Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon V3  (Read 3324 times)
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« on: March 13, 2014, 08:34:36 AM »
ReplyReply

At some point I almost bought into this system, light, decent quality, fast autofocus. Some usability issues kept me from pulling the trigger so I ended up with Fuji.
I would still be interested in the 1 system as an ultralight travel system with excellent autofocus, however every new generation takes away or keeps away from the system some basic stuff while giving others really desirable, such as the autofocus. And all these while making it too expensive.

I'm curious to see how it will turn out this new one in real world use. It's difficult at this sensor size to beat the versatility of RX100 as an ultralight higher quality travel camera.
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 497


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2014, 10:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I meant to but never got around to trying out a V2. If the EVF lag is even close to acceptable, good enough to pan a racing cyclist, say, it seems like it would be a very good sports/action system. The sensor is smaller but probably ok for most purposes. They don't have weather-proof bodies or lenses yet (or faster lenses either), but lots of amateur action shooters don't cover events when it rains. I know I'm reluctant to get cold and wet when nobody is paying me. And when the weather is good, I would have thought that even pros would appreciate the lighter weight.  

(Edit) The price seems rather high, although the V2 is now at about half of its original price, and it's only been out a year or so.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 10:26:05 AM by Robert Roaldi » Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4158



« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2014, 10:35:38 AM »
ReplyReply

At some point I almost bought into this system, light, decent quality, fast autofocus. Some usability issues kept me from pulling the trigger so I ended up with Fuji.
I would still be interested in the 1 system as an ultralight travel system with excellent autofocus, however every new generation takes away or keeps away from the system some basic stuff while giving others really desirable, such as the autofocus. And all these while making it too expensive.

I'm curious to see how it will turn out this new one in real world use. It's difficult at this sensor size to beat the versatility of RX100 as an ultralight higher quality travel camera.

I've seen a waterproof (diving) Nikon mirrorless at the local store
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2014, 11:04:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I am pleased that at last the Nikon One system is exploring the small format advantage of getting more telephoto reach from a given kit size, by offering a zoom lens that reaches 300mm. (The previous 100mm limit was strangely low at less than "300mm equivalent".)  This completes a "correction" that the new smaller format digital systems have gone through.  At first, they matched the traditional consumer zoom lenses for 35mm format that reached 300mm by offering lenses that reached "300mm equivalent", with 200mm in "APS-C" and 150mm in 4/3".  But obviously I was far from alone in wanting sometimes to use a smaller format and higher sensor resolution (l/mm) to get more telephoto reach within the same bulk and cost limits, not always just the same reach from a smaller kit.  Progress in IS has enabled this, I suppose.

The US kit offering is weird: only available bundled with the accessory grip and EVF and kit lens, pushing the price to $1200.  Maybe Nikon USA emphatically believes that very few US customers want the small body size that the V3 offers.  Or it is determined to cater only to the niche of customers who are committed to getting a mirrorless system, while minimizing cannibalization of its SLR sales.


P. S. I have just seen US$1000 price for that 70-300/3.5-5.6, which seems steep compared to the under $600 price of the Panasonic 100-300/4-5.6 or Nikon's own 70-300/4.5-5.6 SLR lens, but I suppose the smaller market for its more extreme narrow FOV range pushes the price up.  Maybe the 810mm equivalent of 300mm is bit too extreme?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 12:57:45 PM by BJL » Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1657


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2014, 04:05:09 AM »
ReplyReply

This whole system is flawed by the price. Yes, the cameras, some of them, are well built, the AF is excellent, some good lenses, they are more than suitable for lots of people. The problem? The price... how can they hope to compete when you can buy a small DLSR with kit lens for half price? Heck, the other day I saw an entry level Nikon DSLR with kit lens being sold by 250 Euros is a reputable store, who is going to pay 3 or 4 times that for a mirrorless??
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2014, 04:37:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I've seen a waterproof (diving) Nikon mirrorless at the local store
Given a waterproof version of the new V3 with either built-in EVF (or none at all), 20fps @ continous AF and full resolution, 1080p60/720p120/288p400 video modes, a sensor that performs similar to the RX100M2 and a nice prime lens, I am actually beginning to think that this system could have some utility.

It does seem like it might appeal to enthusiasts, as a secondary camera or to tele-reach/sports/mobile enthusiast, not so much to the general public. Not so sure that this is how Nikon planned it.

-h
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2014, 09:03:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Given a waterproof version of the new V3 with either built-in EVF (or none at all), 20fps @ continous AF and full resolution, 1080p60/720p120/288p400 video modes, a sensor that performs similar to the RX100M2 and a nice prime lens, I am actually beginning to think that this system could have some utility.
I am no dive photographer, but I would guess that composing on a rear screen would be more convenient than putting one's eye  to a viewfinder port, and fiddling with a zoom would be best avoided, so yes, a small mirrorless body with a moderately wide prime lens in a waterproof housing sounds like a more convenient tool than an SLR in that situation.

Cost aside, the V3 does have some nice ideas, like allowing users to leave the EVF behind when it is not needed (or do without it entirely, which some people are comfortable doing) in exchange for compactness.

P. S. It is not fair compare the original recommended (i. e. maximum, for suckers) retail price at release of that strange US kit with both external EVF and accessory grip to what sounds like a discounted price on an aging DSLR model. Still, the V3 is premium priced, for its apparent niche market.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 09:53:26 AM by BJL » Logged
rickk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2014, 09:25:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Although I don't wish to defend Nikon's business strategy or pricing model (which are baffling to be diplomatic), I will offer that the Nikon 1 series cameras are great tools for particular uses. They fill some narrow niches and should be considered as part of a multi-camera kit. I happened to choose the J3 model a year ago even though I have a strong preference for a good ol' viewfinder. When situations need fast and accurate focus, the autofocus performance alone of the J3 makes the camera worthwhile. The 30-110mm lens is a gem and gets used almost exclusively. After you get accustomed to it, turning the camera on by twisting the lens and having it ready for use with no internal lag has been allowed greater responsiveness to surprise photo-ops than any other camera I've used. The image quality is much better than I expected. For discrete "street" photography, I've used a Sony  RX100 in one pocket and the J3 with the 30-110 in another, and prints from each are comparable in apparent "quality" -- however you may wish to define that term. The J3 with long zoom has also been the lightweight tele option paired with a D800e or a Sigma DP2 Merrill. While the later cameras produce far better prints, having the J3 along allowed capture of some images that just would not have happened with the main camera.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to the V3 as an even more responsive tool for a small portion of my photography, and will work around its particular limits like all other cameras. Now, if only the initial (as BJL just wrote: sucker) price wasn't so steep ...

Regards,   Rick
Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2014, 11:54:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The price is clearly nuts. Equally clearly it's guaranteed to plummet - certainly as soon as the V4 arrives (or is rumoured.) Omitting the EVF and bundling it in some territories but not others also makes one wonder if Nikon are getting their marketing strategies out of fortune cookies; after all they do a lot of their manufacturing in China.

I bought a heavily discounted V1 kit for a woman friend after the V2 was released. Having briefly contemplated buying this model when it was released - thankfully I bought an EM5 - the price reduction was amazing. She's been absolutely delighted with it after using an S90 and then a 400D with a couple of lenses, which were too limited and too big respectively. I stitched some panos she shot in Peru and was quite impressed by the results although it has a small sensor quality that's not entirely pleasing. Looking through her  shots from this trip though, I thought that the AF and exposure characteristics were really good.

I've been using the OMD with a Panasonic 100-300 for recreational bird photography, albeit mostly of the static variety, but looking at the specs of the V3 and its accompanying 70-300 lens (189-810mm equivalent) I sure wish I could afford to give it a try as it looks just perfect - assuming one can get stable shots at this focal length even with the assistance of VR.

I've thought from its inception that Nikon would be unlikely to drop the CX format even if they haven't got everything right, even by the third iteration of the "V" model. I'll be interested to hear user reports.
Roy
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2014, 12:39:42 PM »
ReplyReply

With a V3 and 10-30, 30-110 and 70-300 you can have a huge coverage in a small package, lighter than most. That 70-300 is kind of heavy though at 560g when the full frame equivalent is 745g (yes I know the adapter adds to it). For many, particularly though who don't pixel peep, it would be better than the usual DSLR kit. What kills it before anything is the price.

A Nikon D3200 with 18-55 and 55-200 is 920g and will cost 600$ right now.
A Nikon V3 with 10-30 and 30-110 is 600g and will cost 1350$.
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2014, 12:44:45 PM »
ReplyReply

PS. On a side note the red J1 with 10-30 and 30-110 is on sale for 300$, quite a deal for somebody who wants to step up from a compact without gaining much in size.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2014, 01:18:37 PM »
ReplyReply

That 70-300 is kind of heavy though at 560g when the full frame equivalent is 745g ...
For a long telephoto lens like this, I see no reason why a 70-300/3.5-5.6 design for 1" format should be much lighter than one for 35mm format. At these focal lengths, any optical design naturally produces an image circle more than big enough to cover the 35mm frame, and will have rear elements that are easily far enough from the focal plane to clear the 35mm format SLRs mirror box. So there is little opportunity to downsize through a design that only works in the smaller, mirrorless format.  So 25% lighter is actually a good improvement, but maybe only due to "plastics".
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2014, 06:00:42 PM »
ReplyReply

For a long telephoto lens like this, I see no reason why a 70-300/3.5-5.6 design for 1" format should be much lighter than one for 35mm format. At these focal lengths, any optical design naturally produces an image circle more than big enough to cover the 35mm frame, and will have rear elements that are easily far enough from the focal plane to clear the 35mm format SLRs mirror box. So there is little opportunity to downsize through a design that only works in the smaller, mirrorless format.  So 25% lighter is actually a good improvement, but maybe only due to "plastics".



While I learned some decent optics long time ago my knowledge of lens design is non existent, however I look at other systems also:

Panasonic m4/3 100-300 4.0-5.6  520g
Olympus m4/3 75-300 4.8-6.7  420g

It doesn't look Nikon pushed too hard.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8245



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2014, 02:57:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Great specs, too expensive.

From what I am able to do with the V2, I expect the V3 to be a truly splendid offering to take indoors kids pictures, especially when combined with the excellent 32mm f1.2.

I had the opportunity to compare it to an Olympus Pen a few weeks ago on a pair of excited 2 years old. The result was pretty clear... zero (0) sharp image with the Pen vs 30-40% success factor with the V2. The recent 4/3 cameras must have improved though.

But the V3 is too expensive.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 497


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2014, 05:44:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I had the opportunity to compare it to an Olympus Pen a few weeks ago on a pair of excited 2 years old. The result was pretty clear... zero (0) sharp image with the Pen vs 30-40% success factor with the V2. The recent 4/3 cameras must have improved though.

But the V3 is too expensive.

But a discounted V2 and 30-100 (or 10-100) might be a good combo at a good price for people shooting their kids' sports. I am surprised the higher end bodies have not been pitched in that way. It's as if they are locked onto some marketing target and can't see the alternatives.

A similar thing happened here in Canada for about 10 years with hatchback models of cars. The "conventional" wisdom, imported from the USA where people prefer 4-door sedans (saloons in the UK), was that hatchbacks would not sell. They finally started bringing them back (except GM and Chrysler), with more than one model in their line-ups, and they're selling like hotcakes now. When these things happen, it makes me think that they've all hired the same market research firms or consultants, who do what they usually do, which is to tell the CEO what he wants to hear. Is that too cynical?

The V2, and maybe the V3, especially with one faster 70-200 equivalent would be a good choice for an action photographer. Yes, a f2.8 lens would be bigger and heavier, of course, but not in any sense big or heavy, compared to the alternatives in the sports niche.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 08:02:37 AM by Robert Roaldi » Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2014, 08:00:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Panasonic m4/3 100-300 4.0-5.6  520g
Olympus m4/3 75-300 4.8-6.7  420g

It doesn't look Nikon pushed too hard.
The Olympus is a half stop slower, allowing distinctly smaller and lighter front elements.
The Panasonic has a smaller zoom range, in exchange for being only 8% lighter.
So I see no evdence of a Nikon fail there. (I say this as a happy user of that very light but slow Olympus lens.)
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2014, 08:11:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Great specs, too expensive ...

I had the opportunity to compare it to an Olympus Pen a few weeks ago on a pair of excited 2 years old. The result was pretty clear... zero (0) sharp image with the Pen vs 30-40% success factor with the V2. The recent 4/3 cameras must have improved though.
I agree that apart from price, it is an appealing camera for some use cases.

But your test essentially shows a well-known advantage of PDAF+CDAF vs CDAF-only, much less relevant now that all mirrorless systems are adding PDAF options for tracking AF.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2014, 03:45:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I am no dive photographer, but I would guess that composing on a rear screen would be more convenient than putting one's eye  to a viewfinder port, and fiddling with a zoom would be best avoided, so yes, a small mirrorless body with a moderately wide prime lens in a waterproof housing sounds like a more convenient tool than an SLR in that situation.
I am no diver, either, but if one is to have a #2 camera, having it water-proof seems like an interesting possibility.

If the camera can be used at 30m deep sea-water, it would also seem safe to assume that it can be used at spots where ocean waves might topple over camera/photographer, in pouring rain, or unprotected in a backpack that one happen to place in a puddle of water.

My RX100M2 has allowed me to take images that I would otherwise have missed with my DSLR kit (due to being small and inconspicuous). If it had beed water/dust proof, it would have been even more flexible.

-h
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 03:47:33 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
aizan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2014, 12:20:09 PM »
ReplyReply

The constant redesigns of the body suggest that they don't know what the heck they're doing.

I wish there was a Nikon 1 with a rangefinder-style EVF in the corner. That would make a great coat pocket camera with a 13/2. With Wi-fi, I'd use it for social media all the time.
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2014, 11:25:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The constant redesigns of the body suggest that they don't know what the heck they're doing.

I wish there was a Nikon 1 with a rangefinder-style EVF in the corner. That would make a great coat pocket camera with a 13/2. With Wi-fi, I'd use it for social media all the time.

I guess the V1 came the closest
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad