Mirrorless Nikon 1 Debuts

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,644
Location
Boston
The 1/16000 shutter speed seems a bit silly for (as of now) slow kit lenses. I wish I had more than 1/4000 on my E-P2 though:smile: . Also welcome: Alloy body, and built in EVF.... but damn, talk about large DOF. Also the adapter is reported to be $200 USD, and with that crop factor- it'll turn everything into a telephoto.
I missed that shutter speed. That's pretty cool (not sure how useful, but pretty cool!)
 

starlabs

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
856
Location
Los Angeles
The high shutter speed is pretty cool, which is due to the electronic shutter, which I'm surprised nobody has mentioned. It has it's uses - bright daytime shooting without the need for a ND filter (or at least in less situations).

For enthusiasts, I'm not sure how well the Nikon CSC will turn out. We're a picky bunch!

For the masses, it will sell well. Really well.
 

Armanius

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,931
Location
Houston
Real Name
Muttley
Perhaps you're thinking of DPReview? I don't see that much of what you are claiming here on this site, and I post here with some level of frequency. Right now, there's a very positive post on a 5D from Kevin, and another on "100 things I hate about m43" -- there's a fairly balanced feel here. And a number of us frequent the two sister sites: seriouscompacts.com and talknex.com. I'm open to the system that gets me what I need -- right now, the best one is m43.
+1 (except for the best one thing ... I like them all equally!!!).
 

ZephyrZ33

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
685
Location
Southern California
This Coolpix-Pro is getting ripped apart on the internet...and by Nikon fanboys too.

We can debate for days, but we're definitely not the targeted market. There is a vast untapped segment of people out there who know nothing about M4/3 cameras or ILC's. Nikon understands this, hence all the colors, proprietary accessories etc...

How many people are going to spend 200 dollars on that F-mount adapter? Not many...but it won't stop hipster harry, or stylish susy from bragging about it when they whip out that sleek new Nikon.
 

Sammyboy

m43 Pro
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,382
Location
Steeler Country
This Coolpix-Pro is getting ripped apart on the internet...and by Nikon fanboys too.

We can debate for days, but we're definitely not the targeted market. There is a vast untapped segment of people out there who know nothing about M4/3 cameras or ILC's. Nikon understands this, hence all the colors, proprietary accessories etc...

How many people are going to spend 200 dollars on that F-mount adapter? Not many...but it won't stop hipster harry, or stylish susy from bragging about it when they whip out that sleek new Nikon.
The thing about the F-mount adapter, since there's no info on it yet, it could very well be "chipped" to allow all the features of their G series lenses. But then again if that were the case, the price would probably be $800.
I doubt this format will be around very long, much like the the film APS format. What a freakin' joke !!!!!!!!
 

Grant

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
388
Location
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada
if u buy a pink camera for st use, i will buy you a hello kitty sticker to put on it!
done and done!

;) :D
Seems I can't get over this pink thing.

Now if you think pink is only a gimmick let me point out that the pink version is going to sell for $50 more that the other versions but to sweeten the pot they will throw in a pink wrist strap and a pink piece of cloth wrapping cloth. We all know that the higher the price of a camera the better it is. You only have to look at Leica to know that is true. So with that reasoning the Pink Nikons are the flag ship of this new line and the best of the best. QED

So anti up with your green back to be the first on your block with the best of the best. Thank you Bokeaji you better get your check book out.
 
J

jyap

Guest
My thoughts

It looks from the menu system that they're really targeting non-professionals. The dials have some new features that make use of the fast processor
but do they really need to be dedicated to the physical button? The price point seems pretty high as well.

I like the Nikon build and the design of the lenses looks really nice. Looks like the lenses have a matte finish to them. A modern look overall.

I can see why they produced a camera with the sensor size that it comes with, definitely from a company perspective (so it doesn't cannibalize DSLR sales). The sensor size fits in between point and shoot and APS-C. And from a common consumer perspective they can see the lenses are smaller than other mirrorless systems (that is m4/3 and larger sensor size). So consumers can see that the the lenses look fairly proportional to the camera body size.

The thing is by choosing this sensor size, other mirrorless systems can't compete on body size and lens size. That's a big mental impression with consumers who no nothing about

The only real complaint I have is that their pancake 10mm lens is only f/2.8. Should have been a minimum f/2.0.

My guess is that if/when DSLR sales slow significantly, Nikon will put out a mirrorless model with a larger (possibly APS-C) sensor size. This "Nikon 1" CX will then become the equivalent of DX for DSLRs.

Personally, I have been waiting for this announcement for what mirrorless model to buy. And this doesn't impress me based on my needs (and if you're reading this forum you're probably not impressed either). The newer Olympus models look good but now I'm waiting to see what Fuji comes out with.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,397
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Nic
The thing about the F-mount adapter, since there's no info on it yet, it could very well be "chipped" to allow all the features of their G series lenses. But then again if that were the case, the price would probably be $800.
I doubt this format will be around very long, much like the the film APS format. What a freakin' joke !!!!!!!!
Anyone who gets this adapter had better like shooting telephoto.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Anyone who gets this adapter had better like shooting telephoto.
Agreed, wide angle will be a challenge, but your 50/1.4 now becomes a very reasonably priced 135/1.4 (in terms of exposure/shutter speed) ... not too shabby for the soccer mom, birder, or motorsports enthusiast.
 

drizek

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
492
A 50mm lens being turned into 135mm will expose huge flaws in it. The pictures just won't be very sharp at all unless you have an extremely high end lens.

On top of that, the small sensor means that high iso performance won't be very good, so that means slower shutter speeds, meaning it won't actually be good for sports.

Besides, you would get (almost) the same amount of reach with a 24MP Full Frame SLR if you just crop the 10mp in the center.

There are two reasons to use a small sensor camera:

1. Size
2. Price

That's it. For all IQ considerations, the bigger the sensor, the better the pictures.

Nikon has failed on both fronts. Their camera is neither appreciably smaller than m43 nor is it priced appropriately.
 

gcogger

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
416
Location
UK
Real Name
Graeme
The whole problem is that "46% larger surface area" math. That's because the sensor is wider. Last I checked, the lenses used on APS-C are just as round as the ones used on Four-Thirds... they are not oblong and oval. That "28% wider" difference does not affect the quality of the image within the same square area or within the same aspect ratio. Most APS-C and Full Frame shooters I know, who shoot professionally anyways, crop those extra edges off the sides of their image. So to them, shooting in a 5:4 aspect (ie, like 8x10) they only gain the "13%" advantage you speak of. Even if you don't crop though, you're not changing the IQ of each square pixel, you're only adding more on the sides. The claim by APS-C fanboys is that the larger surface area gives better image quality not that it "adds more image", which would be true.

I'm not saying 13% is not a difference (it would be silly of me to claim something doesn't exist when it's physically right there), but it's so little of a difference that differences in manufacture far outweigh that 13%. It's not enough to say that Four-Thirds is crippled over APS-C BECAUSE of the difference in sensor size. It's the difference in technology that makes the difference. The problem is that APS-C fanboys always claim APS-C to be "50% larger", not "13% taller".

PS, did you notice that the difference in height of Canon's APS-C is just as great (or close enough) to the difference between Canon and Olympus? So why do Nikon, Pentax, and Sony fanboys not bash Canon for their tiny sensors? Because they use the same APS-C name? They're different, but just as insignificantly so.
We've had this discussion before - it all depends on what you shoot...

If you want to shoot 5:4 then the Canon sensor is effectively 14% larger, or 30% larger surface area.
If you want to shoot 3:2 then the Canon sensor is effectively 28% larger, or 65% larger surface area.
The Nikon is even bigger - about 13% greater area than the Canon.

There's no conspiracy, no marketing BS and I've not seen any 'fanboys' distorting the figures. Both ways of looking at it are equally valid. What is usually quoted is somewhere between the 2, based on the diagonal measurements, and that seems pretty sensible to me.

Personally, I crop to a 3:2 ratio more than I crop to 5:4, but it all depends on what type of images I'm shooting.
 

Ned

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
5,538
Location
Alberta, Canada
We've had this discussion before - it all depends on what you shoot...

If you want to shoot 5:4 then the Canon sensor is effectively 14% larger, or 30% larger surface area.
If you want to shoot 3:2 then the Canon sensor is effectively 28% larger, or 65% larger surface area.
The Nikon is even bigger - about 13% greater area than the Canon.

There's no conspiracy, no marketing BS and I've not seen any 'fanboys' distorting the figures. Both ways of looking at it are equally valid. What is usually quoted is somewhere between the 2, based on the diagonal measurements, and that seems pretty sensible to me.

Personally, I crop to a 3:2 ratio more than I crop to 5:4, but it all depends on what type of images I'm shooting.
lol... Nevermind. You missed everything I said. Why bother responding to something you didn't even read?
 

digitalandfilm

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
1,269
I just looked at some sample shots at night (Times Square, NYC) and they are far from promising.. noisy, soft and lousy color (compared to Olympus) so I think my photo's were way better with the :43:.
 

gcogger

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
416
Location
UK
Real Name
Graeme
lol... Nevermind. You missed everything I said. Why bother responding to something you didn't even read?
No need to be patronising mate. There's nothing wrong with my ability to read, and everything you said is correct if you do the comparison at a 5:4 ratio (or, in other words, if you only care about the height of the image, not its width). If you really can't see past the 'it's only the height that matters' viewpoint, you're clearly not going to get it...
 

Ned

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
5,538
Location
Alberta, Canada
No need to be patronising mate. There's nothing wrong with my ability to read, and everything you said is correct if you do the comparison at a 5:4 ratio (or, in other words, if you only care about the height of the image, not its width). If you really can't see past the 'it's only the height that matters' viewpoint, you're clearly not going to get it...
You missed the whole point that pixel density is what makes the difference to image quality, NOT JUST surface area. That pixel density is not affected the same when aspect ratios are different, which your measurements of surface area does not account for. Instead of trying to argue the point so vehemently just take a breath, stand back, and look at it from a logical standpoint instead of trying to crunch the numbers. That's all I'm asking.

And you are the one who is being patronizing. I'm just trying to avoid senseless arguing over nothing.
 

Vivalo

Olympus loser
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
1,372
With Nikon 1 there would be too much DOF on (wide angle) portraits and diffraction comes to play even earlier than on m4/3 system. Those two things are already sometimes a bit problematic with my m4/3 gear. Nikon 1 could be quite handy for macro with plenty of DOF at wide apertures.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom