The Mirrorless Nikon Arrives

<blockquote>

<p>2. Olympus has in body stabilisation - do companies still make in lens image stabilistation? If Nikon's lenses are bigger due to this fact, they've no one to blame but themselves. Silly idea really.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In lens stabilization is supposed to be better at it's task than in-body. The way I see it, both systems have merit. That said, with the rise of video, I think in-body has a bit more merit than it used to, as few, if any, primes come with stabilization built in.</p>

<p>And knocking cameras for having barrel distortion in consumer grade zoom lenses is kind of sad. Even Nikon's consumer glass has barrel distortions. M43 has a decent ecosystem, and if everyone who has committed to it starts to build into it, the limits are almost endless. If Sigma brings out those lenses they promised and Fuji a body, then we could see even more growth.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2. Olympus has in body stabilisation - do companies still make in lens image stabilistation? If Nikon's lenses are bigger due to this fact, they've no one to blame but themselves. Silly idea really.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You know that IBIS overheats during video, don't you? This is why Olympus cameras cannot use IBIS during video. The way it "stablizes" the video is to take a software approach, which lowers resolution and creates many distortions and artefacts. </p>

<p>Everyone seems to be complaining about the 1 sensor size. I don't get it. Why should APS-C be the standard? Are the 18*24 mm dimensions so sacred? Don't forget, the APS-C size was chosen completely arbitrarily, based on value/cost ratio at the end of 1990's. Same for 4/3, a little later, and it didn't even work well for DSLRs. This is digital, you can make any sensor size you want. You don't need to worry about buying the right film!</p>

<p>If you ask me, APS-C is not a very good format and FX should be the norm, but hey - cost is the issue, so fine. On the m43, consider the 4:3 aspect ratio. One should chose 4/3 arefully - if you like 3:2 ratio like me, you'll crop off 4/3 pixels. Similarly, if one uses 4:3 on an APS-C sensor, you throw away a lot. Since I like 3:2 and wider, m43 is not idea for me - and APS-C means large lenses. So, there you go, CX is in the right spot right there.</p>

<p>So really, why so much love for APS-C format and the hate for CX? Now, 1/2.3" of Pentax Q complains I understand, but 10 MP CX is almost like cropped 24 MP APS-C. Instead, we should applaud Nikon for sticking with 10 MP. It could have been worse. Panasonic is sticking 16 MP into their 4/3, yet nobody seems to complain about that...</p>

<p>Another thing I find really funny is that APS-C is similar in size to APS film, which received more hate than any other format. 4/3 senzors are similar in size to 110 film, which also doesn't get much love. Yet, everyone seems to want APS-C and 4/3 now. Say what?</p>

<p>Now, I understand the complains about the camera controls, lens choices, perhaps cost etc., but sensor size? I for one welcome the alternative. Everyone is welcome to buy NEX with their insanely bulky lenses, NX with almost no lenses, or overpriced 4/3 with 4:3 aspect ratio.</p>

<p>Ty:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>1. Check out this review, which puts an Olympus EP-2 (apparently an entry level camera) with a Panasonic 20mm lens against a Nikon D3s:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/" target="_blank">http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I got from this "review" is that a $350 lens (Panasonic) can almost hold its own against a $125 lens (Nikon).</p>

<p>I would hope so. I would hope the $350 lens would blow away the $125 one.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Eric, by your reasoning, the Leica M9 must be the best small format digital camera on the market, as well as all of their lenses - thank you for confirming my suspicions.</p>

<p>The Nikon 50mm in question, regardless of price, is a good lens. In fact the best 50mm that Nikon can make. Bjorn Rorslett rates it as high as 5+, and on a D3x it gets a 5. "Almost hold's it own"....As the reveiwer asks, which of the images look better to you?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You know that IBIS overheats during video, don't you? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean to tell me that people actually use the video function on their cameras! I guess that's what camera enthusiasts do when they're sick of pushing and turning all the other knobs. </p>

