Nikon 1 V3 sample photos

In addition to the links I included in my first V3 post, here are few more sample images taken with the new Nikon 1 V3 camera:

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

    all these 1 V3 posts are so boring…

    • Global

      So go shoot photography instead of whining about another guy’s website. Did someone glue your butt to your chair? 😛

      • some.guy from.texas

        The chair is glued in Mom’s basement…

      • MrFoolYou

        I doubt that the butt sticks to the chair too much is the real issue…if the b…hole ***beep**beep**….is glued (or someone has constipation for a week), that is a real big problem…..just a theory to Global’s question and this does not imply anything to Rafa. Chill out!

    • NFan

      What are you doing here?

      • Rafa R

        just visiting Nikon Rumors to see if there was any news on the 58mm f1.4 or a new 300mm f4 VR or some real stuff, not toys, but then again seen all you guys here, I guess toys do have a market.

        • What news on the 58mm f/1.4 lens do you expect?

          • Rafa R

            maybe something that says it does focus well at f1.4 and clears out all the smoke from mixed reviews it has, people saying is not worth it etc.

            • hoosierdaddy2

              Duh, it’s not worth the money. But if you have the money and want one, what the hell…

            • D700guy

              I beg to differ. Its a fabulous lens. It doesnt behave like other lenses at 1.4, but with practice and getting over a learning curve with it, it produces very nice images at all apertures. At f8 it’s my best lens. I am quite pleased with it. I wouldnt say it’s better than my 50mm 1.2 manual, but nothing I own is.

            • D700guy

              My best AF lens is what I meant to say.

            • D700guy

              I beg to differ. Its a fabulous lens. It doesnt behave like other lenses at 1.4, but with practice and getting over a learning curve with it, it produces very nice images at all apertures. At f8 it’s my best lens. I am quite pleased with it. I wouldnt say it’s better than my 50mm 1.2 manual, but nothing I own is.

            • koenshaku

              Matt Granger did a review on the 58mm 1.4f on youtube recently check there.

            • it does not. I rented it for a 10page editorial, calibrated and tested it prior to the shoot (D800E), could only manage acceptable results at 1.8 and 2.
              Bokeh is lovely, af accuracy is a real problem though.

          • Spy Black

            A drop in price LOL!

          • Steven Solidarios

            He’s wondering if a B&W version is coming out soon. lol

        • lord eels

          when a digital nikkormat?

          • lord eels

            hey this is not the real lord eels

            • MrFoolYou

              You are lord eels A, the other is lord eels B.

              So, where is the real “lord eels”? lol

            • lord eels

              lord eels C ?

        • Harold1966

          Perhaps your lordship should subscribe to the update service so your divine computer dosn’t get poluted with 1200 $ toys anymore.
          Or was that a to smart remark for you?
          Wanne know how the 58 1/4 holds it self? Rent one! Or buy one where you can return it!
          Sorry, to smart again prolly 😉

          • Rafa R

            My bad Lord Harold that wont happen again, the thing is you see, you cant rent a 58mm f1l.4 in my country or buy one and return it, thats the purpose of reading internet blogs…

          • Rafa R

            besides any camera with a sensor smaller than DX with big pretensions as this one, IS A TOY. But I guess only smart people get that.

            • Dee

              I suspect you have a small……umm never mind

        • NFan

          I hope you do understand that for some people a 300 f4 is a toy. For someone who shoots with a 300/400 f2.8. And there is no more rumor left in 58mm

          • Rafa R

            thats true

      • Rafa R

        I simply dont understand photographers that like ¨Bokeh Null¨ cameras like this one (cause of its sensor size) , why would you spend all that money for a camera that will have a hard time competing with your iPhone? I think Nikon should focus on real gear and not be so focused on not losing the mirror less market, or did you guys failed to notice that this camera produces no blurred background images besides the macro ones? oh wait there is one where the background is about 500 mts away from the subject and its a little bit blurred, hey if you like these toys, go ahead .. its your money. All I said images from these cameras bore me

        • MyrddinWilt

          Its the lens size thats gives depth of field not the sensor. Bokeh is a function of the lens design. Mirrorless allows for better Bokeh but there isn’t much point without shallow depth of field. And to get shallow depth of field you need large aperture lenses, not just low focal ratio.

