Author Topic: 'Nikon Mirrorless Not As "Bad" As Originally Thought' (Read 1758 times)

RT_Panther · « **on:** September 30, 2011, 09:15:14 AM »

Imagine what Nikon could have done with a larger sensor.
That being said, some of the technologies in the V1 are quite extra-ordinary.

http://www.43rumors.com/nikon-sensors-as-good-as-micro-four-thirds/
http://www.mu-43.com/f66/nikon-j1-gets-dxomarked-compared-micro-4-3-cameras-16873/

voyager · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2011, 10:29:51 AM »

I didn't quite understand why people were bagging on the sensor so much before it even had a chance to be tested. I must also say that I am still quite impressed with the size of the J1.

tamoio · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2011, 11:23:56 AM »

Without even looking, let me guess. . .DXomark right?

I'm pretty sure I know what those guys are smoking.

lisandra · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2011, 01:16:40 PM »

Quote from: voyager on September 30, 2011, 10:29:51 AM

I didn't quite understand why people were bagging on the sensor so much before it even had a chance to be tested. I must also say that I am still quite impressed with the size of the J1.

dude, the epm! its smaller has a bigger sensor better noise control, unbeatable with a pancake zoom and its cheaper!!!

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2011, 01:18:57 PM »

Well, time will tell.
Remember though, the smaller sensor will be noisier at comparable ISO's to the G3, or E-P3.
But, an impressive 11 EV range is good. Maybe m4/3 should have closer to a 12 EV range. But, in my opinion, I can't "SEE" the difference in a 1EV or so change in Dynamic Range anyway.

voyager · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2011, 01:46:36 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on September 30, 2011, 01:16:40 PM

Quote from: voyager on September 30, 2011, 10:29:51 AM
I didn't quite understand why people were bagging on the sensor so much before it even had a chance to be tested. I must also say that I am still quite impressed with the size of the J1.
dude, the epm! its smaller has a bigger sensor better noise control, unbeatable with a pancake zoom and its cheaper!!!

Are you sure the E-PM1 is smaller than the J1?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2011, 02:22:39 PM »

Quote from: voyager on September 30, 2011, 01:46:36 PM

Quote from: lisandra on September 30, 2011, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: voyager on September 30, 2011, 10:29:51 AM
I didn't quite understand why people were bagging on the sensor so much before it even had a chance to be tested. I must also say that I am still quite impressed with the size of the J1.
dude, the epm! its smaller has a bigger sensor better noise control, unbeatable with a pancake zoom and its cheaper!!!

Are you sure the E-PM1 is smaller than the J1?

YES!

count_zero · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:14:06 PM »

According to DxOMark Nikon 1 has better noise control at high ISO with 'smoothing' enabled. I always thought DxO only compared sensors RAW setting.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:32:48 PM »

Quote from: count_zero on September 30, 2011, 03:14:06 PM

According to DxOMark Nikon 1 has better noise control at high ISO with 'smoothing' enabled. I always thought DxO only compared sensors RAW setting.

I want to see a 100% crop or better, in a review with the G3 and E-P3.
I'd almost bet the "Smoothing" will give a more plastic look than the G3 or E-P3, less noise, but at what expense?...
P/Ser's are used to this kind "Noise" look already.
So, many who buy this as a camera as an "Upgrade", won't care much. But, shooters like us, who are used to "Much Better" Noise Control. Will demand more, if we are to buy into it.
But, I can proved wrong, Time will tell. $:-\$

RT_Panther · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2011, 05:00:49 PM »

From what I can gather from the Nikon forums I belong to, there are a few who are waiting to see what "Version 2" will bring...

i.e. the D3100/D5100 much better than the D3000/D5000....P7100 is what the P7000 should have been....

lisandra · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2011, 11:28:09 PM »

Quote from: voyager on September 30, 2011, 01:46:36 PM

Quote from: lisandra on September 30, 2011, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: voyager on September 30, 2011, 10:29:51 AM
I didn't quite understand why people were bagging on the sensor so much before it even had a chance to be tested. I must also say that I am still quite impressed with the size of the J1.
dude, the epm! its smaller has a bigger sensor better noise control, unbeatable with a pancake zoom and its cheaper!!!

Are you sure the E-PM1 is smaller than the J1?

yes

lisandra · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2011, 11:34:06 PM »

Proof:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-j1-vs-v1-vs-olympus-pen-mini-e-pm1-comparison-17471

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-j1-vs-v1-vs-olympus-pen-mini-e-pm1-comparison-17471

Scroll to the bottom and look at them. Despite the specs saying otherwise, its obviously thinner, its as tall (taller on the hotshoe by like 1mm.) And they're equaly long.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2011, 05:25:42 AM »

