Comments on: Mark Alberhasky Explains How Mirrorless Cameras Can Trump A DSLR

By: Mark Alberhasky

Mark Alberhasky — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:03:00 +0000

I completely agree that there are design aspects of the V1 that could be improved. My number one hope is that in the next gen design they improve / replace the thumb driven wheel that changes modes. It changes with the slightest effort, much too easily. The on/off and shutter buttons are much too subtle for my taste as well (designed more for aesthetic profile than functionality). Yes the accessory shoe is no substitute for a real hot shoe, but there are issues of size and potential for multiple devices to go there as opposed to just a flash. I’d also add more direct access to ISO to my wish list. That being said I still really enjoy shooting with this little powerhouse. It won’t replace a DSLR for a serious photographer but it can be a significant creative addition to a camera bag and a very real alternative for a travel kit when you need/want to travel light.
Mark Alberhasky

By: Dragos Borcanea

Dragos Borcanea — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:47:00 +0000

It will be cool to make a test with all these mirrorless cameras and see how well they can cope with high speed sync and studio flashes :)

By: Noah Fence

Noah Fence — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:32:00 +0000

If you cropped a D800 image down to CX size, you’d have an image with 50% less resolution (4.9MP) than a V1 image. That’s almost as big as the difference between the D700 and D800 (75%). Hope this helps!

By: Kyle Sanders

Kyle Sanders — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:13:00 +0000

Of course at that magnification, you will need to be shooting on pro-glass else your extra “detail” might just be color fringing and smudges.

By: Olivier Moeckli

Olivier Moeckli — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:05:00 +0000

You’re right, Kyle, thanks! I considered instinctively the higher pixel density as a disadvantage, but did not consider the extra details. Good point.

By: Kyle Sanders

Kyle Sanders — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:30:00 +0000

for better or worse, the pixel density of the V1 is twice that of the D800. If you cropped down a picture to 2.7x effective “zoom”, the V1 image would have more detail (pixel data).

By: Olivier Moeckli

Olivier Moeckli — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:22:00 +0000

Interesting report! I have a doubt though regarding the use of the V1 as a teleconvertor. Considering the small sensor (13.2×8.8mm), it looks like I could as well simply use my full frame DSLR, on which I guess a 70-200mm would feel a little less awkward than on a V1, and crop my image to use only the same 13.2×8.8mm of my full frame sensor. I would think I get about the same result in terms of magnification, as well as using only the sweet spot of the lens. I fail to see in what way having an additional body like the V1 (plus the needed adaptor) would represent a big advantage – except for Nikon who would be happy if I buy more gear. Maybe I am missing something though.

By: Philip Chan

Philip Chan — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:20:00 +0000

I’d consider the V1 if they could get the ergonomics right. As it stands now they’re awful. And the hotshoe incompatibility with 3rd party wireless triggers etc. also kills a lot of the potential of the system.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:55:00 +0000

I’m loving this Mirrorless Series the further it goes down the line. What an insightful article. This series has inspired me to look at these cameras with a better respect for why they exist and are growing. I’m encouraged to consider the Nikon V1 and now the Canon M.

By: Kyle Sanders

Kyle Sanders — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:13:00 +0000

These cameras are also fun because they can adapt C-Mount TV lenses. Granted the experience is not as nice as on a Sony NEX, but they do have some “interesting” glass options. Here’s the equivalent of a 35mm f/1.4 – notice that this is in fact cheap glass!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chromaticaversion/7369478288