That is your POV.
Actually, if you read what I had said previously, I meant that EM1 was catching up with DSLR performance.
The reason why Nikon charges what it does is because Nikon thinks it can get away with it. Same with MFT for GHx and EM1. Sometimes it works, Sometimes it doesn't.
Yes, let's just say that you don't miss any nice feature of the non-Nikon cameras, but every Nikon specific feature is a must for you. What is it exactly that you take photos of?
Yes, if one ignores everything that sucks and that is bad about the V3, one can be happy with the overpriced camera.
Which is even worse, considering how expensive it is.
Yes, change from "good value for money" to "bad value for money".
It's not the flagship, but it is more expensive than the EM1 and in some areas (like video) can do even less. And yet, people buy it.
Actually no. It is nowhere near "essential". In all my time in this forum I've maybe seen a dozen threads regarding video. Most people don't even bother.
So you should, maybe you'll change your mind.
Yes, but think it through as well, why hasn't Nikon improved AF of their dslrs in LV. Maybe the current mountbis part of the issue. I agree th Nikon 1 tech has a good future, but I have a hunch the low ISO DR performance, which is poor, may be related to the fast readout syste (why haven't they used 14bi output?) Or maybe not.
Who do you mean by "us"? As I see it, not many Nikonians here, including myself (yes, I'm also a long time Nikon user), share your enthusiasm for the V3.Your opinion is not shared by everyone.
No one is asking you to buy the V3. At this point, you have made your personal preferences very clear. There is really no need to go on?
Please let us foolish deluded Nikonians to carry on with our hobbies.
Sorry, Nikon still has the better value proposition. IMO, they have the better and more interesting strategic vision. Nikon has the greatest depth. And, I don't see the point of using multiple incompatible systems.
This is a very one dimensional view! First of all, 4/3 isn't a new standard, has been around for quite a while, and m43 is just an extension of the 4/3 standard, only problem is technology wasn't there to back up the idea, which has it's problems as easily seen through the 1st gen. m43 cameras.
Yes. For the EM1? They sure do.
Again, I wouldn't look forward to buy into a small system only to put big lenses. Sounds to me at that point you may as well get the body to really match that. But if you are going to go by that the Olympus can use other DSLR lenses.
No, but DXo talks about the sensor. The question then becomes how many shots you really miss because of the lack of PDAF? The EM-1 which is the camera you were comparing against does very fast single acquisition focus and that covers quite the range of situations.
Nah, I am only commenting in what I perceived where one sided comments vs the EM1. If you are going to pick on strengths do it for both systems. EM1 has 5-axis IBIS, it's weather sealed and can do cumulative live view in long exposures, for example (Not to mention much better image quality).
I already did. IT's not all that. I mean, like I said, the issue is not whether it's useful or not. The issue is I see Nikon asking a premium price for sub par IQ in the sensor vs competitors. I never said it was useless.
That's fine, I was only commenting on comparing it to the EM1. I actually value a lot of things on the V3 which is why you see me here right now. I never cared for any of the previous bodies in the Nikon 1 system.
How is 5-axis exactly old tech or the cumulative live view old tech? Or PDAF in a m4/3rds sensor old tech? Or simply best in class at the top of the tech curve sensor tech?
And you know this how? The CDAF it has is faster than the Canon semi pro DSLR's anyway.
I never suggested that 5axis IBIS is the end all be all. Like all things it has its use and many non uses. My point was about technology.
Yet the sensor wasn't all that efficient and it certainly isn't now. At least for IQ.
Nikon doesn't know what to do with the Nikon 1 system so I can't understand how you call that a strategy- they pretty much admitted to it when they said in an interview they had to rethink what they were going to do with it.
How exactly did they leave behind Pany and Sony?
Same with a lot of the other technologies, as seen with the Sony BSI 1'' sensor.
That's entirely another point. If your point is market share that's another matter. It bought you were talking about tech.
How you saying having a D5200 answers the point brought up? It has nothing to do with it.
All this processing is coming to everyone. It's easy to see.
Like Nikon 1 and the DSLR lenses? I say this because Olympus can use use the 4/3rd lenses.
That is a different point.
What does that have to do with sticking to facts and trying to analyze rational arguments about the Nikon 1 system? Keep in mind the comparison that was made.
I am not sure how you can quite say this considering the amount of lenses available for m4/3rds. What lenses are available for the Nikon 1? Is there a macro lens yet? I am talking about native because m4/3rds can also use other lenses.
The EM1 is a camera first. I don't think a flag ship camera requires good video (but it's nice). Certainly the Panasonic GHx line is made for video in mind too.
Differences of opinion are fine, but what they were pointing out to you was false facts and some shaky logic in there. And that's fine, it's part of a discussion.
You bring a different point. It would be good if you learn to separate the points. Certainly Olympus financial position (the camera division, the medical division is doing fine) is not as healthy as it could be. But if you ask me, the Nikon 1 system is not there yet until Nikon makes up their mind- as evidenced by what they said on interviews about re-thinking how to approach it.
That's fine and it's a valid statement. But you said that the EM-1 was "catching up" and it was validly pointed out to you several statements that severely question your conclusion.
You can do that with both systems. Both the strengths and the weaknesses have to be compared.
It sure pretends that with the price
You will note several people find it overpriced.Certainly just like yours isn't shared by everyone either. That's why we must look at the claims. If you ask me you have proved very little- saying the EM1 must play catch up then you completely ignore unique advances it has.
Well, keep in mind you were comparing the V3 to the E-m1. That's different from just picking up the V3 and using it/talking about it.No one is asking you to buy the V3. At this point, you have made your personal preferences very clear. There is really no need to go on?
Please let us foolish deluded Nikonians to carry on with our hobbies.
Totally agree. I value size/stealth and controls. To me virtually all Nikon 1 bodies before the V3 were pretty bad (the V2 weren't exactly bad but the build of those buttons, ay). I definitively value the e-shutter.
I see it as having a lot of potential for street life.
V1 and D7000 are pretty incompatible. One can use adapters for all systems.
More than what? Do you really think the V3 is cheap? With that crappy kit lens?
