V3 vs V1

Started Apr 17, 2014 | Discussions thread
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 8,886
Re: Scott I own a Nikon DSLR but the Nikon 1 does not seduce me

antoineb wrote:


you made the statement that the Nikon 1 system would seem like the natural mirrorless system to go for, if coming from the Nikon world.

Well, here's my example. Nikon D7000 DSLR, 85mm f1.4 and a couple other lesser lenses. A DSLR is nice but frankly, I have hated to need to fine-tune the AF, the AF on non-moving targets is solid but not as solid as that on my iPhone or my compact cameras, the live-view AF is horribly slow and often fails to lock, there is no video with AF nor stereo sound (and in any case it picks up AF noises which are massive). And of course it is too big and heavy to be taken everywhere.

Mount your exorbitantly expensive 85mm f1.4 on a V3 and you get a 200mm f1.4 . . . you don't think that is AWESOME?!?

You complain about the AF not working right on your D7000, but from what I remember, the D7000 was lauded as having an excellent focusing system for it's price range at the time it was introduced. I believe it had the same or a similar system to the D300, which was also considered excellent at focusing on moving subjects.

So when Nikon announced a mirrorless system, I looked. I thought they would come up with something very cool, with great ergonomics, and great photographic features, and at a competitive price. Instead they came up with heavy and ergonomically pathetic boxes with photographic features hidden in menus, at a very high an uncompetitive price - and they said that because of the fast AF and that you could recycle your Nikon glass on them, this was alright. But no, it was not alright at all.

Actually . . . since it was brand new and offered amazing things to photographers . . . stuff that could never be done before . . . at any price . . . you are wrong. It might not have suited what YOU wanted . . . but lots of sports photographers and others know what the V1 is capable of . . . and they love it.

So now a couple years later Nikon seem to finally have come up with ergonomics that are pretty good - why it took them so many product iterations, totally beats me, it's like they let someone with no knowledge of photography, design these boxes.

I'm not quite sure what ergonomics you're talking about. The original V1 - the top-of-the-line Nikon 1 system camera - has reasonably good ergonomics. It is very small, so some photographers complained that the camera needed a bigger grip . . . so Nikon made the V2 . . . and it had a higher resolution sensor too. They increased resolution by 40%! People didn't like the noise of the photos from the V2, and SOME people complained that there is no fold-out screen. Voila! The V3. The V3 is a jack-of-all trades sort of camera. It has a sensor that captures 28% more pixels than the V2, so they have progressed in resolution with it. It still shoots faster, even though it's capturing 28% more pixels per photo. It has the fold-out screen. It has an OPTIONAL grip, so it is like a chameleon. But still YOU say it's way over-priced. From what I can tell . . . there are all sorts of cameras that cost more, but offer less . . . less speed . . . less resolution . . . less versatility. I think the V3 will sell well. They DO include the FT1 adapter with it. They also include the viewfinder and the removable grip.


It seems to me you are judging the camera as too expensive and not enough, before it is even available. Maybe that is the case . . . for YOU. But for people with a $7,000 Nikon D4s it probably isn't too expensive. No doubt they will adjust the price as the camera becomes more available . . . to drive sales. They have to start somewhere, and if it sells well they will be kicking themselves that they didn't introduce it at $1,499 instead of the current price.

But they still crippled the bodies with a sensor which rates around 50 on DxO Mark when Sony-made 1" sensors are closer to 60 and above - so Nikon targets supposedly demanding photographers, but only those demanding photographers who are OK to have an inferior sensor?

