I'm debating: Micro Four Thirds or Nikon 1 system? Locked

Started Jun 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Beach Bum Senior Member • Posts: 1,055
Wrong and misleading IMO

Aspenz wrote:

As a user of the V1, I can safely say that you're better off with a 1 system camera. I'd dissect the scenario for you (assuming your alternative is the GX1):

Image quality of the V1 is superb, I'd dare say at most 10% behind that of DSLRs. The point to remember is to shoot in RAW because V1's raw files are very tweakable and expandable. Frankly, I think the image quality of the 1 series should be better than those from the micro4/3 sans the likes of OMD5/EPL5. Its dynamic range is actually significantly better than most of the m4/3 cameras, in the case of the GX1, the V1 is 8.42 vs 7.25 on high quality DR. ISO performance is shown to be about the same for the GX1 and V1 (as again found on imaging-resource) which is alright.



You speak of the 20 f1.7, the counterpart of the V1 is the 18.5 f1.8 offering around the same field of view and depth and it's very sharp even wide open, at about slightly less than $200.

Coming off the DSLRs I'd say the 1 system has the closest match in terms of spot-on focus and blazing focus speed. It's possibly the only mirrorless system that tracks continuous motion well, here's a photo of a very fast and erratic bird that I had trouble even getting it into the viewfinder; the multi-area continuous focus managed to catch it in the fleeting moment it was on screen.

The lenses are also very light and you'd be able to carry its native lenses and then some with no problem at all.

This is by no means trying to diss the m4/3 cameras, but I just feel the need to clear any misconceptions from people that have not tried the 1 system cameras. *Btw the only reason I'm in this part of the forums is because of the 'top threads' thing cropping up, I've no intention of being an ass, in fact, I do think the m4/3 system has a lot going for it as well*

The strangest thing to me is that these comments are getting thumbs up on a micro four-thirds forum, and virtually no one is even countering it. Shame. I mean it. It really is a shame.

The truth is that micro four-thirds cameras have 1.8x the sensor area of the Nikon 1. This alone makes Nikon 1 uncompetitive. There's no way to get around the laws of physics here. Micro four-thirds cameras have just shy of a 1 stop advantage based on sensor size alone.

The second point to make is that because both Nikon and Panasonic/Olympus use Sony Exmor sensors on their system cameras, neither one should have an advantage based on sensor efficiency. But the truth is that based on dxomark scoring, it seems that Panasonic/Olympus actually have better sensors (per unit area) than Nikon in their most recent cameras, giving micro four-thirds not only the advantage of bigger sensors but better sensors. In fact, it seems Nikon has improved little since their V1/J1 cameras. To put it in perspective, the RX100 (not the mark II) actually outperforms the V2 (with the same sensor size). I can only imagine how far out of the water the mark II will blow the Nikon 1 system.

The third point, as has been mentioned by others, is that the micro four-thirds lenses vastly outclass the Nikon 1 lenses currently available. It's not even close. And based on dxomark testing of lenses, the Nikon 1 lenses currently available appear to be mediocre to poor performers.  A lot of people knock micro four-thirds lenses, but, based on objective criteria, the Nikon 1 lenses appear to not perform as well as MFT lenses.

About the only thing the Nikon 1 has any advantage in is its PDAF system. The advantage in video is strongly in favor of MFT BTW, in case anyone cares.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow