Nikon 1 V3 camera tested by DxOMark

DxOMark published their test results for the recently released Nikon 1 V3 mirrorless camera. Their conclusion:

While the sharp-styling and contemporary design of the Nikon 1 V3 is distinctive, Nikon has yet to match the Sony sourced 1-inch sensors in performance. Nevertheless, Sony has yet to introduce any models featuring that sensor with interchangeable lenses, and the Nikon 1 V3 remains appealing from that perspective. Few can argue that the Nikon is not inexpensive. It may be aimed at enthusiasts but the sensor’s imaging performance falls short of more accessibly priced rivals. While it isn’t bad exactly, it’s not at the cutting-edge of rivals but then they can’t match the Nikon 1 V3’s phenomenal burst rates or remarkable AF capabilities.

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

    So basically Nikon wants more money for the same thing.

    • manhattanboy

      Nikon never learned the lesson form the 1v1. People were willing to buy them, just not nearly at the price Nikon originally thought. The execs stupidly thought that maybe the design was to blame, hence the 1v2, which again did not sell at Nikon’s desired price. Well, we now get the 1v3, with a let’s please everyone design by making everything modular approach, and again it will not sell. The problem is that the mass market sees the 1 series as a cheap camera. Period. Nikon should see what their customers see, and design and price accordingly, even if it means eating their own entire compact camera division.

      • Dean Gray

        That’d be fine, not one of their compacts stand out as different enough in the market to be interesting.

      • ronin

        So, since you know, how many retail V1 units were sold at each price point?

      • Mato34

        I mostly agree, but I think price wasn’t the only negative: UI and keys/access/control didn’t have too much praise at forums and reviews.


      • Sam Wise

        This Nikon V3 is a real disappointement. The image quality (what you buy a camera for) is mediocre at best and the pricing of this Nikon V3 is ridiculous.

        • Florence Griffith

          image quality is not my number one priority…if I wanted best image quality I would go full frame…but to me getting the image at a reasonable image quality is more important…the Nikon 1 does that well…especially in good to medium good light… I have issues with the tendons in my wrists and cannot carry a full frame set up…Nikon 1 and MFT systems suit me fine

    • Aldo
    • george

      It’s the same DxO Mark, but the actual camera does have more pixels and (at least on paper) much improved video features and speed. And yes, the extra pixels do make a difference (think D800 vs the rest).

    • Pat Mann

      Higher sensor resolution, state-of-the-art EVF and angled LCD make this a significant improvement over the V2 in my opinion. While what’s provided here may not be of more value to you, it’s not accurate to say this is the same thing.

  • Slaven

    There were less than one week since the cameras announced. It seems, that DxO in love with Nikon!

    • KT

      The same happened when the D4S, Df and D610 were released, they all got DXO marked within a week

      • Dannyboy

        It’s clear who’s pulling the strings here.

        • Florence Griffith

          or maybe Nikon is just quick to get their samples out there to be reviewed…while other companys are a tad slower

  • Rory

    seems with each release it gets worse vs getting better

    • Eric Calabros

      Its not worse than V2. Its just worse than RX100

      • doge

        But it’s not better either. Which is the problem.

        • Eric Calabros

          Based on your analogy, Canon could never sell a consumer DSLR, cause its near 5 years that their lineup has “not better either” issue in sensor performance

          • The difference between Canon and Nikon DSLR sensors is between “awesome” and “awesomer”. The difference between Nikon 1 sensors is “nearly adequate” and “kind of almost adequate”. Note that Sony has managed to squeeze better performance across the board from their 1″ sensors (and Sony normally produces worse results from the same sensor as Nikon, so this Aptina thing isn’t working out so well for basic image quality — and, oh look, Sony does better video, too).

            It’s possible Nikon had no choice (that Sony didn’t offer them their 1″ sensors).

      • Bruce

        It’s worse than a J3 for goodness sake! Now I know DxO mark is not the be all and end all, but even so, it’s clear this sensor performs noticeable worse than the RX100 which is nearly half the price.

        • Eric Calabros

          Since when 36 points difference in DxO ISO score is noticable?

          • Bruce

            It’s not really. Not in the real world. All it tells us is that the J3, with the same lens, will, in 95% of the situations you are presented with will output just as good as image as the V3, which costs 3 times more! Bit of a joke really.

            • Remedy

              Since when image output has any relation with camera’s price? New to photo gear much?

