Nikon J1

[AnjieNet]

I've been looking to step back up from my digital point and shoot but am reluctant to get a dSLR as I don't like to lug the weight around at places like Disney (I have a Canon SLR but don't use much as I prefer digital to film). So I've been contemplating the Nikon J1 instead. Like the compact size and the fact that it still has the interchangeable lens - I do miss my zoom! Anyone have any experience with this camera, positive or negative? TIA!

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I don't shoot Nikon, but here is the just posted review from dpreview.com.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/20/Nikon1_v1_J1_review

 

[LordAthens]

Ugh, being a big Nikon fan and long time supporter, I hate to say to stay away from the Nikon 1 System. There are just so many disadvantages to the system, especially when similar priced cameras offer so many more advantages.

Nikon is using a new 1" "CX" format sensor, roughly *half* the size of a typical APS sized sensor and still significantly smaller than even a m4/3 sensor. What this equates to is very poor noise handling (when compared to a dSLR or m4/3 body). It's a step up from some of the P&S's, but IMO, just barely. I have a feeling I know why Nikon did it, it eliminates the decision of "do I want a m4/3 body or a "full size" dSLR?" I really feel that Nikon thought that a m4/3 sized sensor would cannibalize some of their dSLR sales. Forget all of the bells and whistles of what the camera can do, image quality ultimately comes down to the glass in front of the sensor and the sensor. Sure it's great the camera can shoot stills at 60FPS, but if they're not acceptable quality, what's the point?

If you want a small body but still great image quality, I would definitely look into the Sony NEX system, specifically the 5N. They're nearly identical in size, but the Sony has a nice "grip" to actually hold onto the camera. The Sony also has an APS sized sensor, the same size in most dSLR's today in fact. The Sony has FAR better noise handling, image quality and twice the battery life. They also offer a higher resolution display, better dynamic range and they also offer twice the available lenses. The Sony also offers 16mp vs the 10mp of the Nikon (for the record, there is nothing wrong at all with a 10mp camera. My old 6.1mp Nikon D100 will still run circles around many of the brand new 14+mp point and shoots, *however*, the additional resolution in the Sony will afford you some extra liberty when cropping a picture if you can't get the initial composure that you would like).

The Sony runs $700 with a 18-55 (27-82mm, 35mm equiv.) where the J1 runs ~$600, with a 10-30 (also 27-81mm, 35mm equiv). In a heartbeat would I spend the extra $100 on the Sony. This says a lot since I typically heavily dislike most things Sony and love Nikon to death.

If you don't like the Sony, look into the other offerings in the m4/3 lineups. I don't follow them to heavily as I feel they're a poor offering compared to the NEX line, but there are certainly a lot of people that love them! Hopefully BobQuincy will chime in on those as I know he has recently converted to m4/3 and has fallen in love with it.

I know I've painted the Nikon 1 in a terrible light, but it IS capable of making great images. You're just not likely to get great images in low light, dark rides, moving objects (kids), etc. Still objects will do just fine if you have a tripod, but I go back to that point of, if there is better available for similar money... My other fear of buying a Nikon 1 system right now is that it's not established. I really don't see the CX system doing well, which means Nikon will drop it, so the 4 currently available lenses? That's what you'll be stuck with.

My 2c. HTH

 

[boBQuincy]

If you don't like the Sony, look into the other offerings in the m4/3 lineups. I don't follow them to heavily as I feel they're a poor offering compared to the NEX line, but there are certainly a lot of people that love them! Hopefully BobQuincy will chime in on those as I know he has recently converted to m4/3 and has fallen in love with it.

I wouldn't say I am exactly in love with micro 4/3 but it is a good compromise for what I want from a camera system. Of course image quality is not quite up with APS-C, which is not up with full frame, which is not medium format and so on... Where this is going is that we have to decide how much we want to carry and then go for the best system in that size package.

Nikon's 1 series is no smaller than micro 4/3 or Sony NEX but the sensor is much smaller so I don't see the point. Sony's image quality is better than micro 4/3 but Sony's lens lineup is sparse and the lenses are large for the camera size. On my last WDW trip I carried three lenses ranging from 7 to 175 (14 to 350 in 35 mm equivalent), no other compact system offers that kind of range! Micro 4/3 offered the best system *for me* and my photos seem to be about as good as before even though I now carry half the weight and bulk of my Canon dSLR system. A 13" x 19" print of my Main Street photo has remarkable detail and luminosity, I have few complaints about the micro 4/3 system.

If you want dSLR quality and versatility but not dSLR mass I would say micro 4/3 or Sony NEX is the way to go, not Nikon.

 

[AnjieNet]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your advice and check out the Sony NEX and the m4/3s. If I can't get the action shots of the kids with the Nikon J1, it's fairly useless to me. That's one of my issues with the point and shoot. By the time the camera responds and takes the picture, the kids are out of the frame an onto something else.

 

[LordAthens]

I wouldn't say I am exactly in love with micro 4/3 but it is a good compromise for what I want from a camera system.

.

My apologies Bob. I must have inferred some of your posts incorrectly.

 

[LordAthens]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your advice and check out the Sony NEX and the m4/3s. If I can't get the action shots of the kids with the Nikon J1, it's fairly useless to me. That's one of my issues with the point and shoot. By the time the camera responds and takes the picture, the kids are out of the frame an onto something else.

What you're referring to there is shutter lag and possibly a little delay with the camera's auto focus as well. In the Nikon 1 systems's defense, it actually has some of the lowest shutter lag and AF acquisition times of any camera on the market and rightfully so, it has an electronic shutter and no mirror to flip. That said, you will find your fears of shutter lag and slow AF to be a non-issue on just about any "prosumer" camera that you might want to buy. This would include m4/3, Sony NEX and really any dSLR out there. Bad shutter lag is pretty much isolated to cell phones and point and shoots these days.

A few more things that I forgot about earlier; the Nikon lacks any type of viewfinder, so you're limited to viewing and composing strictly on the LCD. The NEX-5N also has this limitation out of the box, but there is an optional electronic view finder available for it, which the Nikon lacks completely. Also, the LCD on the Nikon is "fixed" where the Sony (any many others) use a tilting LCD. Composing a shot in the glare of the bright Florida sun can be a daunting task on a fixed LCD sometimes!

 

[Groucho]

Sony's image quality is better than micro 4/3 but Sony's lens lineup is sparse and the lenses are large for the camera size.

That seems to be the big knock against them - tiny body, huge (relatively) lenses. I have to admit that the NEX5N is kind of appealing to me (not the NEX7 - I don't want 24mp nor the drop in high ISO/DR that it has), but only as a place to mount adapted rangefinder lenses. Even then, the Ricoh GXR with Leica module is probably a little better since the sensor is set up just for that purpose. What would really be fun would be a FF mirrorless, so it could be adapted to rangefinder lenses and get the entire image circle and DoF of the original lens, but nobody makes one of those... but rumors are that Pentax may release one soon, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your advice and check out the Sony NEX and the m4/3s. If I can't get the action shots of the kids with the Nikon J1, it's fairly useless to me. That's one of my issues with the point and shoot. By the time the camera responds and takes the picture, the kids are out of the frame an onto something else.

To be fair, the one consistent positive about the J1/V1 seems to be the very fast AF system.

I dunno. The system doesn't do much for me. It's not enough smaller than M4/3s to justify creating a whole different system. If they'd gone with a 4/3rds-size sensor with their own mount, at least it would be easy for third-party lenses to be adapted for it, and they could have still had that fast AF. Now, it's neither fish nor fowl. They also seem to be clearly aimed at non-DSLR users, with minimal external controls and no lens faster than F2.8.

The quite-a-bit-smaller Pentax Q has more controls and is friendlier for the more advanced photographer, but does give up ~1 stop of high ISO performance and won't AF quite as fast, but does beat the Nikons in dynamic range. It's also way pricier than it should be, like the Nikon, but I may have to grab one when they get cheap enough, just for a fun pocket camera. The availability of a cheap fisheye lens gets my attention no matter what name is on the front. Still, I would put both the Q and the Nikon 1s as more like point-n-shoots with removable lenses - the Q because of its sensor and the 1 because of its controls. The M4/3rds seem to be (with the right body) more of a real DSLR alternative, not supplement.

Now, I'm far from a fan of Canon, but I have to admit that the new G1X offers a pretty compelling option. I've been saying for years that someone should make a point-n-shoot with an APS-sized sensor; that would make a very solid option for the countless casual DSLR buyers who never take off their 18-55mm kit lenses.