Nikon 1 vs m4/3 continued


Imaging Resource has just posted their lab shots of the Nikon J1. You can bring the full size image up and compare them to the review of the 5N, which has comparisons with the EP3, GF3, G3, NX100, C3 (wine bottle, red fabric and wine label) and come to your own conclusions. I think most people will be surprised....
 

Haha, "according to its research" it is the smallest and lightest in the world.

Really? smaller and lighter than the Q?
 

cannedpineapples said:
Haha, "according to its research" it is the smallest and lightest in the world.

Really? smaller and lighter than the Q?

Heh heh... As mentioned... "Their research". I wonder how much research was put into it before making those claims. :bsmilie:
 

Imaging Resource has just posted their lab shots of the Nikon J1. You can bring the full size image up and compare them to the review of the 5N, which has comparisons with the EP3, GF3, G3, NX100, C3 (wine bottle, red fabric and wine label) and come to your own conclusions. I think most people will be surprised....


Not impressed if compared to the G3 (I did compare). However, since their target market is to bring compact camera users to interchangeable system, then as a compact user, I will be impressed at the quality but probably not the price.
 

Agreed, but only vs the G3. The Nikons' are clearly not as bad as people are speculating. Overall, I think they are pretty competitive in IQ.
 

M43 have about 0.5F stop advantage in dim conditions

6202277980_4b3462e351_b.jpg
 

Maybe some experts can explain... Why is it that the EP3 and the Nikon 1 has basically same scores in other categories, with the EP3 having better ISO performance, yet for overall score EP3 is lower?
 

Maybe some experts can explain... Why is it that the EP3 and the Nikon 1 has basically same scores in other categories, with the EP3 having better ISO performance, yet for overall score EP3 is lower?

Basically, color bit depth and dynamic range. Don't know what is the weight-age for each.
Don't read too much into it. Its just a technical interpretation of what the sensor is giving.
It does not always translate into better pictures.
This is the flaw of the DXO results.

For example :
A sensor can score quite well for ISO on DXO, but can be blurred up that it lacks details vs a nosier sensor that has better detail retention.
Before Kx and K5, Pentax used to get beaten up on DXO for high ISO scores, when in fact actual photos tell another story.

Just go look at the Imagining Resource comparometer :
Both at ISO 200
J1 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONJ1/FULLRES/J1INBI0200.HTM
EPL1 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EPL1/FULLRES/EPL1INBI0200.HTM


Better score on DXO? - Yes
Better in real photos? -No
 

Last edited:
On dynamic range 0.9EV is a fair difference (almost 1 F-stop), while the difference between ISO 372 and ISO 536 (about 0.5 F-stop) isn't that much. I wouldn't consider a DXOMark difference between 51 and 56 to be significant. It's a wash.

Here's a link that explains
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
 

Last edited:
seems like the first few reviews for the v1 and j1 are out... here's one: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-v1-mirrorless-compact-camera-review-17548

recap:

Nikon 1 V1 Verdict
The Nikon 1 Series is like a more compact mirrorless system, with a smaller sensor than the Micro Four thirds system, it allows smaller lenses, and the 10 megapixel sensor achieves an amazing 60fps shooting, high speed video and full HD recording. Nikon has used the high speed sensor to develop "Motion snapshot", a combination of video and a photo, as well as Smart Photo Selector that chooses the best 5 photos from 30 taken at 30fps.

Whilst this may be useful for a number of people who want to make sure they capture the moment, and gives them both video and high speed photo, it's the 60fps shooting and high quality video that are most likely to interest readers of this site. Continuous shooting is excellent: 60fps at full resolution is generally unheard of except in high end video. Does anything even come remotely close to this? Although it seems a shame that there is not the option to use the high speed shooting for other things, such as auto exposure bracketing, auto-HDR, and auto-panoramic modes, options strangely missing from the camera.

The lens line up is lacking in bright aperture lenses, and it will be good to see if the future lenses address this. The camera features hybrid AF, with contrast and phase detection built into the sensor, and provides extremely fast focusing, although perhaps focusing isn't always as quick as intended, with the Panasonic GF3 / Olympus PEN Mini focusing more quickly at times.

Image quality is very good, with great colour, and detail, although ISO noise is not as impressive as M43 cameras, but noticeably better than serious compacts, such as the Nikon Coolpix P7100, particularly at higher ISO settings.