<p>Ty, the problem with that test is that the RAW conversions were done with ACR default settings. That's not going to work for a Nikon D3s. These cameras have an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor that prevent moire and other aliasing artifacts. The high SNR of the sensor means you can recover the detail with appropriate image processing. The guy who did the test appears to be a Leica M9 user. That explain why he doesn't know how to process a D3s file. (Hint: use Nikon's software.)</p>

<p>Secondly, if you compare a camera with micro four thirds size sensor with an FX camera, you should stop down the FX lens about two stops to get similar depth of field. You can do this again because the SNR of the D3s will give less noise at ISO 400 than the E-P2 at ISO 100. And no, the E-P2 is not an "entry-level" model - it is Olympus' former top-of-the-line micro four thirds camera, replaced recently by the E-P3.</p>

<p>As to regarding the 50/1.8 in question, the older D version does have a little soft corners which has been rectified in the AF-S versions of both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. And even these new 50mm lenses are meant to be affordable and are hardly the best that Nikon could do. Nevertheless if you look at a properly done test, e.g. photozone.de you will come to a very different conclusion regarding the capabilities of the 50mm Nikkor vs. the 20mm Panasonic.</p>

<p>To add my personal opinion; I have seen some images from the Panasonic 20mm, and have played with the lens and think it is excellent. But I also get excellent results from the old 50/1.8D (and D3), how curious. ;-) And image quality is not just about detail, but also tonality and colours, especially at higher ISO, which is where FX cameras excel compared to micro four thirds. Take a shot with some blue sky with both cameras and compare. You can use the lowest ISO if you like. </p>

<p>Ty:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, by your reasoning, the Leica M9 must be the best small format digital camera on the market, as well as all of their lenses - thank you for confirming my suspicions.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't believe that's what I said, but at low ISO, I'd be surprised to see another small format digital camera produce images with more resolution or micro-contrast. At the point when I no longer need to use super telephoto lenses, I will most likely sell my current kit and buy a used Leica M12 along with a couple more lenses. I still have an M6 and 35/2 that I can't bring myself to sell.</p>

<p>Doesn't matter how expensive the camera is when you choose the cheapest lens for the comparison. My point is that this was an "apple vs oranges" review. The reviewer was building a straw man to tear down. That's fine. It's his prerogative. </p>

<p>The Panasonic 20/1.7 lens is a great lens. I'm not disputing that. If I were to use the same equipment in a different test, I could easily show how the Panasonic has horrible resolution. Put the test target on a platform moving quickly toward the camera. :) If you're not going to take advantage of the D3's features, then why use it for comparison? Only reason I can think of is to show how the Panasonic is on par with a much more expensive camera. Except it isn't. Run the test during a rain storm. I doubt if the Olympus would fare as well. :)</p>

<p>Compare it to a Nikon D3000. Then, the Nikon combo is $600, and the Olympus one is $1400 (according to the article.) The $1400 one will barely hold its own to the $600 one. Since the reviewer was making a point about how much everything cost, I'm assuming that's an important factor.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You mean to tell me that people actually use the video function on their cameras! I guess that's what camera enthusiasts do when they're sick of pushing and turning all the other knobs."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As every digital camera has or will include video, and as Olympus made a YouTube ad to show that the entire ad was shot with a PEN, do you still think that the video capacity on a camera is just a "gimmick?" Not only people, pro or no pro, want video in their camera (and there have been plenty of discussions here and elsewhere for why that is), the Nikon 1 series camera has further incorporated video features to improve the way we shoot stills which is how we can now get 60 fps at full resolution with a sub $1000 V1/J1.</p>

<p>Shooting for a ski resort, video has become more and more of my job. Depending on the event, being able to grab aux video or even B-camera video from my photo cameras has become a huge asset.</p>

<p>Now bring this back to my personal life, it has been nice having the video function as I travel. I have one camera out, and seamlessly switch from photo and video. It's great. Post the photo to YouTube or Facebook later to share with friends and family. And on a possible upcoming adventure, space could be a big concern (cross country on motorcycles). Having to carry two independent systems just won't work. I need 1 good photo/video camera + 1 helmet cam.</p>

<blockquote>Everyone seems to be complaining about the 1 sensor size. I don't get it. Why should APS-C be the standard?</blockquote>

 

