Looking at the images samples floating around the web almost nobody believed the Nikon J1 and V1 sensor could be as good as the bigger Micro Four Thirds sensors. And here comes the latest DxOmark test and tells you exactly the opposite story. According to their tests the sensor of the J1 is exactly as good as the latest 16 Megapixel sensor of the Panasonic G3 and better than the rest of the Micro Four Thirds cameras. Color depth and landscape is slightly better than the G3 and only at High-ISO Micro Four Thirds has a visible advantage. Anyway, Sony still has by far the best sensor of all Mirrorless cameras. The NEX-C3 has 17 more points than the J1 and I bet the new Sony NEX-5n is even better!
Click the links to see the comparisons:
Nikon J1 vs Sony NEX-C3 vs Panasonic G3
Nikon J1 vs Nikon V1 vs Olympus E-P3
Preorder links:
Nikon J1 at [shopcountry 100053].
Nikon V1 at
29 Responses
The headline is a little bit misleading, as:
“It is worth noting that the Nikon J1 achieves this good color and contrast at its lowest ISO setting—ISO 100, giving it a key advantage in term of dynamic range and color depth.
On the other hand, its low-light ISO score is a bit low: 372, which reflects the impact of the sensor size. Indeed, this score is naturally dependent on the sensor size: the bigger the sensor, the more light it captures. So even though the quality of the pixels provided by Nikon is very close to that of its main competitor, its sensor size physically limits the image quality.”
What Simon said.
Echo the above. The Nikon looks fine as long as 1) You don’t plan to shoot above 800 ISO, 2) You don’t need fast lenses, 3) You don’t need any depth of field separation, 4) You don’t need manual dials, 5) You don’t mind paying $200 more for an inferior camera.
Ha ha ha!
I dislike the use of DxOMark for just this reason. It has little to do with the actual use of the camera. Just some technical data used to try and hide the relevant issues.
the DxO Mark score is a bit missleading, as it leaves the resolution out of the equation.. so it measures only the pixel level behavior but to the score it does not matter how much pixels(therefor captured detail) there are.. in short: at pixel level the Nikon may be close to M4/3 but it still has far less pixels and can therefor capture less detail.
Obviously a Sony sensor in 1. Time for Panasonic R&D to roll up their sleeves and/or for Olympus management to look for another sensor supplier – at least for their high end models.
Nikon 1 sensor is designed ny Nikon. You can read here an interview with Masahiro Suzuki, General Manager R&D, Nikon Imaging Company:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1316730752.html
“DE: Again on the sensor… So people tend not to think of Nikon as a sensor company. Did you develop the sensor with another company? Is there a partner you work with, who does make sensors? What was the genesis of the sensor? How did it come about?
MS: We developed it; we engineered and developed this sensor inside Nikon. But for the production side, that is done by our partner.
Just as Olympus designed E-P3/PL3/PM1 sensor: http://www.43rumors.com/the-full-olympus-presentation-its-an-olympus-sensor/ . Sony/Panasonic provide the available sensor technology, while Nikon/Olympus tune it according to their needs and return the final design back for manufacturing.
This is just the preceft answer for all forum members
The Panasonic GH2 scored 60, the highest DxO score of any MFT camera.
Color Depth 21.2
Dynamic Range 11.3
Low Light ISO 655
It beats out the Nikon 1 J1 and the V1 by a considerable margin; however, the Sony NEXs do better.
GH1 had an even higher score:
Overall Score 64
Dynamic Range 11.6 Evs
Low-Light ISO 772 ISO
IIRC GH1 has banding issues. Again, something not reflected by DxO.
Or a better headlines….nikon sensor as average as m4/3….please, do not take personal anyone….
“According to their tests the sensor of the J1 is exactly as good as the latest 16 Megapixel sensor of the Panasonic G3 and better than the rest of the Micro Four Thirds cameras.”
———-
I am not completely sure you understand the meaning of “exactly”, “better” nor “the rest”.
And what Simon said.
Oh, and what Gunnar said.
Oh yeah!
This is the greatest review from DXO since when they said the 105 Nikkor was better than the Zeiss 100 f2 makro
Anyone who tried once these lenses know the truth….Zeiss is on a different league….
Samples around the web says the same story here
As usual we ‘ re going to wait and see the true DXO’ s reliability….
One can toggle between Print and Screen when viewing the measurement results if one would like to take resolution into the equation. The default setting of Print shows the performance of the sensors that takes into into account each sensor’s respective resolution printing 300dpi to a 8″ x 12″ sized print.
From the NEX-5N to the V1, what becomes glaringly apparent is how the m4/3 will improve significantly simply by getting a better performing sensor. This is something that APS-C and FF users take for granted with each succeeding generation. Panasonic needs to introduce a much better sensor and/or Olympus needs to source a better sensor elsewhere.
I’m afraid the person who came up with the title of this post doens’t understand much of what he’s reading.
The ISO score of the Nikon is half of that of the m43 cameras.
The dynamic range is *almost* the same, slightly better for the Nikon.
The difference in color depth is too small to be of any practical relevance.
Of these 3 parameters measured, the differences in dynamic range and color depth are too small to be visible to the naked human eye. The high ISO behaviour, on the other hand, is vastly inferior in the Nikon – and that, my friends, is visible even at ISO 100 (if you agree to pixel-peep).
This is what happens when one computes “overall scores” – a meaningless weighted average of various measures. Change the (arbitrary) weights and you’ll change the end results.
You should read the headline again. It simply states the fact that the Nikon sensor is as good as MFT Per the DxOmark test. The admin is not writing an opinion piece here, just sharing the news that the overall scores are equal.
If you have a problem with how DxOmark computes their scores (and I happen to agree with you), then sure, make the comment, but stating the author does not understand what he is writing is in poor taste and manners.
Sorry admin but hey…you shouldnt attack m4/3 users like that by saying their sensor is as good as the highly criticized Nikon 1 outputs lol…..
I really don’t get the DxO “overall” rating. Is ISO performance weighted at zero?
How many of you have tried the raw-files in Capture nx2? I have and was blown away by realistic and deep colours.. I got much better overall look from the Nikon 1 raw-files in C-nx2 then I have ever got from m43 raw-files in Adobe Camera Raw. The new CX-sensor in combination with Capture NX2 absolutely ROCKS! The silent electronic shutter and superfast AF does add more + to it all.
I am honestly jealous of you…I’d love to be paid by Nikon to post on rumor sites too!
Just as good or just as bad as micro four thirds? I mean, they are cute systems and all, but not generally heralded for excellent sensor performance.
@Danonino: I did the same tests and was happy with the results. It seems that most people only reading the specs and haunting the internet and after that start repeating each other. I guess it is a kind of a job of those guys to spread blah blah stories on the internet. I wonder if they ever make pictures :)… I think one should compare devices playing in the same league i.e Nikon 1 vs LX5 etc. And not Nikon 1 vs larger sensors.
I also think Nikon did a good job creating the Nikon 1 system. Price?…. well yes too much $$$ maybe.
I agree with you…the Nikon 1 system is quite good but I picked up a 1V1 when the bottom dropped out and think it is a great camera for street shooting and outdoor sports…Many people knock the system and you are right…they are tech geeks and only look at the specs…I have a micro four thirds and a Nikon DSLR as well…they all make nice images if you know what you are doing