UPDATE: Nikon V2 Announced, and boy is it Ugly. Details on the follow up to the V1!

The Nikon V2 Announced Soon…details on the follow up to the V1

UPDATE: Damn, the V2 is one of the ugliest cameras I have seen in many years. At least it makes it easy for me..I wont get it based on that design alone. Nikon, what have you done to the good looks and simpleness of the V1? You made it look like a coolpix P&S. Ugly. Period. Yes, looks matter to many believe it or not. It is one of the reasons many rush to the Leica, the Fuji…but I think many will be running from the V2. Especially if the IQ is not much different than the V1. Maybe I should go order one of those cheap V1 sets while I can. I gave mine away recently in a YouTube contest awaiting the V2 announcement. Arg. I do applaud them for adding some dials for control but they could have kept the same vibe with the three S’s as they did with the V1..sleek, slick, simple. Instead they went the three U’s..UN attractive, UN sexy, and UGLY. Boo.

Well it is fact, the Nikon V2 is coming and coming today. After a flood of e-mails about it I decided to post about it. Most of you know I am a fan of the V1 even though most of the readers here and most of the online photo community snubbed it. I am not one to cave to pressure so I just write my own feelings on whatever I use. The V1 was and is a fantastic camera capable of gorgeous results in the right hands, as shown by Craig Litten in this post.

The Nikon V1 is actually on super clearance right now at Amazon, nearly half the cost of when it was announced. My hopes? That the V2 is able to compete with the Sony RX100 because if it can then it will be the top dog in this category of sensor size. It can never beat the RX100 on size or pocket ability but maybe it can on IQ if this new sensor rocks the V2.

I look at this and ask “How many cameras do you need Steve”? I am happy as a pig in poop with my Leica setup and my Olympus OM-D and I will have a future RX1 as well. I do not need the V2 but if it delivers amazing IQ I would be tempted only because I absolutely love the body, size, feel, battery life, ruggedness and speed of the V1. I also hope they removed those gimmik modes on the V2 as the J2 has them intact.

I am also happy about the new lens they have coming in November which is an 18.5 1.8 giving a 50mm equivalent. A fast 50 equiv. One of many lenses this system needs. I also have a feeling that they may release the V2 in Silver as well. The above image is a mock-up as the official word has not been released yet on the camera. I noticed the 18 is being released in black, silver and white. The J2 is available in all kinds of colors but my bet is on a silver V2. We shall see.

PRICE? IT IS $799 WITHOUT A LENS – You can now pre-order it at B&H Photo.   It is $1149 with the two kit lenses and they have that available as well. 


Brand new super high-speed AF 14.25MP CMOS sensor

Brand new image processing engine EXPEED 3A

15 frames per second continuous shooting, 60 frames using electronic shutter – THIS IS FAST

Still has the slow motion capabilities

73 AF areas, 135 single AF points – The V1 was a speed demon, looks like the V2 will keep up with that

Same EVF and LCD as the V1

Full HD video just as the V1 had but not sure if there will be any changes or improvements

Shutter speed: 1/4000-30 seconds

ISO sensitivity: 160-6400


  1. Guys, I love it.

    It’s functional. It’s the real retro I want to see; I love cameras from a few years back, and it looks very unassuming and inspired from that era. LOVE THE UNASSUMING LOOKS when taking photos. Love the “oh you have a superzoom” looks.

    Don’t love how the electronic viewfinder is worse than V1’s electronic viewfinder (bad panning performance, etc.).

    Anyway, the design looks like it was inspired from superzooms of a little while back. That is approximately 3,000x better than the fake retro pastiche boxy designs we have going now that look for inspiration decades back, which have worse ergonomics because of it.

    It’s funny; the V1 was panned for not including this or that, including a decent grip and mode dial. This one is bagged for including it and looking ‘ugly’. I can only laugh at what most of you find sexy.

    If Steve weren’t such a pro, I’d be bagging him now 🙂

    If I can locate the designer(s), I’d like to show my support by making a donation and/or buying them a drink or something. The world just isn’t ready.

    But hey, if this means heavy discounting (again), I’m all for it.
    Looking forward to the sales; I definitely won’t pay full price for any camera no matter what the design.

  2. I own and – like most – I don’t mind the looks of the V1. More importantly I like the profile of the V1 + 10mm. It slips easily into a pocket because it intelligently lacks overly protruding parts. Therefore it is the first camera I almost always have with me and doesn’t force me to bring a bag of some sort.

    The V1 also seems built like a tank. So I am not worried either to have it in a pocket all the time. I did not feel like trying that with the small Nex’s; probably also because of the Nex + lens (I did not like the 16mm pancake) is bigger and has an unhandy. form factor.

    So for me in the end MUST HAVE’s are image quality (for the purpose) and ease of operation and NICE TO HAVE is a camera with good looks.

    When Nikon comes with a fast-ish portait prime for the Nikon 1 system the 1 system will have gained a permanent place in my camera line up, alongside Canon FF and Nex, for its combination of “good enough” IQ and pocketable lenses.

    So Steve, I am actually very curious what IQ Nikon managed to squeeze out of the V2’s small 14MP sensor and I hope you will have a closer look at the V2.

    For the future I hope the V3 will look more like the V1 and will have a Nex style hinged screen. But as I said before, looks are only “nice to have” in a camera.

    As Steve pointed out, when all camera’s are equally good, the camera’s design becomes a selling point. The V1 did not sell well and maybe that caused the F4 like mini DSLR styling of the V2.

    Still I believe that the Nikon 1 system deserves its place because of its combination of built quality, “good enough” IQ and pocketable lenses.

      • That’s good news Steve.. The article by you and Craig Litten raised my interest in the V1 and the Nikon 1 system as whole. I am looking forward to your findings.

  3. I recently purchased a V2 and I love it! It may not look good in a photo, but in person it is much nicer looking. It is still compact and much easier to hold than the J1 I just sold. I have 2 kids that play sports, and this camera does not disappoint. I tried the Sony NEX 5n before buying the J1, but I found it difficult when trying to take photos of my daughter playing tennis. BTW, the noisy shutter on the camera was a definite negative. I love the fact that I can silence the shutter on the 1 series cameras, not to mention the fact that I can take 30-60 fps. I love Sony’s image quality, but when half of my photos come out blurry, then image quality doesn’t really matter. I think you need to know what you’re looking for in a camera, and for all those sports parents out there, this camera is definitely worth a look! Please review the V2…I don’t think you will be disappointed. Thanks for all of your great reviews…keep them coming!

    • D Lil you made a good comment. It doesn’t look as boring when you see it and hold it. The smallness of the camera makes it seem almost cute.

      There isn’t anything futuristic or retro about it in external design and that bothers people aesthetically. Its silent shutter, super fast autofocus, viewfinder, and size got my attention so I bought one. For me what was most disappointing was the blurry shots Id get on my Nex after taking street pics. Often times those were the ones I wanted the most. This V2 is silent. No more post photo awkwardness that you get when that shutter goes off.

  4. Mr. Huff it is entirely based on your reviews of the v1 that I have become so interested in the one system. You were kind enough to find the merits of a system which few people initially found a slight interest in. While I completely understand that the V2 looks like several bouts of inbreeding with the children of the nikon f4 and the Hasselblad Lunar I think this blog post of yours is highly hypocritical. The v2 hasnt been tested yet and the specs look miles ahead except for the loss of the d7000’s battery. Assuming that the v2 is indeed a more capable camera than the v1 and considering your love of what the v1 could already do it seems a littls ridiculous not to give this new body a chance. Personally the v1’s current used prices are too good for me to pass up but I look forward to seeing what the v2 is capable of, and hopefully your readers can count on a review on this site. You do seem to be the driving force in most photographer’s interests in the one system and it would be a shame to see that change so quickly based on aesthetics.

    • Oh I plan 100% on reviewing it! I love the V1 for what it is and what it does. The V2 seems better so I will report on that..what it does and does best. It may not be the best looking camera but I am not going to trash what it is capable of because of that 🙂

      • Thankyou for clarifying so quickly. I’ll admit I was a bit worried when I read this a few weeks back, but now I’m earnestly looking forward to your review.

  5. I have had many cameras along the years, and the best I have ever had was the F2. But I must say it was really an ugly camera that would have never won a beauty contest. That’s why the V2 aesthetics don’t bother me a bit. If it’s good, I will get one, just like I got a V1.

    • I had the F2 myself, still do, looking at it now. The f2 is nothing like the V2. The lines, the cuts, the sharp edges, the design,every area of the camera design wise was over-designed. Take an F or f2 and put it next to anything at the time excpet for the Canon f1 and you will see it has no equal. The body case of the f had to be pierced or “stamped” double the amount of other ordinary camera shells. They put leather in places they didn’t need to, they had the look and feel of a serious well crafted tool like a sword or gun. the v2 looks as some said like a transfromer, with things popping out of everywhere and anywhere for the sake of god knows what. Every millimeter of the way the camera is designed counts, and the v2 is every single millimeter and inch way off the beaten path. Comparing the v2 to the f2 is like comparing a blow up doll to a real woman.

  6. I couldn’t agree more Steve.. they could be high enough to set up the initial price at $799 body only.
    I’d clearly get the RX100 or the way better NEX-6. yaiiks

  7. Thinking about the V2 i have to say I’m not too surprised that something that looks like that was made. Nikon hasnt made a great rangefinder camera since the 50’s , not counting the s remakes of a few years ago. The nikon slr guys who have been there with the Nikon F since the 60’s are now in senior management positions, and as such, they have final say on what gets released, so it’s no shock the V2 came out, as dreadful as it looks.the rangefinder designers of the era before are most likely all passed away. The rangefinder tradition in Nikon is extinct today, and the V2 proves this. The coolpix cameras never had a great reputation amongst anyone, and nikon knows this. The V2 is just a manifestation of their lack of confidence in their consumer entry line. their pricing doesnt help neither, as seen with the price slashing of the V1. Folks who bought the V1 for full retail must have higher blood pressure knowing that the V1 can now be had for about half price.

    The only options now for a mirroless non slr camera seem to be with Sony or Fuji, and to some extent Olympus and Panasonic and Samsung and Canon. Canon must be breathing a big sigh of relief knowing that they didnt make their eos m look anything like the V2.

  8. I was never too fussed about the looks of a camera ( although the OM-D looks pretty bad to me ). The ‘design’ of the V2 is something else. It’s coming from the ‘Nikon Darth Vader Design Studios’ . It’s one of those rare cameras I would only use in places like the Ganges river, under water and at night, shooting dead rats. The V1 looks quite smart in contrast, but of course it’s all matter of personal preference. There is a fine line between courage and desaster.

  9. Boy, the crowd in this page begins to sound and act as a sect. Mr. Huff says is ugly (and in the title to boot) and everybody begins to cry “ugly”. Personally, I like the looks of the V2, I find them pleasing and fun. I haven’t hold the camera and I reserve my judgment of function, etc, but looks good. I like Ricoh desings, extremely simple and functional, and this camera ressembles the GXR. I like my M3 or my H503cxi, but I don’t think they’re substantially better than this one as models for your eyes. Different, yes. And as for ergonomics, neither the H503 nor the M3 are champions. Even digital Leicas need orthopedic handles (call them thumbs-up or whatever (not very visuall pleasing, by the way)) to be held.

      • I can’t speak for you Steve but my geuss is that you won’t be able to stand the V2. Seeing as how you like rangefinders, going from the Leica to the V2 look and feel wise is like going from Mozzart to cartoon theme songs. I was eager to see the V2 weeks ago and I’d thought there would be tech improvements along with a slight gradual aesthetic improvement but I’m gobsmacked at how radically horrid the V2 looks. Talk about going 180 degrees the other way, sheeesh! As shallow as it sounds I just can’t get past the first thing I see and seeing as how a few eyars back I moved away from the slr boat, I don’t think the slr hump design of the V2’s gonna help either. Oh ,boy, I geuss it’s a used V1 for me, I”m scared to wait another year for a possibly V3 as I don’t think i have the patience to wait for fankenstein 3 to come out. I geuss I’ll get a used V2 or a used pen3 or even a Samsung nx1000 instead. Sigh.

    • jj, you have to understand that handling and looks do not give you good aeshtetic design. You have to find a balance. Take for instance the grips. You can’t make a grip that small comfortable as a big grip..never. The problem is, when you stick an slr grip on a rangefinder style body, you kill the rangefinder look. If you go half way and stick a smaller grip ( like the nex 7) on that body style it feels neither big enough or too big. That is, the grip should be big all the way or have no grip at all. Rangefinder bodies were perfected back in the 50’s and 60’s, they had a leather grip and that was it. You’d be surprised but those old rangefinders held better than any NEX 7.The slr grips are the best for comfort, but you cant stick them on a Leica m becuase it just doesnt fit the design. For a rangefiner, no grip is fine because almost always folks dont use big lenses on those types of cameras. the Leica m9 holds alot better than the nex7 because the 7’s grip is too big for the body, but yet not big enough to for comfort. The rangfinder body design was perfected 50 years ago,. You cant reinvent the wheel, and human hands have stayed pretty much the same way as well…so why bother trying to reinventing the grip?

