Nikon pushing on with the 1 system? It seems so!
Nikon has announced the soon to be released the video and photo light for the Nikon 1 system (and some coolpix models), the LD-1000. It is available in black or white and can be pre-ordered at Amazon HERE
I was hearing some inside info a couple of months back about a Nikon V3 and then shortly after the internet was all abuzz with rumors of the Nikon 1 demise due to the fact that the cameras did not do as well as Nikon expected. In the past three months Nikon has released the 32 1.2 lens and this video light not to mention the newer 6.7-13 Zoom lens. The 32 1.2 is constantly out of stock and every time Amazon or B&H restock it, they are gone within 3 days. I have been keeping my eye on these things as I am one who really hopes Nikon comes through with a kick ass V3 using the latest 1″ sensor tech (which is quite amazing). This will bring the 1 system and these new lenses and accessories to a new level IMO.
The V1 and V2 cameras are already kings in the usability world with speed, great color, metering and AWB. I love the V1 and own two of them. I can imagine that a V3 with the latest tech will be much better than the V1 and V2. But Nikon needs to release it and it is my feeling that they will. Hope so!
Timmi,
Murray and others are absolutely right. Quite simply, the same amount of light falling on a small portion of real estate of any given sensor, regardless of its size, will be the same. However, the total amount of light gathered by a sensor (taking into account the full real estate available) is what makes larger sensors perform better. Murray’s analysis is correct and that is the reason why the light projecting from any given f1.2 lens to a sensor, per unit area, is the same. If that doesn’t convince you, go to your local brick and mortar store, then ask them to place a N1 camera next to a nikon aps-c camera, set both cameras to manual, with the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture…using the same metering settings, you will find that both cameras will meter the same subject/scene approximately the same.
OK people, time for a dose of reality!
Let us measure the actual opening of a lens – I mean, actual physical measurements.
I have a Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens here. It’s opening is 35.7mm at full opening. When I close it down, to say, f2, it looks like it’s about 25mm. radius is half that (used to calculate surface area).
(I’m choosing f2 for 2 reasons: simplicity, and my other lens is a f2)
I also have here, a 30mm f2 lens for apsc. the opening is 15mm. It gives an focal length equivalent of 45mm (field of view). (apsc = x 1.5) (I understand that this is not a 32.5mm lens which would give us the equivalent focal length, but it’s close enough for this exercise – forgive me, but I’m not going to go out and buy lenses just to educate you – I use what I have on hand).
In the FF example, we have a surface area of the opening that is 490.6 square millimeters. 490mm2
In the APSC example, 176 square millimeters. 176mm2
For a field of view in the same league, that is almost a three-fold difference!
And I think we can all agree that in an opening three times the size, we get three times the amount of light. (yes, shocking as it may seem, light travels in a straight path – at least when it’s not being diverted by something that has the mass of the sun, or a large planet – so the light on the outer perimeter that misses your lens, isn’t going to magically bend to fit inside a smaller opening – it’ll just miss your lens!)
The focal length multiplier on the Nikon1 system is x2.7
the equivalent of a 50mm lens on Nikon1 would be 18.5mm – they happen to have a 19mm lens, so let’s use that as an example here.
19mm/2 = 9,5mm. the radius is 4.75mm, which is what we use in the formula for the surface area.
4.75mm squared times pi = 70.8square millimeters
APSC has about 2.5 times the amount of light going through the lens at f2 (a little more actually, because it was a 30mm and not 32mm lens)
Full frame has 7 times the amount of light than a Nikon1 lens at f2 with a same field of view.
No trip the hardware store or arrogant rants are going to change the very simple reality of physics.
There are two things that I find mind-boggling: you guys arguing without using your mind, and me going through all this trouble to educate you.
Timmi, this is just so much piffle. The f stop was devised a very long time ago to normalize light gathering power to focal length, i.e. the brightness per unit area in the focal plane. An f/1.2 is the same brightness per mm2 or whatever unit, irrespective of the focal length.
So while you’re right about the greater depth of field of the smaller sensor at the same equivalent focal length for the same aperture number, this has nothing to do with the illumination of the sensor.
You are adopting a simplistic view, not taking into account all factors: such as the sensor size behind it, for example. And please do explain to me how a 10mm lens at f2 can be as bright as a 50mm at f2, according to your calculations? And we are no longer down to merely sensor size on the back end, but the amount of photosites and their individual sizes as well. This is basic geometry, not rocket science.
so you are saying that at any aperture on the v1 the iso would be several stops higher than a similar aperture on full frame. Example… where 1.2 on nikon d600 would need 100 iso the nikon 1 on same aperture would be 800 iso?
No I’m not – that is a trick question as you well know – the camera’s electronics will be designed to take everything into account.
Now will they release an adapter for my SB 800 & 700? Nikon.. Nikon……. Nikon? Bueller.. Bueller….
I am still confused about the 1.2 aperture. I understand the 3.2 on full frame when you take 1.2 and multiply it by 2.7. That would concern the depth of field you would receive. But as far as light gathering is concerned would it not be the same as any 1.2 lens on any system?
No, not at all. In fact, the reason why lenses are still quoted in mm (rather than field of view), is so that you can calculate the exact surface area of the opening.
Let us take, for example, another Nikon-1 lens, 18mm f/1.8 The diameter of it’s opening is focal length divided by 1.8 giving us 10. We know the formula for surface-area is radius squared times pi (pi*r2), and this lens’ opening would be 5*5*3.14= 78.5mm2 (I’m simplifying using 3.14 for pi)
I read that the Nikon1 18mm lens has a field of view equivalent to a 50mm lens. A 50mm f/1.8 lens would have an opening of 27.8mm in diameter (radius is half that at 13.9). 13.9*13.9*pi, would give us an actual opening’s surface area of 193.2mm2.
193.2/78.5=2.46 times brighter
(mm2 expressing square millimetres)
BTW, it is in fact because of the relationship with pi, that each 1 f-stop, increases (or decreases) the opening by a factor close to 3 (in fact, 3.14)… and the effect on depth of field runs in proportion to that. Of course, out the other end of the lens, the sensor size affects DoF just as much because it influences by how much those optics have to fan out the image onto it, and how much of that they will be able to get into focus (easier with a small sensor, harder with a large sensor hence shallower DoF).
My understanding is that it will have the light gathering the same as any 32mm f1.2 lens as light gathering is a factor of aperture and focal length not sensor size. Depth of field and field of view are as an 85 f3.2 would be on full frame, but not everyone wants ultra shallow depth of field and decent bokeh is still possible anyway. I dont have a V1 but looking at the pics people have posted it is clearly a very capable unit and highly portable.
Steve, any chance of you doing a comparison of the olympus ZD 45/1.8 with the nikon 32/1.2?
I know you briefly talked about the price and system choices in your original 32/1.2 review, but one of your crazy comparisons would be great!
The V1 is my go to camera when I leave the house–it’s just so fun and easy to shoot with. A pure joy.
Same here. It’s the camera that sits in the work bag, with the 18 mm 1.8 lens attached. It’s also my go to camera for travel. It makes my M6 feel big.
I think this has all been some darn clever marketing on NIkon’s part with the V1 blowout prices. Why ? Because not only did I buy one (well two actually) but I ended up enjoying the camera so much that I then spent 4x what I paid for the camera on a lens like the 32mm f1.2 which is really a nice lens btw, and also the 6.7-14mm and 18.5mm. My “cheap” $250 camera resulted in my investing about $1500 in glass for it.
Additionally, if they do have a V3 with a RX100 quality sensor, I would easily pay $1000 for it, assuming the rest of the camera was like the v1 in terms of AF speed, metering etc. Overpriced some might say ? Sure, but I just enjoy shooting with it so much that I’ll pay that premium and I imagine plenty of other v1 converts would too.
So in a way, pretty clever. I’d otherwise never give a v3 a second look had I not spent some time with the V1, and I only spent time with the V1 because of a blowout price.
These are cute my daughter would love a camera like this!
a 32/1.2 on such a small sensor isn’t as bright as a 35/1.8 on a larger one. of course, Nikon is releasing accessories for it – they were in the planning, and the factories got tooled for them, and they went into production before the numbers were compiled and released. they have to reassess production quantities, factoring in the number of Nikon-1 systems sold, versus the ones they will not sell (the fact that the market won’t expand, but contract, for those accessories). So, of course we can expect constrained availability on what is destined to a dead-end product line.
I think your assessment is rather harsh, but not necessarily unrealistic. This whole Nikon 1 thing has become very interesting. I hope the system remains in the Nikon lineup.
A maximum aperture of 1.2 is faster than a maximum aperture of 1.8 every day of the week. Focal length has nothing to do with it, since it’s already baked into the formula.
The misinformation available on the internet is sometimes frightening.
If it were a 32mm ff equivalent – I was thinking they were quoting the equivalencies (in which case it would be a 12mm or so). I just looked up the lens, and learned it was actually 32mm, hence, equivalent to an 86mm on a full frame. I hope you can still understand the concept that is being talked about here. It would be equivalent to an aperture of 3.2 on that 86mm lens. If we took the 85mm f1.4 lenses on the market, which have the same angle of view on a larger sensor camera, they would let in 6 times more light than the 1.2 on the Nikon system and also have much much more control over depth of field. The point I was making was that, given the small sensor, the f1.2 sounds a lot better, in fact, sounds almost triple better, than what it actually delivers. Not the fault of the lens, but of the camera (small sensor) design.
‘a dead-end product line’
And you know this for a fact, do you, or is that a half-baked-opinion-expressed-as-incontertible-truth-internet-type-fact?
Obviously I meant ‘incontrovertible’. I was too annoyed to spell-check.
I think you were thinking of the French word “incontournable” which in English is “unavoidable”.
Well, it depends on how you look at it. If you are looking at the Nikon-1 line the same way as you would look at the Pentax Q line, something for the consumers who are ignorant of sensor size, depth of field, etc etc (basic camera technicalities and capabilities), then no, it has a future in that market. If you look at it as Nikon’s future mirrorless line that will be the eventual successor, or a present alternative to, mirror box systems, then yes, it has no future. It is deliberately handicapped so that Nikon don’t cannibalize sales of what they are most invested in, with the hopes that it can compete on name alone (“mirrorless”) with their competitors that offer “real” mirrorless systems, such as Sony (APSC sensor), Samsung (APSC sensor), Fujifilm (APSC sensor), and I’ll give in that the MFT is pretty close to APSC that it can also be considered, even though I don’t use that system because it offers no advantages (in size or technical) over APSC mirrorless.
Correction to my original comment (thanks Col for catching that)
I learned it’s actually a 32mm (and not FF equivalent 32mm which would make it a 12mm or so).
Let me quote DPR to clarify my original point:
“The 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 is one of the first high-end lenses for Nikon’s 1 system of mirrorless cameras. The 32mm lens gives the field of view and depth of field equivalent to an 86mm F3.2 lens on a full frame camera…”
My point still stands, however: f1.2 on such a small sensor is not as impressive as it sounds, as it’s an opening equivalent to f3.2 were this on a full frame. The several 85mm f1.4 lenses out there, available for APSC and for FF would outperform this by a wide margin.
So don’t go thinking that because you have a Nikon-1, that you have the same capabilities of APSC and even less of FF. Everything needs to be looked at in context.
oops, thanks to RONIN
I loved my Nikon V1 but just sold it along with a D700 to go with a micro four thirds setup. Just not enough versatility with the 1 system but it was great for what I paid for it.
I have read somewhere that the V3 will not be released until first quarter of 2014, but it will certainly be very interesting to see what Nikon presents to us. I own the J1 and will be looking forward to a super upgrade including a built-in EVF in the new V3.
Please, please, please offer a retro ‘Nikon SP Rangefinder’ design Nikon. I beg of you!!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
Yes, all Nikon 1 cameras have a ‘1″ class’ sensor, that’s the CX format.
In reality, CX sensors’ diagonal is smaller than 1″ (16mm instead of 25.4), but that’s the case of all sensors categorised in inches: the use of larger values goes back to the time of old tube cameras. 1″ diameter tube cameras had a smaller imaging area (similar to CX sensors). Same with 2/3″ sensors: they are not actually 2/3 of an inch in diameter but are close in size to the imaging area of a typical 2/3″ tube camera.
Ahhhh, so it is measured diagonally not horizontally.
Ok, now I get it, thanks!
Looking forward to that V3, hope they hit it out of the park!
I am confused, does the V1 and V2 use a 1″ sensor?
Is that the size of a CX sensor?
I thought it was only half an inch?
I know they use Aptina sensors, but are they 1″?
If what Steve said it true, that the V3 will use a 1″ sensor then all the lenses for the V1 and V2 would not work on the V3 which would be a huge waste.
V1 V2 V3 all use the Nikon CX which is 1″ format, not 1″ diagonal. 1″ refers to the video camera tube outer diameter; it’s an old system but roughly 1.5x the actual diagonal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_size#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes
Just to add to your statement… 1″ is 25.4mm, which is the size of the image circle, and that table lists the sensor’s actual diagonal as being 16mm.
Steven, the V1 and V2 use Aptina’s 1″ sensor, so all of the CX lenses will be compatible with any V3, should Nikon produce it.
The Nikon1 system uses a 1″ TYPE (CX) sensor. It’s a bit of a mis-nomer. There is no dimension on the sensor that is actually 1 inch. It’s 16mm diagonal. It is, however, the same size as the RX100 sensor. 🙂
I hope they will! I think the Nikon 1 system was ahead of its time, especially in terms of consumer mindsets of what’s possible with these sensors, so many didn’t even try before blasting them.
As sensors will mature, those 1″ sensors will become more and more sufficient, and then the timing may on the other hand be great for Nikon to already have a mature lens lineup.
While I find the RX100 exploit the 1″ size/performance balance to the fullest and at this point prefer that camera for these sensors, Nikon is alone with interchangeable lenses here, and if a Nikon V3 would return to the V1 design (or similar) along with a swivel LCD, I’d probably move into this system.
What jumped on me lately was also how ridiculously cheap the lenses often were.
Just sold my J1 kit a few weeks ago but if the light is bright enough to allow slow-motion video indoors then I may need to reconsider 🙂