          There is an advantage to a small sensor size to avoid the need for really long focal lengths. But you can’t get shallow depth of field in a portrait lens with an aperture less than 50mm no matter what the sensor size.

          There really isn’t a point to a DX mirrorless except to save the cost of the mirror box and shutter assembly. An FX mirrorless on the other hand would allow for the introduction of rangefinder style short focus wide angle lenses not hobbled by the need to accommodate the mirrorbox.

          • JimP

            Funny that DX couldn’t also take advantage of “reverse telephoto” wide angle lenses, or a focal length reducer.

          • Rafa R

            ¨Its the lens size thats gives depth of field not the sensor.¨ WRONG – The larger the sensor or negative, the greater the separation among the planes, compare the Bokeh in a Mamiya 6×7 camera normal lens to a CX sensor ¨Bokeh Less¨ normal lens. Then we´ll talk.
            There should be a moderator in this discuss for ignorance.
            The rest you said is right though, but the sense of depth is directly linked to sensor size.

            • AlphaTed

              WRONG. Using the same lens, same focal length, same aperture, same subject to camera distance, bokeh will be the same no matter what the sensor size is.

            • Rafa R

              WRONG back to school to you too

            • Lucas

              AlphaTed is right. If you have the same subject to camera distance, the depth of field will be the same.

            • Omar Salgado

              Yep. But then there comes the crop factor, which affects the distance to which you must be if you want to fit the subject at the same proportion in the frame. Distance is the main factor that affects DoF besides lens, aperture and focal length. If we stay at the same distance et ceteris paribus, not observing the crop factor, DoF will be the same in any case.

            • stesk

              Seems you don’t know what you are talking about and what is photography.
              Photography is not only done by a DSLR camera. If you tried a Nikon 1 you will find that those cameras can capture moments you can’t capture with a DSLR.
              A painter don’t have 1 brush.

            • Omar Salgado

              What can be capture with “those cameras” that DSRLs can not? I’m curious about that.

            • stesk

              It’s about creativity and if and when you get a N1 you will find out.
              However I will give you a clue. Read why Thom Hogan uses a N1.
              I bought it because I wanted to make video with my scope.

            • Omar Salgado

              That’s okay.

              But don’t you forget that between your subject and your eye is a piece of technology. You can’t dismiss that just because of creativity.

            • stesk

              It’s a part of the game.
              Today people are more interested in having the last model than learning to use the tool they have.
              The N1 has limitations – the D800 also have limitations. However I like both of them.

            • stesk

              It’s about creativity and if and when you get a N1 you will find out.
              However I will give you a clue. Read why Thom Hogan uses a N1.
              I bought it because I wanted to make video with my scope.

            • 11@1

              Painting and photography are two totally different things. The real truth is you work with what you have.

            • Rafa R

              One other thing it is simply not possible to use the same lens on the toy and on a D4, because the toy requires a 2.7x factor adaptor (or so) to be able to work with a FX lens, so there goes all your theory mister.

            • AM I am

              You’re wrong. Using the same lens, same focal length, same aperture, and same subject to camera distance will give you two different images when using two different sensor sizes. Two different compositions, simply.
              A cropped sensor will give you an apparent closer shot, so a comparison of both shots will be useless.
              A fair comparison is using the same aperture, same subject to camera distance, and equivalent focal lengths taking into account the crop factor. The larger the sensor, the shallower depth of field you will get.

            • mark

              There should also be a moderator for arrogance. Distance to the subject and its distance to the back ground, focal length, and aperture affect depth of field. Sensor size affects your distance to the subject, hence the change in depth of field.

              Not everyone can afford a D4 with a 800mm lens for wildlife. I would actually love this camera with the 70-300. If you are out walking for hours you don’t really want tonnes of kit, yes the back ground blur might not be as nice but then its all about trade offs. Its not a toy, its a tool.

          • The Nikon1 32mm f1.2 provide a field of view of about 85mm – perfect for portraits, and also provides a very shallow depth of field.

            From a camera/gear perspective, you need to consider both the lens and sensor as factors that affect DoF.

            • Photo-Jack

              With Nikon 1 and 32/1.2 you’ll achieve about the same DOF as with a 50/1.8 on DX whereby the latter comes with a higher IQ and a decisive higher lifespan business-wise as Nikon 1 will never evolve an accordingly market success.

