Buy a Nikon V3, get a FT-1 FREE! US Only???

[mike_halliwell]

<p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27695/Nikon-1-V3.html</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Wow. I don't particularly want a V3, although I'd take it for the pixel density if the price dropped (a quick look at my typical UK and US dealers show £1049 and $1200), but the current UK price for an FT-1 is £229, which is just about high enough that I've not yet succumbed to NAS for one. I don't quite like the deal enough to drop £1000 on a V3 to get one, though.<br />

<br />

There are quite a few reports of the 1 series being quite good for wildlife, with the FT-1 attached. I'd originally dismissed this accessory, but I'm warming to it. And I even vaguely suggested it to someone in a recent thread. So if anyone's getting a V3 and doesn't want their FT-1... (maybe I should watch the auction sites).</p>

[nikofile]

<p>If the camera were more popular you would probably see a lot of FT-1s pop up on ebay. Maybe there will be a few anyway. The 1 series is excellent for BIF, but you need decent light to keep the ISO down. It tracks like a demon.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>V3 with FT-1 still central AF point only? </p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Had been trying to get an FT-1 for months for my V2, no one had them in stock. Now I know why, Nikon was holding them back to offer them with the V3.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[andylynn]

In related news, Groupon Goods currently has a Nikon J1 with 10-30 lens for $165.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Sem, that's a very good question. There's no reason why it should be.....but equally no reason why it should have been on the V1 too!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Interesting bundle, but Nikon's approach to the V-series is baffling. Nikon can't seem to figure out the V's identity. Still makes no sense to me why they didn't keep the original V1 basic style and EVF and refine it.</p>

<p>But the bits and pieces approach with lots of accessories may appeal to folks who enjoy gadgets and thought Leica and GI Joe had the right idea by offering lots of toys to go with the basic model.</p>

<p>Still, every time I use the V1 I'm reminded of how good it is for snapshots.</p>

[Ian Rance]

Every time I try one at my camera shop

the owner tells me I shouldn't buy one.

I wonder why that is? They seem a

decent unit.

[bob___10]

<p>Not in stock anywhere in US.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ian: Well, I can give you my reasons for not buying a 1 series: they're <i>very</i> expensive for a 1" sensor, the sensor size means limited depth of field control and high ISO support, the Sony RX100 series seem to do better with the same sensor size in terms of response and dynamic range, mostly because of the lenses the 1 series is not <i>that</i> small (compared with the smaller micro 4/3 bodies and lenses), and the crop size is a step too far most of the time (a wide angle on a DSLR becomes a significant telephoto, and anything not significantly telephoto on a 1-series is quite big in F mount through being retrofocal) - plus the FT-1 is not tiny, so the "small camera for using with shorter SLR lenses" approach doesn't work as well as other mirrorless systems. They also don't always play with the rest of the Nikon system, and the handling is an odd mix of high-end camera and point-and-shoot controls.<br />

<br />

I bought a V1 despite the weird handling once the price dropped to "sensible" (below £300 in a kit). I use it for the 60fps burst and videos at 400fps and 1200fps (though the aspect ratio is weird there too). The V2 and V3 have much more sensible handling, but are much more expensive. Except for specialist birding/wildlife use - something that's only recently come to my attention, but I trust Thom Hogan's experimentation - you tend to get a lot more image quality and often more portability from other mirrorless cameras with better enthusiast handling. For as long as the V3 costs about the same as a D7100, it's a really hard sell.<br />

<br />

But your priorities my be very different from mine. Apparently they are selling in Japan, and I've seen a few out and about (though a lot more sitting on shelves in stores).</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Every time I try one at my camera shop the owner tells me I shouldn't buy one. I wonder why that is? They seem a decent unit."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like he's anxious to close shop and retire early.<br>

<br>

The 1 System cameras are darned good if you have a specific need for what they do better than almost anyone else. Even now that other manufacturers have caught up with the Nikon 1 System in terms of quick AF and shutter response, framerates and other features, the original J1 is now an absolute bargain and has been for over a year, so it's still a winner - if you understand its strengths and limitations. Unfortunately the best deals are gone - last winter the J1 kits were available with the 10-30 kit zoom and 10/2.8 prime for around $250.<br>

<br>

I got the V1 for a couple of specific reasons: live performance photography; medical documentary photography.<br>

