Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Nikon 1 V3 is ...
#11
I think, Nikon would have made a better success with these cameras, if they had offer a trial period and gave it into the hands of hesitating customers.

 

A couple of them I touched, but always the battery was missing or it looked in a way that I urged to wash myhands afterwards. The concept was great, the price steep and "get the feeling" could have convinced me, but 1000...2000 bucks is nothing I just burn got fun.

#12
I do not think the concept of the Nikon 1 was great. A smaller sensor than MFT, lenses with oddly unnecessary bulk, prices to match the MTF and APS-C mirrorless offerings instead of undercutting them. If you mean the concept of the name Nikon on them? 

The only thing that was (and still is) impressive is the speed and accuracy of the (PD) AF system, making them able of tracking well.

 

The only system that made less sense was the Pentax Q, but at least that had the size to match the sensor size.

#13
Quote:I do not think the concept of the Nikon 1 was great. A smaller sensor than MFT, lenses with oddly unnecessary bulk, prices to match the MTF and APS-C mirrorless offerings instead of undercutting them. If you mean the concept of the name Nikon on them? 

The only thing that was (and still is) impressive is the speed and accuracy of the (PD) AF system, making them able of tracking well.

 

The only system that made less sense was the Pentax Q, but at least that had the size to match the sensor size.
 

 

As I said, the 1" sensor makes great images, so there is no need to compare with MFT.

 

Not sure what you mean about unnecessary bulk but the J5 is seriously small. I actually prefer the size of the V1 because it uses the same battery as the top-end Nikons which means that battery life is great.

 

As for pricing, who knows? I recently bought the wife an Apple Watch and just out of curiosity I went and priced Hermes watch bands. Do you have any idea what crazy prices these are? And yet Hermes reported record profit/revenue last year.

 

I just don't think that price is truly the/an issue.

 

What killed the 1 System is all the Fake News and Alternative Facts crowd.
#14
For "great" I don't think Nikon 1 first, but a couple of features were/are still neat. IQ, as Studor says, shouldn't be examined at 100%. But the basic concept and the availability of longer FL from the F-system was not so bad.

 

Although, havin said that bit of touching them: They always failed to feel worth the price. Light, plasticky, made for tiny hands, sort of consumer camera for semi-pro prices (the V versions), the other versions had no dedicated EVF and made not much sense for interchangeable lenses if all buyers just get a kit lens.

 

Anyway, Nikon now discovered the "what-goes-beyond-Superzoom?" segment and will announce something like a 125× zoom thing (24-3000 mm equiv). So, if you get up early enough, you have the 3000 mm zoomed around lunch time, then you go back to landscape and will be right in time for a sunset @ 24 mm  :lol:
#15
Rumour has it that it's an F2.8 300mm Fresnal lens.

#16
Quote:Not sure what you mean about unnecessary bulk but the J5 is seriously small. I actually prefer the size of the V1 because it uses the same battery as the top-end Nikons which means that battery life is great.
 

Yeah, and with1 V3 they went for an EN-EL20a battery which is smaller tahn the EN-EL15. I remember, this was my showstopper. They separated the EVF to bring the price down, so you get now body around 650.- + EVF for another 300.- and end up in a region I also could get a D7200. The 1 V3 has some advantages, yes, but simply not enough to beat the DSLR in terms of IQ.

#17
Quote:As I said, the 1" sensor makes great images, so there is no need to compare with MFT.

 

Not sure what you mean about unnecessary bulk but the J5 is seriously small. I actually prefer the size of the V1 because it uses the same battery as the top-end Nikons which means that battery life is great.

 

As for pricing, who knows? I recently bought the wife an Apple Watch and just out of curiosity I went and priced Hermes watch bands. Do you have any idea what crazy prices these are? And yet Hermes reported record profit/revenue last year.

 

I just don't think that price is truly the/an issue.

 

What killed the 1 System is all the Fake News and Alternative Facts crowd.
What I meant is it even has a smaller sensor than MFT, let alone APS-C, and yet the price does not reflect that. 

The J5 is not a lens, as far as I understand. I said the lenses have unnecessary bulk. You have a tiny sensor, yet the lens barrels are as wide as any APS-C mirrorless lens. They could have designed things better, to make the case for "small is beautiful". They did not, and in my opinion that was a flaw in the concept.

 

So yes, on the prices, the concept, the profit, it clearly has not worked out for Nikon.
#18
AFAIK, the Hermes watch band is the same length as the one I ended up ordering for 20€. And yet people are buying the Hermes alternative for not 2 or 3 or even 5 times the cost but 50 times my fake one. Yes, the Hermes go for 1000€!

 

Something must have worked for Nikon because I have the J1, V1, J5 and V3. Not to mention just about every single CX lens.

 

And now that the system has probably ended doesn't mean that my cameras will no longer work. They may have even become collectors items.

 

Oh, unnecessary bulk? More fake news.

 

Please tell me where there exists a 85mm (equivalent) f1.2 lens that is smaller than the CX 32mm f1.2 lens?

#19
You have your equivalences in a bunch.

32mm x 2.7 = 86.4mm. 

f1.2 x 2.7 = f3.24

 

About unnecessary bulk: Meaning specifically the huge width of the smaller aperture lenses, due to the wide mount with no point, the wide choice of "standard barrel" which does not relate to the small sensor. It makes the lenses unnecessarily big for this small system, and visually "fat". Which did not help sales much.

 

As seen on the 30-110mm, the 11-27.5mm and even the AW 11-27.5mm, the 10-30mm, the 10-30mm PD, 6.7-13mm, 18.5mm.

#20
Quote:You have your equivalences in a bunch.

32mm x 2.7 = 86.4mm. 

f1.2 x 2.7 = f3.24

 

About unnecessary bulk: Meaning specifically the huge width of the smaller aperture lenses, due to the wide mount with no point, the wide choice of "standard barrel" which does not relate to the small sensor. It makes the lenses unnecessarily big for this small system, and visually "fat". Which did not help sales much.

 

As seen on the 30-110mm, the 11-27.5mm and even the AW 11-27.5mm, the 10-30mm, the 10-30mm PD, 6.7-13mm, 18.5mm.
 

Unfortunately, what you wrote is the sort of thing that confuses people.

 

85mm or 86.4mm is the same as far as making an image goes.

 

f1.2 is f1.2. It is NOT f3.24. But you know that but you want to add to the confusion, right? Yes, the dof is f3.2 but the lens is still an f1.2 lens. No need to multiply it by 2.7.

 

I don't have the AW lenses but to suggest that the 30-110mm is “fat” really shows the effect of fake news. The J5 is easily the smallest 1 camera and yet the 30-110mm is more or less the same width as the body. Remember, this is like a 80-300mm lens. 

 

I once had the Sony NEX-5. You would be horrified how “fat” the 18-55mm kit lens is.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
10 Guest(s)