Nikon sensors as good as Micro Four Thirds?

Share

Now that test is going to create a lot of buzz here. DxOmark tested the new Nikon J1 and V1 sensor and surprisingly they get the same score of the Panasonic G3 sensor. But at that point I want to remind you that DxOmark doesn’t take into account the resolution of the sensor! That’s in that case a huge disadvantage for the 6 Megapixel bigger G3 sensor. Anyway, I am surprised to see that Nikon managed to deliver a slightly better Dynamic range and Color depth than the G3. Really, we need a new generation of sensors! Photokina would be a perfect show for that or not Panasonic?

Click the links to see the comparisons:
Nikon J1 vs Sony NEX-C3 vs Panasonic G3
Nikon J1 vs Nikon V1 vs Olympus E-P3

Share
  • momchil

    but photokina is next year. we need new sensors now

    • Thierry

      +1

      • FedeR

        +1

        • Pierre

          +1

          • +1

            • Guest

              +1

              • marilyn

                +10

                • Miroslav

                  +1

                  Photokina is in September 2012, that’s 12 months from now.

  • Oliver

    For many years now, (M)FT is always criticized for poor high-iso-capabilities. And when NIKON 1 comes, suddenly nobody is talking about high-iso anymore – but people praise the high low-iso-quality. Funny thing. By the way: My XZ-1 compact also produces perfect pictures at iso100.

    • Guest

      That’s because it was expected to have shitty high-iso-capabilities.

      What is surprising is that it has such good Color Depth and Dynamic Range.

      I hope this means that m43 will step up it’s game in the sensor department. I have all this nice glass and I really want a nice sensor to use it with! I have $3000 worth of m43 glass*, and I’m using a cheap G2 that I bought second hand for $100, seriously waiting for the GF7 to come out =(

      *Voigtlander 25mm f0.95, Lumix 7-14mm, Lumix 14-140mm, and a nikon F-mount adapter + some nice nikon toys

    • sparedog

      i really hope panasonic ignore high iso and shift their base iso back to 100 – i would even prefer iso 50.

      but the nikons have a newer sensor, so if the sensor didnt have improvements to it, then one would have to wonder about technology as a whole.

      • Ahem

        This 100%.

      • Duarte Bruno

        +1

    • bidou

      “suddenly nobody is talking about high-iso anymore”

      Really ? Only the admin and fanboys in 43rumors do. Everybody else corrected the title mentaly by “nikon sensors not worst than m43”

  • Jim

    To be honist I’m a little supprized at the low light score…. I thought they seemed only a little worse than the G3…. but still they are better than the sensors used by all the other m43 cams (save GH2) … by a good measure!

    This bears well for the future of m43 sensors (we know it possible to get a good bit more out of them)…. weather panasonic will live up to expectations is another thing!

  • Stupig

    I’m on iPad and can’t see the plots in Flash on DxOMark.
    Anyway, from the scores quoted, it seems Nikon has lower ADC noise (higher base ISO DR) and worse High ISO quality (sensor area). 11 EV, though, is not much better than high end compacts when it comes to shadow-pulling. I do agree that m43 could use some improvement in this regard but there’s no reason to panic.

  • The tests make perfect sense.
    Nikon J1 has 10 MPs on a 8.8×13.2mm sensor, Pana G3 has 16 MPs on a 13×17.3mm sensor, thus their respective pixel areas are comparable: 3.38 square micrometer for Nikon versus 3.75 for Panasonic.

    DxOMark does take resolution into account in their tests, that is the “print” parameter you see under the tab “measurements”. So that high MP counts can mitigate the downsides of small pixels.

    The advantage of the Nikon lies in its sensor’s lower base ISO, so that it gets a better score in Dynamic range. However at the same ISO, the Nikon is predictably weaker than the m43s, due to its smaller sensor.

    On the other side, it’s not that difficult for Nikon to design a sensor more efficient than the one that was introduced first in the Panasonic G1 almost three years ago! The G3’s sensor does not seem to have improved IQ significantly since.

  • Marck

    Yes, very funny that DxOMark doesn’t care anymore about high iso performance. Look at the difference here… and overall score remains the same, LOL!!!!
    http://goo.gl/8vWBF

    • Jim

      yeh the E5 is winning in all marks bar the 1/2 stop DR, and yet the scores are the same ???

      • Marck

        They’re ridiculous… I will not look at their scores again. 🙂

        • Ahem

          They were forced to include topline scoring because people are stupid and they need just one number to tell them which camera is best.

          For real comparison, use the graphs to determine which IQ factors are important to YOU, and at which ISOs.

        • I still can’t figure out why people look at their scores in the first place. When I look at actual photos taken with the G3 and the Nikon’s it’s clear to me Nikon isn’t in the same league. If a lab test and bar charts say otherwise I really don’t care.

          Besides, these tests honestly tell me nothing. There is so much more beyond the sensor when it comes to image quality. I care about color tones, bokeh, can a camera produce a subtle 3D look, and yes, dynamic range and noise control, which they do test. However, I can see all I need to know by downloading ISO1600-6400 samples from each camera.

          • DX0 is a great website to get a gist on how the sensor is performing. However the sensor is just one factor that determines the image quality you see out of the camer too. That’s why even if G3 can churn out a better image despite a lackluster performance than the N1 sensor, it has more to do with the whole system than the sensor itself.

            That said, great images starts out with a good sensor. If you eyes are blind, putting on a Leica Lens spectacles won’t do you any good.

            N1 has done good for matching performance with the MFT. Problem is what have they done to improve when it comes to newer technology? At this juncture, it doesn’t seem to improve but only maintain status quo at the compact ILS level at most.

            The best is yet to be.

    • MichaelKJ

      The fact that the overall score is essentially meaningless doesn’t mean that DxO data isn’t useful. People should look at the graphs for s/n, DR, tonal range, and color sensitivity and draw their conclusions from those data. Of course, there is more to sensor performance than what DxO measures, but it does measure important sensor qualities.

  • NockOn

    DXO never allow a M/43 sensor to beat a Canikon, they pathologically can not allow it.

    • Ahem

      Did you even bother to read the test? Both Panasonic G3 and Oly E-PL1 beat the Nikon.

      Hint: don’t look at the headline figures, they don’t tell the whole, or even the real, story.

      • napalm

        what’s the point of the scoring then? to mislead?

  • Sören

    As µFT User I am quite happy with these results.
    For its size the Nikon sensor is quite good, so that encourages Panasonic to invest more in sensor development to keep up.

