Post Nikon 1 sample images here

For ISO100 those pics could have been taken with a high end compact. I guess that's what you get for putting a small sensor in a camera. But then Nikon does actually call it a "small sensor" camera so we can't really complain!

Why couldn't they have used a larger sensor? The body wouldn't have had to be that much larger. i.e. imagine a mirrorless cam like this but without the viewfinder box:



oh well, will wait to see how Canon responds I guess before I decide ditch my SLR kit for smaller system.
Those two photos are firmly in compact cam territory, hack, even the s95/lx5 looks better in their OOC JPGs. Again, have to wait for raw to find out...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25457298@N04/sets/
 
Very disappointing, this system has more to do with protecting the lucrative dslr lens market share than a serious effort for a high quality comact camera. The only plus being the super fast af stystem, though this just shows just how much better the live view shutter lag could have been on the d5100, Nikon seem to have lost the plot lately.

--

 
And what does D-lighting do to the bottom end, the shadows? Effectively we might be looking at ISO 800.

Having said that, the second one looks a lot cleaner, but the colours leave a bit to be desired.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland
 
same disappointement as with the Pentax "Q"; and I am a Pentax and Nikon shooter, and I really regret...
 
Rather on the DSLR side... showing the benefits of not joining the pixel race.

Looks like decent quality pictures, I mean that's a slow lens...
 
I think these pics look great. Fantastic colors.

Everyone seems so focussed on high ISO (surely not only in the Nikon forums), but to me other things like DR and colors are more important.

IMHO a 1/1.6 and smaller sensors tend to have problems to produce sufficient DR. This 1" sensor might just be 'big' and good enough in that regard (?).
I always like innovation and this sure looks like it to me.
 
Are these shot by engadget? If so, don't bother looking at them, engadget is a cool site but they have no clue as to how to use a cell phone camera, let alone a real camera.

As for pre-production- if this camera will sell in less than a month I guess we are looking at production IQ.
 
Just look at the guy under the bridge- this is heavy D-Lighting or even PP in PS, otherwise his face would be much darker. Under these circumstances I think the photo looks ok or let's better say you can't really tell.
 
What can you tell so far?

As for the sensor- the Q has a 1/2.3" which is a lot smaller than the 1/1.7" many high end compatcs use. The new Nikon system uses one that is 2.5 times larger than 1/1.7", so that's a whole different animal than in the Q.
 
soft jpegs but tonality looks pretty good, reminds me of the way Nex images look, and there is even a little evidence of dof with the second image of the girl with paint. I think it will be an interesting new camera.
 
Skin tones are terrible.
We don't know the lighting in the second picture, plus it's ISO 800. And in the first, I don't think the sand is best light source if you want neutral colours.

I'm more concerned about the green cast on this one:



Or is my monitor off? :)

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland
 
That's the strange part. Clearly the camera has room for a large sensor. Maybe they're trying to prove a point that their small sensors can compete with the bigger ones from Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, etc.
 
Must be my monitor then.
But as I see it, this is sand and sun. May turn 'yellowish' as you write (?).

Anyway, was not joking ... and I do like the pics (not only cause I like 'Nikon').
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top