I'm an amateur, seriously thinking about trading down my Nikon D5000, 3 lenses, and other gear to a smaller form-factor system. I know I will not get quite as much IQ. So, as a Nikon loyalist, I might be a prime candidate for the V-1. However, even with (I think) realistic expectations, I have been disappointed in the low-ISO IQ of this camera from the available samples. That's the deal-breaker for me--the low ISO really needs to be competitive or what's the point? I'll be watching for more info on dpreview, but not running to the store. . . .

Outside of the Nikon name, I cannot see how this camera can possibly succeed.

Compared to m34, it has worse IQ, fewer lenses and is more expensive ... but is hardly any smaller or lighter than a PM1 or GF3.

What is there to like?

I'm a Nikon DSLR shooter. These raw files don't look as good as my Canon PowerShot G11 raw files at comparable ISOs. The camera system has a great deal of flexibility with interchangeable lenses, but the price relative to the image quality compared to other cameras in this sensor class just doesn't compel me.

Even the ISO 100 image shows significantly more noise than I would expect from ISO 100 on a camera at this price point when viewed at 100% in the camera maker's own software. The ISO 6400 image actually impressed me most. It had less noise than I expected.

Get the image quality up, reduce the price by 25% and this will be a very competitive camera that spans the gap between compact P&S and full-body DLSRS cameras. Lots of travelers would find this an excellent compromise. Flexibility without the load and space consumption of a larger DSLR setup.

Well I think the stills looked fine. The back lit girl looks quite good considering the lighting. But I assume that the D-lighting is adding to the noise. But its a shot thats worked

I think if your on here, your not target market for this camera.

This camera should do things that consumers want. People with busy lives who just want a camera that works

for those whose lives consist of staring at pixels from cameras they already hate and weren't designed for them. Then stick with existing product lines.

The Nikon 1 is a science experiment gone horribly wrong.

They pumped up the read speeds on the sensor to such a high level for the video and frames per second that they sacrificed Noise at low ISO. Any high end P&S will take a better picture at low ISO than Nikon 1.

At this price point the Nikon 1 is in a different market segment than Micro Four Thirds and high end Point and Shoots.

A market segment that doesn't exist.

As someone posted below, image quality is just not there. Noise is always present at the samples. IQ is better in Canon's s95 when at ISO 80, which, by the way has almost similar focal lengths.

Perhaps in the coming months when dpreview does the full review on the v1 camera, another on the j1 camera, mini reviews on all the new lenes Nikon offers for this system, an interview with the chief Nikon v1 designer and various other Nikon v1/j1 stuff - the expensive yet slow glass, the expensive yet small sensor cameras will seem increasingly better value, beckoning a time when we all want and must have one.

The ability of one group to propagate ideas to the masses until they believe those ideas to be their own is a long proven strategy. If one doesn't like the message, don't read it, don't listen to it, don't look at it; this is an equally long proven defence of that same strategy.

OK, my verdict. The IQ is not there (not competitive with APS-C or m4/3). I'd rather invest my $$ on something else, or not at all. Granted that Nikon 1 just started, and would surely catch up in the coming years. Also, the Nikon 1 is spec'ed to have revolutionary AF and processing speeds. I would be TOTALLY shocked if Nikon wouldn't put these new technologies in their DSLRs in the future, or even for the like of P7100. If they don't, other brands would surely do so in the coming years.

Now is like the tablets era, the competition just heated up with new technologies and cheaper models rolling out constantly. Whatever system one buys will make one feel obsolete quickly with another new system/model announcement.

Yeah, some people would argue just pick one and take pictures. But for many (you know who you are), playing new gadgets is as much game as taking pictures.

It gets worst and worst...

Nikon, be humble enough to admit you made a real big BLUNDER here and do 2 things that might save your face:

1. Reduce the price by half.

2. Replace the sensor with 4/3.

People vote with their purchasing money, not with internet comments and accolades.

Come nn Nikon dont waste time on the 1 system , Canon has just released the 1D X......its your turn now......

One of the real problem of this camera is the price. Pictures are not so bad at first look, but they get very bad when you ask how much is it for this camera. $900 equipment can do much better in terms of DOF and many other espects. Nikon says they are not aiming to enthusiasts, but I'm afraid that at such price, Facebook and Youtube people will continue to shot by using their smartphone or compact, while enthusiasts will stay far away due to sensor size... I think that Nikon has just a few days left to adjust selling price or to replace that silly sensor...

summary: not as good as mFT. Not much smaller with the 10-100 as NEX.

Barely competes with the G12, S95 and Olympus XZ1.

fail

The IQ is one thing, but the video just looks worse than a 480p youtube video. What's that about ? And yes it's on 'HD' ...

Picture 28 is best example of shortcoming of this sensor.
Although almost at full zoom the background is way too sharp. Looks more like the DOF of a P&S.

About the other shots : well ... I could have taken all of them with a 300$ P&S as well. Why then pay 900$ ?

The images are not that bad when you consider the sensor size. Is this improvement in image quality due to the new Expeed 3 Processor ??

Can this processor be utilized in APS-C Body for even better ISO performance ?

The image quality of this lens fails to impress me. I know - it is a 10x zoom, but still I expected more. Even though not my camera of choice, the V1 seems capable of some nice results, however these samples make it look like a long zoom P&S.

The ISO 720 and 900 look fine. The various ISO 400-ish look great.

If I can shoot this camera to ISO 800 (and 1600 in a real pinch) I'm good. What's not to like? Continues to look promising.

Heck, I don't even like ISO 3200 on my D7000 (nor love it's ISO 1600), why would I use my V1 for that? If I need to shoot high ISO (> 1600) my D700 will do the heavy lifting. Nikon 1 continues to look like a decent camera for casual everyday carry, whereas I won't carry my D700/7000 everywhere.

Is it just me, orthe video samples at 1080 look terribly unsharp.

catastrophic image quality !

dpreview is fast turning into a Nikon v1 advertising site, the system has had so much coverage I am beginning to feel like I have experienced the disappointment of owning a V1 first hand.

Also, when are the nx200 samples/reviews going to be going up? :)

I bought my wife a E-PM1 in stead of this...

Looks pretty good, but let's remember this is a $750 lens on a $800 camera.

saying this with love and a german accent

krappy, krappy viDeo¶÷[¶]77||\\

@

Some of them look really good. The profile image of the girl for example. The homeless guy, the statue of the astronaut. Impressive. Good work. Thanks.