<p>Just to pick up on this: the problem isn't that APS-C and 4/3 are "standard" (although the fact that they're <i>established</i> helps) - the problem is that they're the <i>competition</i>. Small sensors have compromises, as do large ones; the onus is on Nikon to ensure that the benefits of a small sensor (mostly cheapness, small lenses, small camera) justify the disadvantages (depth of field control, noise handling/resolution). On first appearances, they may not be making their argument especially well, since the 1-system is (with RRP) quite expensive and not <i>much</i> smaller than some of the competition. The system has advantages, which may or may not justify the other trade-offs, but purely on the subject of sensor size it's not an indisputably compelling decision. On the other hand, it <i>is</i> easier to stop a smaller sensor from overheating - and there may be other non-obvious benefits.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, re. APS/110 vs 135 film: the problem there is that the benefit of APS over 135 is size and (slightly) convenience, not cost, and there's a quality hit. A lot of people, myself included, like FX DSLRs, but there's no doubt that the cost of making them means that they're never likely to be as popular as the DX sensor cameras; they're simply "good enough" for most people, and the price (and size) premium for FX isn't always wanted. The FX cameras also don't have the pixel density of the DX ones (which explains the better high ISO performance), so for telephoto work DX can be a benefit. Going smaller still? I'm not so sure.</p>

<p><em>the cost of making them means that they're never likely to be as popular as the DX sensor cameras;</em></p>

<p>I think the cost of the sensor is actually a very small part of the cost of the camera. Notice how the D2X cost about 5000 EUR when it was top of the line yet Nikon set the price of its successor at 1700 EUR ... just like that. The same is true of the D3 vs. D700 and even more D3X vs D700. The cost of the sensor is not a big factor obviously, but prestige, and desirability of the top of the camera for those who want a top-of-the line camera. Yes, it would be an issue making an FX camera at the price point of a D7000 obviously, but given how much money lenses cost the cost of the D700 (1700 EUR) vs. D7000 (1000 EUR) again is not that decisive especially considering that there is a difference in autofocus performance and features. I believe the pricing is largely artificial ("what the market will bear") and little or nothing to do with production cost of sensor or any other part of the camera.</p>

<p>The drawback in my mind with Nikon DX cameras is that there are few dedicated prime lenses that would indeed make these cameras small. Micro Four Thirds cameras <em>are </em>small with the associated primes. Hopefully Nikon will also make a set of primes for the 1 series since with zooms the performance and usefulness is reduced (due to the combination of a small sensor and very slow lens) and the size is not all that tiny either.</p>

<p><em>The FX cameras also don't have the pixel density of the DX ones (which explains the better high ISO performance), so for telephoto work DX can be a benefit.</em></p>

<p>That's mostly a Nikon thing; Canon and Sony sell 21-24MP cameras for less than 2000 EUR. The pixel density of Nikon FX cameras is low because they can get away with it by offering better autofocus than the competition. There is however a lot of criticism that they get for this decision and it's likely to change in the next generation. Canon has 40MP sensors just waiting to be needed by the market i.e. competitive pressure to build up. I think people do not ask for 40MP simply because such files would be a pain to process routinely and most applications do not require it. But in 5-10 years the raw conversion of a 40MP files will take a split second and nobody will think they're slow to process or that there is a capacity issue associated with it. So then the FX cameras will likely match the pixel density of current DX cameras. And it isn't so easy to focus at that level of precision.</p>

<p>The low pixel density of the Nikon FX cameras is only one factor in their high ISO performance; about 1.2 stops comes simply from the increased size of the sensor (which means there will be more photons detected per given area of the final print => increased SNR). The rest is implementation.</p>

 

<p>The research into making good small CX chips <em><strong>should </strong></em>lead to better chips all round especially with regard to on-chip AF.</p>

<p>Slightly OT, but if they built an FX version of the current D7000 chip, would it push the limit of the lenses even more ie. with the chip out resolving the lens?</p>

<p>It would seem that given for example a 60 MP chip, the 'binning' down to 30MP would remove most of the noise and still have enough resolution to satisfy the p.peepers.</p>

