to bury much of the camera's functionality strike me as poor choices. Particularly with the V1, why not offer the user more control? Makes no sense to me, and mars an otherwise intriguing camera.

5 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 23, 2012)

Exactly. My only explanation is one or both of the following reasons:
1) protecting any products from the D line of DSLRs or
2) there is a Nikon 2 system comming very, very soon

Why didn't they take advantage of the small sensor to make a more compact body and glass (or faster) and while priced as enthusiast camera why not include any corresponding controls.

The dial at the back is what's the most annoying thing. I can understand trying to simplify the interface (NEX style), but wasting the only physical control on the body for 4 pointless settings is beyond me. Whoever came up with this ridiculous idea should be sacked on the minute!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
thephotobox
By thephotobox (Jan 23, 2012)

I've been researching the consumer electronic market for a little while and it seems there is a section of the market, namely the one Nikon is after, that is turned off by buttons and options. It intimidates them. Even though you could tell them to ignore them and just use the auto mode, it becomes an obstacle. If you want to sell to those who want the camera to do all the work, present a camera that does that. If you add in more buttons it becomes intimidating (especially when they hit a button by accident). Even burying options in the menu can be an issue if the user ends up in a menu and can't figure out what does what. I haven't used the J1 or V1 or even read the article yet, but my guess is that they wanted a camera that was strong technically, but simple for the user ( a la iPhone). Before doing all my research though, I would tend to ask the same question.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Jan 25, 2012)

Good point, ispress. I think the comment about minimizing controls is probably right, but it seems to me that making a couple of the buttons already be programmable buttons would not hurt, and it would certainly help.
Nikon will have a lot of things to digest considering the varied user experiences with the V1. Already it is manageable for most of us, but a few additions would certainly help. I want to see the actual ISO in the viewfinder when I use auto-ISO. Small thing, I guess.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Jan 23, 2012)

I'll indulge in a little schadenfreude and add to the critisism on Nikon's interfaces. I work causal retail and was selling a DSLR a while ago, and got asked the very popular question, 'Which one is best?'
I say the one that feels best in their hand, and lets them change important parameters easily. While showing a few models and how to change shutter/aperture/iso, the D3100 would not respond at all. I made sure I was in manual, reseated the lens and battery, on, off, but still the dial and exposure buttons did nothing. Took us a while to notice the little ? blinking. Then when you press the ? button, it says the battery is low.
Seriously? On top of that there are two info buttons on the camera, when one of them should have been a display symbol or something. On top of that the exposure needle goes from +2 to -2. Rather than the logical -2 to +2.
I know every camera has it's quirks, upsides, and downsides, but does Nikon really think this is good for a beginners camera?

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 23, 2012)

This is not supposed to be a beginners camera.
A beginners camera is mobile phone with camera or a cheap P&S.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Jan 23, 2012)

@AnHund
you are so wrong..

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 23, 2012)

Convincing argument..LOL.

2 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 23, 2012)

I am suprised how similar the menu system is to my P7100 with only 3 tabs. I thought the P7100 had such a primitive layout because the multitudinous external controls made use of the menu unecessary.

It will be a major breakthrough for Nikon when they realise you can have multiple tabs so scrolling through pages of options is unecessary. Or possibly they just find programming this too difficult.

0 upvotes
Bluetrain048
By Bluetrain048 (Jan 23, 2012)

So close Nikon.

This reminds me of my D7000 which despite being almost perfect for me, has stupid, inexplicable quirks in the controls / interface which just get in the way of photography; for example, not having an exposure meter in live view, or locking the aperture in live view.

No ISO button? Come ON Nikon...

I'll come back if/when they sort these things out in the V2.

0 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Jan 23, 2012)

I do not usually intervene in heated gearhead "discussions" like this, but for whatever strange reasons I feel compelled to add my grain of salt. I purchased a J1 just over a week ago, to complement other stuff. I wanted something very portable, delivering high quality video in a reliable and easy way, delivering high quality stills, with access to a good breadth of focal lengths in small form factors, with best-in-class reactivity/AF for easy going fun. Researched a lot, and zeoed onto the usual suspects (Pana, Olympus, Nex). I am sure those are absolutely great, but they each failed to meet one of my prerequisites. I had rejected the N1 system at the outset for two of the reasons pointed in the review (sensor size and price). But after testing it, I fell in love with the core design elements of the system, with its innovative presentation and its flawless performance. It is really different from anything I ever used before. Ignore DPR's rating and try it! A revelation.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
21 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 23, 2012)

"flawless performance" is what this system is all about. It just works and nails focus and exposure frame after frame. Colors are great and sharpness is excellent.

You forget about the camera and just shoot. Isn't that what real photography is about - forgetting the camera and concentrating on composition and content.

5 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Jan 23, 2012)

I think you might be pointing up the difference between lovers of great images, and lovers of gadgets :) Dangerous stuff.

