Nikon 1 vs m4/3 continued

[george671]

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..

Your are treading in rough waters here with that statement...Can you show me an example where the Leica Lens/body combo is significantly "better" than another rig in the same lighting and subject (picture wise)?????? Don't get me wrong, I still love Leica's, but its not for the images they make, Its for the ease of use and quality of construction,,, not to mention that I am a manual focus/ rangefinder kind of guy....

Cheers

I do like the Kodak sensor they use as well.....

 

[Oly5050]

Well DXO has a significant impact no matter wat. It measures sensor performance, not image quality... But people equate DXO to camera quality too. At the end of the day only pple at DXO wins because they now make living from doing this which to photographers is quite irrelevant bec its not just about the sensor.

As for leica, if u paid more than 10 k for a camera versus less than 1k, u would def feel that the photo from the 10 k camera is better. Also if ur sensor were bigger, u would also feel the same. In the same way, when i shoot my frens with the bigger camera or the bigger lens, they think that it is me giving them face versus when i use my m4/3 to shoot. To me, i think leicas are over-priced n quite useless compared to the micro 4/3. The have pathetic limited iso capability, limited shutter speeds (u hv to either stop down or use ND filters if its too bright), juz to name a few limitations. If other cameras had these specs, they would not sell. But bec they are leica AND maybe bec they are expensive, they still hv a desirability factor. But to me, its a less than capable tool...more of a novelty to me wn compared to other modern cameras.

In any case, a lot of people are ignorant and dun see that the camera is a tool n u use a tool appropriate for the job. The most expensive or the biggest camera is in our context, not usually the most appropriate tool.

 

[jeff7id]

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?

Ooh, I think I should sell M9 and upgrade to NEX-5N

 

[Agrivar]

lol.. i agree with all your statements.. : )

Its just that one of our friends posted the DXO results of the Nikon 1 vs m4/3 cams and my subsequent posts just say that DXO is not everything. I love my GH2 and i've seen some Leica pics that are superb. Maybe its more the photog than the cam.. but whatever it is, one shouldnt just use DXO blindly at face value. It has its worth, like if you really need low light, high iso capability, DXO might give you some reference... after that, its the complete system. Hope i'm not causing a war here...

 

[ziggy]

Can you show me an example where the Leica Lens/body combo is significantly "better" than another rig in the same lighting and subject (picture wise)?????? Don't get me wrong, I still love Leica's, but its not for the images they make, Its for the ease of use and quality of construction,,, not to mention that I am a manual focus/ rangefinder kind of guy....

Cheers

I do like the Kodak sensor they use as well.....

For me the only way to appreciate a Leica lens is to enlarge the photo, the larger the better. It is not necessarily the sharpest but sure looks very real.

 

[tsammyc]

I'm believe that I am somewhat unbiased here since I don't own a Nikon or M43. When I look at the images of the J1 vs M43 on various websites like the comparometer on Imaging Resources, I see the Nikon pictures as competitive. IMHO they are slightly worse than the G3 and about the same as the EP3 and GF3. I'm just stating my opinion and not trying to convince anyone of anything. I accept other views. Certainly, I have noticed that the quality of the Nikon 1 series pictures came as a shock to the many people who laughed at the 1 series based on the spec of a 2.7x crop sensor expecting P&S quality. The DXOMark simply confirms that it is "possible" for the 1-series body with a small sensor to take pretty nice pictures. If you don't have good light or a good lens, YMMV.

As for Leica, my view is that they are great cameras for people who have a lot of time to practice manual focus and have extremely sharp lenses and good bokeh. I would love to own some Leica lenses in the future, but I doubt that I would buy a Leica body. If you buy a M9 body for $10K and sell it in a year, you lose $3K. If you buy most other mirrorless cameras, you lose just a few hundred $ at most. For those who think that manual focussing is slow, there is a Digitalrev video on youtube that shows Kai focussing his M9 faster than phase detection autofocus in Nikons and Canons when light isn't so good.

 

[Agrivar]

Dpreview just released their first impressions of the Nikon 1

Just Posted: Preview and first impressions of using the Nikon V1: Digital Photography Review

What is really intersting is that the Nikon 1 is NOT smaller than m4/3. Its similar sized to the G3 :-
So what's its advantage vs m4/3? Nikon is more expensive, has similar IQ (up to ISO400-800), but is worse past ISO800, has only 4 lenses. 2 bodies to choose from and ugly.. you decide.
And with the upcoming Panny X lenses, m4/3 will definitely be smaller than Nikon 1. Oly lenses are already much smaller. The 14-150 oly lens is probably 3/4 size of the Nikon 10-100.. what more can i say.. So why would anyone buy the Nikon 1?

