Nikon V1 small sensor, is it worth it? I had pre-ordered the Nikon V1 and did some extensive research, mainly reading about Nikon's decision to use a small sensor. I think it was poor judgment. This thing costs more than the Sony NEX-5 does, whose APS-C sensor is much larger, and the image quality much better. I don't care for the Sony lens technology, however. It is like a very mild pinhole effect, really too soft on the edges but sharp in the middle, and without many cross-type focus points won't help. The barrel distortion is quite notorious on the 18-55mm lens. This is NOT a fault of the NEX body. For that reason, I wanted a camera without the drawbacks of this lens, and that has such high processing power that it looks promising for sports photography, in essence, what should also help avoid or reduce blurring on moving subjects (namely people, pardon the pun) in mid-low-light. The problem is the small sensor, roughly 6mm smaller (not the latter measurement number; 23 for Sony, 17 for Nikon). This new, small sensor in the Nikon, didn't impress me. Even at base ISO, I am guessing even as far as 50% magnification, there is noise. Sony doesn't have this, and neither does my Canon T3i. Had Nikon just used their APS-C sensor and upped the price by maybe $50, I would be a happy camper, but this really turned me off with their new sensor. It would make the Canon G series the most awesome P&S camera, but tough toenails. Hoping it is Canon's turn to make an interchangeable lens camera that will satisfy me, or Nikon gets it right with J2 or V2, if such a thing comes around. Meanwhile, I'll just continue using my NEX-5, or better yet, look into its 16mm pancake lens. That doesn't come cheap! How do I know that the Nikon doesn't have good image quality? I checked out various web sites with sample images... Try Googling "Nikon V1 high ISO test" or "Nikon V1 test photos" and look closely. Compare them to Sony NEX-5 (or anything similar--they have the same 23mm... APS-C sensor), and the lens on the Nikon is much better, but the image quality suffers substantially. Maybe the Nikon has slightly better ISO 3200 image quality, but far from appealing in any case of low lighting. Hope this helps, because $900 on a camera with this small new sensor doesn't do justice for me in the IQ department. Enough of my rant, I'll be waiting...
By the way, is there a current interchangeable lens camera suited for good 'blur control' in low-light, or sports photography? Well, I don't know about Olympus "PEN" 3, but what I don't like about it is no standard 1/8" microphone input as does the Nikon V1 and Canon T3i, for example. Panasonic GF3 looked promising and the image quality impressed me, but the lack of Full HD (just standard 720p) video with monaural sound, nope, I want 1080 (Full HD) with stereo sound and external microphone. That said, everything except for the small sensor and consequential image quality on the Nikon turned me away. Otherwise, the V1 blows the other current interchangeable lens cameras away for my needs. Another thing is I wish Sony NEX-5 could take photos during movies. You cannot! I would rather have a camera that can do this over an external microphone jack. Maybe if the Olympus "PEN" 3 can do this, I could look into buying that, but if it cannot, as said, I will probably play it wise and wait.
Enough said. Hours of wasted time on this, I hope that you truly appreciate the valuable information that is currently out there in cyberspace. Lengthy discussion, I know, but would Nikon really find their DSLR market suffer had they used the APS-C sensor as in the Sony? After all, Nikon makes the APS-C sensor for Sony... Nikon was not bothered to use their own sensor? Does not make sense to me, but whatever. It is market gain over quality, and this trend will likely continue. That said, enough said.
Both the V1 and J1 are very good first generation cameras. As far as bokeh is concerned I can fix that in photoshop or lightroom in less than thirty seconds. This system has a lot of potential and as faster prime lens are introduced the bokeh isssue will die down. Plus soon there will be an adaptor introduced so that you can use your Nikkor lens. You can easily make a great 11 by 14 print with these cameras and if you have the software and know what you are doing a 16 by 20 print can look good if viewed more than three feet away. I am glad Nikon did this. Most people will not ever make a print larger than an 8 by 10.
The cameras give you very good video, auto focus is amazing, image stablization on the cameras is excellent and photo quality is excellent. You can shoot raw or Jpeg. Plus you can carry a whole system around with you and not be weighted down. Well done Nikon!!!!
People just go on the net and look at how many people were ready to hate this camera and once they tested it out they have a whole new appreciation for the camera. I know of two pros who now use this camera system for their walkaround. You don't always need a big camera and a ton of pixels. Sometimes for what you want to do that is just overkill. It is a blast photographing with this camera.
I think the whole idea of this camera is AUTO-FOCUS with a capital everything. The NEX 5N delivers a fine image. I have one. But the AF system is a very weak point for the 5N. All the high ISO ability goes for naught when the image is not in focus, and that happens often with the 5N. The same holds true for the Olympus E-P3 which I owned briefly. If this V1 can deliver the promised AF performance, and from accounts I've read it does, it will be a great family camera with a very high hit rate on focus. Add in the specialized slo-mo stuff and it might be THE camera for many people.
I'm not sure what your question is, other than to rant about the choice of sensor size. Since I actually bought a Nikon V1, I can state definitively that it is an excellent mirrorless camera and well worth the purchase price, particuarly because it has an incredibly fast focusing system, great frame per second rate, and an incredibly sturdy body. It doesn't feel cheap and plasticky like the Sony NEX cameras. The image quality in dim light does show some weaknesses if you pixel peek, but for printing the images are just fine. Apparently, you just wanted to rant, so it's too bad you didn't actually use the camera because you would find that it does in fact make good images, even with its smaller than APS sensor.