      • Plase read about finnish and japenese design to undertsand the relation between form and function. Or about beauty in human biology terms. Maybe you will understand than beauty is more than ornament. Leicas, for instance, were designed for function, never for beauty, regardless to what many people can think.

        • ” Leicas were designed for function, never for beauty.” REALLY?

          So you would buy the Leica if it looked like the V2? Would you? So the red dot in front of the Leica is for function? A viewfinder, a mount, a shutter release, the Nikon has the same properties as the Leica..why then does the Leica form look so different to the V2 if they both DO the SAME thing? The difference is not function, its to do with their DESIGN FORM.

          What function other than taking pictures does the Leica have that any other camera doesn’t have? If the Leica is designed for function soley why don’t they just ask a 5 year old child to desgin their cameras for them? Don’t be afraid of beauty, my friend, it’s hard wired in all human beings…embrace it. the Leica form is different to Nikons V2 not because of function, but because of design form. If Leicas were designed for just function, why do they even bother with the letter and the red dot? Does the red dot and lettering help people take pictures? No, it;s there because of form. Besiudes essential things like where to put the shutter, the dial, the viewfinder, the mount, everything else is subject to design form.

          Instead of reading about finnish and Japanese design, please go out and look at the world around you, look at the cars and marvel at how they dont look like a wooden board on four wheels, look at people’s clothes and see how the colors work as a design, see how women put make up on their faces not to make them breath better but make thme “look” better. Technically, ALL cameras can look just the exact same but yet they only differ because of aesthetic differences in design, not just function. Take 50 people to design the same Leica and you will get 50 different body forms. function and form are two things, one can influence the other but you can never totally escape form, never. Your car is the best example of this. Look at your dashboard, does it look the same as other models? You cant tell me that the function of the dashboard determines the form now can you? If so, why does every dahsboard look different? It is because of aesthetic form, my friend. Please try and understand simple common sense.

          • The red dot is not exactly design neither form for Leica cameras, is decoration; its only function is identification. Many confuse a product design with presentation of that product. That’s branding. Many people who write here are obsessed with brand details, and that’s fetishism. Leica, as we know them (M series) were designed basically from 1930 (Leica I) to 1954 (Leica M3). The M3 determined M desing till now. They were designed without the infamous red dot, but with functionality as priority, given the materials and technology available at that time: brass, vulcanite, etc. Any industrial designer has the function of the object he’s designing as the basic reference of his work. The function of the red dot is identity, nothing else. The function of shape, curves, buttons is the activity of the hands and eyes while photographing. Many people here judge Leicas and other cameras as fetish objetcs, but they’re basically functional objects.

          • No no no, you got it wrong… again the point. Every single film rangefinder made from Leica to Nikon to Canon all share the same essential functions. Form does have to follow function but where function ends for the camera, form starts. You made the claim that Leicas were desinged for function, not form. Well, given that Nikon and Canon rangefinders do the same thing, why don’t they look identical to the Leicas? they do not because their form is different. Every wind up watch does the same thing, which is tell time, but they don’t look exactly identical do they? The Leica isnt perfect in form as well…even in handling it with your hands. If function in terms of how a Leica holds determines the form it’s safe to say that the camera could be better if it was shaped like a small cushion right? After all, what feels as comfortable as a cushion? i doubt the M3 can be as comfortable as that, but Leica didnt make the m3 look like a cushion did they? so form is important despite that function came first. Just because the camera is primarily designed for function doesnt necessarily mean that the little room for form isn’t important. FORM MAY FOLLOW AFTER FUNCTION BUT FROM NEVER THE LESS IS STILL IMPORTANT IN ITS OWN RIGHT. Take a car, we all know the wheels have to go somewhere, the suspension, the dash, the steering wheel, the mirrors, they all have to FUNCTION and go somewhere, yet why do every models of cars look different? You can’t tell me that the tail fins of the old cars in the 50’s wer about function, can you? You cant tell me that every design line of a Ferrari is made for aero dynamics, can you? No, they are there for form, for aethestic beauty. Look at the watch you wear, can you tell me your squre watch is made because that sqaure is a better function to tell time? No, it’s not. Rolexes are great watches on the inside, but they have form that has nothing to do with time telling on the outside as well.

            The V2 looks horrible because of it’s horrible form, not because of it’s function. It does not have to look so horrible, but it does.The V2 has the same function as any Leica, it needs a shutter, a mount, a place to put a viewfinder, so why does it not look like an m3? The form of the V2 is ugly not because of it’s function, but because of it’s ugly form. Every single product you have ever bought has form designed into it that has nothing to do with it’s function but how it should look in order to sell to certain demographics. Look closely, even simple tools like shoes are designed with different “froms” to sell, to look more masculine, or feminine. that form has got nothing to do with putting your foot into a shoe, it’s got to do with looks and sales. you can never never escape form for the sake of form in any product, If you work in an industry where you just desing products strictly for function and not form too, you will find yourself out of business or work very shortly.

          • the design of the V2 that makes it unaattractive has nothing to do with it’s function but its form. the Leica has a very simple form, it mostly follows function but aesthetic form is still there, you just need to look closer. The same with watches, they are all made for function but every watch is different in shape and form not because of function, but form, Form to help the watch sell…like any car, house, clothes, snything. You can never escape form for forms sake, form for appeal.

          • If Leicas were such a nice ergonomic design they wouldn’t need grips or thumbs-up, all doubtful aesthetic contraptions. I doubt you have really worked with any Leica M (from M3), but if you do it, my dear, you’ll see that there are hundreds of cameras since 1954 (Leica m3 birth) with better ergonomics, mainly due to japanese functional design, hence their success.

          • I have no idea what you’re blabbing about, First you say Leicas are desinged for function and not form, then you say they arent good with function cause they need grips? Dude, what are you talking about, you’re going all over the place.Take a pick, cause you’re contradicting everything you’ve ever said, you’re as lost as a hobo in a forrest.

            Better cameras due to Japanese functional design? I didn’t know the Jpanaese were so smart to put the shutter on the right and the mount in the front middle.Excuse me, let me praise the Japanese for making a camera into a rectangular box, who knew that would be such a great idea, I thought always camera should all be shaped like a ball!

            So which is it going to be this time, The leica is made of just function, or is the Leica design so bad they need grips? You say one thing and then you contradict yourself in the next comment. when you make up your mind as to what is what with function and form, then let me know…but I have a feeling you’re going to contradict yourself again. Hehehehe

          • Tthanks, you beat me to it, Ventessa. You must be a mind reader. LOL. Some folks like jj are a walking talking contradiction. Let me some up what jj said. He basically said that – Leicas are about function, not form, but their function sucks so much they need grips, that why the japanese are so smart, they made Leicas famous by making better functioning cameras, that why they have ffunction but no form, form , yet no function, function as form and function makes it function better, hence the the reason why jaopanese cameras are better than leicas, cause all cameras before the Leica that looked just like the leica functioned better, even though they have the same form, making the leica be nothing then a function only camera, except when they need grips that make it function better, so its thesame form as the japanese cameras yet the leica functions worse off, needing grips but japanese cameras dont need grips, and that why the japanese discovered function first, because they didnt copy leica, they made it for function, but not leica, cause they made it for function, not beauty, unless its a japanese camera, then the leica iss trictly for form cause it cant function.” Did I miss anything jj?

          • You are missing something: industrial design is based on function, if not is decoration. 50’s cars with tails died because tails had no real function. Sometimes people prefer decoration to function, but that’s a sign of bad design culture and other social factors better explained by semiotics. Leicas were good functional designs, in the 50’s. But the japanese improved camera’s designs. Leica’s M were good (not like cars with tails) and that’s why they endured. But later on they were overcome by japanese design. The clue: ergonomics. Anyone using a camera for real pro uses favors ergonomics. That’s why Leicas (M) are very good cameras but they’re not pro cameras anymore, except exceptions (like so many other cameras). Neither Hass 500 series are in strict sense anymore. V2 is not a dslr, but follows their design. Why we like oldies even if they’re functionally impaired is a matter for many other pages.

          • so now you’re saying that leica m cameras are good but not pro cameras. then you say the v2 follows the cthe dslr design, yet they’re functionally impaired.”

            Do you even read what you’re writing?

            Here, let me sum up all your contradictions

            1- You said leicas were made for function not form ( theyre rangefinders)

            2- Then you say the japanese improved their function ( the slr)

            3- Then you say the Leica does not function well.

            4-Then you say leicas are not pro ccameras, uh ok, then you go onto say the v2 is not a dslr but follows their design

            5 Then you say the v2 follows the design (slr) even though they’re are functionally impaired.

            Hahahahahhahaha! do you even read what you write , bro? Contradiction on contradiction on conradticton on contradiction. It has function, then it doesnt, then it has, then it doesnt, then it has , then it doesnt. I suggest you scroll up and read your posts.LOL

          • Industrial design is based on function? Wow, that’s pretty…..obvious. Next thing you’ll say is that the light bulb is made for function only. LOL. I have something in my washroom that has industrial design too, it’s called…toliet paper. Did you study “industrial design” at the university of the OBVIOUS? LOL

  10. I’m hoping that Nikon has really put function over form and it’s a good performer but yeah..I have to agree it is amazingly ugly. If ever a camera looked like it was designed by committee this is it!

    We usually criticize companies for minor upgrades but this is a case where I would rather have seen a more subtle evolution. I think the V1 combination of form and performance carved out a niche that I’m not sure the V2 will be able to hang on to.

    • Most people dismissed the V1 because of the cx sensor size and lack of manual conrols..not necessarrily its looks. The V2 takes the V1 design and just crushes it, literally. the look is so far removed fromt he v1 it’s as Nikon wanted to bury it, the problem is, there was really never anything wrong with the V1’s looks except maybe it was missing a knob and a button or two.
      the V2 appears that Nikon workers gave those who wanted what without concern for a single direction. Want a bigger grip, sure! Want more buttons? Throw them in! Want to have a flash? No problem, stick it on the viewfinder! Want a thin camera? Ok,let’s make it thin here and here and there! It’s af if different desing teams worked on different areas of the camera seperately and mailed in their results to a person whos job was to glue them altogether. This is so anti what nikon was when it came to camera design. I don;t think i’ve ever seen any ugly Canon or Nikon inter changeable lens rangefinders…EVER. But the V2 seems to herald a new area where the look of the camera is the LAST of their prioritites. If that is the case, then why even bother with design, Nikon? Why not put the camera inside a bean bag and call it a day? After all, it looks like it’s getting there.

  11. Beauty is a sensorial aspect of life not only linked to sight, but also to hearing, touch, taste and smell. Something can be not very pleasing to your eyes, but still sound wonderfully, smell elegantly, taste deliciously or feel well. A camera can be beautiful or ugly to your eyes, but there is also beauty in how it feels. A cashemere pullover feels better than an acrylic one regardless the colour or the cut of the garment. The same with cameras: there is beauty in function, there is beauty in tact, there is beauty in usability. With my eyes closed, I’d rather hold a Nikon N6000 over an FM2, even if my eyes tell me that the second one is more pleasing to my eyes. It seems to me that many people who judge here the V2 by its looks act as if the camera were a painting, something only to look at, and as an object they are never going to hold, touch or manipulate. It seems to me a very restricted vision of life and its things or beings. Maybe it comes with the tendency to look and judge things in the net without never having a real contact with them.

    • Well, I never heard of a blind photographer, have you? As for taste and smell, i don’t think the smell or taste of the V2 is the problem, it just looks like a damn ugly unwanted evil stepchild.i’m sure the V2 looking at it feels as lumpy ugly to hold as it is to look at. the Leicas arent the most comfortable things to hold either, but they combine looks with form and function. It should not be hard ot make a decent camera, they’ve been making them for many decades.Even in the far past, there arguably hasn’t been one ugly looking rangefinder ever made by Canon. After all, this is a camera, it’s not a woman, it doesn’t cook or clean or dress up all pretty for a night in town, it’s a really ugly camera that would be ok if it was 300 dollars, not near a grand. We are paying for the thing, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a nice looking camera..not even the slightest. I wouldn;t wear a cashmear if it had pink polka dot designs with x-mas trims. Looks arent everything, but sometimes they are the ONLY thing that matters.

    • If a blind man held the V2 I’m sure all the clunky lumpy clunks on it would make him think he’s reading the dead sea scrolls. It’s ok,it’s just a camera but the V2 is as ugly as heck.LOL

    • Well said! Also, based only on visual appearance, I would say that a camera with an external viewfinder mounted on top (Leica X, Olympus Pen, ..) is far more ugly. Never hear anybody talking about that …

      • The viewfinders on top of good looking cameras may look a little bulbous but the camera still looks good. the high end pens do look good, even when view them in reverse in front of a mirror. Tkae a look see, the pens are really well designed if they took that amount of time to fine tune ever millimeter. The old film rangefinders with their external optical finders looked cool and neat. The ovfs on the lecia x looks cool as well. The V2 however looks neither cool or neat, but some dork in highschool whos trying to hard for attention. the V2 is overdone andnot overdone in a refining way, but more like a buffet kind of way.It’s big in some areas, then thin, then big. The lines go everywhere, the grip is a large rectangular block, the hump looks fused on, its a mish mash of mish mash. It’s an ugly dslr yet it’s also an ugly CSC, it looks like a bad PS camera but it’s not. It’s supposed to be an advanced model but it isn’t. I thoight that one of the strong points for leaving the dslr was leaving the look behind as well. Looks like the slrs boys at Nikon can’t seem to leave it behind as well. I don’t know what their past rangefinder designers would have felt about the V2 but seeing as how they’re all deceased or retired, I’d say it’s not praise. Nikon fanboys are going to have to endure the V2 baggage for quite some time before it’s all said and done. Ugliest camera upgrade, by FAR! LOL

    • Dude, were not talking about a woman here…it’s a camera, and a damn expensive ugly looking one to boot. Humans have no choice as to how they look, but there is NO excuse for someone who is supposed to be a professional graphics designer to come up with that hideous thing. if it’s all about comfort and function then why not make a camera as soft as a foam pillow? Seeing as how that’s more comfortable to hold with your eyses closed, right? for beauty to exist, there must be ugly, right? But by god, there is no excuse for any man or woman to desing such a foul looking thing.

  12. Steve, even if I would not buy into another camera system (I’m not so affluent and the V1 has some characteristics that are shortcomings TO ME) and I like more a look similar to my G3, I concur to you that the V1 has a more nice and peculiar look. This later iteration seems like “if you wanna look pro, your camera CAN’T look too much different to a dslr”…
    Only positive thing in this story, at half a price the V1 is a steal, and being me a slave to GAS if the stocks will last until Xmas, I’ll have serious trouble not considering it…

  13. Next to V2, V1 looks neat! It was or at least now is not a design failure! I wished they add only mode dials on the top of the V1, yet they over-compensated my desire! Nikon engineers aim V2 to be GH3 with 1″ sensor.

    • Exactly.

      The new design of the V2 seems focused on reducing size and weight while improving grip.

      As a V1 owner, I would have preferred the more evolutionary design approach you suggested of improving the dials and controls for a more useful user interface.

      I find the “self timer” button in exactly the wrong place. I would have wanted exposure compensation, white balance, and iso selection a more useful set of choices on the rear dial. I also think the OK button can double as the menu button.

  14. I could live with ugly, but cannot live with the price. For $1000 I would expect an undersize sensor camera kit with two zoom lenses and a standard fast prime. Otherwise, what’s the point?

  15. The black one look like v1 dearth vader, the white one looks like an empire soldier v1…. The cheap helmet, the plastic and cheese…da da da da daddaaaaaaa …… Wellcome to the dark side

  16. There is good news folks, when a camera looks this bad, there’s no where to go but up. The V3 , should it ever be made, cannot possibly look as bad as the V2. Or can it? LOL

  17. Seems like the line is drawn between both sides of camera design. The slr or rangefinder camp. I prefer rangefinder as slrs are now the norm. I will never buy any csc that shaped like a slr ( ie- om-d,nx 20, gh, g series) because I know that the more dslr csc cameras people buy..the MORE SLR LOOKING CSC cameras the companies will make. slr cameras arent retro, seeing as they have been around for half a century.

    Remember folks, it’s a slippery slope, first you buy a camera that has bigger lenses, then the camera starts looking like a dslr, than the camera gets as big as a dslr ( GH3), then you’ll wonder why all cameras are basically dslrs without the mirror and have a smaller sensor yet you’re paying dslr prices. The om d and the panasonic g series is what started the dslr csc nonsense and you vote with what you buy. The more gh cameras and om ds and now the v2’s you buy, the more you tell camera makers you like dslr wannbe cameras. The nex cameras are under designed in terms of looks and it is neither pretty or ugly, it looks like apack of cigs but the V2 looks like a hodge podge of different cameras stuck together without any direction. It’s as if every turn on the camera is an attempt at being uglier on purpose. Maybe the V1 looked too good and it was stealing some business from the entry level Nikon dslrs, who knows but when a camera gets ths ugly there must be a reason or just plain insanity on Nikons part. Anyone who says looks dont matter is either a 40 year old virgin or has no taste whatsoever. Mabe Nikon hired someoen from Kodaks design department, im perplexed at how far different and ugly it looks from the V1 and it is uncalled for.. Nikon. Count another year lost and wasted R&D, just like when sony introduced those hideous a230 330 cameras with those god awful grips. The V2 will be dead on arrival. The only cameras i can think of that are uglier where those Olympus hotdog film megazoom cameras back in the day. God, that V1 is as ugly as a Klingon

  18. I think it looks fine. But If I wanted to buy a compact camera with an undersized sensor, I’d buy many of the super-zoom, fixed lens alternatives, and get an equally good camera for half the price, with all the lenses I’d need. Before I had my Nikon D300 I had a Canon Powershot Pro 1, and you know, it was really not a bad camera.

  19. OMFG….that V2 is UG-GA-LEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Anyone here who ever said that the V1 was ugly should start apologizing to it….NOW. I was tempted to get the V1 because of Steve’s informative review, now it looks like the V1 is the only choice in town. I’ll just wait till the price hits even lower or I’ll get a second hand one. and for those who say looks don’t matter in a camera…well, would they buy the Leica m if it looked like… the V2? I can’t blame anyone born pretty or ugly as they have no choice but there is really NO excuse for anyone to design such an ugly device…uuuugghh. It’s a cross betwen a NEX 7 and a Nikon F4 and some PS superzoom camera. Nikon must have caught the Minolta disease of ‘changing something eventhough it was never broken’ disease. I’m so disturbed about how ugly it is I don’t even care about the specs or the upgrades cause I sure don’t wanna be seen holdng a thing that looks like POS.

    The only thing I can see that may be a silver lining on the cloud is that Nikon have done what Panosonic did when they ticked off there gf users with the gf2 and 3, they then had to make a gx2 later to compensate. Cahnces are, they may save the V1 look for another camera down the road..but that’s a geuss. Meantime, god is that thing ugly! People who use csc are running away from the dslr look and now it seems like more and more csc cameras areheading back there. The om-d, the Samsung nx20, the gh3, and now the V2. Pretty soon when they get bigger ,folks are going to have to wonder if there was ever any benefit to leaving the dslr. Looks like the choices are more and more clear for those folks, a Fuji x or a Sony nex6. The V2 is a clear example of people who want a smaller camera but can’t seem to leave the dslr look behind. Suddenly, the eos m is starting to look a hell lot better.

    • Yes, yes and yes. I commented yesterday about haw nice the v1 was in design and to use and this morning we find that instead of evolution we have this mishmash of visual pollution. It’s like part of the design brief was to see how many ugly bits they could reference from the f4/f801 era of slrs. If they wanted to reference something nikon, whats wrong with the nikon s?

      • It may be because the rangefinder designers are all dead or in their 90’s and reitred from the company.. Given that the slr desgng folks are now seniors at Nikon I’m sure they still hold alot affection for it, given that peoples egos have no bounds these days. We can only vote with what we buy and i sure as heck aint going to buy the V2, unless it’s already bought and it’s dirt cheap in some 2nd hand store, but chances are I’ll get a v1 long before that happens. I can’t believe Nikon just stuck a knife in every v1 users back by releasing that POS. At 900, you’d think they can make a pretty looking camera, or even stuck a m body shell over it…but noooooo, it’s either ugly or nothing at all. I can almost hear all those poor rangefinder designers who have helped to build Nikon to what it is, rolling in their graves right now.

  20. Steve, yes it’s ugly and looks like the designer watched too many “Batman” movies, but it still has that amazing Nikon 1 technology and then some. Plus the amazing 85mm (equiv.) f/1.2 lens and more coming. If the image quality is even almost as good as the RX100 then it may just be a viable professional tool in the right hands. I sure hope you’ll be able to review one… please!


  21. Steve, you know your are going to catch some heat from the Nikon fanboys with this post. I don’t think it is horrible looking, it just looks like the 6 year old coolpix my mother uses (with a $1000 price tag).

  22. Hard to tell from the pictures, but the V2 looks considerably larger than the V1.

    I liked the size and design of the V1: small and plain enough to be discrete, big enough to get ahold of. (I’m not a fan of tiny, pocketable cameras). As others have said, the V2 looks like a bridge camera or a small dslr.

    I’ll have to wait and see. If the V2 is close to the size of my OMD, then I’m not sure why I would want both.

    • Well the V2 is smaller and ligher than the V1.

      If you look at the pictures, the EVF/Flash housing is accentuated because the front edge is beveled. This reduces the size of the body. It looks even more out of balance because the body is THINNER than the V1 between the grip and the lens mount. This is the same approach Sony took with the Nex 5 and especially the 6.

      The EVF is moved to the right (as you look at the camera from the lens mount side) which means it is closer to the left as you look through the EVF. This should reduce the nose marks on the LCD.

      The EVF is also not the same Matte Black as the EVF cover on the V1. It also has the NIKON logo on it.

      It looks to me to be proportioned similarly to the Nikon F Photomic.

      I will bet that in the hand, this will be a great camera to shoot pictures with. The new mode and control dials will make this a much less frustrating camera than the V1.

      The issue that needs review is how has the camera’s software function.

      What is the preview delay? Can Preview be turned off? Can the camera operate in aperture priority mode with adapted lenses?

      Just like when the V1 was released, the V2 needs to be evaluated as a tool. Who cares if it is ugly. Only the model in her bikini needs to be pretty.

      • I agree. It’s a shame that Nikon didn’t bring this one out in the first place. Perhaps than I wouldn’t had to sell my V1 after 4 months of frustration on the ergonomics

      • Joel: You’re right. I looked up the dimensions, and the V2 is 6mm taller than the V1 (probably because of the new pop-up flash) but the other dimensions are the same or smaller, and the weight is 6 grams less.

        In addition, while I think the V1 is “prettier”, I did have to buy an add-on grip for mine, because the V1 shape is a little hard to get ahold of. Looking carefully at the three-view pictures of the V2 it looks like it will be much more comfortable to hold and efficient to use than the V1.

        Love that they added a PASM dial, and the normal buttons on the back. But they sure could have made it look nicer. 🙁

      • “Who cares if it’s ugly?” If you’re ok with buying a car that looks like a sardine can then you can say that. LOL


    Thanks for the honesty there, Steve.
    If you don’t look at it …it sounds so good on paper.
    Kind of like most of the women I have dated…..

  24. The NEX-like styling with chunky add ons doesn’t grab me. I preferred the sleek look of the V1. But competition from NEX put aside, it wouldn’t surprise me if Nikon’s own research found that customers who might by a Nikon DSLR but wanted a smaller camera found the styling too simple implying a less capable camera? Just a guess. Or maybe the shape is all about competing with NEX.

    If I wanted a NEX-shape, I’d pay less for a NEX-5N or more for a NEX-6.

    If wanted a fast focus smaller sensor camera I’m certain that an Olympus OM-D would be my choice and it won’t be any larger than the V2 (although a nice lens might tip the scale).

  25. Oh dear, what have Nikon given birth to. This is the ugliest camera I have seen for some time. Of course design is important, and although not necessary for functionality it is important as a selling point.

    I just can’t understand why Nikon did not leave the V1 design as it was, which I thought a rather good design and concentrate on the electronics.

    I am sure it will take excellent photographs – after all it is a Nikon.

  26. Well, I feel so much better now about ordering yesterday a V1 (refurb).
    The V2 loses the look and feel of a stealth camera.

    Even though I have a collection of Canon (for indie film work), OM-D, NEX 5n, Lumix GF2, and GoPro… I still didn’t have a stealth camera for street photography (which my good Florida friend, Craig Litten got me hooked on)… or a quiet shutter camera, for shooting on movie sets.
    After seeing so many of Craig’s beautiful shots from the V1, I really think this will be a keeper.

    BTW – If I had won your V1, I might have let you have it back… not!

  27. And how is the V2 uglier than a NEX5 with a clip on EVF? They look pretty much the same.

    I never saw Steve complaining that the Leica XP2 with the EVF attached look ugly.

    • It is simply an uglier camera. Remember I was a huge fan of the V1..taking loads of attacks for sticking up for it, and I still do. The V1 is great. Part of what I enjoyed was the style, build, feel and simplicity. Now Nikon hits it over the head with an ugly stick..I am disappointed is all, so I state this fact along with hundreds of other sites are doing. Because it is fact. As for the X2, I did in fact complain about the huge ugly EVF which made it look like it was giving birth to some sort of monstrosity. As for the NEX-6 and EVF..I also complained that it would be much better internally..then came the NEX-7 and i no longer owned the 5. Still, the 5 is MUCH more attractive than this camera, even with the EVF attached. V2= Uglier than any NEX, X2, etc. I’m sure it will indeed be an improvement over the V1 and it will be highly capable but for some…they have to bond with the camera for this to happen. Kind of like being forced to go on a blind date with someone you are just not physically or emotionally attracted to. It never works.

      But on the flip side, some may think this is the best looking camera Nikon has put out. We all have opinions, what I wrote is only mine.

      • Agree. V2 is ugly. There is no way this camera should have left the drawing board.

        As for being attracted to people on blind dates,there’s always a chance that someone you’re not initially attracted to can grow on you later on because humans can talk and their personality can come through but a camera never changes, so if the camera doesn’t get it right the first time, it’s a lost cause. I still can’t get over how ugly that thing is. From simple V1 chic to now a toy transformer camera. It would be nicer if they gave the camera a name as it’s design makes it look like it could drive you around town and wash your dishes. this camera is Nikons version of the gf2,3, the ko1, the nx20, and every lomo ever made.

        Oh and didIi mention that the V2 is ugly?

  28. V2 reminds me of a Nex body that grew a viewfinder. Actually it would be interesting to see in person as the dimensions are fairly compact …at least lengthwise it is more compact. I wonder how the market, used to rangefinder styles, reacted to the first DSLRs .

  29. Can’t say I understand the ” its ugly” jibes. Don’t get it at all.

    It appears to be a significant improvement over the V1. More resolution, more controls rather than going through menus, together with new lenses. Chances are it will be even faster and more resolved than the V1, given that Nikon have had the chance to evolve and develop the camera and learn from the V1.

    All this talk about the looks is pretty dumb IMO.

    • Looks sells, that’s the main point. Reason why apple is so popular now, girls and guys total flock over their design even though the competitor is twice as cheap and performs exactly the same.

  30. Odd that so many people focus on “ugly”, “pretty”, “sexy” etc.
    How about the ability to take pictures ?

    I find it neither pretty nor ugly, and in any case it would be irrelevant to me chosing it or not.
    Some REAL issues with V1 have been addressed with V2.
    PASM dial. Proper grip. Integral flash. Better placement of controls/dial. Resolution is upped.
    Only really important issue that needs to be answered is if the sensor is now competitive with the best of the competition IQ-wise.

    • So many focus on this because it is reality. ANY camera today can take gorgeous photos without compromise…really. Choose an OM-D, Fuji, Sony, Pentax, Ricoh, Leica, Nikon V1…you can can works of art with any of them. With that in mind..why would one choose something as ugly as the V2 to do this when there are so many others who not only do just as good, but look much nicer..sexier…prettier 🙂

      Sure it has a dial now but so does the Fuji X-E1..so does the X100..so does the OM-D..so does the Sony NEX-6 and 7. For me, what set the V1 apart was the style, shape, design and the fact that it was fast and provided great image quality. If they took away the gimmick modes, added a dial and changed the sensor that would have been perfect IMO.

      Ugly digital cameras have a way of not selling well. I think Pentax had this issue recently.

      • I must belong to a dying breed.
        I find the style of OM-D pretty but also phony. I wouldnt choose OM-D because of its retro SLR-like design.

          • I wrote it a bit wrong.
            Should have been: “If I would choose the OM-D, it wouldnt be because of its retro-SLR design”.

          • slrs arent retro, they’ve been around since the 60’s. It’s the rangefinders that are retro because they came before the dslrs. The dslr look is a dime a dozen..no millions.

      • I think the V2 is going to be an excellent street shooter if the IQ proves to be a significant step up. I am a V1 user so am very excited about the ergonomic enhancements and external controls. These improvements on top of the already snappiness would be a dream for me personally. I also think the grip is going to be an excellent addition (BTW the grip is much applauded on the Nexs, why are people so negative about it on this V2…?)

        I certainly don’t think it is good looking (like an E-P3 or X-E1) but frankly it just look FUNCTIONAL which is not a bad thing. It is no uglier than any dSLRs afterall!! 🙂

        • no, some dlsrs look pretty good, such as the 7d or eso 1d’s or nikon d3’s. This camera the V2 is neither a dslr or Ps or anything but a mixing bowl of dumb ideas thrown together. “lets make a big grip, sure! Lets make a EVf hump and stick the flash in there as well! Sure! Lets make two knobs like the nex 7! Sure! anything goes!” If I was a nikon employee of any sort, I’d be ashamed of this camera. it’ll be ok if it was a 300 dollar camra..but a 900 dollar camera? it’s as much if not more than an eos m. And all the folks here that were saying how uninspired the eos m was to look at, well, the Nikon V2 sure is inspiring. Inspiringly Ugly as Sin.

      • Agree with Steve, looks arent everything but they can’t be overlooked. All cameras nowadays can do the same job but how many people would want to spend that kind of money on an ugly camera? Improvement or upgrade doesn’t just mean an upgrade of technology, it’s also means an upgrade on looks. and if it can’t get any better, than leave it alone. What Nikon has done with this camera is say to it’s users that looks don’t matter to them anymore. when the NEX cameras beat your camera in looks you know somethings not right…afterall the NEX cameras look like a pack of playing cards with a handle. someone at Nikon is going to get demoted or lose their job for this…they should.With so many good graphic designers out there there is no excuse for Nikon to come up with this kind of constipated construction. the only thing left to do is give it a name and watch it transform into a clock.

  31. The V2 has just been announced and oh…my….the thing is damn dman dman damn UGLY.
    Anyone who ever thought the V1 was ugly should start apologizing to it…NOW.
    The V2 is a basatrd child between a NEX 7 and a samsung nx and a Nikon f4. Was close to getting a V1 before but now the V1 is the clear winner thanks to the ugliness of the V2. Hands down the worse design upgrade for a camera ever. One step forward, 4 steps back.

  32. I guess after the announcement there’s just a little disappointment for those who are fans of V1’s size, looks like another Nex.

  33. wow, checking the camera at dpreview at the moment. You have to admit that this is one of the most ugly cameras ever built. Now I am not even interested in the specs anymore…

  34. Fun sitting next to pros knowing my J1 was firing off faster than their big cams & keeping up with tracking,
    I did get a few inquisitive glances when i was changing lenses.

    Also the electronic shutter is silent : dslr m43 nex all too loud in quiet places.

  35. I used a V1 alongside a M43 cam on a trip (I was following a regatta around some islands) and found myself thoroughly enjoying the V1 for its EVF, AF speed combined with the reach of the 30-110 lens. Didnt need the shallow depth of field and didnt notice with all the fun I was having with the V1. The M43 was not used as much as expected.

    • Let’s hope there will be a little longer lens, soon, say 100-400 – I’d love that, even if I need a tripod for it!

    • Like you I use the V1 for the telephoto end and m4/3 for the shorter end. Works quite well. Image Quality wise the V1 is about the 12mp 4/3 level.

      Will I buy a V2? probably not now but might at the next fire sale price.

      and and 80-240 lens would be great.