2 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Jan 23, 2012)

well said. I recommended the 1 System to two friends and both bought it. One more a novice and one an experienced photographer. And they are both very happy and impressed with their V1 and J1.

I think the 1 System is designed amazingly well for what it's meant to do and is backed up by an amazing performance and features. I was really surprised about the low overall score dpReview gave them.

It shows once again that they just can't get their head around what this camera is and insist on pointing out things it doesn't do rather than what it does so well.

I have decided to sell my little P300 and get a V1 myself.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Jan 23, 2012)

it's good that you guys are enjoying your nikon

1 upvote
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 23, 2012)

@ Octane
With friends like you, Octane, .... who need enemies?
:)

1 upvote
dbo
By dbo (Jan 23, 2012)

Neither fish nor fowl...

Actually I ask myself where Nikon tended to place the 1.

Somehow became a hybrid between system camera and enthusiast compact.
As a system camera it delivers too few, in both picture quality and handling, as a enthusiast compact camera it's too expensive.

Despite this there is at least one thing I found amazing with the 1. This is continuous shooting. Works very well.
However it doesn't really help to overshine the 1's wakenesses.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Jan 23, 2012)

You are right, it is neither fish nor fowl. But that is no condemnation. It would be like saying Mr Bolt is neither a good long distance swimmer, nor a good long distance runner - so he's not much good.
I think they call it a false dichotomy. Or is it a false dilemma? Must be one or the other, surely? ;)

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Jan 23, 2012)

That's the way Nikon intended it to be. Suppose they made an APS-C mirrorless: it would eat on the DSLR market, which Nikon dominates, alongside with Canon. (Incidentally, it was this rationale that led Canon to launch the G1 X.)

1 upvote
fz750
By fz750 (Jan 23, 2012)

So, for me, the next question is would my girlfriend get the Nikon V1/J1 or the G1x? :-)

I would have guessed the J1, but actually she said neither - the J1 zoom range is lousy and what's this huge lump on the front (aka a lens..) that would make it difficult to fit in her handbag :-)

(she choose an XZ-1..)

(other issues were price (both) and in the case of the G1x, size/weight etc)

Kevin

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Jan 23, 2012)

I agree 100%, the ergonomics are TERRIBLE if you're an enthusiast. Something like a "Digital Nikon SP" would be it. Yes soccer moms deserve good image quality without having to bother with a d-SLR or settle for a Coolpix, but enthusiasts deserve an enthusiast smaller camera that's not a Coolpix also.

It needs a command dial, the INFO setup of models like the D3100, a customizable Fn button, a TRUE mode dial (P-S-A-M-AUTO-Scenes-Movie). Make the movie-button re-mappable to something like ISO (movie-mode is on the mode dial anyway) or like the Canon d-SLRs--press the button, spin command dial to scroll through which active AF point you want.

1 upvote
DonAndre
By DonAndre (Jan 22, 2012)

I think the Nikon 1 is generally a very appealing package. If I had to pick the top 3 points from the Pro arguments it would be (in that order) "Good image quality (comparable to 12MP Micro Four Thirds sensor output)", "Very discreet - silent shutter in Electronic shutter mode", and "Exceptional continuous shooting rates - up to 60 fps" followed closely by the hybrid AF.

My favourite would be the J1 because it's more portable, but a few things put me down, especially that it shoots fewer frames in the continuous shooting modes.

The Cons generally do not weigh so much in my opinion. A lot is about lack of control which is only a problem if it's not right in the first place. I'm all for less control if it just works. Admittedly the review suggests it doesn't just work.

However what really puts me down is that wireless flash is not supported. Portraits just look crappy without external flash and I do have an SB-800 that I can put to good use. Oly's PL3 can do it, why can't the J1?

0 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (Jan 22, 2012)

The 60fps continuous shooting is certainly shocking, but who really needs that, besides sports photographers, who are probably unaware of this camera's existence? All the interesting new advanced technology feels very superfluous, while the essential core functionalities we take for granted are frustratingly absent.

I don't remember the exact quote, but Steve Jobs said something to the effect of: if you don't make your own technology obsolete, your competition will.

It seems like Nikon is being very conservative, trying not to undercut its own DSLR dominance, so tepidly entering mirrorless with a bizarre series that doesn't compete with its products, but appeals to nobody in particular. It needs to wake up quickly or Sony, Fuji and everyone else moving slowly into the pro territory with mirrorless refine their products and Nikon becomes the next Kodak.

14 upvotes
DonAndre
By DonAndre (Jan 22, 2012)

IF he said that, I highly doubt he used the word "technology" and Apple would be in big danger, because they never made their own technology obsolete. Last time I checked Apple still sold the iPod next to the iPhone, next to the iMac,... And even their newest product, the iPad couldn't put the iMac to rest. They even sell the iPhone 3GS alongside the iPhone 4 alongside the iPhone 4S.

1 upvote
Guy Swarbrick
By Guy Swarbrick (Jan 23, 2012)

Well, as a sports photographer I can tell you that I'm aware of the camera's existence and that I have no need for 60fps. I would also observe that most of the people (and by people, I mean potential customers, not reviewers) who've actually tried a Nikon 1 series camera have been rather impressed. Spec isn't everything - and often the things we think we can't live without are just a distraction.

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Jan 22, 2012)

their chosen resolution for IQ is spot on versus the lowest end of the aps-c. yet, to protect their DSLR sales, this is what the 1 system only gets?
they're too cautious, they know that their new DSLR sales from the past years are from people upgrading IQ from their compacts.
from a past post of mine, shutter speeds all that matter for this tarket market, therefore, a larger sensor with low MP count is essential so that it shoots at much faster speeds!

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Jan 22, 2012)

Just musing:
Would you accept a tracking AF system in a FF-sensor camera which works with f8-f14/50-85mm lens combination only? Probably not. In a small sensor camera the concept looked viable (and promotable). Increase the sensor size and this feature is dead.
The Nikon 1 system benefits from the exceptionally fast data processing. Other breakthrough features are the result of this (DP). But these features are there if the sensor is not larger than 10 MP. With larger sensor these latter features would also be dead.
Actually I do not care about size. N1 is just small enough. Yeah, a small camera.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jan 22, 2012)

Being partial to Pana my blood does not boil as much over this review.

However, DPR has published a primer on MILC
(http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8986630048/mirrorless-roundup-2011)
and right there they classified NSys1 in the SPECIALIST category.
So it would make sense they would rate it as a camera for specialists and not soccer moms.

This is called consistency, teamwork, left hand knowing what the right is doing -- or some such thing.

DPR should turn their shorts inside out and try again.

2 upvotes
mfj197
By mfj197 (Jan 23, 2012)

Not quite. The "Specialist" category was for any camera that didn't easily fit in any of the other pre-determined categories. It was not a category for 'specialists', i.e. professionals, but rather a catch-all to reflect that mirrorless is still in its infancy and some manufacturers are experimenting with what they think people will want from such a camera / system.

In fact at the outset of the specialist section they speak a lot about the Nikon 1 system and how they very nearly included it in the "Beginners" category, but didn't for two key reasons: phase-detection autofocus and much smaller sensor.

3 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jan 23, 2012)

@mfj,
Not quite what? Dpr calls it specialist but really it is not for specialists? If you are right then dpr should take some English communications classes.

Nikon 300s does not even have the Auto mode, and it is becoming apparent dpr would take a couple of points off just for that.

"Double clutch?" she said, "And it does not have automatic?"

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
gail
By gail (Jan 22, 2012)

Is the Nikon V1 good for 'soccer dads' too, or only 'soccer moms'?

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

Nah, soccer dads want to impress other soccer dads with a D3s and a 300mm F2.8 ;)

15 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Jan 22, 2012)

And what about "doggie moms" and "doggie dads"?

2 upvotes
gail
By gail (Jan 23, 2012)

Personally, I think drpeviews (and others) use of the term "soccer moms" is sexist and insulting to women, and stereotypes them. They should use gender-neutral terms such as novice or beginner. Heck, so many men participate in these forums and plenty don't have a clue.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Jan 23, 2012)

you are politically correct and CriticalI is a sexist

0 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (Jan 22, 2012)

Informative. We are learning that:
Auto-ISO is one of the most important features of a digital camera, enough to be emphasized at least four times during the review, and to be the number 1 listed drawback of this camera. (Ignoring of course, that some photographers prefer the Nikon approach, a deliberate design diametrically opposed say to the Fuji X10's, which raises ISO quickly prior to dropping shutter speed).

Secondly, that a camera must be judged by a format it is not. For example, in film days, a typical review of say a 35mm camera would repeatedly harp that it was not in fact a 2-1/4, but only a silly 135. Wait.

A challenge with many reviews of digital cameras is that final result (outside studio shots of wine bottle labels and doll eyes) are not what is judged, so much as operational features and functions, which are then disproportionately overemphasized. More, these are selected arbitrarily as to importance, and inconsistently compared across camera reviews.

5 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Jan 22, 2012)

However, in terms of your own analogy, The J1/V1 are a 135 camera with 135 features for the price, bulk, and all the disadvantages of a 2-1/4.

(While agree that the auto-ISO and "no in camera RAW conversion" issues brought up in the review seem a little fatuous, the other points re. size, features and price vs. mirrorless are most certainly fair game. )

2 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

If Nikon sell a lot for the price, then it's the right price. QED. Just because some people are not willing to pay it should not stop Nikon making a profit - it's called running a business.

I own a J1 and it has nothing like the bulk of any 4/3 system when you include both the 10-30 and 30-110 lenses, it loses very little on IQ, has better video and tracking AF. What's the issue? It's not perfect, but there is plenty wrong with MFT as well. There is no perfect system.

3 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (Jan 22, 2012)

considering the targeted audience, emphasizing the terrible auto ISO was definitely the correct thing to do.

This goes double for the fact that you can't access the ISO settings easily. Which makes using this camera hassle.

3 upvotes
lolopasstrail
By lolopasstrail (Jan 22, 2012)

No, Richard, The V1 is a CX format and should be judged as such. There is no such format as 'mirrorless,' which is a feature description, not an image surface area format.

The advantage of a Leica M over an Olympus OM1 is small lens size, since the format is the same and camera size comparable, but the Leica M lenses are much smaller; so are the N1 lens photo family (not the video lens) tinier.

highwave, no. We do not review cameras based on the 'targeted user,' whatever that is. We base it on the camera itself. Basing things on an assumed 'targeted user' is a marketing review, not a camera review.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 22, 2012)

"The V1 is a CX format and should be judged as such."

How do you judge a new format, if not in comparison to other formats? The prospective buyers don't just have a choice between the J1 and V1, they want to know why they should choose any of these two instead of one of the competitors.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jan 22, 2012)

Actually comparing a camera it it's likely competitors makes perfect sense regardless of format. People looking at this will also be looking at M4/3 and ASP-C Interchangeable lens cameras and will want to know how the Nikon compares.

Digital is not film. Even when talking about the same size sensor it is not the same as comparing two film cameras of the same format since the sensor produces completely different results depending on the camera model. Furthermore Nikons V1/J1 use a sensor not used by any other camera. By your logic only cameras with the exact same sensor should be compared. This would leave the V1/J1 with nothing to compare it to. Heck you'd even have to stop comparing Canons and Nikons since they don't' use the same sensors either.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
vsagnot
By vsagnot (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't want enter in deep technical review because I have not enough knowledge, my impression is that Nikon V1 image quality is very very good and AF is incredible (consider that I normally use Nikon D700), 10 megapixel for me is enough, I printed, without problems, until 120 cm lenght.
I however suggest to shot in RAW and use Nikon Capture NX2 + Nik Efex Pro.

Here you can find my galleries links:
http://www.mediaforme.net/?p=3807
http://www.mediaforme.net/?p=3894
http://www.mediaforme.net/?p=3956
http://www.mediaforme.net/?p=4037
http://www.mediaforme.net/?p=4052
Excuse me article is only in italian language.
Vincenzo

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
buda1065
By buda1065 (Jan 22, 2012)

Something more like the Fuji x10 would've been more interesting. They could take the retro styling approach, make a scaled down version of the legendary SP and include three small, prime lenses to start with. It would easily outsell the V1s and J1s.

0 upvotes
Lbr0805
By Lbr0805 (Jan 22, 2012)

I can't help but think that if Sony had made a mirrorless camera with a sensor this size it would have been the size of the Canon S100 or Olympus XZ-1,and THAT would really have attacked point-and-shoot upgraders.

7 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Jan 22, 2012)

Yes, and they would also have nailed the contrast AF speed and sensitivity. :)

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

The J1 is really not much bigger than an XZ1 and a lot smaller than a G12. The V1 is a lot bigger than an XZ1 but has a built in EVF and an SLR battery which gives it a decent field life. Stick an EVF on an XZ1 and its hardly compact any more.

So I would ask what the point of an XZ1 and a G12 is.

1 upvote
Lbr0805
By Lbr0805 (Jan 23, 2012)

Criticall, doen's your question "what is the point of an XZ1 or G12", say more about your preferences and requirements than about those cameras? I only have a Canon S90. I have looked at the XZ1 to replace it. I absolutely must have a small camera because I travel places where I am only allowed 22 lbs of stuff (including all my clothes, laptop, etc.) for 2 weeks. So most cameras you would prefer I would have to leave behind and I would not take very good photos with the camera I could not take. BTW, I have won two contests with that S90, and had numerous photos published. A camera that has not point for me has a point for you and vice versa. So, your question is about you, not about the camera.

0 upvotes
The Skipper
By The Skipper (Jan 23, 2012)

The J1 (with the kit zoom) is 71% thicker than the XZ1, and 170% thicker than the S100. In terms of compactness, the J1 is not in the same league as the other 2 cameras.

2 upvotes
Identity
By Identity (Jan 22, 2012)

My Nikon V1 consistently gives me sharp, well-focused, well-exposed photos in all sorts of challenging conditions. Color rendering is lovely, high-ISO performance is much better than expected with remarkably little loss of color fidelity, in a package that's small enough to fit in a big pocket.

I've very happy with it. I agree that it could use some firmware tweaks, more lenses, and a lower price, but the fundamentals are incredibly solid.

6 upvotes
skrulm8
By skrulm8 (Jan 22, 2012)

being the smallest sensor EVIL isn't exactly solid fundamentals. i think a sensor like that belongs in only the cheapest of IL cameras

6 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Jan 22, 2012)

The Pentax Q's sensor is even smaller, skrulm8.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Jan 23, 2012)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. What all those who condemn this camera for not being more like a 'better NEX' or 'DSLR-lite' seem to miss is that it is just better at taking pictures when you press just one button.

