Nikon 1 J4 tested at DxOMark

DxOMark published their test results of the Nikon 1 J4 mirrorless camera ($597) that shows only marginal improvements compared to previous models:

If you are still wondering what was improved/changed in the Nikon 1 J4 camera, see this comparison with the previous J3 model:

Nikon 1 J4 compared to compact Sony cameras with 1" sensor (RX10 & RX100II)

DxoMark's conclusion:

"We like the contemporary looks, small size, impressive AF and of course the system is maturing. Adopting the same sensor as the Nikon 1 V3 will certainly help the Nikon 1 J4 gain some traction with sales, given the price, but sensor performance isn’t as good as it could be and is really only on a par with some (albeit high-end) compacts."

This entry was posted in Nikon 1 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • How come the cheapest model in their mirrorless line has the highest sensor score?

    • peevee

      All measurements are withing margin of error. DxO pays too much attention to the noise in their measurements. They should repeat their measurements statistically significant number of times to get read of the error.

      • MyrddinWilt

        Margin of error plus minor incremental manufacturing improvements as the fab gets better at making a particular sensor. At the start of a new process the fab will tend to have a fairly high spread in performance. As they dial the process in a higher proportion of the product is in the upper performance range.

        The value add here over the previous generation is the WiFi. I think we will be seeing WiFi as an automatic feature on all new cameras from now on. It is really useful if it is a built in feature. If its not built in then its rubbish.

        Those EyeFi cards are doubly rubbish and useless. far too slow to be useful.

  • John_Skinner

    I just can’t wrap my mind around these whatsoever. And at 600 clams, it’s just amazing this company has stayed alive.

    • Yeah, and then they offer a lens at $1,000 to boot. Who is buying these things, soccer moms?

      • Louis-Félix Grondin

        They are aiming at the « beauty and ease of use before performance » crowd a bit like apple does (but with less sucess). In Japan it’s selling pretty well…

        The AW1 is an interesting product even for some pros, but I have to admit that the rest of the lineup is a bit odd… I guess you can sell anything with good marketing. Soccer moms are probably more than happy with this compact gizmo if they are not told they could do better with that amount of money ;).

        • stoooopid

          why are soccer moms always the butt of every joke. People always use them as the dumb consumer who doesn’t know what they are buying. Maybe they are not as dumb as you think. They can read just like you can.

          • Louis-Félix Grondin

            We were not saying anyone is dumb here, just that some consumers are not professional and are more subject to buy somethings that are overpriced.

            I’m sure some women who happen to have children who play soccer love photography and have interest for it. But I have worked in a camera store and a lot of people buy camera just to take picture of their kids at concerts or playing sport and they were usually not interested about tech stuff/detailed comparaison, they wanted something that zoomed a lot, came from a familiar brand, was easy to carry and looked good. I’m not saying they were stupid, they just didn’t care that much.

            I don’t know much about cars or about telvesions and I might have paid too much for these items because I didn’t know too much about them or didn’t do that much research because it’s not that important to me. I guess people that have interest in those things have their « soccer mom » equivalent to designate people like me and I couldn’t care less.

            • stoooopid

              right. But how would you feel if, while walking up to the car dealership, the sales people started classifying you as “that dumb photographer who doesn’t know anything about cars – and is about to make an uninformed buying decision”.
              I am just saying, somehow, soccer moms have become the straw man when it comes to identifying the classic uninformed buyer. As if, for all the reasons anyone could possibly buy a camera – the lowest of the low is to buy one to take pictures of your children.

            • Zesty

              Soccer moms and people with no interest in photography are actually smarter than us. They buy a camera and don’t spend hours upon hours wasting time on theses forums. They really enjoy photography and are happy with their gear without being neurotic about every minor detail about gear that doesn’t really matter in the end. And last but not least, they haven’t wasted thousands and thousands of dollars buying camera gear to take photos that nobody but a few people in their lives will see.
              So….soccer moms ARE smarter than us!

            • Louis-Félix Grondin

              Your making a pretty strpmg case for soccer moms! But we never said they were dumb to start with anyways.

            • Mikko Moilanen


          • Dpablo unfiltered

            Really we should be talking about hockey moms and “Joe six pack.” Right?

        • Yeah, I get the appeal of the AW 1. But that is a very different beast than the rest of the line, IMHO.