<blockquote>That's mostly a Nikon thing; Canon and Sony sell 21-24MP cameras for less than 2000 EUR.</blockquote>

 

<p>True, but bear in mind that a 5D2 has roughly the pixel density of an Eos 350D (8MP APS-C). A D3x at any price has much larger sensor sites than a D7000. If this weren't true (which would mean a ~40MP "D4x") then there'd be no benefit for wildlife in using a DX camera (except cost and weight) compared with using the DX crop of an FX sensor. It's also true that implementation has made the modern cameras handle noise better irrespective of sensor site size.</p>

<p>Pixel density has very little to do with the benefits of using crop cameras for wildlife shooting to make you think you have a longer lens. </p>

<p>If it did then real life crop camera resolution would be substantially higher than cropped ff camera resolution, but it isn't. The true advantage of using a crop camera for wildlife telephoto shooting is framing, WYSIWYG, plus a tiny bit of additional resolution in some circumstances.</p>

<p>Pixel density is not a factor for noise in same generation sensors, sensor size is the over riding factor. If you want/need less noise get a bigger sensor. The best sensor for noise per area, tested at DxO, is a Canon P&S, if you put twenty of them together you would get a 200 mp FX sensor with less noise than a D3 anything.</p>

<blockquote>Pixel density has very little to do with the benefits of using crop cameras for wildlife shooting to make you think you have a longer lens.<br />

<br />

If it did then real life crop camera resolution would be substantially higher than cropped ff camera resolution, but it isn't. The true advantage of using a crop camera for wildlife telephoto shooting is framing, WYSIWYG, plus a tiny bit of additional resolution in some circumstances.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm going to disagree, respectfully, and acknowledging that I own only one (FX) Nikon DSLR. The pixel density of a D300 is 2.25x that of a D700 or D3s. The pixel density of a D7000 is 1.6x higher than a D3x. With a DX sensor, you need a less long lens to achieve the same field of view as an FX sensor would achieve with a longer lens, but if the FX sensor's pixel density was as high as the DX sensor, you'd get <i>exactly</i> the same image by using the FX sensor in DX crop mode (or by manually cutting the edges off the image). All else being equal, under these circumstances, I'd take the FX sensor in a heartbeat. because it would allow me to use a wider field of view when I wanted it. Relatively few of my images aren't cropped retrospectively anyway. Would you really choose a 5MP DX DSLR (let's call it 6MP and think of a D300 with "L" image size disabled) over a D700, just because of the viewfinder masking? (And even that is a more complete mask on a D3 series.)<br />

<br />

I <i>have</i> used a digital zoom on a compact when I knew I only wanted the middle of the frame - but only because the "zoom" was simply a crop, and I was saving card space and write time.</p>

 

<blockquote>Pixel density is not a factor for noise in same generation sensors, sensor size is the over riding factor. If you want/need less noise get a bigger sensor. The best sensor for noise per area, tested at DxO, is a Canon P&S, if you put twenty of them together you would get a 200 mp FX sensor with less noise than a D3 anything.</blockquote>

 

<p>Unless you want to enlarge the image based on the pixel count providing enough detail, as opposed to enlarging a constant fraction of the captured image, I agree, at least to an engineering approximation. And, of course, sensor size only matters because of the relationship between focal length, field of view, relative aperture and the total amount of light the lens transmits to the sensor. Of course, making an FX sensor with the pixel density of a P&S is a bit expensive (even if Ilkka's right about FX cameras having big mark-ups).</p>

<p><em>Pixel density is not a factor for noise in same generation sensors</em></p>

<p>It is a factor, though of secondary importance. The D3s (12MP FX) is one year newer than the D3X (24 MP FX) and they're very far from each other in high ISO performance. And Nikon has explicitly said many times that they need to make a compromise between resolution and noise (in the final print obviously). Canon on the other hand has a different approach as they always increase the resolution in subsequent generations thereby making comparisons between pixel densities within the same generation impossible.</p>

<p>The reason why pixel density is a factor is obvious: there is less space available corresponding to each photosite in a high density sensor, therefore they can not use as high quality electronics. By the way if there were more space, the best low-light photodetector would be a photomultiplier tube, not at all CMOS or CCD, but it's about 1 square centimeter in size so you wouldn't do much of an image with it (though there are imaging PMTs called microchannel plates, but still the individual channels are much larger than a photoside in a camera sensor). The difference in sensitivity is quite dramatic. For bright light the situation is different and photodiodes are competitive there. My point is just that given more space per detection site, much higher performance can be obtained.</p>

<p><em>The best sensor for noise per area, tested at DxO, is a Canon P&S,</em></p>

<p>Oh really? And which camera would that be? In any case the D3s which has the largest photosites of any DSLR currently made (AFAIK) absolutely smokes the 5D Mk II (Canon's best high ISO camera) as well as Nikon's high resolution model (D3X) for high ISO SNR: <br>

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/628%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/485%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon</p>

<p>Seems pretty convincing that the best way to get good low-light sensitivity is to use large photosites and good electronics for each photosite.</p>

<p><em>If it did then real life crop camera resolution would be substantially higher than cropped ff camera resolution, but it isn't. </em></p>

<p>Again that's a conclusion made based on your experience with Canon equipment. The D7000 (16 MP DX) camera obviously renders much more detail than the D3s with the same lens used at or near its optimum aperture, at base or intermediate ISO. Even the D200 (10MP) camera does, by a considerable margin. Now, another factor entirely is your ability to get the subject in focus which can be a challenge with small sensors. But the pixel density is a very real factor in real-world conditions when the light is bright but diffuse and shutter speed high enough and your aperture stopped down 1-2 stops on a suitable lens. Even I will admit to this, though I sold my D7000. The reason I sold it was that good results can be obtained across much wider set of conditions on a 12 MP FX camera than the 16 MP DX camera in my case, excluding tripod-based macro and landscape detail work for which the DX camera blows away the FX cameras that I have. And it's because of its pixel density.</p>

<p>Well, for my sins, I am a Canon user and I tested the 7D (18 MP Dx), with a view to getting one, against my 1Ds MkIII (21 MP Fx). For me the small additional resolution the 7D gave, minus the additional noise didn't make getting one any sense.</p>

<p>The montage below is set up in totally optimal conditions to favour the 7D, any deviation in support, manual focus, aperture etc and that very small resolution advantage just isn't there.</p>

<p>With regards pixel density, you can pontificate over definitions of enlarging for ever, most people want to make x-sized print etc from their image as captured. I have some nice images from a heavily berated high pixel count P&S that when you blow it up to big sizes the sweat pores on fingers are clearly visible.</p>

<p>I was just pointing out the oft quoted but inaccurate ideas about crop cameras and also pixel density and noise.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm certainly not contributing to ruffle feathers or start fights.</p>

<p>Peter van den Hamer's<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml"> review of the DxO sensor testing methodology</a> and results on Luminous Landscapes is certainly far more thorough and involved than I am capable of accurately contradicting. As he points out in end note (27) the S90 is arguably the best low light sensor tested <strong>when you take size into account. </strong>Even if you argue that it isn't the best, or argue DxO's testing methods (which many would), it is certainly in the same ballpark as the D3s, totally debunking the notion of noise and pixel density.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The D7000 (16 MP DX) camera obviously renders much more detail than the D3s with the same lens used at or near its optimum aperture, at base or intermediate ISO. "</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The D3s is pixel castrated, if you choose to believe Nikon's marketing department for the reasoning then fine, in the mean time line up a D3s, a D3x and a D7000 and show me the images laid over each other like my example, with over 100% crops that prove that and by how much. I have found that the differences are often much smaller than people think they should be, incidentally my train of thought was first started by a Nikon user when he compared his Dx and Fx cameras here on PN.</p>

<p>For my example the only processing I did was to resample the 1Ds MkIII image to give it the same pixel density as the 7D, no sharpening or noise reduction to either image, doing that at least illustrates an equal starting point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On first appearances, they may not be making their argument especially well, since the 1-system is (with RRP) quite expensive and not <em>much</em> smaller than some of the competition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree with that. As for cost, well, J1 costs around the same as the cheapest 4/3 cameras (at least here, I dunno around US). V1 is comparable to 4/3 Panasonic with EVF. Yes, Samsung NX is cheaper, but hey, it's Samsung. They're always cheap (and good). Nobody buys them anyway.</p>

<p>As for size: Sony NEX is a HUGE system if you want anything else than pancakes. They're also pretty crappy cameras in terms of controls. Basically I can see little advantage in NEX over DSLRs in terms of size and lots of disadvantages.</p>

<p>M43 cameras? PEN Mini is almost exactly the same size as J1 body. How smaller can it be, since everyone wants 3" displays? V1 is, if I'm not mistaken, the smallest system camera with an EVF. Also, the three base lenses are really tiny. You don't get much smaller than the 10/2.8, or 10-30. And from what I've tried, I'd rather pick the Nikons than the Olympii.</p>

<p>If I'd be picking up an EVIL system, I'd be choosing between the two underdogs - Nikon 1 and Samsung NX. Samsung blows everyone else out of the water with ergonomics and price (except the higher-end Panasonics) and cost, but sucks with lens selection and control of manual lenses. Nikon meanwhile, is at least tiny.</p>

<p>On the EVF free J1, it's a pity they couldn't shoe-horn the hi-res 3.1/2 touch screen from the COOLPIX S100.</p>

<p>Scott, your images very clearly show that the 7D images render details better than the 5D Mk II and that they're more noisy too. Note that both cameras have far greater photosite density than the D3s. I made a similar test between the D3 and D200 (a 10MP DX camera) using a 180mm Nikkor and the D200 produced far superior details, much bigger difference than shown in your example (but then those cameras operate at lower photosite densities than yours, so differences would be expected to be greater).</p>

<p>I find DXO's claim that pixel density has no drawbacks and only improves image quality humorous. They seem to be fixated on base ISO image quality. Their article</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-advanced-compacts</p>

<p>shows that Canon was able to achieve a substantial improvement in DXOMark score in their compact cameras going down from 15MP to 10MP. Yet the site seems to have difficulty accepting that the pixel density has to do something with it. The site twists and turns around, refusing to admit to the obvious fact that the camera which has the largest photosites of any commercially available digital camera for normal photography, the D3s is heads and tails ahead of its competitors in high ISO performance. Since high MP cameras are easier to market especially in the compact camera sector, going back to 10 MP shows that even Canon had to concede that they cannot achieve good high ISO results by sticking with a ridiculously high photosite density. As to sticking a bunch of S90 sensors side by side, this cannot be done in any trivial manner. Nikon says they could not implement the high-speed features in a larger chip (60fps at 10MP, best shot selector etc.). I don't know why this is the case. Back to the issue of signal quality, the data has to be processed somehow and by increasing the distances the data has to travel, and by increasing the total amount of traffic in the whole sensor, noise (due to interference and electromagnetic pickup) will increase. A larger chip will also generate more heat, increasing thermal noise. I cannot see why DXO is so obsessed in making a claim which is so contrary to their own scoring (regarding high ISO). It seems to be a case of people who are quite blind to criticism regarding their own arguments.</p>

<p><em>in the mean time line up a D3s, a D3x and a D7000 and show me the images laid over each other like my example,</em></p>

<p>I don't have to do that; your example was sufficiently convincing (but we seem to see different things in it) and I know how the D3 and D7000 behave from extensive practical use. I would not shoot the D7000 higher than ISO 400 and be happy about it (if colour is required; B&W is fine even up to 1600). I know it renders much better detail than the D3 at low to moderate ISO and optimal aperture (using the same lens) from the same camera spot; there is no need to demonstrate this. You can check photozone results which show even cheap consumer zooms improve in detail on D7000 vs. older, lower resolution DX cameras (D200) - again this assumes you can get the subject in optimal focus, which is not at all trivial with the D7000 but autofocus issues are not the topic here. It just happens that your Canon full-frame camera has a lot higher pixel density than the Nikons (apart from the D3X which most people think is a poor deal compared to the D3s) so the remaining differences in detail can be quite small and you can dismiss them as insignificant but they're very real to us Nikon users. But then we get cheap DSLRs with top of the line autofocus so one of the companies holds back on AF and the other on resolution. And curiously enough both companies charge an extortionate amount of money of the combination of two relatively cheap features, good AF and high resolution.</p>

<p>Scott said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D3s is pixel castrated, if you choose to believe Nikon's marketing department for the reasoning then fine, in the mean time line up a D3s, a D3x and a D7000 and show me the images laid over each other like my example . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although of different scenes, here's two ISO 5000 images, one from a D3s, and the other from an D7000, that I just happened to have handy (no post-processing other than re-scaling for upload):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/5000ISO-D3s.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D3s @ ISO 5,000</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/5000ISO-D7K.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D7000 @ ISO 5,000</p>

<p>Scott also said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was just pointing out the oft quoted but inaccurate ideas about crop cameras and also pixel density and noise. . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure which inaccurate ideas you're mentioning, Scott. My D7000 is clearly noisier than my D3s. Just as in telescopes, the larger the mirror (photosite), the more light-gathering capability.</p>

<p>Back on-topic:</p>

<p>Not sure if everyone's seen focus-numerique's Nikon V1 noise comparisons yet:</p>

<p>http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus-numerique.com%2Ftest-1302%2Fcompact-nikon-v1-bruit-electronique-12.html</p>

<p>The Nikon V1 is compared with a Nikon point-and-shoot, a couple micro-4/3rds, and an APS-C sensored camera, including the one I was most interested in--the Sony NEX-5N. What I found a bit surprising was that the Nikon V1's base ISO images didn't seem to look that great. I would've expected Nikon to have somehow optimized at least the base ISO's imaging capability a bit better than that. Hopefully, that was just a pre-production sample. However, the V1 fared reasonably well against its larger micro-4/3rds competitors. And, as expected, in the high-ISO tests, the APS-C sensored Sony NEX-5N did best. While the APS-C sensored Sony NEX-5N exhibited superior high-ISO noise performance, that's not particularly why I am interested in the J1.</p>

<p>Although I would prefer the larger sensor, the J1's product concept actually fits my "consumer" needs--it's pocketable, and I'll have it with me all the time. Not so sure I'd want to pocket the NEX-5N. Also, the Nikon 1 series seems great at what it's attempting to specialize in--fast auto-focus, and decent still photos and video quality in the same bitstream. Obviously, Nikon chose the smaller sensor to accommodate the data processing overhead needed for this type of real-time image processing. Yes, it's a compromise, but it's one with some tangible benefits--perfect for vacation photos, and pictures of you and your friends when just hanging out . . . I think I'm getting one!</p>

<p>Ralph,<br>

Looked at the link and yes, it seems the one ISO performance is not as good as the NEX-5N. My understanding is the sizes/weights are also similar. Have you done the size/weight comparisons?</p>

<p>Steve said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you done the size/weight comparisons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't compare their published physical specs, but I did have a hands-on demo with a Sony NEX-5N, and a Nikon 1 J1, which I described here in this thread:</p>

<p><a href="00ZN5K">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZN5K</a></p>

<p>My overall impression was that the Sony NEX-5N was a bit awkward in comparison. Although the NEX-5N is much thinner than the J1 (the Nikon reps didn't have a V1), the Sony was larger in both width and height (as I recall), and the protruding Sony grip, while more ergonomic, makes it less "pocketable." So, even though the Sony's body is actually slimmer, it lacks the unified profile, and parallel-lined form factor of the J1, making the NEX feel a bit more cumbersome.</p>

<p>It's a tough call because I really think the Sony is a very good camera, and thanks to its large sensor, the clear high-ISO winner. The NEX-5N seemed nearly as quick to focus as the J1, but as I said, everything about the J1 one seemed fast. That's what impressed me most about the J1--it just felt very responsive. But, to be completely honest, what's really selling me is the beauty of its industrial design, the simpicity of its form, and whatever nebulous value the cachet of the Nikon brand holds. I just think it's beautiful. Although the demo unit I played with was white (with a white 10mm f/2.8), I bet the J1 in black is one stealthy looking, stylish piece of gear.</p>