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

On 2011-09-21 11:39 , Neil Harrington wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:33 am, wrote:
About 116mm² compared to the M4/3's 225²
I think they made the right decision to stick with about 10
megapixels. This gives it a pixel density about 50% greater than
M4/3rds, when compared to the 15 megapixel Panasonic G3.

http://dpreview.com/news/1109/110921...unch.asp#specs

Worse decision, they kept the stupid 3:2 format. What an epic
mistake. Sensor is 13.2mm x 8.8mm.

The 3:2 is just fine. I'll bet about 99% of all machine-made prints are 4x6"
from the local Walmart, Walgreen's or whatever. Also, I'm sure most people
nowadays are using widescreen monitors, laptops and TVs, and 3:2 lends
itself to such screen sizes a lot better than 4:3 does.

With more and more electronic presentation of images, such a small
sensor will do fine - as it will for small prints. Indeed with 10 Mpix,
should do well up to about 12x8" prints.

Your remark on widescreen is equally right.

I don't think this product will be very interesting to the "serious"
shooter.

The data transfer rates are very impressive - if Nikon goes on to do a
DSLR with a pelicle, then such could result in a very high frame rate
machine ideal for action photography.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011-09-21 11:39 , Neil Harrington wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:33 am, wrote:
About 116mm² compared to the M4/3's 225²
I think they made the right decision to stick with about 10
megapixels. This gives it a pixel density about 50% greater than
M4/3rds, when compared to the 15 megapixel Panasonic G3.

http://dpreview.com/news/1109/110921...unch.asp#specs

Worse decision, they kept the stupid 3:2 format. What an epic
mistake. Sensor is 13.2mm x 8.8mm.

The 3:2 is just fine. I'll bet about 99% of all machine-made prints
are 4x6" from the local Walmart, Walgreen's or whatever. Also, I'm
sure most people nowadays are using widescreen monitors, laptops and
TVs, and 3:2 lends itself to such screen sizes a lot better than 4:3
does.

With more and more electronic presentation of images, such a small
sensor will do fine - as it will for small prints. Indeed with 10
Mpix, should do well up to about 12x8" prints.

Your remark on widescreen is equally right.

I don't think this product will be very interesting to the "serious"
shooter.

As a Nikon guy, I've been waiting with great interest and impatience to see
what their ILC(s) would be like. Now that I know, my interest has evaporated
like the morning dew.


The data transfer rates are very impressive - if Nikon goes on to do a
DSLR with a pelicle, then such could result in a very high frame rate
machine ideal for action photography.

I'd be surprised if Nikon ever went the pellicle route, though.

On 23/09/2011 9:42 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:


The data transfer rates are very impressive - if Nikon goes on to do a
DSLR with a pelicle, then such could result in a very high frame rate
machine ideal for action photography.


From what I understood of how the hybrid AF works, with on-sensor phase
detect, they don't need a pellicle system.
They could have the technology to make an slr camera that doesn't /need/
a mirror as AF no longer relies on it, but /includes/ a mirror in the
design. Flip the mirror up, lift the prism out, slot in the EVF when
that suits, or put the prism back in when the lag or resolution of the
EVF is an impediment. Sounds good to me - have I missed something?
The failing of most mirrorless cameras is crappy AF - especially for
focus tracking. An EVF has advantages and disadvantages over a reflex
OVF - and vice versa. No OVF or EVF is a joke, and an embarrassingly
pathetic spectacle if the camera's bigger than a P&S or cellphone, but
if you've got steady hands, can see an LCD in bright sunlight, and don't
care if you look like a compleat idiot, then YMMV.
If this new AF system is so revolutionary, then it perhaps makes sense
how Nikon first release it in a clearly non-pro and slightly whacky new
system. The D4 probably isn't too far away, and it would have been a
great surprise if the D4 as a conventional dslr was anything more than
an incremental improvement - as it's not so easy to improve something
(D3s) which is still state of the art. Throw in a few more pixels
perhaps, but tweak the CAM AF system? Perhaps they don't need to.
If they made a D3000/5000 class mirrorless camera now - which bettered
their flagship D3s for AF performance, they just seriously shot
themselves in the foot. I doubt they care about Sony/Oly/Panasonic
taking a little market from lower end dslrs. Nikon's competitor is
Canon - and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Makes much more sense to release something revolutionary (if that's what
this AF system is) for the "serious market" at the top end, then filter
it down to consumer models over time.

Anyway that's it from me - "projecting" might be rewarded by making some
lucky guesses, but I usually try to avoid it as my track record isn't great.

Alan Browne writes:

On 2011-09-21 11:39 , Neil Harrington wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:33 am, wrote:
About 116mm² compared to the M4/3's 225²
I think they made the right decision to stick with about 10
megapixels. This gives it a pixel density about 50% greater than
M4/3rds, when compared to the 15 megapixel Panasonic G3.

http://dpreview.com/news/1109/110921...unch.asp#specs

Worse decision, they kept the stupid 3:2 format. What an epic
mistake. Sensor is 13.2mm x 8.8mm.

The 3:2 is just fine. I'll bet about 99% of all machine-made prints are 4x6"
from the local Walmart, Walgreen's or whatever. Also, I'm sure most people
nowadays are using widescreen monitors, laptops and TVs, and 3:2 lends
itself to such screen sizes a lot better than 4:3 does.

With more and more electronic presentation of images, such a small
sensor will do fine - as it will for small prints. Indeed with 10
Mpix, should do well up to about 12x8" prints.

My LX3 (much smaller sensor) made really great 20x30 prints (though only
from really great pictures, of course; and I only tried it from the very
low ISOs).

Me wrote:

Makes much more sense to release something revolutionary (if that's what
this AF system is) for the "serious market" at the top end, then filter
it down to consumer models over time.

Really? Tell Canon. They're doing it the other way round.
See for example when the 1D group got LiIon. Pros want proven
technology.

-Wolfgang

On 25/09/2011 5:29 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

Makes much more sense to release something revolutionary (if that's what
this AF system is) for the "serious market" at the top end, then filter
it down to consumer models over time.

Really? Tell Canon. They're doing it the other way round.
See for example when the 1D group got LiIon. Pros want proven
technology.

Perhaps Nikon are in a way also doing it the other way round, releasing
"hybrid" AF in what's very clearly a consumer model first.
With the CMOS sensor always charged when the camera is in use, there
will be heat and battery life issues that aren't an issue with a dslr,
especially if there's an EVF. Possibly no problem for typical amateur
use, but could be a real issue for pros.
But if hybrid AF works as well as claimed for these Nikon 1 models, when
scaled up to a Dx and 35mm sensor size, it would seem a bit crazy not to
bring it to market for pros sooner rather than later, unless they were
confident that they had patents etc so well tied up that their
competitor couldn't possibly gazump them.