Impressions of the new Nikon 1 cameras ? ( S1 and J3 )

<p>I just saw that Nikon has put out the S1 and J3 bodies in the Series 1 line. </p>

<p>I liked the MSRP of the S1, but then I saw the LCD panel is not impressive, at 400k dots. Most decent point and shoots are at 600K or more. The J3 by comparison has a 920K LCD on the back. Some of the other features are impressive, like the FPS in burst modes, but I wonder if the target audience needs or cares about the FPS. Would sports shooters carry this camera ? I don't know. </p>

<p>One thing that leaves me flat are the lens speeds. I've been watching the prices on the Olympus XZ-1 and the Panasonic Lumix 7 cameras because they have nice fast lenses. The Nikon 10mm-30mm at f3.5-5.6 is slow by comparison. The LX 7 has a 4.7mm-17.7mm f1.4-2.3 lens and the Oly has a 6-24mm f1.8-2.5 lens. Yes, they are not removable, but I would hope the smallest Series 1 lens would be much closer to those specs. <br>

Does the larger sensor size help nulify the slow lens by having a much better noise level at higher ISO settings ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>No matter how Nikon will tweak the Nikon 1 camera body, it will remain in the category of toy cameras.</p>

<p>Larger lenses will spoil perception of a pocket camera, that really is not that much pocketable, except with the smallest prime lens.</p>

<p>I have a V1 that I use mostly because it's capable of 400fps (and 1200fps sort of) video - I got it solely for this trick, though bear in mind that it doesn't play well with interior lighting. The tiny sensor and slow lens (though there's a new f/1.2 that helps a bit) mean it's not really a low light camera or DoF control. It's not appreciably easier to carry around than my GF2 with a 14-42PZ on it, and the ergonomics of the GF2 for actual photography are much nicer. (The V2 is better, but costs much more.)</p>

 

<blockquote>Does the larger sensor size help nulify the slow lens by having a much better noise level at higher ISO settings ?</blockquote>

 

<p>It helps, but it doesn't help <i>much</i> (except probably for that f/1.2). It's the same sensor size as an RX100, so compare the lenses to what's on that. For me, the crop factor is too much to be useful with adapted lenses - the adaptor for my micro 4/3 camera is the upper limit. But then I usually shoot with a D800; if my other lenses were mostly used on a DX body, it might not be such a jump.</p>

<p>John, the cameras has some neat tricks - Andrew mentioned 400 fps. The V does bursts of 60 fps at full resolution, which can be nice for some action, though I agree with Frank that the "Best Shot selector" and such functions place these cameras in a not so serious category.... you may get a good deal on an J1 and not loose much functionality compared to newer models...</p>

<p>This guy's a Nikon CX camera fan:</p>

<p>http://soundimageplus.blogspot.ca/</p>

<p>The link provided by C.Watson tries to disarm my computer Internet protection, using some questionable or harmful script constructs.<br>

Caught by virus protector.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>waiting for mirrorless DX myself. If I want something like the Nikon 1, I'm going micro 4/3 for sure.</p>

<p>Remember, lens speed scales with sensor size. The 1 series has a sensor twice the size of the Lumix 7, so any picture you can take with the f1.4-2.3 Lumix lens, you can take with an f2.8-4.6 on the Nikon. Nikon's "kit" zoom is an f3.5-6.3, so in "real world" shooting, the Nikon is at less than a stop disadvantage. I can live with that to get interchangeable lenses. And, again in the real world, it's the same as the Oly you mentioned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No matter how Nikon will tweak the Nikon 1 camera body, it will remain in the category of toy cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those "toy cameras" have sensors that cover the flat field optical paths of a microscope in direct projection mode, and they have zero vibration electronic shutters.</p>

<p> "it will remain in the category of toy cameras."<br />Agreed. I have seen the 400 fps trick, so they might have some specific applications that would be of use under certain circumstances. But for shooting an actual job, whether it's a news story or a wedding, I prefer a DSLR.</p>

<p><em>"The link provided by C.Watson tries to disarm my computer Internet protection, using some questionable or harmful script constructs.</em><br /><em> Caught by virus protector."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>No issues on my box. At any rate, his experiences might disabuse you of the "toy camera" verdict.</p>