<br>

For the serious amateur and casual performance photographer who wants to record a child's first recital, or a theater play for friends as a favor to a volunteer community theater group with no budget, there still isn't a better camera than the V-series. The J and S models would be a close second.<br>

<br>

The electronic shutter option is absolutely silent. The AF and VR make more noise than the electronic shutter, and those sounds are barely audible - I have to hold the camera to my ear to hear anything at all. At worst the AF makes the tiniest squeaky noise when it's hunting focus in dim lighting. Sounds like a kitten with the volume turned down to 2 - and it's still inaudible at arm's length. So there's no need for a camera blimp, muffler, or to wait for loud passages in a performance. It's possible to photograph the most delicate situations without disturbing other audience members or the performers (assuming we're not making a spectacle of ourselves by playing the role of THE PHOTOGRAPHER in view of everyone).<br>

<br>

Now, you can do that with a good phone cam too. But the problem is that darned glowwinky screen. I've seen audience members and ushers at the ballet and opera fussing at inconsiderate audience members using phones during performances - not talking, just texting or video recording the performance. It may be silent, but it's extremely rude. Those blue screens are visible across the largest theater.<br>

<br>

There was a notable exception last year to the glowwinky screen ban. After a performance of the popular Carmina Burana, a rather lively show, the conductor actually invited audience members to break out their phones and cameras to photograph or video record the finale. It was a nice touch and suited the nature of the show, which is as far from highbrow as you can get in classical music.<br>

<br>

The V-series solve this problem with the eye level finder. I can disable the rear screen on the V1. The EVF lights up only when it's held to my eye - well, sorta. It's actually a proximity sensor and will light up in proximity to anything. So I have to be careful to either keep it away from my hand or lap, or block the EVF eyepiece completely.<br>

<br>

I choose a discrete place in the audience where nobody behind me will be distracted when I lift the camera to eye level. Otherwise, if I'm in the front row I can disable the rear screen and simply guesstimate composition.<br>

<br>

For many school performances nobody cares if you're taking photos and videos, so the J and S series will be fine. They'll have an advantage over cell phones and teensy sensor bridge cameras because the CX sensor performs better at high ISOs. And Nikon's VR lenses work very well. Unfortunately the cheaper kit zoom on the S-series lacks VR.<br>

<br>

Regarding medical documentary photography, the silent shutter and EVF aren't absolutely essential. I've used my D2H and SB-800 flash, even in the children's ICU/CCU. But I'd rather be as discrete as possible. For example, during a quiet consultation in a small office, even the discrete clicking of a mechanical leaf shutter can be slightly disruptive. I can sense the slightest pause in the voices, or change in inflection as the patients and medical staff are more conscious of being photographed. When I use the electronic shutter option and rear screen, they still know I'm taking photos. But the flow of the conversation is more natural.<br>

<br>

Of course I wish Nikon would develop at least one more fast prime and at least one fast midrange zoom for the 1 System. A 14mm f/1.4 (35mm equivalent) and an f/2.8 midrange VR zoom in the 10-30mm or so range would be very welcomed. I'd settle for a 10-25mm f/2.8 VR if that would be more feasible and cost effective. The faster lenses would help offset the main disadvantage the CX sensor has compared with the Micro 4:3 and larger sensors - high ISO noise.<br>

<br>

And there is a significant difference between lenses designed for the 1 System and those designed for larger formats. The bodies of my V1 and Fuji X-A1 are very comparable in weight and size (but not in build quality - the Fuji is plasticky while the V1 is very solid). But there's a huge difference in the size of the kit zooms. The Fuji 16-50 zoom completely throws off the balance of the X-A1, making it tricky for one-hand holding. The V1 and 10-30 are easy to operate one-handed. And the V1's mechanical shutter is far more subdued than the Fuji's. Even with the stabilized lens I have to pay careful attention to good technique with the Fuji at slow shutter speeds, otherwise I'll get blurred photos. The 10-30 Nikkor's VR is more consistent, and the choice between active and normal VR helps for shooting while walking or riding in a vehicle.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>There are quite a few reports of the 1 series being quite good for wildlife, with the FT-1 attached.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to DxOMark, ISO performance and dynamic range of the V3 (or V2, V1) is worse than that of the D200 - and I am not going "back there". Diffraction effects reduce resolution already at f/5.6. While I would certainly appreciate the "additional reach" provided by the 2.7x crop factor, there seem to be severe limitations in actually using the camera for bird photography: ISO usable up to 800 only and I couldn't even stop down the 80-400 to f/8 without risking softening due to diffraction. AF-C only with the central sensor - and all that for $1,200! Hardly any DOF control - shooting at f/8 will give the equivalent DOF of f/16 on DX or f/22 on FX. Using the V3 for bird photography seems to narrow the definition of "good light" a bit too much it seems. </p>