    At the other side, a Nikon 1 needs more than an “as good as µFT” Sensor to be the better system. µFT is the one to beat, not the one to be as good as…
    So, more and better lenses, more body choices, DOF control etc. make µFT the more attractive system for me.

  • Jan de Wit

    Blagh all those DXO scores are rubbish to me, can’t really say that I am supprised by this.

  • dadix

    Look at the Low-Light ISO quality: Nikon 1 J1 = 372 and Panasonic Lumix DMC G3 = 667 . 4/3 sensor is much better than Nikon 1. No one sees it?

    • Now look at a high-ISO image from a Nikon 1 and a Pen. See anything?

      While I advocate testing to gain knowledge about various specific parameters underlying a camera’s performance, the test data itself isn’t enough, because it doesn’t speak to visual quality, it speaks to median data results.

      For a number of years now Nikon has been optimizing for chroma noise over luminance noise. Moreover, they’ve been optimizing for true randonmess over patterns. Neither thing really shows up in the kinds of tests DxO and many others do. But the same overall noise number can look subjectively different depending upon its luminance/chroma mix.

      My biggest problem with the Pen sensors hasn’t been noise, it’s been chroma noise. Chroma noise is a dead giveaway for “digital.” It’s a very false set of data to us visually, while luminance noise is more tolerated (“grain”).

      The thing I notice in the Nikon 1 results I’ve seen so far is that it appears Nikon is once again optimizing for luminance noise over chroma. It’s still too early for me to say for sure, but I’m betting that my high-ISO “limits” with my Nikon 1 are going to work out to be the same as for my Pens, but for different reasons.

      • Gianluca

        ..sad things for nikon is that your pen sensor is four year old…

        • Its sad for M43 too, especially that 2011 panasonic sensors are not any better in DR and color fidelity

          • Gianluca

            but we have wonderful small ,super sharp ,fast lens that no other system has…for now is more then enough…:)

          • BTW, Nikon 1 sensor is pretty good in color fidelity at high ISOs, better than G3 and GH2. Yes, there are more details in m43 images, but colors are better preserved in Nikon 1 images. (If DPR studio test to be trusted.)

      • El Aura

        I wonder how much sensor design can really influence chroma noise and how much is in the raw conversion? Sure, the CFA filtering plays a part, colour cross-talk plays a role (but I would have thought that is still a non-issue for these pixel sizes) and overall sensor ‘evenness’, be it in CFA filters, microlenses, sensor calibration or general fabrication/electronics variation (or rather non-variation).

        But which of these is it (or in plural are it)? And how many stops is Nikon’s advantage here, ie, how much larger would Panasonic’s sensor need to be to get even. And much larger would Sony’s sensor be to get even.

        • Good question. All those things play a part. The AA/bayer/microlens has to be considered part of the sensor design these days, as they all impact where the light goes and how it is filtered. I think the difference is coming before the demosaic, as we can take raw data and run it through different converters and get much the same results in terms of where chroma noise becomes an issue.

          • El Aura

            But shouldn’t it be possible to quantify chroma noise? And shouldn’t it correlate with some of the measurements DxO publishes? Shouldn’t chroma noise degrade, eg, ‘color sensitivity’? At least an a relative level compared to, eg, the ‘tonal range’?

            • Yes, you can measure chroma separately from luminance. There are places that do reviews that report that. But most of those measurements are what are called Standard Deviation measurements. One of the things that people still aren’t coming to grips with is that you can have a low standard deviation that’s visibly worse in some ways than a higher standard deviation, or more difficult to handle.

              Long, long ago, I gave up relying solely on testing to determine how well a camera performs. Back in the mid-90’s I was involved in a project to see how far we could cut chroma information before viewers sensed a difference. The resulting project tested poorly, but was perceived well. And by the way, that’s what JPEG compression does: it throws away color information more than luminance information because that’s the way our brain works: we value luminance over chroma. That very well may be one of the reasons why false chroma information (chroma noise) is so disturbing to us: it’s the opposite of the information our brain is trying to first resolve.

  • JF

    When looking to each measurement curve the rating is the following:
    – 1st: Nex
    – 2nd: G3
    – 3rd: J1
    except for dynamic range where G3 has a really strange curve(measurement error or real strange behaviour ?) and where J1 is slightly better than G3 at low ISO.

    • jake

      No, because it is a Panny sensor.

      Oly should go back to Kodak, Kodak CCD is the best.

      • Thomas

        Kodak most likely will be bankrupt in 9 months.

        • Unfortunately, it’s beliefs like that one that turn things into reality. Think about it from Olympus’ point of view. Kodak does indeed have some sensor tech that Olympus has looked very closely at. But if Olympus believes that Kodak might be in trouble, they will simply not use it. If Olympus believes that customers believe that Kodak is in trouble, they won’t use it. Not getting a sensor win means less business for Kodak, increasing the chance they go belly up. It becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at some point.

          • All boils down to marketing and perception / spin marketing.

            If Kodak is able to convince someone to buy over their patent and get their CCD out there. At least it will be a motivation for the other sensor makers to sit up and do some serious work.

            IMHO, i do think Fujifilm film has done an amazing job with current sensors at least inside the x100 (have yet to see what x10 can do). If they can do it, I wonder what is going on with the rest.

            It will be interesting to see how Fujifilm translate the x100 to an interchangeable lens system without degrading the IQ from the x100 much.

  • Pierre

    Hopefully we do not need to wait until Photokina 2012 to get a good new sensor from Panasonic with a good DR!!
    Hopefully will the new GX1 or GF7 get this new sensor on December 2011!!

  • Michael Devitt

    Micro Four Thirds has a fine selection of high quality prime lenses yet. They are bright enough so high ISO is not that needed, but yes, it’s a marketing gimmick though. I would rather appreciate a DR improvement. Patented non-Bayer 4/3 sensor could be a way to go (posted here: http://goo.gl/H3hRU).

    With a right sensor and fantastic compact primes that m4/3 offers, it would be a (mirror-less) system hard to beat.

  • FedeR

    Apart from DXO measurement, m4/3 need a clear and strong improvement in their sensor technology: not in count of megapixels count (12 or 16 mpix are enough for most uses), but in dynamic range and iso performance.

    By now Sony NEX are system to beat, not Nikon 1.

    If i don’t see real new solution in m4/3 sensor by Pana and/or Oly, sadly my next camera will be the NEX 7.

    • Gianluca

      ..good luck with super sharp/small/light nex lens!;)

      • FedeR

        Dear Gianluca, i don’t care to use Sony E lens, i use mostly old manual really super sharp lenses.

        And NEX have focus peaking, another really usefull feature not present in m4/3 cameras.

        • Gianluca

          Dear FedeR…. you confirm us your statement is incorrect “Sony NEX are system to beat, not Nikon 1.”
          Good sensor, but not good system(sensor+lems)!

        • jake

          just use Leica /Zeiss /Samyong, old Nikkor on the NEX7.

          I tried the Nikon AF105f2DC on my NEX5n , it was a great combo.

          you can use almost any lens on your NEX5n or 7, no worry how lousy NEX dedicated E lenses are , we most of NEX users never use those junk Sony E mount lenses but A mount and other options(in my case , mostly Nikkor with A ring or Alpha A mount lenses including the Zeiss24f2ZASSM, Zeiss85f1.4ZA and SAL50f1.4).

          and latest gen NEX can AF with all A mount Sony lenses via the new adapter.

          • Gianluca

            wonderful super big lens and adapter with small Nex body.
            For me this is not a photography tool but a joke…I could never be comfortable with this.
            But sure you are.
            For me the point of mirrorless is quality in a small packaging.
            Pen with IBIS and 20mm pana,12 oly and 45 oly is the way to go.

            • I have to agree. Big lens+small body just to get the require Image quality is ergonomically impossible. Photography basics: Get comfortable stance + viewfinder = a stable platform.

              Sorry. I am a sucker for viewfinders…even an EVF one is better than none.

    • zigi_S

      NEX is a dead end. Like minidisc, DAT, BETA, microstock, etc.

      • bold! but did you really thought what you written, or you just troll?

      • NEX-7 with Rangefinder glass is a completely different kettle of fish – 35mm F1.4s at less than 200grams, some of the finest lenses in the world can be easily adapted to create a beautiful, compact set up with the best APS-C image quality available.

        If Autofocus is important to you, go M43 by all means, but they really need a sensor technology breakthrough.

  • Duarte Bruno

    People please!
    DxOMark overall score doesn’t tell sh+T!!!
    Look at the individual graphs, that’s where the real story(ies) is/are!

    Except for DR where the two are comparable (even if at different ISOs), the Nikon is consistently 1/2Ev to 2/3EV stops behind the G3.

    • Miroslav

      I’d trade DR for high ISO performance any time. Give me a fast lens when the light is low and I don’t need ISO1600 or higher. But there is no way to improve DR (except in pp).

      • Duarte Bruno

        Had to read your post 3x before I understood you actually wanted more DR… not higher ISO performance… 😐
        But don’r worry, if the GH3 will indeed have an electronic shutter, all these DR discussions will be over. 🙂

        • Miroslav

          “Had to read your post 3x before I understood”

          🙂

          “if the GH3 will indeed have an electronic shutter, all these DR discussions will be over”

          Hopefully… If they can achieve 60 fps like Nikon did, then a camera can take 2 1/200 shots instead of one 1/400, combine them and you’ve got increase in DR.

          • Duarte Bruno

            The same can be used for NR too. 🙂

      • jake

        by the way, many many people now do not trust DXO at all, look at their slow and lame lousy RAWC.

        and they are easily fooled by the Pentax’s foxy in RAWNR.

        I dont trust them but I try to test as many cameras as possible myself and also read IR reviews, I trust Imaging resource much more than DXO site (who make the slowest RAWC with terrible UIF).

        I hope Adobe some how start Adobe-mark or whatever ASAP.

        DXO is doomed and is very pathetic.

    • True.

      But it is also true that m43 sensors are quite outdated. Most of the latest improvements came from JPEG processing engine and not from the sensor itself.

      I hope m43 gets bodies with new and improved sensors, I’ll keep my GH1 till something worth of upgrade appears … I hope GH3 will be the one 😛

  • Jim

    Thing is regardelss of how good or bad the sensor is, the m43 format is perfict! It just needs a top of the range sensor to make it known!

  • Miroslav

    Unfortunately, it’s the current state of affairs between Sony and Panasonic sensors. Panasonic and Olympus should count themselves lucky Nikon hasn’t shown some more serious (looking) body than J1 and V1. BTW, Photokina is too far, we need new sensor at CES! Lowering pixel count should be another lesson P&O should learn from Nikon.
    If Panasonic continues its slow progress in sensor design, Olympus should switch to Sony technology as well, although I’m afraid some of Nikon 1 high price comes from sensor itself.

  • Kylberg

    Trust your eye, not DXO mark nor any measuring tool that tells 40% of the story.
    Looking at image comparisons, the Nikon 1 images are very clean and subsequently lacks detail.
    Overall IQ at bit worse than m4/3 12 MP and significantly worse than G3.
    The most interesting thing with Nikon 1 is the eceelent processor performance for fast AF and fast exposure rate. very intersting for certain types of photography.
    The worst thing with Nikon 1 is price. – Yeah, I know it is also ugly…

    • > The most interesting thing with Nikon 1 is the eceelent processor performance for fast AF and fast exposure rate.

      Re fast AF, one of the first full reviews of J1 – C|Net – has noted that the camera has unpredictable/inconsistent AF. Half-pressing several times the shutter button in the same situation often focuses on different parts of the scene.

  • reverse stream swimmer

    This is good news actually.
    I hope Olympus management calls Nikon, and ask for sampling their new sensor in an upscaled format for Four Thirds, to put in the next E-50/E-6 dSLRs, which would give a total of 19.5 Megapixels, and a phenomenal Live View with Phase detection for the old HG & SHG lenses.

    Furthermore, if putting this sensor in the next E-P4, having again 19.5 Megapixels and access to phase detection, it would revitalize all the HG & SHG lenses via the adapter.

    Or if Nikon says wait, then call Fujifilm, since they also have a patent on embedded PD-AF sensors on the imager chip.

  • SteveO

    Panasonic is leagues behind Olympus in OOC JPEG quality at the most commonly used ISO’s, 200-400, and the G3 in particular has sacrificed low ISO quality for retaining some detail at higher ISO’s, a poor bargain. Compare images on IR.

    The 1’s also seem to have gone this route of sacrificing low ISO IQ for retaining some detail at higher ISO’s (is this the new way? hopefully not), and their OOC JPEG IQ at low ISO’s doesn’t hold a candle to Olympus’ $500 E-PM1.

    Olympus offers the superior camera for OOC JPEG’s at commonly used ISO’s, what matters to me most, and have a broad range of available lenses. That they could produce the E-PM1 kit for $500 intro price (i.e., I’m sure they set it with plans to reduce it and still make profits) sets a new standard.

    Outdated sensor design is their only weakness, and one they apparently need to walk away from Panasonic to see real improvements. But this may cost them (and us); a bargain we’re willing to make?

    Had they simply retained the full-sized LCD from the E-PL2 in the E-PM1, they’d have close to the perfect small walk-around camera for the times.

    • Ahem

      Nothing new: high-ISO performance has been the driving marketing mantra for two years. I hope the next hype is low-ISO performance…

      • Esa Tuunanen

        That would be going to other extreme. Instead of just forgetting high ISO performance in favor of low ISO performance I would prefer them to develop sensor performance in more balanced fashion.

  • make a test by replacing the g3 by the gh1…. 🙂
    panasonic have to use the gh1 sensor gen 2 in all of there camera…

  • Ahem

    MFT cameras have previous generation sensors.

  • tom

    I really just see all of this as more proof the olympus and panasonic really need to move back to fewer megapixels. I figure a good half of the pictures I take would benefit from more dynamic range, maybe 10% would benefit from cleaner high ISO, but in the tens of thousands of pictures I’ve taken, I’ve rarely wished for more than 10 megapixels. I do understand that they are constrained by the public sentiment that more mp is better, but it would be nice if they did at least one camera that really focused on having a great 8 mp sensor. They could cram all the mp they wanted into all of the other cameras in the lineup, but one camera really made for photographers would be great.

    • charly-says

      +1 on 8mp sensor. that’s why i always vote for modular system (exchangeable sensor, EVF, screen and so on)

      • hs

        +1 for low megapixel.
        +1 for exchangable sensor

        I would wand them to focus on high dynamic range.
        Get Fuji on board!

      • lnqe-M

        Look on Ricoh, so also shift sensor, also by processor to.

  • Chris K

    DxOMark tests have always been bogus. They aren’t worth looking at.

    At various times they had the D2X, 40D, and G1 having better noise performance than the 5D (first model). Anyone who has shot those cameras know this is complete hogwash. I’ve seen their numbers change over time, too, so who knows if these are their final tests or if they simply modify their algorithms over time.

    Perhaps the stats DxOMark generates are factual, but they have no relation to what you see in an image.

    Lets wait for image samples from the Nikons before making any proclamations.

  • Brod1er

    I always like to approach these tests by developing a highly scientific expectation* along the lines of this:

    Nikon sensor half size of mft= minus one stop
    Nikon sensor newer= plus 1/3 stop
    Net expected result = mft likely to be approx 2/3 stop better
    Actual Result = as expected. Go back to taking photos.
    * I don’t care eitherway about the trade-off between number of pixels vs size of pixels.

  • Fabrys

    Another point of view on the french website : focus-numerique :
    http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1302/compact-nikon-v1-exposition-raw-13.html

    They said the G3 is better than the nikon…
    (google traduction)
    “Despite a higher resolution, 16 megapixel sensor from Panasonic is much better than that of Olympus, ahead of a head (about 1 dB) the sensor from Nikon.”

  • Bob B.

    Question: Is ANYONE who owns a MFT camera (I own a GF1) and any of the fast prime lenses available in the system (yes…system) going to step DOWN to the Nikon mirrorless camera with slower lenses and sensor?

    • Not me 🙂

    • MJr

      Rhetorical ?

      The Nikon 1 is built around *fun* gimmicks, not 1 to 1 photo quality comparisons. Just a completely different market … nothing more to it.

      • Bob B.

        Canon lurks, though!!!! LOL!

        • jake

          wrong, it will be a good camera for its target market and the sensor based AF tech will be reused in a pro grade Nikon , this is why the One is quite interesting.

          but like you say, it it not for any of us here, it is for begginers and full auto shooters.

          I dont mind the smaller sensor(because it is a backup or just a casual walk around camera any way) but I cannot stand its terrible UIF and Hot shoe design.

    • dumbo

      +1

      if i was going to jump ship and change systems from m43 (i too only own the gf1, i have 2) i would not step down to the new nikons.

      as you say, different market

    • Brod1er

      Bob B, hmmmmm, tricky question. Let me think a second. Errrr, I know the answer to this……can I phone a friend (his name is Pablo)?

    • Depends upon “for what?” Obviously, for wide angle work, not a chance, since there isn’t any true wide angle potential for the Nikon 1 any time soon. But in the moderate-to-long fast telephoto range, the adapter opens up some possibilities that don’t exist for m4/3 (and don’t tell me to use 4/3 lenses on an adapter: the focus speed isn’t up to snuff, in my experience). It helps that I’m an F-mount/m43 carrier as it is, so I can just optimize around what I’m already carrying.

      But for all-around, the lens set available in m4/3 is still the key differentiation. One wonders how long that will last, but for now it’s the thing that helps m4/3 in the enthusiast market.

      • Jim

        Thom,

        What would be your view of the m4/3 system if oly could make a proper PDAF magic adaptor for all 4/3 lenses?

        Do you think this could be the single best thing for m4/3 (and possibly oly)?

        How do you feel it would change the m4/3 landscape? (no pun intended).

        • Well, if they did it the same way that Sony did theirs, it would be less than optimal. The problem is that the Sony adapter sucks battery juice. Pen batteries are already at the margins of what I want them to be, which is one reason why I don’t use the EVF if I can help it.

          Personally, I’d just as soon see Olympus make more m4/3 lenses to fill the gaps. That’s because the other problem with 4/3 lenses is that they appear to be dead end. While I could put them on an E-5 body, I suppose, I see no reason to own an E-5 body. They’re also sub-optimal on the Panasonic bodies (no OIS).

          Olympus put all their eggs in essential one basket (4/3 sensor size). While there may be a fair sized market that wants something in the mirrorless range, Olympus doesn’t have a strong up-sell position. They really needed to resurrect the full frame Zuikos, add AF, and build a modern OM-4 Digital. Even a DX OM-4 would be interesting.

          There’s little doubt that the overall needs of customers is going down-size. Film MF is the digital FX, Film 35mm is the digital DX, Film APS is the digital mirrorless, and so on. But I still have my doubts about a corporate strategy that doesn’t cover as much of the camera market as well as possible. Olympus seems headed for a niche-within-a-niche ending.

          • Jim

            Intresting, you don’t hold out much hope for oly then?
            It would be a pitty to see such an inovative company go down a niche-within-a-niche ending.

            With regards to the adaptor situation if it were “magic” and worked as an E-5, would this not open up a host of excelent and fast lenses for m4/3… Am I right in saying most of the longer lenses (35mm up?) would not be much/any smaller if made spacificly for m4/3.

            Idealy I would love them all to be made as m4/3 but as this is unlikly… Would this not give the system a massive top end lens injection? (all be it without IS for panasonic) – 4/3 has some mighty glass quality 🙂

            • > don’t hold out much hope for Olympus?

              Yes and no. I think they’ve engineered and managed themselves into a small corner. They do well in the corner, but I don’t see how that makes them into one of the major camera brands. Which means that we’ll just see a replay of what happened with film, where Olympus and others were slowly marginalized. I don’t think that means Olympus Imaging is going away, it’s just that it will become more and more niche with the current strategy.

              > Adapter situation

              Olympus’ adapter would likely only work with 4/3 lenses, just as Sony’s only works with Alpha lenses. There’s some good 4/3 glass out there, but it’s expensive and not particularly well balanced on the front of an m4/3 body once you add an adapter. Olympus doesn’t really yet have an m4/3 body on which it makes a lot of sense to put some of the best 4/3 glass on. Moreover, such a solution should be short term, as Olympus/Panasonic really need to fill in m4/3 glass that targets the advantage of the system (smallness). A semi-collapsing f/2 or f/2.8 24-70mm equivalent and 70-200mm equivalent, for example. What you don’t want to see is Olympus relying upon an adapter to fill holes, as it means that they’ll never get around to the equivalent m4/3 lenses. Given 4/3’s lack of strategy at the moment, that would be a very awkward situation long-term.

              Don’t get me wrong, Olympus should build such an adapter. It’s just that it isn’t a perfect solution.

              • Jim

                I have to agree, you make a good set of points well – they would be trying to bring the past to the future – although they might benifit form the loyalty of old 4/3 users if they could make a “magic” adapter…

                ultimatly you are right they need that 24-70 F2 or 2.8 🙂

                And yes the 4/3 glass is very expencive… I just think it would be fun to pop a 150mm F2 on the front of the pen 😛

                N.b. with reference to not making a m4/3 cam good enouff – you are right, ok the pens are good enough but looking on DPR the E-5 is closer to the GH2 than the PENs in RAW… quite a step up!

          • Esa Tuunanen

            > Olympus put all their eggs in essential one basket
            Wouldn’t even call Olympus having multiple eggs at the moment but only one egg called Pen because 4/3 mount had at least distinct different body classes for various levels of ergonomy and controls it’s now all just reiterations of the same. Dead end mirror mount E-5 can be hardly called as viable option.

            Properly sized mirrorless body with full ergonomy and controls and PDAF on sensor would improve situation lot and allow using high quality 4/3 lenses…
            Letting Olympus’ lens department concentrate on doing those slow mediocre quality m4/3 lenses for those obsessed with demanding tiny sensor digicompact sized lenses for lot bigger sensor.

      • BTW, Thom, did anybody actually got already his hands on the F-mount adapter for Nikon 1? Lots of noise (hands on, first reviews, etc) about the cameras – yet total silence on F-mount to Nikon 1 adapter and PDAF performance.

        I also wonder how Nikon 1 is going to address the problem of adapting natively the FX/DX lenses: they are larger, their mechanics is larger and has to move move glass, thus require more power. E.g. Redrock EF to m43 adapter requires external power supply to move the aperture.

        • AFAIK, it’s still only in pre-final samples to a few folk. The few that have had a chance to play with it say the AF performance appears similar to that of the Nikon 1 lenses, which is about what I’d expect. But there are a lot of unknowns. Since VR and AF-S power off the camera body, I’m not sure how battery life is affected, though again, this would likely be similar to the Nikon 1 native lenses, I’d think.

    • El Aura

      I might if the V1 had the same lens selection… (and if I would be pessimistic enough to think that Panasonic will not catch up in sensor performance sooner or later).
      I shoot my GF-1 95% of the time at base ISO and at base ISO I would get slightly better result fromt the V/J1, in a smaller package.

  • zwagner

    Well, whether DXO Mark is really something to be concerned with on a camera purchase is questionable. I certainly love my camera (EPL-2), and wouldn’t want one of those ugly-ass Nikon bricks to save my life. That said, they are simply putting up numbers, and here’s my take: Look at where Sony stands in the numbers in comparison to where Panasonic and Oly do. Understandable, I get it. But MFT *should* then be somewhere in between the Nikon numbers and the Sony numbers. Our larger sensor cameras simply should NOT be fighting it out with Nikon in key areas. Period. This is a sensor development issue, and Nikon just put together a pretty damn good little sensor. Okay then, Panasonic, let’s see it. Sony’s number is 73 (or around there), we should be in the low to mid 60’s.

    As much as I love my camera (and as much as I’m not that worried about the scores for everyday shooting), I have to admit, seeing the scores kinda pissed me off. Panasonic should be (and obviously can be) doing better.

  • yet another dxo benchmark oriented camera… bullshit metrics are bullshit, just look at sample JPEG

    • MJr

      JPEG is bullshit for real shooters =D

      • NiKo

        Well when you’re a photoreporter and you’ve only got some crappy edge connection to send your photos while they’re hot, I think JPEG can help.

    • Bob B.

      So NiKo I guess you are not planning on adding the letter “N” to your name anytime soon. 🙂

      • NiKo

        Haha well spotted. Answer is no 😉

  • napalm

    if you’re a long-time 4/3 or m4/3 user, you probably dont care about DXO results a long time ago. why care now? 😀

    • zigi_S

      I’m a 4/3 user and m4/3 user. The only thing I care are long fast sharp and AFFORDABLE lenses and m4/3 body that focuses 4/3 lenses as fast as E-30. And does that in C-AF!

      The iso wars in reality are bogus. Bes t quality is always low iso. No matter the format.

  • flash

    A sensor rating is not the camera system.

    With that said the Nikon J1 has a very good sensor (to bad it does not auto clean, a couple self cleaning or no cleanings will kill its ability; v1 does have self cleaning).

