there's a V-A-D thread for this, pleas repost

Hello there

After some months the D3200 is out on the market here is my test video with some close shots using macro extension tubes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTfp2xvibAs

If this is done for the purpose of creating a mood....100% success... And, I enjoyed it. My thinking is always from a client perspective as that seemed to work when I was actually working...

visumax said:
Very nice, was it shot in raw, how many fps?

Thanks for the likes.
We shot it on an Epic using the R3D raw format.
The fps varied a lot but any where from 24 to 200-ish...
As for the continuity, thank you for the comment and I do not mean to "dish" but frankly, that was never really a concern of ours, we were just after creating a certain mood. Glad you enjoyed it and thanks again for watching.

I am with Msmoto on this - I had a look at the Fuji XPro 1 - what a beautiful piece of quality camera engineering. With a third party mount it will take all my F mount Nikkor lenses. Nikon has nothing to compare for reasons I cannot imagine. The V1/2 are very nice little cameras but if one has already made a huge investment in F mount lenses, speedlites, filters etc they are only of academmic interest. No doubt they take great pictures but it will be very hard for Nikon to carve out new market share with a V2 or even a V3 or a V4 - there is just too much new competition out there and it is in the main just another middle of the road sub DSLR with fairly modest advantages over a high end compact point and shoot. I don't think the V2 is at all ugly however but many an ugly camera has taken a more than pretty picture.

Hello people, reviving a dead thread. First impressions from the V2. I tried the V2 at a tech fair in Singapore today. Price is about twice that of the V1 here. 800 SGD( v1 with 10-30 and 30-110) vs 1500 SGD( V2 with the same lenses). Do I think that it is twice the camera. Definitely not. I think this is what the V series camera's should have been in the first place. It is really small. Seriously. You could probably go out shooting with it and put into a jacket or even a relatively large pant pocket along the other prime. The AF is really fast. Dare I say a bit faster than the V1? All I did was point the camera at the sales rep and asked him to smile. I didnt have a 18/1.8 to try unfortunately. IQ, that is the real surprise. To my eye, it has improved(slightly) ISO performance while upping the MP. Simple test of just shooting the base it was on and just doing the industry standard zoom in on the back of the screen test. Ergonomics are very good. The grip is really spacious and allows you to really hold it with confidence. The build quality is fantastic and the flash power is pretty good for something so small. Unlike some people here I think the V2 is actually not ugly. Especially so in the flesh where you can see why they did what they did. I think it feels even better than my D5000. The PASM dial is a welcome addition and really allows the camera to be utilised fully. I think Nikon have have a winner on its hands if they can play the cards properly

I guess I just missed the point..... while there are some interesting technical aspects to the video and it is entertaining, as an older photographer who is stuck on maintaining continuity between camera angles in the motion shots I found it possibly could be improved. This of course requires multiple cameras/angles if one is to change angles in final edit.

I may get dished for my opinion, but there are a lot of "photographic" pieces which are interesting yet can be improved if the budget is adequate. .....unless the intention was to have the continuity errors as a part of the final edit.

I found it enjoyable in any case.

Very good!

Very nice, was it shot in raw, how many fps?

thanks !

love the sharpness on the eye shots. I of course did not miss the slip near the end. ;->

https://vimeo.com/51189954

Well, this really goes here

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3889&page=9

If like me you are having any problems with the view only coming up in the EVF instead of the rear screen, I found a tip that actually works from Earl Rich in Mont Vernon NH. Simply thoroughly clean the EVF and all will go back to the normal duel screens.
We forget sometimes the simple things, or maybe the the sensor in the EVF is super critical about light,
Either way this tip works , thanks Earl.

Ahhh a 12-16mp FX mirror-less that takes primes, that would fit the bill, but alas it still would be thick as even if removing the mirror, you still have to keep the flange distance.

But even saying that get's to the point, it hits on all marks but primes and High iso - if it can't be great at 32oo-64oo+ it is nothing many avid photographers would want at that price. I would rather buy a P7700 and save the cash for other things.

Interesting discussion....my opinion of the Nikon V whatever is that it is not for me. Period. I think it will be possible to have a "D4" like mirrorless, not for the purpose of having it small but to eliminate the obvious handicap of having a mirror flipping up and down. In fact the "pro" mirrorless may not be much different than the D4, as IMO the D4 is the size I want in a pro level camera. Certainly some ergonomic changes can be made...but my guess is one of the reasons the D4 is large is because Nikon wants the Flagship to be big....big...big.

My opinion only, now. In any case the V1, J1, version xyz will most likely not be one I want due in part to it being too small. My little Olympus E-PL2 is very small and nice but the size is why it has all the menus in the screen on the back. I want big controls.....

I'm not sure what to think of this thing. I was sort of hoping to see something that might push me to Nikon rather than an OMD M5 or the Xpro1 - That didn't happen. Seems that the DXO scores are not improved much at all either. The DXO "sports" low iso score under 400 has always tripped me up. There are digi cams now higher than that.

I know some wanted something like what it looks like - I wanted something thinner, smaller and with a 24, 35, 50mm, 80/105 (f2-2.8 dof) equivalent primes and a quick way to move from A/S/P/M. And the Price? If it was $400 it might be on my radar but not $900.

That only thing I really like is the AF speed - but beyond that, it is not for me. Soccer moms may love it though. It would be good for them and as a decent "shoot the kids" camera.

msmoto said:
So, I still want my D400 mirrorless camera.....the controls being very similar to the D4......

You don't want much, do you?

;-)

captainelmo said:
Note how all the X-pro lenses are primes. They have identified their target market. It is discreet, relatively small, has excellent IQ and more importantly has all this at a non leica price. IMO, the EOS M is too little too late. Why would I want to get the EOS M if I could get a 650D for around the same money with full compatibility for their EF mount. I would defend it to the hills if I was given one but would'nt buy one with my own money. I have tried a few m43 cameras and off course a DX camera will blow it to heck in subject isolation. My point is that for a DX mirrorless to work, the system cannot have zooms. If not the whole point of mirrorless is defeated because the size is so similar to an eqv. mirrored camera which will have a full complement of PDAF and some degree of direct controls.

That's not exactly true, when the new EX-1 came out there was a zoom that was launched too, the 18-55 2.8 to 4 lens.

I see your point, but I think at the very least a small zoom is warranted- choice is always nice.

Not everyone likes to shoot with a prime all the time.

Personally, I have a D40 and I would have bought it with the 18-55 if the build quality on it wasn't terrible.

msmoto said:
No question the m4/3 sensors are great. My Olympus E-PL2 does a great job. But, the simple fact remains, a larger sensor with all other things being equal will give better end results. It is a simple optical fact that the resolution on an M4/3 sensor has to be higher to get the same results as an image on an APS-C sensor.

But, the size of the lens is IMO the factor which will allow the M4/3 to be usable, while the glass in front of the APS-C will make it not fit as well in my purse.

So, I still want my D400 mirrorless camera.....the controls being very similar to the D4......

But then putting direct controls rather than a touch screen interface will occupy space. IMO, the point of a mirrorless is to offer almost( or the same) DSLR performance in a smaller, lighter package and so far the only ones to have delivered thus far are the m43 cameras and the Xpro1.

No question the m4/3 sensors are great. My Olympus E-PL2 does a great job. But, the simple fact remains, a larger sensor with all other things being equal will give better end results. It is a simple optical fact that the resolution on an M4/3 sensor has to be higher to get the same results as an image on an APS-C sensor.

But, the size of the lens is IMO the factor which will allow the M4/3 to be usable, while the glass in front of the APS-C will make it not fit as well in my purse.

So, I still want my D400 mirrorless camera.....the controls being very similar to the D4......

bjrichus said:
The CURRENT generation of sub-APS-C cameras only have at best more or less an entry level DSLR performance and anyone with open eyes and working brain cells won't pay the mid level prices being asked to buy them.

I would ask this differently: "How long will it be before the performance and price of sub-APS-C sensor camera systems (like the Nikon 1) and lenses get to the stage when you get more than entry level DSLR performance for a price that makes them as easy or even easier to buy than a DSLR?"

Yes the fact is smaller m43 sensors are not a match for the newer APS-C sensors and also the cost of the lenses and the depth of the system are all smaller. I am sure the same could be said for Leica's and how anyone with a working brain can see that a D800e with a half decent lens can blow it to heck at around half the price. People still pay for the OMD because if you are the kind of person who likes the small size, doesnt mind paying a bit more and knows how to work around the 'gaping' performance difference you will have a blast with it. I do agree that it is harder to extract the same performance from a smaller sensor if not impossible after a certain point but currently with sensor tech as it is I am sure you wont be disappointed with how sensors perform even if it is CX or FX.

NSXType-R said:
I think the EOS M is just implicated in the wrong way- just take a look at the Fuji X-Pro 1. With proper lens support and adapters, it just took off. It also helps that it was styled properly.

I just hope DX mirrored cameras get the proper updates! I'm waiting for a D7000 replacement so I can get a D7000 for cheaper.

And regardless of sensor size, you just don't get the same isolation with M4/3. I do like the smaller sizes, but at this point it's kind of too late for me to change.

Note how all the X-pro lenses are primes. They have identified their target market. It is discreet, relatively small, has excellent IQ and more importantly has all this at a non leica price. IMO, the EOS M is too little too late. Why would I want to get the EOS M if I could get a 650D for around the same money with full compatibility for their EF mount. I would defend it to the hills if I was given one but would'nt buy one with my own money. I have tried a few m43 cameras and off course a DX camera will blow it to heck in subject isolation. My point is that for a DX mirrorless to work, the system cannot have zooms. If not the whole point of mirrorless is defeated because the size is so similar to an eqv. mirrored camera which will have a full complement of PDAF and some degree of direct controls.

captainelmo said:
What is the point of an APS-C mirrorless? Current M43 sensors are delivering almost the same performance as APS-C sized sensors while allowing the lenses to remain smaller. I think if Nikon went with a M43 sized sensor along with the PDAF they can thrash the competition. We can see from the EOS-M( and to an extent the 650D) that scaling up the on sensor PDAF is useless and the lenses are enormous. I think Nikon should make an M43 mirrorless and focus on having a nice selection of fast primes similar to what Olympus and Panasonic have with their 8/3.5, 12/2, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8. These lenses will allow the camera to be pocketable in a jacket pocket while also being fast and having excellent performance which people may be willing to pay for.

I think the EOS M is just implicated in the wrong way- just take a look at the Fuji X-Pro 1. With proper lens support and adapters, it just took off. It also helps that it was styled properly.

I just hope DX mirrored cameras get the proper updates! I'm waiting for a D7000 replacement so I can get a D7000 for cheaper.

And regardless of sensor size, you just don't get the same isolation with M4/3. I do like the smaller sizes, but at this point it's kind of too late for me to change.

captainelmo said:
[...] and having excellent performance which people may be willing to pay for.

The CURRENT generation of sub-APS-C cameras only have at best more or less an entry level DSLR performance and anyone with open eyes and working brain cells won't pay the mid level prices being asked to buy them.

I would ask this differently: "How long will it be before the performance and price of sub-APS-C sensor camera systems (like the Nikon 1) and lenses get to the stage when you get more than entry level DSLR performance for a price that makes them as easy or even easier to buy than a DSLR?"