Looking Back: A Review of The Old Nikon V1 By Jake Hyland

Looking Back: A Review of The Old Nikon V1

By Jake Hyland

Hello fellow Huff readers. If you are reading this article, it means, I assume, that you are considering buying a Mirrorless camera. I also assume it means you are looking into the Nikon 1 System – among others – and that you probably have already read some pretty lousy reviews of Nikons entry into the popular mirrorless arena. Like you, I was totally conflicted. I found very few positive reviews, unless, of course, they were sponsored by Nikon. Even Steve Huff’s positive review left me a bit skeptical. Why? Because everyone keeps dismissing the V1 sensor – the Nikon invented CX sensor. Honestly, when I got back into photography, I didn’t even know what a sensor was. I still don’t, actually. Supposedly bigger means better. Well, the v1 proves that dead wrong.

Lemme give you a quick background on me. I got my undergraduate degree in photojournalism, right around the time digital photography took over in the late nineties. I used a student loan to buy a Nikon D90, which for a student photographer was kinda a big deal. I never became a professional photographer, I became a nurse…..just the way life turned out. I mention this “about me” section simply to let you know I am not, in any capacity, an expert on cameras. But I am very tempted to assume you aren’t either, which is why I think it is important for you to read why the V1 is a perfect choice for folks like us

Because I bet you are in the same boat, I feel it is my absolute duty to tell you that, for most of us, most of the time, the Nikon V1 is pretty much all you will ever need. Lemme point out that you should just dismiss the J1 altogether. There is no viewfinder, and you are not gonna be that guy/gal holding the camera out with your arms like some sort of B-list celebrity taking a selfie.

Which brings me to my first point:


The V1 simply looks cool and, honestly, when it came down to it, that’s one of the main reasons I bought it. Like I said, I did not even know what a sensor was, so the technical side of cameras was secondary to just having a cool looking camera, and I couldn’t afford the Olympus OMD and certainly not the Sony A7 (Two other powerhouses in the 4/3 game, in case you have not looked them up yet). But this is not all in vain. Let’s face it, you really do not want to lug around a DSLR……yes, it makes you look professional, but that entire mindset needs to be dismissed. Why? Because it’s plain dumb. We are not professionals. We are every day blue-collar folks who like photography. And I am betting most of us are street photographers, so a compact, yet professional functioning camera is what we really need.

Which brings me to my second point:

The V1 feels great in your hands, but there is a catch here. You simply must buy a grip. I got a nice metal one for ten bucks on Amazon. (Be sure to use Steve Huff’s link anytime you buy from Amazon, for anything!) The menu screen is very easy to navigate, and there is this neat dial that let’s you scroll through the menu.

Ok, so the camera looks cool and feels even cooler. Now to the main point that everyone criticizes: the sensor. Yes, it is a small sensor. I believe it is about half the size of a common DSLR. But who cares?! Look at the clouds in my pics, and the clouds in Huff’s V1 review pics. Look at the vivid colors. Can you tell that those pics were taken with this so-called “toy” camera? Of course not. Because, again, for most of us most of the time, we are just shooting for fun. The sensor is an absolute non-issue for, I’d say, everyone looking for a 4/3 camera. By the way, I do not have any photo editing software. The pics were processed with whatever came on my computer. Like I said, I’m just a working stiff that likes to shoot candid shots of people.


Point number Three:

MONEY! HUGE! ASTRONOMICAL issue! As you may know, Huff is a major fan of the Olympus OMD and Sony A7. The OMD is gonna set you back a grand (for the original EM-1, I just looked it up), and the Sony A7s and Fugi and Panasonic and ALL the other 4/3 camera bodies are WAY more expensive. Do you really need that much of a camera? Do you really need a thousand dollar body and $1200 lens? Huff does, but do you? I got my V1 refurbished from Amazon for $200. It was brand new, just had been returned. There are hundreds out there. I borrowed my brother’s OMD and, although it’s the coolest looking camera I have ever seen, I was not impressed with the electronic viewfinder (EVF). The V1 EVF is BETTER than the OMD. That’s right, BETTER! You know what is also better? The auto focus. It is blazing fast! All these images I submitted were taken from the hip, while I was walking. So the autofocus is so fast you can be moving while shooting. It really is impressive. Sorry Steve…..I know the OMD is in your arsenal. But I also know the V1 is, too.

