RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Looks like DxOMark sensor score according to Nikon Rumors to is about the same as the latest m4/3. Low light/high ISO seems to be trailing but the difference is insignificant.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon Mirrorless cameras (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter gandytron
- Start date
Looks like DxOMark sensor score according to Nikon Rumors to is about the same as the latest m4/3. Low light/high ISO seems to be trailing but the difference is insignificant.
gvca1
Well-known member
I don't get the comments about diverting light to the EVF. The sensor used for the EVF is the same one as the imaging sensor, is it not? There is no optical beam splitter, etc... Or does the EVF actually use different photosites on the chip than the imager? I'd like to see the datasheet for the sensor.
My take on it is that Nikon chose the smallest sensor they could get away with for decent low-light performance, dynamic range, etc. given today's technology. If you look at the long view, sensors will only get better in the future, whereas the physics of the size of lenses does not change. Therefore, locking in to a larger sensor today would limit how small they could make lenses.
I'm not sure the V1 will provide useable images when coupled to the long exotics, but it's worth a try!
Jim
My take on it is that Nikon chose the smallest sensor they could get away with for decent low-light performance, dynamic range, etc. given today's technology. If you look at the long view, sensors will only get better in the future, whereas the physics of the size of lenses does not change. Therefore, locking in to a larger sensor today would limit how small they could make lenses.
I'm not sure the V1 will provide useable images when coupled to the long exotics, but it's worth a try!
Jim
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Yes someone has confused Sony's translucent mirror design now used in some of its dslrs, but NOT the NEX series, with the technology in this camera. They are not even remotely the same.
I think this is really a technology showcase for Nikon, especially by imbedding the AF on the photo sensor itself and the resulting leap in AF speed. Along with the massive 600MB processing throughput of the EXPEED 3 processor, it might give some clues as to the tech leap we may expect from the D4/D800/D400 pro bodies and why it is taking so long for them to get to market. Certainly a game changer I think.
As for the cameras themselves, Nikon may have ruined a great camera by not making better use of the Mode dial with functions photographers need. Seems silly to use 2 of the 4 positions for gimmicks. Looks like the work of Nikon's Coolpix design morons won out over their dslr group wizards!
I think this is really a technology showcase for Nikon, especially by imbedding the AF on the photo sensor itself and the resulting leap in AF speed. Along with the massive 600MB processing throughput of the EXPEED 3 processor, it might give some clues as to the tech leap we may expect from the D4/D800/D400 pro bodies and why it is taking so long for them to get to market. Certainly a game changer I think.
As for the cameras themselves, Nikon may have ruined a great camera by not making better use of the Mode dial with functions photographers need. Seems silly to use 2 of the 4 positions for gimmicks. Looks like the work of Nikon's Coolpix design morons won out over their dslr group wizards!
Not too sure that these cameras are aimed at the compact market; certainly the price doesn’t reflect that intention.
Apart from Sony and Panasonic, there doesn’t seem to be any clear definition of a route map for any of the other manufacturers. Olympus has been disappointing; because of all the manufacturers you would have thought that they’d be the ones sitting up in bed smoking a cigarette with a broad grim on their face.
I accept Nikon has to protect its DSLR market, but these two formats can coexist harmoniously together.
These cameras don’t have to be ultra small; at their initial cost they just have to deliver a better quality image than they are already producing.
Apart from Sony and Panasonic, there doesn’t seem to be any clear definition of a route map for any of the other manufacturers. Olympus has been disappointing; because of all the manufacturers you would have thought that they’d be the ones sitting up in bed smoking a cigarette with a broad grim on their face.
I accept Nikon has to protect its DSLR market, but these two formats can coexist harmoniously together.
These cameras don’t have to be ultra small; at their initial cost they just have to deliver a better quality image than they are already producing.
Last edited:
Yep, very much agree with that. We'll see Pro, pro-consumer and entry.
But will it be from Nikon?
Aegea
Well-known member
Good question. If there were a big commercial move to pro-level mirrorless cameras, I think Nikon would have to embrace it eventually. Probably later rather than sooner.
