Nikon V1 - playtime - with added full size image goodness.

[gstark]

If anybody wants to have a play with one, please let me know. I only have it for about a week, and it's a very busy week, with the Sydney Blues Festival this weekend.

[aim54x]

Have fun Gary...did they supply you with the F-mount adaptor?

[surenj]

Ah. No time for a mini-meet then...

[gstark]

Ah. No time for a mini-meet then...

Come out to Windsor over the weekend, and take in some great music.

I'm still at the radio station; here's an image for all y'all though.

This is image #3 on the camera. Available light, ISO 3200, auto everything, in Studio B, before I went on the air. Full size jpg image, OOC.

[gstark]

Have fun Gary...did they supply you with the F-mount adaptor?

Not as yet. From what I understand, there's none in the country yet.

[surenj]

Clean ISO 3200. Slightly muddy colors. Not bad for a tiny-toony sensor.

[gstark]

Remember that this was in the radio studio, with really crappy lighting. The ISO3200 performance seems impressive.

[surenj]

The ISO3200 performance seems impressive.

I agree. Would be great to see anymore low light pictures you have as well.

[chrisk]

Remember that this was in the radio studio, with really crappy lighting. The ISO3200 performance seems impressive.

exif says iso 1250. i think you may have posted the wrong pic.

anyway...i still dont get it. the v1 is the size of an ep3 which has double the sized sensor so i just dont get what the point is of making a camera with a crop so severe; but making it the same size as m4/3 .

[surenj]

It does say ISO1250. I just installed the exif viewer for chrome. Gary, if you do have a ISO 3200 of the same scene for comparison, that would be super.

[surenj]

Rooz, As it's stated in the marketing blurbs, this camera is for poeple upgrading their PS cameras. They don't know which is which. It is not for people looking for a replacement for their fuji x100, Leica M9 etc....

[chrisk]

Yes i understand who its aimed at, i just dont see why nikon would do it without a bigger sensor. What is the advantage ? Clealry size isnt the advantage cos it s no smaller than the m4/3 cameras. I suspect the one reason they didnt is to stem any migration from dslr users to a smaller format. But in saying that all they do is encoyrage them to go to olympus or lumix.

Remember this is a whole new mount a whole new system. So there is no going back if they screw it up. Its not like a coolpix they can just churn out anohter nee model, or a dslr which already has a mount and accessories. If this doesnt work, then the whole system dies. Thats a pretty big deal.

[gstark]

The original images are on my netbook, which is at home, which is where I'm not, so it'll be a couple of days before I can get to it. Thursday looks to be the earliest right now ....

One of the things that bothered me about the camera was the marketing spiel that they offered: that they wanted to make the smallest possible camera body with the largest possible sensor. To my mind, Sony has that department wrapped with with the NEX-3, which is a smaller body and a APS-C sensor shoehorned into it. That's certainly a question I have bookmarked for later, but for now, I'm merely judging the camera on its merits.

Mostly, I love it. I'm using the V1, with the 10-30 and 30-110 zooms. Leigh has a J1 with the 10mm prime; I've not yet been able to chat with him about his impressions.

The lenses are quick, but not fast. There's not a high level of focus point control, but by and large, the face detect works very bloody well. Focus acquisition is very quick and painless.

Shooting multiple images is very quick. Hold down the shutter and you see what is essentially a stop motion series in the viewfinder. No lag, no delays; this will be a very interesting camera when used in sporting situations, and it'll also be great for those with young kids or animals crawling randomly around the living room floor.

But I do want to see a greater selection of lenses, and I do want to play with the f-mount adapter. I suspect that the built in noise reduction is killing some of the sharpness; I don't know. And while it's very unfair to compare the sharpness of images shot on the D300 using the cream machine with the images shot with these kit lenses, that was the gear I was using at the weekend, and that's how I was shooting.

So, not a lot of noise in the images, but not the levels of sharpness and acuity that I want to be seeing.

That said, I like the kit: it's small and light; very portable, and when you're getting old and crotchety (as I am) and eternally lazy, that is quite important.

The target market is not us; it's those who want a compact camera, but who don't want a compact camera.

And truly, I think that the compact camera is about to die. The iPhone 4S, the newest HTC, the Galaxy S2, and the new Motorola RAZR all boast very high quality cameras. I'm seriously very surprised at the quality of the images that phones are now producing, and similarly, the video quality is pretty damn good. Why would anybody go and buy a compact camera, which they'd have to carry around in addition to their mobile phone, when their phone will now do at least as good a job?

And if you want something better, then look at the range of MILCs: Sony's NEX are surprisingly good with a relatively huge sensor, Panasonic and Olympus have the M4/3, and now there's the N1. All of them are very capable, and while not being as good as a DSLR, the compromises one makes for the sake of the significant weight and size reductions you get makes for a very satisfactory.

As to whether Nikon has it right or not, I really don't know. But throw an F-mount adapter plus a couple of fast primes into your bag, and take into account that this is a market where Canon has yet to announce a presence, and I'm not convinced that getting it totally right in the technical sense is really a requirement for market success.

Don't believe me? Where's your Beta VCR today?

[photohiker]

I agree that it would probably be better if the sensor was larger. Gary's shots do look pretty good though, notwithstanding ISO confusion...

As far as the camera size is concerned, there is a limit to how small you can make a camera and keep it usable and tactile - large P&S, u4/3, Nex5/7 seem to be about the right minimum size. Perhaps that is why the 1 is the size it is?

On the other hand, the lenses, they're pretty much in the same ballpark in terms of size as u4/3, but at a crop of 2.7 they really should be tiny, I would have thought...

Michael

[gstark]

On the other hand, the lenses, they're pretty much in the same ballpark in terms of size as u4/3, but at a crop of 2.7 they really should be tiny, I would have thought...

Don't forget that lenses of a given focal length must (generally) confirm to certain physical constraints. To keep a lens barrel narrow, for instance, means that the maximum aperture must be slow. and while some refractive magic is possible, a 50mm lens should roughly represent a 50mm optical path.

My underlying thoughts are that Sony, with the APS-C sensor, have got that part right, and that's something that others need to emulate.

[chrisk]

i mostly agree with you gary. and i must say i am mildly, (pleasantly), surprised at the IQ results. but it still doesn't answer the question you are also asking...why make the sensor so small ? i suppose an advantage may be that the greater dof means that video and photos will be more forgiving and always look in focus ? dont know if this would have been a consideration or not.

anyway...the market will determine what is a fail and what is a win. personally though, i think the mount is as good as dead. i think nikon screwed up just like they have constantly done in their CP line and in a couple of years "1" will either cease to exist or will be a hobby side show. i also think the price reductions will start to come very soon.

if this was a $499 camera with the 10mm lens and it had a flip screen id take it seriously. but why you'd buy one over (on paper), far superior offerings...mostly CHEAPER in this micro segment is a bit of a mystery to me. ive only used the oly sparingly but i loved it and it looks great as opposed to this ugly duckling.

from bhphoto with kit lens'
v1: $899
J1: $649
ep32: $899
epl3: $699
gf2: $449
gf3: $474
nex 5n: $699

[surenj]

i just dont see why nikon would do it without a bigger sensor. What is the advantage ?

It's cheaper to make. Also sucking the PS users into buying lenses that will become obsolete if they move to DSLR land. It's just money I reckon. Most PS users will not realise about the lens + body dichotomy.
In this day and age, there is no excuse for microscopic sensor unless the camera itself if tiny; for example the iphone camera.
I predict this camera will be a dismal failure unless image quality is brilliant. The 4/3 market is already losing ground. [Japan may be a different scene though - normal physics don't apply there] Which nikon user will want this camera with a F mount as opposed to something else with a larger sensor with similar body sizes??

My underlying thoughts are that Sony, with the APS-C sensor, have got that part right,

Completely agree and this makes sense for a DSLR user to buy.

[photohiker]

On the other hand, the lenses, they're pretty much in the same ballpark in terms of size as u4/3, but at a crop of 2.7 they really should be tiny, I would have thought...

Don't forget that lenses of a given focal length must (generally) confirm to certain physical constraints. To keep a lens barrel narrow, for instance, means that the maximum aperture must be slow. and while some refractive magic is possible, a 50mm lens should roughly represent a 50mm optical path.

My underlying thoughts are that Sony, with the APS-C sensor, have got that part right, and that's something that others need to emulate.

Which dimensions are we talking about here? Isn't that dependant on the sensor size and (possibly) the mount to imaging plane distance?

I submit evidence below. OM 21mm vs u4/3rds 20mm.



The 21 has an OM/EOS adapter on it, but that only accounts for 1.1mm of height. The 20 is faster, shorter, narrower, lighter, but ultimately it throws the image onto a much smaller area, which has always been my understanding of why they could be made smaller, and why I think the 1 lenses _should_ be smaller than they are.

Michael

Michael

[gstark]

Which dimensions are we talking about here? Isn't that dependant on the sensor size and (possibly) the mount to imaging plane distance?

Not quite.

Sensor size, coupled with focal length affects apparent depth of field. The mount-to-imaging plane distance is only relevant when it comes to the actual fitment of lenses and their minimum focus distance. For instance, the flange to focal plane distance on an EOS camera is shorter than the equivalent distance for a F-mount camera. The upshot of this is that by using an adaptor, you can fit F-mount lenses to an EOS body, but the shorter distance precludes the figment of EOS glass to an F-mount body whilst achieving proper focus at infinity; that simply cannot happen.

That said, the image circle desired is a relevant factor, and thus, for any given sensor size, one would design the lens to at least provide minimal coverage over the whole sensor. The lens's diameter comes into play here, with a greater diameter offering a theoretically larger maximum aperture. But a large aperture (diameter) means that the lens must be physically bigger. Compare the diameter of any kit (zoom) lens with a decent, fixed aperture zoom lens to get an example of this aspect.

Then there's the actual focal length. Theoretically, a 50 mm lens should present an optical and physical distance of 50mm to the focal plane, at an infinity focussed distance (if my memory is correct). And that's regardless of the flange to focal plane distance. 85mm lenses should present a distance of 85mm to the focal plane, and so on. You've probably noticed that lenses with longer focal lengths are physically longer, and that lenses with wider maximum apertures have a greater diameter. That's an example of what I'm saying here in actual practice.

Using glass with high (or low) refractive index properties (ED glass, in Nikon terms, for instance) within the lens elements allows lens designers to play with physical properties here and bend these rules a little, but the underlying physics must still be adhered to.

So, the bottom line is that if the lens resolves to 30mm with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, then you can reasonably expect it to present at a certain physical size, but always also taking into account the image circle that it's expected to service which, in the case of a MILC body, will permit a slightly smaller physical size.

Is that making any sense?

[photohiker]

Is that making any sense?

Sort of. I think we have neatly side-stepped the angle of view issue though, but we did get the focal length and the depth of field covered along with the greater size of higher quality, constant aperture optics.

Remember that the Panasonic example above, the lens is f1.7, yet the OM is f3.5 max aperture. Despite this, it is substantially smaller, and unlike the OM lens, most of the size is not taken up with optics. Perhaps its not fair to compare the size and weight of a modern pancake lens with a 1970's film lens.

Bottom line in all of this is that we need to project the image at the focal length across our chosen sensor size. 35mm imaging area is about 43.3mm diagonal, corner to corner. u4/3rds is 22.5mm diagonal corner to corner and about 25% of full frame area, and the Nikon 1 is 15.8mm diagonal and has about 13.5% of the full frame area.



I still think the 1 lenses should be noticeably smaller. Not maximising their potential size advantage plays into the hands of the larger formats IMO.

Michael