DxO ONE: What do you think?

FlowtographyBerlin

Have you seen the news on the DxO ONE?

http://www.dxo.com/us/dxo-one

What do you guys think?

haroldp

Interesting at $ 200, at $ 600 not so much.

I do strongly recommend DXO prime software for raw noise reduction, it is by far the best I have used.

... H

donaldejose

It illustrates the type of "out of the box" thinking which Nikon needs.

PB_PM

It's not really out of the box, it's just a non-wireless version of those Sony portable cameras that came out a few years ago.

It also demonstrates how much BS there is to DxO mark scores, I mean they give the thing a higher score than the D810. )

manhattanboy

Interesting at $ 200, at $ 600 not so much.

I do strongly recommend DXO prime software for raw noise reduction, it is by far the best I have used.

... H

I am with Harold on this. Priced too high, but I really like their software.

danhowl

Pre-ordered. I needed a new toy and just got some checks in the mail...

I can't say that it addresses a great need, but I feel like I could use it for casting and scouting professionally and then have it available for personal shots.

FlowtographyBerlin

Interesting at $ 200, at $ 600 not so much.

That's what I thought, too. The price, wow.

It illustrates the type of "out of the box" thinking which Nikon needs

I don't think it's that much "outside the box" (weren't there others before?), but it's a nice addendum to a Nikon camera :-)

It also demonstrates how much BS there is to DxO mark scores, I mean they give the thing a higher score than the D810. )

OMG, are you serious???

I am with Harold on this. Priced too high, but I really like their software.

If their software was more one-stop solution (aka LR, COne), I'd use it too. Checked it out when I had to switch from Aperture.

I can't say that it addresses a great need, but I feel like I could use it for casting and scouting professionally and then have it available for personal shots.

Interesting!

You know what I'm always thinking? Anything that's larger/heavier than something I have with me anyway (aka smartphone) is too much. I either want a) REAL photos, as in: from my D800, or b) "oh-look-at-this" photos. It's nice to have the quality of b) not be too crappy, of course. Like, I really appreciated the better camera of my new iPhone over the crappy camera of my iPhone 3GS that I had used previously. But anything really high-quality that is supposed to "replace a DSLR" but then actually doesn't, really, I would always later be sad that I didn't use the DSLR.

Does that make sense?

Pistnbroke

Well I cannot get it in my pocket with that lump attached and I just think it will break off ..ONE JUNK

FlowtographyBerlin

Well I cannot get it in my pocket with that lump attached and I just think it will break off ..ONE JUNK

Well, you can always detach it, it's as large as a pack of cigarettes, which fits in many pockets :-)

FlowtographyBerlin

THIS article by Ken Rockwell is interesting! I've never even bothered to think about it, but now with the DxO ONE, they're promoting a "1-inch format" sensor as well, and I happened to calculate the diagonal size and was wondering how that could be called "1-inch format", because it's nothing like 1 inch in any of the dimensions.

It's so funny what @PB_PM said that it gets a higher rating than the D810 (haven't checked if it has, but I guess he's not been making it up).

Ironheart

Their sensor is the same size as all of the other so-called 1" sensors (CX), with a (nominal) 16mm diagonal.

From http://www.avcemporium.com/image-sensor-sizes/
"When the vidicon tube was invented in the early 1950s, the glass tubing used to make the first units had a nominal exterior diameter of one inch. These were referred to as "One-inch tubes". After allowing for the space taken up by the interior metal structures needed to control the electron beam, the portion of the photoconductor on the front glass accessible for scanning had a diameter of about 5/8 inch. Early television used a raster aspect ratio of 4:3 so the corresponding scanned area was 1/2 inch horizontal by 3/8 inch vertical - the canonic 3:4:5 right triangle. After a while, the image size assumed the name of the tube and a 5/8 inch diagonal raster became commonly called the 1-inch size. 5/8 inch is 15.875 mm and so 16 mm became the designated metric diagonal for 1-inch tubes."

FlowtographyBerlin

@ironheart: Yes, that's exactly what the KR article is about.

Msmoto

Gee Whiz, more stuff....does it do anything better than what I have? I like to shoot photos, and when I do this I want the versatility of the best equipment. Like, a D5????

There are so many small cameras which do such a good job, I am not certain i could use one of these new gizmos.

haroldp

Weren't these tubes use to measure roman chariot wheels on early (Roman ?) railroads ?

.. H

Ironheart

@ironheart: Yes, that's exactly what the KR article is about.

Oh, HA, I didn't realize there was a link there (I only click on links I can see, since imbedded ones can point anywhere, and well, I usually don't go to KR links anyway) but now that I did I see he got it right, which he should have, because he's an old television engineer. What he missed is if calling the 1" sensor a lie, the 4/3" people are liars too :-)

Weren't these tubes use to measure roman chariot wheels on early (Roman ?) railroads ?

Indirectly yes. If the length of a pendulum determines it's period, half the distance between the wheels of the Roman chariots, and the length of a pendulum that divides the movement of the stars into 1/366 degree units (there are 366 sunrises per orbit of the sun) is exactly half of a megalithic yard. 1/100th of a megalithic yard is a megalithic inch (20mm), which roughly equals the diagonal of a 1" sensor. Two of these megalithic yards are equal to today's standard rail gauge. Ultimately though, it all comes down to the width of a horse's ass

Parke1953

ironheart thanks for the good laugh today.

haroldp

And there are more horses asses in the world than there are horses.

... H

WestEndFoto

I think that this signals the beginning of the end of the Nikon 1 /CX system as we know it. I think that Nikon should focus on an interface between their CX lenses and smartphones if they want to stay in this business.

The interface would be a mount for CX lenses that attaches to smartphones plus the software. Remember that lenses are the true determinants of optical quality in the long run and Nikon is good at lenses. They need to leverage this. Perhaps this is what they are working with Apple on?

This is also why I think that Nikon needs to keep a razor sharp focus on FX (besides the CX opportunity I just described). Everything smaller than FX may be replaced with this.

Ironheart

I think Nikon 1 is just getting started. I have most of the lenses and they rock. The new J5 with a BSI sensor is just the beginning, the V4 will be even better. The lens on the DxO One is pretty wimpy.

WestEndFoto

Ironheart, check this article out that the blog links to:

http://www.photographybay.com/2015/06/25/nikon-keeps-filing-cell-phone-patents/

Ironheart

Thanks for the article. What blog are you referring to?

WestEndFoto

The "Latest Nikon Patents" article in the Nikon Rumour Blog. Select the PhotographyBay site.