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Jan 22, 2012)

"No in-camera raw file conversion (and very limited JPEG retouch options)." Interesting, the Olympus SP320 (SP350) had marvelous in-camera editing capabilities for RAW and JPEG that make it fun to use and make up for image quality. I think most of us wish Nikon had done better. I like user control. Target is exhibiting the J1 and the built quality, button action just does not inspire quality or long life. Right next door was a Panasonic G3 for much less money. Don't care for life through a touch screen, but if I were buying a gift that day, the Panasonic would win out easily.

2 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Jan 22, 2012)

This review is bang on. DPR know what real photographers want. I coudn't agree more.

If Nikon didn't have it's proverbial head up it's ass when it comes to good quality P&S, then it would have realized that they missed a great opportunity to capture the entire m43 market.

Had they put in a slightly bigger sensor, good lens selection, F-mount lens adapter, better price point and way better ergonomics with accessible controls photographers need, they would have had a home run - especially given its auto focus system.

This system will die a rightful death once the soccer moms realize a camera alone doesn't make for great photographs.

22 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Real photographers don't have any issues with it, they use S mode when they want to keep the shutter speed higher.

DPR marked it down for its auto-ISO implementation because soccer mums would not like the motion blur in P mode. But it works great in S mode.

And it does have an F mount adapter.

There is little wrong with the camera that a firmware fix wont address.

1 upvote
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Jan 23, 2012)

I agree (raztec). Nikon makes great cameras like the D7000 that are all about photographers, but sometimes they seem almost anti-serious photographer. They seem more interested in how good their SLRs are for YouTube mode than still imaging, they went AF-S only on the D40 way before they had a 50mm AF-S because "the likely users will only use the kit lens," and now this.

There are a LOT of people like me who want a portable d-SLR alternative & we want HOT BUTTONS on the thing. Even something like how the D3100 and D5100 are set-up would be FAR superior. When I use my D3000 or D5000 I change active AF point & ISO almost shot-to-shot. I'm tired of non-Coolpix cameras being dumbed-down for soccer moms.

3 upvotes
RP McMurphy
By RP McMurphy (Jan 24, 2012)

It seems many want a big sensor small camera - so why dont you all buy NEXs?

Me, I dont fancy a small camera with a massive lens - kind of defeats the objective really doesn't it? The NEX is ridiculous IMO, you can't focus properly (unless the camera is determing where the focus will be - I prefer to focus on the eyes, I can do this with a viewfinder and quick central AF - I can't do this with the camera at arms length using a screen or indeed rely on the camera to choose the optimum focus point)

A bigger sensor means bigger lenses.

I do however want a P&S that you can use like an SLR in terms of focus aquisition and speed of response, sounds like the N1 is ideal

I have an SLR for those moments when I can carry a large camera and want optimum quality

What I do not get is complaining Nikon has chosen to go for smaller lenses (and therefore sensor) when you can go and buy a bigger sensor elsewhere. Dont criticise Nikon, buy a SLR instead, same size lenses just 1-2cm thicker body

0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Jan 25, 2012)

I've got an DSLR already. It has it's place. But like many, we want a smaller camera with good AF.

The N1 could have been it had they done just two things:

1. Made at least a m43 size sensor
2. Better body design with good external controls.

Nikon is genuinely screwing themselves and their strong supporters by continuously letting us down with their idiotic decisions. Don't they realize that DSLRs and smaller sensor m43 like cameras serve different purposes and that they don't need to compete? I've got a DSLR and will keep it but need a smaller camera regardless. Something better than my LX5. But the AF speed and accuracy has always an issue with small sensor cameras. In comes the N1 which could have been perfect had they not smoked stuck their head up their ass and pitched this camera to soccer moms instead of real photographers.

0 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (Jan 22, 2012)

IMHO, the real deal is not how good or how bad the camera / lens combo are, but at the price asked for what one can get .... there's loads of choice; none of the mirrorless are really pocketable grade compact , but compact as in compact ( old fashion manner ), they all require a small bag for a setup. So at that, with the budget, ITS A QUESTION OF WHO GIVES THE BEST for an individual customer. There will never be a one perfect camera.

but seriously I think Nikon is cutting it too short in many ways. the concept is good, the technical advance Nikon made in the 1 series is also remarkable, but more hard work needed. Right now, I fail to see why any serious photographer wanting a compact setup should go for the 1. There are simply better choice at the price asked for.

10 upvotes
psandham
By psandham (Jan 22, 2012)

Worthless information. Using the FT-1 with a 20-year-old 50mm and a "scratched" 24-120 (which was a garbage lens when it was new) is enough to make me not read, nor value, this review. Why in h#ll would ANYONE test a camera with these lenses and expect to be taken seriously? And yes, I'm a Nikon user (in case you couldn't tell). I do, however, use an LX5!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Pik2004
By Pik2004 (Jan 22, 2012)

I would have definitely gotten one, if price was reasonable!

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 22, 2012)

I feel like Nikon's choice to go with such a small sensor for their mirrorless system is akin to Olympus's choice to go with the small 4/3 sensor for their DSLR system. In the end, the choice of such a small sensor (relative to the competition) is what killed them-- or at least hindered their popularity.

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

This is a widely held belief, but I think it is also mistaken. Nikon have only made two products with this format, but it has much wider potential to span the P&S and bridge camera market than any small sensor solution. The 1" sensor is far more adaptable to a range of both fixed and interchangeable lens compact cameras than any smaller or larger format.

Look at the quality and price of top end small sensor cameras, and its easier to see where this format fits in. If Nikon did not manage to make people understand this in the first iteration, it will be far more obvious in two years time, when a range of 1" sensor cameras will be available.

It is not supposed to be an SLR replacement. It's supposed to be a new format that establishes clear blue water between a phone camera and a dedicated camera.

Sadly not everyone seems to have the imagination required to see the potential.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
MikeNYC
By MikeNYC (Jan 22, 2012)

I never liked Oly 4/3 slr's. The viewfinder was always too small form me (that's just another drawback of small sensor size).

CriticaI - maybe that is just me but I don't see how Nikon came up with that particular sensor size. I think m4/3 cameras are small enough, sony has managed to produce small APS-C cameras (with ridiculously large glass) and Canon has managed to squeeze something APSC into G1-x.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 22, 2012)

CriticalI - whatever you may think are the merits of this small sensor format they've chosen, this system will still be compared against other mirrorless systems using much larger sensors. And when it comes to investing a lot of money in a particular camera system, the smaller sensor size will probably be considered a handicap, just like the smaller size of the 4/3 DSLR system was considered a weakness compared to other DSLR systems that used APS-C sensors.

We still don't know what size sensor Canon's mirrorless system will use, but the nearly APS-C sensor used in their G1X would be a good candidate. That would leave Nikon using the smallest sensor amongst the major mirrorless camera systems. I think that's going to ultimately hurt them.

7 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

@T3 - Like I said in two years it will seem very obvious. I think Canon have laid their cards on the table quite firmly already - they will not produce a "system" to compete with the EF mount. Their new sensor actually gives them far fewer options in either direction, whereas Nikon can go both upmarket and downmarket with the new sensor and potentially use it in a range of both fixed and interchangeable lens cameras without at any point impacting sales of F mount cameras.

But their sensor technology clearly has implications in terms of a mirrorless F mount camera.

1 upvote
panos_m
By panos_m (Jan 22, 2012)

About the Nikon 1 sensor size. They (Nikon 1 design team) said in a video interview that they wanted to maximize DOF. They forced (that's my view) to use a bigger! sensor in order to achieve good enough image quality and deep DOF. The interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hbwecuicpfw

0 upvotes
ssh33
By ssh33 (Jan 21, 2012)

Small sensor could be useful. Having a collection of Nikon lenses, I would love to have it in my bag at an air show.
2.7 x 200 = 540mm
2.7 x 300 = 810mm

That said, I will never consider it - too expensive for what it is for me.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Jan 21, 2012)

As a Conclusion Con, DPR writes "Conservative Auto ISO behavior can result in dangerously slow shutter speeds indoors (especially frustrating for social photography and continuous-advance shots of indoor sports)"

The Nikon 1 is a (point and shoot) snapshot camera, that does a poor job of taking auto-indoor snapshots. Inexcusable.

Nikon should be ashamed of itself, for screwing up something so basic/obvious.

19 upvotes
Stan K
By Stan K (Jan 21, 2012)

You can see this guys a canon man

4 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Jan 21, 2012)

Whatever brand he smokes, it does not appear he's wrong....

24 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 21, 2012)

You obviously haven't tried the J1 or V1 and comment is just meaningless. Indoor sport..he..he that is too funny. And social photograpy? Have you ever heard of a mobile phone with a camera? - that is what is used nowadays for social photography.

2 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Jan 22, 2012)

As previously noted, the Nikon 1 Conclusion Con:

"Conservative Auto ISO behavior can result in dangerously slow shutter speeds indoors (especially frustrating for social photography and continuous-advance shots of indoor sports)"

Is a direct quotation from DPR's review.

0 upvotes
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Jan 22, 2012)

@AnHund You may be right but you do realize that for $1000 you can't even make a call with this thing!

7 upvotes
Jim
By Jim (Jan 22, 2012)

You're right on with this comment. It's being touted as point and shoot "social" camera...but it can't accomplish the assigned mission. Engineering aside, what where the marketing people thinking to miss this target audience mark so badly?

Jim

1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Jan 22, 2012)

"Dangerously low"? Wow didn't know it was a health risk. The VR on the camera allows hand-holding down to very low shutter speeds, so why not maximise quality - if you want to shoot moving object use S mode with auto-ISO - there is plenty of DOF even wide open to make this feasible.