            • And the D600 is “better” than the D4, which costs 3x more. But wait, sometimes there are things other the DxOmark sensor scores that matter…

      • groucher

        Of course the 1 Series is better than the RX100. The 1 Series’ frame rate is 6 times that of the RX100 and you can fit virtually any FF nikkor as well as the excellent 1 series lenses.

  • Ugh. Well… it makes the V2 a more attractive deal.

    It’ll be interesting to see how the Samsung Mini NX sensor stacks up.

  • Jarret O’Shea

    While this line of cameras has never been all about image quality (they seem to place speed as a higher priority), it is still disappointing to see no improvement or even regression between generations, particularly when there are other similar sensors that perform so much better.

    • Mato34

      +1 !!

  • marktim

    Nikon team does self kill.

    RIP Nikon.

  • Chris Weller

    Not exactly what I was hoping for. But you’ll notice that the specs are all within product sample variation of each other (Nikon V1, V2 and V3), yet we’ve gone from 10 to 14 now 18 MP. I would use this camera primarily for it’s speed, crop factor and pixel density. So 18 MP is better and the performance of the sensor is virtually the same as the 10 mp and 14 mp previous models.

    Having said that I was really hoping for more dynamic range and color depth, especially.

    • Thom Hogan

      Given the small process fab and design that Aptina is using, I wouldn’t have expected moderate pixel count changes to make much difference in light collection.

      There’s not a lot more DR to be gained by anyone short of figuring out a way to rollover the saturation of a well. I’m betting we’ll see that happen before we get another 1.5EV of improvement.

      • Pat Mann

        Two sizes of pixels would do it as well, with tiny ones for highlights tucked in between the big ones for shadows. In bright conditions an electronic shutter could take a very short and a longer (also short) exposure as a pseudo-rollover, but fast motion will still give two images.

        • Thom Hogan

          Two sizes of photosites makes for problems with demosaicing that can cause artifacts. Especially the Fujifilm proposal. I already have enough low level artifacts to deal with, thank you.

      • Zograf

        If you are talking about V1-V3 improvement, look at Sony’s RX100-II it has got already 1.5EV better DR and 2 bits more colour depth. I was really hoping V3 to be in the same ballpark as RX100-II. The ‘figuring out’ is already done in the Sony sensor. For now I’ll keep the V2.

        • Thom Hogan

          You seem to be putting emphasis on numbers, not results. Having used both the RX100II and the V2, I don’t actually see a lot of meaningful difference between them in actual use.

          The better DR in the Sony sensor almost certainly comes from the BSI, by the way, a more expensive process. Nikon 1’s are already too expensive ;~).

          • nikclick

            The real threat will be if sony RX20 or RX200 will adapt the same PADF on the RX100II sensor as keep the same price with some minor improvements.
            Im having night mares about the price of rumored p8000 or a possible D800s !

          • HoganIsOverrated

            Sick of these Nikon-loving apologists. You don’t see that the RX100II is better, because you don’t want to.

            • Thom Hogan

              Given that I use both a Nikon 1 and a Sony RX100II regularly (and recommend the Sony in my review of it), I believe I have a very good idea of what each does well. Isolating to one or two numbers rarely gives the entire picture, pardon the pun.

              As for “Nikon-loving apologist,” you clearly don’t read the articles on my sites, not even the V3 introduction article, which presented at least seven very specific issues with Nikon’s design and marketing of the V3 and had lines like: “It seems clear to me that Nikon doesn’t clearly know who they want to sell a Nikon 1 to.” Right, I’m an apologist. Not. Okay, I apologize for the split infinitive… ;~)

  • Greg Heller

    What a pooch, you would think they would make a significant improvement in one of the areas tested. It has a worse ISO rating (not by a lot) than the camera it’s replacing. As a trade-off at least it shoot 20fps in Nikon’s test lab anyway.

  • marktim

    1V1 was a very good start (except for hotshoe), receipt for completely overthrow and oversell anybody in the world was simple:
    1. Make a gripped version.
    2. Make vertical grip with more power (EN-EL15a).
    3. Put standart hotshoe and CLS.

    4. Put it all in some kit with price of $1000 with AF-S adaptor.
    Honestly, very few of us, current DSLR users, would resist of such a mini addition for our systems. i.e. >2*10^6 sales over the world. Then we would buy lenser for our new system.
    Instead of it Nikon iterates same s1 s2 s3 models, for users who never change lens.
    Now with V3, Nikon One is dead.