If I want small, light and much much better IQ, i could go with a Panny GF3 or Oly E-Pl3/PM-1 with the Trio of prime lenses : 12mm/14mm & 20mm/25mm & 45mm.

 

[pinholecam]

Dpreview just released their first impressions of the Nikon 1

Just Posted: Preview and first impressions of using the Nikon V1: Digital Photography Review

What is really intersting is that the Nikon 1 is NOT smaller than m4/3. Its similar sized to the G3 :-
So what's its advantage vs m4/3? Nikon is more expensive, has similar IQ (up to ISO400-800), but is worse past ISO800, has only 4 lenses. 2 bodies to choose from and ugly.. you decide.
And with the upcoming Panny X lenses, m4/3 will definitely be smaller than Nikon 1. Oly lenses are already much smaller. The 14-150 oly lens is probably 3/4 size of the Nikon 10-100.. what more can i say.. So why would anyone buy the Nikon 1?

If I want small, light and much much better IQ, i could go with a Panny GF3 or Oly E-Pl3/PM-1 with the Trio of prime lenses : 12mm/14mm & 20mm/25mm & 45mm.

It has 'Nikon' on the front.
It does make people feel better that they are using something from a brand well associated with 'quality' photography.
Less chance of being looked down on by people as well (ie. peer pressure)


I recall an incident some time ago.
A friend of mine wanted to get a MP3 player at the IT Show and wanted my advice.
This is way back, so no smart phones yet.
Sony PSP was just launched not more than 6mth ago.
So was the ipod with all the hype and rage.
I tried to convince my friend to get a PSP. ~$550 gets you something that can get on the internet, play high quality games, play the MP3, watch video.
Blah...blah... blah...
In the end, he said "You know me, I want something 'good' and 'quality'." Proceeded to the Apple booth and bought the ipod with b/w screen and only plays itunes, at ~$550. :mad2: So much for needing advice..


Public perception (peer pressure) and hype plays a big part in buying habits of the laymen.

The V1, J1 also does something better. It takes better photos for the user. (or at least that's the claim with the multi shot thingy/function it has)
To us photo enthusiasts, it may be sacrilege.
But to the layman, they won't know better, so long as o/p looks nice for them. Don't care if it was 1 shot picked out of 20 shots.




(Btw, that ipod had a battery breakdown within 1 month of usage and had to be sent in for repair..... ) :devil:

 

[Agrivar]

It has 'Nikon' on the front.
It does make people feel better that they are using something from a brand well associated with 'quality' photography.
Less chance of being looked down on by people as well (ie. peer pressure)


I recall an incident some time ago.
A friend of mine wanted to get a MP3 player at the IT Show and wanted my advice.
This is way back, so no smart phones yet.
Sony PSP was just launched not more than 6mth ago.
So was the ipod with all the hype and rage.
I tried to convince my friend to get a PSP. ~$550 gets you something that can get on the internet, play high quality games, play the MP3, watch video.
Blah...blah... blah...
In the end, he said "You know me, I want something 'good' and 'quality'." Proceeded to the Apple booth and bought the ipod with b/w screen and only plays itunes, at ~$550. :mad2: So much for needing advice..


Public perception (peer pressure) and hype plays a big part in buying habits of the laymen.

The V1, J1 also does something better. It takes better photos for the user. (or at least that's the claim with the multi shot thingy/function it has)
To us photo enthusiasts, it may be sacrilege.
But to the layman, they won't know better, so long as o/p looks nice for them. Don't care if it was 1 shot picked out of 20 shots.




(Btw, that ipod had a battery breakdown within 1 month of usage and had to be sent in for repair..... ) :devil:

Totally agree.. the "NIKON" in the front will attract p&s upgraders who may not know better or who dont care..
I shoot dancesport for fun and my kit is typically my GH2 with Blackrapid strap and 14-54 Mk II / 14-140 for video.
When I shoot and I get stares because all around me are photog using FF nikons and Canons and even high end semi pro cams like 60D or D7000 and with battery grips etc.. all looking pro.. so i understand about peer pressure.. is my m4/3 the best kit for Dancesport? No. But I make do as I'm not a pro and i do get quite good keepers using RAW. But I use a GH2 because of video. I take video and it blows whatever DSLR video out there by a large margin.. so in the end, i just ignore the peer pressure and shoot with what I'm comfortable with.. and my kit is easily 1/2 or 1/3 of the weight of those FF photog with L lenses etc.. So its a compromise i live with.. : )

Thats why I try to educate at least those P&S upgrades who are interested in photography.. and let them make the choice.

