Just Posted: Nikon 1 V2 Preview Samples

At the end of the day it is all about choice and what you want in a camera. I want a viewfinder.

@TravisLind

I appreciate your comments re the RX100. I looked at possibly getting a premium compact digicam as Xmas gift for my wife. She played around with my V1 for a few minutes and decided she didn't care for it. The V1 is definitely not a camera for her.

While testing a few premium compacts I was surprised at how fast their operation was. One of these cameras would probably have served me as well as the V1 did when I was on a recent trip. Perhaps better.

What causes me to still favor the V1 overall, however, is the ability to interchange lenses, and use existing Nikon lenses via the FT1 adapter. I'm looking forward to doing some bird photography with the V1 fitted with my 70-300mm zoom or 300 f/2.8 prime lens. You cannot do that with a premium compact. I also found the V1's built-in viewfinder to come in very handy when photographing in bright sunlight.

@TrevisLind:

According to DxOMark, RX100's sensor is better in DR (and that in low-ISO settings). Noise-wise they are equal. BTW, DxO mark normalizes the results with respect to resolution.

When talking of lenses: RX100 optics have some shotcoming (mostly sharpenss, @wide-angle, closeup), an inevitable result of being a zoom packed in a small volume.

With Nikon1's lenses definitely offer more, in terms of quality and versatility. You can't do tele with RX100, and sharpeness of Nikon1 primes is clearly superior.

That means, I do not bash RX100. I just don't agree that Nikon1 system was made irrlelvant by it.

I have managed to take pictures with my V1 that are very close to those I get with my D600 - sometimes better, when using exactly the same lens ;-)!

As an E-M5 owner I have looked up the FACTS and looked at DXO Marks, it out performs the Canon 600D with ease so there are no lies there.
And the Nikon 1V sensor is MUCH MUCH smaller than a micro four thirds sensor.

@Anepo
FF sensor is 36mm across, actual APS C is 24mm (but so-called APS-C digitial cameras are always a little less, typically about 23.6mm, unless they are Canons, in which case they will be smaller), m4/3s is 17.3mm, 1" is 13.2mm.

So if 13.2mm is MUCH MUCH smaller than 17.3mm, how many MUCHs do you need to describe how much smaller m4/3s is than FF? Or can you just increase the size of the font on each of your 2 MUCHs?

@nixda: Yes, the number one selling mirrorless is Nikon J1, near or maybe even below the original cost. Japanese are bargain hunting. If that's winning the battle, they are doing it the same way as dot coms were winning the battle in the late 90s.

Nikon 1 is not only small but offers AF Tracking that's far superior to any other mirrorless on the market.
As far as winning, Nikon doesn't have to dominate EVERY format as along with Canon they pretty much own the DSLR segment. But the Nikon 1 is more popular than you think. Have a look at Amazon sales ranking and you'll see how well the Nikon 1 cameras are selling. The J1 is 11th in Compact System Cameras. Not bad for a first generation camera.

I was also surprised with Nikon 1s popularity when I travelled to Japan. It was in a lot of places. I don't have any beef with the small sensor. The strong points are great video and best autofocus in class. The bad points are the lack of good lenses and pretty bad interface...

One more thing...The Q is actually pocketable even with the prime lens. ;)

Q is a total toy. All the P&S cameras in the recent enthusiast zoom compact roundup beat it buy a mile.
For $250 you can have a new Pana G3 for example.

You might be able to get a G3 body for $250 sure. Add the slow kit lens and you're way over. Not to mention it doesn't fit in the pocket! Come on now, they aren't even in the same league size wise! How often are you going to lug that around with the kit lens? Is it always going to be with you? Doubt it.

The Q isn't the greatest camera out there IQ wise, but it's the greatest camera for me because it's always with me. This means the crappy cell phone pictures are a thing of the past.

What's the viewfinder % coverge on the Q?

Where are you finding a Pentax Q with f/1.9 lens for $250? B&H certainly doesn't have it for that price.

Gotta love London Drugs; for a grocery/drug store, they have a huge computer camera dept. It was there that I was able try E-M5, NEX-7/6, X-Pro1, XE1, etc. before any of the electronics/camera store I frequent have them (Bestbuy, Futureshop, Broadway camera, Kerrisdale camera, Lens and Shutter, etc.).

As much of a pentax fanboy as I am, you really need a reality check. The latest crop of P&S cameras will destroy the Q. Look on pentax forums and their own review of the Q. In a comparison with a m4/3 camera, the olympus destroyed it..easily resolving 2x the detail with only 2 more MP. So either the optics of the Q are really soft or the sensor is very soft or likely both. Toy. I really wanted one and have seen good images come out of it, but only when you view them at web or screen sizes. As soon as your start pixel peeping everything falls apart. They might make nice 8x10 prints, but I wouldn't shoot with any kind of camera I couldn't at least make prints 20" wide from. M4/3 will give you that kind of quality in a not much larger package. And yeah, the nikon v1 system will decimate the Q. It resolves a lot more detail. Measurbate yourself. I've seen enough to know which system offers the most "resolution." The Q is kind of cute though. Very toy camera like though.

ybizzle, I agree with you on the Q, it's damn fun camera. I own a K5 with limited primes, that's my IQ setup. My P&S is GRD4. I owned a m4/3, but I handed it down to my girlfriend since I didn't see any use for it.

The issue with m4/3 camera is that it's too big for handbag, so it so now use. I got her a cheap Q for Xmas to replace it, she loves it, has it on her all the time. The IQ beats GRD4, also very easy to take photos and it's a fun camera. Best of all, it fits into a hand bag. I want one, and a good friend of mine bought a Q after playing with my gf's one.

You have to play with one to understand why it's such a fun little cam.

I have one of the latest PnS in the market right now which is the highly regarded Panasonic Lumix LX7, better in low light, wide, definitely has a faster AF and shot to shot times.

But I still prefer my Q and 01 prime in terms of IQ. Why? To the uninitiated, it has a magnesium body, the 01 prime is a sharp lens, as sharp as any prime lens in the market (I also do own some Pentax Limited Primes which IMHO are gems) and even with the small sensor, it does not have an AA filter. Yes, it does not have an AA filter like the Pentax K5IIs and the Nikon D800e.

My Pentax Kr + Limited lenses are in my dry box which just gets used when I need the IQ, my Oly EPL1 m43 is with my mom, I just let my sis use my LX7 and my Q is almost always with me.

Nice to finally see some responses that actually "get it". ;)

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/43rumors/nik-epma.jpg

If Nikon made a body with the same proportions as the smaller of the M4/3rds in regards to the lens mount you would truly have something. A pocketable EVIL camera. What they have is something larger than M4/3rds bodies and that makes little sense unless your target market is soccer moms and that's what they have done thus far. They have gone consumer beginner mass market instead of a real cool niche. Why? Market share. Can they reduce the body by 30%? Yes. It would truly be a cool nich market product with the right lenses. Is there a market for a premium pocket EVIL cam? Yes but it's small. I hope they do an with lenses that are moderately fast and high quality. Will they? Methinks nay. I give it a 10% chance. The smallest of the M4/3rds is grabbing that market. Make a micro version of this system and the photo world would applaud. Again this is not a serious camera system yet but maybe in 4 years and hopefully much much smaller and not $1,000.

Mike is talking about CX cameras with 1" sensors. Neither Olympus or Panasonic produce any cameras with this format. And I totally agree about the V1. I also picked one up on sale last week and it's an extremely fast camera that's a pleasure to use. When I get around to adding the Nikon 18.5 1.8 it will be even better.

mike kobal:

Sony did NOT make the V1's sensor, and likely did not make the V2's either.

They just released an 18.5 1.8, the classical 50 1.8 in 35mm terms, and the sample images I've seen are excellent. Apparently they have several other fast primes in development that they filed patents for a while ago.

You mean the classical 50 f/4.9. It's hard enough getting DoF control on m4/3 with it's bigger sensor and Nikon uses a much smaller 2.7x crop sensor, so f/1.8 is basically kit lens speed for DoF.

Oh Raist3d, you'd take the Nikon 1 system more seriously if you did a bit more research before posting. Take a look, for example, at the capabilities of the electronic shutter and the stills-while-videoing facilities.

@thx1138 No the 18.5 1.8 is only a "kit lens" if you insist on viewing everything in 35mm terms. The actual Nikon 1 kit lens is 10-30 3.5-5.6 which would have significantly deeper DOF. You tell me which you'd rather shoot with?

How on earth do you judge DR by looking at a few JPG samples? Please think before posting.

DR of the sensor has nothing to do whatsoever with blown highlights. It is all about the noise in the shadows.

Tonecurves and exposition can be (and indeed are) adjusted by camera manufacturers to prevent blown highlights. The only limiting factor in doing so is : shadow noise.

Decent lenses, faster auto focus, better video (except GH2/3 but they are bigger)...and the FT1 adapter with legacy lenses is unbeatable for telephoto. The camera is much smaller than it appears in photos.

Re: Shunda77
Why you ask...Simple. Great quality lenses.

7-14mm f4 -equiv 14-24
12-35mm f2.8 -equiv 24-70
35-100 f2.8 -equiv 70-200
60mm f2.8 macro -equiv 120mm 2:1 Macro
12mm f2 -equiv 24mm
14mm f2.5 pancake -equiv 28mm
17mm f1.8 -equiv 34mm
20mm f1.7 -equiv 40mm
25mm f1.4 -equiv 50mm
45mm f1.8 -equiv 90mm
75mm f1.8 -equiv 150mm
17.5mm f0.95 -equiv 35mm
25mm f.095 -equiv 50mm
and in 2013
42.5mm f1.2 -equiv 85mm f1.2!
150mm f2.8 -equiv 300mm f1.2!
a handful of surprise lenses

Any Questions?

@spike

How small?

I just looked at V1 reviews, since the V1 is cheap on Amazon. One review showed it next to one the E-PL models, and it looked to be pretty much the same size.

I shoot a GH2, and I can't see any reason to go to this system, except the telephoto that you mentioned. I use the Nikon 105 2.5 and Nikon 180 2.8 on the GH2 with nice results. A lot of legacy glass is unimpressive, but those two lenses are still as sharp as hell, even with a 2x crop factor. I'm not sure I need more than 2x.

'@Mssimo
I will fix the list for you , You remembered to double the effective focal length and forgot to double the effective aperture { regarding both DOF and total light hitting sensor}
7-14mm f4 -equiv 14-24 F8
12-35mm f2.8 -equiv 24-70 F5.6
35-100 f2.8 -equiv 70-200 F5.6
60mm f2.8 macro 120mm F5.6 1:1
12mm f2 -equiv 24mm F4
14mm f2.5 -equiv 28mm F5
17mm f1.8 -equiv 34mm F3.6
20mm f1.7 -equiv 40mm F3.4
25mm f1.4 -equiv 50mm F2.8
45mm f1.8 -equiv 90mm F3.6
75mm f1.8 -equiv 150mm F3.6
17.5mm f0.95 -equiv 35mm F1.9
25mm f.095 -equiv 50mm F1.9
42.5mm f1.2 -equiv 85mm F2.4
150mm f2.8 -equiv 300mm F5.6

Any questions,

And lest you get upset I have 2 GH3 bodies, the 12-35, 35-100 , 100-300 along with the 12mm,20mm 45mm,60mm primes. For Nikon I have the D800 aging D700 14-24,24-70,70-200 along with the new Sigma 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4 , 85mm F1.4 , 105mm macro and the 300mm F2.8 .So i have no system bias and many of the lenses you list

Well, either the original file was actually shot in RAW or it was JPEG. It's not really a problem but it would be nice to know it how the camera handles JPEGs.

If the original file is in fact a JPEG, then I guess I could say that it could handle the colours better.

If the original file is RAW, why not upload it?

That's all. I'm just interested.

BBking83:

In this case, "RAW conversions" means the photos were shot as raws and converted to jpegs.

"If the original file is RAW, why not upload it?" Because generally DPReview doesn't put raws up for download until Adobe Camera Raw will extract that particular raw file format.

However Imaging Resource usually posts raws from new cameras before DPReview.

"As well as 25 JPEG images we've also included four Raw conversions"

Yes. We never present processed JPEGs as samples. Only straight-from-camera JPEGs and JPEGs converted from Raw files.