  • Andrew Gray

    Worse scores than the Olympus E-PM2 which sells in a 2 lens kit for $399.

    • Florence Griffith

      The E-PM 2 is a fantastic camera…that is a great deal

  • Aldo

    As a pro photographer, I want a camera that I can take everywhere for my family pictures but won’t leave me thinking “I should have brought my pro body” or ” I should have left this big azz camera at home”. Size does matter, but Image quality and low light performance are most important to me. I think the d3300 and d5300 are a good compromise in size and price over this camera. I recently took my d5300 on a trip to vegas in a small bag with the kit lens and the 35mm 1.8g. I was very happy with the photos that were taken and I never felt that the camera became a burden to carry around.

    • waterengineer

      My points exactly on the needs desire side of the equation. However on the other side of the equation for me is the Oly m4/3s cameras. Unfortunately, that will mean committing to new glass, compared to your solution.

      • Rhlpetrus

        But you actually only need a small zoom and maybe a couple of primes, which are very compact for m43. Im planning to get a GX7, which has a very capable body, to replace the V1 as a lighter alternative.

    • bcdouglas

      I had high hopes for the Coolpix A as my “always with me” camera. Yea, no.

      • Espen4u

        So did I. The formula for it was tempting, but the endresult was lacking. Maybe the Coolpix A-ten, will get it right.

        • Aldo

          how so?

          • Espen4u

            The CDAF is rather slow and makes focus misstakes, a lot. The sensor from d7100 with the new engine, hybrid CDAF/PDAF and a more ‘mechanic’ focus ring would make me buy it again, thou.

      • Aldo

        Really? Please elaborate I had high hopes for the coolpix A

        • bcdouglas

          Not really more to say, I was and am looking for an excellent camera to carry with me when I’m not carrying my dslr…sadly, the Coolpix A is it that camera at $1000.

        • Spy Black

          The Coolpix A needs a zoom. A Fuji X100 it ain’t.

          • Espen4u

            CpA has a really good prime, I would’nt trade it for a dark zoom full of compromises to fit in the pocketable envelope.

            • Spy Black

              Who says they can’t make two versions?

    • Chris Weller

      I agree for your intended purpose one of those camera’s or the possible upcoming 2000 series which will be even smaller, makes a lot of sense. It all depends on your use. People bash this camera for it’s specs, but for some who need reach, speed and pixel density in a small package this camera with the new 70-300 is totally unique and very exciting.

      Sure there are trade-offs, as there are in any system. What matters is what is most important to how and what YOU shoot.

      • Aldo

        completely agree… the reach benefits of cameras like these (1 series) are indisputable.

      • Pat Mann

        For birding, the ISO performance leaves you stuck with low shutter speeds with that lens except in bright direct light. You’re lost near dawn or dusk when the birding gets interesting and you need 800-1600 ISO to keep the speed up, which is why a D400 is really needed for birding – the D300s can’t keep up in those conditions even with f/4. Now if they gave us a 1 series 200mm f/2.8 for that $1000 price, there’s a birding lens I could get behind, if they could just get the performance of this sensor up to that of the Sony 1-inch.

        • Spy Black

          I guess you’re never gonna get those bird shots then…

        • Chris Wellwer

          I have to concur here. 800 would be about as high as I would go and still have shots I’d want to print or show. It’s very marginal at 5.6 to get the shutter speed you need in the early AM. Even if the lens was an f/4, but then the tradeoff in size and weight starts to tilt the whole system too much and it’s then close enough to DX size and weight that it’s no longer an advantage.

          I think it’s “Quite Nearly” there in almost every aspect. I’m hoping that I won’t become frustrated with whatever the weak link turns out to be. Iso performance, shutter lag, evf refresh rate, color depth all have the ability to be the thing that makes the camera unsatisfying. In my experience a system is only as good as it’s weakest link and if one of those above things is a real fail then the value and use of the whole system (regardless of how good everything may be) goes down to the point where I wouldn’t use it.

          Well, I’m hoping for the best. I don’t really trust DXO reports that much anyway. As Thom Hogan indicates below, the real world difference between the V2 and the Sony is hardly noticeable.

    • lord eels

      that camera will be the canon g1x mark 2 with that new mini nissin flash (bounce swivel)

      perhaps the p8000 will give chase, but it’s going to be likely bigger and more expensive with a much smaller sensor, but it will be a nikon with a high end nikkor on it. so we will have to see.