Finally, the lenses. Nikon originally did not make any fast lenses with the V1. Now, however, there is f1.8 18.5 (50mm) and it is a must have, and it only costs around $170. In all the images I submitted I used the kit lens that the V1 comes with – the 10-30 zoom. I believe that equals a 30mm-70mm. It is a totally acceptable lens for, again, most of us most of the time. Am I making that clear enough? The V1 is absolutely awesome for…….I won’t say it again….yes I will….most of us most of the time.

Ok, there is one thing I gotta admit. The V1 has this camera mode dial on the back panel. It is really a poor placement because when you take your camera in and out of a bag the dial often changes to video mode, or this other silly “perfect shot mode” that is kinda a gimmick. I have missed a few cool shots because of this.

Well, I hope reading this has helped you make up your mind about buying a V1. I think you should certainly read Huff’s review, and also the review on the new V1 prime lens because he includes abunch of stuff about the V1 camera itself.
Good luck shooting everyone!

Jake Hyland





Related Post


  1. I shoot with the Nikon V1, and the problem I have with these small-sensor cameras is that while the photos look stunning outdoors, they all fail for low-light photography of faces – they make skin look sanded-down and clay-like, without the wonderful texture you would see in an image of the same subject taken with a full-frame or very good APS-C camera. Because I shoot a lot indoors, I’m having to look at alternatives, and the only acceptable ones I’m finding are not Micro Four Thirds or Nikon CX – in mirrorless, they are the Sony A6300 – and that’s about it, short of spending huge wads of money for a Sony FF mirrorless. It really has me in a twist, because I need a camera with an electronic shutter, and I have no enthusiasm for the A6300 with its wonky menus and ergonomics (not to mention, expensive lenses). I suspect the answer will be: keep the V1 for well-lit indoor shoots with the WONDERFUL 18-35 mm equivalent STABILIZED lens, and maybe acquire a Canon 1.6-sensor DSLR for indoor low-light shooting. Bleh, what a state of affairs!

    • You may want to consider getting a used 5100, 5200 or 5300 DSLR, and the fast F1.8 35MM DX lens for indoor shooting. I also highly recommend the FT-1 adapter – that way any DX or FX lens you get can be used on either camera. I’ve found the combination to be great – I use the 5100 for lower light and intermediate distance photography, and the V1 for very long zoom (with a 70-300 FX lens) or macro (with the F2.8 40mm DX). The 5100-5300 cameras are very light weight and compact for a DSLR – you may be pleasantly surprised. They don’t have an electronic shutter, but I’ve never found the sound from the mechanical shutter to be objectionable – just curious, why is an electronic shutter important to you?

      • A very belated reply to Dave. I looked at some of my old V1 shots last night and am still deeply impressed by what a lovely image “look” it could give, even at ISO 3200 under mucky-yucky fluorescents. E.g., here: http://www.lwsphotos.com/Ananda-Community-Mountain-View/Community-Scenes/i-PGGTm9Z/A.

        Before the V1, I had the Nikon D3300 – and gosh I’m still impressed by what THAT camera could do. I remember shooting square dancing at ISOs from 4000 to 12,800 and getting lovely results with the 35/1.8 at 1/500 and 1/640. So I periodically do a big scout trip to look at samples and gear from the 4/3 world and smaller sensors.

        But then I go look at my stage shoots of dancers and actors in low light taken with my present Canon 6D FF and the 135/2 or the hum-drum plain-Jane 70-300 IS. And what blows me away is the sheer “cropability” of those photos. I mean, I can look at them at 100% and think, “Oh yeah, I could use that easily on the Web!”