Crippled? Take a look at the dynamic range comparison (based on JPEG images) in the V1 review here:


Change "Sony Alpha NEX-3" to "Nikon D800" . . . and make sure you look at the line graph too. (Yes, I know that RAW is different . . . but for a lot of people the look of the JPEG photos is about all they care about . . . believe it or not. Why? Because at 15 fps they want the photos to write to their card as quickly as possible. There are other reasons too, but in my opinion that is the biggest one.) Is the ultimate raw dynamic range better with photos from the D7000 and D7100? Sure. Of course it is. Who expects high dynamic range from a camera with a tiny sensor though? I'm sure that Nikon asked themselves what they should do, and they decided that speed was more important in a tiny sensor, since dynamic range would be a problem anyway, no matter what sensor they went with. They decided that having the ability to shoot JPEG photos at unheard-of speeds would be something people would want. For some people they were right. For others they were wrong. But now I think maybe Nikon has the most complete range of mirrorless cameras that is available . . . other than what Sony makes, and Sony hardly has any lenses yet. Nikon has a massive system of lenses available . . . even if they don't have lots of small lenses yet. At least they have the new wide-angle lens and a really kick-ass f1.2 lens available. Does the m4/3 system have more available lenses? Sure! If you're not a Nikon shooter I'd say go look long and hard at m4/3 cameras and lenses. But if you plan to get a big DSLR in the future . . . ONLY look at Nikon. That is a no-brainer . . . in my OH SO VERY humble opinion.

What about the price? Well if you are OK to have less enthusiast features and less direct buttons then yes the price is almost becoming competitive. But if you want all those features an enthusiast will demand, then you can still buy TWO Sony RX100 II, or 1.5 times any other solid camera (such as a Panasonic GX7 kit), for the money that a Nikon V3 costs.

Whether because of fire sales or for whatever other reason . . . the J1 kit with two lenses is either $229 or $299 (they have two different kits). How affordable do you want a camera to be?!?



The white V2 body is available for $750. The black body comes in various kits for more money.


Am I to understand that you want the V3 body alone, without all the extras? I'm guessing that once it has been selling for a month or two they will make that available for under $1,000. Maybe it will be $899. I hope so, because I plan to get one. I think it will be a year or so before we see it for $799.

So apparently Nikon continue to believe that their existing customers are idiots who will pay up for the honor to be able to use their lenses (for which they paid top dollar) on a mirrorless body with an inferior sensor. Nope, sorry Nikon, I hate what you're doing.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I am an idiot. If I had the money, I would buy at V2 right now, and I would have a V3 on order. I would also have a D800 and a D5300 and a slew of lenses for those two cameras . . . which I would be able to use on my V3, because it comes with the FT1 adapter.

Here is what I would want from you Nikon:

- a mirrorless body with superb ergonomics, I mean look at how you DSLR ergonomics compare with other DSLRs, and take the same spot in mirrorless. You can do it, if you let the people who know about photography at Nikon, do the design

- a solid sensor. Perhaps your historical relationship with Sony is at an all-time low, I don't know. But the fact is that they made great sensors for you in the past, actually your image processing skills typically allowed you to extract much better IQ from these sensors, than Sony cameras did! So kick the Aptina sensor out and use something that delivers better IQ. If this comes at the cost of continous shooting with AF being, say, "only" 10fps, then personally I couldn't care less.

- competitive pricing. I don't care about your costs. And I don't think you should either, at least initially. If you had priced the "1" competitively initially, maybe you would have sold it in large enough numbers to reap economies of scale and be able to make better margins on lenses and accessories. So sell me that enthusiast-friendly "1" camera for no higher than, say, a Panasonic GX7 kit - this is 800 dollars, not 1200 dollars, i.e. cut your price by one-third please. And throw-in the FT adapter for existing Nikon glass, for free.

If you do all this, I'll be running to the store to get my Nikon "1" system, and think that you are great again. As it stands, I think you are completely missing the ball, and completely not interested in what your existing Nikon DSLR owners, are thinking. But you should. In the meantime I'm not buying another camera from you ever, Nikon, and neither am I adding any accessories to my DSLR because it is an obsolete design.

Obviously you think the V3 is a good camera, or you would not say you would pay $800 for the kit they are selling right now. You just don't want to spend so much money. I understand that. You think they have priced it too high. But some people don't, that THOSE are the people who will get the V3 first. That's the way life works. When or if Nikon decides to drop the price, maybe THEN you will feel it is worth whatever price they are charging at the time. Nikon is not stupid. Their sales have been increasing . . . not decreasing. This even in a recession. You talk like you know they are hurting . . . but they are not.


 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow