Nikon 1 V3

Paperman

I am just surprised the "geniusses" ( or do we say "genii " ) behind the invention of the Nikon 1 system are still there working for Nikon and continuing to pour money into a dead horse ... And someone in the management team thinks people will pay $1200 for this crap. Why is it so hard for Nikon to see what we're seeing ? Did Nikon not disclose last year that profits were wiped out by the Series 1 ? And did they not say the cellphones are the biggest competitor these days for small sensor cameras ( but not the DSLRs ) . Why on earth can't they admit defeat and continue with an APS-C sensor compact ?

Soon everything is going to be FF but someone in Nikon thinks the CX sensor has a chance. ( It might ......on a cellphone ).

WestEndBoy

I am just surprised the "geniusses" ( or do we say "genii " ) behind the invention of the Nikon 1 system are still there working for Nikon and continuing to pour money into a dead horse ... And someone in the management team thinks people will pay $1200 for this crap. Why is it so hard for Nikon to see what we're seeing ? Did Nikon not disclose last year that profits were wiped out by the Series 1 ? And did they not say the cellphones are the biggest competitor these days for small sensor cameras ( but not the DSLRs ) . Why on earth can't they admit defeat and continue with an APS-C sensor compact ?

Soon everything is going to be FF but someone in Nikon thinks the CX sensor has a chance. ( It might ......on a cellphone ).

I tend to agree, with one caveat. The Nikon 1 seems to be doing well in Asia, particularly Japan. Perhaps Nikon thinks that if it reduces the marketing in a lost market (say North America), they will earn a profit.

Alternatively, profit is a tricky animal to measure (I am a designated accountant with some experience in manufacturing and my wife is a designated accountant that works for a large power systems manufacturer). Nikon may be including a lot of sunk costs (costs previously spent) in the cost. The Nikon 1 may be cash flow positive, which means that it is turning a profit, even if not turning a "technical accounting" profit.

Or perhaps they suffered a loss because of one time write downs relating to their business outside of Japan.

So yes, I think that the real future for something like a Nikon 1 is a DX sensor, or else it is too close to a cell phone. However, continuing to invest in (carefully) and produce the Nikon 1 may make financial sense for some time yet.

heartyfisher

I think You guys who have not used a Nikon 1 really don't know the charm of it. You talk about High iso IQ and its true its not better than the DSLR and other larger format sensors .. but its really not that far behind the M43 and apsc.

If you use it at ISO less than 400 its practically just as good and any other camera. at High ISO its better than any cell phone or P&S by a mile.

And the biggest positive is its a lot of fun when used with other lenses ... lots of GREAT old cheap manual focus lenses out there to play with!

There is also alot of fun things you can do with it due to the electronic shutter..I am sure we have not discovered everything you can do wit it yet .. I wish the people who have post their adventures with teh format. Finally the AW1 how much fun is that !

The images form a quick flickr shears are really great and look at all the lenses attached ! ..
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Nikon 1

PB_PM

I used a Nikon 1 V1 for several months, but other than for video and macro I didn't find it very useful. Then again, that was before the AF-C support update for the FT-1. The sensor is still far to small for me to use such a camera on a regular basis.

WestEndBoy

I think You guys who have not used a Nikon 1 really don't know the charm of it. You talk about High iso IQ and its true its not better than the DSLR and other larger format sensors .. but its really not that far behind the M43 and apsc.

If you use it at ISO less than 400 its practically just as good and any other camera. at High ISO its better than any cell phone or P&S by a mile.

And the biggest positive is its a lot of fun when used with other lenses ... lots of GREAT old cheap manual focus lenses out there to play with!

There is also alot of fun things you can do with it due to the electronic shutter..I am sure we have not discovered everything you can do wit it yet .. I wish the people who have post their adventures with teh format. Finally the AW1 how much fun is that !

The images form a quick flickr shears are really great and look at all the lenses attached ! ..
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Nikon 1

I think that they are decent cameras. As you can see in my signature, I have one (well, it is my 8 year old son's).

But it is unusable indoors without a flash in my view. I think my Coolpix A with a DX sensor is closer in performance to my D800 than my Nikon 1. I am sure that if I really look at the specs closely, that will not seem correct. But in practical situations, the Coolpix A seems less far behind the D800 than the Nikon 1 is behind the Coolpix A.

So what I am really getting at is that for a slightly bigger form factor, the Nikon 1 could have a DX sensor. Then I would see it a something worth investing in rather than a throwaway in a few years.

TaoTeJared

As I have said on the all the Nikon 1 series, I really would like to "like" them, but these prices! All know I'm not one to shy away at prices for when the product is at a high standard but something is really off with Nikon on these. When I see a Sony A6000 for $800 with a lens, 24mp DX sensor, and fully updated AF that will probably stand up to the V3 I just scratch my head and ask "what is it that Nikon has $400 more of?" On the flip side, I could easily justify an Olympus OM-D E-M1 - That is only $200 more.

You're making the exact same case against the V3 that PitchBlack makes against the Df, except you don't realize it.

There are equivalents that are clearly better or on par with the V3. There is nothing that it has that one can not accomplish with any number of systems. Not with the DF. The V3 does not have a sensor or anything else that is only found in $5,000+ models that shoots clean at 6400.

The V3 has fewer lens options, only one high end glass, smaller sensor, Lower MP than some, negligible higher MP than others, video options are scattered in the whole lot of mirrorless camera's but if that is your gig, you can find better.... and you can read through the thread for all the options that others have for a lesser or about equal price.

I'm not taking away from the Nikon 1 systems abilities but images going above iso 400 things get too muddy for my taste. (I think they are fine for "home/family" use.) As many have said above or to a similar effect, the V series just behind m4/3rds/Sony/Oly/Pani. Given that they all have systems under the V3 price and their "pro/top" models are only $200 more - they are more in play. I do agree with Adamz, the 1-Series lenses are cheaper and sticking them to Nikon glass is a big plus for those who desire super tele abilities.

BabaGanoush

@adamz "RX10 is neither close to RX100" : the RX10 has the same sensor as the original RX100
@adamz "I like when things are intuitive, and changing iso on a touch screen is not intuitive for me at all" Well, if you're talking about the RX10, you've certainly lost all credibility there. On the RX10, the ISO selection can be assigned conveniently to any one of a half dozen function buttons. I've assigned it to the control wheel on the back of the camera. I can change the ISO with a flick of my right thumb while continuing to look through the EVF. It's as intuitive as and actually easier than what it takes to change the ISO setting on my D800, which requires holding down the ISO button with one hand and spinning the command dial with the other. What's so intuitive about that? Maybe it's what you're used to but it sure is not especially "intuitive."

henrik1963

If only BMW would change the M3 it could be a very good Ford PU truck.

It does not make sense to compare Nikon 1 V3 to a D800, D7100 or any other FX or DX camera. Sure you can compare feature by feature to see if you are better off buying another camera.

I think CX has a future - it is small, has great DOF, great AF performance and a great frame rate just to name a few features. If you dont like the Nikon 1 system - dont buy - go DX or FX.

The fact that Nikon has a CX system does not prevet them from making a DX mirror less system or a FX mirror less system. Dont hate the CX system just because you want a DX or a FX system.

Where I think Nikon could do a better job:

Nikon has a very good UI on the DSLRs - use it on the Nikon 1 system.
EVF needs to be build in on the V models - If you have to - build a V minus model.
S models - the same features as D3xxx models
J models - the same features as D5xxx models
V models - the same features as D7xxx models

US prices are too high - adding 50% to that in the EU is just MAD - get real Nikon.

[Deleted User]

The ISO change is default set to the wheel on the back on the NEX-7, but there it is unusable, because I tipped it with my thumb constantly and came home with a couple of ISO 1600, or more, due to the switch set to - auto - ISO. So working myself through the manual it took me a lot of time to find out how to lock that wheel. To find out how to assign things to the buttons you want was a lot of work for me.

I just write about the Sony NEX-7, maybe it became better for the e-mount camera's announced after that, I don't know. My main problem with the Sony system are the lenses, there are no quality lenses. Sony promised a lot 2 years ago, when I bought the NEX-7. I think it is still too difficult and too expensive to make quality lenses for this system. I now use the 1000.- euro, 16-70mm f/4, nice lens but still average. Compare this to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, which is 1300.- euro.

I compare my D300 (12MP), which I bought for 1100.- euro with the NEX-7 which I bought 4 years later (24MP new sensor) for1200 euro.- ,expecting a huge step forward. The NEX-7, which Sony called there flagship at that time is way behind my then 4 years old D300. I tested everything with both camera's the last 2 years in the same conditions.

Well, nothing can beat my D600, which I have for a year now.

The Nikon 1 V1 is just so much fun and of course I 'am with MsMoto, she wrote:

How about a Nikon X VX with an APS-C sensor, accepting F mount lenses, and with dials like a D4? Now we are talking.

Wesley

If only BMW would change the M3 it could be a very good BMW Ford PU truck

http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/bmw-m3-pickup-2011-04-01 \:D/

You are right about what you say. It's just more people want Nikon's version of a Sony A7 and Fuji XT1. How about some Nikon pancake lenses while we're at it.

ads

"It does not make sense to compare Nikon 1 V3 to a D800, D7100 or any other FX or DX camera."

It makes perfect sense to compare it to FX or DX when the V3 is priced at D7100 levels, and not far off a refurb D600. The V3 should unquestionably be the best of the Nikon 1s, but is priced in the SLR ballpark so that is what its gonna get compared to and for the same money lots of people will go for the better image quality of the SLR.

Perfectly logical pricing strategy for a company looking to protect its SLR business, even if it makes little sense to users.

In this case the car analogy is more akin to if a Ford Pickup is the same price as an M3, I know which one I'm gonna buy...

sevencrossing

I wish the Nikon 1 system had a DX sensor.

+1
or better still,FX

henrik1963

@Ads:Some prefer DX others prefer FX - just look at all the folks who are waiting for a D400. So bigger is not allways better. I think that adding CX is a good idea.

All 3 systems have a place - Saying that CX is bad because I prefer FX does not make sense.

I do agree that it is strange that Nikon wants more for the V3 kit than a D7100 + 18-140 kit.

Staying with the car analogy - If you need a Ford PU truck it does not make sense to buy a BMW M3 - they are different - for a lot of uses one can not replace the other.

adamz

@BabaGanoush - I've never said that RX10 has different sensor than RX100, RX100 is a nice small compact camera, RX10 is a monster comparing to RX10. you may like the way iso is changed on it I don't. sure, I know how to operate Nikon and that's of course my preferred way though if you really think this is intuitive:

than it's your opinion.

ads

@henrick1963 - true, but again many who prefer DX do so based on price. How many people waiting for the D400 (and I used to be one of them) would still be holding out for one if the D4 was $2000? Some sure, but I highly doubt it would be the majority...

I never said CX is bad - just that the V3 is priced the same as a very good SLR so its perfectly reasonable for people to compare it to one. My J1 takes great snaps below 400 ISO.

henrik1963

@ads: it seems we mostly agree then

I can see a D400 - done right - can do things a D4 can not - the same goes for a CX camera done right.

PB_PM

D4 style camera done right could do everything a D400 and CX camera could do, and more. How? Different crop settings.

sevencrossing

The big down side of Cx seems to be very poor high ISO quality
The big down side of Fx is expense
The big advantage of DX is bangs for your bucks
So a V dx should give reasonable good High ISO at a sensible price

snakebunk

It is great that Nikon makes a high spec cx camera. With the new tele it could be a really good light weight complement to fx super teles. I think it is the first Nikon product that makes me interested since the D800. Lets hope that the reviews turn out to be great.

I like the price point as long as it delivers accordingly.

snakebunk

D4 style camera done right could do everything a D400 and CX camera could do, and more. How? Different crop settings.

No, because there is a huge difference in pixel density. If you crop an fx image to cx size there are not very many mps left.

henrik1963

@sevencrossing: Agree with you. There should be more bang for bucks in the CX line.

henrik1963

Snakebunk is right. D4 is low MP high ISO. D400 should be lower ISO but higher MP. Both should be fast framerate with big buffer in a pro body.

[Deleted User]

Nikon 1 V1, FT1, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G 1/800 sec f/5.6, ISO 100
702mm (260mm) by hand VR on.

I focused on the butterfly.
Just a test to see what I could do with that lens.
Well it is difficult to do (700mm by hand), but when this is possible with the V1....
I want to see a lot of test shots with the V3 and the new e-mount 70-300mm lens.



I also made a couple with high ISO to 3200, the noise was easely to correct in LR, but for me it is usable till ISO 400 and sometimes 800.

Symphotic

No CLS and no high speed video on the V3 discourage me. For what the V3 does I can use my D800 and have better results. The V1 is still the best value in a small camera I've used so far.

TaoTeJared

DXO's comparison via The Phoblographer

DxOMark Confirms That the New Nikon 1 V3 Can’t Outdo Micro Four Thirds Models Despite Price

If you’ve ever wanted a reason to point and laugh at someone chasing after that more expensive camera, then now is the time. The latest from DxOMark states that Nikon’s new 1 V3 camera is outdone by more affordable Micro Four Thirds cameras when it comes to sensor performance. In their results announced today, the 1 inch sensor at the heart of the ovr $1,000 V3 fails in comparison to the older sensors and cameras, but it comes close in terms of color depth. Granted, neither of the Micro Four Thirds models can fire at 60fps or shoot slow motion video. But still, it’s quite pricey. For what it’s worth, we’re also not sure that it should be such a high price. Instead, Nikon will need to lower it. But the company also did this for the D800 when that was released. The price eventually came down to where higher level mortals could afford it.

More at DXO here:

One thing I kept wondering is how it would compare to the upper-end compacts like Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 I & II both score higher, and the Canon PowerShot G16 scores about the same. The V3 has better AF, video, etc. but from what some testers have said is that the Nikon 1 series and Olympus are close to the same.

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 I believe is quite comparable and is $800 with lens ($700 body only - grip $60.) So $800 vs $1,200?