    • Rhlpetrus

      But then a Panny GM1 will do about same n IQ in a very small package, with many more lens options. Im leaving the N1, system, it’s not worth the price and it lacks basic IQ properties of similarly sized m43 options

      • Aldo

        “about the same IQ” That sounds like a very loose term. However even if you are right, when you factor in the fact that I already own other F mount nikon lenses, the better choice became clearer to me…. but we are not all in the same boat.

    • Bruce

      In the UK, you can pick up a mint used Olympus OM-D EM-5 for nearly half the price of the V3. You look at their side by side results on DxO Mark and it’s frightening.

      Overall score – 52 v 71
      Colour depth – 20.8 v 22.8
      Dynamic Range – 10.7 v 12.3
      Low light – 384 v 826

      The Oly destroys the V3.

      So I guess unless you need the V3 because you need the very capable AF or 20 fps, I cannot think of a reason why you’d waste you cash on it.

      To me the V3 is nothing more than a very capable un-pocketable P&S camera for snapping fast moving objects.

      • Neopulse

        The 20 fps though is locked exposure and distance as I recall reading. And the AF isn’t that bad in the EM-5. MFT is pretty nice.

        • 20 is not locked, 60 is locked.

          • Neopulse

            Thanks for the correction, you’re right. I misread before.

      • Alex

        True. Among the small mirrorless 4/3 and less, the OMD is definitely the best quality/performance.

    • Spy Black

      I think for all around portability and useability it’s hard to beat the RX100 II.

      • Alex

        I believe a Fuji x100s is a dream come true for real photographer in need of portability and quality. Especially now that they are some quality 28mm and 50mm adapters. Or x-e2 + 27mm etc…

        • Alex

          *upcoming 50mm

          • Alex

            Or fuji x20 to compete with Rx100 directly

            • Alex

              Ooops Ive doubke checked x20 iso performance … it is not on par with rx100. Sorry

            • Spy Black

              Again, I think overall it’s hard to beat the RX100 II for portability and usability. The X100S is nice, but has a fixed lens, and is gigantic compared to the RX100.

              The X20 is more comparable, but has a surprisingly small sensor for it’s size. It’s not bad, especially for it’s price, but still comparably large and doesn’t have the performance of the RX100 II

              I’ve yet to see any compact camera compare overall to the RX100 II. It’s only real downfall is it’s price, but I suppose compared to a Nikon 1 it’s the bargain of the century. 😉

            • Aeroengineer

              But no built in EVF.

            • Spy Black

              I don’t think there’s any camera in the size range of the RX100 II with an EVF, although that is a good point to consider.

            • Alex

              Rx100 for performances/portability
              X100s for performances/usability

              I personnally dont like the User Experience of Sony cameras. Didnt like the ergonomics of the A7 either. Although I was so excited and so wanted to like it so I could use it with M mount lenses, it just put me off while I came to buy it …

            • Spy Black

              If the X100S had a zoom, I would like it a hell of a lot more. I totally love it’s retro controls, and image quality is great, but the fixed lens is a deal breaker for me.

            • Alex

              Me too I would like it more! With a 28-50mm f2 equivalent and keeping its compacity … but I guess it is a lot to ask.
              The 28mm and 50mm converters are still a good alternative to me. It is not like swapping lenses … it is more like putting a (very) big filter. The action is not the same and less worrisome than exposing the sensors, putting caps etc. also those converters are sturdy, dont take dust etc…

  • DuncanM

    Wow, those are all pretty abysmal scores. Looks like an A7 for me.

  • bcdouglas

    Nikon continues to be lost.

  • atomicBee

    disappointing specs… let’s wait/see the V4.

  • c.l.

    Waiting for the P8000. Just hope it isn’t as ridiculously priced as these….but it will be.

    • SteveHood

      It’ll be in the same price range as the V3 and Nikon A.

    • Pat Mann

      If the sensor’s no better than that in the V3 (I assume it’s the same) I see the Sony as a better choice for the same price.

      • Which, the RX100? Depends on how you feel about the usability and what exactly the P8000 offers. If you compare the P7xxx cameras, they are pretty clearly (to me) targeted at different type of use than the RX100 and thus may find interest in a slice of consumers who just don’t want to fiddle with the extra small and slipper RX100.