        That was, of course, not the case with the V1 – sadly. I sure hope Nikon will take a lot of the tech from the Series 1 cameras and put it in a full-frame mirrorless body. But then they’ll probably sell it at a price point slightly under the Sony a9, and there you go. So for now I’m pretty happy to stick with the 6D which is just a great FF Volks-camera, especially with the 24-105, 135, and 16-35 F4 IS (yeah, I had to scrape pennies for that L glass – and put a serious dent in PayPal Credit).

        • P.S. A big shout for the Nikon 1 Series lenses, especially the more expen$ive ones. The 6.7-18 was an absolute dream for a school classroom photographer, and Thomas Stirr’s photos with the 10-100 are wonderful. Of course the 70-300 was just outstanding, but $1000…

  2. recently got a Olympus 1.9x converter for my 30-110mm. works great. gives me swirly bokeh.
    I wish v1 offers focus peaking with adapter manual lenses and also bracketing.
    I also recently got a NX2000 (bought on impulse) which I sold quickly. The V1 output has that very pleasant grain and much much more usable output.
    Looking forward to get a 18.5mm for low light conditions, though am worried about not being wide enough.

  3. Hi there,
    Bit late to the party.
    I’m a big fan of the V1 for a lot of the reasons you mention.
    I will say however, you really get the best out of it in lightroom. Can make a huge difference.
    It’s the camera I’ve sold a few prints from too, that’s against various full frame offerings like the d800E.
    That whole gallery is from the V1 and I think is a decent representation of what it can do.

  4. I’m a great fan of my Nikon V1, I’m not a great fan of Nikon support. The V1 comes with a chipped battery. After two years of normal use, the camera showed the message that I needed to replace the battery. That same battery worked just fine in a Nikon D800 (this fullframe camera uses the same battery). So I contacted Nikon support (Benelux). They told me to send in the battery, so I did. Next, they sent me a message stating that batteries are not covered by warranty, and they charged 20 euro for them to send it back. I told them they could keep it. I bought two non-branded batteries on $bay and they do their job just fine. Though the V1 is a good camera, this total disrespect of the consumer was a big turnoff and I’m not sure I’ll ever buy a Nikon camera again. I hate built-in obsoleteness and distrust multinationals choosing that path.

  5. I want to chime in and say that the v1 is a great camera for the right person! I used to own one. When it comes to the kit lens 10-30mm I do not agree with the author. When I bought my v1 I only had the kit lens and I remember how disappointed I was with the pictures. I felt regret over buying the camera. But i gave it another chance. I wanted to try other lenses tho so I bought the 10 and the 18,5. With these lenses on the v1 you can really take fantastic pictures! These bring out the power of the v1. I love the colors, the sharpness and the overall rendering of the images.
    Here’s a link to my Flickr page and my v1 pictures.


  6. I have the V1 sitting on my desk as I’m reading this article. I’ve got Leica M’s, Olympus OMD system, Contax ( remember them? ) Ricoh and lord knows what else in the photo cupboard. I use the Nikon V1 more than most of them if I’m honest. Features and sensor sizes don’t always make a better camera. The V1 reminds me of my old Nikon EM back in the day which also got trashed by most, because hey. it wasn’t as fancy as a Nikon F3 or whatever, But it was a great easy to use camera that was fun and the quality was right there in the results. The V1 is just like this.And the images are sharp with good color and no image quality problems that I can see.I personally don’t care about which camera is the best, or gives better resolution for pixel peeping, I care that it works for me and gives great results. The V1 does. And I’d just like to commend Nikon for putting a simple easy to see, easy to set menu on it, Another reason I like it. Yes the moving mode dial is a joke but if like me, you mostly take stills, just tape it in place and leave it there. Job done. Of all the Nikon’s out there, in terms of feel, shape and pure photographic enjoyment, I like the Nikon V1 the best. It’s actually a really, really good camera if you’re willing to give it a try.

  7. I don’t get the hipe and the quality is very average. Take into account that I’m a Nikon shooter and I think that Nikon should abandon the 1 system as soon as possible.