            • True though… a Nikon D7000 and 50mm f1.8 won’t fit in my jacket pocket (where-as the Nikon 1 and 32mm will).

              When size isn’t an issue I’d rather take my FX rather than a DX.

            • Omar Salgado

              Ceteris paribus, DoF is a function of distance to the subject. If we want the same composition on different sensors, we need to take into consideration that crop factor will affect the distance at which we or our subject must be to fit the frame for the same proportions.

              Bokeh actually is dependent on the magnification of the background a lens renders.

        • I have the full frame Sony A7 and amazing Zeiss 55mm f1.8 lens. The bokeh is absolutely amazing!!!

          In terms of DoF, the Full Frame / Zeiss combo gives me a 1.06′ depth of field * Pretty good, right?

          However… the DoF of the Nikon1 with 32mm f1.2 is actually MORE shallow, giving me .77′!!!

          So shallow dof is definitely achievable with the small sensor of the N1

          P.S. the 32mm bokeh quality is nice too.

          *DoF calcuations based on 10′ subject distance.

          • Omar Salgado

            Besides what I wrote above, now include angle of view.

            In practice, different sensors mean different lenses (focal lengths) to achieve the same result. Distance, lenses, angle of view, aperture, sensor size – all afect DoF and bokeh (which depends more on a magnification factor than aperture).

    • MyrddinWilt

      Have you considered that the autofocus scheme used in this camera might well find its way into other bodies over time?

      276 focus detect sites! It can focus 20fps. That is impressive if true. The only reason for having the SLR design in the digital age is the superior autofocus. They can make an electronic viewfinder thats just as good as optical if they spend the $$$.

      • Rafa R


      • Dan

        Actually you’re wrong about the size of the sensor and it’s relationship to depth of field. White it’s true DOF largely is a product of the relationship between focal length, aperture, and distance to subject, it’s ultimately the relationship between the focal length of the lens and the surface area of the film/sensor that determines how much DOF there is. Keep in mind, a smaller sensor is cropping into the cone of confusion projected onto the film plane.

        • Omar Salgado

          Distance to the subject is the main factor, not lenses/sensor, which are secondary in this respect. A cropped sensor will force you to either change fl or distance to the subject. In any case, it relates to angle of view. In the end, the distance to the subject is what matters most (this factor affects the use of a specific fl).

    • MrFoolYou

      This camera will make three factors to different *photographers:

      A) Consumer: WOW
      B) Prosumer: YAO
      C) Pro: OUCH

      There is always a market for any type of camera. Defining yourself to fit the category.

      • MrFoolYou

        …it appears that most of you will define yourself “pro”.
        Please be careful to make it clear since “pro” can be one of these following:

        1. a professional

        2. professional

        3. a prostitute

        …thank you and happy surfing. Peace!

    • lord eels

      I prefer the v3 to the compact coolpix 🙂

  • ansel adams?

    Nice results!
    Proves that with the right talent, equipment becomes less important.

    • peevee

      Except of course for low light sports, where without right equipment it is very hard to get pictures sharp and not noisy.

      • ansel

        for sure… low light, fast focus…. Nik-1 cannot do all. But, these results indicate, it can take great photos – better than what others take with a pricey DSLR (improperly used)

        • manhattanboy

          Did you look at the photos on flickr?
          For example, the close up of the gentleman going over the high bar. It was shot with the FX format 80-400 VR lens. The ISO is high for broad daylight with the full res picture being mildly grainy and not sharp. I’m actually really disappointed after seeing this. Maybe the new 70-300 CX lens is better, but then they should be showcasing that lens instead of the >$2000 80-400VR with the FT-1 adapter.

    • Omar Salgado

      Proves that with the right talent, you will seek the ad hoc equipment: the equipment that best matches the level of your talent and skills. If not hand in hand, dwarfs your level.

  • olidie

    I can’t believe Nikon uploads picture like the city night shots. Those are just terrible quality.

    • ActionJunky

      The cityscape was taken as ISO 6400 and ISO 12800, respectively. The ISO 6400 image was taken at f1.6. Therefore, the camera seems to be quite capable, but the photography poorly chose the f-stop setting and perhaps the time of day.

      • olidie

        The pictures are poorly exectued. If you want to showcase a camera you should do better and not use the high iso speeds.

        • MyrddinWilt

          On the contrary, some of us want to know the limits of the camera.

          I’m not in the market for one till it can do 4K. I have a D800 and a couple of V1s. But if I was considering a new body I would totally want to see what it could do in that range.

          As an 18MP camera it looks like it can outperform my D300 at similar light levels but the reach of the lens is 1.8 times better.

          I would rather carry a V3 than a 2x teleconverter and they fulfill a very similar function.

      • nikclick

        What u understand from those two ISO is dat the sensor had a good DR but doesn’t hold any hwre near RX10/RX100 II. High NR is applied on ISO6400 file.. But as other nikon 1s , the colors looks superb. We need to see the raw filed to comment more on this.

    • Mansgame

      Came to say this. It looks OK at 800px (long side) but anything bigger is just embarrassing for a camera that expensive and that hyped.

    • Yes, the night shots aren’t going to win any Pulitzer prize. However, as a test shot… it appears they are high ISO, probably hand-held. So a good test I think in showing the capability in that regard.

      • Spy Black

        Definitely not handheld. Distinct points of light. Either REALLY nasty post processing, or bad lenses, and it looks like the latter to me.

        • What do you mean by distinct points of light Spy Black?

          The exif says that it was the 32mm f1.2 that was used.

          1/60, f/1.6 ISO 6400 (can’t imagine anyone choosing those settings if using a tripod, especially a professional – I believe this shot is likely by Davis Bell??)

          • Spy Black

            That’s some surgeon’s hands the photographer would have. There’s always a trace of hand movement in a handheld shot. The points of light in the center of the image (the edges suffer from astigmatism, which can look like motion blur) are distinct with no trace of hand movement.

    • Spy Black

      The problem isn’t so much the high ISO, but the lenses. They’re horrible. The 32mm at f/1.6 look hideous clear across the frame. It’s reminds me of my 60-year 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S wide open, and actually that may look a hair better at that f.

      That 13mm in the 12800 ISO shot, which I’ll assume is the 10-30mm, is not faring any better.

      • manhattanboy

        Why post a 12800 shot to begin with?!
        At full res is looks like a snowstorm.
        Also, why didn’t they use any of the new lenses?!! Everything is shot with older CX lenses or worse with FX lenses and the FT-1 adapter.

        • d7k2v2

          I think the high ISO shots are posted to show what the high ISO looks like. I’m glad they did because at 800 and beyond it looks better than the old sensor, confirming we have an improvement on one of the old systems gripes.

        • Spy Black

          Actually, looking at some images taken by PhotoAI (below) seems to indicate that perhaps the camera may have focusing issues in low light like in those cityscape shots, as they’re quite soft and look out of focus.

    • Alex

      Ah AH ah AH ah ahahahahahah !!! I had never laughed that much at some showcase shots! This is excellent :)… I dont have anything against the nikon 1 and I believe it is an excellent camera in its field of use, but Nikon got me with those shots!!! Made my night! They might as well just shoot themselves in the foot and save some time!

    • RMFearless

      That’s why most of all want a larger sensor than cx format!

  • Mansgame

    Not impressive at all. Great for facebook pics maybe but if you look at them at even half the original size, they are noisy and soft as warm butter. At original size, all of the pictures and especially the night pictures are like a stew of soul food with extra butter (Ok, it’s lunch time…my mind is elsewhere). but the point is this is not good.

  • Mike

    Not at all what I expect from a camera in that price range. The night shots are unusable and the flower shots show high chromatic aberrations. Thats the quality of a good compact camera but not a 1000$+ interchangeable system.
    Nikon, build a decent DX mirrorless (not FX to get the glass smaller), even with the D3300 sensor they would this out of the water!

    • Global

      Df-400! A D400 in a Fuji X-T1 package! Oh yeah!

  • Virginia

    Nice pictures, but who is going to pay $1200 for that camera?

  • PD

    I think the high ISO performance is improved a lot over previous models.

  • Aldo

    love the water droplets pic

    • Spy Black

      Made with an FX macro. The CX lenses are a mixed lot. The night shot with the 32mm is pretty embarrassing for a $900 lens.

      • PhotoAl

        The 32mm is a great lens, but that picture was shot at 6400 ISO which is pretty unusable on CX. It actually looks better than what I would have thought and quite a bit better than my V2. Gives me hope that 3200 might be usable.

        • Spy Black

          Do you have a better full res similar cityscape sample of that lens at that aperture at a lower ISO? I’m not seeing great optics there, whether or not high ISO post may have made it worse.

          • PhotoAl

            I don’t have any cityscape shots but I do have some night shots wide open at ISO 400 and 800 that you can check out.

            • Spy Black

              OK, those are better shots. Nice work, by the way. I’m beginning to think that perhaps the camera simply failed to focus correctly in the cityscape shots posted here, which may be saying something about the camera’s low-light focus capability.

            • PhotoAl

              Thanks for the compliment. It could be missed focus or it could be Nikon’s new high ISO work around. In one of the promotional videos they state that at ISO 6400 and above the camera can take 4 pictures simultaneously and then merge them to lower the overall noise. If the shot was handheld and any shake was introduced I imagine it could create this “nothing in focus” effect.

            • Spy Black

              Possibly, but it looks now to me more like just poor low-light focus, which most cameras suffer from, but considering all the noise being made about the focusing system is a bit of an “oops” moment. Anyway you look at that shot it looks like an “oops” moment. 🙂

  • Looks like good colour rendition, fast and accurate focus, and pretty good dynamic range. Wonder when we can expect the DX0 Mark testing.

  • Jon Ingram

    Fantastic color and beautiful pictures…, when viewed at this size. Larger, not so much. But still, beautiful and well done for what they are. I love seeing sample pics where their actually appears to be a photographer using the camera.

    • Spy Black

      You’re phone’s camera looks beautiful at this size too.

      • Jon Ingram

        Yes, I was implying poor global quality when I said, “when viewed at this size. Larger, not so much.” Of course, that city shot is crap at any size. Good colors overall though, probably because of expeed 4 or smart post processing. Here is what I don’t get with Nikon. These pictures do look pretty good when viewed at this tiny size, and that’s all most people want. However, this camera is not priced for “most people.” It’s priced for people like you and me who want high quality images when printed large. It doesn’t seem smart to me. Oh, and by the way, I don’t really take pictures with my phone, got the rx100, fuji xe-2, and D800 for that.

        • Spy Black

          It was a joke. Looking at some other shots made with the 32mm by PhotoAI (above), it appears the camera was having focusing problems at those light levels, because the images simply look out of focus. This is surprising, considering all the hype they’re giving the autofocusing system.

  • d7k2v2

    I’m not seeing the Nikon 1 distinctive grain to these pics which means they were either processed by the in camera jpeg compressor or they were converted to jpeg in post and the new sensor has lost the grain of the old sensor. If these are straight off the camera jpegs then that’s why they have that etch a sketch smeariness close up. I can assure you that the old sensor coupled with a 70-200 vrii resolves better than the d7000 sensor, and this cx sensor is an improvement over the old in low light. Once the body only comes on the market for 800 bucks I’m in.

    • Ash

      The are low-res OOC jpegs.

      What do you expect?

  • hoosierdaddy2

    Maybe now I can buy a V2 at fire-sale prices.

    • One More Thought

      Perhaps not. Nikon surely knows that this perception exists, and may move to kill this expectation by not offering the V2 at fire sale prices.

  • MyrddinWilt

    I rather suspect that ISO range is the expanded range. Otherwise Nikon has a sensor cell that is several stops better than the one in the D4s.

    The Micro SD card is a bit disappointing. My laptop has SD. But it does seem as if micro might be winning at this point. And there are 128GB micro SD cards available. Since its the same bus interface there should be no speed difference between the two formats any more.

    • MyrddinWilt

      Scrub that micro-SD complaint. The camera has WiFi, that is far better. there is no need for the card to ever need to leave the camera.

      • Spy Black

        You have a lot of patience…

      • You mean I have to send the files to my computer, then load them into my editor? Why would I want to do that?

    • stesk

      Use WI-Fi or connect direct to your laptop.

  • jmb2560

    The quality is quite acceptable given the sensor size. Nikon marketing gurus made a big mistake four or five years ago when they picked a new “smaller” sensor as opposed to moving full steam ahead with a DX size sensor on mirrorless cameras. Now they have to deal with problems Fuji doesn’t face.
    I remain convinced that at some point, Nikon will switch back to DX or even FX with no bayer filter for higher end mirrorless cameras. At that point on, I will retire my XE-1 and return to a place that I should not have left to begin with.

  • jota2101

    sorry, they are not sharp…

  • Rhonbo

    The samples look fine at web sizes but near 100% and the IQ is pretty poor, I’m surprised actually. So cropping is going to be limited with the 1″ sensor.

  • I get a lot of noise in the blacks on my 1 AW1. These look great. Any advice? Is it the camera or am I doing something wrong?

    • AM I am

      What ISO are you using? If it is high, are you using that value because you’re shooting action? If you’re shooting statics, can you not use a tripod and a lower ISO?

      • Thanks I AM. Base (160). Even then, the shadow noise bothers me.

        • AM I Am

          Sounds like the sensor is showing its limitations.

        • kriztoper

          It might be because your active-d-lighting is on. My preference is to turn this off but that just me.

          • I was thinking about that. I’ll try switching it off, Thanks.

  • Photo-Jack

    Well for
    almost every camera or lens one can find situations, in which they can show decent results – at least on a computer monitor showing internet sources in the accordingly dpi.

    The images shown here look nice but in direct comparison with a EM1 or Fuji X e.g. in a print definitely larger than postcard format, I doubt that Nikon 1 has a chance!

    It is amazing what degree of detail the EM 1 can get out of the M4/3,
    top lenses provided. But one grant for the CX 70-300 is in the same ball park.

    Judging by the asking prices Nikon must have thought to be able to play in the same league as the top cameras like Olympus OMD EM1, Fuji X T1, and Panasonic GH4. But this will turn out as an expensive error for Nikon.

    To these the V3 doesn’t have a considerable size advantage but lacks EVF (how many customers would really go for an expensive external EVF while the competing models have it built in?), in control layout and many other aspects weather sealing included.

    It is amazing how clean Fuji X images are to ISO 3200 or even ISO 6400. No way for the Nikon V’s to come even close.

    The USP of Nikon’s V’s used to be AF speed, but now the above mentioned models are close if not on par.

    The V3 body is basically merely a P & S offer, albeit on a high level. But –maybe with the exception of the Japanese market- for P & S customers this price tag blow gasket. (Same when the Nikon A appeared)

    If size matters, the Panasonic Lumix GM1 is a far better offer (featuring a larger sensor) at half of the price. IQ is apparently on a top level.

    Nikon would be well counseled to stay with what they are good at and that is the DSLR program! Nikon 1 is a fail, Nikon A couldn’t convince and the P&S Coolpix are one in a million where MP and exterior probably counts more than IQ relevant technology to the majority of the customers.

    It seems as if Nikon never could read the signs of the time and actual demand. In my opinion they’d be better off, if they say good bye to the mirrorles and consumer market and develop a MF series at the price point of the Pentax 645 and the DSLR design of the Leica S based on the new 50MP Sony sensor and learn from the Fuji philosophy providing a roadmap for the lenses. Then, they at least would play in a ballpark they have more to contribute than in mirrorless and P & S. And they should reconsider their strategy soon, as the market shares get dispensed increasingly to the disadvantage of Nikon.

  • ilikemilfs

    “you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig” (and no — not talking about Nancy Pelosi)

  • There are some definite reason to consider upgrading from the V1:
    – built in flash (to be used as a controller)
    – standard hot shot
    – mode dial and better usability
    – more MP’s
    – potentially better IQ??

    But… the cost… is a big deterrent. If I were buying into the N1 system for the first time I might be OK with the (still too high?) price. But from an ‘upgrade’ perspective – it’s pretty hard to justify.

    Nikon: will you give me $400 for my V1 as a trade-in deal?? 😀

  • Michael Wilson

    These night shots a really disappointing. I shoot at night with a J1 and these look inferior. I was hoping the new sensor would be better in low light. I’ll wait for the DxO scores but I can’t buy this camera is it’s this grainy in low light.

    • AM I Am

      Why would you wait for DxO scores if you’re already disappointed with the sample images?
      Haven’t you heard that quote that says that a picture is worth a thousand words… and I’d add numbers?

  • g16

    The pictures look nice. I will having fun shooting whit the V3 for sure!
    Now, let me find my tiny microSD to put on this pice-of-crap-made-by-f-ing-lunatic-at-Nikon first.

  • Back to top