Previous page Next page

Nikon 1 V3 Review

July 2014 | By Eugene Lee

Since the original 1 V1, AF and continuous shooting speed have been a standout feature in Nikon's mirrorless offering for users who want interchangeable lens versatility in a small form factor. The 1 V3 makes a large step toward being a true enthusiast-oriented camera with the addition of features such as twin control dials, two customizable function buttons (a third if using the add-on grip) and a new 18MP 1"-type sensor with no AA filter. Add to that a high-performance hybrid contrast and phase detect AF system, a new Expeed 4A processor, and you have a very capable camera for most shooting situations.

The obvious change from last year's 1 V2 is the loss of the built-in electronic viewfinder, which is now an optional extra. Also available as add-ons are a DSLR-like grip and an adapter ring to attach any F-mount lens. This modular approach allows users to build-up or strip down the V3 to their liking - this should boost its appeal to enthusiasts (although for U.S. buyers, the only option is to buy the kit with EVF and grip). However, at the same time, the V3 still has many 'creative' modes that simulate various art filters and a 'live preview' scene control mode for beginners to blur background or stop action without having to learn aperture or shutter speed numbers.

The V1's cumbersome access to key settings annoyed many enthusiasts. While the V2 addressed some of those issues, it still felt like Nikon could do better with the V-series for serious shooters given the J- and S-series cameras were clearly aimed at people stepping up from smartphones and compacts. The question for the V3 is: Does it now provide enough direct control, customization and image quality to make advanced users give the 1-series a second look?

Nikon 1 V3 key features

  • 18.4MP 1"-type CMOS sensor, no AA filter
  • Hybrid AF with 171 contrast-detect and 105 phase-detect points
  • 20 fps with continuous AF and subject tracking
  • Raw file capture
  • 3" tilting touchscreen with 1.04M dots
  • 1080/60p video capture
  • Wi-Fi connectivity with remote control via app

The new sensor and AF system are the headline features of the V3. The V3's 18.4MP CX-format CMOS sensor is a bump up from the 14.2MP found in the V2. It also lacks an anti-aliasing (low-pass) filter that potentially gives the V3 sharper, more detailed images. Along with the sensor, the new Expeed 4A processor enables the V3 to shoot 20 fps in full-time continuous autofocus mode - even when shooting Raw files - and an astounding 60 fps in single focus mode.

Nikon's 1-series from the beginning had one of the fastest AF systems found in mirrorless cameras. The V3 is no different. It uses a hybrid system, combining 171 contrast and 105 phase detection areas. In comparison, the V2 had 135 and 73 respective areas. The phase-detect areas cover almost 100% of the frame, making the Sony a6000 with its hybrid AF system the V3's only serious competitor in this respect. With high fps and quick AF speed, the V3 has the chops for shooting fast action, whether it be sports or a spontaneous moments with kids.

The V3 can now shoot 1080/60p full-HD video with the ability to capture full resolution still images during recording. There's also a high-speed option and slow-motion capture ability at 120 fps at 720p.

And in what is becoming a standard feature on many new cameras, Wi-Fi is now built-in (no NFC). You can transfer images to your smartphone or control the camera remotely using Nikon's Wireless Mobile Utility app.

Key specs compared

Finding a direct rival to the V3 is tough. The Sony a6000 is the nearest competitor in terms of AF performance. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 and Samsung NX Mini are some interchangeable lens cameras that are physically smaller than the V3. Meanwhile the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1000 III is the benchmark 1"-type sensor camera for image quality and its built-in lens is brighter than the Nikon's kit zoom.

 
Nikon 1 V3
Sony a6000
Panasonic GM1
Sony RX100 III
Effective Pixels  • 18MP • 24 MP  • 16MP  • 21MP
ISO Range  • 160-12800

• 100-25600

 • 200-25600  • 125-12800
AF System

• Hybrid contrast and phase detect

• Hybrid contrast and phase detect

 • Contrast detect  • Contrast detect
Screen • 3"
• 1,037,000 dots
• 3"
• 921,600 dots
 • 3"
 • 1,036,800 dots
 • 3"
 • 1,228,800 dots
Sensor Size • 1"-type
• (13.2 x 8.8 mm)

• APS-C
• (23.5 x 15.6 mm)

• Four Thirds
• (17.3 x 13 mm)
• 1"-type
• (13.2 x 8.8 mm)
Built-in flash • Yes • Yes •  Yes •  Yes
Continuous drive • 20 fps continuous AF
• 60 fps single AF
• 11 fps continuous AF • 5 fps • 10 fps
Storage • microSD
• SD  • SD  • SD
Weight (inc batteries) • 381 g (0.84 lb) • 344 g (0.76 lb)  • 204 g (0.45 lb)  • 290 g (0.64 lb)
Dimensions • 111 x 65 x 33 mm
(4.37 x 2.56 x 1.3")
• 120 x 67 x 45 mm (4.72 x 2.64 x 1.77")

• 99 x 55 x 30 mm (3.88 x 2.16 x 1.2")

• 102 x 58 x 41 mm (4.02 x 2.28 x 1.61")

Wi-Fi • Built-in • Built-in • Built-in • Built-in

Optional accessories

When the grip is attached to the camera it adds a shutter button, another front command dial, and third custom function button.

The GR-N1010 grip and DF-N1000 electronic viewfinder are included in the US V3 kit. They are sold separately in the UK and Europe.

Kit options and pricing

In the US, a V3 kit with the 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm F3.5-5.6 PD-Zoom lens, DF-N1000 electronic viewfinder and the GR-N1010 grip is available for $1,199.95. The 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm F3.5-5.6 PD-Zoom and the 1 Nikkor VR 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 lenses are also available for $299.95 and $999.95 respectively. An FT-1 mount adapter is also available for $239.95.

In the UK and Europe the V3 will sell for £799.99/€949 with the 10-30mm lens only. The kit with 10-30mm lens, EVF and grip will be available for £1049.99/€1249. The FT-1 mount adapter will sell for £229.99/€279.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
59
I own it
66
I want it
20
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 624
1234
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 week ago)

Nikon has to lean from Canon, when Canon was unable to sale EOS-M, Canon just cuts the price by more than half.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Denis the Menace
By Denis the Menace (1 week ago)

Good news! Over a month from the apology and still not available. ;-)

0 upvotes
Sonyshine
By Sonyshine (2 weeks ago)

Now its listed as discontinued?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54196167

Bizarre!

1 upvote
Mike FL
By Mike FL (2 weeks ago)

So, V4 is coming.

1 upvote
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (3 weeks ago)

From the sample images with the lens as delivered, I cannot see the point in such a small sensor on a MILC apart from Nikon creaming very good gross margin from fan boys, and 'soccer moms' who would be better served by a quality compact. Oh yeah you can pay 900 dollars/euro for a fast lens.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (2 weeks ago)

Nikon 1 S1 with kit lens for $199 may not be a bad deal even I will not buy it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=910126&gclid=Cj0KEQjwvLGfBRDfkrr19KDS-7YBEiQA8CoFJw2NTh_ZOvDB21pn4Z4eStsqnA-Gommq_Dm7B4WTcDMaApJb8P8HAQ&is=REG&Q=&A=details

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (3 weeks ago)

Well CURRYS / PC World in the UK are selling off their very last EOS-M's for just £149 (about $250) brand new and boxed complete with flash and std kit zoom - I am tempted to buy another ( I already have two), until Nikon and Canon get real about Mirrorless tech both brands will suffer. Used a Fuji XT1 recently - lovely (want one pls) but expensive compared to flog off Canons and Nikons !