Dave Williams
Well-known member
I'm sure this technology will be developed and improved .The current price reflects the new technology rather than the level of performance.I bet in a few years time I will be using a mirrorless body but in the meantime please can I have a D400.
Not too sure about Nikon’s intentions here. We could get a repeat of Coolpix, which started very well then disintegrated into a farce.
Nikon’s core is the DSLR and lenses, produce a half decent 4/3rd for about £500 and you effectively knockout a large percentage of your core business. You keep your customer but the need to regularly upgrade just might disappear. Not a bad thing to my mind.
Looking at the image quality of the new Sony Nex, you can see where this sector’s going. The advantage Nikon have is their range of lenses that fit. Canon has yet to show their hand, produce a larger sensor and Nikon will have to react.
Fuji are possible dark horses here, combine and modify the X100 with inter-changeable Nikon lenses, and we could see a new kid on the block.
Leica, well you just know it will be fantastic, but extortionate.
Rioja, not sure you’re going to see a D400, NR have an article on a D800, which has come completely out of left field, whether this correct we’ll have to wait and see. But certainly for those who are studio based this one looks just the ticket.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Dave,
Your 300mm f4 is still going to be an f4; and still a 300mm - its just that the crop factor will make it an "effective" 810mm f4 (ie. the image size is virtually blown up to be equivalent to 300 x 2.7 =810mm in the frame). Cool bananas!
Just what birders have ordered - reach - without carrying 5kg of lens about!
The flip-side is that your depth of field also increases to be equivalent to ~f11 (2.7 x 4) which compares to f6.7 -f7.1 on an APS-C (getting a bit marginal for subject isolation under certain circumstances...not so much of an issue for BIF, water-based birds or distant homogenous contrasting backgrounds......).
Could also provide a boon for Ansell Adams type "feet-to-horizon" landscapes without needing a pack of mules to haul the medium format gear around - if Nikon ever make a decent wide-angle zoom for it.....
This format announcement certainly has created a stir.......being fairly roundly poo-pooed on forums (somewhat prematurely, and unfairly, mainly by those looking for an APS-C or FF size sensor).
Relax! people - just because they've come out with this sensor size doesn't preclude them from building larger sensor sizes later.....
(looks like a fair bit of latent consumer frustration from "apple-ray(ed), iphone nano(ed) myface tube(d)! 6-monthly product release conditioned technophiles - especially given Nikons geological development pace....)
I think for what it is, the concept is quite good.
Strategically, for Nikon, I think the format size is brilliant.
In execution though, this V1(J1) iteration seems (even if not epic) a probable fail of some sort. Why? Too expensive, too big, too heavy, too-slow native lenses, too.......
I also think Nikon needs to seriously pull its finger out and modernize its great big fat full frame lenses if it wants to compete with Canon and win some new converts.....
Nikons telephotos are almost universally 20% heavier than Canons - I mean hullooo mr. Nikon........there are people in the world with zero need for their lenses to double as an improvised weapon, fit to bludgeon overly amorous grizzlies to death when out birding - some of us just want a lightweight package enabling us to remain fleet of foot when encountering.....ooh.....I dunno......say HALF the world's top ten deadliest snakes!! when out for a birding walk....
I'd like to see Canon come out and match the hatch with this format size (2.7x crop). A strategically safe and killer move.
I'd also like to see them make purpose built FX lens teleconverters for this '1' format size which would negate the need for the extra weight of an adapter (are you listening mr Sigma /Tamron...got yer ears on.....come back little buddy.....coo...coo...)
I hope the world's fastest AF claims hold true (cue Panasonic R&D department spinning in their chairs at Mach 3!).......SR-71 Blackbird - really?!
(I think the advertising standards board will have to step in here somewhere - we can't have every company claiming to be world's fastest.....kinda makes a mockery of the word fastest!)