  36. I suppose the appeal of the Nikon V and J cameras is that they have interchangeable lenses, shoot very fast and the fact that the crop factor the sensor provides converts tele lenses into really long lenses.

  37. Sounds very enticing! The V1 is a marvel, if you’re into wildlife photography, as it turns normal zooms into super-zooms: AF-S 70-300 VR becomes a 200-800 VR!

    • That is false beliefs. A 300 lens is and remains a 300 lens. All you have to see is what you get in the center. Now, take a FF sensor and shoot a picture and then draw the different sensor sizes from outside to inside around the object in the center. All you get is exactly the same size of the object, the change is that the surrounding gets smaller, the smaller the sensor gets, the object in the center spot stays same size. If you take a FF shot and crop out of it the 1″ sensor part, you obtain the same image as with the 1″ sensor, all you lose is what is outside that sensor range. If you shoot the 300 mm with D600 in DX mode, you get a cropped picture that looks as if you had a 720mm attached, but, that is only an illusion. What ever the sensor size is, a 300mm remains 300mm. We do not calculate the increase in lens length when we shoot APSC or smaller, we calculate the crop factor compared to FF. With a FF you make the same shot, cut out the crop and that’s it, and, you have the benefit of the FF IQ and dynamic.

      • Hi Ben, this is true in the sense of measured physical dimension of the final subject in the image, but not in terms of the detail of that subject. For example, while the bird captured in images taken with the CX and the FX will both be 1″ across (and you are right about this), the fact that the two sensors have different pixel densities (and ultimately noise performance and color range, etc) means that the *number of pixels* brought to bear on the bird will be different. In the case of the V1 – and now even more dramatically in the V2 – the number of pixels per unit surface area using the same 70-300 lens is significantly increased by using the CX camera. There is no law of physics that requires this to be true, it’s just that in 2012 the CX sensor in the 1 Series has far more dense pixels than the D800 FX sensor.

  38. The V1 is not a small camera, but it has a small sensor. That is the reason I don’t get very excited about it.

    • It’s about the size of the lenses. Have you seen how big AF lenses for FF sensors get? there’s really no pint in making a caera so small you cant hold it, or a camera body that’s small with a hotdog for a lens attached to it. Nikon isnt Sony, they dont want to make bodies the size of a pack of bubble gum cause there is no point. Human beings are the ones who use the cameras, not dwarfs.

    • Hi James,
      They are just very nice to use and light enough to take where ever you want. No not perfect, I’m sure that improvements will come along with new models.

      I wasn’t all that interested when the spec came out either but the output from the small sensor has been good enough for everything I have wanted to use it for, which I guess is ultimately the test.

  39. I know it is unlikely… but won’t it be so nice to have the V2 styled in a retro way based on th FM3a?

    I know not everyone is keen on retro but given the popularity of OM-D and Fuji, I think it could add a great deal of desirability.

    • Hi AC,

      Each to their own but one of the things I really like about my v1 is the style. I think it is good to have something different to what other manufacturers are doing stylewise. I don’t know if anyone else sees it but I have always seen design influences for the v1 when I look at it next to my Leica II, so I guess I am seeing the design as a little bit retro anyway.


    • I didn’t understand that either, till I got the one I had given to my wife back, as she decided to buy an OM-D instead. And that lead me into the land of Nikon, so now I have a V1 (perfect for wildlife), a D3200, and a D600. I used to be a Pentax man (and the wife a Pentaxian, too), but now we have just one old camera, and some old lenses left!

      I blame the V1 for all this! And the V2 promises to be even better!

  40. I agree the v1 is great camera for what it is. For me it is my ultralight kit. I also use it for wildlife with my 70-200 and 300.

    I have a couple v1 gallerries on my site with landscape examples. I am hoping for better ergonomics and better noise control.

  41. Looking forward to this, despite the fact that I feel like a chump for buying the V1 when it was $1000.

    I’m sure the new sensor will be fine, mostly hope that they’ve added some conventional buttons and dials to the outside of the camera.

    And I’m just fine with the “hump”; that’s where the viewfinder lives. The J2 is hump-free, if you really care about that. 🙂

  42. “Most of you know I am a fan of the V1 even though most of the readers here and most of the online photo community snubbed it. I am not one to cave to pressure so I just write my own feelings on whatever I use. The V1 was and is a fantastic camera capable of gorgeous”

    Well i can say from personal experience, if shallow dof is Not required V1, J1 is one of the finest digital cameras period.
    I would take V1 J1 over M43, Nex3/ 5/7, XP1 EX1 for fast snapshots ANYDAY.
    Even high iso with its VR & lightweight at 300mm handheld it outperforms M43 30mm , NEX5/7 300mm.

  43. Excuse maybe silly question, maybe have not done my homework… Is it possible to use other optics than Nikons own via an adapter on a Nikon 1 system?

      • Currently, the Nikon V1 will not meter with adapted lenses. It will operate only in manual mode. No Aperture Priority Mode.

        All Nikkon F lenses from AI to AFS will work with the FT1 adapter. AFS lenses will autofocus. Others are manual focus but Aperture Priority Mode is active.

        • Using the FT1 adapter, any lens in a Nikon mount will work aperture preferred auto in stop down mode. I tried it with a Hasselblad to Nikon adapter and it works, must be a chip setting on the FT1. Yes, a dumb adapter for the N1 will not allow any metering.

  44. I hope they have a better UI and controls geared for enthusiasts — super control panel, customizable function buttons, minimum shutter speed, higher auto ISO, allow for turning off photo review.

    And please get rid of the little hump that makes it look like a Tetris block!

        • Nooo they didn’t keep the hump they replaced it with something from the clone wars. At least I was never going to be upgrading anyway and hopefully by the time I am ready to upgrade they will have returned the force to balance.

  45. I was very curious about what Nikon can do to improve the V1. I guessed that they have to have a new killer feature idea. Now I am a very little dissatified, because it’s only a new sensor and engine.

    But as the prices of V1 Kits with 10-30mm are as low as ~ 380,- Euro here in germany now I think the V1 is the best deal for the buck, yet!

    10 or 14MP isn’t so important. 10 to 15fps is indeed great! But 10 is enough mostly.

    Steve, if you decide to get a V2, don’t forget to tell us. I’ll send you new decal kits, then 😉 I for myself think about to change from J1 to V1 due to the better battery. With my J1 I always need 1-2 batteries in my pockets to survive the day 😀

    • And what about a Nikon 1 J1 with a 10-30mm or 10mm lens for only 229 here in Belgium. That’s what I call a good deal.

  46. Thanks, Steve. I’ve learned not to snub cameras until I actually try them for myself. The Olympus OMD EM5 is an example. Thanks for all the invaluable info.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.