0 upvotes
Denis the Menace
By Denis the Menace (3 weeks ago)

Still not available at Amazon, B&H, or Adorama? Maybe more issues than just production. I bet there just aren't that many orders out there.

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (3 weeks ago)

I think your spot on - I also believe as I stated in an earlier post that the main retailers have REFUSED to stock it seeing it as another bargain bin camera in say 12-18 mths. All of which is sad because Nikon are clearly trying to crack the mirrorless market - their just not doing it correctly.

0 upvotes
Lin Evans
By Lin Evans (1 month ago)

Are you "certain" that the EVF is an "Optional" extra? B&H says it comes with??? O.K. - comes with US kit and optional for European.... Got it!

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (1 month ago)

I find the IQ acceptable in this camera. Close to base ISO and there's little to complain about and is quite comparable to other 1" sensor cameras. I'd say it's 1 to 1 1/2 stop behind 4/3 and APS-C which is what you'd expect.

But the JPEG engine does a great disservice to this camera and goes berserk at moderate to high ISO, smearing all details away with a thick layer of vaseline. You have to double check with the RAW files to see how much is lost.

Obviously, the starting retail price is unreasonable. :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (1 month ago)

One of the greatest manifestation of a superbly designed gear is the beauty of the front lens.

The 10-30mm used as marketing release image is a CAD disaster.

The epitome of design laziness.

Ask any CAD operator.

.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

Nikon wants its V3 to looks like SONY RX100-3.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (1 month ago)

I hope the back lens looks better.

1 upvote
areichow
By areichow (1 month ago)

"CAD disaster?" Any chance you'd be willing to explain?

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (1 month ago)

It'll be a bargain at 1/3 price ! Sorry but whilst the V3 is a step forward neither Nikon nor Canon (I use both brands) have got serious about mirror less (yet) my fav camera is an EOS-M (don't laugh) which must be the most underated Canon ever. Yep - V3 for £300 - bargain - start the que here - cause at £800+ Nikon aint gonna sell any….I strongly suspect that many leading retailers have REFUSED to stock it…..

4 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

You are right on "... many leading retailers have REFUSED to stock".

Just checked US most respectable leading retailers bhphotovideo.com and adorama.com, and V3 is still in Pre-order even after V3 was released to the US market 4 months ago.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
nunatak
By nunatak (1 month ago)

as B&H, Adorama, and the big box chains (Best Buy) can't seem to get enough to fill the back-orders they already have ... the issue doesn't appear to be a "REFUSAL" to stock V3's, but one of Nikon building enough to meet demand.

the budget minded chains (Walmart, Target, etc.) or smaller camera stores may no longer carry the N1 line, but they typically have trouble moving any MILCs costing more than $400~$500.

1 upvote
PorscheDoc
By PorscheDoc (3 weeks ago)

While I like the Canon EOS-M for static subjects, I found it to be useless for moving subjects. Its autofocus is SLOW, SLOW, SLOW.

2 upvotes
Sonyshine
By Sonyshine (1 month ago)

Well having seen the images being put up on here and on Flickr by the V3 users I definitely want one....at a sensible price! :))

5 upvotes
gaston la touche
By gaston la touche (1 month ago)

Photographers use the camera that suites your needs!
Do not complain that camera A can do this and B can do that use the one that
suits your purpose.Nikon 1 systems have many unique features as we all know,
it is the only camera that could shot a golfers swing at 10,15,or 20 fps
silently,the clattering SLR'S used at the Open golf sounded primitive by
comparison.Naturally if I were making a facsimile of an old master painting my choice would be a multi shot Hassleblad,great camera but not very good on the beach!

2 upvotes
paul so
By paul so (1 month ago)

not to mention it's the only camera that can shoot full resolution stills during video recording.

0 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (2 weeks ago)

Its way over priced for a 1" sensor camera.
Its a camera with relatively poor image quality which regardless of needs would be an issue.

Full resolution stills while recording is nice although the FZ1000 has 8MP stills from its 4k recordings. I think this would have been the better option. Welcome to 2014 :)

Taking its strong points it becomes a very niche product.

0 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (1 month ago)

Why Nikon moans about the company's profit drops sharply while deliberately releases a camera like the V3 that Nikon has no intention to sell a lot by putting a sky high price tag?

7 upvotes
pkosewski
By pkosewski (1 month ago)

Exactly!
Finally someone guessed... :D

1 upvote
justmeMN
By justmeMN (1 month ago)

Camera companies love the concept of high-margin, high-profit, cameras, but camera buyers have other ideas.

6 upvotes
pkosewski
By pkosewski (1 month ago)

V3 might not have been made for the customers.
We'll never know. :)

0 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (1 week ago)

@ pkosewski

You suggest a new benchmark for 'power'...

Some Nikon exec talking with his kid about Christmas... Tiny Jimmy wants a camera with buttons. The Nikon guy commissions the custom camera and it don't matter how many sell... Not as long as Jimmy has one under the tree..

Machiavellian !
You got torque if you can have a camera built and it don't matter about any customers. Only my Jimmy. (A whole lotta love and low rpm grunt.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pkosewski
By pkosewski (1 week ago)

@Tan68
You miss the point.
Nikon might have not made it for anyone to use - even the CEO's family.
V3 might have been released purely for the shareholders and current customers. It says "Stay with us. We haven't finished yet!".
It is a glimpse to a future DSLR/MILC tech. Great AF, great fps and very nice other things. Yes, the sensor lacks size and IQ, but Nikon really can't afford a new large-sensor system at the moment. But they've shown us, how good (at least) this system will perform.
Seriously, even if we'll have to wait 1 or 2 more years for a FF/APS-C V3-like camera, it will most likely be among the best in terms of AF, fps and overall performance.
But to make such camera, Nikon must survive the hard times. And to survive they must earn money and maybe even get more from the stock market.

If the V-series is just to show potential, they might not want to sell too many.

0 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (1 week ago)

oh...

that makes sense as well.

i was just trying to have a bit of fun.
(i later worried it may have sounded snarky but it was meant as fun..)

but i see your point. that would be a proof of concept. probably more likely than the important corporate man trying to impress his kids :^|

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (1 month ago)

A good camera with incompetent sensor. The minimum size of the sensor for any serious camera should be APS-C. Sorry Nikon.

3 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

The gh4 is an serious camera that has a smaller then apsc sensor.
There are more very good m43 camera's.
Image quality is better then the best selling apsc dslr bodies in dynamic range and shadow noise. High iso is about the same.

This is producing compact camera files and is not an serious try by a long shot.

4 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (1 month ago)

Smaller sensor cant be better than bigger ones. That's a physics. m43 system cant be serious. Nice thing for amateur shooting. Nothing more of that.
N1 v3 it's a nice camera for pocket tourists but now we have better solutions with much bigger sensors and in pocket size too. Who will buy this, I mean really??

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (1 month ago)

"Smaller sensor cant be better than bigger ones. That's a physics. "

If that were true then IQ would never improve. Yes given sensors that are identical in every way other than size a bigger one will be better, but each year sensors get better and new smaller sensors are very capable of beating older larger sensors. Even in the same year the quality difference is enough that a small high quality sensor can beat a larger mediocre sensor.

You don't have to take my word for it, DPR did a whole article about it http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film

6 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (1 month ago)

Because sensor is not the only thing important for IQ. But if you isolate sensor by itself smaller ones will never beat bigger ones. However Nikon 1 need bigger sensor. At least APS-C.

2 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

DuxX, as Andy points out, the word "never" is where you are wrong. My APS-C from 12 years ago is nowhere as good as the quality of my 1" sensor from 2 years ago. You're missing a key element, and that is technology improves. And the cycle of improvement has gotten so fast. With my old Nikon V1, I'm taking photos that are giving my D700 full frame camera a run for its money. Not quite the same at high ISO, but close enough to get me high quality landscape photos that I would feel comfortable printing at 13x19. See my V1 photos at https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogeneticist

6 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (1 month ago)

Very nice photos Photogeneticist, BUT... if you apply the same technology at different sensor the bigger will be better. Then we come to begin... at this price level Nikon should offer APS-C sensor.

0 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (1 month ago)

For me, a more relevant comparison is with other 1' sensors. I use a V1, a V2 and an RX100, and I feel very frustrated by the IQ difference between the Nikon cameras and the Sony, which for my use is up there with my bigger formats in usability.

These quiet, small, high-performance and versatile V cameras would become so very usable if Nikon would use the Sony 1" sensor tech.

Put it another way: give me an RX100 with all the V capabilities and an F mount adapter!

2 upvotes
marmotto
By marmotto (1 month ago)

but the choice is TODAY: to buy v3 with 1000 $ or D7100 with 850 $ ?
the technology is old the same and photos ....?

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

someone wanting a proper small mirrorless camera isn't buying either.

0 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (1 month ago)

Sony NEX is small enough with bigger and better sensor.

3 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (1 month ago)

Someone who wants a small, silent camera that takes Nikkor lenses has to buy it. And that's a lot of pros and others using the Nikon system. That's why we want a more capable sensor, and CLS flash.

0 upvotes
marmotto
By marmotto (1 month ago)

i would like to have an Nikon EOS-M3 (:-)), APS-C sensor and ADAPTER for my Nikon lenses, a little flash, no EVF ($€£....).
All at 400-500 € with a pancake lens. It's a perfect second body... for me.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
DuxX
By DuxX (1 month ago)

That's what I talking about! ;)

1 upvote
EcoPix
By EcoPix (1 month ago)

But the NEX isn't quiet, at least my 7. If you're going to use a noisy camera, you may as well use an SLR and have the operational advantage.
What Nikon need to make is a quiet camera that complements their SLRs well. The N1's are nearly there - they just need a decent sensor and full system compatibility.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Noisy camera or noisy pictures?
I will take the noisy camera any day. Besides there are silent mirrorless that beat the v3 easily too. The gx7 for instance.

0 upvotes
Blanko00
By Blanko00 (1 month ago)

Shame no one told Magnum photographer Alex Majoli, when he shot his award winning images with an Olympus compact, which he deemed 'competent'. http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844

I see so much rubbish from photographers who buy the very best gear, only to thrill web forums with another gallery of their dog sniffing flowers in the garden.

I was talking to a landscape shooter the other day who uses a hand-made large format camera, with a lens that cost about as much as my house. Is that 'competent'? Why not drag that around on vacation?

2 upvotes
Maximusa
By Maximusa (1 month ago)

I think its a nice camera if the price would come down. Its priced too high right now, and I can see a bigger market for this if it was $899. Then it would be really hard to decide between this and an RX100 iii. Because then your getting the same senor with the ability to change out lenses. In fact, I don't really see what Nikon's strategy is here. Nikon 1s have been slow sellers, and by not undercutting the price, they are risking the series to becoming more irrelevant. Paying $1,200 for a crop sensor camera doesn't really make a whole lot of sense due to all the other options out there. If it was really amazing then maybe, but based on the review, it doesn't quite seem to get there.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dismayed
By Dismayed (1 month ago)

The price point is absurd when compared to the Sony NEX or to the Samsung NX lines.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

And the lenses are mostly a good bit better than the Sony Nex lenses.

You're not the first to note the price.

The only offering from Sony, or Samsung, that approaches the frame rate of this is the A6000.

True Samsung makes some extraordinary lenses for the NX system, but the best aren't cheap and are kind of big.

4 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

The best lens made for any mirrorless is an next lens.
The fe 55mm f1.8
You can nearly get a a7 with this gem for the price of an nikon 1 with the 32mm

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

That's a nice lens. However the A6000 is an APSC body, and I was clearly referring Nex lenses for APSC bodies.

The A7 is full framed body.

I like the A7 well enough, but the Nikon 1, various, has a much much quieter shutter.

Arguably the best mirrorless lens for any system is the Leica M 50 f/2.0 APO, if you're going to use the term "best".

PanaLeica and Samsung also make extraordinary lenses for mirrorless systems.

And Fuji and Olympus both make excellent lenses for mirrorless systems.

0 upvotes
Clayton1985
By Clayton1985 (1 month ago)

The FE 55 f1.8 is for full frame and APS-C and certainly it is reasonable to compare it to the Nikon 1 32mm lens.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

Clayton:

You missed the point entirely.

The problem remains that the native Nex APSC lenses are mostly bad.

One can fit all sorts of lenses on to mirrorless bodies.

And that FE 55 is a full framed system lens.

It's not reasonable to compare it the the 32mm Nik-One lens because of the vastly different sensor sizes. Also in FF terms, the 32mm is 85mm for field of view.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

You miss the point raw.
You can mount the fe 55 on a apsc nex
And it will significantly outperform the nikon v3 with the 32mm.
Besides some old 14mp models maybe.

The lens is close to the same price as well. So why exclude it for being able to be mounted on even better camera's in the future.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

Yeah I get that point, but it's not the problematic system lenses I'm referring to.

I don't exclude, but I'd not call it a native Nex system (APSC) lens.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

not native??

Does the AF work check
Does it fit without any adapter check.
Do the corrections work check.

how on earth is it not native?!

About the problematic lenses.
I know the ones your on about.
the 16-50 and the 55-210mm

At the prices nikon is asking for the V3 the first ain't really an issue. The 16-70mm + NEX-6 is very close to the price of the V3 with the 10-30mm

The tele-zoom is a problem sony has to solve by launching a new lens. Or even better they have shares of tamron. Let them handle that one.

The primes of the E system are excellent and so are the dirt cheap sigma primes.

Like the N1 system there are still holes. A decent macro lens and a longer zoom lens should probably be an priority.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

This is boring misdirection on your part. It's not a native APSC lens.

I didn't say a thing about price.

No the fixed focal lenses for the Nex APSC system are not amazing. Even the 24mm SonyZeiss is just good.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

It fits with no adapter needed.
It has full capabilty in all regards.
It's native it just doesn't get used to it's full potential.
It doesn't need it's full potential to whipe the floor with the nikon 1 system anyway.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (1 month ago)

The FE55mm f1.8 doesn't shine as brightly on APS-C. It becomes merely an above average lens. Far from the best.

You'd expect the best characteristics of a lens to be at the center and therefore, crop factor in a camera ought to help but it doesn't here.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

Drop the boring misdirects from your mistake.

The 1 system has a smaller than full framed sensor, a point which you continue to ignore. It also has a smaller than APSC sensor.

I'd read and consider bluevellet's point too. (Though I can't confirm.)

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

I find bluevallet's point hilarious
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A5000-versus-Nikon-1-NIKKOR-18-5mm-F18-versus-Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D5300___1252_929_1020_0_1057_919

1 p-mpix less then the best lens tested on the best apsc sensor that has 4mp more.
Yeah that's just above average.

My point at the price of the V3 you should condemn it and burn it on a stake.
With the 32mm it is in the realm of the XE-2 with the 56mm F1.2 and A6000 with this FE 55mm.

And the difference is not funny at all. Its an disgrace for a brand like Nikon to offer such pathetic vallue

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

Go by lens use not testing claims.

Yet again, I've avoided the price thing. And I don't dispute the price claim.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (1 month ago)

I think BarnET misunderstood me. I said the FE 55mm F1.8 is only exceptional on FF. Get an APS-C behind it and it underperforms. Not just compared to other lenses on APS-C like here:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A5000-versus-Nikon-1-NIKKOR-18-5mm-F18-versus-Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D5300___1252_929_1020_0_1057_919

But also against lenses with sensors smaller than APS-C (40% smaller), m43 in this other case:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A5000-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75mm-F18-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___1252_929_898_909_1297_909

That you have to go even smaller than m43 so the FE 55mm on APS-C finally beats lenses on 1" sensors (and 1" sensors below standard) is not something to brag about. lol

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Thanks bluevallet for proving MY point.
check the lens metric scores.
It clearly outresolves BOTH m43 lenses.
16p-mpix vs 12 p-mpix.

You also picked the absolute best m43 lenses and still you think it's slightly above average?!

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (1 month ago)

lol

selectively picks one aspect and calls it a winner

Then complains I picked the best lenses as if the 55mm wasn't supposed to be the best while the 55mm still gets to use a bigger sensor which should be unfair.

And actually, I just reposted your page link in my previous reply when I meant to post the APS-C comparison, this one:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-35mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A5000-versus-Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D7100___1057_865_1252_929_388_865

I repeat for you to understand, the "best lens for mirrorless" is really not that special on APS-C. If you could use it on even smaller sensors, it would probably fare worse than Nikon's own prime in the Nikon 1 system.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

One step ahead?!
One lightyear behind!

3 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (1 month ago)

No real IQ advantage, no full sensor video (even though the V series already had high speed sensors from the very beginning). Admirable product releases, but not enough to make any real difference. Nikon has to leave that reality distortion field or be destroyed by the renewed aggressive innovations Sony, Panasonic and Sigma have been rolling out lately...

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Sony- RX 100 mkiii
pop-up viewfinder and innovative dozen aspherical elements in a lens. Indeed very very impressive. Also new xavc video codecs in most of their bodies. And class leading sensors.

Panasonic
4k to the masses in 2 great camera's

Canon
Dual pixel AF transforms live view autofocus.
However no mirrorless to actually use that capability.

Sigma
Best AF prime lenses the world has ever seen now they've got 2. Good luck selling your 58mm f1.4g.

Nikon.
Well they do use the best sensors they can get their hands on for their DSLRs. But nothing else really. The 35mm and 50mm f1.8g lenses are still great for beginners though

1 upvote
haiiyaa
By haiiyaa (1 month ago)

Nice to know that If i want to look bald I just have to use iso 3200. The black guy loses all his hair when choosing jpg iso 3200

1 upvote
sghound
By sghound (1 month ago)

i wonder if this is more of a failure or the DF?

5 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

Difference is, a lot of people wanted a retro, and no one I know or heard from said, "I want a Nikon mirror-less but with a small sensor."

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Did the guys that wanted retro it to be stripped of any form of video for no apparent reason?
Did they want to spent 1000 bucks for just the looks over an d610?

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

There are heat and weight reasons the Df doesn't have video.

The Df has a significantly better high ISO sensor than the D610.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

RichRMA:

True to a point, but for whatever reason Nikon decided to go with a smaller sensor, makes for lighter bodies and smaller lighter lenses.

It's not a choice that I'd have made, but it's still completely valid.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

There are heat and weight issues?!
Man that was the best laugh i had in weeks!

The Sony A7s is smaller lighter and can shoot 4K uncompressed.
ok with an external recorder but still

Better high Iso well barely at the same magnification.
And it comes at the price of less dynamic range and resolution.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

The Df's high ISO work is much better than the D610. It is not simply a detail thing, the magnification thing is a point of confusion. Resolution is not everything.

Sony is not the same company as Nikon. And Sony has much more experience in this area. As you say: External recorder.

Too bad that with fewer MPs, the Sony A7S can't match the high ISO capacity of the Df, or the color.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Don't look at both at 100%.
Look at the same magnification by using the print setting of the new comparison tool here.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d610&attr13_1=nikon_df&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.5212110623003198&y=0.740006786562606

at 3200 they are very close but i give a small edge to the DF.
They are about the same below that and the DF increases it's lead further up.

That said i don't see any use of ISO 12800 and up in stills.
6400 has been enough for me even in dim gyms.
I haven't seen people using these volcanic ISO's in astro either.

And the resolution+dynamic range at base ISO is a benefit for landscapes. The 1000 dollar off and video! helps too.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

I have my own raws from both, and I'm quite sure of what I speak.

Also ISO 3200 is not a high ISO for a full framed body in 2013 terms.

The D610 stops being useable at ISO 12800, while the Df can be easily used thru ISO 30000.

If you don't have use for these ISOs, why comment on high ISO bodies?

One uses high ISOs in doors in places like theaters, the usefulness is well established and in 5 years regularity shooting easily at ISO 50,000 will have become normal.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

here we go again.

talking about mysteriously acquired raws that you won't share nor show the source off.

Still that you seem to have acquired from every camera on the current market whether they are supported by any raw editor or not.

sorry but i have to call bullsh!t

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

There's no mystery to how I acquired the raws, I shot them. I will not share them for download, and therefore there is no source to show.

I'm almost always identify the source for downloaded raws when I'm talking about raws that I got from say Imaging Resource or Photographyblog, or here at DPR.

Yes sometimes I have raws before they are extractable with ACR or C1. As do many other people.

However the A7S raws that I shot I extracted with ACR 8.5. Also using that body with the 55 f1.8 the color isn't great.