      • sexyjon

        I guess people who like to have good auto focus are buying those. It is not more gizmo than so that it has a very fast and accurate auto focus, probably Nikon is right about it being the best auto focus in any interchangable lens camera at the day of launch. And that is worth a lot. For many people it would not be any good to have a bit better sensor if the gizmo around it can not focus before you have missed your shot. I have one J2 and it is a perfect tourist camera with 10-30 and 30-110 lenses and very fast autofocus. And it was a bargain at around $330. Of course I would like to have better sensor, but I found the fast auto focus and compact size more important than a little bit better sensor specs in some other competitors cameras. You should not underestimate the Nikon 1 line of cameras. It has proven to be good enough to make other camera manufacturers interested. Samsung, Sony and more are already going this way, offering CX format cameras. This is the new pocket, point and shoot and bridge camera format. In near future this will be the smallest sensor used in most cameras that are not part of a smartphone. Nikon found the road here that everyone will be going soon. However they need to improve their lineup to be competitive on that road.

  • Chimphappyhour

    I thought the J4 and V3 had the same sensor? If so, why the difference in some of these categories?

  • DuncanM

    Dear Nikon,

    Full frame mirrorless or go home. And please, no more of this teeny-tiny spy cam size nonsense. Something big enough to hold onto.

    • stoooopid

      Or at least an aps-c mirrorless. Maybe something like the Df in mirrorless. Anything but this worthless sensor. I had a 1-system camera – sold it – sensor is awful in low light. My cell phone is better in low light.

      • sexyjon

        They already have an aps-c mirrorless camera. The Coolpix A.

        • stoooopid

          Yup – and it is good – no great. Why not put some autofocus on it, update to expeed 4 – and put a 23mm lens? But yes, it is fine the way it is. I was hoping for something with interchangeable lenses.

          • The Nikon WC-E68 wide converter lens (originally Coolpix 5000) will fit onto the UR-E24 filter adapter. This gives a near 18mm (full 35mm equivalent) coverage. Definitely not super compact, but fun to use. It’s not an officially recognized combination, but it will work.

      • Eric Calabros

        Me here, badly want to know whats your phone

    • Andy Aungthwin

      In case you haven’t worked it out this is a Nikon Rumors site. We are interested in all things Nikon, including “teeny-tiny spy cam size (sic) nonsense”.

      Why don’t you write to Nikon?


      Dear DuncanM. My name is Mr. Nikon….I didn’t hear you. I can’t hear you. I don’t want to hear you. Have a great night and pleasant tomorrow. Mr. Nikon.

  • Maji

    A digital camera is surely more than just the sensor. A good sensor is probably the most important thing, in my mind, but it is not the only thing. If it was just the sensor, then Canon wouldn’t be selling more dSLR units than Nikon. However, the ability to use a F-mount lens using the FT-1 adapter is a great advantage (in my case) for the the N-1 system.

    • Kenko

      99,9 percent of the persons buying their first digital cameras have no idea that Sony-sensors inside Nikon-cameras at they base ISO have have two stops advantage with DR and color depth over Canon. But then again they have absolutely no idea what that would mean in real world if they knew that.

      • MyrddinWilt

        Well these are not Sony sensors, they are Aptina.

      • Maji

        My point exactly. Nikon offers a product that some people see is useful to them and they buy it. There is another post up there about how the soccer moms enjoy their photography without moaning why the pixels are so noisy. The post is so correct.

        I am just amused at the multitude of posters bitching about the Nikon 1 system. Just because we don’t have a use for it, do we need to bitch that a company is making a product that some users buy? I hope Nikon makes the D300, D700 replacements, a D4X with 56MPx and other high end cameras. However, I hope Nikon keeps on making the lower end Coolpixes and other cameras that masses will buy and help to keep the price of the high end cameras lower. Perhaps that will really help me 🙂

        • preston

          The problem is that every report I’ve seen says that the Nikon 1’s DON’T sell well. . . at all. My local camera store doesn’t even want to carry them any more because they sell so poorly.

  • Spy Black


    • lorenzo

      I say pathetic.

      • Jorge


  • Louis-Félix Grondin

    Seriously what the hell is wrong with nikon on this one? Sony is using a one inch sensor that performs exceptionnaly well in the RX10 and RX100, why can’t nikon figure a way to put a decent sensor at least in the high-end body of this lineup…

    • bgbs

      Because Nikon is not using Sony sensor. They went with some other sensor manufacturer and it shows.

      • Louis-Félix Grondin

        Yes Sony is making the best sensors out there right now (fuji aside?), but I can’t believe they don’t have any serious competitors (for instance panasonic) that are willing to produce 1″ sensors for nikon…

        (plus, the D4 sensor is made by nikon and it’s not too shaby, but I do hope they have good R&D going on just in case anything goes wrong with sony…)

        • Ufupuw

          Fuji X series sensors are made by Sony. The color filter is Fuji’s own patented technology

          • Louis-Félix Grondin

            Thanks for the info. I had no idea.

    • Thom Hogan

      I’m assuming you’re comparing DxO results, not actual images. That’s much trickier than most people think. DxO’s measurements are essentially Saturation minus 1:1 Signal to Noise ratio. You wouldn’t usually use data that’s at 1:1 (noise equal to data). But this brings up another topic: what’s the linearity of the data between those two points? ;~)

      Nikon seems to be taking a different approach than Sony on that, and it pays off with the sensor pulling above its weight class. That they’ve managed to keep that performance while almost doubling the number of pixels is actually pretty remarkable on such a small photosite size. But that’s probably because both Aptina and Sony are using smaller process fabs, enabling smaller electronic components.

      From a practical standpoint, the old non-BSI version of the 1″ Sony sensor was about the same pixel level performance when properly converted as the Nikon 1 sensors. The newer BSI version maybe gives the Sony a half to two thirds of a stop benefit. Meanwhile, the Nikon 1 can run at 60 fps in still mode and 20 fps with exposure and fast focus, something the Sony can’t. So I’m not sure that I’d call either the winner.

      Nikon’s problems with the Nikon 1 are not the sensor. I’ve said that since the beginning, and I still believe that. You only have to properly expose and convert a few images to see that it performs better than the D200. A lot of great photos were taken with D200’s.

      Nikon’s problems are (1) price, (2) still not solidified UI, (3) lack of many necessary lenses for a full system.

      • Louis-Félix Grondin

        I actually have a D200 and I love it (in good light there’s something magic about CCD), but I wouldn’t buy one at a 1000$ when I could get a D7100 for that price. I compared real pictures of the nikon 1 and sony RX (not only charts) and I was working at a camera store where we sold the nikon 1. It might be subjective but I find the IQ coming from the sony (raw) way better (and at base ISO the IQ of the D200 is still a lot better than the 1 series from what I’ve experienced).

        DXO results don’t tell everything about real life results (for instance they don’t measure the color rendition and subjective factors that come into play when looking at IQ) but they seem to be accurate when you ask yourself how much you can get out of a raw file or at what ISO will the images stop being usable…

        But I agree with you that in absolute terms the 1 series are not bad products and that they just lack competitive pricing, ergonomy and lens offering.

      • MyrddinWilt

        “Nikon’s problems are (1) price, (2) still not solidified UI, (3) lack of many necessary lenses for a full system.”

        I agree, but why would people expect anything else at this stage in the game? Its fairly obvious that the Nikon 1 system is not going to have half the lenses of the 60 year old F-mount this year or next. Which means its going to be focused on consumers which in turn means mostly consumer lenses and a UI thats mostly a point and shoot UI.

        But it is still the best camera for taking really long shots if you don’t want to carry anything larger than a 200mm lens.

        What is a little more puzzling is the lack of any micro lenses. Seems rather obvious to me that anyone doing microscopy should want to start with as small a sensor as possible. So isn’t the CX mount ideal for this purpose?

        Not only is there no lens, Nikon hasn’t released any API for the Nikon 1 range either. So building on it as a platform is a lot harder than it needs to be.

        As for the 60 fps thing, yes, it is a very fast sensor because it is actually built as a 4K video chip. The first gen sensor can support almost 4K video. The cameras can’t because they don’t quite have the RAM or CPU to back it up.

        Put a fast processor and a couple of XLR sockets on a Nikon 1 CX camera and you would have a better video camera than most of the so-called ‘pro’ video cams on the market today.

        • Thom Hogan

          It seems clear in retrospect that Nikon completely mistargeted the Nikon 1. Whether that was because of an attempt to protect the DSLR sales or because Nikon thought that there was some new mythical, rich, tweener user that wanted to move up from a compact but didn’t want a DSLR or even what the others were doing with mirrorless we can debate. But Nikon’s first stab at Nikon 1 was misdirected and failed.

