< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Canon G1x vs. Nikon V1 vs. Nikon P7100 DxOMark comparison

DxOMark just published their test results of the Canon PowerShot G1x compact camera. Here is a quick DxOMark style comparison with the Nikon V1 and the Coolpix P7100. The D1x has almost two times better low light ISO performance than the V1, dynamic range and color depth are almost identical.

Since Canon does not have a mirrorless interchangeable lens system yet, in their G1x model they used a sensor (14.0 x 18.7mm) larger then the one in the Nikon 1 mirrorless camera (8.8 x 13.2mm):

The sensor size of the P7100 is 5.7 x 7.6mm.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Nikon P7100 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • David in NC

    That’s good news. I just ordered a G1X. Now when the D800 comes out, which I will order right away, I’ll really be broke.

    • David in NC

      quick followup – has anyone heard an approximate shipping date for the G1X. NR reported that the D800 should ship towards the end of February, if I recall correctly.

      • St.

        Amazon.com (USA):
        “This item will be released on March 31, 2012.”

        • David in NC

          Thanks for sharing Amazon’s note. But I thought I heard elsewhere it was going to be released in February – just wondering if anyone has any inside info! I have found nothing about this on canonrumors.

          • bikinchris

            Announced and released are two very different things.

    • Been there guy

      Doesn’t this report just give us one more proof that bigger sensor is always better?

      The NR has been talked about all along that Nikon1 is a load of crap?!

      Nikon 1 is WRONG to have a tiny sensor and BIG price!

      They should release Nikon2 with APS-C sensor!

      • Gerardeux

        No, I don’t think so. The V1′s sensor is a lot smaller so with the normal lenses it will catch twice the amount of light which makes the differences neglible in real life but in favor of the V1 (as you can shoot at a lower iso). Combined with the FT1 adapter and a lens from Nikon DSLR range , the 1 series will blow the GF1x away also in low light and depending on the kind of lens have far better DOF too.

      • iamlucky13

        Unless you want a smaller camera.

        http://camerasize.com/compare/#123,257

      • Jan

        I don’t mind N1′s sensor size. I mind the body is so friggin BIG for such a small sensor.

  • mikycoud

    Twice the sensitivity, huh?
    Doesn’t that make one wanna cry, huh? Seriously?

    • LeGO

      When one considers the sensor size-disparity between the G1x and the V1, the V1′s sensor performance is quite impressive. The V1 sensor expanded to DX size with half its pixel density or to FX size at 1/4 its pixel density would be even more impressive.

      • Discontinued

        >>When one considers …<<

        What a waste of time when there are actually cameras with bigger sensors that perform "quite impressive" without any such considerations.

    • St.

      Of course – the sensor is bigger. G1X will be amazing camera with one major drawback. As I mentioned in another post – it’s lens is soft.
      Check these examples at ISO 200. Zoom at the red car for example:
      G1X:
      http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/1354/canon-g1-x-200iso-nrstan-big.jpg
      P7100:
      http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/1301/nikon-p7100-200iso-nrstan-big.jpg
      And see full article here:
      http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1354/compact-canon-g1-x-powershot-bruit-electronique-12.html
      This is the only reason I haven’t preorder it. And the only reason I probably wouldn’t.

      • Arthur

        Jesus, those corners are awful!

        And “awful” is an understatement here.

        • Been there guy

          take two aspirins and look again….

        • Earl

          Do you always focus on the corner of the pictures when you enjoy them? How about the back side?

          • St.

            It doesn’t matter where you look at those pictures (excluding the very center) there is a huge difference between the sharpness of the Nikon’s and Canon’s lenses.
            If I want such blurry picture as the one from G1X I can use my lensbaby – at least it will add some nice overall effect to the image.
            But there must be people for everything, right?
            Somebody has to buy the junk out there…

          • Arthur

            Corners are very bad, which means (and you can check) that the sides are also bad, and the off centre parts are also not very sharp. And yes, I mostly don’t put my subjects in the centre of the photo.

            And besides, I wasn’t talking about if the corners are important or not, I just stated that they are “awful”, and I think that’s correct. If you think that the corners are not important, that’s an other subject.

        • frAnk

          Geeee, this guy must be wide eyed or cross eyed.

          • Arthur

            No, softness-blur is different from out-of-focus blur, and this seems like the first one. Plus, the distance to the object seems not much different in the corners than the rest (or the lens has a huge field curvature).

            • Arthur

              Sorry, was meant for Alex below.

      • Alex

        Isn’t this because of smaller depth of field? The flat objects in the upper right corner seem fine on both cameras.

      • Trevor

        Something seems wrong with these g1x test shot. Look in the top left at the map of Paris. In the absolute top left you can make out the word “Haussmann” with decent clarity for the extreme edge. As you move in the photo it gets worse.

        The same is true at the bottom left of the photo. You can see individual spines of the feather in the absolute bottom left corner, but the camera is badly blurred.

        I don’t think this is DoF or just soft edges, but rather massive field curvature that Canon did a poor job of correcting in software.

    • nikonandye

      >Twice the sensitivity, huh?
      >Doesn’t that make one wanna cry, huh? Seriously?

      Why did Canon restrict the G1X? Only 1:2?
      The G1X sensor is about 1.5 bigger in diameter vs the V1. If you take the same sensor ratio between a D3s and a D7000, the DXOmark ISO ratio is approx 1:3 between the 2.

      ;-)
      Andy

  • BornOptimist

    Just confirms that this is a smaller cut of the “old” 18MP Canon sensor.
    I would have expected much much better than this on a “brand new” sensor.
    At least touching the numbers of the Sony 16MP sensor, but this is far behind even before it’s launched.

  • nikonguy

    I think I will wait for the Nikon 2. Hopefully it will have a bigger sensor.
    Although that G1x looks like a winner

  • Art K.

    “The D1x has almost two times better low light ISO performance..” – You mean the G1x?

    Funny how Canon is always leading in compact cameras. Nikon seems almost generic in comparison, even with their new toy, the V1. Form over function.

    • Gummyrabbit

      D1X….freudian slip? Now we know what he really wants for Christmas!!!!

  • tonyc123

    Wow! look at that, they’re all mediocre!

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      no surprise, they are all crappy P&Ss

    • Boing Wronkwell

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Nice – and true too.

    • Karl

      Case in point again, tools don’t make pictures, the Artists do.

      Tech Geeks compare their shiny new toys, while artists compare their gallery shows, and make money off with what ever tools they perfected.

  • Carl Koslowski

    I am a Nikon Photograper since 1999. Awaited a mirrorless system from Nikon with at least 4/3 or better APSC-sensor to get a highly portable camera with DOF and good lowlight beside my awaited D800. What came out is a pure disappointment- as well as the D800 will be for me and many others with rumoured 36 MP and no better ISO than D7000.
    For no good reasons but bare marketing issues, Nikon prefers additionally expected turnover to highest acesssible image quality for their customers. Dangerous game, expecially, if other companies as Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and even Pentax seem to follow the opposite way.
    For my person: If as good as expected, the Canon G1X will soon be in my hand.
    And may be later a Olympus OM D, NEX 7, Fuji X Pro 1 or FF Sony A99, let’s see…

    • C_V

      So you don’t want the 36MP sensor, but maybe want that same sensor, with much less support and an SLT design in front of it.
      Good luck Carl!

      Why are you so sad Nikon didn’t realy release a good ILC ?
      Buy the NEX 7 it’s plenty good and it doesn’t matter whether you need to buy new lenses because you would have to do that anyway even if Nikon released such a camera!

      Take a break and reconsider what you typed than apoligize for you s**$i*i*y :D

      • Art K.

        - that is just mean Mr C_V. And a bit senseless, not to mention badly written. We are not obliged to kneel at the Nikon altar, like You suggest.

    • Art K.

      - I agree on all points. Except:

      “Nikon prefers additionally expected turnover to highest accessible image quality for their customers.”

      This sentence is unclear, what do You mean?

      Funny, my name is Kozłowski, nice to reply to U, Mr Carl.

      • Carl Koslowski

        Hi, nice coincidence!
        what i mean is: Nikon didn’t want to cannibalize the sales numbers of the low entry DSLR ( 3100 e.g.) and therefore has choosen this tiny little P.andS-like sensor.
        Concerning the size of the body, a bigger sensor would easily have fit in.
        Regarding the fact, that even the small sensor of the Nikon 1 delivers a considerably good picture, it’s obvious and for me higly annoying, that a V1/J1-sensor as big as of the G1X could have delivered an OUTSTANDING GOOD and not a MEDIOCRE quality as now acc. to 90% of all camera magazine tests.
        Means Nikon prefers quantity ( turnover) to quality and customer requests.

        • photo-Jack

          I personally could live with the size of the sensor. Quite clear, sensor size comes with advantages and disadvantages. You can’t have lenses as compact as in Nikon 1 if you increase the sensor size. Also small sensors have much more DOF, which is sometimes very welcome.
          What really annoys me the most is the layout/design oft the V1. Wouldn’t it have been enough, to send just one cam into the toy circus, namely the J1? Why couldn’t the V1 come with a full set of direct access dials, at least the ones for PSAM Mode, shutter time, aperture, ISO, WB and EV-compensation? And even if the SB 700 would look like an overkill on this body, I’d still prefer this one or rather spent the money on a SB400 than about the same money for this SB5. Sorry, but in this fun-design however good or bad the V1′s qualities are, in my opinion it is merely a toy.
          If even a smaller company like Fuji can come up with something convincing, it is sad to see that Nikon does not!

          • Patrik

            Have any of you actually seen the size if the Nikon 1 system. I ended up with an Olympus E-PL3 because both the body AND lenses were much more compact with the Olympus! And that was before Panasonic came out with their flat X lenses (seems like ‘X’ is the new ‘i’ when it comes to cameras). I wanted a small camera to have when I’m out walking and paddling; Nikon’s 1 is not that small…

    • El Aura

      Anybody who claims the D800 will have the same low-light performance as the D7000 should probably best be ignored.

      • iamlucky13

        Why? The pixel size is about the same, and they’re roughly the same generation, so one would expect similar per-pixel noise level.

        Now on the other hand, if the claim is the overall image quality is the same, that’s different.

        • El Aura

          Sure, per-pixel, but do you present your images per pixel or per image?

          Only if you insist on presenting your D800 images at 2.25x the resolution as your D7000 image (and the same viewing distance) will you see the same low light performance. Just because two cars have different top speeds, you don’t start comparing things like fuel consumption or wind noise at different speeds. If your speed limit is X, that is where you compare things (and in the image world, your speed limit could be your monitor or printer size). Of course the maximum speed matters (as do the total number of pixels) but for most purposes you compare things for the same purpose (be it print size or speed limit).

  • ben

    Interesting how dynamic range is sensor size independent.
    ISO is really the only sensor size controlled performance variable.

  • rhlpetrus

    I think people should take a careful look at the whole graphs, not at these cut points. The difference is much less than I had expected. The G1X shows Canon has not really made any inorads in DR at base ISO. What they have done is to priduce longer and longer shoulders, meaning processing signal before ADC to keep DR high. But it’s no competition to a D5100, especially DR in low ISO and overall at all ISO. And it’s not that much better than the V1/J1, just as expected from larger sensor. Now, I doubt many that will use that camera know how to extract all that IQ from these sensors.

    Finally, lenswise the G1X is actually pretty bad.

    • St.

      “Finally, lenswise the G1X is actually pretty bad.”

      Exactly!!!!
      For Canon good thing will be that not many people will have this information and will buy the camera based on sales person recommendation or just reading the specs.

  • http://www.jmleguizamon.com.ar jmleguizamon

    it seems to me that, in this generation, canon is playing the old nikon, and nikon is doing the old canon with the D800 and 5D mkIII.
    Canon gave their boys what we expected… and we are getting what nikon want to give us :(

    • Carl Koslowski

      That’s exactly my feeling and of many other Nikon users, which I know
      with one exception:
      D4
      but at 5900 $ and at 2,7 Lbs!

      • St.

        I double that!!!
        It can’t be said better!!!!

      • ATM

        Your wrong, with the D4 Nikon gave us a videocamera, and not so much better still performance – hope they will come out with a D4s soon, maybe then they will give us some still performance improvment. Till then they can use the D4 as a door stopper.

  • tonyc123

    This is most probably a stupid question, I wonder why they don’t use the sensors from discontinued dslr models? They are tooled up for the ccd from the D300s, make a few more and bung them into a P7000 style product. We know the chip is pretty good with better low light performance than any of the above.
    It seems to me that the last thing they want to make is an affordable camera that does actually have good performance for fear of killing the market.
    Better to produce lots of Faddy mediocre models to keep it rolling on…
    I blame the Coolpixies!!! (I borrowed that :-) )

    • BornOptimist

      This IS a sensor from DSLRs they have. It’s just a different cut than their normal 1.6x. It’s the same sensor in a new package. I haven’t seen any numbers for the pitch distance, but I bet they are equal.

      • WoutK89

        What camera had this high pixel density?
        in FX the camera has 10 * (2.7 ^2) = 72MP

        And also, DX is not 1.6x, it is 1.5x smaller than FX, Canon uses 1.6x APS-C

        • BornOptimist

          ?? I was talking about this Canon camera, not a Nikon camera.
          The Canon G1X is a 14MP camera, and has the same pixel density as Canons other 18MP DSLRs. This “new” sensor is a 1.85x (the normal 3:2 sensor cut to 4:3 ratio).

      • tonyc123

        Excuse my ignorance! Why doesn’t it have the same sort of performance in ‘compact’ guise?

    • Jabs

      @tonyc123.

      Actually, your question is a great one. The main reason perhaps is that most sensors are made by Contract Sensor Manufacturers and designed by others, so when the Production run is over, the sensor family is basically dead. Manufacturers keep a certain quantity of these older sensors for warranty work and such, but when it’s over it is done for.

      The problem is that many here believe that camera sensors are like computer CPU’s and thus they don’t get it. A camera is a system of processors, connectors, converters and a sensor all acting together to give a certain performance at a specific price point. You thus cannot move one from an old line to a lower priced system as you would not be able to meet the price point plus the older sensor would no longer be in Production.

      Sensors are like light gatherers and a sub-system attached to it makes things happen and this has nothing to do with CPU’s which are processors and not light gatherer’s. The sub-system to which CPU’s are attached to are fixed via interchangeable Motherboards often, so they can be moved from one thing to another often via identical CPU mounts, but not really so in cameras unless they are in the same price point and body size or a new way of manufacturing the key ingredients at a lower price has been found.

      Cameras are Engineered as complete units or systems and thus it would take too much time to now adapt an old sensor to a newer camera as generally the sensor and the sub-systems are developed together to fit in a certain space plus body contour due to cameras being smaller than computers.

      • photdog

        @jabs
        You are the expert in electronics and computer stuff so pls forgive me if I take a little longer to understand what you have said.
        As far as I know Nikon uses the same sensor in the D7000 and the D5100 respectively in the D3 and the D700. And these cameras do have a different performance thus the units past the sensor must be somewhat different.
        Given there would be a way, to have the D700 processor manufactured at the same costs as occurred for the D700 why then would it be more costly to take this sensor and combine it e.g. with the more modern Expeed 3 (as arguably installed in the D4 and D800) to for instance produce a entry level FX body?
        As far as I can understand, a similar procedure is happening all the time when Sony install a certain sensor into their models and Nikon using the same sensor but not the same processing units for the sensors signals.
        And I still did not quite get, why it should be more costly to adapt subsequent units to an “old” and known sensor compared to develop these units for a quite new sensor.

        • Jabs

          @photdog

          Lots of questions plus some that I cannot answer:
          1. Not expert – lol
          2. D3 and D700 were developed together – same as in D7000 and D5100
          3. The sub-system can have slight differences but not major differences, hence the different price points and differences. The poster was comparing a DSLR sensor to now be put in a P&S, as far as I remember.
          4. Expeed 3 is digital and has a higher throughput, so perhaps not compatible with older sensors or too expensive to adapt and then it will still be slower – lol
          5. Nikon, Pentax and Sony often use the same sensors but different sub-systems – hence the enormous differences between them. Sony uses mainly a 12bit pipeline or output while Nikon uses a 14bit output, hence much better graduations from that even when using the same sensor. I can’t speak for Pentax, as I don’t know off-hand what bit structure they use in their DSLR’s but is must be good, as they get better results than Sony.
          6. In technology, all the known parameters are designed to accommodate a certain signal/voltage expectation, so when you change or update that, then you throw everything off. It’s like putting a larger engine into a car and though it fits, if it has more power than the previous engine and then overcomes the transmission, you have less reliability or a failed transmission.

          Basically, cameras are designed from sensor to sub-system as a unit and there are certain things that can be substituted and others cannot be. You go outside of the design limitations of the sensor or sub-system and then nothing works. Some sub-systems are overkill for some sensors and likewise the opposite is true.

          Re-purposing sensors in subsequent generation of cameras is not really an effective or cost-effective way forward as you now have to carry on using an older part that may now be purchased in lower quantities and thus the cost of this use becomes greater ad makes the new camera more expensive thereby defeating the purpose of using it.

          For example – if Nikon was to now produce a D700s with the D3s’s sensor, then they might run into greater expense due to cost per unit prices for old components or maybe no one else makes these components any more. This is exactly why the D3X was so expensive because it used custom components not shared by other cameras and probably made by Nikon themselves. The sensor is but one part of the ‘picture’ in costs and the old Expeed versions were analog while the new one is digital, so perhaps they are not compatible signal wise – NOT sure!

          Nikon DSLR cameras are not completely electronic, so there is flexibility in their design and internal layout unlike many all electronic cameras such as Sony’s NEX series which don’t have optical prisms, mirrors and sometimes electro-mechanical shutters, so Nikon is more flexible in its DSLR Range than say their Nikon 1 Series which is more electronic than most cameras on the Market – got it?

          More electronics often mean less flexibility unless they can program chips to now differentiate the models.

  • Canonfart

    The Canon is a turd of a disappointment. It has a big sensor but that lens means it’s generally operating at higher ISO anyway. Great way to take advantage of that extra stop or two… And the V1/J1, regardless of what you think is a huge seller for Nikon. So they accomplished what they wanted. I’ll pass (a stool) on the latest Canon Frankenshoot and get NEX-7 if I want a serious sidekick to my 5DMk2.

  • Alex

    If I understand things correctly at DxO, the Fuji X10 is actually better in low light than Canon G1X, at full zoom.

    X10: iso 245, lens 2.0 – 2.8
    G1X: iso 644, lens 2.8 – 5.8

    This would mean that at their widest settings and largest aperture (smallest number), in a situation where X10 (at 2.0) needed iso 245 the G1X (at 2.8) would need 245*2=490. That’s better than X10, but not very much so. But at full zoom, in a situation where X10 (at 2.8) needs iso 245 the G1X (at 5.8) would need little more than (245*2)*2= 980.

    That would actually mean more noise, in spite of much larger sensor. The iso 644 advantage in the DxO chart is thereby eaten up by the relatively slow lens compared to the Fuji X10, even if X10 has such a smaller sensor.

    Is this reasoning correct?

    If talking about Nikon V1, think about using an adapter and putting on a 50 1,4 or 85 1,8 or perhaps a 2.8 zoom.

    I’m going to try it when it comes to our local store, but I have to say it’s a pity Canon didn’t put a better lens on the camera. Maybe it’s just impossible to combine such a large sensor with a more light sensitive lens, what do I know… But for me personally I’m leaning towards the X10 if I want a compact camera.

    • WoutK89

      No, your reasoning is incorrect, they give ISO a score, not the actual ISO value used.

      • Alex

        Yes, I understand it’s a score according to DxO’s test setup: “Low-Light ISO indicates the highest ISO sensitivity to which your camera can be set while maintaining a high quality, low-noise image (based on etc…)”

        Doesn’t this score say, in the case of X10 and Gx1, that in order for the two cameras to produce the same image quality (noise wise), X10 must not use higher iso than 245 while the Gx1 can go as high as 644? Or in other words, Gx1 at 644 is the same as X10 at 245?

        Then, and this does not the chart take into account, you calculate how these iso settings would be affected by different aperture settings?

        Or am I totally out bicycling here? (Swedish expression :)

    • El Aura

      Your reasoning is correct. At the wide-end the Canon has an advantage and at the long end the Fuji. It just tells you that what counts is the diameter of the front lens element. You can spread the light over a larger or a smaller sensor, but the amount of light entering the lens is the most you can get.

      But for base ISO performance, the Canon is better as it has a lower ‘equivalent ISO’ as base ISO.

  • Jabs
  • akineko

    This is very misleading info.
    If you compare figures that are dominated by the image sensor, of course 1.5″ sensor does better than 1″ sensor or a smaller image sensor P7100 has.
    But the those figures don’t represent the camera as a whole.

    At 2012 CES, I compared Nikon V1, Canon G1x, and Nikon P7100 (that I own).
    I concluded that I made a right decision to purchase P7100, seriously.

    If you only care about the image sensor qualities, you should use a full-frame DSLR camera. I think other factors, such as zoom range or usability, are more important.

    Only talking about image sensor quality is more like fanatic gamers are talking about how much GHz their PC’s CPU is running at.

  • http://www.4togadget.com/ HotDuckZ

    Thank god!!! Now I no need to buy G1-X.

    I think Nikon 1 will be better ‘system’ if the primes comes.

    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6531373190/interview-tetsuya-yamamoto-of-nikon

  • Jabs

    I think that many of us are now obsessed with little cameras and ‘retro styling’ as some throwback to progress or even nostalgia.

    Same thing is happening as people revert to LP’s and tube audio – LOL.

    People who were not around when these old technologies were being used often become emotional about them now while many who actually used them then are rightfully staying clear of them, as they were awful and when replaced – we said GOOD riddance.

    I don’t understand the constant clamoring for ever smaller and smaller bodies as though we have become weak and too lazy to carry around a few pounds of gear. Many seem to want the latest cameras no matter what the performance actually is, as perhaps the Camera Industry has now gone the route of the ‘fashionistas’ and thus devoid of much reality.

    Digital has given us all an enormous bevy of choices but now people want custom fabricated cameras to satisfy their own personal wants and desires, so shooting is now perhaps becoming a second reason to own a camera – LOL!

    Small cameras often mean mediocre performance and then people argue which of this mediocre gear is now in fashion or they require! Everyone does not need a high performance DSLR, but at least the base performance of gear should be looked at in light of its size and suitability for taking pictures plus videos. Manufacturer’s are getting on the ‘retro train’ and giving us really over-hyped mediocre gear while forgetting the basics of photography.

    Money to burn and not about performance, perhaps = often our problem!

    Too many choices and not enough focus on performance within a set parameter as now people want the equivalent of a camera body for play, work and then family recreation while actually buying nothing that really meets any of these criteria, as many are now perhaps focused on quantity and name brands mainly.

    We might have forgotten what photography is all about too. What did they say about fools and nostalgia???

    • Vinylkungen

      I think people thought CD was better than vinyl because they had bad vinyl players and just compared the cleanliness of the sound. Just as with photography, a digital image is cleaner but the analog is so much better. :) Subjective of course, and some prefer it cleaner even if it looses life (just as the CD sound).

      • Jabs

        Thanks for your comment.
        Years ago, I had one of the then best turntables, amps and speaker combinations. This allowed me to test CD’s versus vinyl of varying quality.
        My system included both an AR XA and several versions of the AR XB turntables fitted with Micro-Acoustic’s high end cartridges and a Shure version 5 (sorry but forgot the model name) plus some very good speakers – AR 98LS and AR 9 Series with 12 inch woofers plus various AR speakers from 10 inch to 6 inch woofers in a multi-surround sound system (pseudo quadraphonic – lol). Really loud and clean too.

        The thing that got me really was the new-found clarity of CD’s as compared to vinyl including Direct to Disc versions of classic Jazz albums on vinyl and then purchased on CD. Listening to things like Pink Floyd’s – Dark Side of the Moon and Aja by I think Steely Dan plus things like Take Five by The Dave Brubeck Quartet (the newer version and not the original classic), Sugar by Stanley Turrentine plus many by the great Quincy Jones and Miles Davis, I saw a tremendous difference in vinyl and CD, as I had speakers plus multiple amps with the all important response and accuracy to do them both justice. Listen to White Rabbit by George Benson for a clear difference between vinyl and CD plus I also had many of the exotic ‘clear’ or red colored special vinyl albums of that time.

        Nowadays, we have better clarity BUT we have a reduced dynamic range plus most recording is now geared towards making all the nuances of the performance fit within a narrow envelope and thus the acoustics are lost even though we have less pop and hiss. We went two steps forward and one major step backwards. Therefore CD’s sound still better than mp3′s and LP’s or vinyl.

        I also came from the film realm using mainly Fujichrome Pro 50D and 64T slide films which I found to be sharper and superior to even Kodachrome 25 and 64 after shooting mirror up on a tripod with great Nikon lenses such as 105mm F2.5 and 55mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor all on F3 bodies mainly. I hated print film or negative film, as it was really lousy in color except a few Fujicolor films like Reala and Kodak’s 25 ISO Ektar.

        Hence, I have spanned generations and now still shoot with Nikon’s and see quite a big difference between slide and digital with the barrier broken to me by the D3 Series, especially the D3X. Slide film has a distinct tonality especially in landscape use with a polarizer plus other filters like an A2 and I still love it.

        Things have moved on but people still like what they love and thus their choice! Me, I prefer digital as Nikon’s bodies since the D3 now remind me the most of Fujichrome 50D Pro Velvia – awesome stuff. I even shot Fujichrome 50D and 64T on Medium format (120 and 220) and that is something to see even today as I still have my slides from then.

    • Vinylkungen

      My comment got lost…

      However, I don’t think people are reverting to vinyl because of nostalgia, but because of the same reason people revert to shooting film. It simply sounds / looks better (in their view).

    • fred

      Hopeless authoritarian

      • Jabs

        You wouldn’t dare say that to my face would you.

        • Jabs

          Sorry but YOU are imitating me and I did not post that – nice try fraud.

          Administrator – please delete this fake post posing as coming from me – Thanks.

      • Jabs

        Perhaps you could not answer the questions posed?

        Care to try?

        • fred

          As you would say, “lol”

          • Jabs

            Yeah – hopeless critic – LOL.

    • Raff

      Sorry Jabs, but:

      mosfet : tube = P&S : FX

      and

      mp3 : LP = P&S : FX

      It’s not about nostalgia.
      It’s about listening…

      • Jabs

        @Raff

        I am not sure that I understand your points.

        MOSFET are transistors that were supposed to bring the best of transistors and tubes together, as far as I remember.

        MP3′s are not like LP’s but more like 8 Track – lol

        8 Track was about convenience and giving them a way to standardize the packaging and delivery.

        LP’s went from basic LP’s to advanced and then Direct to Disk units while MP3′s are nothing but compressed audio designed to control the distribution of digital audio. A Direct to Disk Recording usually sounds way better than an MP3 – for example.

        MP3′s are more like a P&S in cameras!
        FX is more like DVD Audio and other specialized formats designed to bring us greater resolution and closer to the original item in fidelity.

        Tubes were never great, but remind me now of Leica’s or Micro 4/3rds – mainly esoteric, but a cheap or a low end DSLR like the D5100 can beat it.

        Tubes were supposed to correct the perceived harshness of the first digital sound of CD’s by offering a ‘sweeter sound’, but they later corrected the problem with higher bit rates and higher sampling by going to 24bit and 192Khz – same thing in digital photography when the D4 goes to a 16bit pipeline and 14bit output up from 14 and 14 bits previously except in the D3X, I think. Better graduation is the result.

        And YES, I know of the tube advocates as I have heard them (McIntosh and such) but they were easily beat by real MOSFET (Metal Oxide Field Effect Transistors) amplifiers which had higher bandwidth and lower distortion versus the so-called mellower tube sound.

        • Raff

          Hi Jabs,

          I was trying to make the point that some “old” technology still sounds better than the new and easier one.

          I personally went for the best of the two worlds: pre-amp stage with tubes, output stage with transformers:

          http://www.pathosacoustics.com/logoseng.htm

          Much better than McIntosh!!! : )

          Sorry guys if I moved away from photography for a second…

          • Jabs

            @Raff – lol

            Now, I understand as long time AR user here – the old real AR gear from the past and not the ‘imitation’ stuff now with the same name. AR of Cambridge, Mass back in the days of the AR turntable, the AR-9, AR TSW 910 and AR MGC speakers plus AR amp.

            I have used a lot of gear and have yet to hear any tube gear that beats a well designed Mosfet amp with wide dynamic range source material at high bit structures. Everyone has a choice and also a preference but the main reason for amps sounding better to me has always been the ability of the power supply to deliver undistorted and lots of output over varying conditions of a speaker load. For example- older AR speakers were known ‘amplifier killers’ especially the ones with 4ohm ratings, as many amps died in distorted output when connected to speakers below 2 to 4 ohms or even electro-static speaker loads.

            Digital from other than mp3 has upped the ante and people don’t know what real sound is today – lol. Basically, you can get much better sound from a high-end PCI-E Audio card on your computer with lower distortion than the best of amps providing the source material is up to snuff – lol. It is when you further amplify this that problems arise, as you now leave the digital pipeline and take it to amps and speakers.

            Yeah, I was only using McIntosh as an old tube stalwart – lol.

            Sometimes old gear is better than new gear – ask the person with an old digital Walkman versus the iPod user – lol.

            Heck – buy a CD and see the difference between it and an mp3.

            Night and day!

    • Gab

      Some LPs have the most amazing sound quality. Tube amplifiers also can sound truly amazing. Just because you never heard a decent LP, or had a 1000$+ tube amp, it doesn’t mean they are bad :O Same goes for the Nikon1 system. It’s decent for big depth of field photography, cannot emphasize enough that you gotta use raw tho, the jpeg engine is really crappy :)

      • Jabs

        @Gab

        I agree with you about the LP thing provided we are talking about the Direct to Disc variety.
        I remember buying years ago several jazz records on Direct to Disk like – Take Five by the Dave Brubeck Quartet and was blown away by the sound until I bought the specially mastered CD of that same session – lol.

        Many LP’s do sound better than mp3′s because of the awful compression of dynamics in mp3′s which robs the audio of its lifelike qualities independent of lower distortion or the lack of hiss.

        Sorry back to cameras and yes, the Nikon 1 System has a wider color gamut from Expeed 3, so even in lower megapixels, I prefer its’ output to many, many cameras as I see the differences clearly on 64bit Linux.

        • Raff

          @ Jabs

          I have that CD!!! It’s fantastic!!
          A truly Jazz masterpiece!

          • Jabs

            Yeah – truly great stuff.

  • Markus

    Never thought I’d be ordering a V1 but have done so today. Why? I have the Sony NEX-5N and it has a cracking sensor/NR ……. HOWEVER

    1. No lenses available …. Last update on my 55-210mm per-order is now April availability!!!
    2. AF performance ……. One word, Dire! OK for static and slow movement but anything else, forget it. My toddler is growing fast and won’t stay still for a moment. Sounds like I need the V1 hybrid focussing to capture those very precious moments.

    Hope I’ve made the right choice, it was a V1 or a Panny G3 …….. Guess I’ll find out soon enough.

  • Gab

    V1 has a decent low light performance, better than the other two, or at least on par with the canon. (I’m sure its better at iso 1600+) Dxo mark measures when the signal to noise ratio reaches a certain low(according to their subjective opinion) level. The nikon V1 is almost as good as an entry level dslr in real life use, at least the low light iso capability. Just open up some iso 1600 nef samples in Camera raw for further proof.

  • Frank

    As with part of you anatomy ‘It’s not how big it is – It’s what you can do with it that counts’
    I love my V1 – especially with some of the larger lenses.
    I’m lucky enough to be getting one the first D4′s – Very Happy but a little broke!!

    The V1 is 92% of everything I was and the battery lasts and lasts

    WELL IMPRESSED!!!!

  • Bill

    Even though this is an unrelated topic. I thought I would take the time to mention that last week, while I was touring the U.S.S. Battleship Missouri, I dropped my Nikon D7000 quite hard onto the metal decking of the ship. The drop was about 4 ft. The only issue I had was a slight transfer of gun metal gray paint to the botton right corner and the memory card lid popped open. No damage was found on my Nikon 16-35 f4 lens…..A big sigh of relief was heard throughout the ship most likely.

  • Bill

    Frank…..
    Looking at your comment…its not the size that counts….hey, that brought up a great idea….
    Viagra for telephotos…get a rock steady lens and maybe another 100mm distance. I will start working on that in my lab. Smile !

    • Frank

      FT1 + 70-200mmVR is a beautiful combination – have used it for still and video. Tried the 80-400 VR, as long as I can focus the VR works fine – focusing a bitch.
      100m Micro without VR works fine as does 24-70mm. I have still not tried all the various modes yet, but am working through the combinations. Having the Remote control is good as is a Gorrilapod. I have used a gorrilapod with my D3X(gone to pay for the D4), but using it with the V1 I shot a long video of my grandson with the camera placed on a table.
      40 years taking pictures and still enjoying the results (Viagra is bad for you !!)
      Gets you in to trouble Ha Ha!!

  • Photo dude

    The crazy thing is that a 4 years old Nikon D90 sensor is still much better than any of these found on new pocket cameras, even with bigger sensors, and a D90 with a 35mm f/1.8 lens is not that much bigger or heavier than a G1x.
    I miss my D90.

  • broxibear

    Interesting thoughts and observations of a Pre-Production D4 by Richard Peters at WEX’s blog http://blog.warehouseexpress.com/nikon-d4-pre-production-review/

    • Jabs

      @Broxibear

      Thanks for that link and I read every word. You see – the D4 is quite a step up from the D3s.

      I have downloaded maybe 10 or more Video Presentations by Nikon and others about the D4 and I definitely want one. Great body in very subtle ways!!!

  • St.Anger

    Why can’t anyone just admit that Canon one up’d Nikon for once. You always have to try and justify the loss somehow some way like it matters. Who cares if Canon’s Flagship point and shoot is better than Nikon’s mirrorless, it won’t make your gear perform any worse or even affect you! Nikon is still coming out with top of the line DSLRs. They haven’t failed us thus far so why are we so paranoid about a point and shoot????

  • sushi

    Hi all

    Just go on DxOMark and do a test between a Canon G1X and a Nikon D90….. no comment!

  • F

    Ahh yes, the Canon G1x…it will be mine..after the D800 :)

    It’s true that Canon does a great job with their P&S cameras compared to the Coolpix line..
    The Nikon-1 system only caught my eye because of the interchangeable lenses & F-mount adapter, but when it comes down to it..the G1x (with it’s built-in lens) is less of a fuss when you just want to carry around a full-featured compact camera. It’s not the smallest, but no need to bring along a bag of lenses & flash either.

  • Ray Justice

    Peter, you may want to announce the new 1000x CF lexar cards are now available to order at B&H…I ordered mine today…..

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      thanks, I will

  • Ren Kockwell

    Some other points about these cameras:
    1. The Canon is incredibly ugly with aggressive lines and a bulky form. Gross. This market niche demands high style.
    2. The Canon sensor is too big, so that now the camera is not truly pocket-portable. Brick.
    3. The Nikon is clearly too big for such a small sensor. I would embrace this sensor in a more pocketable form—especially with a quality f1.8 fixed zoom built in. Think LX5 with V1 sensor.
    4. Foveon DP sensor/camera size is a great trade off. Still pants pocketable with noticeable gain in quality over compacts.
    5. DEPTH is the most important dimension for a compact. Both the V1 and the G1x are ridiculous in that regard.

  • CRB

    Its amazing how Nkon manage to get outstanding performance from any of the sensors they use.

  • http://micahmedia.com Micah

    …that’s a stop difference between each of them. Not as much as hyped in any direction.

    They’re all a bit low in my opinion. Today’s DSLRs start around 1000, even by DX0′s BS, nebulous standards.

  • yo

    Nikon 1 is such trash. I’m a Nikon dslr user and always steer away friends from getting that camera and into m4/3. Friends don’t let friends buy a Nikon 1.

  • big eater

    I think what we’re seeing is that the middle is disappearing from the photo world. There’s no room any more for average-size cameras that take average pictures.
    The imaging world is splitting into two camps: photographers who need high end medium-format type imaging–characterized by fine arts, architectural photography and those watch ads you see on the back page of magazines. Those folks need to be able to make enormous enlargements, retouch at the photon level, and create images that are as perfect as technology allows.
    The other camp are photographers who need versatility—who can shoot video and stills that look great on the internet and in regular print and video; but they need to be able to get shots that no one else can get—the cameras have to be tough enough and small enough to strap to a running horse, attached to radio-controlled helicopters, carried inconspicuously through riot-torn cities, left out for weeks in an icy forest attached to a motion sensors.
    These cameras are clearly in the latter category. They’re not meant to have the resolution of a Phase One IQ180. These are cameras that you set the interval timer, wrap them in bacon and throw them into the middle of a pack of wolves.

  • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin
  • BartyL

    Does anyone know if the image circle of a CX lens is large enough that future iterations of the Nikon 1 series could accomodate a larger sensor?

  • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

    I just got my hands on one of nikon’s early fullframe mirrorless cameras! while it doesn’t have a built in flash, the the 1:1 life-sized viewfinder is HUGE, and the dedicated flash has an output 2 stops above the SB-800 at full power. it handles fantastically though i cant yet comment on image quality (i ve been told it can put out fantastic 30-inch prints at base iso). it comes with a 50mm f/1.4 as the the kit lens which matches the distinctly retro-styled body.

    here’s a picture of the camera and kit lens: http://hashbr0wn.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d4o6flo

    =D

  • Martin Rock

    G1x for 800 USD ? Just for size…. The D3100 is largely better and has a lower price even with the kit. Just compare the size exactly with the NIKKOR 18-55mm for de the D3100. Size matters in specific situations really. Holiday with a D3100 or G1X requires the same amount of space. The dimensions are approximately the same except of course with the lens for the D3100.

  • http://www.rightly-so.com Rightly So

    Well at least the Nikon 1 will probably have the option of fast lenses in the future. Until Canon can come up with a camera like the G1 X with a fast lens (throughout the zoom range) I can’t see myself replacing my G12.

  • Back to top