V3 vs V1

Started Apr 17, 2014 | Discussions thread
antoineb Veteran Member • Posts: 6,631
(1) way too expensive, (2) poor sensor

The Smoking Camera wrote:

So with the V3 about to be released I took a quick look at specs to see if an upgrade is worthwhile. From what I can see the V3 improves the following over the V1:

18 vs 10mp.

No optical low pass filter.

Increased number of AF points.

20 vs 10fps with AF-C.

Maximum iso increased to 12,800 from 6400.

Built in wifi and remote capability.

Improved video.

PSAM mode dial.

Programmable function buttons.

Built in flash.

Vari-angle LCD screen.

These are all nice improvements but worth the $$. I don't know. And unfortunately, no indication low light performance has improved in any significant way. Time to wait for some hands-on reviews.

Hi Joe,

as a Nikon DSLR owner I have followed the "1" series closely since the first launch.

On the early models I just couldn't believe how the bodies were poorly designed and inconvenient and heavy.  Nor could I believe how high the prices were.

Now a couple years later it seems that Nikon finally let their good engineers take charge (as opposed to whoever they decided to let work on the initial designs) so we have the V3 and J4 which finally seem to have reasonable or even good ergonomics.

However we still have a few pretty serious issues:

- first, the 1" sensor space has filled up massively.  If you don't think you need interchangeable lenses and want a really pocketable package then there is the Sony RX100 which costs about the same as the lower-end Nikon model the J4 - the Sony has faster glass at the wide end but slower AF.  If you do need the interchangeable lenses you have the Samsung NX mini.

- second, the pricing remains questionable to say the least:  the base Nikon V3 kit will cost you no less than 1'200 dollars!  This compares to just over 500 dollars for a Sony RX100.  But you could also buy a very good m43 camera such as the Panasonic GX7 for less than 800 dollars ie one-third cheaper than the Nikon V3.  Or of course you could buy a solid DSLR with a decent lens for one-fourth cheaper!  Come on Nikon what are you thinking?  Price that thing at 800 dollars and include the adapter for my Nikon glass and maybe I'll buy it

- third, the Aptina sensor Nikon is using, just isn't very good.  Not that I take DxO numbers without a grain of salt or two, but come on:  (1) the 1" sensors on the Nikon "1" cameras just have never reached very impressive scores (actually the 1/1.7" sensor on their own enthusiast compact scores similarly!),  (2) these scores have not improved in the least over the years,  and (3) the same size Sony sensor in the RX100 is clearly massively better.

So yes, the "1" series offers wonderful autofocus, and solid AF in video.  At the expense of image quality even when compared to other 1" sensor cameras.  And for a huge price premium.  So the market for the "1" is:  people who mostly only shoot fast action (they will often be pros), but don't care much about the best image quality (but pros want that), and are happy to pay a large price premium.  Sounds like a very, very narrow niche to me.

 antoineb's gear list:antoineb's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus TG-610 Nikon D7000 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow