Deal of the day: Nikon 1 J5 with 10-100mm lens for $800 ($250 off)

Amazon is currently selling the Nikon 1 J5 mirrorless camera with 10-100mm lens for $799.95 ($250/24% off). This deal is only for the white J5 version (sold and shipped by Amazon). The same kit is listed for $1,046.95 at B&H and Adorama. This seems to be a limited time deal from Amazon only and will not last long.

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

    Is someone on crack? Did someone at Nikon not get the memo that the 1 series has been put on indefinite hold and the DL line has been outright canceled? Staying faithful and using what you already have is one thing; investing almost $900 (after tax) into a system in which there is just about zero future is lunacy. I enjoy using my remaining Nikon 1 stuff (V1, V3, and J5 along with a wide range of lenses), but I don’t plan to invest any significant funds into a system in which will get increasingly difficult to find and fix.

    • Semaphore

      You think Nikon’s gonna sit on their inventory and not try to sell it??

      • Citizen Kang

        I wasn’t asking what Nikon was going to do. I was explaining things from a consumer’s point of view.

        • Spy Black

          It’s somewhat of a tough sell for sure, but if you’re an enthusiast looking for a decent quality point & shoot with a “one size fits all” lens, then this not a horrible package, inasmuch as the lens is not the greatest, you essentially would not need another lens. Think of it as a higher quality quasi superzoom camera.

          • manattan

            Maybe, but if you were only looking for a decent quality point and shoot with a one size fits all lens, why would you not be better off going for something like the Lumix DMC-ZS100? In comparison to the J5 it also offers a viewfinder and is even $100+ cheaper. I think folks feel that the ILC portion of the Nikon 1 system has little value since Nikon has not come out with any products supporting it. Thus, if you as a purchaser are looking for a P&S zoom, why would you not go with the smaller and cheaper alternatives instead?

            • Spy Black

              No doubt, but just because there are no new lenses doesnt mean you don’t have lenses to choose from if ILC is your thing. The 10-100 has slightly longer reach as well. It’ll certainly be a narrow market that will find this J5 package attractive, and it may drop in price even more down the road. Personally I would pick the ZS100 over this, but I’m sure some people will find this attractive.

          • Pat Mann

            And no finder, not even as an expensive option.

    • MY OB

      Are you a Nikon user?

      These cameras are amazing…. add an FT-1 and attach you DSLR gear to it ….

      2.7 x magnifier, f stop NOT doubled!

      Worth owning one of these for this reason only!

      • Citizen Kang

        Did you read the part where I mention I have a V1, V3, and J5? I also have the FT-1. I never use it since I also have the 70-300mm CX lens. I also have a D810 and D7200 along with a complement of lenses, but that’s a topic for another day.

      • Nyarlathotep

        I think Citizen Cane’s point is, the system is a dead end it would appear and Nikon as done nothing to clarify that appearance, so from a end-user’s standpoint, why would they invest in a system without future support. There are now plenty of capable mirrorless systems that have a more rosy future than the Nikon 1 systems.

        And the price is really high for a dead end system. They should be flushing this inventory and moving on if it is truly dead.

      • RC Jenkins

        There’s a fallacy to your argument: The F-stop may not be doubled, but that’s completely irrelevant because the sensor is still cropping only the center of the image circle projected by the lens.

        In reality, using an FT1 gives a 3-stop penalty, since it’s using only about 15% of the light projected by a full frame lens.

        Note: This is exactly what happens when one uses a teleconverter–a teleconverter simply creates a larger image circle using the same aperture–and the camera crops the center portion of the image.

        • Spy Black

          I don’t know about that. The same amount of light is striking the same surface area as it would on a full frame. It’s the same as if you cropped a full frame image after taking the shot.

          • RC Jenkins

            Sorry, but I’m correct. It’s not the same amount of light striking the same surface area.

            It’s the same amount of light PER AREA (sorry for the all caps–just want to emphasize). F-number is an approximation of light PER AREA, not total light.

            But the surface areas are vastly different. So F/2.8 on an FX sensor is more total light than F/2.8 on a 1″ sensor.

            This is actually the specific reason that larger sensors are better at low light.

            FX has a surface area of approx. 864mm². A 1″ sensor only has a surface area of approx. 116mm². So if you have a given light intensity (say F/2.8), the FX sensor will capture approx. 7.4x more light.

            Using things like ‘SpeedBoosters’ give the same total amount of light–but then you lose the telephoto crop factor.

            Unfortunately, you cant just instantly capture more light from nowhere–that is, you cannot just magically make a lens longer & faster just by pairing it with a smaller sensor.

            • Spy Black

              I have to disagree. Just because the sensor may not be as sensitive doesn’t mean it’s getting less light. It’s getting the same amount if light for the surface area.

              A telecoverter is taking a smaller area and SPREADING IT OUT over a larger area. That’s a BIG difference. It’s also going through more glass surfaces as well, but that’s secondary to spreading the light out. That’s why you have light loss.

            • James Michael


              Watch these videos, and see if you still feel the same way.

            • RC Jenkins

              No…unfortunately, I don’t think you quite get it.

              For reference, you should read this article, in this section entitled “Equivalence of total light.”

              (I include a screenshot of the ‘key points’ from this article at the bottom of this post).

              I’m not sure why you brought in ISO; but if you want to bring ISO into this, you should recognize that for a given f-number, smaller sensors must amplify a signal more than a larger sensor in order to maintain the same ISO. This is why ISO performance is so closely linked to sensor size. And it’s reliable.

              Here’s an ISO example: A 1″ sensor is almost 3 stops slower than a full-frame sensor. This should be true for their ISOs as well, so let’s compare a 3-stop ISO difference between the formats:

              Almost identical! Exactly as would be predicted.

              Here’s what they look like at the same ISO:

              Total light (@ sensor) = light per area (lens) x area (sensor)

              A teleconverter reduces total light by reducing light per area but maintaining sensor area.

              A lens designed for a larger sensor reduces total light by maintaining light per area but reducing sensor area.

              In effect, these are the same concept: less total light.

              This is even mathematically correct. Remember that:
              F-number = Focal Length / Aperture diameter
              So a 50mm F/1.8 lens has a 27.777mm aperture

              When you put this (FX) lens on a 1″ sensor, you still have a 50mm focal length, but you now have an ‘equivalent focal length’ of 140mm. But the aperture diameter hasn’t changed at all: it’s still 27.777mm. 140mm / 27.777mm = 5 (which is the f-number).

              So an FX 50mm F/1.8 lens is the equivalent of a 140mm F/5 on Nikon 1 using the FT-1.

              Note: This is also why an FX lens on a DX body doesn’t get as much light as an FX lens on an FX body.

              And the ‘Key Points” section from that article:

            • Spy Black

              The only thing you’re saying there is a really drawn-out version of “the sensor has less sensitivity”. The amount of light striking the area is still identical. That was my point. That’s why I used the film ISO analogy. The song remains the same. The same amount of light is striking the same live area of a cropped and uncropped sensor.

            • RC Jenkins

              That’s not it; and that’s not what I said.

              Also, that wasn’t your point. You’re contradicting yourself here.

              You claimed that the total amount of light is the same; and it’s not. The intensity of light per area is the same; but the areas are not.

              Can you explain the difference between how a teleconverter reduces TOTAL light (not per area), but a crop sensor does not?

              Because a teleconverter does not reduce total light–it spreads the same amount of light across a larger area, which is then cropped by the sensor.

              Similarly, a full frame lens spreads a given amount of light across a given area–which is then cropped by the 1″ sensor.

              Both have light penalties. Is the point.

            • Spy Black

              We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.

            • RC Jenkins

              That’s fine if you want to disagree about basic facts. I don’t need you to understand basic physics.

              A 50mm F/1.8 FX lens on a Nikon 1 does not act like a 140mm F/1.8. It acts as a 140mm F/5 lens.

              That’s why sites like DPReview use ‘equivalent aperture’ as well as ‘equivalent focal length’:



            • Spy Black

              I think your point is relative to using an N1 lens on the N1 camera. However we’re not talking about that here. We’re talking about putting a full frame lens, via the FT1, on the N1 camera. The amount of light striking the surface area within the live area of the N1 sensor and FX sensor is identical.

            • RC Jenkins

              I never said it isn’t.

              What I said is that you can’t claim a focal length improvement without accounting for less total light (just like with a teleconverter).

              You don’t just say “hey I got 2x more reach!” You also lost light.

              Cropping the center or using a small sensor also has less total light. It’s a penalty.

              So with a 50mm F/1.8 on N1, you’re not getting 140mm F/1.8.

            • The f5 equivalence is for bokeh, not light. You expose as f1.8 but your circle of confusion isn’t suddenly bigger (it’s still a 50mm lens). All the aperture equivalence stuff is about bokeh because of the obsession with bokeh.

              You’re right about using less of the image circle (and less of the total light) — since that’s what cropping is.

              Spy Black’s point about teleconverters is also valid. Since they use optics to scale the image circle, you actually lose light transmission and presumably degrade the image in addition to cropping, so it’s worse.

            • RC Jenkins

              No, it’s not JUST bokeh–it’s also total light, just like with a teleconverter.

              I fail to see how this is so difficult to understand.

              Let’s go back to the post I was responding to, and say you have an FX camera and 100mm F/2 lens and you want more reach.

              One way to do this is via teleconverter (Say, 1.4x). When you do this, you end up with an equivalent 140mm F/2.8 image. This ‘equivalent’ is in terms of field of view, depth of field, and total light (& noise performance) captured by the sensor.

              Another way is to use a smaller sensor (say 2.8x crop factor). When you do this, you end up with an equivalent 280mm F/5.6 image. This ‘equivalent’ is in terms (again) of field of view, depth of field, and total light (and noise performance) captured by the smaller sensor.

              In other words, a 280mm F/2 lens on an FX camera will look much cleaner than a 100mm F/2 lens on a 1″ sensor.

              But a 280mm F/5.6 lens on an FX camera will result in an almost identical image as a 100mm F/2 lens on a 1″ sensor, save for differences in resolution.

            • Read more. Argue less.

              > You’re right about using less of the image circle (and less of the total light) — since that’s what cropping is.

            • RC Jenkins

              I suggest you take your own advice into consideration.

              If you scroll back up to the beginning, the entire purpose of this was to (correctly) state that using a lens designed for a larger sensor on a smaller sensor has similar effects with regards to loss of light performance to using a teleconverter. In both cases, the added reach comes with a predictable consequence of loss of light that you’re ignoring.

              You may not technically change the f-number (just like you don’t technically change focal length), but you effectively have similar light loss.

              “2.7x Crop factor” applies to focal length as well as f-number, since f-number is based on focal length. If you have a 100mm F/2.8 FX lens, this means its aperture is 35.7mm (= 100mm / 2.8). That’s what the “F” in “F-number” means (focal length).

              If you stick that FX lens on a 2.7x crop sensor, you don’t suddenly have a 270mm F/2.8 lens–that would imply an aperture of 96.4mm, which is incorrect. In reality, you have an equivalent 270mm F/7.56 lens: an equivalent field of view to a 270mm lens, and equivalent amount of light as a 7.56 lens.

              Back to the FX camera, if you stick a 1.4x teleconverter on that same 100mm F/2.8 lens, you now have an equivalent 140mm F/4 lens. It’s the same math: you use the teleconverter’s magnification as the ‘crop factor’.

              You’re incorrect about “bokeh, not light,” and arguing without reading. Nothing to do with circle of confusion.

              Read & learn:




            • Wow you’ve highlighted passages that agree with everything I said. Thank you for explaining the error of my ways.

            • RC Jenkins

              No. They disagree with what you said; and this is why you should have read the context here and the facts before arguing.

              Let me remind you of your above quote, that these passages dispute:
              “The f5 equivalence is for bokeh, not light.”

              You’re welcome.

            • If you stick an f1.8 lens on a 2x teleconverter you are actually using an f3.6 lens. This is how you need to think of it when applying information from, say, a light meter.

              If you stick an f1.8 lens on a Nikon 1 it exposes as an f1.8 lens. No conversion factor. You’ll have the bokeh of an f(1.8×2.7) lens for an equivalent composition. Another way of putting it is that an FX f1.8 lens is no more or less a. F1.8 lens than a Nikon 1 f1.8 lens when placed in front of a Nikon 1 sensor.

              (There’s no free lunch, the sensor is using smaller sensels and/or more gain. Your overall conclusions are mostly correct, omitting the optical and mechanical disadvantage of using a teleconverter, I just got annoyed that you were being so tendentious about a misreading of what Spy Black had to say.)

            • RC Jenkins

              You are wrong because you are talking only about the lens, and this conversation is about more than just the lens. It’s about the resultant image, where the sensor also plays a part.

              If you compare a 50mm F/1.8 lens between a full frame sensor and a cropped sensor, the full frame sensor receives more light. This is why we have ‘equivalents.’

              Your claim that (for example) a 135mm F/1.8 on an FX sensor vs 50mm F/1.8 lens on a 1″ sensor results in an identical image is false.

              It is correct that a 50mm F/1.8 FX lens on a 1″ sensor produces a similar image to a 135mm F/4.86 on an FX sensor. It is also correct that a 2.7x teleconverter on an FX sensor with a 50mm F/1.8 lens would also produce a similar image to a 135mm F/4.86.

              There is no free lunch. You don’t automatically get more reach without more light. You are essentially cropping on a crop-frame sensor.

              This wasn’t a misreading, and you are annoyed because you are misinformed, misinterpreting, pedantic, or unaware of basic optics. This conversation started before Spy Black’s comments, so you are not reading with the correct context.

              Do you have any valid references to back up what you are saying? Can you refute the articles I linked to you that agree with what I wrote?

            • “It is correct that a 50mm F/1.8 FX lens on a 1″ sensor produces a similar image to a 135mm F/4.86 on an FX sensor. It is also correct that a 2.7x teleconverter on an FX sensor with a 50mm F/1.8 lens would also produce a similar image to a 135mm F/4.86.”

              This is actually what we agree on. My points are quite fine, and there are two of them:

              1) Teleconverters involve optics, which means lower image quality and transmission loss, all else being equal. (They’re also quite expensive — a 2x teleconverter might cost as much as a M43 camera body.)

              2) A small sensor camera exposes an f1.8 lens as an f1.8 lens, not an f1.8 x crop factor. The “aperture equivalence” is theoretical and applies to depth of field and — when light is scarce —
              image quality. It gets fewer photons per unit surface area (it has a smaller sensor) but that’s how it works. Underlying it, the camera is using more gain or fewer sensels, or some mixture of the two, and it may be that its sensels have smaller wells (i.e. lower dynamic range) but that’s another issue (and there are no guarantees this will always be true). There’s no law that says smaller sensors will necessarily be worse (e.g. you might be a landscape photographer using an ND filter, in the future, sensors may dump data to the camera’s bus while continuing to monitor exposure, allowing for near infinite dynamic range). For video smaller sensors are generally better (woo, free lunch!)

            • RC Jenkins

              If you agree, what are you arguing? I never once changed positions in what I said.

              The “aperture equivalence” is not only theoretical. I even posted side-by-side comparisons earlier.

              But you are now contradicting your earlier post where you said “The f5 equivalence is for bokeh, not light.”–since here, you’re saying ‘depth of field and image quality.’ This ‘image quality’ was my point that you were arguing against and are now agreeing with.

              Note: There is a also difference between bokeh & depth of field; and there is a strong relationship between depth of field and aperture (diameter). You seem to also fail to realize that the same lens on a FX vs. 1″ sensor will actually have a similar DoF when using a consistent CoC between them, just like how the DoF doesn’t change when you simply crop a photo using the same CoC. It’s not until you change enlargement due to framing (thus CoC) that DoF changes.

              Those formulae about equivalent f-numbers actually result in an identical aperture diameter–and this + subject distance (& enlargement ratio) is what matters. In other words, 50mm F/1.8 on FX & 135mm F/4.86 on FX both have the same aperture: 27.778mm. Throwing an FX lens onto a smaller sensor doesn’t suddenly enlarge the diameter of the lens barrel that light travels through.

              This is what I referred to in my last post about how you’re obviously “learning as you go.”

              So go google again and argue some more of your misconceptions until you finally realize that I am correct (again), and then attempt (again) to salvage your arguments and contradict your earlier comments to save face.

            • decentrist

              your argument is idiotic

            • RC Jenkins

              No, it’s not. It’s a true fact, and basic physics. This is one of those basic things photographers should know about how exposure works…

              Do you have any proof to the contrary?

            • decentrist

              It’s a mount adapter, it does not work as a teleconverter. Admit you are’s a sign of wisdom.

            • RC Jenkins

              I never said it works as a teleconverter. I said it has the same effect of reducing total light as a teleconverter.

              Are you planning on offering any facts or evidence or just repeat “you’re wrong” with absolutely no backing like a juvenile?

              Can you explain how a teleconverter works? How it causes a reduction in light performance? Because it’s the same concept.

              Here’s a hint: a teleconverter increases the effective image circle projected, and your sensor crops the center, reducing the total light while using the exact same aperture.

              If you can’t read, at least watch the video I linked. Here it is again:


              I fear that you’ve dug yourself too deep, where even admitting that you’re wrong won’t make you look any more wise at this point. You’ve just presented to the world that you don’t understand some of the basics of exposure.

            • decentrist

              It’s fun to watch someone confuse themselves. You’ve done it. The FT-1 gives no penalty in F-stop.

            • RC Jenkins

              In case you’re averse to reading, here’s a video that explains this, so that you don’t have to take my word for it:


              Do you think Tony Northrup’s identical argument is idiotic?

              He also specifically refers to the less total amount of light; and this video is entitled:
              “Crop Factor: Why you multiply the aperture by the crop factor when comparing lenses”

            • decentrist

              Tony Northrup is wrong about many things. He’s wrong about total light and correct about depth of field. He’s talking about depth of field relative to crop factor. You are so wrong about this that I am actually laughing as I type this. the FT-1 is an adapter, not a teleconverter. Any lens passes the same amount of light through it regardless of the size of the sensor below it. You are unfortunately lost.

            • RC Jenkins

              I suspect you laugh at many simple things.

              Nobody said the FT1 is a teleconverter. You seem to struggle in basic reading comprehension as well as basic concepts such as ‘exposure’.

              What about Richard Butler from DPReview? Is he wrong as well?


              There is a difference between “total light” and “total light per area.” Can you figure out what the difference is?

            • decentrist

              You do not understand that an optically unaltered F/1.8 lens passes the same light to whatever size sensor sits below it. F1.8 on FX down to CX…You don’t lose F stops. Understand that or remain confused.

            • RC Jenkins

              I do understand that, and I’m not confused whatsoever.

              I also understand that it crops a lot of the image, which is what this conversation is about.

              What is an “F-number?” It’s represented as “F/1.8” for a reason: F = focal length.

              When you change the ‘equivalent focal length’ as the poster was referring to, you also change the ‘equivalent aperture.’

              Do you have any reputable references (whatsoever) to back your false claim that for a given full-frame lens, a crop sensor receives as much TOTAL light as a full frame sensor?