And what's more I hope the adapter doesn't degrade this supposed speed (all we need now is for Nikon to bring the 300 f4 into the 21st century with a sub-1kg weight And IS! - hey while you're at it how bout a sub-2kg 400 f4 IS!!).
I'm not sure what the translucent mirror stuff on this thread is (That's Sony DSLR tech), but picking between the scant details the phase detect AF seems to work something like this:-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
I'm not sure if its just me - but I think the higher iso performance looks pretty good - its the lowest iso performance I think is a bit lacking (how good is the Oly PEN E-PL3 ?!!) .........whaddya reckon?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_v1&masterSample=dsc_0307&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_v1&slot0Sample=dsc_0307&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=sony_nexc3&slot1Sample=dsc00987&slot2Camera=oly_epl3&slot2Sample=p8100509&slot3Camera=panasonic_dmcgf3&slot3Sample=p1000130&x=0.638132080685272&y=-0.6532826690470145
Anyway, I for one (no pun) applaud Nikon for this format........now could you just fix those details............
Chosun :gh:
_____________________________________________________________
That's the thing about infinity........its always at least one more than you can imagine....
Last edited:
Vertigo_111
Member
Hi,
I'm very tempted by the v1 myself, to second my D300 with 300/2.8 when birds are too distant.
Raw files that pop up around are very encouraging (see the DPreview comparison tool)
I thought a bit on several facts linked to the smaller CX sensor :
- 2.7x crop factor compared to FX is 1.8x compared to DX. So using a CX sensor is like putting a TC-18 in front of a DX sensor, in terms of field of view. Without the light loss. a 300/2.8 on CX will be a 540/2.8 on DX equivalent.
- Because I often crop my DX pictures in post-processing because the bird was definitely too far |8(| , the main advantage of the CX should be to become able to shoot the bird from the same distance, with the same lens, without having to crop afterwards. Detail on the bird should be improved, using the full 10MP of the CX, instead of the -say 4 MP- crop in the 12 MP DX image.
- DOF : in the above-mentioned situation (same distance/same lens/reduced FOV), the DOF should not change much compared to larger sensors.
On the other hand, if the CX "extra-reach" is used to shoot with shorter, lighter lens (say a 150/2.8) or shoot more distant subjects, then indeed the DOF will be much larger on CX than on DX/FX.
From the formulae on dofmaster, I calculated that for equivalent FOV, CX will produce 3.4 stops more DOF than DX, and 5.7 stops more DOF than FX. That is my 300/2.8 will be equivalent to a 540/2.8 on DX for reach and light, but more like a 540/9.5 for DOF. Another way to look at it is that if I use a 150/2.8 on CX, the reach (FOV) will be close to my current 300/2.8 on DX (150 x 1.8 = 270mm), but DOF in images wide open will be closer to when I close my 300/2.8 down to f/9.5.
Well, that's it for now. What do you think of these predictions ?
Anyway, you guess I can't wait for the FT-1 adapter to hit the shelves
I'm very tempted by the v1 myself, to second my D300 with 300/2.8 when birds are too distant.
Raw files that pop up around are very encouraging (see the DPreview comparison tool)
I thought a bit on several facts linked to the smaller CX sensor :
- 2.7x crop factor compared to FX is 1.8x compared to DX. So using a CX sensor is like putting a TC-18 in front of a DX sensor, in terms of field of view. Without the light loss. a 300/2.8 on CX will be a 540/2.8 on DX equivalent.
- Because I often crop my DX pictures in post-processing because the bird was definitely too far |8(| , the main advantage of the CX should be to become able to shoot the bird from the same distance, with the same lens, without having to crop afterwards. Detail on the bird should be improved, using the full 10MP of the CX, instead of the -say 4 MP- crop in the 12 MP DX image.
- DOF : in the above-mentioned situation (same distance/same lens/reduced FOV), the DOF should not change much compared to larger sensors.
On the other hand, if the CX "extra-reach" is used to shoot with shorter, lighter lens (say a 150/2.8) or shoot more distant subjects, then indeed the DOF will be much larger on CX than on DX/FX.