Now the D810 raws that didn't impress me for color were indeed extracted with ACR 8.6beta. I shot those raws.

0 upvotes
sghound
By sghound (1 month ago)

this cam i makes the GH4 look like stomping value

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (1 month ago)

Third take-off of Nikon's 1 system for enthusiasts. A different approach but arguably the best quality realization so far. Object of desire. The highest priced as system also. More megapixels, but no improvement in IQ, no better UI and UX (OK, the EVF is better quality). Unnecessary new kit lens. Does it worth it? For some: yes. For others: after discount.

Who is this for?
1. Who are already owning a DSLR, and want a light travel camera, and a fast street shooting camera.
2. For those who dislike DSLRs but want to shoot running about kids, pets, and any fast action sports.
3. For those who want to step up from an enthusiast P&S camera (e.g. G15, LX7 and the like).
4. For those shooters, who prefer light gear and want to complement their present setup consisting of a GR, or a Coolpix A or a X100/S with a system camera.
5. For ultra tele enthusiasts, who want a cheaper solution.

From the above you can tell, that V3 is mainly for expert photogs, who already own other cameras.

5 upvotes
rob579
By rob579 (1 month ago)

Given the ratings and comments, I can only say please give this camera a try. With the 18.5 lens, this is a great camera that takes excellent photos imho. I got the viewfinder kit, but have no need for it so far. The attachable grip is an unnecessary accessory, it just makes the camera more bulky. This has the most intuitive menu and button layout of any camera I have ever owned, and it is just plain fun to use. Thanks dp for an excellent review, but as you can guess I would rate it a lot higher. I took this camera to 4th of july fireworks, videos of the fireworks were the best i ever made, and I did use the 18.5 lens.

1 upvote
Saldahna
By Saldahna (1 month ago)

Why don't we just look at this Camera like we do to a car? I have a SUV some others like Porsche an some Ford or wathever. To buy a camera is a very personal decision. The main thing is if you enjoy it, and that you feel comfortable with it. I like my MacBook Pro some may like Windows 8 etc.
I think this tests are just guidelines but they don't take you the decision for your personal preference. Don't forget you compose the picture, not the camera. And who is using a tripod ??? There are so many aspects. If I buy a Camera with 100 points and it does not match me, it is useless. Sometimes it is just the Name of a brand that you don't like, but that is no reason for a hick hack like in here. Some comments are just ridiculous. Dpreview is not Facebook! A bit more style would be good for this pages.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
17 upvotes
pkosewski
By pkosewski (1 month ago)

Because this is a site about photography equipment, so it's full of brand fanboys and so on.
Hence, here it's easy to say "why don't we look at cameras as we look at cars".

But if you'd go to a car site, it would be exactly the opposite.

0 upvotes
disraeli demon
By disraeli demon (1 month ago)

Saldana - the problem is, that even within that niche of compact , small sensor cameras, you have a choice of models from other manufacturers that offer better enthusiast features (standard hot shoe, built in EVF), better IQ (including other 1" sensors) and a wider selection of lenses at that price point. I've handled a V3 and it's a beautiful object, but it still seems overpriced for what it is and the results it produces. To follow your car analogy, you're right that it's no good comparing small hatchback V3 to big SUV D810, but the trouble is, there are better, cheaper hatchbacks out there....

0 upvotes
Les Kamens
By Les Kamens (1 month ago)

How come Nikon didn't release something that would be more comparable to Sony's A7s. I would be all over it.

5 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (1 month ago)

That is the D810. :)

Ok not entire comparable but a video centric camera from Nikon.

The thing is Nikon has no real experience with video like Canon, Sony and Panasonic have. So they will struggle a bit in this field.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Uhm no 4k video twice the size and triple the mp.
It's kinda comparable to the a7r as it shares it's sensor.

0 upvotes
Les Kamens
By Les Kamens (1 month ago)

I was referring the the Hi ISO, Silent shutter, and full size sensor ... unfortunately even in quiet mode DSLR's make noise
I'm an NPS member check my equipment list...it makes no sense for me to carry two systems.. not sure why Nikon didn't jump in more seriously. :(

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (1 month ago)

As I said Nikon isn't a video company for one. And two they already made their bed with the 1 series launch. They don't want their mirrorless cameras competing with their DSLR lineup in any way.

0 upvotes
Langusta
By Langusta (1 month ago)

I own it: 45
I want it: 75
I had it: 19

Where is the "I don't want it" button ???
Would seem appropriate, since for camera that's just few months old, 19 people already used "I don't want it" button in real life...

8 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (1 month ago)

Would be abused more so than the "I had it" option.

0 upvotes
lacix
By lacix (1 month ago)

No comment!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jorcar
By jorcar (1 month ago)

What a fabulous price :)
I own a Sony Nex-3N that costs 230€ so much better than this Nikon model.

3 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

Very well said, for IQ of ILC, any given Oly, Pana are better than V3/J4, and any given Sony and Fuji are much better than V3/V4.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (1 month ago)

Sure, if you like to shoot statues.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Fujifilm xe-2 and xt-1 can track movement.
Sony a6000 do it as well.
Both can actually shoot indoors.
The nikon on the other hand will start to look like a phone.

3 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (1 month ago)

The JPG rendition is awful, it is burry.

Did Nikon do that on purpose to make their mirrorless line much inferior to their entry level DSLRs?

2 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (1 month ago)

It is difficult to imagine why anyone would undertake all the effort and cost involved in developing a camera not with the intention of selling it, but just to promote an alternate product of theirs. This would only work as far as I can see with the complete absence of any competitors.

1 upvote
EcoPix
By EcoPix (1 month ago)

You're right and the only explanation is internal politics. I can imagine a keen, dedicated (if frustrated) N1 team vying with an equally keen and dedicated SLR team that's given more resources and has more depth of skill (this comes out in the jpeg engine and NR, which one would expect consistent across Nikon cameras but isn't.)
Then I can imagine a board of stodgy old diehards and finicky beancounters meddling in what engineers are trying to achieve, and bastardising the efforts.
It's only my imagination, but there are so many strange things about Nikon Corporation that one has to think there's something else going on beside rational thought and business acumen.

1 upvote
Greynerd
By Greynerd (1 month ago)

@EcoPix
An interesting point as the same sort of conservative big sensor snobbery will probably exist within many of the old school manufacturers that you often see in DPR. The new companies such as Samsung are probably at an advantage here as probably the Samsung Mini probably excites them more than their aps-c NX stuff. I really think there will be a large rationalisation coming soon in the camera world.

0 upvotes
Banhmi
By Banhmi (1 month ago)

Puked in my mouth when I saw the low light IQ at ISO 3200.

5 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

Look at RAW Sony RX100 Mk III side by side with RAW V3 at all ISOs greater than 1600.