    This is good news, as Sony is not the manufacture of the sensor who is Kodak, Fuji, or someone else? Who ever it is it means that better sensors can be made and they can be smaller not the mythical 10% taller APSc 🙂 size. This may be the real reason that Olympus did not go for the 16 meg Panasonic sensor, it was not that much of an improvement for the additional expense of purchase and camera construction. This is not even to say risk of using a (at the time) untried sensor on their entire camera line; if it had technical issues or manufacturing issues Olympus would not of been able to deliver their cameras when they did. The next generation of Olympus cameras must have a better sensor IMHO though.

    The other good thing is that it is 10 meg not 20 meg. As the leading camera company Nikon makes the statement now that more megs is not necessarily better with the release of the C series.

    I do not know about you, but I do not take my loupe out and use it to look at others photos on exhibit. For just about all users better JPEGs is where it is at, most people will not set down and spend even 5 minutes on a photo.

    FYI you only need about 6 megs for the bus sides also, you know they move. Once as part of my job I needed to inspect a sign that was at the back of a bus; to determined who made it etc. I did this at a bus station with the not running. Later one of attorneys where I worked did the same thing and he almost got run over’ moral of the story is busies move be sure it is not running if you really need to pixel scan the bus (and some attorneys are not to bright; but are fast on their feet).

    Just how good is the X10 compared to the J1? Fuji is in the business to build and sell sensors, also Olympus has a very good relationship with them.

    • You’re mistaking “designing” for “manufacturing.” It really doesn’t matter a lot who manufactures a sensor. We should be able to take any design to (almost) any fab and produce it. The issue is who designed it and what technologies they’re using in the design.

      In this case, the designer is Nikon. This would be their fifth all-Nikon sensor design that has shown up commercially (they started a sensor design group back in 1988). There appear to be several key advances in this sensor design that have future implications: (1) the phase detect ability; (2) the very high speed data transfers (24 channel); and (3) an efficient sensel and read mechanism. Panasonic has mostly been working on #2, but it appears that Nikon is pushing that faster than Panasonic. Indeed, Nikon cameras have tended to be right at the front of internal bandwidth for some time, and it seems Nikon prioritizes that. As well they should, as we’re headed for computational photography very quickly now.

      As for Fujifilm, it appears that they’re going back to a sensor technology they used before, and I think they’ll have the same issues with it they did in the last camera that used it: it’s decent, but if you want the dynamic range or low noise improvement, you lose half your pixel count.

    • jake

      the Nikon One’s sensor is Nikon’s own produced by its related company called Renasus.

      Renasus is also a part of Mitusbishi group company and so Nikon One’s sensor is like a Nikon’s in house sensor.
      Anyway, Nikon is now working against Sony ,I am sure about this since many Japanese business sites and other sources reporting this.

      I am sure after the D5100, Nikon has never used any Sony based Sensor in any camera.

      The D3100 has Nikon designed sensor, the D700 also has Nikon designed Renasus produced sensor and this Nikon One also has Nikon-Renasus sensor.

      • Renesas is not a “Nikon-related company.” Nor is the notion of a Mitsubishi Group really meaningful any more. Renesas came out of the old NEC Semiconductor division and is mostly owned by NEC, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi. Nikon’s biggest shareholders tend to be banks, and in the single digit percent range.

        Nikon has sometimes used Renesas controllers (think CPUs) and worked with them on other things, including fabbing, for a long, long time. But Nikon’s sensor design is likely Nikon’s given what we know so far.

        I’d say it’s still unclear what the Nikon/Sony Semiconductor relationship is. We’ll know better once the full set of replacement cameras is out, but I’ll bet that we’ll see a Sony sensor in a future Nikon camera.

  • FMJ

    to be honest, M4/3 colour depth and dynamic range is really a shame.

    really hope the next generation of sensor will improve this.

    • Daemonius

      Yup, you are right.. DR is not that much of issue (lots of ways to work around that), but colors definetly could be better (mainly issue of Panasonic, Olympus has maybe not accurate colors, but definetly pleasing).

    • Mr. Reeee

      Maybe not a shame, but it does need improvement.

      I vote for LOWER ISO and higher/wider dynamic range in the next multi-aspect ratio sensor.

  • Daemonius

    So what.. if anyone really wants that 2.7x crop, knock yourself out. I really dont.

  • SteB

    You only have to compare sample images on something like the Imaging Resource comparometer, to realise how meaningless these DXO marks are. Clearly the J1 sensor is some way off m4/3, not only in terms of high ISO performance, but resolution. It appears to be that there are a lot of people more concerned about what sort of reviews their camera’s get, or the scores they are given, rather than how they work as a photographic tool.

    The higher ISO performance of a camera sensor is not just relevant at high ISO. Anyone that post processes an image will be aware that either tonal adjustments, or correcting slight underexposure, will bring out a lot of noise, even at base ISO. These scores simply discredit the DXO ratings. Having owned both a 4/3 system and a Canon APS-C system for a few years, I have always found these DXO marks baffling and contray to my experience. Yes the Canon APS-C files are a bit better, and a bit more robust with post processing. However it is not night and day. I also think that some of the manufacturers have got wise to how these image quality tests are done, and adjust their image output to score more highly on them. I think this is particularly true of noise processing.

    • Jack

      I totally agree with you SteB

      DxO comes up with this bunch of numbers and show absolutely no photos to illustrate their significance.

      They are always claiming that this is purely a sensor measurement, not the camera system… hmmm how would one take pictures with only the sensor without lenses nor image processor?

      Did DxO shine some lights onto the sensor and measure the voltage output? Yeah, like that is really going to be relevant to a photographer.

      If all photographers need were a bunch of numbers, we won’t have to submit any photos to competitions. All we have to submit is statistics like ‘I took a photo with a 12ev sensor at 10,000 points ISO and a 30 bit depth…’ and ‘Congratulations! You have won the best photo of the year award!’

  • Mike Scherer

    Happy to see the GH1 dxomark still doing well. Panasonic won’t be getting me to buy a newer camera until they have significantly better.

    • FedeR

      True. The GH1 sensor is the best 4/3 sensor ever producted… Sadly Pana 1. not share this technology with Oly and 2. after lose his way

      • lnqe-M

        Olympus have never produce camera so have room for the big multi aspect sensor to Panasonic. 🙁

  • Scott

    Sensor talk is BS. Look at the images that is all that matters!!!

    • Sahaja

      That’s almost like saying it didn’t matter what kind of film you put in your camera.

  • Anonymous

    So… Nikon 1 has a well performing sensor that will provide photos with nearly infinite depth of field. Most lenses adapted to it will behave like extreme telephotos.

    MFT has old clunky sensors but there is a “plethora” of lenses available…

    I think I will be buying a Nex-7 with an EOS adapter.