The price of the V1 seems expensive compared to other mirrorless cameras and the consumer orientated features (lack of AEB, Manual controls on the mode dial, etc) could be a disappointment to some. If you can live without the EVF, and don't mind a smaller buffer then the J1 appears to be much better value for money, although with a shorter buffer for continuous shooting.

I can imagine the 1 series being very popular with consumers and people who want the high speed and high quality video, and the Nikon 1 V1 certainly delivers that. Or for those that want a more compact mirrorless camera, the kits lenses available so far (10mm, 10-30mm, 30-110mm) are very compact thanks to the pancake design and collapsible zooms. However, I suspect that more serious photographers or more adventurous may find some of the limitations a little puzzling.

Nikon 1 V1 Pros
High speed shooting at 60fps
High resolution viewfinder
Compact camera and lenses
Large range of future lenses
Hybrid AF - Contrast and Phase Detection
Eye-detection EVF
Impressive image quality
Camera switches on when you unlock collapsible lenses
Mic socket

Nikon 1 V1 Cons
Image quality does not match Micro Four Thirds at high ISO
High initial price compared to market for V1
Scene modes can't be individually selected
High speed shooting could be developed for additional features (HDR, Panoramic, etc)
 

Maybe some experts can explain... Why is it that the EP3 and the Nikon 1 has basically same scores in other categories, with the EP3 having better ISO performance, yet for overall
score EP3 is lower?

This is debated a lot on DPR.. basically DXO uses a methodology that doesnt equate to real world photos. If you check the E-5 scores they are lower than the EP-3. Does it mean the E-5 has lousier photos? Also the Leica M8 is rated lower than even D3100. Really meh? So may folks on dpr are very sceptical on DXO. I'd rather look at real world comparisions.

the DxO Mark score is a bit missleading, as it leaves the resolution out of the equation.. so it measures only the pixel level behavior but to the score it does not matter how much pixels(therefor captured detail) there are.. in short: at pixel level the Nikon may be close to M4/3 but it still has far less pixels and can therefor capture less detail.
 

Last edited:
seems like the first few reviews for the v1 and j1 are out... here's one: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-1-v1-mirrorless-compact-camera-review-17548

recap:

Nikon 1 V1 Verdict
The Nikon 1 Series is like a more compact mirrorless system, with a smaller sensor than the Micro Four thirds system, it allows smaller lenses, and the 10 megapixel sensor achieves an amazing 60fps shooting, high speed video and full HD recording. Nikon has used the high speed sensor to develop "Motion snapshot", a combination of video and a photo, as well as Smart Photo Selector that chooses the best 5 photos from 30 taken at 30fps.

Whilst this may be useful for a number of people who want to make sure they capture the moment, and gives them both video and high speed photo, it's the 60fps shooting and high quality video that are most likely to interest readers of this site. Continuous shooting is excellent: 60fps at full resolution is generally unheard of except in high end video. Does anything even come remotely close to this? Although it seems a shame that there is not the option to use the high speed shooting for other things, such as auto exposure bracketing, auto-HDR, and auto-panoramic modes, options strangely missing from the camera.

The lens line up is lacking in bright aperture lenses, and it will be good to see if the future lenses address this. The camera features hybrid AF, with contrast and phase detection built into the sensor, and provides extremely fast focusing, although perhaps focusing isn't always as quick as intended, with the Panasonic GF3 / Olympus PEN Mini focusing more quickly at times.

Image quality is very good, with great colour, and detail, although ISO noise is not as impressive as M43 cameras, but noticeably better than serious compacts, such as the Nikon Coolpix P7100, particularly at higher ISO settings.

The price of the V1 seems expensive compared to other mirrorless cameras and the consumer orientated features (lack of AEB, Manual controls on the mode dial, etc) could be a disappointment to some. If you can live without the EVF, and don't mind a smaller buffer then the J1 appears to be much better value for money, although with a shorter buffer for continuous shooting.

I can imagine the 1 series being very popular with consumers and people who want the high speed and high quality video, and the Nikon 1 V1 certainly delivers that. Or for those that want a more compact mirrorless camera, the kits lenses available so far (10mm, 10-30mm, 30-110mm) are very compact thanks to the pancake design and collapsible zooms. However, I suspect that more serious photographers or more adventurous may find some of the limitations a little puzzling.

