Kent
Finally at home...
We all know of that ongoing discussion about the smallish sensor of the Nikon 1 system.
I think that Nikon has done a pretty good job optimizing the capabilities and image qualities of that sensor.
Yes, it has it's drawbacks, a narrow DoF is hardly possible for example.
But that rather small sensor offers possibilities which a camera with a bigger sensor doesn't: you can use more c-mount lenses.
I just got a bunch of those. The next weeks will be fun.
I think that Nikon has done a pretty good job optimizing the capabilities and image qualities of that sensor.
Yes, it has it's drawbacks, a narrow DoF is hardly possible for example.
But that rather small sensor offers possibilities which a camera with a bigger sensor doesn't: you can use more c-mount lenses.
I just got a bunch of those. The next weeks will be fun.
Attachments
lam
Well-known
Looks like fun! Enjoy!
Avotius
Some guy
Thats a lot of neat looking glass there, be sure to show us some pictures. Got to love that old school lens look.
willie_901
Veteran
The limitation is not the small sensor, the problem is it is impractical to make lenses fast enough to deliver equivalent performance to cameras with more surface area.
If the 1 system had ~ f 0.6 lenses it would perform as well as any other system (at the same camera position).
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#noise
If the 1 system had ~ f 0.6 lenses it would perform as well as any other system (at the same camera position).
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#noise
thegman
Veteran
I see small sensors as an advantage often. For me narrow DOF is normally something I don't want, ideally, I'd love a camera which could magically put everything in focus from 1m away to infinity, without the hassle of a view camera.
Small sensors can help with that, I really like medium format, but sometimes I wish it had the characteristics of a smaller 'sensor'.
Obviously small sensors have their drawbacks, but I consider the lack of narrow DOF to be a positive. Being able to shoot a 50mm f/1.4 without razor thin DOF sounds win-win to me.
Small sensors can help with that, I really like medium format, but sometimes I wish it had the characteristics of a smaller 'sensor'.
Obviously small sensors have their drawbacks, but I consider the lack of narrow DOF to be a positive. Being able to shoot a 50mm f/1.4 without razor thin DOF sounds win-win to me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Everyone I know who has used the Nikon 1 cameras has nothing but praise for the quality of the photos they produce.
All this ultra-shallow DoF stuff recently is a bit of a fad. ;-)
Looks like you have some neat lenses to experiment with. Have fun!
G
All this ultra-shallow DoF stuff recently is a bit of a fad. ;-)
Looks like you have some neat lenses to experiment with. Have fun!
G
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
You know, I used to shoot with the intent of maximizing DOF. I wanted everything in the frame sharp. And I now regard that as a fad. I love the blurry stuff.
Kent
Finally at home...
Hi!
I have finished "testing". The results are published in German on a German photo forum:
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=18060&p=195266#post195266
Even if you can perhaps not understand the language, you can follow the links in the first post, get to the different threads and have a look at the pictures there...
I have finished "testing". The results are published in German on a German photo forum:
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=18060&p=195266#post195266
Even if you can perhaps not understand the language, you can follow the links in the first post, get to the different threads and have a look at the pictures there...
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I still regret not buying one of these when B&H was blowing them out last Christmas. Although I was trying not to spend money (in general but more specifically on camera gear) that was a poor decision.
MaxElmar
Well-known
I really like mine. It's not a perfect camera but I find it a delight to use for walks and hikes and snapshots. And it's more than capable of shooting action - almost as well as my big Nikons. And when you put a 70-300 VR zoom on there (via FT-1 - now with continuous AF) you've got the cheapest funnest backyard wildlife rig in the world.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
With the 18mm lens, you can get a shallower depth of field. My only issue is that manual focus doesn't work as well as I would like.
The thing I really like about the camera (Nikon 1 V2) is that it is so small that it allows me to get in really close when I work.
Best,
-Tim
VF101
Established
The V1 is a wonderful camera, I just don't get why so many people (in other forums) are talking about sensor size. FF (crop 1.0) seems to be the ultimate, APS-C (crop 1.6) is nearly as good. And MFT (crop 2.0) is nowadays also okay. But the Nikon 1 (crop 2.7) is bad, bad, bad. So there must be a magical number between 2.0 ("okay") and 2.7 ("really bad").
(This forum is a noteable exception, here most of the people see the image you'll get, not the sensor size.)
Spezialitäten am Naschmarkt Wien
(This forum is a noteable exception, here most of the people see the image you'll get, not the sensor size.)
Spezialitäten am Naschmarkt Wien
Fuchs
Well-known
I really do like mine (1V1). Its at least as capable as my Sony RX100, which is very praised anywhere on the 'net.
stitchohana
Well-known
lynnb
Veteran
A few days ago I found a local big department store selling the Nikon 1 V1 with 10-30 kit zoom for AUD227 - just over USD200. Having read a few good reviews, I bought it on impulse.
I have nothing but praise for the IQ. The V1 is "only" 10Mp but that can still yield a good size print. The colours are better than I expected. The files will take a lot of manipulation in post without falling apart. I agree with reviews that the rendition is very film-like. I shoot RAW+JPEG.
It's also possible to get good shallow dof effects with the primes - there are samples on Steve Huff's site. The 32mm f1.2 (equivalent to an 86mm on FF) in particular. Even the 18.5/1.8 shows decent dof separation at head and shoulders focus distances.
Handling is not too bad. I'm still getting to know its quirks but in these first few days have managed to get some pleasing results even with the slow kit zoom. A big bonus is the camera is not intimidating for subjects so I'm getting some very natural portraits of complete strangers. Very different from when I use a 5D or film SLR where the camera appearance and lens size tend to intimidate and require a lot more people skills to elicit natural-looking responses. The only other camera that relaxes subjects as much as the V1, is a TLR!
Here's a few shots from the first two days of ownership:
contrast added in post - original has full tonal range, including highlights out the window
ISO1100 in failing light, desaturation in post:
ISO3200, contrast increased in post, some NR
ISO3200, some desaturation in post:
I have nothing but praise for the IQ. The V1 is "only" 10Mp but that can still yield a good size print. The colours are better than I expected. The files will take a lot of manipulation in post without falling apart. I agree with reviews that the rendition is very film-like. I shoot RAW+JPEG.
It's also possible to get good shallow dof effects with the primes - there are samples on Steve Huff's site. The 32mm f1.2 (equivalent to an 86mm on FF) in particular. Even the 18.5/1.8 shows decent dof separation at head and shoulders focus distances.
Handling is not too bad. I'm still getting to know its quirks but in these first few days have managed to get some pleasing results even with the slow kit zoom. A big bonus is the camera is not intimidating for subjects so I'm getting some very natural portraits of complete strangers. Very different from when I use a 5D or film SLR where the camera appearance and lens size tend to intimidate and require a lot more people skills to elicit natural-looking responses. The only other camera that relaxes subjects as much as the V1, is a TLR!
Here's a few shots from the first two days of ownership:
contrast added in post - original has full tonal range, including highlights out the window
ISO1100 in failing light, desaturation in post:
ISO3200, contrast increased in post, some NR
ISO3200, some desaturation in post:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Nice Lynn.
I can't believe that price ... amazing!
I can't believe that price ... amazing!
Perhaps you heard this before -- a camera is a tool. The world's most expensive tool might be just the thing for your Duesenberg but won't help me a bit with my ancient Toyota.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I started a thread about the P7700 in Advanced Compacts one evening. About three comments later, someone was making a crack about with it's small sensor, the thread needed to be in Point and Shoot. Next thing I know is some Moderator flings it over there, so I deleted it.
You can't have a good gear discussion around here without some smart ass pooh-poohing your sensor size. I say enjoy your V-1, get all you can out of it. A camera is for shooting photos, not advertising your manhood.
PF
You can't have a good gear discussion around here without some smart ass pooh-poohing your sensor size. I say enjoy your V-1, get all you can out of it. A camera is for shooting photos, not advertising your manhood.
PF
peterm1
Veteran
I am extremely picky about the quality of my images.
But my firm view is that small sensor cameras are fine so long as you recognise their limitations. Which essentially relate to their lack of dynamic range and lack of high ISO performance. As long as you understand these limits and shoot within their capabilites there is nothing wrong with these cameras.
Moreover they are getting better all the time. Sensor technology is getting better and better and these cameras a capable of shooting better and better images. Yes there are physical limits - a small sensor has the disadvantage that at any given ambient brightness level fewer photons are hitting each sensor spot as each sensor spot is physically smaller. That means that there is an absolute technical limit not shared by their larger sensor cousins. But as I said, so long as these cameras are shot in conditions where there is sufficient light for these limits not to be obvious in the final result, who cares.
There is of course another issue - most small sensor cameras have non-interchangeable lenses the design parameters of which means they tend to have considerable depth of field (DOF is relative in these circumstances by how physically small the lens aperture is). This may be an issue sometimes. For many people it is not an issue - ever. Besides with those small format cameras that have itnerchangeable lenses you can use large format lenses on the body with an adapter. Then you get more DOF due to the physical parameters of these lenses.
So my point of view is this - if you recognise these cameras' limits and shoot within them their limitations are not problematic. If they are a problem, then simply do not buy one.
I have owned a Canon G11. I recently bought a Nikon P7000. I also own a Panasonic LX5. I bought these cameras cheaply second hand as I was curious to see how they perform compared with full frame and DX cameras and because I wanted some cheap toys to play with. I found that every one of these is capable of shooting excellent images in the right conditions and they give me the choice of having a small camera in my pocket in circumstances where even my Sony NEX 3 is too large to carry. As far as I am concerned that is a great big plus.
But my firm view is that small sensor cameras are fine so long as you recognise their limitations. Which essentially relate to their lack of dynamic range and lack of high ISO performance. As long as you understand these limits and shoot within their capabilites there is nothing wrong with these cameras.
Moreover they are getting better all the time. Sensor technology is getting better and better and these cameras a capable of shooting better and better images. Yes there are physical limits - a small sensor has the disadvantage that at any given ambient brightness level fewer photons are hitting each sensor spot as each sensor spot is physically smaller. That means that there is an absolute technical limit not shared by their larger sensor cousins. But as I said, so long as these cameras are shot in conditions where there is sufficient light for these limits not to be obvious in the final result, who cares.
There is of course another issue - most small sensor cameras have non-interchangeable lenses the design parameters of which means they tend to have considerable depth of field (DOF is relative in these circumstances by how physically small the lens aperture is). This may be an issue sometimes. For many people it is not an issue - ever. Besides with those small format cameras that have itnerchangeable lenses you can use large format lenses on the body with an adapter. Then you get more DOF due to the physical parameters of these lenses.
So my point of view is this - if you recognise these cameras' limits and shoot within them their limitations are not problematic. If they are a problem, then simply do not buy one.
I have owned a Canon G11. I recently bought a Nikon P7000. I also own a Panasonic LX5. I bought these cameras cheaply second hand as I was curious to see how they perform compared with full frame and DX cameras and because I wanted some cheap toys to play with. I found that every one of these is capable of shooting excellent images in the right conditions and they give me the choice of having a small camera in my pocket in circumstances where even my Sony NEX 3 is too large to carry. As far as I am concerned that is a great big plus.
VF101
Established
Compared to my entry level Canon DSLR, the dynamic range of the V1 is on par, while noise in low light is about one stop worse.
Some guy on a german forum compared A3 prints of the V1 to prints from his FF DSLR. He could tell no difference.
So, bigger sensors give you better image quality, but most of the time this difference is to small to see.
Some guy on a german forum compared A3 prints of the V1 to prints from his FF DSLR. He could tell no difference.
So, bigger sensors give you better image quality, but most of the time this difference is to small to see.