        Don’t misunderstand me, I loved my RX100 while I had it, but, it’s a totally different feel from shooting with a P7xxx.

        • Pat Mann

          I reserve the right to change my mind when I actually see the cameras. A compact with a finder and a relatively fast 5:1 zoom that starts at 24mm equivalent has a lot of appeal to me.
          I’m looking at the V3 as a potential one-camera replacement for my wife’s D40 + Coolpix superzoom.

  • lord eels

    specs arent why people buy cameras with 1″ sensors. all I see above is good enough. the problem is price and lack of a decent bounce/twist flash.

    • Aldo

      There are cameras out there same size (or smaller) with better IQ and even better price. That’s what is being discussed “knucklehead”, not why people buy cameras. Also you are implying that people buy smaller sensors because of the reach benefits yet you are asking for a better on-camera flash system? That’s knucklehead X 2 in one day.

      • lord eels

        you missed the point. despite your young age, attempt to think before posting.

        • Aldo

          nope… I was spot on… and you just didn’t know what to reply. See how easy it is to be a douche? It takes no skill.

          • lord eels

            price and hotshoe solve everything, boy

            • Aldo

              And do you mind me asking why on earth would you want a flash for long telephoto reach. Knucklehead X 3 and counting.

            • mikeswitz

              You’re feeding the troll again, Aldo. You’re gonna make him fat.

            • Aldo

              you are right… but couldn’t help myself to give him a taste of his own meds.

            • Michiel953

              I thought you were just shaking off a very deep and consistent hangover at a random passer-by.

            • Neopulse

              Wouldn’t the AS-N1000 be compatible in that aspect with the V-series hotshoes? And price well, to each his own.

            • lord eels

              the AS-N1000 is essentially a cold shoe. it’s for mounting microphones, etc. so no it has nothing to do with on camera flash. the nikon 1 series doesn’t sell at MSRP, it does sell at heavy discount, and those owners go on to sing praises all over the internet. there is a pricing problem. period.

            • lord eels

              the majority of nikon 1 lenses are not about long tele reach, numbskull.

            • Aldo

              “Specs arernt why people buy 1” also read previous posts ever since this camera was rumored along with the tele lens . See what people have to say. I recall someone posting a d4 with the 800mm next to this camera. It is so obvious the huge advantages they see on this camera for telephotography…unless … of course you are a knucklehead who wants a bigger flash on it… thats five and counting…

            • lord eels

              that has nothing to do with what I said, yes there is a tele-advantage. why are you mentioning that in this context? the system is too freaking expensive and there is no decent flash. you are not a camera system without a decent flash. it is as integral as lens selection.

            • Aldo

              It is in perfect context as you brought up sensor size yourself. I quoted you. That’s knucklehead 7. Not every camera model is designed the same… they serve a different purpose. You won’t get a pocketsize d4 knucklehead.

            • lord eels

              small sensors mean compact lenses and thick DoF to anyone who even slightly understands photography. you assumed I was talking about crop factor. I was not, boy.

            • Aldo

              Small sensors means small lenses? I had no idea. I’m sure blind people looking to buy this camera would benefit from this information. They also need plenty of dof… because they need to see everything in focus. These are the reasons why you bought this camera instead of the better performers mentioned here? You are a true knucklehead. I lost count how many was that.

            • The Nikon SB-5N is quite a good bounce flash. I’ve used that on a shoot not long after the V1 came out, as a lightweight back-up camera. Add some larger slaved Speedlights, and large interior spaces are easy. Ideally I would like a standard hotshoe to trigger some pocketwizards, though I hope some third party makes an adapter in the future.

            • lord eels

              it’s a good flash for being forced into shooting at ISO 3200/6400 where youd be at ISO 400 with a sb-600.

              I love this size and bounce/swivel, but it is a joke of a speedlight when it come to power.

            • Sounds like you never used one. I’ve certainly never needed above ISO 800 with the V1 and SB-5N. Stop reading specs and actually try one.

            • lord eels

              you are lying.

              signed, v1 sb-5n owner

            • What sort of response do you want to that?

              Nearly all those shots in that link were ISO800 with the SB-5N.

              Let’s see what you got, if you’re not afraid to show your images.

            • Pat Mann

              It’s not uncommon to see a half-dozen 500 and 600 lenses with better beamers over them pointed at some interesting rail or duck in the marshes. People use them just to put catchlights in the eyes and add interest to bird photos.

            • Aldo

              I’m a fan of that “catchlight” technique.. however I don’t see how a bounce flash or twist flash would make it easier… this is what he wants.

  • doge

    What a joke.

    Does someone have a chart of this camera vs. their DX DSLR lineup?

    • lord eels

      yeah right here

      • doge


      • JJ168

        Lol, made my day 🙂

  • MB

    P&S performance at D7000 price … I know there is a joke somewhere but I just don’t get it …

    • Nikon User

      P&S have better performance than the V3 – in terms of sensor quality.

  • If you buy a camera based on DxO scores you’ll never get what you want, or don’t want. Rent the camera you think you might find workable. Take some pictures with it. Do you like them or not? Did the camera perform as needed for the kind of work you do? How many of your clients or admirers look at your work at 100%? How many care what the DxO or MTF is? Viewed at normal distances, your pictures will benefit more from your prowess in framing, focus selection and editing in Lightroom/Aperture/PS than whatever minuscule differences there might be between different cameras and lenses.

    • Renting is the worst. You can’t figure out whether a camera’s truly a useful device in a short time and renting costs a ton of money. Renting is only good for gear you know is going to do a job and only need for a short time.

      In reality, it’s a vastly more economical approach to just buy something you think will be good then sell it off after a few months if it isn’t. You’ll end up losing maybe 1-2 week’s rental cost (unless you’re just terrible at reselling things via eBay or the like) for months worth of quality time with your very own device. And if you do like it, well, no need to ship it back and buy another copy.

      • Your points are valid, but I still think you’d learn more by renting for three days than reading a bunch of numbers that most people (including the ones who created them) don’t know how to interpret in terms of how photographs will look. IF you can afford to buy, then sell, yeah that’s a strategy. Pain in the ass, though.

  • nwcs

    If you do the same thing over and over again expecting different results what does that make you?

  • Ash

    The 2008 Panasonic G1, the first micro four-thirds camera ever, tested higher than the V3.

    • Let me know when that camera can AF instantly and fire off 20 full quality 18mp shots per second while nailing focus the whole time on a moving subject.

  • decisivemoment

    Nikon’s suffering from NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here). Canon has been suffering from this with sensors for years, a bit alarming to see it creeping in at Nikon. Specifically, they ought to be going toe to toe with the RX-100 and they’re not. OK, I suppose, for certain sports and action. Not OK for general photography. And what happened to the idea of using Aptina’s upgraded 14MP one-inch sensor, which I’m sure would have done better than what Nikon is using on a number of other metrics besides resolution?

    • Chimphappyhour

      Actually, Nikon has been using out sourced sensors in a lot of their DSLRs for a while now. In the past, it was amusing to see Nikon take a Sony sensor and get better results than Sony did. Well, in the past at least.

    • Uh, Nikon does not make the sensors in these cameras. They buy from Aptina, Toshiba (rarely), and Sony for system cameras.

  • Zesty

    Just bought a canon S100 for peanuts. Yes it sucks…but I am enjoying it and having fun watching this shit from the grand stands.

  • istreetshooter

    The DxO scores aren’t perfect but they are one more informational source when we can’t do extensive tests of every camera we are thinking of buying. If it did anything for me, it was justifying my decision to order a camera that is not called Nikon 1 V3.

  • Pat Mann

    Curious that Aptina + Nikon can’t come closer to the performance of the Sony RX100 II, which is up in D300 territory for DR and color depth, very impressive for its sensor size. The V3 is back there with the D70 and below the D40 – not bad digital cameras in their day, and with much larger sensors, but still. I was looking at this seriously expecting gains in performance to the Sony level. Now, maybe not so much.

    • Nikon User

      To be exact, Aptina + Nikon not come closer to RX 100

      You are insulting RX 100 II


    Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee, V3.

  • Brent Busch

    Barely better than the 10 year old D70.

    • c.k,
      • nwcs

        So why would someone buy a V3 instead of an old D70 for $150?

        • Hard to get a D70 into a shirt pocket.

          • nwcs

            V3 wouldn’t easily fit, either. Especially with a lens attached.

        • Chimphappyhour

          18mp vs 6
          separate the lens from the body and it is very easily pocketable (I do this w/ my J1.)
          the V3 w/o it’s evf and grip has a better chance of getting past the “no pro cameras” rule and yet it’ll get the shot (Also do this with my J1.)

          • nwcs

            True, so is the price difference worth those features? To some people yes, others no. I think it just goes to show that while people were impressed with the D70 at the time they wouldn’t be impressed by it now compared to the other options out there.

      • BLFarnsworth

        Perfect examples of:

        “Images are 5% camera, and 95% who’s behind the camera.”

        Pick your own percentages, but I think most real photographers would agree that it’s mostly who is behind the camera is what counts.


    • Most of us thought the D70 was a miracle when it came out…

      • Brent Busch

        I bought mine the week it came out, still have it too.

  • stesk

    The DXO test for the V1 is still better than the V3.
    Why buy a V3????
    I AM – still waiting for the BEST from Nikon.


    • Alex

      If you shoot jpg

      • Uh, if you are implying that DxO’s tests are based on JPEG, you couldn’t get farther from the truth.

  • Ahmad Al-Joboori

    Well it’s up to Sony to decide how Hassy, Nikon and pentax perform. Fuji is doing what Canon did for decades, being independent and makes their own parts. anyway, DXO mark doesn’t test real life performance, and I believe whoever tests both the RX100 or the V3 will go for the V3, or just buy G1X II and lives happily ever after 😉

    • nwcs

      I think whoever tests both RX100 II and V3 will go for the RX unless they really need interchangeable lenses. Most people in that camp likely will go for the less expensive (by far) and simpler solution.

      • Ahmad Al-Joboori

        I can’t argue with that, you have a good point.

  • Ernesto Quintero

    Clearly, Nikon’s targeted audience for the +$1k V3 is persons that have G.A.S.

  • AR

    Nikon’s stupidity over the last few years and lack of innovation in the mirrorless market is enough to make me ready to switch to another brand. Sony is looking more and more enticing. At least they are on the cutting edge.

    • Pat Mann

      I can’t fault Nikon on innovation with Nikon 1, if a bit off the current mark. They’ve put a lot of resources into it that may ultimately pay off in a great camera system for enthusiasts. The fact that you can get an ultrawide zoom, a fast portrait lens, a superzoom and a very long telephoto zoom to boot in a package this small makes this system unique among its competition. I think they’re on the verge. A built-in EVF for a more rugged, reliable package, an optional long-duration battery grip and another notch in sensor performance could make this my everyday camera as a second to the D800 I use for the stuff I want to make an extra effort with. I’d also really appreciate a 24-120 equivalent f/4. NIkon’s 5:1 midrange zooms have made great everyday walkaround lenses for me for all but special purposes.

    • Which Sony camera can do 20 full quality shots per second with AF and metring? Which can do 60 fps with AF locked? Which Sony camera is a fully submersible underwater interchangeable lens camera? Which camera comes even remotely close to focusing as fast and accurately as the 1 cameras do?

      You know those claims of being fastest AF? They are always eventually qualified within a range that excludes Nikon 1.

      Nikon might not be making a camera you want, but, you are just being intentionally obtuse and ignorant to claim no innovations. These cameras have many capabilities unmatched by any other ILC.

      • AR

        I’ll agree my absolute statement about lack of innovation is out of line but these cameras can’t match up when it comes low light situations. Just look at the scores and it will show that and it seems to be getting worse. The 1″ sensor just wont cut it. If you are looking for speed, accuracy and something to bang around, by all means buy this camera. I for one would think most photographers would be unhappy with it down the road. Just my opinion.

  • PGi

    The Samsung MF mini will outsell this crap.

  • Nick

    “Few can argue that the Nikon is not inexpensive” – errr hang on let me read that several times. I think this actually means that the Nikon is cheap ! Back to school for the guy who does DxO write-ups. By indulging in journalistic blether, he has confused himself into saying the opposite of what he meant.

    • BLFarnsworth

      Why couldn’t DxO just say:

      “Most people would agree that the Nikon (V3) is overpriced.”


      • If the people responding in their comments from the company are any indication, English is not the native language of whoever writes this stuff.

  • a Michael

    Except the Nikon 1’s real competitors are Sony Alpha/Nex and Olympus OMD, both in terms of size and price (but not image quality!). Here’s the real comparison:

  • stoooopid

    OK, I have seen enough. Nikon simpy cannot make this 1″ sensor perform well. Bad – no it is not. But not even as good as older m4/3 sensors – come on – I can only eat so much crap. I am sure this camera will meet the needs of some – but I will be extending the life of my D7000 and waiting for something better.

    • Uh okay. It should be abundantly clear by now that this product line targets people stuck on the coolpix class of cameras, not people buying DSLRs.

      Nikon wants YOU to buy a D610.

      • stoooopid

        Well, it is abundantly clear in most ways, except the PRICE! Besides, I am in the market for something smaller and more portable. D610 is going in the wrong direction. Looking more at Sony or Fuji bodies.

  • Eriza B

    Nikon sucks lollipops. Nikon sucks like a vacuum cleaner. Nikon sucks like a……

  • megadon357

    I bought the V1 on
    clearance with three lenses to have a kit easier to carry than the D7000 at Six
    Flags with the family. Camera with kit zoom fit in one jacket pocket and the
    longer zoom fit in the other jacket pocket. Super happy with the portability
    and the fast focus made action shots a breeze – in fact I really like how fast
    the whole experience is wiht the V1. I used the 10mm for inside shots on
    that trip. I’ve since added the 10-100 PD on clearance and it is really
    good for movies and pics, but is heavy on the V1. Since I ended up using
    the V1 so much, I’ve bought the 18.5 and the 32 at full retail, Both are great
    lenses, and the 32mm is as good as a prime gets.

    the V2 or V3 offer enough for me to pay retail price, and would rather use
    those funds for the wide zoom and the super-tele 70-300..

  • “Almost as good as the V1, and only $1200” — I should work in advertising!

  • whisky

    i find it odd that DxO got a hold of pre-production model and published the results. i can’t seem to remember them doing this with any other model.

    i can’t imagine Nikon Japan being pleased with the hype surrounding this outcome. JMO.

    • It happens all the time now.

      • whisky

        can you cite other examples?

    • Fortunately for Nikon, most Nikon 1 buyers are probably unaware of DxO. The rest of us should forget the DxO scores, too. What do these criteria have to do with the difference between the cameras they compare? Bit depth? Really? 20.8 vs. 22.5? No human can see that little of a difference…there are numerous article proving as much. High ISO…383 vs 484? Huh? Is that even 1/3 of a stop? I can sort of see dynamic range, but a lot of that can get corrected in post edit. So, you add up these factors that don’t mean much and get an “overall” score and people sit around clutching themselves because MY camera is a “67” and yours is a “52”. It’s total nonsense. As for a comparison between the various flavors of Nikon 1, DxO does not address the factors that Nikon built into the V3 to make it the appealing camera that it is. If it can do the speeds they’re talking about and combine video with the ability to extract stills, then this is a nice step forward and a camera many people would get a lot out of. From what I see of sample photos the IQ looks more than adequate. The power will be in the pictures you can make that you might not otherwise with other cameras.

  • ShaoLynx

    I AM… not impressed. I’ll stick to my V1.

  • AKH

    I was disappointed too, but it is still a great little camera with IQ equivalent to V1/V2 (or close) which is not bad at all, but seemingly much better AF and speed etc. I like the film like quality of the images from V1/J1.

  • ok20500

    The way I see it, is that Nikon uses 1 series as a test platform. They are selling these cameras with very fast AF for amateurs, but they are at the same time developing the technology for the DSLRs. The problem Nikon and Canon are facing is that, since they have the “top dog” cameras of the industry (= D4s, 1DX as far as AF is concerned), they can not introduce new technology to DSLRs before it outperforms the current one. That is not a problem for example Fuji and Olympus. I am not defending their pricing though, since for example here in Finland there is a campaign for the D610 for 1399 euros while the v3+grip+VF will probably be 1199 euros. It is hard to want the little camera that much over the D610. As an V1 and D800 owner I will probably skip both ….

    • I would expect some of the technology to eventually make it to the larger DSLRs, especially the autofocus. However, selling in the millions of units is more than a test program.

      The sad part is that consumers still want megapxels, price, features, and size, in that order (according to surveys by Sony, et al). So while DXO shows the V1, V2, and V3 very close, the moves have progressed towards more megapixels, more features, and more visible controls, yet the entry prices have continued to be too high.

      On my own wants for the 1 System, I hope for more f1,8 lenses, and some sort of flash adapter that allows using a Nikon hotshoe connection, or at least allows connecting a Pocketwizard. Perhaps with Samsung trying the 1″ sensor, we may see more lenses choices, or other accessories. I don’t think Nikon 1 will go away in the near future, though I still expect heavy discounting.

  • Back to top