From the formulae on dofmaster, I calculated that for equivalent FOV, CX will produce 3.4 stops more DOF than DX, and 5.7 stops more DOF than FX. That is my 300/2.8 will be equivalent to a 540/2.8 on DX for reach and light, but more like a 540/9.5 for DOF. Another way to look at it is that if I use a 150/2.8 on CX, the reach (FOV) will be close to my current 300/2.8 on DX (150 x 1.8 = 270mm), but DOF in images wide open will be closer to when I close my 300/2.8 down to f/9.5.
Well, that's it for now. What do you think of these predictions ?
Anyway, you guess I can't wait for the FT-1 adapter to hit the shelves
Last edited:
We've had dreadful weather come in so I haven't been able to do many meaningful tests, but I did a quick shootout against the P7000 which I posted in the Digiscoping thread ( I mainly bought it as a digiscoping camera ). Test at 200 mm and iso 100. The V1 shows a small improvement over the P7000. If I had to put a number on it I would say 5%.
Maybe not enough to justify the price and maybe the newer P7100 would give it a closer "run for it's money".
With some expensive Nikon glass on it I'm sure it will be a different story, or maybe a Zeiss.
Neil
Maybe not enough to justify the price and maybe the newer P7100 would give it a closer "run for it's money".
With some expensive Nikon glass on it I'm sure it will be a different story, or maybe a Zeiss.
Neil
Attachments
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Thanks for that info Neil. Look forward to you testing it on a lens. Is the FT-1 adapter available there yet and how much does it cost in relation to the body ?
cheers Dave
cheers Dave
I took the V1 for a ferry ride yesterday and got some snapshots around the harbour on Lamma Island with the 30 - 110 kit zoom. The jpegs shots look ok out of the camera but perhaps a bit "sterile". I had a look at the raws and they are not bad. The second and third photos were at full zoom (297 mm ) and the fourth was a jpeg processed in iPhoto.
I'll do a test with various cameras in the next few days (GF1, Nex5,X100,G12,P7000).
Neil
I'll do a test with various cameras in the next few days (GF1, Nex5,X100,G12,P7000).
Neil
Attachments
Vertigo_111
Member
By reading the V1 manual, I think I understand that there are deep limitations in continuous shooting :
- 10/30/60 fps (electronic HIGH shutter): P mode only, no access to ISO, metering or AF mode. See p. 173.
- 5 fps (mechanical shutter) : S or M mode only, single AF. See p. 191.
Is this confirmed by first users ?
- 10/30/60 fps (electronic HIGH shutter): P mode only, no access to ISO, metering or AF mode. See p. 173.
- 5 fps (mechanical shutter) : S or M mode only, single AF. See p. 191.
Is this confirmed by first users ?
Dave Williams
Well-known member
I had a quick look at the J1 in Jessops today. Neat little camera.
I asked if they had the FT-1 adapter and they said it was by order only but it was in stock.
Warehouse Express don't list it at all which is odd ( I can't find it anyway) but Grays of Westminster list it at a price of £229. Whether it's actually in stock is a different matter. I somehow suspect that it isn't either there or at Jessops.
I asked if they had the FT-1 adapter and they said it was by order only but it was in stock.
Warehouse Express don't list it at all which is odd ( I can't find it anyway) but Grays of Westminster list it at a price of £229. Whether it's actually in stock is a different matter. I somehow suspect that it isn't either there or at Jessops.
Vertigo_111
Member
Update on my previous calculation on DOF with V1 : I made a mistake by not taking CoC into account.
Chosun had it right, yous simply need to multiply f number by crop factor. Hence the DOF increase of CX for "same image, same distance" is only about 1.5 stops compared to DX and 3 stops compared to FX.
Chosun had it right, yous simply need to multiply f number by crop factor. Hence the DOF increase of CX for "same image, same distance" is only about 1.5 stops compared to DX and 3 stops compared to FX.
I'm interested in the DOF as I like to shoot groups of waders - more is better.
Neil