    • You’ve obviously never used one and haven’t seen the stunning work of Thom Stirr who uses one for professional work. I use ‘full frame’ cameras and have the Nikon V1 and V2 and wouldn’t have the system if it wasn’t any good.

      Personally, I can’t wait to see what the V4 is like.

      There is a whole band of Nikon 1 series users who post to a Facebook page. It has quite a following for a reason!

      I’m not a Nikon fan – I much prefer Sony, Oly and Fuji of which I have cameras. Anything I don’t like gets sold but the Nikon 1 has been with me since Steve Huff recommended it in a review. I’ve no regrets!

  8. I own 5 V1s – it the best camera to give away at weddings to anybody – the unique “best-shot” mode which records pictures back-in-time always gave me nice keepers. No other camera has this feature. I simply setup the V1s and can give it to anybody which a 10 seconds instruction. When i collect the cameras back after the wedding with hundreds of images i always have a dozen of sharp perfect pictures which had captured “the moment” – I tried this with all sorts of cameras – it only works with the V1 because of the speed and simplyness of this machine and the best-shot mode.

  9. I bought my V1 when it first came out. The prices were silly. I loved the little V1, but sold it when the Fuji X100 came out. Now I find myself looking for one at a reasonable price. Only real criticism was the high price and poor noise performance.

    However, I must agree with the other posters. The camera is capable of far, far better results than the images posted. They seem over-processed.

  10. Thanks to those of you that left some level-headed comments. For those that did not, you kinda missed the point of the article: that, for most of us, most of the time, the Nikon V1 is all you will need. I repeated this a few times. As for the quality of the pics, I never claimed to be a pro. In fact, I even mentioned I was not a pro, or an expert. I simply had a few glasses of wine and thought it would be cool to write about my new camera. My bad about the A7…..I made a mistake on that one. That’s real neat you pointed that out.

    • Thanks for a nice write-up, Jake. I have two V1’s and love them to death. The 6.7-13mm is my favorite lens, give it a try if you get a chance, I think you will like it. The large dof of this sensor size is great for candid street photos too, like the ones you seem to gravitate to. Happy shooting. Jan.

  11. Craig Litton is another great example of a V1 user with some lovely images on this site – have a look at Steve’s Mirrorless Central pages. I still really like my old V1, it was badly underestimated when it came out IMO.

    • It was a camera a bit ahead of its time with amazingly fast autofocus (maybe the fastest still in continuous autofocus of any camera?) that would still give ANY camera a match. It’s still underestimated, and by those who have never used one. It was the V3 that was the failure in my opinion.

  12. The V1 is capable of fantastic images, and of getting shots that would be much less likely in another system. I took mine on safari in Tanzania, and with the 30-110 got a snap shot of a rare (for those parts) leopard who was there for just a second before slinking back into the trees. The silent shutter and small lens made the other tourists with their DSLRs and huge zooms look and sound ridiculous.

    However, there are huge ergonomic limitations with the V1. The back dial can be taped shut, but the mushy shutter button, the ludicrous UI for changing modes, the inability to cancel the image view after shooting… and many more, all make it a struggle to love it. On the safari I got as more keepers from my Sony RX100, and it was much easier to use…

    The good news is the J5 is a revelation. Snappy, responsive, with visibly better IQ – just stick an EVF on this and I’ll have a great pair of cameras (with the 18.5 and the 30-110, and chuck in the 6.7-13 in a pocket) that weighs the same as a D750 body alone.

  13. Nikon V1 is a much more powerful camera than what is evident here. Check Steve’s older posts for what this beauty can do. Shines so well with the 18.5, 32 and the 6.7-13 lenses
    For more pro work, I love the works of Tom Stirr. He most of the time shoots with a V2/J1 and uses some crazy zooms that amateurs dislike
    As someone mentioned earlier, I prefer the RAW output from V1 than the SOOC jpegs. The jpegs again seem to be overly processed, as with the pictures here. The whites are washed out, the clouds look psychedelic, and the sepia is too artificial with fringes. Only the first picture (UW angle portrait) has some merit
    For more amateur work, I just posted on my blog after shooting with the V1. Nothing fancy, general family pictures, but the V1 is essentially the best for that

  14. I’ve shot magazine photos with a Nikon P7700 that has a 1/1.7 sensor, so yes, it isn’t the camera. I’ve also seen some amazing cell phone shots. And I agree, no one looks at a photo at 100% unless they’re being critical or curious.

  15. As a V1 owner I like to see them mentioned from time to time, I agree that they are a great looking camera, there are a few annoying issues but you learn to not worry about what you cant fix I love the mode dial moving out of stills mode all the time, I really do. I love not being able to set auto iso 100-1600, I really do . I agree with the black and white comment someone made above, really nice mono.

    Thanks Jake for taking them time to write and share some images.

    One day I’ll have some money to think about updating but for now, I will shoot with what I have and dont owe money on and I’ll use it till it wears out. I am quite sure that it is not going to last as long as my F3’s. Image quality is good enough for stuff which I’m not getting paid for.

    I am not at all convinced that image quality is the number one in photography, it’s much more about the light and developing a style. I love to look at photos, I see a lot of work on Flickr that is technically bad (compared to an A7 or a D810 or insert your fav camera), but is really compelling imagery, I guess different people like different things.

    All you V1 haters should write your own article and submit it, put your work up and why you shoot the way you do. It can be about enjoying photography rather than comparing flute size. I have an album of adequate shots with the V1 on Flickr here http://www.flickr.com/photos/berniecram/sets/72157655777033471/

    • I don’t think the people posting negative comments are V1 haters; they just think that these particular photos aren’t very good.

      How about you? Ignoring everything related to the actual camera gear discussed, do you find any of the above images compelling at all? I certainly don’t, especially compared to some of the work routinely displayed here (like that magnificent iPhone 6 shot from a few days ago with all the people on horses). Not saying that my photos are any good, but I’m not about to post them in a public forum because I at least have the insight to know that I suck.

      • Hi GK, I haven’t commented on the actual images deliberately 😉 But as I said, different people like different things. I still appreciate the time work and though that goes into submitting something. Without people writing and submitting, good bad or indifferent, there is no content. (should listen to myself and send something).

        I acknowledge that haters is probably too strong a word, but it did encourage some further comment. It is difficult to get the emphasis right in comments sometimes. For example I had put some little ‘start-sarcarsm’ and ‘end-sarcasm’ tags around my little comments on the ‘special’ features of the V1 but they were stripped out by the filters on this site when the comment was posted. The whole para doesn’t really make sense.

        Nice example of the horses iphone shot. It is great. Your shots probably don’t suck as much as you think, it is a step to put your stuff up for criticism. Don’t beat people up too much. Probably it is good to talk about images without caring what they are shot with.


  16. I wonder why (some) keep insisting sensor size doesn’t matter. Apart from the obvious DoF differences which might not matter to some), the differences in image quality simply are there, even if they don’t matter to some. As these images bear out.

    • Many pros are using micro four thirds or APS-C sensor sized camera and you would not know their work was not from full frame.
      Thom Stirr uses the Nikon 1 system for his professional work and the photos are stunning. Again, you would not know they came from a 1″ sensor camera.
      It’s how you take and process the files. The poster of this article probably hasn’t done the camera credit with his photo processing.
      You are more or less saying you can look at a photograph and say what type of sensor it came from. I doubt that you can!

      • Of course I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that, all other factors being equal, a bigger sensor will produce a different, for some better, image quality. Where’s the harm in that statement?

        • You started off by saying you ‘wonder why some keep saying sensor size doesn’t matter’. Sensor size has no effect on image quality as I illustrated.

          Each sensor size has it’s advantages. (One thing I notice about ‘full frame’ sensor is that I always seem to be having problems with dust/dirt spots and never on my 1″ sensors from the Nikons or Sony RX100 and rarely with the APS-C sensor.

          I will agree that the bigger sensor has the advantage of better image quality pictures when it’s really dark, and as you say, depth of field advantages.

          It’s surprising what you can do with these little Nikons. If it wasn’t any good I would have got rid of it a long time ago and not added to it with a Nikon V2. No one has ever said to me (or Thom Stirr as far as I know) ‘I don’t like that picture as it’s not from a large sensor camera!’

          If sensor size was that important why aren’t we all full frame users or even medium format?

          • the claim that sensor size doesn_t influence image quality is rather absurd. fact is that the modern so called full format or full frame-sensors offer much higher dynamic range than the previous generation, also noise levels have gone down considerably, and micro-detail/resolution also has gone up as well as colours have improved. You just can’t deny the facts! All that might not be of any interest to a person looking at their pics on an iPhone or print postcard-size pics. Fortunately people have different priorities.

          • Why so defensive? I wasn’t and am not negative about smaller, larger or any sensor size at all, I was just pointing out a rather obvious fact (please note the “all other factors being equal” caveat). My wife has a V3. Nice camera, well made, especially useful for filming the kids.

            Interesting, beautiful, great images can be made with any sensor size.

  17. Give a skilled pro or veteran photojournalist a V1 and they will find a way to produce art with it. A 4 MP Olympus C 4040 (and later C-8080) was enough for Alex Majoli in Iraq. Rarely does the camera make or break the final image. It is not the sensor, its size or its specs – it is simply the photographer.

  18. Posters 1 and 2 have treated both the OP and V1 with disrespect in my opinion, and I doubt either have experience with the camera.
    My wife needed a cam a couple of years ago for a trip in Asia. She wanted compact with tele and wa capability, and is only comfortable shooting with a VF. So off she went, took heaps of excellent images, and near the end survived a capsized dugout canoe in the rapids of a Nepalese river. The V1 was totally submerged for at least 15 minutes. Home again, the images were safe right up to record the ‘drowning’ but the camera would not fire up. 3 months in my cupboard and away it goes, as good as ever, except that it asks for the date to be set upon startup. Well, 2 button pushes and the need is bypassed.
    I wonder how many dslr and mirrorless would have survived better or as well as the V1?
    The V1 is very well built, fast and takes images as good as most need. Has the best battery capacity in mirrorless and I use it sometimes myself when I just want to enjoy time with a capable little camera. Perfectly happy to leave my 1D series Canon and the E-M1 home to rest.
    The author of the thread is enjoying himself and sharing his fun, why try to knock him?

    • oh, come-on. Nobody here is treating anybody else with disrespect. I personally was only referring to the article on top of the pictures and said that they – in my humble opinion – may not be the best example to prove the IQ of the Nikon. I usually do look at pictures and am not a pixel peeper. If you doubt my personal judgemnt, just have a look at our HP (unfortunately text in German)


    • Thanks, Don. I actually wrote this months ago. B. Huff seemed to have posted it, and that was nice of him. It was just a silly little article and I actually was not expecting it to get published. The pics are saturated, but so what…ya know?

      I appreciate your even-tempered response.

  19. As a V1 owner I agree with the sentiment that sensor size is not ‘that’ important, but there have been better examples posted on this site of what it is capable of.

  20. If you think there is no IQ with the Nikon1 system, please see Thomas Stirr’s work at tomstirrphotography.com. It does not match full frame or other larger sensors but within its limitations the IQ is very good. All lot depends on the photographer, subject selection, and processing.

  21. As the owner of a V1, V2, OMD EM1, a Sony A7s, and others,I kind of agree with Jake. Yes, the V1 is not the greatest IQ out there and fails in really poor light, but it is nice to use and in good light is all you need to get the job done. I love the auto-focus which, in my opinon, is faster than the EM1.

    It seems to be the thing now of adding grain to the pics (like the new Olympus Pen-F and Fuji X-Pro2) – well the V1 has lovely film like mono files.

    The OMD EM1 has a failing in very low light. The files suffer from noise in long exposures. I’ve had the camera overheat taking live view pictures in the dark.