    It’s a shame Nikon and Canon can’t just bring themselves to make a decent compact mirrorless camera optimized for their existing lens line-ups…

  • hiplnsdrftr

    So… Nikon 1 has a well performing sensor that will provide photos with nearly infinite depth of field. Most lenses adapted to it will behave like extreme telephotos.

    MFT has old clunky sensors but there is a “plethora” of lenses available…

    I think I will be buying a Nex-7 with an EOS adapter.

    It’s a shame Nikon and Canon can’t just bring themselves to make a decent compact mirrorless camera optimized for their existing lens line-ups…

    • Steve-O

      It comes down to why you’re buying a mirrorless camera in the first place. If I wanted to use full-sized lenses, why stray from a DSLR body designed to handle/balance well with their size/weight?

      But if you’re looking for an affordable photographic tool that offers DSLR image quality and superb OOC JPEG’s often requiring no post processing in a camera/lens combination that’s half or less the size and weight of a DSLR, then mFT is the answer.

      It makes me smile that people are going to NEX with their bulky lenses mounted on disproportionately thin and small bodies on one end of the spectrum, and now Nikon’s 1 series with IQ not much different from compacts like the XZ-1 on the other end. mFT is the sweet spot, it really is that simple for me.

      • Jon

        I wanted a high quality camera that I could take on vacation without looking like a complete tourist. MFT and NEX work equally well.

        I had the olympus E-PL1 and while I loved the camera and colors, it just couldn’t quite keep up when it came to evening/dusk. I just bought the NEX-5n… I don’t like the camera body and lenses as much, but the sensor is a MUCH better sensor for high ISO and DR.

        So here’s my (probably naive) question: why can’t Olympus use the Sony 16MP or 24MP APS-C sensor and just exclude/ignore the outer part of the sensor? It would be mild overkill, but the seriously improved sensor would be worth the cost.

    • ArKersaint

      @ hlplnsdrftr :

      Please be cautious and wait a little…

      Ask your cousin Pablo whether he is happy with his NEX-7 since he will buy one as well !

      • hiplnsdrftr

        I was fine with GF line until it became completely downgraded…

  • A.

    I’m afraid the person who came up with the title of this post doens’t understand much of what he’s reading.

    The ISO score of the Nikon is half of that of the m43 cameras.

    The dynamic range is *almost* the same, slightly better for the Nikon.

    The difference in color depth is too small to be of any practical relevance.

    Of these 3 parameters measured, the differences in dynamic range and color depth are too small to be visible to the naked human eye. The high ISO behaviour, on the other hand, is vastly inferior in the Nikon – and that, my friends, is visible even at ISO 100 (if you agree to pixel-peep).

    This is what happens when one computes “overall scores” – a meaningless weighted average of various measures. Change the (arbitrary) weights and you’ll change the end results.

    • Steve-O

      Agree. Just examine actual images on IR and you’ll see the difference. Throw in the XZ-1 while doing so and you’ll see just how poorly the 1 fares against even this quality compact at ISO 100/200.

      At a $650 cost of entry, the 1 is simply not relevant to me.

      • jake

        you must get that the Nikon One is not for any of us here but for begginers.

        Nikon marketing clearly states that.

        • Ruhayat

          If that is so, then why is it priced so much higher than the m4/3 equivalents?

          Nikon is just milking this new hot segment for what it’s worth and being cynical about it. This has been repeated ad nauseum: their supposedly superior offering has similar physical size as the m4/3, yet has a SMALLER sensor, far far FAR fewer lenses, telezooms that are much BIGGER, yet at a price that is significantly HIGHER.

          Look at the Pentax Q system: that is intelligence at work. Nikon is basically just throwing shit into the pool knowing that the masses will buy simply because it has the Nikon name on it.

  • thephil

    DXO Labs results should be taken with a grain of salt. They can NOT support their own software (cameras or lenses) Try to find micro 4/3 lenses for their DXO optics software. It won’t be supported(except 1-2 lenses) even tho micro 4/3 camera’s were released 3 years ago.

  • Renato M.

    it doesn’t have much to do with this but I wish that Fujifilm could join the m4/3 group and I think it does make sense. If not fuji would probably go for a APS-C sensor which have been proved to end up with big lenses which doesn’t make sense in a compact camera. I think that 4/3 is right in the middle and with sensor improvement you can provide very good IQ. Fujinon lenses would be more than welcomed.

  • Trevor

    I think what needs to be taken into consideration is that it’s probably not Nikon’s intent with the J1/V1 to compete head-to-head against m43 (or NEX for that matter). Their intent, as they expressed it, is to capture a new customer base that is looking for something between P&S and DSLR – between the P7100 and D3100. And, the J1/V1 does so perfectly. http://bit.ly/oUebMT

    What Thom posted above is really correct; Oly and Panny have produced a one-size sensor fits all approach (P&S excluded) with minor variations in quality and compactness. Nikon now have 3 different sensor size options (P&S excluded) with a huge range of levels of quality and compactness.

    So, the question is not “does the J1/V1 beat the _____ m43 camera?” The question is “will new customers find what’s right for them in the one m43 solution or in one of the 3 solutions Nikon have put forward?”

    • Ruhayat

      Again, if this is true, then why is the price so much higher than the m4/3 system? The Pentax Q is higher priced too, but at least there you will get a system with appreciable size difference than the m4/3. Nikon’s System 1 is just capitalism pure and simple – a way to milk people who know no better to part with their hard earned money for an inferior quality product just because it is a Nikon.

  • Scott

    Customers are going to pick what camera store sales people tell them to buy. Olym and Panny need to spend more money on advertising and training for these people

    • SteveO

      Camera store? What’s that?

  • Andy

    All this “nex needs large lenses” comments by m4/3 users is ridiculous.
    I own a NEX 5n and GH2,GF1 and I can say that size wise theres little difference when lenses are attached.
    I use voigtlanders on my Nex btw…nice and compact with high quality results…plenty of small lenses around…just because it has a bigger sensor does not mean it HAS to have big lenses. Even Using Canon FDn primes on Nex is a good size.
    M4/3 cameras look just as absurd as nex when having big lenses attached so give it a rest.
    Cameras are tools just because one is “shaped” different does not mean its inferior.
    I like my GH2 & GF1 but also like my NEX.
    Some of you need to grow up.

    • SteveO

      AF is important to many, and the stock NEX lenses which allow for AF are simply few in number and quite large (as are Samsung’s). mFT is a system, NEX is a body unsupported by a system of small lenses designed for it.

      What the NEX5N is, however, is a bargain given the great sensor you get for about a $1000 less than equivalent DSLR’s. And, yes, many mFT users do have NEX sensor envy. Give it up, Sony, throw Oly a sensor lifeline!

      Imagine an Olympus mFT with IBIS, a system of small and fast lenses combined with Oly processing wizardry applied to a truly great sensor. The thing dreams are made of.

  • Anonymous

    Mwuahahaha… First they all diss Nikon because now m4/3 is finally better than someone else, and they still get passed by. By a glorified P&S 🙂 ROFL

    You gotta love the irony!

  • Saka

    Well, these results seem to be a surprise to some. On the other hand if you look close at the ISO test images of imaging resource in their comparometer, you will see that the Nikon sensor behave pretty well when ISO are climbing, if you compare the images with other micro 4/3 models…

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

    In fact, it’s true that the image has some grain éven at low iso but on the pictures you have the impression that even if the ISO are increasing, the image quality doesn’t deteriorate as much as some micro 4/3/ models. Is it a sensor advantage or an engine advantage, i don’t know (i didn’t see any RAW images from Nikons odels).

    Again, the pixel size is very similar between a 10Mpix Nikon J1 and a 16 Mpix Pana G3: 3,32 versus 3,75 i think, so the big mistake Pana did (and is now revealed) was to get involved in the pixel race for these micro 4/3, climbing to 16 Mpix for the G3. This has been done again (i say again because they did the same mistake from the IQ standpoint with FZ100 for example) because of Pixel count first strategy instead of IQ first strategy: a G3 with 10 Mpix (or even 12, but in any case with bigger pixels) would blow away the Nikon J1 and V1!

    I’m a micro 4/3 lover (for various reasons) but really I’m very happy to see this “surprise” coming from Nikon (even if I’ won’t buy these new mirrorless for various reasons: price, ergonomics – no real grip! damn!- especially). Because it highlights what i have been thinking about Pana in the last year: they make great cameras but they are a little bit behind in the sensor race, this situation being worsen by the pixel race they got involved in which is a stupidity in my opinion).

  • RM

    To my knowledge, DXOmark is NOT a non-profit. They are not an independent testing company though they claim to be. They have a stake in selling their software. Their largest customer base amongst dslr’s for their software buy, drum roll please, nikons and canons. Dxo uses the testing as a marketing tool for increasing their presence in the industry…that is a fact… and it works extremely well… just read the above, and all the other forums.

    Wouldn’t they want canons and nikons to look the best in the tests? Maybe. In doing so, they just end up piggybacking on the industry leaders. A nice companionship. I find DPReview to be more independent, but more sympathetic to manufacturers across the spectrum in their written statements; regardless, their testing appears to be a decent blend of subjective and objective analysis.

    Often, I find the dxomark scores to NOT match subjective image analysis, but that is understood because they only test the raw files. That doesn’t mean I”m saying they’re bogus, just that too many peeps take their scores on face value. Also, I find anomalies that can’t be explained when I did comparative analyses of their own scores across various sensors. I can only say that I find something a bit skewed when I look beyond just a simple review of their tests.

    We all want something definitive, and we all want to think dpr and dxo and others are just that. They aren’t. The digital photo industry is plagued with the same issues the computer industry is crippled with: technological analysis that misses the finer point of aesthetic and subjective pleasure. Digital photography is even more to this end.

    Nikon made the 1 system to undercut M4/3rds and to maintain the hegemony of full frame sensors and aps sized sensors. That’s a marketing tactic first and foremost. Unless it totally fails, it is a success! If it totally fails, they will just adapt and make mirrorless with an aps sensor based on what they learned with their 1 mirrorless system.

    go out and shoot and have a great time doing it. feeling you bought something that is less than someone else’s sensor is akin to feeling you’re just not adequate for your significant other. Seriously, it’s kinda sad but true.

  • marilyn

    seriously all the comments are crap… just get out and shoot…

    • TheEye

      Are you out yet? 😉

    • lnqe-M

      😀

      • marilyn

        heheh 😛

  • Boooo!

    Still curious about the story of Thom Hogan’s friend and the mythical E-P3 delivered to him that had a stop advantage over older sensors, but that couldn’t be seen on other E-P3 camera files…

    • When I receive an explanation, you’ll hear it.

      I should point out that the internal Olympus tests I received on JPEGs don’t quite match the final product, either. No explanation about that, either.

      • Boooo!

        Thanks a bunch – I’m REALLY curious about that whole story.

        Is it possible that they had two E-P3 models, one with a prototyped different (newer, better) sensor, but eventually they mass-produced a camera with the old sensor?

        Makes no sense otherwise…

      • Jim

        Looking at the output of the E-5, it is totaly possible that the “old” 12mpix sensor can be made to output RAW files very close to the GH2 quality and a fair bit better than any EPx….

        Maybe there was a pre final run version that employed higher quality (and ultimatly more expencive) DACs?

  • Anonymous

    Saka wrote: …

    Reverse Stream Swimmer:
    The pixel density for the CX (Nikon 1 system) sensor is 3.40µm, while for the Panasonic DMC-G3 it’s 3.77µm. So if the Panasonic should use the same sensor architecture, it would end up at 19.5 Megapixels!

    But using the Sony’s latest pixel pitch of 3.93µm found in the 24 Megapixel APS-C sensor, the Panasonic should receive less amount of what it has now.

    I would say, talk to the Nikon guys, their new sensor architecture with the embedded PD-AF sensors seems most interesting currently. At the Four Thirds area size, you would get one aperture stop improved performance, and shooting at 19.5 Megapixels as well!

    Cheers / Reverse Stream Swimmer

  • marilyn

    Nikon’s latest FB status update is apparently provoking a number of people….”a photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses” – what are your thoughts about Nikon’s bold statement?….

    (this statement had been with us ever since the birth of the 43 and m43 underdog… but in reality 4/3 has a edge with the system)

  • Kung Lao

    Nobody gives a rats butt about mirrorless in in North America. It’s all about Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Just go to Disneyland and see how many average fat Americans use m43 or NEX? Nearly squat. If anything, the Nikon 1 system is going to target where mirrorless and NEX have a foothold…Asia.

    • marilyn

      Stupidity killed the cat lol…

  • Hiplnsdrftr

    NYC is full of numbskull tourists with dSLR.

    Most locals I know use GF1 despite it’s age.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close