My post Nikon D700 life and the Nikon V1 (w/ panoramic test shots)

Like many people, I initially listened to the same bad advice from the peanut gallery about the Nikon V1 and how it was a sign of Nikon's demise... who would put a lame 1" sensor in an interchangeable lens camera when companies like Sony were starting to make compacts with APS-C sensors (and now FF sensors)? Part of me still wishes Nikon would just make a FF camera the size of a Nikon V1, but in the meantime, I'm reluctantly having to admit that I'm truly enjoying my time with my V1. The V1 is the perfect form factor for me (V2 is not my thing). I added a Contax G1 style rubber grip and a RRS L-Bracket and I now have the perfect, lightweight backup camera which I am using as my main body until Nikon makes a smaller FX camera with a low light sensor as good as my D700 or better and video.

I purchased my V1 as a backup camera when my D700 started to show signs it was in its final throes. I truly tested the limits of its weather sealing... I spent 2 deployments with it in the Arabian Gulf. It survived the fine sand from the shamals (sandstorms), it survived getting banged up during many small boat transfers to and from ships and patrol craft I led training exercises on. It even survived a rogue wave that completely drenched me on my last training exercise before I returned to the U.S. It was only after I valiantly tried to fix the top left dial detent by disassembling the camera and having to do a soldering job on some circuit board beneath the top left dial that my D700 finally died (true story). I learned my lesson about watching YouTube disassembly videos. Before it died, my D700 got me several magazine covers, the cover of a calendar which was sent to every ship in the Navy, and some other minor recognitions. I loved that thing! I could shoot stars from the weatherdecks of a rocking ship!



But with my V1, I'm finding myself enjoying several things that may prevent me from ever going back to a modern D-SLR ever again... which is why I'm waiting for a small (I mean V1 small) FX camera with a low light sensor. Here are some of the things that switching to my V1 has allowed me to do:

1. Sold various photography backpacks and my Lowepro harness system. Now all I have is a single ThinkTank Urban Disguise 30 saddlebag that carries just about all my equipment including a laptop, flash, panoramic head, 18mm f/1.8, 10-30mm and 300mm f/2.8 lens and FT-1 adapter. I could never do that with my D700 + 14-24mm lens.

2. Retired my Cokin X-Pro equipment, which I could never afford filters for anyways and when I did order an IR filter for from Adorama, they replied was sold out

3. Instead of the carbon fiber Gitzo 1158T Traveller tripod which folds down to 16 inches and weighs only 2 lbs and which I once considered small and light, I now sometimes carry a cheap Targus 42" tripod which collapses down to less than 13 inches and weighs 1 lb and I converted to use a mini ball head. Bought it at Target for less than $15 compared to the $650 spent on my Gitzo. I'm considering even further scaling down and using one of those tent pole tripods.

4. As a result of the significant loss in weight of my photography gear, it takes me less time to setup and I carry my camera more often and I am re-experiencing the same enjoyment I recall back when I was armed with my trusty Nikon FA when I began photography 16 years ago.

Anyways, here are a couple of the landscape test shots I took recently to test out if my Nikon V1 could truly be a replacement for my D700.





I can't really say that it is a 1:1 replacement due to the low light performance, but not bad! The DR on my V1 is better than I thought it would be. I like to shoot directly into the sun. Anyways, all this banter about the Df reminds me of the same thing that happened with the V1 and prevented me from initially buying it. It's the peanut gallery back in full force. And with the nature of these forums, it's easy to get confused by your own needs and what everyone else thinks they need, or what everyone thinks others need.

As for me, the Df looks like a great camera, and if it were just a little less bulky, it would've been my D700 replacement. With my V1, I'm getting into video and enjoying it, so video would've been a nice "trick" up the sleeve (you've got to have those if you're serving to a niche crowd). I'm waiting and enjoying my V1 until I see a smaller, lighter FX camera with video.

--

Beautiful photos and great post, honest and reasonable. My sole reservation: never say never ;-)

I read your post with considerable interest - you made quite an interesting journey from D700 to V1 to say the least!

I have a D700 myself (which I LOVE) but never thought that it can be replaced by a V1. I suppose it depends to a large extent on the types of photography one is involved with. What does happen is that I will now happily use my V1 in situations where I previously would've used the D700.

Where any travel is involved the V1 becomes a real star, the small size and weight makes it ideal and so easy to take along.

A lot of people would like to see a bigger sensor in it - I don't. I think the sensor size is just perfect and ensures that the whole system remains small, light, compact, and a well balanced piece of equipment to handle. I'm sure it's possible to fit a FF sensor in it, but just imagine how clumsy and out of balance it will become when fitted with FF lenses - one will soon be back to having to haul around big and heavy kit with just the body being small, which completely negates the purpose of having a small camera in the first place !

I can well imagine that as technology gets better (especially low-light performance) a V1-like system might replace my bigger equipment for just about ALL my photography requirements. THAT will be just fabulous !

Great post, one good thing about the small sensor is the lens size, it really keeps them small

--

V1, 18/1.8, 10-30, 30-110

Great post with some beautiful pics. I have one question for you.

With the evident quality of the 1" sensor, the appreciation for smaller size and lighter weight which you enthuse about, why would an FX sensor in a similar design be better than a DX (or 4/3) sensor?

It would appear to me that midway between the two would be ideal. The relatively marginal upgrade in quality of newer sensors to existing FX vs. the permanent size and weight difference of hardware seems to minimize the designs attribute of hardware minimization.

What are your thoughts?

WD said:

Great post with some beautiful pics. I have one question for you.

With the evident quality of the 1" sensor, the appreciation for smaller size and lighter weight which you enthuse about, why would an FX sensor in a similar design be better than a DX (or 4/3) sensor?

It would appear to me that midway between the two would be ideal. The relatively marginal upgrade in quality of newer sensors to existing FX vs. the permanent size and weight difference of hardware seems to minimize the designs attribute of hardware minimization.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I came from the world of APS-C, and ended up with a V1 for everyday use, and a D600 for those events that the V1 isn't perfect, like long telephoto BIF (birds in flight) photography, and wide, high resolution, shots. And low-light/high contrast shots (of the moon, and similar situations)!

But the days I drag an APS-C kit along are long gone - my wife opted for an OM-D E-M5 kit instead of her K-5 (she used to have a selection of superb lenses), although for her long focal needs she eventually got herself a K-30, with a long, light, zoom, as the Olympus offering (70-300) wasn't nearly as good as her old, cheap, DA55-300. But she got enough for the Oly lens to pay for the K-30, with a huge margin!

In addition to these, she also has an APS-C camera, the NEX-5N, with the E18-200 lens (the original version, a bit heavy, but far better than the slimmed down versions). She hardly ever use that, nowadays!

I still own two APS-C cameras, but that's mainly due to them being impossible to sell, but also keep them for sentimental reasons, as the Pentax K-x (now with a DA40) was my first DSLR! I also have the NEX-5N, but with the Zeiss 1.8/24, is a superb combo!!

I used to have over ten K Mount lenses, now I just have that DA40, plus an ancient 400/5.6.

Thanks for posting your hands on experience with the V1. I am enjoying my V1 as well.

WD said:

Great post with some beautiful pics. I have one question for you.

With the evident quality of the 1" sensor, the appreciation for smaller size and lighter weight which you enthuse about, why would an FX sensor in a similar design be better than a DX (or 4/3) sensor?

Click to expand...

The quality of the 1" sensor is certainly good. DX is also good and would be an acceptable compromise. But I just can't stop thinking that eventually FX can truly be brought back to film era compact SLR size, like the Nikon EM. While not as small as the V1, the one camera that nearly made me switch from Nikon is the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (personally, I have a "moral" objection to the 4/3rds aspect ratio and it doesn't have a Nikon mount, so that notion quickly faded). I used to be hung up on optical viewfinders, but with the V1 and V2 (the latter of which actually shows the resulting exposure which adds a legitimate advantage), I'm not so hung up by that anymore. I guess I'm waiting for Nikon to make an OM-D E-M5 size FX with an EVF. I'd be willing to go up slightly more in size for an FX after experiencing the confidence of shooting in dark conditions handheld with my D700. I'm definitely in the medium resolution, high ISO camp... 12 or 16mp is okay for me. I know the high resolution fanatics would disapprove, but color and low noise are more important to me at high ISO.

