One step ahead: Nikon 1 V3 Review

...

You: "nikon is a fool... whereas fuji with an apsc sized sensor had the boldness and gumption to produce a 2.8 to 4 kit zoom ??? nikon shame on you."

Sorry, I don't agree. All manufacturers see 28-80 FF equivalent lenses as "normal." I don't. If I want a larger aperture, I'll adapt an F- mount lens like my DX 17-55. Of course, that kit is no longer small, but still smaller than a DX or FX body and lens. Also, Nikon is no fool. The experience gained through the 1 system led to the excellence of the Z system. They weren't ready for larger mirrorless cameras then, but in my opinion they're doing just fine against current (2021) competition now.

...

...

You: "also if nikon could buy a clue concerning inbuilt evf in the corner position..."

I, too, thought the optional EVF might be too flimsy, but I was dead wrong. It doesn't come off easily, it can take as much of a beating as any other part of the body, it switches between live view and EVF well and has enough resolution and responsiveness.

You: "so of course nikon didnt do it"

Yup, they did!

nikon did a corner evf on a 1 1.7 sensor camera some years ago..i owned this nice camera
i call nikon cheap because of the way they populated the lens lineup for the nikon 1 system. Because of the 2.7 crop factor, nikon could have easily made a better faster kit lens for it. the lenses would have been very much smaller than apsc or ff obviously.a quality kit lens that was say 2.8 to f4 or even faster 2.5 -3.5 could have made the nikon 1 an exciting system rather than the milktoast 3.5 -5.6 with front element so tiny it makes the face of the lens a 90% sheet of plastic . the smaller lighter lenses could have offered some exciting and well priced options instead the nikon one user could buy a 32mm 1.2 for $896 usd which considering the size of the lens is an insult, its helpful to remember
that during this time you could still buy a 50mm 1.2 full frame nikon AIS lens new for about 400 usd with a lovely helicoid actions mechanism.. an affordable
af 1.2 lens was possible

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

@ 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.)

@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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

an APSC sensor needs large lenses .. .that's physics .... compare the size and weight of a V1 with 10-100 to an A6000 with 18-200mm... a compact cam is compact with its lenses not body only .... and yes a smaller sensor has many advantages over a larger one ... M43 is a very mature system .. more mature than any compact APSC system in the market today ... M43 lenses are optically better than Sony E mount lenses ... For me a FF DSLR and an M43 or N1 system make more sense than an FF DSLR and an APSC system ...

then why n1 or m43?

m43 is just superior then Nikon 1 in every way.
Sensor is twice the size and twice as good.
it has more lenses available and they are not bigger.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. :(

Sure, if you like to shoot statues.

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

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

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

BarnET:

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

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!

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.