I guess soccer mums are supposed to be brain dead, but I really think using the right mode does not require genius. It's really not a big deal.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Jan 23, 2012)

@CriticalI
VR does not eliminate subject movements and makes the P mode not suitable for low light situations.

somehow the P mode should be sort of "fool proof" especially if the camera is going to capture the P&S upgrade market

Those argue that one can use M mode or S mode are just fanboys. Let's face it, the P mode is not ideal.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MikeNYC
By MikeNYC (Jan 21, 2012)

wow, emotions are running high. But in my opinion dpreview has a point. This is not the camera everyone wished for. But to be fair, the nikon 1 system might get better with next generation of cameras and new lenses. As is , it looks like a perfectly decent p&s camera.

One thing though is hard to argue with, the small sensor size is always going to be a problem if you like shallow depth of field (and perhaps to a lesser degree high ISO performance). It is hard to argue with physics.

5 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 21, 2012)

It is already better than the PENs. High ISO, AF and continous high speed shooting.

2 upvotes
pengch
By pengch (Jan 22, 2012)

The small sensor also great for telephoto lens and achieving a Deep Depth-of-Field, 4"x5" and 36mm are for shallo depth.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Jan 22, 2012)

pengch- Do you really want to invest in a system that can't give you shallow depth of field? Sure, it's understandable to not be able to achieve shallow DOF with a P&S. But do you really want that kind of limitation with a camera system?

5 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (Jan 22, 2012)

Indeed, and that 10MP is IMHO a good compromise. providing one willing to work with RAW. I was checking the RAW samples against the NEX-C3, Panasonic G3 and Samsung NX200. and it looks like it could hold well eno9ugh with the peers right up to ISO 1600 though it start to lag and fall after that.

What the Mfr should do really is to look at how the J1 and V1 aimed for in the market. For a go happy casual P&S upgrader, the J1 would be fine, but Nikon made the user interface too cluttered for that. And the V1 is just not good enough for true hobbyist / enthusiast photographer with the control and interface. And to be fair, at the price Nikon asked for, I would at least expect a much better and decent build. The Camera just feel plain sloppy assembly ( I handle them at the shop and was not impressed at all )

2 upvotes
MikeNYC
By MikeNYC (Jan 22, 2012)

AnHunt- I agree but I would surprised if the high ISO part is still true for the next iteration of the olympus sensors.

pengch - that's certainly putting an optimistic way of looking at it.

But jokes aside, the only real advantage of smallish sensor (as far as I can see) is smallish optics. Nikon had to draw a line somewhere between compacts and dslrs and in my opinion they needed up too close to compacts.
The price is another issue. Interchange lens compacts are pricy in general but I feel Nikon has taken it to the next level.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Jan 22, 2012)

> AnHund: It is already better than the PENs. High ISO, AF and continous high speed shooting.

If you think the 1-series has better high ISO, you need to read the review in greater detail. Nikon resorts to in-camera RAW NR.

AF? Pleeeeease... The V1/J1 camera can't even focus accurately in low light. And this camera is obviously designed for the casual shooter.

High speed shooting: I give this one to V1/J1. But remember, only under good lighting...

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

What other interchange lens compact offers an EVF and 2 kit lens for the price of the nikon?

0 upvotes
John Poitiers
By John Poitiers (Jan 21, 2012)

These two inter-changable lens cameras are in the "Point and shoot" category ?!

Please explain this logic, beacuse it escapes me ... thus, the Sony Nex's, Panasonic G's, Pentax Q and Oly PEN's are all point and shoots as well ?!

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

Well those others you mention do have P&S AF systems, so I guess you could put them in there.

1 upvote
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Jan 21, 2012)

Unless you have a lot of extra cash to throw around and like to collect, I'm not sure why you would consider this camera, at least at this price point. I think DPR made a pretty fair assessment of this camera group.

8 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Jan 21, 2012)

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

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ThomasH_always
By ThomasH_always (Jan 21, 2012)

Hm... I just got the set V1+two zooms, because I found it... quite attractive in price. Great system, so different, and yet giving stunning results. Pairs well with my D7000 and Canon G12. I like that the V1 and D7000 use the same battery, to mention one small detail on the side.

5 upvotes
Peanut88
By Peanut88 (Jan 21, 2012)

OVER-PRICED ! ! !
CRAP systems and Nikon knows it.
That is why they are pushing it hard to sell it.
NO THANKS !
I pass !

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Jan 21, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
Walt Schwab
By Walt Schwab (Jan 21, 2012)

Got my V1 with 10mm 2.8 for $729 Cdn.
Fills the ticket for what I will use it for.

There's a whole lot of misconception here about the Nikon 1 system. Try the V1... J1 before you slam it! Get your facts straight.

4 upvotes
vshin
By vshin (Jan 21, 2012)

Here are all the rated cameras that were compared with the N1 in the review:

Sony NEX-C3: 74%
Sony NEX-5N: 79%
Panasonic GF3: 71%
Panasonic G3: 75%
Olympus PEN E-PM1: 71%
Olympus PEN E-PL3: 72%

vs

Nikon J1: 67%
Nikon V1: 69%

Is dpreview really saying that both N1 cameras are "worse" than all of these other cameras? So despite all the positives and capabilities that are unique to this system, the cons are so awful that it drags the rating to the bottom? I don't quite see how the reviewers came to this conclusion. A casual customer is going to look at these numbers and think that the N1 is the worst camera in its class.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
8 upvotes
panini98
By panini98 (Jan 21, 2012)

Yes, casual customers are going to think the N1's are the worst cameras in their class.

Why?

It's actually very simple. They are going to think the N1's are the worst cameras in the class because the N1's really actually truly are the worst cameras.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 21, 2012)

Value for money must be a factor as well.

9 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 21, 2012)

Price is a little high, but no doubt it will soon go down. The sensor a little bit small, a little bit noisy, somewaht lacking in resolution, so it's not a camera for poster prints. If those are not a concern to you, it's one heck of a camera, small and light, compact quality lenses, fast AF, and WOW - 60 fps! You can't find a better all purpose walkaround camera, no P&S can compare with it.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Jan 21, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
ThomasH_always
By ThomasH_always (Jan 21, 2012)

Most stunning for me the ultra fast AF (auto-focus). It really beats the D300s and D7000 with ease. I also love the 25 img/sec burst with the 5-image selection. So great to shoot group of people.

Anyways, this is a different innovative approach, and the emotional outcry of the not-knowing and would-like-to-be great photographers renders them ignorant. My first reaction was also that Nikon made a strange looking, ugly looking really, and bizarre system. But now once I saw reports from many pros what the system is about, I begun to experiment, and I think this will be my small preferred walkabout and active photography system!

The sensor is fantastic now already, and as we know, it can only become better.

5 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Jan 22, 2012)

Yes it can: the Canon G1 X.

2 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Jan 21, 2012)

Whatever. How can anyone with a serious interest in photography even look at these cameras - let alone buy them, what with these retail prices? These things belong to the category Pentax invented with the Q: MILPS. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Point and Shoots. And they're as pathetic as the Pentax too.
Nikon has some of the most respectable DSLRs ever made. Cameras like the D7000 fulfill almost all the needs of a serious photographer. But these... why did they bother?

6 upvotes
ThomasH_always
By ThomasH_always (Jan 21, 2012)

Maybe the writeup by Rob Galbraith, a professional sports photographer, will give you explanations which you seek. Prevailing opinion is that Nikon is up to something with this design. Smaller sensor leads to dramatically smaller lenses, and this is only one of the differentiators. Other photographer, Steve Huff even wrote "The camera I was expected to hate."

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 21, 2012)

Clearly you haven't tried one. Beats the PENs in high ISO, AF etc.

2 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Jan 21, 2012)

I used to have a point and shoot - a Canon A3150 - and upgraded to the Olympus E-P1. I'm not going back to point and shoots. That's why I haven't tried any of these. They're expensive gadgets, not serious cameras.
What AnHund says about these toys beating the PENs at high ISO is not true: just check the studio scene comparison and you'll see such assertion is far from real (I did - it is). You'll care to notice that the term of comparison employed by DPR is the Olympus XZ-1, which is a point and shot, not a PEN. Anyway, who cares about high ISO? Whatever the camera, the further I go is 400 anyway. I can't be bothered with childish ISO wars, one-zillion FPS, dual AF systems that revert to the worst mode at low light and all that. Some days ago I've held the J1 in my hand. It feels like a point and shoot, it operates (lenses aside) like a point and shoot: it IS a point and shoot. I don't have the time to go through hellish menus to set manual controls. Real cameras don't do that.

5 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (Jan 21, 2012)

Except, Thomas_h, the lenses really aren't very small. In fact, compared to the lenses for the larger sensor m43 system, they're pretty darn big. Nikon missed the boat if small lenses was the goal.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Jan 22, 2012)

I would also agree about the high iso compared to the Pen. Compare the Raw files, the Pens have more detail in them at 1600 and a bit more visible noise which can be removed in Lightroom no problem and that is without detail loss. Trouble is with the Nikon Raw files you can't put the detail back in the photos that it is lacking. Even down to 200 iso the Pen Raw files show a lot more fine detail.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Jan 23, 2012)

"How can anyone with a serious interest in photography even look at these cameras"

A good photographer would have her eyes open, not closed.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 23, 2012)

"AnHund
Clearly you haven't tried one. Beats the PENs in high ISO, AF etc."

It does not beat the latest PENS with 16mpg sensor in HIGH ISO. Furthermore the Pens/Panasonic can be equipped with fast glass primes, F1.4 Leica and F1.7 Pancake. The NIkon 1 only has F2.8 right now. So the same picture can be shot at a much lower ISO on the PEN's to begin with do to the fast glass

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 442
123