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>I don't quite understand your thoughts on the speed of the lenses. The lens and the light falling on the sensor don't know that it's a smaller sensor so why would the math be different ? I can understand the effect of depth of field but I don't see how that would change anything about the "speed" of the lens at all. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>My goals for a smaller body camera would be to have a good low-ish light capability, have a good dynamic range and have controls that I can get to easily to be able to get out of point and shoot modes. I would probably get the smallest lens so it would be closer to fitting in a pocket I don't need to to replace a DSLR, but to be a choice to bring along as a just in case camera. The best camera is the one you have with you scenario. The larger sensor of the 1 series over the point and shoots like the Lumix LX7 made me wonder if it would have better dynamic range, image quality, and possibly better low light capability. If it doesn't, then something like the Lumix LX7 would be a better choice, even though the lens is a rather short zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The larger sensor of the 1 series over the point and shoots like the Lumix LX7 made me wonder if it would have better dynamic range, image quality, and possibly better low light capability.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it does, by a considerable amount, but whether or not you will see it, depends on what you do with the images. If you make prints larger than 11x14 it will be noticeable. I have an Olympus XZ-1 and it's no better than my S95 and they both make files that don't look very good at 12x16 prints. There are major tradeoffs between noise and detail past ISO 200 unless you're making 5x7 prints and posting on facebook. I don't know what yu really need, but from your description, the V is a better fit.</p>

<p><em>Remember, lens speed scales with sensor size. The 1 series has a sensor twice the size of the Lumix 7 ....</em></p>

<p>Sure, but the Sony RX100 has the exact same size sensor as the Nikon 1-series, <em>and</em> it has a 10-37mm f/1.8-4.9 lens while the regular Nikon 1-series standard zoom is a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6. So the Sony's lens not only covers a wider range (same on the wide side and 23% longer), it is <em>two stops faster</em> at the wide end and one-half stop faster at the long end. Yes, I realize Nikon has other zooms that include this range, and yes, I realize that a non-interchangeable lens can be <em>somewhat</em> smaller than an otherwise-equivalent interchangeable lens. But I think the comparison validly shows the disappointing size-and-capability tradeoff in much of the Nikon 1 system.</p>

 

<p>Nikon don't want to burn their D3200/5100 sales by making the Nikon 1 too good. The majority of buyers will not know what the difference is between and slow of fast lens.</p>

<blockquote>don't quite understand your thoughts on the speed of the lenses. The lens and the light falling on the sensor don't know that it's a smaller sensor so why would the math be different ? I can understand the effect of depth of field but I don't see how that would change anything about the "speed" of the lens at all.</blockquote>

<p>Two ways of thinking about this:<br />

<br />

1) The speed (in f-stop) of the lens determines the amount of light falling per unit area on the sensor - which is why ISO 100 film is the same formula whether it's APS or 5x4 sheet film. If the sensor is smaller, the <i>total</i> amount of light falling on it is less than if the sensor is larger. Therefore the smaller sensor behaves like it's working at a higher speed (in film, you'd enlarge the grains more, which is like having a higher-grain, faster film).<br />

<br />

2) The amount of light contributing to the scene depends on the physical size of the entrance aperture (not the relative aperture) - i.e. 25mm for a 50mm f/2 lens, and 50mm for a 100mm f/2 lens. Bigger hole, more light. If you're capturing the same field of view with two different focal lengths of lens because the sensor/film size is different, there's more light coming through the bigger lens/camera combination, so it behaves as though it's at lower ISO.<br />

<br />

Because we quote the speed of the lens in terms of relative aperture - which is valid for comparing different focal lengths on the same sensor (the spreading out of the light by the longer lens compensates exactly for its larger aperture), the concepts of ISO and aperture get isolated from the concept of sensor size. If you're comparing different sensors (or crops!), everything <i>doesn't</i> cancel out.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps.</p>

<p>I picked one up at a camera store more out of curiosity than anything else. I left with the impression that it is fine if you don't want a DSLR and want something more than a cheap little P&S, but it seemed like little more than a <em>toy</em> to me. I would never waste my money on one, though other's mileage may vary.</p>