<p>Maybe I'll rent one with the FT-1 for a couple of days - maybe it will wow me (not holding my breath though).</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>I just love my V2. I finally did track down an FT-1 and love using it with the V2 and some of my pro glass to get some interesting shots, especially using the electronic shutter which can go 30 fps and even up to 60 fps.</p>

<p>This was at a baseball game I was covering last night. "Here's the Pitch"</p>

<p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/Pitch.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Although I love my V1, I'm with Dieter WRT lenses. DxO has pretty much all the Series 1 lenses a pretty poor 6Mpix or<strong> LESS</strong>!</p>

<p>6.7 > 13mm 6Mpix<br>

10 > 100mm <strong>3</strong>Mpix!!<br>

10 > 100mm PD 4Mpix<br>

18.5mm 6Mpix<br>

10mm 6Mpix<br>

10 > 30mm <strong>3</strong>Mpix<br>

30 > 110mm 5Mpix</p>

<p>To put those numbers in some form of context the new 70-200mm f4 on the D800E gets <strong>30Mpix</strong> and the new Sigma 30mm 1.4 A gets <strong>16Mpix</strong> on the Nikon D5300.</p>

<p>Sadly, I know some of that is related to the sensor size and I can't get the system to tell me how that glass would be on the V3 sensor, but you hope it's better than 6Mpix!</p>

<p>So maybe it was meant to have big FX glass all along..:-)</p>

<p>....kinda like those dinky CCD cameras on the end of hulking great telescopes. Oh look, we've come full circle to a thread about shooting rocket launches! http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ccor</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Late EDIT. This CX lens review by DxO sums them up.. http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/The-Nikon-1-lenses-test-and-review</p>

<p>Although the last paragraph of the review may be telling???</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the course of testing, we perceived that the quality of the JPEGs that the cameras produced was far less than excellent. This is a shame, considering the potential for the same kind of excellence as seen with RAW images.</p>

</blockquote>

[Ian Rance]

<p>They certainly look interesting cameras but Andrew summed up the feelings of my shop I think. They are also heavily pushing the Oly range but whilst nice that is somewhat overpriced compared with the Nikon range in my opinion. When I see the results of the lenses like the Tamron 90mm Macro (£80 used) or a basic 50mm on any of the new Nikons (like D3300) I am amazed that quality that good is available for so little so don't look at the more designer ranges. I know they have some nice features but not enough to lever £2000 from my (already dessicated) wallet.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>>> V3 with FT-1 still central AF point only?<br>

> Sem, that's a very good question. There's no reason why it should be.....but equally no reason why it should have been on the V1 too!<br>

AF-S lenses are not totally "native" on N1 with FT-1. Mind the FT-1 has got a firmware. But I don't recall any specific explanation for this.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>By way of balance, Lex makes some good points about the V series. I'm certainly not going to claim that they're entirely useless - although the vastly lowered price on the V1 did help a lot with its appeal. The small sensor and subsequent low light performance don't particularly help it - especially for the "recital" type situation, although they're a lot better than most compacts - but the quiet shutter and finder do. I'll be interested to see how the RX100-III (with a faster lens and an integrated EVF) holds up for resolution - the older models don't seem to have the optics to do the sensor justice.<br />

<br />

My issue with the V1 for general use - even at the discount price - is that, even with the collapsible kit lens, it was appreciably bigger than my Panasonic GF2 and 14-42 PZ (also bought at a discount). The smallest micro 4/3 modern systems are smaller still. Samsung's NX-Mini line (disclaimer: my employers, although I've never seen these cameras) are genuinely small despite the same sensor size and interchangeable lenses, though I can't vouch for the lens range and I've seen a less-than-glowing review... The later v-series cameras are much more tempting from a handling perspective, despite the sensor performance, but the price really needs to tank before I'd replace my V1 with one - I now <i>have</i> a 60fps camera when I need one... But if I didn't, I'd be quite tempted, if not at V3 prices.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I haven't done a full spec check, but it seems many (most?) of the new V3 features are available in the J4 for considerably less ££....a very different interface though.</p>