WD said:

It would appear to me that midway between the two would be ideal. The relatively marginal upgrade in quality of newer sensors to existing FX vs. the permanent size and weight difference of hardware seems to minimize the designs attribute of hardware minimization.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I agree that DX would be the best meeting point, but I would only be accepting a temporary compromise. Just like DX was a temporary solution to a technological limitation. Compact interchangeable lens cameras with FX sensors are the natural end state.

Now if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600 (my specific threshold is 1/15s f/1.8 at ISO 1600 based on light levels I typically shoot at), then the Nikon 1 system would fully meet all of my needs.

WD said:

--
Warren

Click to expand...

--

Fotogeneticist said:

Fotogeneticist said:

It would appear to me that midway between the two would be ideal. The relatively marginal upgrade in quality of newer sensors to existing FX vs. the permanent size and weight difference of hardware seems to minimize the designs attribute of hardware minimization.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I agree that DX would be the best meeting point, but I would only be accepting a temporary compromise. Just like DX was a temporary solution to a technological limitation. Compact interchangeable lens cameras with FX sensors are the natural end state.

Now if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600 (my specific threshold is 1/15s f/1.8 at ISO 1600 based on light levels I typically shoot at), then the Nikon 1 system would fully meet all of my needs.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that so many feel that FX is the natural end state. While the Sony A7 proves the ability to downsize mirrorless bodies with FX sensors, the lenses are still larger, heavier and more expensive than DX or m4/3. You state that "if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600" it would fully meet all of your needs. Personally I think DX has done that already and in mirrorless V2 style bodies would satisfy all my needs.

Till then, the V1 does a pretty good job for most of what I need as well.

Best regards,

--
Warren

WD said:

Fotogeneticist said:

WD said:

It would appear to me that midway between the two would be ideal. The relatively marginal upgrade in quality of newer sensors to existing FX vs. the permanent size and weight difference of hardware seems to minimize the designs attribute of hardware minimization.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I agree that DX would be the best meeting point, but I would only be accepting a temporary compromise. Just like DX was a temporary solution to a technological limitation. Compact interchangeable lens cameras with FX sensors are the natural end state.

Now if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600 (my specific threshold is 1/15s f/1.8 at ISO 1600 based on light levels I typically shoot at), then the Nikon 1 system would fully meet all of my needs.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that so many feel that FX is the natural end state. While the Sony A7 proves the ability to downsize mirrorless bodies with FX sensors, the lenses are still larger, heavier and more expensive than DX or m4/3. You state that "if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600" it would fully meet all of your needs. Personally I think DX has done that already and in mirrorless V2 style bodies would satisfy all my needs.

Till then, the V1 does a pretty good job for most of what I need as well.

Best regards,

--
Warren

Click to expand...

Regarding DX as a compromise, my problem with DX is that while it may have improved on the noise front, lenses (at least the ones I use) are not so much smaller or lighter to make enough of a difference for me so why not just go FX in a smaller body. The Sony A7 is actually very close to what I think I'm waiting for Nikon to make, but with a more pro build... it looks more like a toy and of course it doesn't have an F-mount for my significant investment of Nikkor glass. With the Nikon 1, there is finally a size difference but I still have a minimum noise threshold for handheld shots in low light that my time with my D700 got me used to, but I'm willing to compromise on for now because of the significant size/weight reduction and the telephoto bonus and the fact there's a small wide zoom. Aside from Nikon making more wide aperture lenses for better DOF isolation, the last critical front for me with Nikon 1 is simply low light performance to match D700 ( and I am the rare type to wait years before I jump unlike many on these forums who have to have the new thing every 2 years). So it's either Nikon 1 with low light performance to match the D700 or FX in a small, svelte pro body similar to the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (NOT the recent E-M1 where they messed up what was a perfect grip in the earlier version).

I actually started out with DX in a D100 that I owned for nearly 8 years and shot as my main body. I enjoyed shooting with it, but at some point, I grew out of it and diverged into owning a compact for street and the D100 for landscape/portrait/surfing action. From the beginning, I set my replacement plan to be that I'd only upgrade my D100 when a full frame camera with twice the resolution, at least 5 fps and significantly better low light performance came out. I saw people upgrade multiple times in that period while I still kept plugging away with my D100 and Ricoh GR-D. Finally the D700 came out and I jumped. So I am back on the fence waiting! What's most interesting is that for once, my small camera and large camera needs are at the cusp of converging into a single body (more so in the Nikon 1 series). But I am patient and will wait and explore the boundaries of what my V1 can do until then.
--

Although I am still waiting for a FX in a small body (whether OVF or EVF, doesn't matter), the Nikon V1 is closer to meeting all of my needs than anything else with an F-mount (yes, I am a Nikon loyalist ever since my first SLR, a Nikon FA). DX bodies are just not small enough for me.

Here's how I have overcome the shortcomings of the Nikon V1 in relation to my D700 to make it my main body:

- Off-Camera Flash. I avoid on-camera flash as much as possible. The closest I will do on-camera flash is with my portable ring flash... I attached a Wein optical peanut slave to my cheap e-Bay RF-602 transmitter and use a SB-N5 to trigger it. I get awesome wraparound lighting with it.

- DOF Isolation. I thought this would be a major problem, but with the 18.5mm f/1.8 and my Nikkor prime lenses from my D700 kit and generic F-mount adapter, I get adequate DOF isolation, albeit, nowhere near as much as I did with my FX or DX for that matter. But this is not a deal breaker for me. I do mostly landscapes where I actually want more DOF.

- Grip. I'm not with the seeming majority of confused consumers who say they want a small camera AND they want a big grip (personally, I think the V2 body is a step backward from the V1). I am fine with the Nikon V1 body as-is, but I added one of those FlipBac grips that resemble the old Contax G1 film camera grips does give me a more confident grasp of the camera without adding bulk. If not that, a removable, screw-in grip like the old Nikon FA would have been perfect.

- Resolution. Because I mainly shoot landscapes, I can take my time and I use a Nodal Ninja panoramic head to stitch multiple images together for photos with high MP count. Aside from my landscapes, 10MP is not much of a difference from the 12MP of my D700, so I am content. In fact, for an upcoming V3 camera, I wouldn't mind if it were no more than 12MP but with low light capabilities. I don't know if I speak for the majority of consumers, but if Nikon were to show amazing noise free images in low light with high dynamic range coming from a small body as the V1, I'd definitely be excited, regardless of the resolution count, even as low as 8-12 MP would work for me. I personally don't want large files. I'd rather have low noise sensor because I cannot recreate that in Photoshop whereas I can create multi-row, high resolution panoramas in Photoshop.

- Low Light Performance. This is the only remaining legitimate shortcoming of the Nikon V1 after the above mitigations. But the compromise is easier for me to make because my low light performance needs are mainly for landscapes nowadays. Still, the V1 does have some grain even at baseline ISO, which is more my issue. For low light at high ISO, which I mainly use for street photography nowadays, the grain is not that bad. Eventually, I also look forward to improved 1" sensors.

Fotogeneticist said:

- DOF Isolation. I thought this would be a major problem, but with the 18.5mm f/1.8 and my Nikkor prime lenses from my D700 kit and generic F-mount adapter, I get adequate DOF isolation, albeit, nowhere near as much as I did with my FX or DX for that matter. But this is not a deal breaker for me. I do mostly landscapes where I actually want more DOF.

Click to expand...

yes, some people seem to forget that more DOF can be as advantageous as less DOF, depending on situation

Fotogeneticist said:

- Resolution. Because I mainly shoot landscapes, I can take my time and I use a Nodal Ninja panoramic head to stitch multiple images together for photos with high MP count. Aside from my landscapes, 10MP is not much of a difference from the 12MP of my D700, so I am content. In fact, for an upcoming V3 camera, I wouldn't mind if it were no more than 12MP but with low light capabilities. I don't know if I speak for the majority of consumers, but if Nikon were to show amazing noise free images in low light with high dynamic range coming from a small body as the V1, I'd definitely be excited, regardless of the resolution count, even as low as 8-12 MP would work for me. I personally don't want large files. I'd rather have low noise sensor because I cannot recreate that in Photoshop whereas I can create multi-row, high resolution panoramas in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

can't agree more here

Fotogeneticist said:

Fotogeneticist said:

Fotogeneticist said:

Fotogeneticist said:

It would appear to me that midway between the two would be ideal. The relatively marginal upgrade in quality of newer sensors to existing FX vs. the permanent size and weight difference of hardware seems to minimize the designs attribute of hardware minimization.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I agree that DX would be the best meeting point, but I would only be accepting a temporary compromise. Just like DX was a temporary solution to a technological limitation. Compact interchangeable lens cameras with FX sensors are the natural end state.

Now if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600 (my specific threshold is 1/15s f/1.8 at ISO 1600 based on light levels I typically shoot at), then the Nikon 1 system would fully meet all of my needs.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that so many feel that FX is the natural end state. While the Sony A7 proves the ability to downsize mirrorless bodies with FX sensors, the lenses are still larger, heavier and more expensive than DX or m4/3. You state that "if a future 1" sensor could somehow match D700 quality up to ISO 1600" it would fully meet all of your needs. Personally I think DX has done that already and in mirrorless V2 style bodies would satisfy all my needs.

Till then, the V1 does a pretty good job for most of what I need as well.

Best regards,

--
Warren

Click to expand...

Regarding DX as a compromise, my problem with DX is that while it may have improved on the noise front, lenses (at least the ones I use) are not so much smaller or lighter to make enough of a difference for me so why not just go FX in a smaller body. The Sony A7 is actually very close to what I think I'm waiting for Nikon to make, but with a more pro build... it looks more like a toy and of course it doesn't have an F-mount for my significant investment of Nikkor glass. With the Nikon 1, there is finally a size difference but I still have a minimum noise threshold for handheld shots in low light that my time with my D700 got me used to, but I'm willing to compromise on for now because of the significant size/weight reduction and the telephoto bonus and the fact there's a small wide zoom. Aside from Nikon making more wide aperture lenses for better DOF isolation, the last critical front for me with Nikon 1 is simply low light performance to match D700 ( and I am the rare type to wait years before I jump unlike many on these forums who have to have the new thing every 2 years). So it's either Nikon 1 with low light performance to match the D700 or FX in a small, svelte pro body similar to the Olympus OM-D E-M5 (NOT the recent E-M1 where they messed up what was a perfect grip in the earlier version).

--
http://fotogeneticist.wordpress.com

Click to expand...

I agree that most Nikon DX lenses are not particularly small or light. The NIkon DX lens line-up is actually quite limited, heavy on consumer zooms and not much else. Nearly all the "good" lenses are FF/FX.

BUT, that actually could be an advantage. If Nikon became serious about upgrading V1/V2 technology into the larger sensor size, they/d be able to spend their research and design efforts producing new, fast primes and compact zooms (which are sorely lacking in their DX DSLR lineup) specifically for the mirrorless camera body which WOULD be lighter, smaller, and more compact. 16-60mm f2.5 anyone?

One factor FX has which prevents it from competing in the "small/light" arena equally with DX (or m4/3) is that the lens-to-sensor distance will be greater and lens diameter larger in order to maintain the edge & corner quality which FX users will expect and demand. FX will always be larger, heavier and more expensive....no way around it. Unless that quality is demonstrably better, total size/weight difference close enough to be a non-issue, price competitive and the NEED continues for the FX format, I think DX has the edge for future growth. (Actually, it sounds like it would tick more of your boxes than anything else. :-D)

I'd like to say that "Nikon will..." but must say, "Nikon could....".

Wishing,

--
Warren