            • decentrist

              “What is an “F-number?” It’s represented as “F/1.8″ for a reason: F = focal length.” no, wrongo…F-stop is an exposure value..each traditional f-stop is a halving of light intensity…learn the basics.. I suspect that’s why you are confused

            • RC Jenkins

              Wrong. f-number is not an exposure value…it’s an approximated exposure value. F-number is a physical characteristic to describe apeeture diameter in terms of focal length.

              T-stop is an exposure value.

              Learn the basics.

            • decentrist

              Hang onto your misconception. I do believe you deserve it at this point.

            • RC Jenkins

              What misconception?

              Do you know the difference between F-stop and T-stop?

            • RC Jenkins


              Lens transmittances of 60%–90% are typical,[8] so T-stops are sometimes used instead of f-numbers to more accurately determine exposure, particularly when using external light meters.[9] T-stops are often used in cinematography, where many images are seen in rapid succession and even small changes in exposure will be noticeable. Cinema camera lenses are typically calibrated in T-stops instead of f-numbers. In still photography, without the need for rigorous consistency of all lenses and cameras used, slight differences in exposure are less important

            • decentrist

              prove it for yourself. Mount a 35mm Dx f/1.8 G on a FT-1, point it at a subject where the light is even(cloudless sky), and you’ll have the same exposure values as an 18.5mm CX f/1.8. There’s no light loss penalty. Both lenses are passing an F/1.8 exposure value. It does not matter what the sensor size is.

            • RC Jenkins

              Do you realize that ‘exposure value’ refers to light PER AREA?

              Because EV is not the same as total light.

          • Thom Hogan

            You’d be getting the same poorer result by cropping a full frame sensor that much.

            • Spy Black

              Yes of course, but apparently the argument is that you’re losing light somehow when you’re using an FX lens via an FT1 on an N1 sensor, because of some crop phenomenon. My argument has been that the same amount of light strikes the same surface area regardless.

          • Io Mitu

            You’re right, except that there is not the same image you’re talking about. The image on 1″ sensor is just a small part of the image that would be captured on FX sensor.
            If we are to capture the same image on FX sensor, how much light would be captured by the FX sensor? 8 times more light, right? So, in order to produce the SAME image, an FX sensor will capture 8x more light, hence the FX IQ.
            Sorry for my english.

        • decentrist

          compltely wrong!!

          • RC Jenkins

            Nope, it’s right. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

            See my explanation below, or the video links, or this article:


            Frankly, I’m surprised that so many photographers on this site don’t know this! It’s a pretty basic fact…

            • decentrist

              don’t view your wrong belief as an attack upon you. you are completely wrong.

            • RC Jenkins

              Prove that I’m wrong! I know you didn’t read that article in 2 minutes…

              But there’s even a bullet point section that validates everything I said:

              This is pretty basic stuff.

            • decentrist

              Teleconveters cause loss of F stop because the lens will crap out less light at the back of the converter. Adapters don’t optically alter the lens. F/1.8 remains F/1.8

            • RC Jenkins


              A majority of the light penalty from teleconverters is not due to the optical components.

              A teleconverter enlarges the image circle.

              In other words, stick a DX lens onto a 1.4x teleconverter, and your DX lens will essentially cover an FX-sized sensor. To do this, the teleconverter spreads the light across a larger image circle.

              If you use a teleconverter with an FX lens on an FX body, the sensor size doesn’t change. So the additional image circle is cropped out. This is where the “1-stop” light penalty comes from.


              F-number has nothing to do with optical elements.

            • decentrist

              The teleconverter alters the lens to pass less light…it has nothing to do with sensor size. Put a teleconverter on a lens and the image dims in the viewfinder. That’s light passing through the lens bouncing off the mirror to your eye. It has nothing to do with any sensor size

            • jojo

              decentrist vs. RC Jenkins.

              Entertaining (in the sick Jeremy Kyle or Eastenders sort of way), but a rather pointless exchange when all’s said and done.

              You’re both right in certain limited ways, but neither of you is looking at the full picture, just part of it. If you can’t grasp the concept try to think in terms of a simpler illustration maybe? (Possibly filling a bucket with water from a tap?)

            • RC Jenkins

              On the contrary, I am looking at the full & final picture, while decentrist is ignoring an important part: the light captured. decentrist is stopping at the comparison of light intensity projected, while ignoring the size of the captured projection. Mine is the resultant image, while decentrist’s is a partial component of the image.

              This was the only issue I took with the original post far above: that post implied that use of a smaller sensor has no light penalties (which is false).

              Here’s the simple answer: Using an FX 100mm F/2 lens via Nikon FT1 results in a similar resultant image as using a 270mm F/5.4 on full frame, with the exception of resolution differences. This is true in terms of DoF, noise performance, dynamic range, etc.

              It is NOT similar to using a 270mm F/2 lens on frame.

              In your ‘water / bucket’ analogy (let’s use rain instead of the tap since it’s a closer approximation, unless we’re photographing lasers):

              -Suppose it’s raining at a rate of 100 raindrops per m² per second. This is analogous to light intensity, or ‘f-number’. This is the limited scope of decentrist’s argument: it stops here by saying “they have the same intensity.”

              -But we’re trying to capture the rain, not just count its intensity. For a given amount of time, you will capture much more rain with a larger-diameter bucket than you will with a smaller-diameter bucket. This is analogous to ‘sensor size’ and/or ‘aperture.’

              f-number & aperture are two different things.

              That’s the point. If you want to capture more, you either need a bigger bucket (bigger sensor/aperture–not f-number), or you need for it to rain more (smaller f-number or longer duration).

              decentrist’s argument is “it’s raining at the same intensity, so you capture the same amount of rain whether you use a big bucket or small bucket.” Completely false.

            • frostythesnowman

              A teleconverter does NOT reduce the amount of light passed, outside of the inevitable percent absorbed by extra glass. A teleconverter takes the light passed to it by the lens and spreads it over a larger area, by the time the light makes it to the sensor plane only the light which is focused on the centre of the lens will actually shine on the sensor itself. The rest of the light will shine on the inside of the camera adjacent the sensor, so will not be absorbed by the sensor. The effect of this is lower photon density incident on the camera sensor, and with it less total photons will reach the sensor compared to if the lens was mounted on the camera directly. Brightness in an optical viewfinder would reduce.

              With an adapter like Nikon’s FT-1 and an FX lens there is no change in the area of light projection at the sensor plane. Because of this there is also no change in the photon density either. But the 1″ sensor itself is 7.3x smaller than an a full frame FX sensor, so only the light focused in the centre 1/7.3 of the lens will be incident on the sensor. The rest will again shine adjacent to the sensor, so will not be absorbed by the sensor. The final effect is no change in photon density, but a drop in the number of photons reaching the 1″ sensor compared to what the same FX lens could deliver to an FX sensor. Brightness in an optical viewfinder would not reduce.

              Both are obviously different and will have a correspondingly different effect on the settings needed to properly expose a final image. There is one key similarity: less photons reach the sensor than the case of a FX sensor paired directly with FX lens. For equal sensor technology there is a direct link between number of photons reaching the sensor and the quality of the end result.

              This is where the ‘equivalent aperture’ comes in, its certainly oversimplified and a purely mathematical concept; but fairly closely models reality.

              A 200mm f/2 lens mounted on a 1.4x teleconverter will in fact perform fairly similarly to a 280mm f/2.8 without a teleconverter. This is because of the crop and 1 stop increase in ISO or shutter speed necessary to expose the properly.

              With the Nikon 1’s 2.7x crop factor, a 200mm f/2 FX format lens mounted on a FT-1+Nikon 1 series will give results similar to a 540mm f/5.4 FX format lens on an FX body. This time its due to the crop and 2.7x reduction in ISO performance increasing shot noise.

            • decentrist

              photon density? It’s fun to see the crazies come out over simple ideas. you are completely wrong.

            • frostythesnowman

              If you put your fingers in your ears and yell above those you’re having a discussion with, your opinions still don’t become fact.

              Same goes here, we present physics you present empty handed denials and personal attacks. Ball remains on your side of the court.

            • Scrooge2017

              I always enjoy reading discussions on equivalence. They always go the same way. There are those on one side that understand it, and those on the other side that are too thick to understand it, but nonetheless insist they are correct (e.g. decentrist). It never fails to amuse.

    • Patrick

      I wish I could say I enjoy my J4- I really wanted to. I got it for $190 refurbished with the 10-30mm kit lens. Fast and touch screen is nice, but iq is just not up to snuff (and I shoot dx!). Got the adapter for my Nikon fx lenses and still not happy with the results. If shooting at lowest iso with good light, picture quality is passable, but indoors or even a cloudy day required iso to rise past 400, resulting in noisy images. Is the J5 that much better? My cell phone blows the J4 out of the water.

      • Spy Black

        I process my J4 in lightroom, and I reduce, but deliberately not eliminate noise, and I get decent image quality from it. I accept the noise levels and just shoot. I regularly shoot up to ISO 3200 with it, which is comical sometimes, but it is what it is. I simply accept it as a fun toy to do things you normally cannot do otherwise, like stick a 300mm FX lens on it and shoot the moon over Manhattan:

        • FountainHead

          Nice image, man.
          Proof that the photographer’s most important tool is the mind.

      • Citizen Kang

        The J5, if I had to put an estimation on it, is about 2 stops cleaner than the J4 (I sold my J4 when I got the J5 so I couldn’t do any empirical tests) at the higher acceptable ISO values (between 800 and 3200 for me). Even at base ISO, I got noise in the shadows on the J4 when I tried to lift them modestly in Lightroom. That goes for the V3 as well. The J5 is quite a bit more forgiving. That being said, I wouldn’t buy a J5 at this time (I did when it first came out for the full market value) unless it was near the $200 mark. Since I already have one, I wouldn’t buy it again, but if I didn’t, I think $200 is a fair price considering you’re buying into a system that has no future. Unless you’re happy with what is currently the system of lenses and cameras in the 1 series, I wouldn’t buy it at all since MFT is at a lower price point for entry and has a very robust variety of lenses and cameras while still being very compact.

    • Andrew

      Are you not making a lot of assumptions? The DL line were comprised of a number of fixed lens cameras and so they are not exactly comparable to the Nikon 1 which all are interchangeable lens cameras. And Nikon has not announced that they are discontinuing the Nikon 1 line so that memo you talk about is a phantom based upon endless speculations about the DL line.

      Nikon still repairs the F3 which was introduced in 1980! That is one of many reasons why many professionals trust Nikon .

      The Nikon 1 J5 appears like a wonderful camera, one I would love to pickup. See the collection of lenses for this product:

      • Citizen Kang

        I have or have owned at one time more than half those lenses so I’m fully cognizant of their line-up. As for speculation, I specifically mention that the 1 series is on indefinite hold (probably cancelled, but if you want to hold onto some hope it isn’t then have at it; whatever gives you comfort) and the DL has unequivocally been cancelled:

        That’s not speculation. As for servicing, we’ll see, but I wouldn’t bet on it being at a reasonable cost or on a convenient timeline.

  • bobgrant

    Is there also a sale on Betamax machines? Any specials on TRS-80 desktops? 8-Tracks?

    • T.I.M

      Tandy TRS-80 4K, my first computer (with the ZX-81)

      • Ric of The LBC


        • T.I.M

          Apple 2e

          • Ric of The LBC

            well, it did have a handle.

            • T.I.M

              and did you know how to handle it ?

            • Ric of The LBC

              and in so many ways

            • T.I.M

              You can find relais kit with parallel port and make any old computer a very smart robot.

      • bobgrant

        Mine as well. Model 1 with a cassette drive. I eventually graduated to the Atari 800.

      • Allen_Wentz

        Properly pronounced Trash-80.

      • Spy Black

        Mine was a Commodore 128, which I picked up in ’86. I still have it and all the software and peripherals in my closet. 🙂

        • David Weinehall

          I’ve got a C=64, a C=128, and a C=128D. I use them regularly 🙂

    • T.I.M
  • T.I.M

    Does it come with a camera ?

    • No, no lens, not camera – just the kit you see on the picture 🙂

      • T.I.M

        All I see is the flash!

  • FountainHead

    Still way overpriced.
    Call me at $399. For $800, I want the latest V-series and the 32mm 1.2.

    • RC Jenkins


      If you want small, for only $100 more you can get a new:
      -Panasonic GM1 ($550 new, inc. kit lens)
      -Kit lens = 12-32mm lens (24-64mm equivalent)
      -Panasonic 14-140mm lens ($345 new. 28-280mm equivalent, just like this 10-100mm lens)

      This GM1 is smaller than the J5, but its sensor is twice as big as Nikon 1. There is more difference between the GM1 and J5 sensors than there is between DX & FX.

      Also, lens selection:


      • RC Jenkins

        Another alternative with similar focal lengths & same sensor size (though fixed lens): Panasonic ZS100.

        Each has pros & cons; but if Nikon really wants to incent sales, they really need to provide competitive pricing for the 2017 landscape…

        Especially since now all aware of the direction Nikon is taking regarding lens offerings & the Nikon 1 system as a whole…

    • manattan

      I just want something that shoots as well as the new flagship Olympus. Their mark 2 camera is seriously fast; almost everything I wished the Nikon 1 would have been. What I want from Nikon’s lips are the words “We will be releasing a mirrorless product this year that is better than the top offerings from Olympus and Sony”. Is that too much to ask?

      • James Michael

        You are asking for way too much. In about 5 years Nikon will make something competitive to the a7 or E-M1.

    • Sawyerspadre

      Soon to be collectors item….

  • Дмитрий

    800$ its like panasonic gh4 price/
    300$ maximum

  • Дмитрий

    nikon seach a idiot/ were d820?

    • bobgrant

      D820 is delayed as Nikon is nearly ready to release their new line of camera straps.

      • Verco


      • RC Jenkins

        I heard the new straps were delayed until Feb. 2018. Part of the reason is that Nikon is preparing to recall them in June 2018. 🙂

  • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

    Now that’s a lot of money for such a “no thrills” camera…

    • Pablo And-Jennifer Gabetta

      You can buy a second hand d7100 with two lenses for less money that that!

  • Aldo

    dx mirrorless nikon…

  • nwcs

    Um, no. Maybe if it was $199-299. I wouldn’t invest in Nikon 1 at this point given Nikon’s history with it.

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      and their cancellation / temporary abandonment of the promising DL range.

  • MB

    20 fps with full AF … and 20 MPix … Sony A9 sibling for only 800$ … and way smaller … what a deal …

    • Spy Black

      Buffer fills after 20 frames, then takes an eternity to write to SD card. Still useful for certain situations however.

  • $800 is still about $300 too much for anything in the Nikon 1 line.

  • John C

    I don’t want it even for free.

    • T.I.M

      what about free+free shipping ?

  • Ric of The LBC

    Don’t worry. There are more on the way!

    I was hoping for pink

  • TwoStrayCats

    Another tease until the big announcement! I am completely catatonic with excitement.

  • Paul Willy Brown

    Love mine but I got this same package deal in silver for $450 last month.
    They are on much bigger sale elsewhere.

  • Captain Megaton

    That’s a little cheaper than the RX100 IV. Both were released in mid 2015, both are “end of line” in the sense that you will never be able to move the lens to a newer body. The 10-100mm is a very high quality zoom, too.

  • So sad, too bad

    Most of the world live outside the US and dont have access to Amazon!!

    • They have world wide shipping on many items…

      • FountainHead

        About 80% of the electronics I’m interested in on Amazon don’t ship to Canada. (At least not at the best price. Third party sellers, sure.)

        Just sayin’.

    • Ric of The LBC

      i bet most of the NR readers do.

    • Sawyerspadre

      Don’t worry, you will soon. Many areas of the US now have same-day Amazon delivery, and they are offering a half-price Prime membership to low-income customers to lure customers from Walmart.

      You’re next…

  • ThomasH

    Lets cut it to $200 for the set, to call it a deal. Even than, I would not invest $200 into this camera. (Former user of V1 and 2 zooms, I learned my lesson good).

    • Captain Megaton

      As a present user of V1 and 2 primes, what lesson was that?

  • Sawyerspadre

    I sense a clearing out of Nikon 1, for the release of the new and improved Nikon 1. FM2 looks, classic style and controls, DX sensor, no fussy LCD screen on the back, the pictures just magically appear via Snaptrestle 3.0 on your phone, Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook. It’s what all the cool kids will have. Genuine leather shoestring strap not included.

  • Captain Megaton

    As a thought exercise, what is the closest camera now in MFT to the J5 in terms of features and performance?

    Maybe the GF9? E-PL8?

  • Eno

    You can find a very good Panasonic G7 + the 14-140mm lens for only 100$ more ($897.99 on amazon). I wander how Nikon can’t see how over-expensive, under-featured even now their Nikon 1 system is and they probably still wonder why people buy less and less of their cameras.

  • animalsbybarry

    Everyone is soooo excited that the Sony A9 is 20 FPS
    But the Nikon J5 is 20 FPS and has bee around for quite a while

    My biggest critisizm for this camera is the lack of EVF making it very difficult to use outdoors

    There is an add on EVF for the older V series but for some reason I cannot understand it is not compatable with the J series cameras

    This is a big mistake and has greatly hurt the popularity of this camera

  • animalsbybarry

    Nikon has patented a 7.4-600mm f2.8-6.3 lens for 1″ sensor ( 21-1630mm equivalent)

    If Nikon ever decides to continue the Nikon 1 system this would be an impressive lens for the system (or for a point and shoot camera with a 1″ sensor)

    • Дмитрий

      1″ sensor
      mb samsung galaxy s8 have beter photo?

      • RC Jenkins

        You liked your own post? 🙂

        When this camera is at 10mm (similar field of view to the S8), the Galaxy S8 should do slightly better for low light than this Nikon 1. It has an F/1.7 lens vs. the F/4 lens here–this lens negates the difference in sensor size in terms of low light performance.

        But this Nikon 1 should be sharper while allowing optical zoom.

        It’s actually not a bad way to think about it: This camera + lens combo gives roughly the same image quality as modern cell phones, except this has more pixels & zoom.

  • Andrew

    It’s not about comfort, it’s simply reality. I never said that the DL was not cancelled – I said that they are fixed lens cameras which are different from the Nikon 1 line which you speculated are cancelled.

    Nikon has invested heavily on their mirrorless camera line and no doubt will be scaling that technology to full frame. But a 1-inch sensor based camera as the Nikon 1 series will continue to be relevant to Nikon’s future plans.

    Heck, Nikon introduced the P900 ultra-zoom camera with a much smaller sensor and are about to come out (Rumored) with its 125x optical zoom update. There is no reason for Nikon to abandon their 1-inch sensor line. You are speculating. I am not speculating, I am simply saying that there is no announcement or indication from Nikon that they are discontinuing their Nikon 1 line.

    Many people speculated that Nikon had abandoned the D300s line and they came out with the D500! And when these folks realized that they were wrong some of them said that Nikon changed its mind. These speculations know no limits.

  • Back to top