Nikon 1 V1 Pros
High speed shooting at 60fps
High resolution viewfinder
Compact camera and lenses
Large range of future lenses
Hybrid AF - Contrast and Phase Detection
Eye-detection EVF
Impressive image quality
Camera switches on when you unlock collapsible lenses
Mic socket

Nikon 1 V1 Cons
Image quality does not match Micro Four Thirds at high ISO
High initial price compared to market for V1
Scene modes can't be individually selected
High speed shooting could be developed for additional features (HDR, Panoramic, etc)

Key thing here is the Nikon 1 is rather good for what it is.. a P&S upgrader's camera... problem is the price. Its priced similar or more than equivalent M4/3 cameras. Which is a wrong move IMHO. It should be priced below US 500 to make it competitive. not at 899 USD. I'd rather buy a GH2 for that price which gives your more.. heck, for that price you can buy a NEX 5n, an EP3 or even a canikon DSLR.. so thats a marketing blunder.

The Nikon looks fine as long as
1) You don’t plan to shoot above 800 ISO,
2) You don’t need fast lenses,
3) You don’t need any depth of field separation,
4) You don’t need manual dials,
5) You don’t mind paying USD$200more for an inferior camera.
 

Last edited:
Those who want to know why DXO has no cred with enthusiast photog would want to read this simple comparision and discussion of the Nikon 1 v Ep3. Very enlightening.
Basically DXO is not equal to actual real world IQ or tests. DXO is a synthetic test that does not take resolution into account as one of the criteria. Read and judge for yourselves why Nikon 1 is indeed inferior to m4/3. Look at the sample shots provided.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=39498472&changemode=1
 

One last point :

1) DXO measures a sensor
2) The last time I checked, I actually buy a camera.. i.e with lens. not just a sensor. and here, m4/3's glass is way ahead of Nikon's native CX lenses... wait.. only 3 lenses? sounds like NEX
3) Also most of us here in this forum, are buying into a "system". not just a sensor..

SO.. does DXO really make a difference.... er.... NO

Its like saying My car's engine is better than yours... yep.. the last time i checked, i drive a CAR not an engine. So other things like rims, wheels, accessories, build quaility etc all are important.

The DXO fanboys dont see the forest for the trees.. they are too single minded and not realistic.
 

Lets all buy the Nikon D7000 instead of a Leica M9 !! WOW... the $10000 camera system is lousier than a semi pro DSLR at $2000 !!! Cheap..

so.. DXO doesnt tell the whole story... right?

 

Lets all buy the Nikon D7000 instead of a Leica M9 !! WOW... the $10000 camera system is lousier than a semi pro DSLR at $2000 !!! Cheap..

so.. DXO doesnt tell the whole story... right?


The M9 sensor was never fantastic in low light because of the lack of the AA filter. Never mind Leica's somewhat not-so-good electronics.
 

The M9 sensor was never fantastic in low light because of the lack of the AA filter. Never mind Leica's somewhat not-so-good electronics.

yes.. but it still gives "Better" photos.. from those i've seen.. there's a "leica" look that cannot be explained.. nett is that DXO doesnt necessarily equate to ability to take good or better photos. Its an artificial benchmark. Its the lenses + camera + photog that gives the final equation. So I'm responding to all those who believe that DXO is the only measurement of a camera's (note not sensor) ability to take great photographs..
 

Key thing here is the Nikon 1 is rather good for what it is.. a P&S upgrader's camera... problem is the price. Its priced similar or more than equivalent M4/3 cameras. Which is a wrong move IMHO. It should be priced below US 500 to make it competitive. not at 899 USD. I'd rather buy a GH2 for that price which gives your more.. heck, for that price you can buy a NEX 5n, an EP3 or even a canikon DSLR.. so thats a marketing blunder.

The Nikon looks fine as long as
1) You don’t plan to shoot above 800 ISO,
2) You don’t need fast lenses,
3) You don’t need any depth of field separation,
4) You don’t need manual dials,
5) You don’t mind paying USD$200more for an inferior camera.

I totally agree with you on this. Have to admit that the Nikon 1 is a good camera but its price is not justified at least for me. For that price, you can buy a NEX 5n and EP3 which have better image quality.
 

Agrivar said:
yes.. but it still gives "Better" photos.. from those i've seen.. there's a "leica" look that cannot be explained.. nett is that DXO doesnt necessarily equate to ability to take good or better photos. Its an artificial benchmark. Its the lenses + camera + photog that gives the final equation. So I'm responding to all those who believe that DXO is the only measurement of a camera's (note not sensor) ability to take great photographs..

A good part of the image quality comes from the fact that the lenses used are also of good quality. Voigtlander, Zeiss or Leica are great.
 

Last edited:
Back
Top