    The Sony A7s just sees and focuses in almost pitch black that 98% of camera cannot.

    Only today I was using the V1 to capture waves crashing against a lighthouse. I’m more than pleased with the results from this ‘old’ camera. It’s lovely to use.

    We all love certain cameras for different reasons. No camera is perfect but MOST cameras will work just fine in most situations and that, I believe, is what Jake was saying. It’s more important to get the picture than immaculate image quality. In street phootgraphy the V1 excels. You are after the moment.
    For absolute pixel peepers go after a DSLR with top optics and dig deep into your pocket! Not so easy getting a decisive moment street photo with a DSLR!!!! V1 wins.

    • I’m not sure if I agree, something like an A7s and for one specific purpose (nightlife), it allows me to take better pictures than any other camera (and I was coming from a Canon 550D, so imagine the difference). Landscape photographers might say the same of one of these high res cameras, it’s all about having the right tool that evokes creativity. Be it results, or the ease of use, choose whatever works for you.

      I don’t want to sound too negative, but the “the best camera is the one that you have with you”-argument is a bit of a cliché, though I agree that having an eye for compositions, the right lighting situation and just a general feel for what is interesting is much more important. But these things come from experience, and having a camera that makes your images pretty makes that path much easier if you have the interest. Bad photography is something from all times..

  22. Unfortunately the pictures in his post shows why the Nikon V1 never really made it. The IQ just isn’t there.

  23. I agree with the author. I’m 83 and have bought cameras since the Korean War and have taken pictures Bangkok to New York and Maine to Florida. Now own probably 3 or 4 dozen cameras, 2/3 digital, plus lenses. Have left a few expensive film cameras on the beach or on buses. Sensor size is over rated and so are some multi thousand dollar cameras (not so lenses).

    • In absolute terms sensors, yes, are over rated, when we talk about pure amateurs who will never take pictures in extreme conditions, and/or will never enlarge one of their pics beyond 10 x 12 inches. But for all engaged amateurs, enthusiasts and professionals the quality of a sensor (not necessarily the size, really matters. And I am not talking about noise alone. What has definitely been over rated is the importance of resolution. Had the sensor developers fully concentrated on IQ and noise-free pictures instead of record-resolutions that nobody needs, we would be taking pictures today even at nighttime absolutely noise-free

    • Thanks, John. It was never my intention to get folks all critical. I am just relearning photography after 20 years, and wanted to share my thoughts. I appreciate your comment.

      • Hello Jake,
        I believe, nobody here wanted to hurt or insult anybody. I personally only thought the pictures shown here were not particulary well suited. I personally agree: to a certain extend sensor size is not important. it is the eye behind the VF that creates, and the sensor etc only help to translate an idea into a good or bad picture.

        But I am sure we all agree that, in critical and/or extreme conditions, it does matter. Or when you need the (technical) quality for big enlargements or quality print in books or magazines, it really matters.

        finally, just to ilustrated, have a look at those pictures I took exactly 30 years ago with a Nikon FE. NO sensor, no processor. and the lens was mostly 4.5/80-200. Then this was almost state of the art



  24. I wonder if the author is really serious about his feature. Looking at those sample pics at 100 per cent they simply look bad. well, like pictures taken with a digicam from around 2000. hardly any detail and over-saturated as well

      • John, that is exactly what I’ve just said: If you don’t look at the 100 per cent, never blow up beyond 10 x 12 maximum (most people these days don’t do enlargemnts/prints at all), it doesn’t really matter what camera you shoot with. But I believe the samples shown here are simply bad quality. look at the clouds, the colours or even resolution (even at this relatively small size).

      • Thanks, Sascha! Glad you got my back. I never really intended to get a bunch of folks all angry. I thought this was a friendly site. I suppose I forget how much time people have on their hands.

    • I am sure it’s the way they’ve been processed. They don’t look out of camera jpegs to me but jpegs that have been over manipulated. That’s not the camera I know.

Comments are closed.