Can Some one PLease explain the new NIkon 1 Series to me please?

D

dnwsmith

Messages
141
Edit My Images
No
Can someone please explain the new Nikon 1 system to me,

What are the pros and cons of a mirrorless system?

Plus it has a very small sensor – will this not make it horribly noisy at hi iso so making it rubbish in anything but very low isos?

I am sure I am missing something with it, as there seems to be a lot of buzz behind it.

Cheers

Dave
 
dnwsmith said:
Can someone please explain the new Nikon 1 system to me,

What are the pros and cons of a mirrorless system?

Plus it has a very small sensor – will this not make it horribly noisy at hi iso so making it rubbish in anything but very low isos?

I am sure I am missing something with it, as there seems to be a lot of buzz behind it.

Cheers

Dave
Click to expand...

The Nikon isn't a good example of mirrorless systems, its just a badly designed and poorly executed attempt to take a slice of the m43/sony market.

Advantages? Small, light bodies and lenses with excellent IQ.
 
so why take away the mirror? that is the bit o don't get? is it the removal of the mirror that lets it shoto up to 60fps by taking away the physical item? if yes, then why don't all camera's have the mirror removed?

sorry jsut don't seem to grasp this concept - am sure it is something obvious that I am missing.

Any links to pages explaining this greatly appreciated - my googling turned up nothing that explained this to me.
 
Sorry if im teaching you to suck eggs here

The camera allow you to "See what the lens sees" which is a trait of SLR cameras. To do this it has to flip the mirror up in order to expose the photo. Their is a speed limitation of this whic is why SLRs are limited to what 6fps?

Mirrorless systems use a static mirror which turns transparent when an electric current is passed though (Think one way glass) because it doesen't have to "flip" out the way it allows higher framerates as their only has to be a small pulse of electric to turn the mirror into glass.

Or at least that's my understanding ;) it could be completely wrong
 
unplugged - thank you , that has given me understanding on the mirrorless bit.

so now only th small sensor - what are the pros and cons of this. are they

pros - small sensor = small camera bidy to fit it in and that is about it
cons - poor hi iso quality?

i have a canon g9 which is rubbish above iso200 and that has a bigger sensor than the Nikon 1 - so will the nikon be even worse?
 
unplugged said:
Sorry if im teaching you to suck eggs here

The camera allow you to "See what the lens sees" which is a trait of SLR cameras. To do this it has to flip the mirror up in order to expose the photo. Their is a speed limitation of this whic is why SLRs are limited to what 6fps?

Mirrorless systems use a static mirror which turns transparent when an electric current is passed though (Think one way glass) because it doesen't have to "flip" out the way it allows higher framerates as their only has to be a small pulse of electric to turn the mirror into glass.

Or at least that's my understanding ;) it could be completely wrong
Click to expand...

You can get more than 6 fps from an slr. From a Canon point of view, the xxd are at 6 plus fps, 7d 8 fps and 1dx 10 fps.
 
Last edited:
unplugged said:
Mirrorless systems use a static mirror which turns transparent when an electric current is passed though (Think one way glass) because it doesen't have to "flip" out the way it allows higher framerates as their only has to be a small pulse of electric to turn the mirror into glass.

Or at least that's my understanding ;) it could be completely wrong
Click to expand...
Mirrorless cameras have no mirrors. In some Sony cameras there are semi-transparent mirrors that allow phase detection autofocus operation. In mirrorless cameras, autofocus and viewing is carried out by the sensor itself.
 
odd jim said:
You can get more than 6 fps from an slr. From a Canon point of view, the xxd are at 6 plus fps, 7d 8 fps and 1d 10 fps.
Click to expand...

Ah it's been a while since ive looked into camera models ;) FPS wasn't a major factor when I last looked at bodys but yeah their are no doubt faster mirrors and I dount we have hit the FPS limit on mirror yet.

It's easier (and quicker) to design a static mirror than one that has to flip. Their are also other advantages like Vibration, Chance of failure in a moving part and disdvantages such a a slight loss of light (was it one or two stops when I last looked at sonys SLT range) as sensors improve though this light drop off wont be an issue however the benefits of a fixed mirror will be bring faster speeds to budget cameras.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I think the main point is that Nikon have explicitly stated this isn't for the DSLR enthusiast market. I am also inclined to think its not really aimed at the European or US market either. I bet it sells by the bucketload in Japan, especially to Women. ;)
 
dnwsmith said:
unplugged - thank you , that has given me understanding on the mirrorless bit.

so now only th small sensor - what are the pros and cons of this. are they

pros - small sensor = small camera bidy to fit it in and that is about it
cons - poor hi iso quality?

i have a canon g9 which is rubbish above iso200 and that has a bigger sensor than the Nikon 1 - so will the nikon be even worse?
Click to expand...

The G9 has a much smaller sensor than the Nikon 1 series (G9: 7.49mmx5.52mm, Nikon 1-series: 13.2mmx8.8mm) and so far the samples for the Nikon 1 series look surprisingly good at high iso. However the 1 series has by far the smallest sensor of the current mirrorless cameras with their 1.7x crop (bar the quirky Pentax Q series), the micro 4/3 cameras have a 2x crop sensor (exactly the same size as the 4/3 DSLRs used) and the Samsung NX and Sony NEX cameras both use an APS-C sensor which is the same size as most of their DSLRs. So you don't need to have a smaller sensor in a mirrorless camera if you're shooting with an APS-C based DSLR. I assume the choice of smaller sensor for Nikon was to set them apart from the NX/NEX systems and get the size down plus to offer the PDAF sensors on the main sensor itself and very high speed shooting.

By removing the mirror and all the associated parts it doesn't just bring the size of the body down but also allows for much smaller lenses particularly towards the wide angle. In my shoulder bag I can fit a single 4/3 DSLR and the Olympus 4/3 7-14mm F4 lens whereas in the same bag I can fit the GH2, Panasonic 7-14mm F4 (the same focal length and aperture as the SLR version but far smaller and lighter), the 14-140mm, a second camera (GF1) and the 14mm F2.5 and 20mm F1.7 pancake lenses. The Nikon setup looks similarly compact although disappointingly not really any smaller.

Another advantage for the mirrorless cameras is that they and their lenses are optimised to work with just their sensor as they never have to work with a reflex mirror so they can offer quick AF in both photos and videos, an electronic viewfinder that is always available plus their lenses offer silent AF motors and continuous apertures for video use. DSLRs on the other hand are designed to work with their mirror in place so when the mirror is up you lose their primary autofocus and auto-exposure systems as well as the optical viewfinder which means for video more you're stuck with manual focus or using sensor based autofocus which is slow on non CDAF-optimised lenses (most DSLR lenses). In short this means mirrorless cameras are great for video (in terms of ease of use) and shooting with liveview.

There are of course various cons to the mirrorless cameras as well particularly in the pro-segment as mentioned above. For that reason I still have a standard DSLR setup with a D700 as it offers speed that the mirrorless cameras currently cannot match (CDAF is quick to lock but poor at tracking) with the GH2 as my middle setup which is handy for its small size and superb video capabilities and the GF3 with the two pancakes as my pocket setup.

John
 
Last edited:
menthel said:
I think the main point is that Nikon have explicitly stated this isn't for the DSLR enthusiast market. I am also inclined to think its not really aimed at the European or US market either. I bet it sells by the bucketload in Japan, especially to Women. ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but at well over £800 for the single lens V1 kit I think they're going to have their work cut out here......
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Perhaps, but at well over £800 for the single lens V1 kit I think they're going to have their work cut out here......
Click to expand...

Indeed, half the price and I could see this being an attractive option between compacts and m43 but its outpricing the latter. Even the lenses which I expected to be alot smaller than m43 arent which means it offers little in the way of size advanatge over them.

Personally I doubt whether theres really a market for an interchangeble lens camera with a sensor that small. I know the X10's sensor is only half the size but it also offers over twice the range at a larger appature while folding down to a much smaller size than the Nikon mirrorless kit lens.
 
daugirdas said:
Nikon 1's are essentially the better compacts, aimed at Nikon addicts, a bit like Pentax Q (another similar marketing failure)
Click to expand...

I think the Nikon is not a serious competitor to the rest of the ILC out there, smaller sensor yet bigger body make it almost a stupid choice.

However I think the Q is not quite in the same boat. Yes the sensor is small but so is the body, and the lenses available for it are not your normal focal length lenses they are designed for very specific uses. So in my opinion Pentax is trying to create another kind of camera and not a competitor to m4/3 or Sony's NEX.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Perhaps, but at well over £800 for the single lens V1 kit I think they're going to have their work cut out here......
Click to expand...

The Japanese market is very different, as are their levels of disposable income and what they value in a camera etc. I also suspect that they won't be paying an equivalent to £800. Japanese companies are usually very kind to their home market, just look at Nintendo and Sega as past examples! ;)
 
menthel said:
The Japanese market is very different, as are their levels of disposable income and what they value in a camera etc. I also suspect that they won't be paying an equivalent to £800. Japanese companies are usually very kind to their home market, just look at Nintendo and Sega as past examples! ;)
Click to expand...

That's why I said 'here'.....;)
 
unplugged said:
Try this
http://www.mirrorless-dslr-guide.com/mirrorless-vs-normal-dslr.html
Click to expand...

If it's mirrorless then it's not a DSLR, so interesting site, but flawed from the title. :LOL:

I think the Nikon range of mirrorless cameras are poorly designed and not a very good idea. :shrug: It seems just to be a 'me too', as that is where the supposed excitement is at the moment, and I'm assuming sales to go with it. :shrug:

If it doesn't come off, then at least it may muddy up the mirrorless market a bit more. And I didn't think it could get more confusing. :shrug: :LOL:

Just need Canon to come along with another different format now. ;) :LOL:
 
I thought Nikon would have a really good chance at coming into the mirrorless market, until they announced the Nikon J1/V1.

I know they said that it was not intended for existing DSLR users, but more for a new group of consumers. I think that's just Nikon not wanting to shoot themselves in the foot by releasing something that is more appealing to their existing DSLR shooters and making certain models in their DSLR line-up redundant.

But even if they were aiming it towards the mirrorless market, I don't think they did a good job of it. Being that Sony have now upgraded the NEX-5 to 5N, which has the option to attach the new EVF, and the NEX 7, all being within a similar price range to the competition, it's going to be tough.

Sony seem to have a knack for stepping on peoples toes yet at the same time, look good doing it. For example, the Playstation :)
 
Last edited:
I used to work in a camera shop and had plenty of time time to play with the both Nikon 1 cameras and tbh they are completely pointless, they have not redeeming features apart from the high speed shooting. The image quality is good considering the sensor size, even higher ISO are handled well, however it really doesn't compete with the m 4/3. The lenses so far are actually quite big, but at least well made.

Above all else my main issue is how backward the camera is. If it was aimed to be a step up from their compacts then why on earth are the exposure modes hidden away in the menu system, whilst the mode dial has Auto and two other completely useless functions, leaving half of the dial with nothing on it :thinking:.

There is no point in the market where this fits, apart from "middle aged mums with lots of disposable income who want to capture slightly better images of their kids" and that comes form a Nikon rep, who couldn't really think of another target market. Very Niche.

Rant over.
 
dnwsmith said:
Can someone please explain the new Nikon 1 system to me,

What are the pros and cons of a mirrorless system?
Click to expand...

I have two mirrorless micro four thirds cameras and the main advantages for me are the relative compact size and light weight of the camera + lens combination. Not having a mirror is another advantage for me as there's no unwanted camera vibration and you don't get the sound of the mechanism either so mirrorless cameras are typically much quieter than sometime like a Canon APS-C. I think that shooting with a Panasonic G1 and manual lens is the most film like experience I've had since going digital, if you like that sort of thing :D

If you get the time take a look at Thom Hogan's site and read what he has to say about the Nikon 1, it looks to me like it'll certainly have its uses.
 
daz103 said:
I used to work in a camera shop and had plenty of time time to play with the both Nikon 1 cameras and tbh they are completely pointless, they have not redeeming features apart from the high speed shooting. The image quality is good considering the sensor size, even higher ISO are handled well, however it really doesn't compete with the m 4/3. The lenses so far are actually quite big, but at least well made.

Above all else my main issue is how backward the camera is. If it was aimed to be a step up from their compacts then why on earth are the exposure modes hidden away in the menu system, whilst the mode dial has Auto and two other completely useless functions, leaving half of the dial with nothing on it :thinking:.

There is no point in the market where this fits, apart from "middle aged mums with lots of disposable income who want to capture slightly better images of their kids" and that comes form a Nikon rep, who couldn't really think of another target market. Very Niche.

Rant over.
Click to expand...

In the UK I can't see it shifting a lot of boxes, but then again I can't see Nikon being too bothered if it does well in the UK. Japan and Asia would be where I'd expect it to do well. I played with one in Jessops, seemed nice build quality and good quality lenses, but yeah it was too expensive for what it was.
 
daz103 said:
I used to work in a camera shop and had plenty of time time to play with the both Nikon 1 cameras and tbh they are completely pointless, they have not redeeming features apart from the high speed shooting.

Rant over.
Click to expand...

Are there any alternatives out there that are compact, offer high speed shooting and more oomph than the N1s?
 
ukpbz said:
Are there any alternatives out there that are compact, offer high speed shooting and more oomph than the N1s?
Click to expand...

Technically there is no camera on the market that matches the exact specs of the N1. The GF3 is smaller with better iso performance and a better range of lenses, the nex 5n offers relatively high speed shooting and again better image quality. This is a particularly niche market they are trying fill. If the camera had been built to a pro level, heck even enthusiast level then you might of had people looking to buy it for sports or sports analysis that type of thing, as it would have been a much cheaper option than what is currently on the market. However it just doesn't have the control options for them to utilise it. the point of the matter is who needs 60fps? Not many people, and the ones that do the Nikon doesn't have the controls required.

Personally if the camera had had micro 4/3 lens fitting, had the normal exposure modes on the mode dial and did 60fps then I think it might have been a force to reckon with. Sadly not the case.
 
It really depends on what you want and mean by high speed shooting, I mean personally my D3 does 9fps and that more than enough for me to do wildlife etc. The sony's have close to that speed of around 7-10fps.

What do you need the high speed shooting for?

We've been selling it for however long now a month or two and the shop hasn't sold a single one. Goes to show really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top