 

[tsammyc]

I find the G3 to be the perfect size for a DSLR lookalike mirrorless, so perhaps its not so bad that the V1 is oversized for its sensor. Perhaps they could have made it smaller, but some people complain that the NEX and Q are "too small".

 

[elgkh]

I would love to see a blind test of the images taken by the Leica, Olympus, Panasonic and Nikon. Oh, and throw in something from the FF and APS-C camera for fun. I doubt that I can see the difference.

 

[fengwei]

I would love to see a blind test of the images taken by the Leica, Olympus, Panasonic and Nikon. Oh, and throw in something from the FF and APS-C camera for fun. I doubt that I can see the difference.

Technologies have devloped to a stage that the differences between good cameras and lenses are very minimum, they are all equally capable of taking great and lousy photos. It all boils down to the photographers and their preference Got money and are willing to carry heavy stuff, go for faster lenses and FF, otherwise even a GF1+20mm combo would be hard to beat (by a big margin) if you know how to use them well.

 

[geikou]

Looks like Nikon's archilles heel - slow software/interface - is at the moment, at least, going to be in the 1 cams. From the Nikon forum somebody posted saying the software is slow and buggy. And from dpreview first impressions, seems to confirm it.

Secondly, with its kit zoom and 10mm pancake lens options the V1 powers up quickly in roughly 1 second, and only takes a fraction of a second longer to power down. When the camera goes to sleep though, it takes almost two seconds to 'wake up' before you can take a photograph, and a long half press of the shutter button is required to rouse it. Shot to shot time in single frame advance mode isn't great either at around two seconds on average, including AF re-aquisition. This isn't bad performance by the standards of a high-end compact, but it isn't great compared to some of the V1's mirrorless interchangeable lens competitors.

First Impressions: Using the Nikon V1: Digital Photography Review

 

[Agrivar]

I would love to see a blind test of the images taken by the Leica, Olympus, Panasonic and Nikon. Oh, and throw in something from the FF and APS-C camera for fun. I doubt that I can see the difference.

Yep.. Especially in print..

 

[pinholecam]

I would love to see a blind test of the images taken by the Leica, Olympus, Panasonic and Nikon. Oh, and throw in something from the FF and APS-C camera for fun. I doubt that I can see the difference.

I'd certainly agree it won't make a difference.
However, the method (and ease in some cases) to get to the same picture will be different.

This particular post addresses this very point.
Achieving a particular style of portrait photography - Micro Four Thirds User Forum

 

[cannedpineapples]

Nice portraits! Thanks for the post!

 

[tsammyc]

Technologies have devloped to a stage that the differences between good cameras and lenses are very minimum, they are all equally capable of taking great and lousy photos. It all boils down to the photographers and their preference Got money and are willing to carry heavy stuff, go for faster lenses and FF, otherwise even a GF1+20mm combo would be hard to beat (by a big margin) if you know how to use them well.

Absolutely. It's probably only a matter of weeks before some enterprising fellow makes an adapter that allows M4/3 lenses to be mounted on a Nikon 1. Imagine the Oly 1.8 or the Panny 1.7 on the V1. This should further blur the differences.

 

[ricleo]

Absolutely. It's probably only a matter of weeks before some enterprising fellow makes an adapter that allows M4/3 lenses to be mounted on a Nikon 1. Imagine the Oly 1.8 or the Panny 1.7 on the V1. This should further blur the differences.

imagine adding yet another crop factor on our 2x we already have to cater for the m4/3 sensors..... so a 45 1.8 becomes a what lens on the nikon?

 

[tsammyc]

The 45 1.8 would be a 121.5. However, the DOF would be around F4.6. May still have good background blur for full body shots.

I think we may have to face the fact that one day all P&S could have large sensors like APS-C. If you look at the Fuji X-100, its an APS-C camera with a tiny lens that takes fantastic photos. Right now its a P&S that costs $1,700, but give it time and your Canon and Casio P&S could also sport APS-C sensors and cost $400.

 

[cannedpineapples]

The 45 1.8 would be a 121.5. However, the DOF would be around F4.6. May still have good background blur for full body shots.

I think we may have to face the fact that one day all P&S could have large sensors like APS-C. If you look at the Fuji X-100, its an APS-C camera with a tiny lens that takes fantastic photos. Right now its a P&S that costs $1,700, but give it time and your Canon and Casio P&S could also sport APS-C sensors and cost $400.

That would be awesome. That is also why I try to wait one or two years before upgrading bodies. In my experience that's enough time for technology to jump forward substantially.