mahidoes
Senior Member
Is it needed for that small sensor?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Who need Nikon F1 When there is NEX and Micro 4/3
- Thread starter mahidoes
- Start date
mahidoes
Senior Member
If it is true i will love next generation of D3S. (If nikon found the world fast autofocus)
AF is the thing that nikon lose the battle with canon in the past. Now despite they are on par still changed people are with white glasses. They may come back if it is true..
AF is the thing that nikon lose the battle with canon in the past. Now despite they are on par still changed people are with white glasses. They may come back if it is true..
mahidoes
Senior Member
I mean this no of points?
The problem i have with uFT is the size of the lenses, it still does not make a pocketable camera, unless you restrict your lens choice, problem with small sensor cameras like the S95 if the performance in low light/ high iso.
What Nikon have done here is make a better compromise (or that would seem to be the objective) between overall size of the camera and the performance.
however the killer seems to be the price which is too high and arguably the size, which still does not match the packaging of 35mm stuff of the last generation of film cameras
But there is also something else going on here there is a new generation who are using a camera differently, the You tube generation if you will, who are making more dynamic content as well as stills, i think that is where the marketing requirement has been identified, the need supper portable camera that will record Hi IQ video in a wider range of conditions i.e. in the dark, and still be supper portable. hence the rather strange controls
What Nikon have done here is make a better compromise (or that would seem to be the objective) between overall size of the camera and the performance.
however the killer seems to be the price which is too high and arguably the size, which still does not match the packaging of 35mm stuff of the last generation of film cameras
But there is also something else going on here there is a new generation who are using a camera differently, the You tube generation if you will, who are making more dynamic content as well as stills, i think that is where the marketing requirement has been identified, the need supper portable camera that will record Hi IQ video in a wider range of conditions i.e. in the dark, and still be supper portable. hence the rather strange controls
mahidoes
Senior Member
no one could not do it with out the traditional flipping mirror. Sony did with Pelice mirror. So how nikon did and Future we can see some Full frame camera with this feature.
1) No Earth braking Miror flip sounds
2) No vibration.
1) No Earth braking Miror flip sounds
2) No vibration.
Dave Hanson
Forum Enthusiast
"Who need Nikon F1 When there is NEX and Micro 4/3?"
Because there are some people who won't buy anything unless its name starts with an "N" or a "C."
--
Member of the Colorado Olympus Group
http://www.pbase.com/skylinkdave (expired)
Because there are some people who won't buy anything unless its name starts with an "N" or a "C."
--
Member of the Colorado Olympus Group
http://www.pbase.com/skylinkdave (expired)
zato
Member
I think it's the first of a new kind of photographic tool/system. One where video and still photography are equally important. Its target audience is people who create video and images for the internet.
billzilla2000
Veteran Member
So we're moving on from the fact that you outright misquoted me and set up the strawman of me 'asserting' the NX equaled or exceeded the 16MP m43.
As for the difference, you're exaggerating. The 14MP NX isn't a full stop worse than the 16MP Panasonic. There's more clumping chroma from the G3 at 1600 RAW and while the NX does lose more detail here, it's hardly as 'significant' as you're claiming. See the second pic - If the G3 was a 'full stop' ahead, its 3200 would be on par with the NX 1600. It isn't.
Actually, you're right -- but not in the way you're probably thinking. The G3 shows more chroma noise in both of the samples here.
rocklobster
Senior Member
Robert
Crop factors have everything to do with sensor size -
An APS-C sensor is 1.5 (or thereabouts depending on manufacturer)
A M43 is 2.0
A Nikon 1 is 2.7
So if we are talking sensor size and pixel size/density then how can you not understand my calculations?
Crop factors have everything to do with sensor size -
An APS-C sensor is 1.5 (or thereabouts depending on manufacturer)
A M43 is 2.0
A Nikon 1 is 2.7
So if we are talking sensor size and pixel size/density then how can you not understand my calculations?
tex
Veteran Member
As much as anything else, this looks like a strategy to keep Nikonians in the fold. Considering Nikon's MS, that's not an irrelevant or inconsiderable task.
--
tex_andrews
"Photography is the product of complete alienation" Marcel Proust
"I would like to see photography make people despise painting until something else will make photography unbearable." Marcel Duchamp
--
tex_andrews
"Photography is the product of complete alienation" Marcel Proust
"I would like to see photography make people despise painting until something else will make photography unbearable." Marcel Duchamp
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
No, that would be a straw man on your account, as I never claimed you said that. You said the sensors were close and stated that the differences at ISO 1600 were much less obvious. Which again is not supported by the data (samples) from Dpreview, where the difference is still quite apparent, a full stop.
In the deeper shadows it is, as clearly visible in the sample I posted.
Or here:
If you don't think a full stop is significant, then we're obviously not going to agree here. The read noise from that sensor is almost record breaking, in a bad way. The main reason why DR is rather limited.
That's because those are not the deeper shadows I was talking about. Shot noise is still a major player in your example, so there it's less than a stop. Let's look at another portion where read noise is dominant:
And let's keep in mind this is even before resizing to match output.
billzilla2000
Veteran Member
But your carefully picked sample doesn't show more detail from the G3, just smeary, globby reddish chroma noise that may be darker, but no more preserving of detail, tonal range, etc. You can pick the G3, but I'll opt for the NX's fine, regular noise that may yet yield additional detail with a bit of PP.
DR tests can be fooled. If the G3 is cooking/compressing RAW a bit ala the infamous D5000 NR RAW, tests may be skewed. I know from owning two m43 12MP models, aforementioned D5000 and other APS-C cameras that the NX is not as horrible as you're trying to assert (in very matter-of-fact fashion, not as personal opinion, as you accused me of doing).
There are many other shadowy crops of the NX 1600 vs. G3 3200 comparison that favor the NX. You have not established that the G3 is a full stop better.
As you can see, even at 100% crop in high contrast shadow situations, I can get pretty decent results from my 'terrible' NX100 sensor. This PP took maybe 5 minutes - I could've done a better job, frankly.
And finally, not all deep shadow areas show the NX giving much of anything up to the G3 with both at 1600. More noise, yes - less detail? I don't think so, at least not very much.
DR tests can be fooled. If the G3 is cooking/compressing RAW a bit ala the infamous D5000 NR RAW, tests may be skewed. I know from owning two m43 12MP models, aforementioned D5000 and other APS-C cameras that the NX is not as horrible as you're trying to assert (in very matter-of-fact fashion, not as personal opinion, as you accused me of doing).
There are many other shadowy crops of the NX 1600 vs. G3 3200 comparison that favor the NX. You have not established that the G3 is a full stop better.
As you can see, even at 100% crop in high contrast shadow situations, I can get pretty decent results from my 'terrible' NX100 sensor. This PP took maybe 5 minutes - I could've done a better job, frankly.
And finally, not all deep shadow areas show the NX giving much of anything up to the G3 with both at 1600. More noise, yes - less detail? I don't think so, at least not very much.
billzilla2000
Veteran Member
There's a Leica M mount swap kit. A few lenses don't work, but most do.
Never had any complaints about NX bokeh. Even the kit lens at 5.6 does a nice job, I think.
I understand that sometimes big conversion factors look nice. But things are not that simple as many believe (or make believe).
You can't just put a 100mm in front of one of this small sensor camera and expect you just got yourself a large aperture 400mm for under €500 without losing something. If things are so simple please someone give me a 4X sensor where I can attach my 50mm f/1.4... just imagine 200mm f/1.4 for €200 - I want one!
The reality is that as I said before you are wasting a huge amount of light that lens project outside the sensor... for me there are reasonable limits. When you go from 35mm to APS, many times you are removing the not so good border quality of the lens, but 3.7 X!!, sincerely it's just too much in my opinion.
Nikon makes probably the best lens for SLR cameras, it's almost an insult to use such good glass with a tinny sensor.
About shooting speed and AF. The 1st is very limited, and I don't have the details about the 2nd. I suspect the phase detection AF will be limited to a small frame area, and that will require loads of light. I also wonder about the precision and its use with shallow DOF. I don't believe this sensor based phase AF will kill/replace SLR superiority when it comes to AF.
For me these are excellent, expensive compact cameras with interchangeable lens, that will never match the IQ of the cheapest SLR camera. The problem for Nikon is that competition have compact, similar priced or cheaper, interchangeable lens cameras that can match the IQ of almost any SLR.
I don't believe Canon is just watching the game, I wonder what they are working on....
You can't just put a 100mm in front of one of this small sensor camera and expect you just got yourself a large aperture 400mm for under €500 without losing something. If things are so simple please someone give me a 4X sensor where I can attach my 50mm f/1.4... just imagine 200mm f/1.4 for €200 - I want one!
The reality is that as I said before you are wasting a huge amount of light that lens project outside the sensor... for me there are reasonable limits. When you go from 35mm to APS, many times you are removing the not so good border quality of the lens, but 3.7 X!!, sincerely it's just too much in my opinion.
Nikon makes probably the best lens for SLR cameras, it's almost an insult to use such good glass with a tinny sensor.
About shooting speed and AF. The 1st is very limited, and I don't have the details about the 2nd. I suspect the phase detection AF will be limited to a small frame area, and that will require loads of light. I also wonder about the precision and its use with shallow DOF. I don't believe this sensor based phase AF will kill/replace SLR superiority when it comes to AF.
For me these are excellent, expensive compact cameras with interchangeable lens, that will never match the IQ of the cheapest SLR camera. The problem for Nikon is that competition have compact, similar priced or cheaper, interchangeable lens cameras that can match the IQ of almost any SLR.
I don't believe Canon is just watching the game, I wonder what they are working on....
underxposed59
Leading Member
When you need your camera and lens color to match your shoes.... the Nikon 1 wins hands down.
;-)
;-)
I'm betting on a FF mirrorless from Canon. If they'd go that route, they would eliminate all competition, and remain on top for the foreseeable future.
JulesJ
Forum Pro
Could you give me half a dozen links to evidence of this. No, wait, I'll make it easy for you. Just give me one where Nikon has been doing just this. The ball is in your court Edwaste.
jules
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
The problem with this argument is that it supposes high-end compact shooters will be willing to give up compact size AND zoom range for a benefit they may or may not really see. The "small" zooms have little range. The 10X zoom is the size of a small dog.It seems Nikon is aiming the J1, at least, at women, but I can't see the typical P&S owning woman going with something as huge as the J1 + the 10x zoom
Given how small the sensor is, the size of the lenses is mind boggling. m43 cameras are about the same size, and their lenses smaller.
Given how small the sensor is, the size of the lenses is mind boggling. m43 cameras are about the same size, and their lenses smaller.
duartix
Senior Member
I'm betting you are betting on the wrong horse. Just look at Sony: they don't have a DSLR business to protect and are putting a lot of effort into it (on APS-C) and it's backfiring on the lens side with almost every NEX owner shouting about the lack of pankakes. Do you really think Canon will try to outflank Sony going FF and biting into their own DSLR sales? Not a chance. They will go APS-C or follow Nikon.
--
Duarte Bruno
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum