Firmware update 1.10 prepares the Nikon 1 J1 and V1 cameras for the FT1 adapter


Nikon issued firmware update for the Nikon 1 J1 and V1 mirrorless cameras which adds pixel mapping and support for the FT1 mount adapter. The FT1 adapter enables the use of Nikon F-mount lenses on a Nikon 1 body. Here are the basics specifications:

  • Autofocusing is possible when AF-S lenses are used. However, focus mode must be set to AF-S (Single AF) and AF-area mode is fixed at Single-point with only the center focus point used.
  • The focus indicator (range finder) can be used with CPU lenses.
  • [P], [S], [A], and [M] exposure modes can be used with CPU lenses.
  • [A] and [M] exposure modes can be used with non-CPU lenses. Aperture is specified using the aperture ring on the lens.
  • Vibration reduction (VR) functions when VR lenses are used. Enable vibration reduction, or specify a setting, using switches on the lens.
  • Shooting in Motion Snapshot mode is only possible when focus has been acquired with an AF-S lens.
  • The Smart Photo Selector function cannot be used.
The Nikon 1 FT1 adapter is expected to be released in Japan on December 22, 2011.

Adobe released Lightroom 3.6 and Camera Raw 6.6 just added support for Nikon J1 and V1 cameras (download link).

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


    • MJr

      Like … not see the point !

      • Spooky

        +1 😀

  • Since the F-mount side does not have any electric contacts, this can hardly be the real thing. Any rumors concerning the price?

    • Oh, the photo can be enlarged. I see the contacts now, sort of.

  • Things are looking up. Nice camera to through in the kit bah with my good glass.

  • Norgate

    I don’t like the idea of using big nikkor lens on this small camera . What’s the use of buying a packetable camera if you use this bazooka lenses ?

    • @Norgate, “What’s the use of buying a packetable camera if you use this bazooka lenses ?”
      Can you say 2.7x the REAAAAACHHHHHHHHH….
      My 400mm f/2.8 would go to something like 1080mm without any teleconverters! All while maintaining a lightening fast focus and 10.1 MP; come here you little birds!

      But now, with the D800 on the horizon coming in with 36MP and native F mount compatibility, the Nikon V1 is looking less enticing, apart from the price; performance of both cameras with said lens will need to be tested.

      • Steve

        You also loose AF-C with the Nikon 1 and FT1. This effectively kills the advantages the FT1 had for wildlife. Even the G3/GH2 16mp with 100-300mm (600mm equiv) looks like a better alternative to the Nikon 1 10mp for mostly static wildlife.

      • Tom

        Yet another photography buffoon that doesn’t understand how a smaller sensor works.

        It doesn’t magically magnify anything. You just get a smaller picture….. that is all.

        Think of this extreme “I could see grains of dirt on the moon if only I had a small enough sensor and a 200mm lens!!”

        • Ken

          I think most people understand the concept of sensor crop and effective focal length. Only a buffoon would assume that the OP meant otherwise.

          • Tom

            You did read his post right? I find it hard to believe they are both using really bad dead pan humor. I could be wrong.

        • amien

          “Can you say 2.7x the REAAAAACHHHHHHHHH….”

          noobs really dont get it… and they never will !
          It doesn’t give you more reach, it just crops the shot into the center,
          besides, they are very few advantages when using this on a 2.7 crop sensor :

          – bulky as hell
          – no magnification, but crop
          – which meens, loosing the intended short depth of field effect
          – the sensor offering poor high iso, it is nonsense to use huge telephoto lenses on it, you will need at least 800 iso to resolve a fast shot without getting motion blur.
          – the only useful purpose would be with Telescopes. (gain of depth of field and reach due by the crop factor) but long exposures will bring tons of noise either.

          • You’re absolutely right. You still don’t get it. : D

            • amien

              Can you explain what your blog is about ?


              looks like some lame promotion for the v1.

              need some sponsors ?

            • Everlast

              Not only did Nikon not use the advantage of the small sensor to produce smaller system 1 lenses, but you want to use even larger ones? Why would you want to lug around 2 kilograms of lens to only use less than 1/4 of its image circle. Just get a D3100/5100 and crop the image – price and weight is similar to the 1 system, yest capabilities are uncomparable!

            • Dear (anonymous) Troll (who doesn’t dare show a website and displays a lack of reading comprehension),

              No. And no.


          • rhlpetrus

            You forget that no dslr from Nikon or other maker will provide 10MP at a 2.7x crop. On an FF you’d need 75MP, on a DX, 30MP. Thus, effectively, this camera will give more reach.

            • ART

              The 24MP isn’t that behind 30 MP requirement, so cropping A77, A65, or Nex-7 will give you close enough reach with 2.7 crop. Besides, Nex-7 does AF-C with LAEA2 adapter.

          • Dr SCSI

            “- bulky as hell”, great observation, you are absolutely right, the 400mm f/2.8 is bulky as hell. I wasn’t trying to save weight when I bought it.
            “- no magnification, but crop”, again, great observation, the Nikon 1 will give me a 2.7 crop factor on the center of the sharpest part of my $9K lens, with a very high resolution of 10.2MP. I can only hope the lens can effectively resolve well with this sensor.
            “- which means, losing the intended short DoF effect”, wow, you are on a role. I personally intend to gain a bit more DoF with my lens and camera combo. At the closest focusing distance the 400f/2.8 permits, the DoF is too shallow for birds; but hey you knew that too, right?!
            “- the sensor offering poor high ISO….blah, blah, blah”, yes this could be a problem with effective focal length of 1080mm, but when shooting 3meters away from a blind with flash, I am not overly concerned.
            “noobs really don’t get it…”, don’t be so hard on yourself, you seem to understand quite a bit; maybe one day you will have the patience to question and learn before jumping to conclusions.

            • The Fantastic G

              For the reasons you listed above SCSI, are the reasons I want the V1 for macro work with my Sigma 150 2.8 and Tamron 90mm 2.8.

        • El Aura

          The Nikon 1 gets more (much more) pixels onto your bird (assuming the lens can deliver it). That is what reach is. A TC does the same optically, it spreads the center of the image over a larger number of pixels than would record the center of the lens otherwise. And a higher pixel density does not any optical aberration like every TC does.

          • Everlast

            Have you considered the Nikon S9100 it will get you even more pixels on that bird with its 12MP on 1/2.3″ sensor (not saying it’s a good thing) and massive STABILISED lens – 25 – 450 mm equivalent. Plus it’s really compact and a fraction of the price $260.

            • NoFunBen

              450mm is not much for birds this is where you start.

          • @El Aura, +100, finally someone else gets it! The key here is “if the lens can deliver it”. Owning one of the sharpest Nikon lenses ever made (400mm f/2.8 VR), I had high hopes of testing it with the new Nikon 1 series.
            @Everlast, a point and shoot lens won’t compare against a lens that costs 35 times as much. With a native FX 400mm f/2.8 lens, I would have 1080mm equivalent on a Nikon 1, while keeping f/2.8! You are absolutely right though about price and weight, lugging the big guns can be financially and physically demanding.

      • Falcon31

        You can already get the same pixel density of the expected D800 36 MP in the D7000 16 MP (16 MP * 1.5^2 ~36 MP). No need to wait for the D800 if you want to crop.

        • @Falcon31, +10! At least a few people understand what I am saying. It is all about the pixel density and the “RIGHT” lens to go with it. Unfortuntely, as others have pointed out, you lose AF-C with the Nikon 1 series. Which means my only options left are the D7000 or D800 when it comes out. I originally looked at the D7000 to get the 1.5 crop effect, but the J1/V1 could have nearly doubled that at a 2.7 crop factor. Now with the D800 on the horizon, I will wait and see if the pixels are better than those in the D7000. If yes, then that will become my cropping camera.

        • …actually, the theoretical pixel count for expanding a DX sensor to FX size is closer to 2.4x.

          DX crop of a 36MP sensor would be more like 14MP, give or take.

          (see: D3x and D3 crop mode)

          An FX sensor with the same pixel pitch as a D7000 would have over 38mp.

          An FX sensor with the same pixel pitch as the Nex 7/A77 sensor would have around 58 MP. Now THAT’s some crazy sh1t.

      • iamlucky13

        You can reduce the redundancy in your collections, but still cut down your gear load a little bit.

        For example, if you had a D700 as your serious camera, you could get a Nikon 1 as a travel camera. Then instead of:

        D700 + 24mm F/2.8 + 28-300 + macro

        You might pack
        V1 + 10mm F/2.8 + 10-100 + adapter + F-mount macro.

        The macro doesn’t save you any size or weight, but the rest of the kit saves a lot.

        Unfortunately, the 2.7X crop limits the utility of the lens adapter. Wide angle F-mount lenses are basically pointless on the Nikon 1.

        Most zooms won’t have a resolution that makes using them on such a small crop valuable. The 70-300, for example, works ok on DX, but at 300mm, a 12 MP DX camera easily out-resolves the lens.

        I personally was intrigued back when there was hope the Nikon mirrorless would have a DX-sized sensor. Now my interest is pretty limited.

        • @iamlucky13,
          Excellent points! Maybe Nikon was targeting pros who want to travel lite and inconspicuous, but still offer plenty of power in a small package. The FT1 adapter is an absolute must have in such a kit that you suggest. And as you point out about FX lenses on DX cameras, you will have similar resolving issues with FX lenses on MX cameras, but significantly more so. I imagine that only the BEST PRIME Lens Nikon FX glass, in terms of sharpness, will be a viable partner with MX and FT1. In my opinion, for affordability, reach, sharpness, and speed, for use in birding, the best FX lens to use with a MX sensor would be the 300mm f/4; and it will be even better once they add VR. As for a good zoom, I would think the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II will do well, as it is VERY sharp in the center, where it counts; but I wouldn’t expect a TC added to the 70-200 with the FT1 to provide good results.

          I also agree that a DX sensor in the mirrorless body would have probably been a better solution, but it wouldn’t have been able to keep that thin form factor with F mount. But I think Nikon’s J1/V1 series cameras were produced to fill the gap between point and shoot and m4/3 rds cameras, and not so much as a DX replacement. Nikon just screwed up the price entry point, and the 15% discounts we now see are just the beginning of their price corrections.

      • Bengt Nyman

        A more scientific way is to calculate the relative object resolution:
        It’s the Lens Focal Length multiplied by the Sensor Pixel Count and divided by the length of the Sensor Diagonal.
        You now have a number useful for comparisons.

      • Bengt Nyman

        About REACH:
        The Nikon 1 with 10.1 MP compares to a full frame with 26.9 MP. The Nikon D800 with 36 MP will in other words “outreach” the Nikon 1 by 33%.
        Plus the D800 will give you a field of view that is 266% of that of the Nikon 1 to crop from.

        • markogts

          Sorry, you made a mistake: if the crop factor is 2,7, then the pixel count on a FX should be 2,7^2=7,3 so 73 MPx. Of course we are only talking about image scale, not intrinsic image quality (noise, bit depth and resolution of the whole system)

          • Bengt Nyman

            Of course you are right.
            To suggest that the Nikon 1 compares to cropping a 73 MP full frame is mathematically correct but I think it’s photographically unrealistic because of the processor overhead required for the image color interpolation, noise processing and more.
            It will be very interesting to see how the Nikon 1 and the D800 compares in real tests.
            You may have noticed in my next comment that I hinted about the possibility of future, non uniform pixel sizes across the sensor to compensate for the variation in ray angles across the surface of the sensor.
            Nice catch markogts

      • Bengt Nyman

        The human image sensor.
        What we need is an image sensor with varying pixel sizes, just like your eye. The center pixels should be made as small as physically possible while pixels toward the outside should be getting bigger and bigger. This would allow for extreme center resolution and cropping while maintaining a noise free image toward the periphery where the angels of the incoming light are less favorable.

    • 2,7 crop for macro!

  • logandiana

    Price Price Price???
    If it’s reasonable enough I’ll buy a Nikon 1 camera and this adapter to use with my 70-200mm 2.8 to give me a 190-540 2.8. I think it’ll be a bit cheaper than spending 10 grand on an exotic 400 2.8 lens for the D7000.

  • Theoretical

    The 35 1.8 takes on the equivalent of a 94.5 mm view.

    The 40 2.8 macro is equivalent to 108 mm.

    Both are rather small and light DX lenses.

    • And at that range it’s a shame they don’t have VR!
      the 85mm 1.4 would make for an insanely shallow DOF —-> 229.5mm f1.4 😀 😀

      • @Louis Rafael,
        When framing the subject to appear the same size in capture, the DOF on cropped sensor Nikon 1 will be much greater when compared to a FF. Only when you are the same distance to the subject, will your DoF appear to be much shallower on the cropped DX sensor.

        FX Nikon D3(x,s), D700
        Focal Length: 85mm
        Selected f-Stop: f/1.4
        Subject Distance: 10 meters
        DoF: 1.17 meters

        DX Nikon D300(s), D7000
        Focal Length: 85mm
        Selected f-Stop: f/1.4
        Subject Distance: 10 meters
        DoF: 0.78 meters

        As you backup with your DX camera to get the same Field of View as you have on your FX, your DoF will appear greater on DX for a given FoV.

        Which in the land of 85mm f/1.4 it should be a blessing, as autofocus should work much faster.

        • WoutK89

          Doesn’t it do the opposite, the field of view looks bigger when the sensor becomes smaller?

          • Youre thinking of apparent focal length (which is “effectively” multiplied by x1.5), not field of view. Field of View is SMALLER on DX or 1.

            • WoutK89

              DOF, sorry, I keep mixing them, see my other message, the smaller the sensor, the more DOF. That’s why people don’t like compact cameras, because they have already huge DOF

        • amien

          @ Dr SCSI

          your gallery, mr DR. speaks by itself. very poor photography…
          not speaking of your huge “copyright” logo.

          don’t worry, nobody will copy your images.

          • @ amien, I’m sorry my photography doesn’t meet your expectations. I am always willing to listen to constructive criticism, so if you have something constructive to offer, I’m listening. As for the copyright, I will give you a +1, the effect is intrusive; something I have been meaning to fix. And as for people copying my images illegally, I hope not, but I would be flattered.

            • @amien
              I thought your comment was a bit below the belt. Not to mention off topic.
              @Dr SCSI
              Well handled.

              And now back to the topic:
              I agree with @iamlucky13 ‘s comment. I wish the “Nikon 1” would have had stuck to their existing DX format and their existing F-mount system. It would have made a lot of sense and wouldn’t have damaged sales in the high end.
              Even if I get a smaller camera, I am still going to dream about the D800 to fully utilise the fantastic lenses that I currently own, and some more that I want to own.

            • iamlucky13

              @ Isaac – I do want to clarify, in my post I wasn’t suggesting Nikon should have stuck with F-mount. I actually think a new mount was necessary.

              The sensor to flange distance for F-mount would have significantly compromised the size benefit of a mirrorless design.

              However, dealing with an adapter to fit F-mount lenses to a DX-sized, mirrorless mount would have been just one compromise for owners of both systems to make.

              Dealing also with the additional crop factor adds several more compromises.

          • Jimmy B

            You’re a real dickhead.

      • Oscar

        rather 229.5/3.8

        you need to multiply the aperture as well to get the same DOF. you can’t just multiply one and not the other when it comes to DOF.

        • @Oscar,
          I believe that calculation only holds true for Teleconverters, not so much for cropping because of smaller sensor.

          • WoutK89

            Teleconverters are about loss of light when applying the magnification factor, this little sensor comparison is about field of view, so yes he is correct as far as FOV concerns

            • WoutK89

              DOF of course*

      • rhlpetrus

        DoF equivalence is given by multiplying by 2.7 as well. It’s still good though. I want to use the 35mm f/2 = 95mm f/5.4 on FF, good for portraits. But Nikon is coming with a 28 f/1.2 for the V1, that will be a good porytrait lens.

        • lolly

          A CX 28mm f/1.2 for some people is still not fast enough … it might be equivalent to an f/2.8 FF. Where did you hear about this lens, btw ?

  • Ball_Lightning

    Damn… i thought this could be Fun on the 500/4… but the AF-limitations make it useless.

  • T.I.M

    Cool, now I can mount my Ai-s 300mm f/2 on my Nikon 1 !
    Nikon, stop waisting your time on shity accessories and show us the D800 now.
    Thank you.

    • You actually have a 300 f/2? Lucky B@$st@rd! 🙂
      I have had my eye on one on ebay, here local in Frankfurt, Germany.
      What do you use it for, and what are its limitations? Obviously AF is gone, but what else are you lacking? Ah, the days when Nikon was cutting edge in optics….

      • T.I.M

        @Dr SCSI
        No, I don’t have the 300mm f/2 (and don’t want it).
        But I’m getting the AF-s 200mm f/2 VR II for Xmas !

        • Another lens on my want list, 200 f/2! Santa must like you!
          A modern AF version of the 300 f/2 with VR would be very interesting. But at the $80K Nikon would charge for it today, it would be just as rare as its $29K predecessor was 27 years earlier!

  • Merv

    My opinion is that that would about $250

    Would also explain why the FT1 wasn’t released-the V1 and J1 weren’t completely

    Ball_Lighting, the AF-S 500mm f/4 is compatible with the FT1:

    • Vertigo

      1) This compatibility list is weird. Will the FT-1 be compatible with earlier version AF-S, such as 300/2.8 AF-S nonVR or 70-200 mkI ? And what about my good old 105/4 Ai ?

      2) Yes, the 500/4 is compatible, but wildlife without continuous AF is down to digiscopy. Especially when the V1 was supposed to have good tracking ability. Moreover, continous shooting at 10 fps is already cripled down on the v1 : P mode only, no manual ISO. One of the reason why I decided not to buy a V1.

      3) Cannot understand how the aperture with non-CPU lenses will be controlled through the lens ring, as the ft1 misses a coupling ring. Does this mean the v1 will do only stopped-down metering ?

      • 1. I suspect that Nikon’s compatibility list is really a “tested and has expected performance” list. It seems to be mostly concentrated on current and recent lenses, as one would expect. Note that Nikon doesn’t mention third-party lenses, either. So I suspect that we’ll find more lenses are “compatible” than Nikon lists.

        2. Yes, this is a disappointment. Worse still, continuous shooting bursts are set at the focus point of the first image. This definitely cuts down the interest in the V1+FT1+AFS lens wildlife crowd. As someone noted, basically we’re back to digiscoping.

        3. Aperture rings on AI lenses change the aperture. So yes, basically you get stop-down metering.

        • Vertigo

          Thanks Thom ;o)

          1) Hope you’re right, or that list is packed in the FW update.

          2) Yes, 60fps is a bit of a joke on the v1. With 1 lenses, you have to go down to 10fps to get AF-C tracking, and down to 5fps to get a bit of control (i.e. manual iso). With AF-S, no tracking at all at any fps.

          3) Not sure about that. The FT-1 has the little “fee” (minimal aperture) contact and an inner cam for mechanical aperture, suggesting that aperture could be controlled from the body.


          With AF-S :

          • 3. I can’t verify it at the moment, but I think the FEE only appears if you’re not in Manual exposure mode.

      • 2. There goes my option, no continuous AF bites.
        3. Stop Down metering, no thanks.

        I’ll be waiting for the D800 and 36MP now. Should be able to crop in and get similar results without an adapter and loss of AF-C.

        Just my two cents.

        • 2. Absolutely. Even some restrictions on tracking would have been acceptable (depends upon the restriction, obviously ;~). But this makes it and one-and-done thing. Not good.

          3. I think it unlikely that people will be stopping down much with the types of lenses you’d use with a 2.7x crop, so I really don’t see this as a big issue.

          • KnightPhoto

            “2. Yes, this is a disappointment. Worse still, continuous shooting bursts are set at the focus point of the first image. This definitely cuts down the interest in the V1+FT1+AFS lens wildlife crowd. As someone noted, basically we’re back to digiscoping.”

            I am deeply, DEEPLY disappointed by this!!!!

            Two things about V1 specs are tantamount to “not full disclosure to us buyers”:
            #2. as mentioned above
            – and the 10fps limitations vs. 5fps no limitations thing.

            Both these items are not what I would call full disclosure on Nikon’s part – poor corporate ethics in reality.

            And my other annoyance is I NEED (not want) to set minimum shutter speed in Aperture-priority Auto-ISO mode. Plus of course I want an Auto ISO to 1600 option.

            As an owner, I am not happy about the above noted items, Nikon has crossed a line here. I am ticked and reconsidering getting the FT-1 (I always, always, always shoot my cameras in AF-C).

            (I am happy about many other things on the V1 but there is no reason for the above only to come clear now, long after we obtained the camera)

            • I would put it a different way: marketing is about setting expectations. Nikon did nothing to correctly establish realistic expectations, nor did they correct expectations when they ran off into the stratosphere. That’s bad marketing. From an organization that’s been doing bad marketing for decades.

              The FT1’s capabilities were indeed disappointing, but this is just another extension of what I wrote in my J1 review: we have to adapt to the camera rather than the camera adapt to us. There are still going to be times when I want to put an AF-S telephoto on the V1, but I’m going to have limit my expectations and adapt my shooting to what that combination can do, which is yes, a disappointing subset of what we expected. That’s a shame. Nikon was real close to having a real winning thing going on there.

          • KnightPhoto

            Thank you for your reply Thom. Certainly for the Bird-on-a-Perch use case (or walking swimming slowly) I can keep re-half-pressing and the FT-1 may have some potential.

            Unfortunately, for an animal in full motion or a BIF, we Nikon 1 wildlife and sports folks just completely lost a use case.

            Anyhow I do like the 30-110 and as you mention there is talk of a 1-series wildlife-type lens in the offing so that may have to be the solution, again thanks.

            Maybe the Nikon 1 80-400 equivalent will get here before the long-awaited FX lens is refreshed 😉

            • Unlike Sony or m4/3, Nikon hasn’t released the specs of their mount to anyone else, and aren’t likely to. That’s a real shame. Because third parties could easily fill some of the gaps Nikon won’t cover. As far as I know, Nikon has three primes, a wide angle and another mid-range variant zoom, plus two macro lenses coming, and that’s about it for the the foreseeable future. That will leave us with the 85mm f/1.2 (230mm equivalent) as the most interesting “wildlife” lens. A 180mm f/2.8 (486mm equivalent) would be a natural for this camera, I think, but Nikon won’t make and third parties will have to reverse engineer to create lenses that work.

    • Ball_Lightning

      As the others mention, I was not concerned about the compatibility, but the lack of a usable AF, for example for Wildlife. AF-C is a must have, as well as more than only one central focus point.

  • Alain2x

    “Focus indicator can be used with CPU lenses”

    Does that mean we will be allowed to use AI-P lenses, with any focusing help, on a V1 ?

    Today, there is no electronic help, when we use a non-one lens on a V1, no light measurement either, by the way 🙁

    So we will wait for the next firmware update.

    • > Does that mean we will be allowed to use AI-P lenses, with any focusing help, on a V1?


      • rhlpetrus

        Thom, will it be possible, with a M-mount adapter, to use Leitz lenses and still get focus and/or metering by stopping down?

        • Yes. I already have a few adapters, and some of them are quite interesting. For example, I’ve got an adapter that’s really a 52mm reversing ring. Voila, macro.

          However, as I wrote on sansmirror, I think people are going to find that what they think they want to adapt to a Nikon 1 isn’t actually what they will adapt. Because of the 2.7x crop factor, even a 24mm M-mount lens is effectively 65mm. We’ve got very good lenses in the 28-300mm range with the two kit lenses. What people are missing are wides, and fast normal and telephoto. Nikon will bring us the fast normal and telephoto soon (I hope they follow up on that–they’re designed and ready to go). It’s that wide angle that’s the big missing point. What I’m testing right now are some 6mm C-mount lenses from 16mm film cameras. About the right image circle coverage. Some of these are quite small and fit very nicely on the Nikon 1’s.

  • Cedric

    I’d love to have that Pixel Mapping option also on the DSLRs. I hate sending in the camera to Nikon Service Points to fix it without the need of any mechanical tools.

  • kaze kaze

    good news… may be… as long as user beware and no one ripped the mount out under un-proper camera handling situation.

  • Rex

    No mention of TC on their compatibility list…

    I want to try my 70-200mm VRII + TC-20E III + 2.7 crop = 1080mm !!!

    • T.I.M

      You’ll get nothing, just crapy pictures, there is no miracles, imagin the picture going through the 21 lenses of your zoom, then through the 7 lenses of your teleconverter and then croping x2.7 on a 10MP sensor !

      • @T.I.M,
        That would be my guess too. I have the older 70-200 VR, and the older TC-20E II, and on my D300 and D700 the pictures are sheit! But, both that newer 70-200 VR II and the newer TC-20E III are supposed to work well together on FF; I have high doubts about putting it on such a high resolving sensor like the V1/J1, but who knows.

        @Rex, let us know how that combo works out for you.

        • ShaoLynx

          Well, I’m going for the same combo, too.
          All I’m missing is the adaptor.
          We’ll see about the IQ.

        • Rex

          Indeed…I was more interested in that setup for sheits and giggles since I have all of the other gear already. If the FT-1 is under $250, then I’m game for some laughs.

        • KnightPhoto

          The 70-200 VR-I plus TC20E II must be stopped down nearly 2 full stops for the IQ to be acceptable. I maintain an old gallery of examples here:

          Don’t be trying this combo wide open (which rule basically applies to many TC+Lens combos if one is going to be realistic when using teleconverters)

          • @KnightPhoto,
            Great advice, I never tried stopping down two stops. I was already having trouble with AF when shot wide open. I imagine that an aperature smaller than f/8 (i.e., f/11), you are now into strictly MF territory, are you not?

            Nice images by the way! Did you have to spend much time in post (i.e. sharpenning, contrast, noise reduction) to get that quality?

            • KnightPhoto

              @ Dr SCSI
              The 70-200 VR I / TC20E II combo does AF, reasonably well. It’s not lightning, but I did get some BIF shots with it.

              And yes to get to that quality, PP to sharpen and add contrast was definitely necessary.

            • @KnightPhoto, I will have to keep that combo in mind the next time I go on vacation and want to pack lighter. I am currently looking at the 300mm f/4 as a long reach travel lens; I have even heard it works well with the TC14E II. My only wish for that particular lens from Nikon is the addition of VR II.

              I bought the 400mm f/2.8 with the TC17E II, just to shoot birds. I haven’t tried my new setup with my old D300, so far I have just used it with the D700 and have gotten phenomenal results. The 400mm f/2.8 by itself is just an amazing lens. Word of advice: Anyone considering this lens should buy the proper support for it beforehand, because you won’t have money left over to buy a good set of legs and a gimbal head if you don’t. 🙂

  • ATK

    …just possible ???

    How is about the AF speed ?

  • Kingyo

    This is cool, I wasn’t impressed with the original J1/V1 lenses, but being able to slap on some good glass would be fun (and look better?)

  • big eater

    With a rock-solid tripod and what Thom calls “excellent shot discipline,” this piece of kit could produce some amazing telephoto images with seriously compressed perspective (yes, I know it’s not technically correct to call it that). So please, for one day, let’s try to imagine the creative possibilities for these new tools that Nikon is putting out…

  • broxibear

    Talking about lenses, canonrumors posted a few days ago Sigma will announce these new lenses in 2012, maybe they’re a pointer to the new Nikon lenses ?…
    24 f/1.8 (Full Frame)
    35 f/1.8 (Full Frame)
    300 f/2.8 OS
    500 f/4.5 OS

    • LGO

      Sigma prime lenses in thiese focal lengths is just the kick in the butt that Nikon needs to finally get it to produce these prime lenses (and hopefully something in the 16mm to 18mm in DX).

      • LGO

        I was referring to 24mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.8 full-frame lenses.

        My 24mm f/1.4G is too heavy to use with my D3100/D7000 and my 35mm f/1.4 is likewise too heavy too use with my D700 when I want a light and compact package.

        • @LGO,
          I imagine the 24mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.8 will still be relatively large lenses. Have you looked at the 24mm f/2.8 D, or the 35mm f/2 D? I know they are older designs, but you should be able to pick them up relatively cheap on the used market.

          Low weight and high optical quality don’t seem to fit together, although the f/1.8 would probably be a great compromise. Most likely the very reason SIGMA is filling this void; affordable, quality optics, which compete with the f/1.4, $1500+, offerings from Nikon.

        • broxibear

          Hi LGO,
          I’ll gladly exchange my lightweight, stealth and mint condition 24mm f/2.8 AFD for your really heavy, cumbersome and difficult to use 24mm f/1.4G AFS lol ?
          A 24mm f/1.8G AFS would be nice though.

  • Chuck

    WTF, what a dissapointment! You mean I can’t use AF-C and the wonderful tracking with say a 200F2 as a 540 effective for BIF or field sports… I am returning my Nikon 1!

    • Steve

      Nikon missed out on a opportunity here. We don’t know if this is a technical limition or based on marketing reasons. But it would not surprise me if Nikon is dumbing down the FT1 so as not to overlap the DSLR sport/wildlife business where they make tons of money.

      Unfortunately there are very few solutions beyond 500mm (35mm equiv.) with a wide gap between the cheap low weight bridge solutions and the large/heavy/expensive DSLR solutions. The panasonic 100-300 (600 equiv) is the only solution that I am aware of that sits in this gap. But m43 is still limited with AF-C.

      • I suspect it’s a limitation of the phase detect on the sensor. But at this point we don’t know enough to be sure.

    • ATK

      I think Nikon can make it AF-C, but the point is AF performance on this Apapter with AF-S lenses maybe so poor that they can’t track anything. !!!!!

  • John Bartram

    I was talking to a Nikon rep in a shop in North Devon UK he spoke about the adapter.

  • KnightPhoto

    Hmm the other use case we just lost is wildlife video with full time AF-C.

    For example my 70-200 was going to be a heckuva wildlife video lens with continuous autofocus.

    Now, if I want to do this I’m back to having to buy a 1-Series 190-540mm f2.8 equivalent, which I doubt Nikon plans to build. Plus of course I already own the 70-200 (and 500VR).

    • Ball_Lightning

      Yeah. I was praying that I could use this adapter with a Nikon 1 for Wildlife… but I guess Nikon didn’t hear me. Very sad, that could have been a great opportunity.

      • Toecutter

        Nikon would rather sell you the D400

  • FX DX

    So pissed to see 5D Mark II on sale for $1999. I paid more for a used D700 this month. I wish Nikon would provide some better discounts to compete with Canon instead of wasting time on these shitty products.

  • Art Jacks

    I must have got this all wrong, I thought this camera was intended to be an advanced P&S for someone like me who has a FX kit but for those times when I want to travel light ( to the pub etc ! ) I have never considered it as a substitute for a SLR when shooting seriously, I have not seen the adaptor but it brings back memories of the various attachments Leitz made to convert their rangefinder cameras to SLR’s they worked but certainly not an elegant solution.

  • Cool now i can mount My 500mm F4 vr on the v1!

  • Let’s turn NR into a flame board.

  • Shy

    Good idea to have this flexibility but IMHO the base on the adapter can be a nuisance. The idea is not to mount long or heavy lenses on de V1/J1 as the Sony NEX monster family camera does (that is absurd) The idea is to use the pancake type (fast single focal primes) and have the full benefit of preexistent glass on our shelves, flexibility to use on DSRL / mirrorless trying to keep mirroless system as compact as possible.

  • simpleguy

    well thats very usefull 🙁 ??????? , NOT , with a 2.6x crop factor what am i gonna do mount my 200mm on it ?? it would be just 460mm
    who needs that ? totally waste of production time and money

  • B.Art

    Half you people complain waaayyy too much !!
    Suck it up and get out there and have fun with photography instead of being so bloody negative when new equipment comes out that’s not quite what you wanted ! You could still be using film !! Look how far we’ve come in such a short amount of time !
    To those who think positively about this new camera technology .. good for you !!
    Enjoy having fun with it and experimenting with new ways to capture a beautiful photograph ! 😉

  • Brian

    I really look forward to the reviews of the V1 plus TC-E 1.4 plus my 70-200!

  • KnightPhoto

    As Thom says on, the purpose of an adaptor is to get you FOV and aperture combinations not otherwise available.

    Another use case I lost is I was going to rely on my 24-70 for video @ f2.8 in a FOV range of 65-190. Would have been a great low-light theatre combo.

    Beating a dead horse but when a company’s bullet point number 1 is:
    – “you are only getting AF-single with single point”
    – shouldn’t bullet point #2 be some kind of explanation why we don’t get AF-continuous? Are they working on it? Is it ruled out forever? What gives on why they didn’t tell us earlier, did they have this as a goal but weren’t able to achieve it over the last 3 months? If it works but crappily (i.e. with severe limitations) shouldn’t they have allowed it anyway? (crappy subject-tracking continuous video focus on the D7K is enabled and Nikon wasn’t shy about offering that as a “feature”).
    – thinking out loud but maybe current F-mount lenses aren’t set up for this, but new models will be?
    – the list of compatible lenses includes the 70-200 VR II but curiously the VR I is missing from that list.
    – I am left wanting to know more than the info Nikon has provided to date. This has really impacted all the video use cases and many of the still use cases I had in mind that this unique on-sensor PDAF camera delivers. For example, if Nikon ports on-sensor PDAF to its DSLR line, will this same AF-C limitation exist or are the limitations an artifact of the adapter rather than the F-mount lenses themselves?
    – clearly it’s not a limitation of the Nikon 1 camera itself, since it does support AF-C rather nicely for both still and video.
    – For example I question I now have regarding an F-mount DSLR with on-sensor PDAF, which seemed like a hugely promising USP future for us Nikon owners, one would expect will need to support AF-C in live-view mode. But will it be able to? Why or why not?

  • Quotation from Nikons website;
    “The F-mount gives you a world of freedom and flexibility. From extreme wide-angles to super-telephoto lenses and more, the wider NIKKOR range offers limitless possibilities to match a lens to your shooting situation or experiment with new creative ideas.”
    It is not credible to write this when there are so many restrictions on the use of FT1.
    You must be very creative to get it to work with Nikkor lenses.
    Nikon 1 has neither a flash commands to support an external flash for use with macro lens.

    • happysnapper63

      Only a buffoon would equate the physical size of the sensor with the size of the image. Digital images are based upon data. and its subsequent mapping to points in the final output, physical size is irrelevent as there is no optical magnifaction required to emlarge…..kindergarden stuff. When you fit a longer telephoto on a camera all it does is reduce the proportion of the target scene that gets the attention of the N mps on the sensor, absolutely no different to using a small sensor with N mps and a shorter focal length.

      Small enough sensor with enough MPs and 200mm and seeing Neil’s foot prints?, theoretically yes, but unfortunately resolving power of lenses will spoil the party, and without doing the math for a size 9 boot print on the moon, I can suspect that the wave length of visible light would be an issue, even if the lenses could resolve to the pixel size required to achieve this. Shame though 🙂

      The crop factor is real, it is no illusion, FF guys need to just learn to live with it.

      Which is why if tests prove to be ok I will get a V 1 and the converter, and why I have no interest in D4s D800s etc etc, and want to know what the D300S replacement will be…..or will it be as I predicted 12 months ago……..

      1) D800 “replaces” D700 (I know the rumoured D800 is more in the D3X space.)
      2) D400 ( D400 = 0.5 x a D800) lower end FF,
      3) D9000 for high end DX, OR
      DX no longer in the “pro” body arena.

      Point 3 would be a bold move as many birders and wild life guys will not go to full frame, why hump a 300mm 2.8 through the would or up a mountain if you can go DX and hump a 200 2.8 ? So the manufacturer that offers the crop factor in a high end robust body would almost have a monoploy.

  • Bengt Nyman

    Enough talk !
    Has anybody put a long lens on a Nikon 1 and looked at the results ?

  • Back to top