          In successive generations they’ve moved it more and more away from that initial space and more and more towards the DSLR space (or least “sophisticated mirrorless”).

          Curiously, the CX lens lineup looks a lot like the DX lens lineup: missing a truly full set of lenses and highly pushed towards consumer zooms. So even in shifting their strategy they’re still getting it wrong, IMHO. Nikon wants to ignore what they spent 50 years learning about customers and lenses and keeps searching for a variable aperture zoom “big win.”

          We have the Tamron 28-200mm to thank for that, by the way. It was the first lens (in the 90’s) to sell a million copies, and basically everyone got superzoom envy.

          I’m not saying don’t build a superzoom, but I have two problems with the “only consumer zoom” strategies that some makers have taken to. In particular with Nikon: (1) superzooms are not what their reputation and customer base was built on; and (2) when the customer does grow out of just using a superzoom, they’re going to want a system that has a full set of choices. It’s a circular problem: if you are always grabbing new customers and don’t cater to the ones that grow up in your system and want more, they don’t continue to give you the word of mouth that makes brand recognition useful.

          But worse, the Nikon 1 V models seem to sell mostly to existing DSLR users (and then only on discount). They’re natural additions to a DSLR kit because of the FT1, especially for sports or wildlife shooters. That latter group is one that Nikon just doesn’t seem to understand.

          Nikon doesn’t need 30 CX lenses. As I’ve outlined time and again on my sites, the core necessary lens set is probably about a dozen key lenses plus kit zooms. Of those, Nikon currently only has the kit zooms (and too many of them) plus three of that core. Yet Nikon’s allowed the Nikon 1 to be lumped into mirrorless offerings from others that already have far more of that core, and in the case of m4/3, all of that core set.

          I’ll deal with the rest in another response, as you had a lot to say.

          • stoooopid

            What would have been the correct target for the Nikon 1? I owned a 1 system body (2 actually) and sold both and all the lenses and accessories. It just didn’t offer a package that was that much more portable than my D7000, while being much worse in low light – which I could not live with. I would have been happy with an 8MP sensor that really performed in low light – but then 8MP isn’t very consumer sexy. I am not sure what the strengths of the 1 system are that could be leveraged to sell more bodies. It is small and focuses fast in good light. But the m4/3 system does this as well – and has more lenses and better IQ.

            • Thom Hogan

              That’s the $60m question. And not just for Nikon. Every mirrorless maker has been trying to answer the same question, and it seems that Fujifilm and Olympus finally decided: just make it like a smaller DSLR.

              It’s a very tricky question, indeed. The thing every camera maker was looking for until 2011 was “new customers.” Since then they’ve been looking more desperately for new customers but also have the additional problem of retaining customers. The Nikon 1 launched into the end of the total emphasis on new customers. I have serious questions as to whether that was ever going to work even if the industry had been growing, because Nikon’s choices seemed to have clear conflicts in them. 60 fps? FT1? Things like that suggested a much higher target customer than Motion Snapshot and all-auto interfaces short of absolute menu diving.

              I think they thought they were doing the Apple thing of putting incredible performance into an approachable package at a premium price. But you always have to evaluate a product on “what customer problem does it solve?”

              The Nikon 1 could have solved the soccer mom problem, but only with a different set of lenses or more emphasis on the FT1 and key F-mount lenses. While one can argue that it technically did solve that problem, it introduced UI issues that got in the way of solving that problem FOR THE USER. The original Mode dial has no “shoot my kid playing sports” setting, for instance, forcing said user to menu dive and learn how to actually use the camera the way a DSLR user does.

              Compare the Nikon 1 UI to the recent Leica T UI. Leica is going down a better path here (though still not nailing it).

            • stoooopid

              yes, it is curious as to who Nikon thought would be the target audience for this system. The guts screamed high performance image system – but the external controls were worse than the $30 Target toy camera that my daughters play with. I am not sure about the V3 – I am not interested any more – the V1 and J1 were bad experiences for me.

        • Thom Hogan

          The lack of micro lenses is probably due to the FT1: the 40mm DX, the 60mm, the 85mm DX all make for very small, useful macros on the Nikon 1. Still, it would be nice to have one native macro lens.

          The lack of an API is the proprietary nature of Nikon. Technically, the SDK for the DSLRs isn’t much of an API, either, and highly limited by license agreement. I’ve written about how the Japanese camera makers are getting this wrong for nearly eight years now.

          The Nikon 1 cameras have a very fast processor. But they also don’t have a lot of extra horsepower in supplemental processors, so the EXPEED chip is handling quite a bit of work. The funny thing is that the original Nikon 1 models had less than 300 parts, including all screws and small miscellany. They were designed to be sold inexpensively. But they were sold expensively ;~).

          So now Nikon is in a double whammy of their own creation: they’ve been adding complexity and parts to the cameras, which adds costs, but they’re reluctant to bring the user cost down. So doing what you suggest to make them a true 4K video camera as well as everything else the Nikon 1’s do would ironically bring them less profit, or increase the price, neither of which is a good choice.

      • Maji

        I agree with you about the N1 system being priced high and No. 3. No. 2 is somewhat of a problem, I agree but not a major one in my mind.

        However, if they let they upgraded the firmware of the FT-1 allowing us to AF-C using all the AF points and not just the center when using F-mount glass, I will be a real happy camper. I will overlook no. 3 that time.

    • megadon357

      Every camera is a compromise. The RX100 II cannot touch the V3 (or even my V1).AF performance. The V3 can shoot 20fps continuous shooting with AF tracking (the world’s fastest) for up to 40 shots with the electronic shutter. 60 fps with AF locked (the Sony shoots 9.2 fps max with AF locked on the first shot). The V3 has 171 contrast detect points and 105 phase detect points, compared to the Sony’s 25 point AF system. CameraLabs said the RX-100 II AF is good, but not particularly fast. Compare that to any review of any Nikon 1 camera, where the worst comment will be “super fast”.

      My V1 never misses and is fun to shoot.

      • Louis-Félix Grondin

        I do agree about most of what you said. But there doesn’t have to be a compromise between focusing speed and image quality, not at the price they are asking for their system. They sure are good cameras (I was indeed really impressed with focusing speed when I used a V1), but so are some of the M4/3 at a similar price. For those who have nikon lenses it’s interesting (I came really close to buy a V1 myself), but I wouldn’t see myself buying this at a similar price than the OM-D E-10 for instance.

        • megadon357

          I agree on the price. I bought my V1 at firesale price, but loved it so much I’ve bought $2000 worth of lenses for it (6.7-13, 10, 18.5, 32, 10-100 PD, plus it came with two zooms I don’t hardly ever use. BTW, the 10-100PD was at firesale price also, but is very good with video in half-decent light). Even the OM-D E-M1 has real-world focus tracking issues. I’ve been sore tempted by both the OM-D and the Fuji X-T1. All that being said, overall speed (including AF, expecially tracking) and my personal satisfaction with the results have kept me shooting the V1.

          I do wonder, if there doesn’t have to be a compromise between IQ and AF, then why don’t the Sony, Fuji or Olympus products match the Nikon 1 AF performance?

          • Louis-Félix Grondin

            I haven’t shot enough with Olympus products, but from the short time I spent with a OM-5D they have a pretty amazing AF system. There’s a tad less depth of field with the M4/3 systems, it might explain why their AF don’t seem as good sometimes.

            • megadon357

              The OM-D is a really good system. When I said “real-world” I was talking about reports from people out there using their cameras for real work. I think we’re real close to a player putting out the camera we all really want. I love the fact that such good stuff is coming from Fuji and Olympus.

              Here is one user report to Steve Huff:

              “What I really want is something the size of the RX1 with pro-spec speed of focus and camera responsiveness. The OM-D is fast, but not fast enough when tracking focus. In any event though, I tried to shoot within the limitations of the cameras and make the best of what I had available.”


  • Aldo

    it performs well when compared to the first Iphone….


    Nikon: I am Crap!

  • Sebastian

    Interning to see how much (or how little, depending on how you look at it) you gain from back-illumination. Pixel sizes in these 1″ sensors are getting small enough for BI to make a difference. I wonder how hard it is to get phase detection onto a BI sensor. Presumably that’s why Nikon is not using the Sony 1″ 20MP sensor.

  • Global

    Before you post anything, please say it out loud: “ITS WITHIN A MARGIN OF ERROR.” 😛

    Seriously, though, does anyone else think that Nikon is giving the V3 has waaaaaaay too many megapixels? If Nikon makes it better at low-light using 12 mp, only then should it graduate to 16 mp a year from now; the V3 isn’t just going to be someones day cam, but something to take out indoors and at night when a cellphone is less useful or doesn’t have range. Consider that even the Sony RX100M3 doesn’t break that barrier, focusing on quality instead of megapixel wars, despite using a same sized sensor.

    Even if we consider the J4 to be a “daylight” camera for most of its users (vs. more Pro and Lowlight usage likely out of a V3), its still pretty ridiculous to make the MPs so high in the off chance that a J4 user will use their camera in the evening or in lowlight.

    Otherwise, how can people really differentiate it from their cellphones, except in being bigger and having more lenses to worry about?



    • nwcs


  • whisky

    anyone know if sensor performance is impacted by phase detection? is it fair to say the N1’s enhanced focus speed requires trading-off sensor performance?

  • RichardKLopez

    Samsung, Sony and more are already going this way, offering CX format cameras. This is the new pocket, point and shoot and bridge camera format.

  • Kynikos

    Same crap, different model number.

  • Nikon User

    My V1 sensor beats the shit out of the J2,J3,J4 and V2, V3.

    Will keep it until another 10 generation 1 series come out.

  • delayedflight

    This thing isn’t aimed at the westerner who seems to be obsessed with the biggest sensor this thing is aimed at the fashion crowd and SEA people who like ‘cute’ things.

    I don’t get why people get so butthurt when a company isn’t targeting just them and it’s not like Nikon is holding your family to ransom to buy this camera.

    • Nikon User

      Because they love Nikon and want to use mirrorless cameras that made by Nikon.

  • Espen4u

    Software and design seems to be the key difference here among the one’s (bar aw1). Nothing else is really evolving, is this the future?

  • Trond Arild Ydersbond

    I agree with the commenters pointing to the problematic high megapixel count. If Nikon’s on-chip phase detection makes it a bit harder to get top low-light performance (as it may seem), they should compensate with fewer MPs. It seems that 12 MP is closer to the sweet spot for this sensor size today. And it’s really, really hard for me to understand why the J4 must have more MPs than the Df and D4s.

    At least, they lose an upgrader from V1 in me. I need a “mini-mini-DSLR”, not a “mega-mega cellphone” camera. And I really don’t care that they haven’t targeted me, but I care about Nikon ending up with a rather narrow target group. Lots of those appreciating the strengths, like good AF, will also be discouraged by the weaknesses (e.g. compare with Sony competition).

    By adhering to some standards for per-pixel performance, Nikon could avoid the “Sony has better IQ” argument which I’m pretty sure will hurt them over time.

  • Royl

    I don’t understand the decisions on sensors. A D800E is I think unmatched, particularly at lower ISO values. So why can’t Nikon just cut a DX sensor out of that or for a 1 Series. The pixel count would be lower, but as someone mentioned, only a very few people are interested in our photos anyway, mostly family. I am sure there are technical reasons that prevent this, But 16 megapixels of D800E quality in a DX camera would be nice. I am assuming Nikon was the major player in the original design, since the agreement with Sony barred them from using it for two years. Just guessing.

    • Trond Arild Ydersbond

      The D7000 and D5100 sensors were very close to what you suggest, save for the AA filter. Per pixel DXO mark scores are quite similar. And those are very nice sensors. A DX version of the “D800s” sensor could be interesting.

    • Coolpix A has a pixel size of 4.7µm compared to 4.8µm on the D800E. On the first Nikon 1 cameras, like the V1, the pixel size is 3.4µm. So to go to a larger pixel on the smaller sensor footprint, would mean under 10 MP for the camera. Quite simply too many consumers want more megapixels, and not less, even if low light performance would greatly improve.

    • Ufupuw

      D800 sensor is made by Sony. 1 series isn’t. It’s Aptina. It’s not the question about cutting the sensor but getting sensor from Sony.

      There is no proof Sony had any restriction on using their own sensors. They never bothered to use it in their camera probably due to speed/video issue, until A7R.

  • independentskeptic

    Is someone somewhere dropping this much cash for these?

  • Achim Pancke

    Sony wins !

  • Back to top