Nikon J1 real-world samples gallery

One of some concerns about this new cam is the lack of DOF. I was wondering if this cam never can take a photo with a nice bokeh?
On Nikon's site,there are some sample photos. Scroll down till you see a butterfly shot.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27504/Nikon-1-V1.html

Click on view smart photo selector sample.

This one photo clearly shows that V1/J1 can take a photo with a beautiful bokeh. I just don't know if smart photo selector will always produce a photo like that or not. Probably not. But at least,with the right lens,the right settings,it could produce a good DOF.

under dozens of flash strobe in a lab test, every big, small even tiny sensor look similar good, but use it under real world situation, poor lights, dim light moon lights, the comparison will be day and night difference

I agree with you. This camera is quite capable. If I get this cam,I will mount my 300mm f/4-AFS on this cam to see how fast AF is. On spec,it's the fastest AF in the world,much faster than D3s. If that claim is true,then Nikon just masde one special cam. I'm a bird shooter so AF speed IS the important.
My D300 performs well but faster AF will always help catch a subject.

Some image samples were not taken in an ideal light conditition. Nikon always handle noise better than other makers so I don't worry about it.

Nobody owns this camera,yet. So how can you make rude comments on this new cam without shooting with this cam? But this is not new. It's been like that at Dpreview for a long time.

Anyway,for superb AF performance alone,I thank Nikon very much. :)
I'm looking forward to test drive it soon.

Have done some comparisons of RAW files of the 'still life' studio scene from imaging resource (sorry dpreview) with the E-PM1 and the Nikon J1 noise performance is almost identical at ISO 1600 and 3200 except the shots are slightly softer from the J1. For consistency, I used DCR with the RAWDrop front end application for conversion of both formats.

So, good job Nikon except, why do your real life sample JPEGs look so bad (relative to the EPM1) at lower ISO? Lens quality?

BTW the J1 was only 1/2 to 1 stop worse than the NEX-5 at ISO 3200 - good result.

Cheers

Looking forward to HALF PRICE DISCOUNTS sooner than later...

Getting increasingly fed up with the comments whinging about sensor size and images quality. To me, I'm thinking about the possibilities offered by a very small, fast shooting camera.
Anyone old enough, or wise enough, to remember if Oscar Barnack and Leica were derided for using such 'small' film...

It seems to me that DPR is being very biased on the new Nikon 1. If you remember back when the Nex 3/5 first came out, DPR gave them very low scores (65 or 66% I believe), then after a firmware upgrade, the score went up to 70%.

Here are a few quotes from the Nex 3/5 review:

…We weren't impressed with the cameras when we first encountered them but an unexpectedly significant firmware update has dramatically improved the shooting experience for enthusiast users…Where the NEXs really impress is the PASM modes where you can take full advantage of the large, very capable sensor…

Well, the Nikon 1 does not have PASM modes or a large very capable sensor, and no firmware upgrade will ever fix that.

So if DPR uses the same logic and reviews the Nikon V1 from the same perspective as they did the Nex 3/5, then you would logically expect a score <65%.

Don’t count on it, DPR is clearly is biased and I'm betting they will give the Nikon 1 a 70% +

Cameras are available with sensors varying in size. What I don't get is why some insist that cameras with the smallest size sensors (example Pentax Q) are equal in image quality to M4/3 qnd DSLR. Who buys a camera and says "if only it had a smaller sensor I would love it!"?

This camera must have been the brainchild of a marketer or a businessman, because no engineer would produce such rubbish.

Pentax A110, interchangeable lenses, SLR, 110 cartridge loading, big flop.

Now that I have hardly examined the 28 random images of a brand new camera I have never actually used or even seen in real life I am now fully capable of making educated decision that I will share with all the world. Further more my total lack of experience in testing cameras and the limited experience I have in using my own qualifies me as fountain of information.

Here is the one iota of information I have been able to extrapolate from the nearly 300 post. No of you know anything. Since you have no practical experience with the camera you are simply guessing. Lie to yourself and the rest of us if you need to but the reality is none of have any experience with this camera.

Really nice shots for web posting. Just like my iPhone.

Everyone keeps saying "wow, those high ISO photos are excellent for a camera with a small sensor". The thing is, you can get cameras like the Nex 5N with a bigger sensor, that is cheaper and gives much better results at much higher ISO levels.
Also, everyone is talking about ISO and DOF - what about the colour? Am I the only one who thinks the colours, especially the reds (and in particular on the ketchup bottle) look really washed out? And the WB! All the shots look like they were taken through a blue filter!
On its own this might stand up, but next to m4/3 and NEX, this brings too little too late. All the magic tricks it does might be great, but unless the IQ is there it's a bit "fur coat and no knickers".

for generations IQ meant intelligence quotient, whilst the IQ of this new system looks promising I have grave reservations about the IQ of many of the Dpreview posters. It seems many haven't even bothered to go to the NIkon site and look at the MTF plots of these new lenses, some of which are stunning. Unlike Alvis 11 who seems to show an above average IQ many display the intellectual capacity of a drunken amoeba.

Ok, & the Verdict is in--It sucks. I'm not sure why these camera manufactures are making these compact interchangable lens cameras? Is it because they need a new market to fix their P&S which are becoming extinct because of Smart Phones that can take near as good of pictures as them? Or is it a genius idea that they hope that thos people will fall in love with and better P&S camera and like the advantages of interchangible lens cameras and be more likely to buy a real DSLR some day?

I welcome that Nikon has simply produced another useful tool. A nearly complete and well thought system infact. The only missing thing is a good ultra-wideangle which I am looking forward for exploring the extra DOF on offer. I think the IQ and noise are not an issue both theoretically and especially after seeing these samples. I use compacts (Panasonic and Fuji), Olympus M4/3, Nikon DX and FX cameras. I still use film. All systems have their use and I use them all. Now I am just curious to see what the V1 and its CX format allows me to do in the real world. That's all there is to it folks. Cameras systems are just tools.

Pic after vertical pic after vertical pic. Earth to DPR, we're looking at these on 16X9 monitors!

Images are horrible IMO.. I dont see at a glance any difference between a P&S. No interesting DOF or anything. Maybe it was a case of "whos behind the camera-itis.
I can post unedited images from my d700 and it will at least make you want to click on it.

Images are nothing jump up and down about. Save your energy by another camera :-)

Chinese plastic...

Whatever might be good about this camera, it has a pathetic sized sensor and costs from £829 on pre-order from Warehouse Express.

Expect to see ZERO sold!!!!!!!!!!

Nuff said (other than Nikon obviously haven't heard about this thing called the recession and takes pro and newbie camera users alike for rich mugs!)

I just don't get one thing.

All you Nikon shooters saying "great, we will get super teles FOR FREE", do you really think those lenses have 2.7x resolving power to spare?

Inquiring minds want to know.

For this camera to compete with M43, Sony, or Samsung it would need to have better images, be smaller, and/or be cheaper than these cameras. The Nikon cameras are have lower image quality, are bigger and are more expensive, which makes them a non-starter.

The only think going for this camera is that it has "Nikon" printed on the front. If Samsung had made this camera would anyone be paying attention, aside from derisive laughter?

When I look at the pictures I think the whole time that a am looking at a crop from a tele lens . It has nothing to do with sharpness of contrast but just the total impression. Even with the times square shot. Perhaps it is the wide height scale of the standing pictures.

sorry, why would I get this over a good P&S (e.g. canon s95)
its bigger, hiddeously expensive, and no DOF, so whats the point ?

I finally get it! Nikon was innovative. They have carved out a niche between point-and-shoot cameras and m4/3d's. They are not competing against anyone. It's a new camera system built around a new size sensor.
This explains why many people are confused and disappointed. It is a new category we are not familiar with. I thought they were going to one-up micro 4/3rds but they went the other direction.
It would have saved us much discussion if they just came out and said 'this is a point and shoot camera with interchangeable lenses'. Maybe then we would have been blown away.
Maybe next year they will come out with a new sensor that will be somewhere between APS-C and Full Frame. That way I can get one step closer to full frame (I have money but not that kind of money). Let's see the progression: we have CX = 1" sensor, DX = APS-C sensor, FX=Full Frame Sensor. So the sensor between the DX and FX must be called the EX. Cant' wait!
Hope we can all get some sleep now.

I'm not as impressed by either the Pentax-Q or this Camera in their attempt to make a mini DSLR that can shoot as good as “A” DSLR. They chose one of the ugliest places to shoot and it's really hard to tell what this camera is really capable of, but, under similar light and gloom—it’s not anywhere near most APC-S sensor DSLR in terms of image quality. I’ve seen some really good samples of the Pentax-Q that would challenge this camera on IQ, but we really need a side-by-side comparison test to crown a champ. In briefly reading up on these two cameras that Nikon and Pentax make considering the build quality, design, features, I tip my hat to the Q over the J1, but I’m not surprised because Pentax spent a considerable amount of money and time building there Q.

It looks like this is the best consumer camera on the market.

This camera instantly made the Sony & u43 systems into useless junk.

u43 and Sony NEX sucks because the sensor is too big and uncompetitive against Nikon's DX system.

Nikon copying Pentax?
Nikons developers are not well payed to be more creative.
Next innovation from Nikon could be a 645DX :P

I really have no issue with the size of the sensor. However, this market segment is about making different compromises to get the right balance of size, image quality and price.

Image quality aside, the sacrifice that Nikon made in the area of sensor size here doesn't seem to translate to significant gains in the other aspects such as a smaller size or lower price (than competing NEX or m43 cameras). This makes one wonder, why bother with such a considerably smaller sensor then?

Nothing prevents Nikon from using a larger sensor in later "mirrorless" models, but only the current 35mm lenses (or new lenses designed for a large mirrorless camera) would work. How do current lenses work with this camera anyhow - is there a huge muliplier / crop factor?

MMM...ediocre.