The RAW images at the higher ISOs look nearly identical, with the V3 resolving more detail. The real problem here is the JPG engine. They need a better one. A little less aggressive NR in JPGs would be welcome. I think the problem is more in the color detail. The NR for color noise is "muddying" the colors. I could easily use this camera's RAW images.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

The v3 as mentioned a dozen times was using a 899 dollar 32mm f1.2 prime. That is more then the entire rx100 mkiii

The lens is sharper then the 24-70mm equiv. Zoom
No sh!t Sherlock.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Nung
By Nung (1 month ago)

Really? Puked? Sorry but the N1 at ISO3200 is no worst then the old D90 or the D300 which were very good cameras.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Nung the V3 is much worse.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-1-V3-versus-Pentax-Kr-versus-Nikon-D90___947_672_439

It's unfortunate that these legacy models are not in the new comparison tool.

Still it loses to an 6 year old dslr that costs from 300$
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001ET5U92/ref=sr_1_2_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1405977513&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+d90&condition=used

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nung
By Nung (1 month ago)

Well the D90 was and still is a fabulous camera and I had one. Noise-wise I had no problem with it up until ISO1600, at ISO3200 the noise is a bit pronounce. With my V1, the situation is pretty much the same. Although the D90 might be a slightly bit better but to my eyes, the difference is minimal. Also the noise can be cleaned up pretty easily and the grain looks very nice, very film like.
The V3, I don't have but have seen plenty of user examples. They probably should have kept it at 12-14mp, 16mp the most, with such a small sensor. I don't see too much improvement on noise if any at all. But definitely better detail. Again, with the lovely film like grain and the easy pp on the noise, even at ISO3200, the photos are very usable.
I never pay too much attention to DXO mark, I don't think they reflect the actual performance of the camera too well.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

It's probably an full-stop whether you forgive it for being film like.
That's something and then it has 2 stops more dynamic range while being 6 years old and a quarter of the price.

You can't use that argument to say it's not that bad when there are so many better alternatives out there.

0 upvotes
Nung
By Nung (1 month ago)

Same argument would apply to DX & FX. The main foucal point should be whether it is able to take great photos and the answer would be yes.
So many better alternatives you say? Yes and no. For action and AF, not that many, for static subjects, yes, definitely. For tele, this is it! Try find a 800mm f5.6 equivalent with VR, able to hand held and small enough to fit into a small bag!
There are issues with the N1, no one is disputing it, but judging the camera solely by the sensor size is just silly.

0 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (1 month ago)

Could people please stop calling the D300 a legacy camera? If Nikon shooters want a professional bit of kit but don't want to shoot full frame or have a cropped viewfinder, the D300S is what we have to use.
Until Nikon gets its finger out and provides us with a state-of-the art pro DX camera, the D300S is NOT a legacy camera! And for the image use sizes a pro would use DX for, the D300S provides as good an image as anything, anyway. (I use FX and CX also, and anyone who can get the same image from CX as a D300S is holding their mouth a lot differently to me!)

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

"Nikon shooters want a professional bit of kit but don't want to shoot full frame or have a cropped viewfinder, the D300S is what we have to use. "

uhm D7100 has a larger viewfinder and the same excellent AF system. The only thing lacking is some direct controls.

And for the image use sizes a pro would use DX for, the D300S provides as good an image as anything, anyway.

No not true at all.
An pro would use the D300S for extra reach. The 24mp no OLPF sensor of the D7100 gives him much greater cropping ability. It is a better tool for the job. despite the minor handling issues compared to the d300s.

That said the D300s still smokes the entire CX system without even trying.

0 upvotes
dpr4bb
By dpr4bb (1 month ago)

As far as I'm concerned, the only step forward that would have meant anything would have been a better sensor with better dynamic range and better high-ISO performance. The facts presented in this review leave no room for doubt. This sensor is no better than the V2/J3 sensor. And they are both behind Sony's 1"-inch type sensor. So DxO was right after all, and we're still stuck with visible noise in the shadows at base ISO. The V2 was fast enough already. Can we get better IQ now?

3 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

V3 has some "interesting" design over V2:

1. For V3, you can NOT use EVF and Hot-shoe at same time, but V2 can.

2. V2's battery has 40% MORE capacity than V3 - 11Wh vs 8Wh.
Why? Because Nikon adds GR-N1010 grip by shrinking V2's hand grip.

3. No ideal why use microSD card.

4. Nikon 1 is well know for weak IQ in low-light, but increased MP from 14MP to 18MP (or from V1's 10 to 18).

WHY?

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

Oh, almost forget, the GR-N1010 grip blocks the battery door.

2 upvotes
Pavlo Boiko
By Pavlo Boiko (1 month ago)

3. I don't agree that use of MicroSD in such a small camera is a con. So far I can see pros/cons like that
Pros:
1st: Obvious. The size matters when we talk about compact MILC :)
2nd: Insert it to your smartphone and instantly share the pics.
Cons:
1st: May need to buy new card, if you have already SD from previous camera.
2nd: May need an SD/MicroSD adapter for your computer (wich is almost always supplied with MicroSD cards, your phone etc)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
sghound
By sghound (1 month ago)

dat grip blocking door thing is epic fail

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

pavlo
Yes size matters. But it isn't that small. the gm-1 is smaller and has a sensor double i repeat DOUBLE the surface area. Ow that has a proper SD card.

2nd
We can do that with WIFI already. just touch it to your nfc phone and transfer. No risk losing your microscopic card with all your hard work.

1st
i already have half a dozen of SD cards. It's more money and this isn't really cheap to begin with.

2nd
That isn't a con apart from the simple fact as it is another likely thing to lose. And that means no possibilty to transfer to my laptop at all.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

@Pavlo Boiko, If a camera takes SD card, it also takes micro SDcard with adapter, but not other way around.

0 upvotes
MikeReidDesign
By MikeReidDesign (1 month ago)

Why do cameras cost so much these days? Seems like the prices keep rising every year.

1 upvote
dpmaxwell
By dpmaxwell (1 month ago)

Get offa my lawn!!!!

LOL

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (1 month ago)

Older camera models are the best value. On AmazonUSA, the best selling interchangeable lens camera right now is the old Canon Canon T3i/600D, at $549. The best selling Nikon1 is the old J1, at $259.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (1 month ago)

> Why do cameras cost so much these days?

Because it is impossible to compete in the low end. A cheaper camera would have to compete against smartphones on one side, and the $350-400 CaNikon kits.

The current high-priced gear are nothing but exploratory attempts by marketing departments to find a new high-margin niche. That is also why they fall in price so fast: attempts fail more often than not - and companies have to dispose of the stock.

1 upvote
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

It all boils down to "biggest capability, smallest size". Capability can be measured in many ways. Image quality, responsiveness, user interface, etc. Even image quality itself can be measured in different way (high ISO performance, low ISO performance, dynamic range, color). For most people, image quality is the main capability they want. Given similar pixel counts and sensor technologies, larger sensor equals better image quality. Thus, there is no way around it. The market wants a full frame camera in a compact (perhaps V3 sized) body with DSLR responsiveness. The first one to get there wins. Don't waste time on compromises. Start developing the inevitable end state.

0 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

That being said, for me, the J4 may be the way to go. IQ looks on par with the other 1" sensor (RX100) except in shadows, which is OK with care in your exposure (a basic photography skill). Most importantly, it's priced right.

0 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

Regarding to "The best selling Nikon1 is the old J1, at $259.", The J1's sensor has better IQ than V3.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (1 month ago)

"The J1's sensor has better IQ than V3." That's debatable. Higher rez vs SLIGHTLY more noise. Pick your poison, looking at the images users are posting in the V1 forum, they both are doing a fine job. As good images as posted in any other forum.

0 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (1 month ago)

76% is kind of generous after looking at the review. Nikon should be thanking DP!

11 upvotes
Thematic
By Thematic (1 month ago)

Bummer. I was interested in this camera. Seemed like fun...

But those sample photos are worse than apsc cams costing half as much.

I will rent one and try to keep an open mind.

9 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

The JPG samples have some heavy handed NR for sure, but I'm happy with how the RAW images look, especially in comparison to the other 1" sensors at high ISO. The difference between the Sony RX 100 and V3 decreases as ISO increases. Low ISO is already acceptable. It's the detail in shadows where the others have the advantage, which is only a problem if you do extensive post processing. For landscapes, I blend exposures so it wouldn't be a problem for me. I do miss the latitude I had with my D700 though, although I'm very happy with the decrease in the weight of my entire kit.

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (1 month ago)

Nikon makes great and fantastic DSLRs and scientific optical equipment.

Majority of their photographic gear are groundbreaking and leading edge.

This camera series called "1" is a shamefull product launched by a most respected brand.

For this segment of the market, Nikon has truly lost the plot.

.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (1 month ago)

Mirror is dead.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

CameraLabTester:

There are some fantastic Nikon DSLRs, some not great.

Companies like Olympus, Zeiss, and Leica make really serious microscopes.

Then there are even more extraordinary US and European microscope makers.

Much of Nikon photo gear isn't particularly ground breaking. And I like plenty of Nikon bodies, like the D800 or D4s.

Nikon tried something different than the other mirrorless system makers, and the 1 system is far from "shameful", expensive yes.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

I would take nikon's current worst dslr over any nikon 1 anytime.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET:

Different systems and one is much quieter, also the D7100's frame rate is really bad.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

7 fps ain't bad.
The buffer size is dissapointing but that's basicly it's only flaw.

Besides what's so special about quiet shutter.
It's electronic so it will create rolling shutter artifacts unless it's an CCD sensor.

And my gx7 and the Gm-1 have it as well. the former has a rather brilliant mechanical shutter that syncs to 1/320th of a second as well. the latter like the 1 series depends on the electronic one most of the time.

You can argue that Craptina did get it right. minimizing it's effects but it's still there nonetheless!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

BarnET,

Since I've not used the 1 as an action camera, I'm not in a position to judge the current Aptina sensor for that kind of shooting.

For notmoving things the Aptina sensor sure seems to work well.

I've tried not to use flashes since digital became so much better at high ISOs in 2004ish.

Anyhow focal plane shutter syncing is a pain.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

focal plane shutter syncing a pain?!
Just stay below the flash sync speed and your done.

Syncing with electronic shutters on CMOS sensors is a pain. The readout speed of 1/60th of a second mean you can't sync past that. And that is simply way too slow for low key strobist techniques. Especially since diffraction is an enemy with the small sensor.

Flash isn't just for extra light. You can fill shadows or control your light entirely.

Most of these techniques are impossible with the nikon 1 because of it's stupid limitations.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (1 month ago)

If you want to get a much overpriced camera with style, take a Leica with Panasonic interior. At least you keep something acknowledged by fashion.

This latest Nikon 1” matches their downhill stock performance. Competition from Fuji to Sony et.al. manifests the wake-up call. Written by a loyal Nikon user looking further.

6 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (1 month ago)

Nikon loyal users are very smart.

They can easily spot a rort.

.

1 upvote
Rich Rosen
By Rich Rosen (1 month ago)

Ordered the V3 in early June. I had questions about it, but liked the compactness and the US Nikon offer of including the lens adapter in the package. But then Nikon announced two things: the D810, and admitting that the V3 was delayed in production. I canceled the V3 order, and ordered the D810, which I will get tomorrow.

5 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

D810 is a real thing/value.

3 upvotes
sadatoni
By sadatoni (1 month ago)

What an ugly camera.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

Box with lens?

You do understand it take interchangeable lenses right?

2 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

Not as "ugly" as the V2. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. For me, aesthetics is a function of utility. Something becomes uglier the more "decorative" it gets, where the exaggerated curves serve no purpose. Those curvaceous lumps that some companies call cameras are an example. I prefer the utilitarian aesthetics of cameras like the Olympus OMD, old film cameras like the Nikon F3, rangefinders like the Contax G, Leicas, etc. But like you, I only represent one segment of consumers.

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (1 month ago)

What is ugly on it?

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (1 month ago)

Nikon stock has a one year return of -33%, according to Bloomberg.

Nikon badly needs to come up with a sales blockbuster. The V3 isn't it.

5 upvotes
Mike FL
By Mike FL (1 month ago)

Right, company needs "a sales blockbuster" to move up the stock.

FWIW, as today/now, Nikon's market cap is $6 Billion while Gopro is $5 Billion as Gopro is the #1 sale ranking as seen from Amazon.

0 upvotes
Saldahna
By Saldahna (1 month ago)

Microsoft is putting off 18000 employees. Apple doesn't. :-) .......please let's talk about the joy of photography in here not about the Stock market....

4 upvotes
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (1 month ago)

They're almost all Nokia employees, resulting from the purchase of the company, not existing Microsoft employees... Plus where did MS and Apple even come into this?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

justme:

It is way simplistic to think of total stock value as having much relation to products.

There's a very serious recession in much of the world, still.

Except Leica, most camera companies are suffering financially, so their stock trades lower.

Much of a stock's sale price is owed to psychology. And this flaw has only increased in the last 30 years as so many companies have dropped dividends.

0 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (1 month ago)

If using a $900 lens "helps" this camera isn't worth the purchase price. Yes, I know all the stuff about the best camera is the one with you, but it's a camera, image quality is pretty important.

5 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (1 month ago)

Then thank goodness the V series take great pictures.

11 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

jko:

The 18.5mm lens is $900?

And the $11,000 f/0.95 Noctilux is not the only Leica M lens.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

The v3 +18.5mm sure is a lot more expensive as a d5100 with the 35mm f1.8g dx.

And it will not survive any comparison

1 upvote
Nung
By Nung (1 month ago)

Not unless you compare the size!
Try mounting a 800mm equivalent on a APS-C and one on the N1. Compare the size, then try it without a tripod!

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Just use a d3300 with the 55-300mm and crop out the centre.
Same results anyway.

1 upvote
EcoPix
By EcoPix (1 month ago)

I thought so too, but was incorrect. The V cameras, with their tighter pixel density, offer slightly more detail than cropped D3200 and even D7100.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (1 month ago)

Slightly more detail that will get lost by noise reduction.
Besides that how much was that 300mm CX lens

0 upvotes
Nung
By Nung (1 month ago)

Sorry but have you really used a N1 camera or a V3 extensively? Have you seen what people could do with it?
Good lens cost money! So how much is the new 58 f1.4? How much are the carl zeiss, leica lenses? Some people think they're well worth it but others don't. Same situation here. Not saying the CX lenses are at the level, but they are damn good lenses.

2 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (1 month ago)

Thank you DPreview! I was amazed to see that the V3 has superior resolution to the Nikon D7100 in the corners of the image, especially as the center of the V3 image shows there is not as much resolving power as the D7100. It looks like the V3 lens produces better resolution in the corners than the lens that was used on the D7100, which indicates to me that it is not so much the camera's limitations as the lens limitations. I was very surprised to see how good the images from this little 18 MP camera seem to be. Now I KNOW I want a V3.

2 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

If you use your camera on the base ISO you may be forgiven for making above comment(just). But again, even good compact like Nikon P7800 will produce as good pictures for less than half price of the V3 plus 28-200mm f.2-4 lens thrown in. Lastly, if you're going to use the base ISO only any compact around 150-200$ with a huge zoom from major brands will be good enough unless one is a gear junkie.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
calking
By calking (1 month ago)

I think anyone who likes the model should be entitled to say so. May not be your cup if tea, but to tell someone else what they should buy instead is a bit arrogant.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

This is a forum for different opinions not a gagging exercise. Where do you see me saying "should" like you did. "Scotelly" makes a a bold claim by comparing two cameras. I don't use either of the cameras but it's very easy to see the difference between them using Dpreview's comparison tool. I draw a different conclusion based on resolution which Scotelly bases his/her conclusion.

2 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

Actually I've looked at images from the camera on Imaging Resource and image quality in RAW (not JPEG) seriously look great all the way up to ISO 1600. The limitations of shadow detail, however, leaves little room for post processing, so that is where the IQ difference is apparent, not in out of camera photos. That's my take on this. If you expose for the shadows and don't need to post process, out of camera photos are perfectly acceptable. This is a tool that has a good blend of acceptable image quality (minus post-processing latitude), blazing fast AF, and silent operation. So, image quality is not the reason I would not buy this camera. For me, it is the fact I already have a V1 and the things I am waiting for like CLS compatibility or standard hot shoe, bracketing, are still not there. Oh yes, and the price--it's approximately $300 more than I'd pay for with the kit lens. Actually, I wouldn't even buy the kit lens if I had a choice.

3 upvotes
Aspenz
By Aspenz (1 month ago)

As with its predecessors it's one of those cameras that really has something compelling going on despite all the negativity from the naysayers. I've used all 3 of them and will gladly get a V4 again when it comes out next time, together with the lenses there's nothing quite as fun as shooting with an N1.

Most people are quick to bash it for its IQ but then again many don't even venture out of JPEG or know how to get the best of out their bigger-sensor cameras anyway. With a consistent workflow, I've managed to get the IQ at exactly where I want it, sometimes up to ISO6400.

It's priced somewhat high per se but 1200 for the ultimate camera in a compact, complete system (18-810mm, 2kg in a small bag and that's with the 85f/1.4) seems about fair.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aspenz/

8 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (1 month ago)

I agree - it has unique features not available in any other system of its size. BUT for me (I had 2 N1 bodies for a year) it was too much of a pain in post to get images I like, so I dumped it and went back to carry DSLR everywhere (and now, APS-C sized mirrorless).

3 upvotes
moe lem
By moe lem (1 month ago)

The difference between jpeg and raw is shocking.

3 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

How do you explain the title "One step ahead" together with the overall score 76?
A: There's no other equivalent product in the market so it's ahead by default, B: The competition is so bad that anything merely average is better, C: We "like=sponsor" the the brand that anything they make we'll make sure perceived as one step ahead even to the extend we contradict ourselves.

2 upvotes
rinkos
By rinkos (1 month ago)

its ahead of its previous iteration ..thats about it :)
good effort .bad implementation ..and horrible pricing

5 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (1 month ago)

One step ahead.
Three steps back.
Six steps sideways and off a cliff.

22 upvotes
zoranT
By zoranT (1 month ago)

"We at Nikon think that our brand has such a strong standing that we can put out any product at any price and customers will buy it."

www.learning-from-leica.com

12 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

:-))

0 upvotes
marmotto
By marmotto (1 month ago)

sure

0 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (1 month ago)

NX Mini has been selling really well worldwide and doesn't have shortage problems.

V3 must have been selling AMAZINGLY well now with shortage problems.

Congrats Nikon!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (1 month ago)

That's a flawed argument. The only conclusion we can draw is that Nikon underestimated demand, while Samsung didn't. Samsung likely have produced a much larger volume than Nikon.

0 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (1 month ago)

So this camera is priced almost the same as Sony a7 with almost 8X larger sensor. Awesome.
Oh and now we have phones that can shoot 4K video (which is actually 8MP 30fps continuous shooting plus audio)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (1 month ago)

Brilliantly pointed! :)

1 upvote
SammyToronto
By SammyToronto (1 month ago)

Put the Sony RX sensor in this Nikon, take the grip and EVF off the kit (not everyone needs a grip/EVF) and bring the price down to the $700 range and it can be a contender. As it is, it's a very tough sell (unless bright light focus speed is your number one priority) with all the excellent competitors available with better image quality and at markedly lower prices.

4 upvotes
Fotogeneticist
By Fotogeneticist (1 month ago)

So in other words, put the Sony RX sensor in the J4?

2 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (1 month ago)

That's NX mini - which sells at around $300 already in some places.

2 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (1 month ago)

The V1 and J1 produce better IQ than this 1200 bucks wannabe Leica toy.

2 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (1 month ago)

That my be true, but they all suck compared to the latest generation m4/3 sensors. I think 1" is interesting, but, until they can get IQ up, I think 1" should be in the lower cost catagory. I can't imagine Nikon will move a lot of these (after the initial rush of pent up demand from existing N1 users).

4 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (1 month ago)

Actually BSI 1" sensors (RX series and NX mini) show comparable images to non-BSI m43 sensors.

3 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (1 month ago)

@ brownie314

The problem is Nikon, they don't want to make a better sensor for the N1 system.

The choose Aptina deliberately instead of choosing Sony or Toshiba.

2 upvotes
john Clinch
By john Clinch (1 month ago)

Hmmm maybe they need a sensor with onchip phase detect AF

2 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (1 month ago)

nerd2 - yes, I was refering to the Nikon 1" sensors from Aptina. I know the Sonys are better.
beavertown - I agree - Nikon may do better with the N1 system if they would just buy the 1" sensor from Sony. The problem is, they may not get the AF speed and FPS speed with the Sony sensor. But, I think the V3 is a niche product anyway. Way too expensive for what it does.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (1 month ago)

I still see a noticeable gap in IQ between the 1" and 4/3 sensors- at least as much as the gap between m4/3 and aps-c, but generally more. In the comparison tool, the Nikon and the Rx100iii both seem almost 2 stops behind a typical m4/3, say the em10 (which surprises me, since the current gen m4/3 sensors are almost 2 years old now).

Also, I agree with the earlier poster- WOW does raw make a difference on this cam.

0 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (1 month ago)

rpm40 - I thought so too, but I don't have the technical numbers handy to back up what I am seeing.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 624
1234