Nikon mirror-less cameras - the Nikon 1 system

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

  1. David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest


    Told you so!

    I'm surprised your keyboard didn't burst into flames when you posted
    that, and that your tongue didn't drop out. Perhaps it did. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Boasting of your own inaccuracies again?
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #3
  4. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest


    I think anyone who posts so much advice on here as you about equipment
    that he has never used, touched or seen, while owning only a very
    basic entry-level DSLR and a junk consumer-grade lens, should perhaps
    be rather more circumspect about accusing others of being
    "inaccurate".
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #4
  5. David J Taylor

    MG Guest


    Seems to be high on emotion:
    The needs of the consumer are changing and the world is becoming one of
    visual conversation, which paves the way for the next chapter in image
    capture devices

    and low on facts and specs!

    It seems one camera has a built in flash but no viewfinder; the other no
    flash but has a viewfinder. Where's the model with a flash and viewfinder?

    Otherwise looks promising as a superzoom or compact upgrade.
     
    MG, Sep 21, 2011
    #5
  6. []
    So you don't deny that you were wrong, thanks.

    The only advice I give relates directly to my own experience.

    A pity you have nothing to say about the new cameras.
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #6
  7. Seems to be high on emotion:
    Yes, making neither camera immediately appealing, either to me or those
    upgrading. I was hoping to see a 24-300 mm equivalent walk-round zoom
    lens, the 27-270 mm eq. (10-100 mm) would mean a reduced capability
    compared to my existing kit. Yes, I would like smaller and lighter kit,
    but the high-end Sony NEX-7 looks more promising, although it has more
    pixels than I need. Either the Sony or the new Nikon would mean new
    lenses as well.

    An APS-C Nikon taking existing DX lenses would have been more appealing
    (although I agree with D P Review as to why Nikon didn't take this route).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #7
  8. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest


    Unfortunately that is not true. I have called you out several times
    on advice that you have given concerning equipment that you later
    admitted having no experience of.

    Your selective amnesia is clearly a serious problem and I do hope you
    find a remedy. In the meantime, perhaps you should try silence.


    Unlike you, I won't try to give the impression that I have experience
    of equipment that I have never used, touched or seen. I will get to
    use the system at a dealer event later on today. Perhaps I will post
    my opinions, or perhaps I will keep them to myself and read yours
    instead.
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #8
  9. []
    You seem unable to distinguish advice from opinions.
    Please don't expect any further response from me. I'm interested in
    photography, not in slanging matches. Surprising that you can even read
    my posts as you supposedly have me kill-filed!
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #9
  10. []
    For the situations where I take photos, the convenience of my 18-200 mm
    lens outweighs, quite significantly, the lower image quality. It doesn't
    mean that I don't have or don't use other lenses when appropriate. I see
    that Nikon propose a 10-100 mm lens for their new system, so they must see
    a market.

    A one-inch sensor will not capture as much light as an APS-C sensor, and
    will therefore have a lower ISO capability, everything else being equal.
    I often find that I'm working at ISO 3200 (given the situations I have and
    the lenses I am prepared to carry), so high-ISO matters to me. Hence my
    feeling that a NEX-7 would be a more sensible upgrade, should I wish to
    change systems.
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #10
  11. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest


    Not at all. On two occasions, after I called you out, you apologised
    for advice given to people on here because I forced you to admit that
    you had no experience to back it up.

    Selective amnesia - again? It's getting worse.


    It's a public newsgroup. You can respond as much or as little as you
    like. Your choice.


    Then don't start them, as you did here. Selective amnesia - again?


    I changed ISP and reinstalled newsreader software. While I have
    mostly rebuilt my kill file, I haven't added you. Maybe I'll be
    watching to see if you give any further advice to people about
    equipment you have never used, touched or seen ...
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #11
  12. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest


    Or, to put it another way, you have managed to convince yourself that
    it has.


    According to you, you have one other lens, a fixed focal length macro
    lens that you rarely use.


    Yes, there are plenty of fools out there, to the point where there is
    more than enough demand for junk lenses, so manufacturers make them.
    No-one has yet made a good 10x lens for still photography, at least
    not at an affordable price.

    The fact that lots of people buy them doesn't mean that they are good.
    Compare this with the extremely high sales of 'red-top' tabloid
    newspapers compared to quality newspapers.
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #12
  13. []
    Far from it - sometimes lower-quality shot is better than none, and the
    time taken to change lenses would lose the shot.
    No, I have no macro lenses. I have more than two lenses, so your comment
    is ill-informed at best.
    Not everyone wants, or needs, Leica-quality in every shot. As most of my
    own images are displayed on a 2 MP screen, even allowing for cropping
    8-10-12 MP "quality" is more than enough for my purposes, and the
    wide-range zoom lenses make an excellent match for my needs. The needs of
    others will be different. Buying what meets your needs and no more is
    hardly foolish.

    As my own needs place some emphasis on size, weight and bulk, but with a
    need for lower-light capability, were I interested in upgrading I feel
    that the NEX-7 may be more useful than either of the two new Nikon
    cameras.
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #13
  14. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    I called him out on that one, concerning my own postings. It appears he
    has two kill files. I have been promoted to permanent kill file.

    Some here an incapable of accepting that there are differing opinions.
    IOW their minds are closed to learning.
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2011
    #14
  15. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    Be careful. You have been given fair warning. Don't ever say anything
    Brucie doesn't like.
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2011
    #15
  16. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    It looks like there is a diopter adjustment viewfinder on the V1 model.
    Poke around the tech specs.

    <http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ....html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs>

    While there are limitations, it does look interesting.

    But, a dumb, but real question. Aren't all pocket cameras mirrorless?

    As opposed to wanting a D4, I will take a wait and see attitude with
    this one.
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2011
    #16
  17. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    It seems that Nikon will have an F mount adapter. Carrying this camera
    with my 70-200 may not make much sense. though.
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2011
    #17
  18. []
    My thoughts as well. There may be a limited set of existing Nikon lenses
    it makes sense to put on this camera, but most of such lenses will be
    simply too big and bulky. If you want to use those lenses, use the sensor
    they were designed for and get the most out of them. If you want a
    certain field-of-view, use the lenses intended for the Nikon 1.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see the two present camera offerings setting
    the world on fire. Far better if Nikon had brought its expertise to the
    4/3 system....

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #18
  19. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    I have a strong preference for high ISO for low light, action and
    nature. My problem is that my equipment eats more than I do.
    consequently it gets heavier every day. :)

    I was playing with a 4/3 system but it felt so toy like, I had problems
    taking serious images.
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2011
    #19
  20. []
    ... and feeding it costs money as well!
    Having used both film SLRs, "bridge cameras", and compacts in the past I
    don't believe I would have that problem! <G> I've handled 4/3, but not
    used on in the field. Were the viewfinder better, I might be tempted but,
    like you, I reply on a good high-ISO performance. 4/3 doesn't quite
    convince me in that respect, and Nikon 1 certainly doesn't. At least
    until we see the ISO 3200 images....

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.