Fixed the links L.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2011, 09:45:06 AM »

i wish the sensor nikon created was bigger if it 30% smaller than m 43 instead of less than half the area , iso perf would have been better, i really need useable iso 2000 or better , with my x 100 im getting very useable files at 2500 to iso 4000

iso 12800 is actually useable

on the other hand it could have been sized exactly in between apsc and m43 with an effort to equal the iso and sensor dynamic range and color of the larger sensor, due to the fact that this is new generation silicon hopefull exhibiting better performance on a sensor well level

the other thing is the only command dial on the 900 dollar magnesium alloy indegrated evf havs a few photo gimmicks instead of direct access to psam and iso , this is proof to me that no photographers actually participate in the decision process at this cameras feature set and controls , an epic fail and profound mistake is design that is pissing off almost the entire internet

im extremely dissapointed that nikon didnt see fit to provide this innovative system[ for nikon]
with a normal control feature set.... @ the v1... this has an evf built in and a magnesium allloy body, clearly aimed at the enthusuist buyer , yet no psam dial or direct iso control which is a minimium for a well designed camera imho the dial is devoid of controls 2\3 of it is bear and the few settings are simply nikon photo gimmicks ....i find this insane.

lisandra · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:38:51 AM »

If they manage to make it as small as I know it can be come next cycle, then its gonna be worth a look. Even with the sampler sensor

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:52:13 AM »

Quote from: cosinaphile on October 01, 2011, 09:45:06 AM

i wish the sensor nikon created was bigger if it 30% smaller than m 43 instead of less than half the area , iso perf would have been better, i really need useable iso 2000 or better , with my x 100 im getting very useable files at 2500 to iso 4000

iso 12800 is actually useable

on the other hand it could have been sized exactly in between apsc and m43 with an effort to equal the iso and sensor dynamic range and color of the larger sensor, due to the fact that this is new generation silicon hopefull exhibiting better performance on a sensor well level

the other thing is the only command dial on the 900 dollar magnesium alloy indegrated evf havs a few photo gimmicks instead of direct access to psam and iso , this is proof to me that no photographers actually participate in the decision process at this cameras feature set and controls , an epic fail and profound mistake is design that is pissing off almost the entire internet

im extremely dissapointed that nikon didnt see fit to provide this innovative system[ for nikon]
with a normal control feature set.... @ the v1... this has an evf built in and a magnesium allloy body, clearly aimed at the enthusuist buyer , yet no psam dial or direct iso control which is a minimium for a well designed camera imho the dial is devoid of controls 2\3 of it is bear and the few settings are simply nikon photo gimmicks ....i find this insane.

+1
well, Ver 2 will have to be an "Upgrade" in functionality IMO....
I think the V1 is a failure also...

The J1... OK to be a full Auto Program...

cosinaphile · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2011, 07:14:54 PM »

the v 2 is the other rocket that the germans blitzed london with in ww2

i hope your right about it being better, instead of it being another bomb.....pun intended

tamoio · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:00:59 AM »

I haven't dug into the specs too much, but will either of these new nikons do anything substantially better than a Panasonic LX5?

RT_Panther · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:14:11 AM »

Quote from: tamoio on October 02, 2011, 11:00:59 AM

I haven't dug into the specs too much, but will either of these new nikons do anything substantially better than a Panasonic LX5?

Yes

1) 10fps speed in autofocus and 60fps in manual mode, courtesy of a unique combination of contrast and focal plane phase detect autofocus.

2) HD: 1920 X 1080/60i
HD: 1920 X 1080/30p
HD: 1280 x 720/60p
Slow-motion: 640x240/400fps

lisandra · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:32:05 AM »

Quote from: RT_Panther on October 02, 2011, 11:14:11 AM

Quote from: tamoio on October 02, 2011, 11:00:59 AM
I haven't dug into the specs too much, but will either of these new nikons do anything substantially better than a Panasonic LX5?
u

Yes

1) 10fps speed in autofocus and 60fps in manual mode, courtesy of a unique combination of contrast and focal plane phase detect autofocus.

2) HD: 1920 X 1080/60i
HD: 1920 X 1080/30p
HD: 1280 x 720/60p
Slow-motion: 640x240/400fps

video specs are nice

RT_Panther · « **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:43:20 AM »

Still not for me though - I'm currently content with my E-PL2

voyager · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2011, 03:33:22 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on September 30, 2011, 11:34:06 PM

Proof:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-j1-vs-v1-vs-olympus-pen-mini-e-pm1-comparison-17471

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-j1-vs-v1-vs-olympus-pen-mini-e-pm1-comparison-17471

Scroll to the bottom and look at them. Despite the specs saying otherwise, its obviously thinner, its as tall (taller on the hotshoe by like 1mm.) And they're equaly long.

Thanks!

lisandra · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:25:54 AM »

The v1 is 900$ with the kit lens...
What's that? You want a better longer lens? 1150$ with the 30-110...
What? You want it with the versatile 10-100 super zoom? 1400$...
J1? 650$ 900$ and 1150$ respectively...

cosinaphile · « **Reply #23 on:** October 03, 2011, 04:49:33 AM »

price is out of whack.... lenses are slow, besides an internal evf and magnesium alloy body whats to like? nothing imho

RT_Panther · « **Reply #24 on:** October 03, 2011, 09:02:29 AM »

Quote from: cosinaphile on October 03, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

price is out of whack....

Yep!
This appears to be the biggest detriment from various internet jabber sources....

Author Topic: 'Nikon Mirrorless Not As "Bad" As Originally Thought' (Read 1758 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery