Re: New Nikon J1/V1 sensors = half the surface area of micro 4/3rds!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Ruether, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message news:
    :

    > I'm kind of interested in something that does video, which I don't have
    > at all and the pancake lens makes it pretty small although adding $250
    > for that to the $650 with kit lens, I dunno about that. Maybe if you can
    > get with pancake 30mm eq lens only for $650...
    >
    > http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless-cameras-10-1mp-cmos-2-7-inc/


    Don't get too eager, from what I've seen - still cameras appear
    to produce relatively poor video quality compared with even
    fairly inexpensive video cameras, especially at 720p. If you
    pay "big bucks" for a full-frame still camera that also does
    video, maybe - but the price, size, weight, and loss of some
    basic features for video may make this solution less than
    appealing. There may be others, but the Panasonic TM700 video
    camera does shoot excellent video (at 1920x1080 60p), and also
    decent-quality stills. Now if only it wasn't so hard to get
    good audio with this camera, unlike with the HDV Canon
    HV20/30/40 - but that camera's stills are not very good, and
    its video is not as sharp as the Panasonic's. As for the new
    Nikon cameras, they can shoot at 60i, but I haven't seen a
    specification for the video shooting data rate, and the usual
    "high quality" 17Mbps rate really isn't all that good (the
    28Mbps of the twice-the-temporal resolution of 60p looks very
    noticeably better). BTW, I just looked at the video samples
    on the site above. In a word, "UGH!"
    --DR
    David Ruether, Sep 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: New Nikon J1/V1 sensors = half the surface area of micro4/3rds!

    Uh... huh? They use still cameras (like the 5D) to shoot footage for
    FEATURE FILMS these days.

    -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]

    On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, David Ruether wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message news:
    > :
    >
    >> I'm kind of interested in something that does video, which I don't have
    >> at all and the pancake lens makes it pretty small although adding $250
    >> for that to the $650 with kit lens, I dunno about that. Maybe if you can
    >> get with pancake 30mm eq lens only for $650...
    >>
    >> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless-cameras-10-1mp-cmos-2-7-inc/

    >
    > Don't get too eager, from what I've seen - still cameras appear
    > to produce relatively poor video quality compared with even
    > fairly inexpensive video cameras, especially at 720p. If you
    > pay "big bucks" for a full-frame still camera that also does
    > video, maybe - but the price, size, weight, and loss of some
    > basic features for video may make this solution less than
    > appealing. There may be others, but the Panasonic TM700 video
    > camera does shoot excellent video (at 1920x1080 60p), and also
    > decent-quality stills. Now if only it wasn't so hard to get
    > good audio with this camera, unlike with the HDV Canon
    > HV20/30/40 - but that camera's stills are not very good, and
    > its video is not as sharp as the Panasonic's. As for the new
    > Nikon cameras, they can shoot at 60i, but I haven't seen a
    > specification for the video shooting data rate, and the usual
    > "high quality" 17Mbps rate really isn't all that good (the
    > 28Mbps of the twice-the-temporal resolution of 60p looks very
    > noticeably better). BTW, I just looked at the video samples
    > on the site above. In a word, "UGH!"
    > --DR
    >
    >
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message news:
    alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211454070.1753@ryan-BigStorm:
    > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, David Ruether wrote:
    > > "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message news:
    > > :


    > >> I'm kind of interested in something that does video, which I don't have
    > >> at all and the pancake lens makes it pretty small although adding $250
    > >> for that to the $650 with kit lens, I dunno about that. Maybe if you can
    > >> get with pancake 30mm eq lens only for $650...
    > >>
    > >> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless-cameras-10-1mp-cmos-2-7-inc/


    > > Don't get too eager, from what I've seen - still cameras appear
    > > to produce relatively poor video quality compared with even
    > > fairly inexpensive video cameras, especially at 720p. If you
    > > pay "big bucks" for a full-frame still camera that also does
    > > video, maybe - but the price, size, weight, and loss of some
    > > basic features for video may make this solution less than
    > > appealing. There may be others, but the Panasonic TM700 video
    > > camera does shoot excellent video (at 1920x1080 60p), and also
    > > decent-quality stills. Now if only it wasn't so hard to get
    > > good audio with this camera, unlike with the HDV Canon
    > > HV20/30/40 - but that camera's stills are not very good, and
    > > its video is not as sharp as the Panasonic's. As for the new
    > > Nikon cameras, they can shoot at 60i, but I haven't seen a
    > > specification for the video shooting data rate, and the usual
    > > "high quality" 17Mbps rate really isn't all that good (the
    > > 28Mbps of the twice-the-temporal resolution of 60p looks very
    > > noticeably better). BTW, I just looked at the video samples
    > > on the site above. In a word, "UGH!"
    > > --DR


    > Uh... huh? They use still cameras (like the 5D) to shoot footage for
    > FEATURE FILMS these days.
    >
    > -Ryan McGinnis


    You did note my comment, "If you pay 'big bucks' for a full-frame
    still camera that also does video, maybe - but the price, size,
    weight, and loss of some basic features for video may make this
    solution less than appealing", didn't you? And also the price
    area that Paul Furman mentioned (which does not include $5,000 to
    $8,000 bodies...)? And, Paul's apparent interest in compactness
    (and likely light weight...)? [And that we follow the convention
    of bottom-posting here?] Yes, suitable still cameras can be used
    for shooting good video footage (as can good much cheaper video
    cameras), but much serious feature film production work is still
    done with the big dedicated video and the film cameras normally
    used for this purpose.
    --DR
    David Ruether, Sep 21, 2011
    #3
  4. David Ruether

    otter Guest

    On Sep 21, 3:22 pm, "David Ruether" <> wrote:
    > "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message news:
    >
    > alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211454070.1753@ryan-BigStorm:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, David Ruether wrote:
    > > > "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message news:
    > > > :
    > > >> I'm kind of interested in something that does video, which I don't have
    > > >> at all and the pancake lens makes it pretty small although adding $250
    > > >> for that to the $650 with kit lens, I dunno about that. Maybe if youcan
    > > >> get with pancake 30mm eq lens only for $650...

    >
    > > >>http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/21/nikon-unveils-v1-and-j1-mirrorless....
    > > > Don't get too eager, from what I've seen - still cameras appear
    > > > to produce relatively poor video quality compared with even
    > > > fairly inexpensive video cameras, especially at 720p. If you
    > > > pay "big bucks" for a full-frame still camera that also does
    > > > video, maybe - but the price, size, weight, and loss of some
    > > > basic features for video may make this solution less than
    > > > appealing. There may be others, but the Panasonic TM700 video
    > > > camera does shoot excellent video (at 1920x1080 60p), and also
    > > > decent-quality stills. Now if only it wasn't so hard to get
    > > > good audio with this camera, unlike with the HDV Canon
    > > > HV20/30/40 - but that camera's stills are not very good, and
    > > > its video is not as sharp as the Panasonic's. As for the new
    > > > Nikon cameras, they can shoot at 60i, but I haven't seen a
    > > > specification for the video shooting data rate, and the usual
    > > > "high quality" 17Mbps rate really isn't all that good (the
    > > > 28Mbps of the twice-the-temporal resolution of 60p looks very
    > > > noticeably better). BTW, I just looked at the video samples
    > > > on the site above. In a word, "UGH!"
    > > > --DR

    > > Uh... huh?  They use still cameras (like the 5D) to shoot footage for
    > > FEATURE FILMS these days.

    >
    > > -Ryan McGinnis

    >
    > You did note my comment, "If you pay 'big bucks' for a full-frame
    > still camera that also does video, maybe - but the price, size,
    > weight, and loss of some basic features for video may make this
    > solution less than appealing", didn't you? And also the price
    > area that Paul Furman mentioned (which does not include $5,000 to
    > $8,000 bodies...)? And, Paul's apparent interest in compactness
    > (and likely light weight...)? [And that we follow the convention
    > of bottom-posting here?] Yes, suitable still cameras can be used
    > for shooting good video footage (as can good much cheaper video
    > cameras), but much serious feature film production work is still
    > done with the big dedicated video and the film cameras normally
    > used for this purpose.
    > --DR


    And they add a few rather expensive accessories to the cameras when
    they shoot those TV shows and movies.
    otter, Sep 22, 2011
    #4
  5. David Ruether

    John Turco Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > That X100 seems designed as an price-be-damned camera from the get-go,
    > though. A fixed-lens camera designed for general consumers, even with
    > the Nikon 1's improved AF etc., should be much less expensive than the
    > V1, I should think.


    <edited>

    I'm quite convinced the X100 is aimed squarely at the Rolex crown.
    It's a stunningly attractive hunk of jewelry, which also happens to
    take pictures.

    Still - just as Casio produces better >timepieces< than Rolex does -
    Fuji's "rangefinder impersonators" are bested by plainer cameras.
    "Style over substance" is a marketing ploy, not an engineering feat.

    [Hell, Fuji's digicam market share is barely ahead of Casio's (4.9%
    to 4.0%)...and the former is a photography firm, not a watchmaker.]

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RichA
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    795
    Better Info
    Jan 19, 2010
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    268
    Ray Fischer
    Feb 15, 2010
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    589
    John Turco
    Mar 29, 2010
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    323
    Eric Miller
    Dec 27, 2010
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    96
    Views:
    1,831
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 14, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page