The Proper Camera

A group of proper cameras

Proper: (adjective)  Adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; Fit; Suitable.

Introduction The march of technology has had a dramatic impact on our understanding of the concept of a camera. The rise and rise of the smartphone threatens the very survival of the camera as an independent entity. Sales of compact cameras have collapsed over the last few years. Mirrorless cameras of various kinds had an initial burst of sales but appear to have lost momentum in the marketplace. Yet we are informed DSLR sales especially at the upper price/quality end of the spectrum are doing quite well. What is going on ?

Historical notes  Until quite recently, any person who wished to make a photograph would need to use a camera. This is a device with a specific, defined purpose, namely to make photographs and having no other function. Nowadays it appears the great majority of photographs are made with smart phones. These are multifunction devices which are primarily aimed at communication.

Smart Phone-vs-Camera  It seems to me that the principal difference between these two types of device is the issue of engagement. 

A camera requires the user to engage with the device by hand, eye and brain in the considered process of making a photo. Making photos with a camera is not an afterthought to the events of a day's outing, it is one of the events.  The process is deliberative. By way of contrast, the process of making a photo with a smart phone is usually opportunistic. One does not usually set forth bearing a smartphone with the explicit intent of making photos.

A pair of mirrorless proper cameras

The Proper Camera  What are the characteristics of a camera with which the thoughtful user will be able to engage in the deliberative process of making photos ?

Having had the opportunity to use almost every kind of camera ever invented over the last 60 years I propose the following as desirable attributes of the Proper Camera.

* Responsiveness: Performance.  The device powers up promptly. The shutter fires immediately the release button is pressed. The camera is ready for the next exposure immediately after each shot. Autofocus is swift and accurate in all lighting conditions. User inputs via buttons, dials etc produce an immediate and specific response. I recently read  a review of an otherwise well specified compact camera which was reported as having a 4 second shot to shot time with RAW capture. This is ridiculous. I could manage better shot to shot times in 1969 with an all manual, auto nothing Pentax Spotmatic using manual film advance.

* Responsiveness: Engagement. The camera rewards the user's training and experience with improved operation and better results. You need to read the instruction manual and practice using the device to get the best from it. Skill is required and when acquired leads to a sense of mastery by the user who takes control of the process of making photos.   Many camera makers appear not to fully grasp the psychological importance of this issue, as evidenced by their continuing promotion of cameras which are fully automated, allegedly requiring very little skill from the user.

* Built in viewfinder.  The Australian publication "Camera, film and digital for photographers" recently featured an editorial by Paul Burrows in which he wrote "....It leaves me quite incredulous that any camera designer can seriously come up with something that's aimed at experienced shooters which doesn't have a built in finder and doesn't have any means of fitting an external one. What are they thinking ?"

I agree with Mr Burrows and would add that I think any device which wants to be taken seriously as a camera and seeks to offer the user a reason for stepping up from a smartphone, must absolutely have a built in viewfinder. I know full well that some members of user forums say they don't care about the viewfinder but sooner or later they will encounter a situation where it does matter ( bright sun, long lens, low light, need to concentrate on the subject) and then they will wish they had that viewfinder.

* Handle. Many cameras produced these days have no handle making them more difficult to hold securely than needs be. Style should follow function, not the reverse.

* Built in flash unit. Although low powered these can be very handy for filling in shadows particularly with backlit subjects.

* Ability to mount an accessory flash unit. This facility may not be used by many photographers but is mighty handy when required.

* Zoom lens (in a fixed lens camera) or availability of zoom lens(es) for an interchangeable lens camera. I spent most of my life in photography using single focal length lenses because for many years nothing else was available. But now zoom lenses of excellent quality are readily available at attractive prices I see no excuse for a camera which does not offer the versatility of a zoom lens.

* Image Quality. This needs to be substantially better than anything available in even the most advanced smartphone.

Proper cameras don't need the hump top style. This one with flat top style meets most of my criteria for a proper camera. There is a built in EVF behind the alpha symbol. The main complaint I have read about the NEX cameras is of a needlessly convoluted menu system.

Unimportant things

Many modern devices marketed as cameras come festooned with a multitude of features which have little if anything to do with the process of making photographs. So numerous are these that one sometimes wonders if there is a real camera buried under the gimmicks. They include such things as scene modes, art filters, geotagging, Wi-Fi, i-Function, motion snapshot mode, best moment capture mode, etcetera.....etcetera.... there appears to be no end to them. 

In this list of unimportant things I would also include touch screen controls about which I have written elsewhere on this blog and which I regard as useless on a hand held camera especially while eye level viewing.

This one might qualify as a proper camera if the maker  had provided it with a decent handle. Many users deal with the problem by fitting an aftermarket handle but why should they have to ?

Half baked cameras  In recent times these have been proliferating like weeds on a tennis court, desecrating the field of play and in my view likely to diminish buyer confidence in the entire camera industry. These are cameras which are missing one or several of the features of a proper camera listed above. I hesitate to mention any specific models as there are so many. In my half baked category I include all models lacking a built in viewfinder, integral handle, built in flash and availability of a zoom lens. I include all models which are sluggish in operation or so difficult to configure the task is hardly worth while. My top, or should be that be bottom,  award for most half baked camera would have to go to the Sony RX1. This camera is not necessarily worse than many others but it is equally and egregiously lacking in essential features yet costs more than most fully featured DSLR or MILC  cameras with a good quality lens.  Fitting  a full frame sensor and good quality lens into such a small package may be a technological achievement of which the Sony engineers are proud, but it would absolutely irritate the heck out of me if I had to use the thing regularly. It does not meet my criteria for a proper camera.

Back to the question   In the introduction to this little opinion piece I asked the question, "What is going on?"  In essence, why is the DSLR  the only camera type still selling well and holding or increasing market share when some people, including me, predicted that the Mirrorless ILC would now be ascendant ?

The answer, it seems to me, is simple. The DSLR is the only camera type almost all the examples of which meet my criteria for a proper camera  (Some pro level DSLR's lack a built in flash unit). The buyer of a DSLR knows they are getting an eye level viewfinder, handle, (mostly) responsive performance, decent image quality and availability of zoom lenses. The DSLR is a proper camera just as the film SLR was a proper camera for years before digital capture was invented.

Implications for the rest  I think that the camera industry as a whole is facing challenges as never before in history. I suspect the fallout will be

* A further reduction in total numbers of cameras sold each year.

* Continuing disenchantment by consumers for half baked cameras.

* Failure and/or amalgamation of several existing camera manufacturers.

* Failure of the entire Mirrorless ILC enterprise unless the makers of these cameras stop producing half baked models and step up to challenge DSLR's with fully featured proper cameras.  There is some sign this is beginning to happen but much more needs to be done.

* Now here's a thought from the left wing. If sensor manufacturers continue to improve the performance of small chips we may soon see a 1/1.7" (diagonal 9.36mm) sensor with a DXO Mark score above 70. At that point it will be possible for manufacturers to make a camera having very good to excellent image quality, with fixed, non removable superzoom lens covering a diagonal angle of view of, say, 85 (wide) to 6 (telephoto)  degrees. Given good performance and EVF quality such a camera would render interchangeable lens systems redundant for the majority of camera users. Imagine that.

Two Twin Lens M43 kits

On the left, Lumix G5 with 14-45 and 45-150mm lenses. On the right, Lumix GH3 with 12-35 and 35-100mm constant f2.8  lenses. You can see the G5 kit is smaller than the GH3 kit but not dramatically so. The cost difference is substantial though.

The Micro Four Thirds System   Is the longest established mirrorless interchangeable lens system with the greatest choice of manufacturers, bodies and lenses. There is something in the M43 system for everyone from beginner/snapshooter to expert/professional. You can have a camera with or without viewfinder, ranging in size from diminutive to substantial. You can choose from a wide range of zoom, prime and specialty lenses. You can select a low cost budget kit or something much more expensive.

Two twin lens zoom kits  A popular choice for an interchangeable lens kit is the twin zoom lens option. Zooms are rightly popular because of their versatility. Many budget kit zooms also offer very good quality and excellent value for money.

Just the details  The table below lists details for a medium budget, midrange M43 kit and a top of the range pro level M43 kit. Just for fun I included data for a budget full frame body plus top level lenses from Nikon.

Camera/Lens	Mass with batt (grams)	Dimensions (mm) Body WxHxD Lens LxDiaxDia	Box Volume (cc)	Price AUD Retail	Filter (mm)
Lumix G5	400	123x85x71	742	629	N/A
Lumix 14-45mm OIS	195	60x60	216	580	52
Lumix 45-150mm OIS	200	73x62	280	300	52
Totals	795		1238	1630
Lumix GH3	550	133x93x82	1014	1249	N/A
Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 OIS	305	74x68	342	1319	58
Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 OIS	360	100x67	449	1459	58
Totals	1215		1805	4027
Nikon D600	760	141x113x82	1306	2075	N/A
24-70mm f2.8	900	133x83	916	2090	77
70-200mm f2.8	1540	209x87	1582	2674	77
Totals	3200		3804	6839

Notes:

Standard M43 lens  For this comparison I have used the Lumix 14-45mm lens. This was the original Lumix M43 kit lens and is still available separately. On my testing (which does not include the latest 14-42mm Mk2 kit lens) the 14-45mm is worth the extra money over a standard kit zoom. It delivers better optical quality, a longer zoom range and no problems with shutter shock.

Box Volumeindicates the space in a camera bag wich would be required to carry the item(s).

Prices  Of photographic equipment are notoriously difficult to pin down as they vary between countries, with time and with the product cycle. Prices quoted are those posted by a well known Australian retailer, over the counter, GST paid, at the time of writing.

Size/price  Compared with the G5 kit, the GH3 kit has 1.5x the  mass, 1.5x the box volume and 2.5x the cost.

What are the benefits of the much more expensive GH3 kit ?

* Image Quality.  The GH3 has a better sensor with more dynamic range and less high ISO noise. The files have better ability to tolerate manipulation in Adobe Camera Raw (or Lightroom) without artefacts.  The lenses are constant f2.8 which means that in many situations particularly indoors the lens is passing 1-2 stops more light. This in turn allows the use of a lower ISO setting with further gains in image quality.

* Lens quality. The premium constant f2.8 lenses deliver better sharpness and contrast across their whole focal length and aperture range than the less expensive models. The wide aperture lenses are more readily able to separate foreground from background by selective focussing if that is required.

* Ergonomics. The GH3 provides better holding and and operating qualities for the experienced user than the G5.

* Performance. The GH3 performs at a higher level than the G5 on almost all measures.

Is the more expensive kit worth the money ?

Each individual camera buyer has to decide this one based on personal preferences, expectations and budget. In good light outdoors there is not much difference between the two kits in potential image quality. Indoors or elsewhere in low light levels, the benefits of the more expensive kit become more apparent.

What about full frame ?  I included data for the Nikon D600, a "budget" full frame DSLR just for comparison. When fitted with Nikon's top tier 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 lenses, the D600 kit is, compared to the GH3 kit:  2.6x heavier, has 2.1x more box volume and costs 1.7x as much. You get a much larger, heavier, more expensive kit which should be capable of delivering better image quality in many situations. I raise just two issues about image quality in the full frame-vs-M43 debate.

1. In many cases, picture/print quality provided by the GH3/f2.8 premium lens kit is entirely good enough for the photographic purpose. Any extra quality delivered by the larger format is difficult to see in a print. I have read many reports on user forums by photographers moving back and forth from premium M43 kits to full frame, usually Canon EOS 5D Mk 1 or 2, and finding it difficult to see a quality difference between the output files.

2. There are many photographic situations such as landscape, groups of people, etc,  when substantial depth of field is required. To achieve equal depth of field a full frame lens needs to be set two stops smaller than a M43 lens. To maintain shutter speed this requires an ISO setting two stops higher, thereby negating some of the image quality superiority of the full frame sensor.

You pays your money and makes your choice.

Nikon 1 V2 Review Part 5 Ergonomics

Nikon 1 V2 in the author's average size adult male hand. It doesn't look so bad from the top, however.........

Nikon 1 with EVF cameras   The first Nikon 1 series camera with built in EVF was the V1, announced in September 2011. This was strongly criticised by many reviewers for it's poor ergonomics. The V2, announced a year later has a completely redesigned shape. On my assessment the new shape is a big improvement, lifting my ergonomic rating from "unacceptable" to "good" but not very good or excellent.   Some  problems remain, as detailed below.  Several months ago I made a mockup camera to approximately the same dimensions (LxWxD) as the  V2, but with a full complement of hard controls suitable for the enthusiast/professional user.  The mockup is a "proof of concept" exercise which I undertook to demonstrate to myself that a highly efficient ergonomic layout can readily be incorporated into a camera the same size as a V2.

ConfigurabilityCurrent Micro 4/3 cameras offer a very high degree of configurability with the function of many buttons  and other controls being user selectable from a long list of options. Cameras like this are complex to set up but operate very efficiently in the hands of an experienced user.  The V2 by way of comparison offers no user configurable functions. You get what the masters at Nikon have decreed you shall have. And to be fair this works quite well most of the time.

Same camera, same hand as the top photo.  You can see that only the middle finger of the right hand is properly engaged with the handle. This is not a very stable hold.

Setup Phase of camera use   As with most current electronic cameras this is accomplished by making selections in the three main menus.  The options available and discussion as to the reasons for selecting one in preference to another are well described in the PDF Nikon V2 Reference Manual. I strongly recommend the V2 user download and print the whole 214 page document. It is well laid out, well written and I found it easy to understand.

There are only three Menus, Playback (which is first on the list, go figure), Shooting, the content of which changes with the  Mode  set on the Mode Dial and Setup.  The number of options available for user control falls midway between a basic compact camera and one of the latest, highly configurable (but also rather complex) Micro 4/3 cameras. The benefit is you don't have so many selections to figure out. The drawback is there are many user configured camera operations/features which are simply not offered on the V2.  Menu Resume is set by default, which means that if you leave a Menu then return the last accessed item will be active. Unfortunately there is no option for a "My Menu" which would have been handy, as several items including OIS, Silent operation, RAW/JPG and Grid overlay require a trip to the menus.

Some options common on enthusiast level electronic cameras are not available. These include histogram display, auto exposure bracketing and some form of highlight clipping warning ("blinkies"). You cannot change the size of the active AF area. You can have a grid overlaid on the image preview but only one configuration is offered and it cannot be cycled on and off with the Disp Button.  You can adjust the brightness but not color or contrast of the EVF. You cannot select the EVF display style to be the same as the Monitor style.  So many options the enthusiast photographer might expect to find are not available.

On the other hand the camera offers extensive options for white balance and many pages of complicated instructions for (JPG) Picture Control settings and adjustments. These constitute a kind of in camera equivalent to a RAW converter for users who want to output a finished photo requiring no further adjustment. That's fine but shooting RAW and processing in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom is more effective and to my mind easier to use.

Viewfinder diopter adjustment is available.

Again, same camera, same hand. If I raise my right hand so the 3rd and 4th fingers properly grip the handle, this leaves the index finger and thumb too high to properly operate their respective control modules. The handle is not high enough and is not shaped to match the hand which is trying to hold the camera and operate it at the same time.

Prepare Phase of camera use  This takes place in the several minutes before image capture, and involves configuring camera settings for the current subject material. Several items from the Shooting Menu can be accessed more quickly by pressing the F button. These are Metering, White Balance, ISO Sensitivity, Picture Control, Focus Mode and AF Area Mode. Shooting Mode is set on the Mode Dial as usual. The Multi Selector gives access to AELock/AFLock,  Exposure Compensation, Flash controls and Drive Mode.

Once you have settled into a particular style of camera use, for instance always shooting RAW or always JPG, then the Prepare Phase control options are quite adequate.

Problem solved. This mockup is the same height and just 2mm wider than the real V2. It is 4mm deeper but this has no impact on size once a lens is fitted.  It is much more comfortable, easier and more secure to hold and operate than the real V2.  All the user control modules (buttons, dials etc) lie directly under their operating finger because during the design process I put the fingers in place first, then located the buttons where the fingers wanted to find them.

Capture Phase, Holding   Holding arrangements on the V2 are better than the V1 but that would not be difficult to achieve. There is a handle, which is good but it it is shaped in flat sided, blocky style to accommodate the battery within rather than the hand which is trying to hold it.  There is no proper thumb rest. Holding a camera this size could be dramatically improved with better ergonomic design as illustrated by my mockup which has a taller, completely different shaped handle with parallel top section and a deep comfortable thumb rest.

Capture Phase, Viewing   The V2 allows viewing via Monitor or EVF with automatic switching between the two by proximity sensor. The Monitor is fixed, which allows it to be larger in size than would be possible if it were fully articulated. Some people will be happy with the monitor as provided,  however having used many cameras over the years I personally would trade some size for a fully articulating capability.  That would require the left side buttons to be relocated of course.

The Monitor provides Monitor View style with camera data superimposed over the lower part of the preview image. The EVF uses VF/DSLR syle with camera data displayed beneath the preview image. There is no option for them to have the same display style. Monitor and Viewfinder brightness can be adjusted but not color or contrast. Both Monitor and EVF display a good preview of the subject. The EVF is not as sharp or detailed as those on recent M4/3 cameras but is perfectly satisfactory as a framing/preview window. Both Monitor and EVF gain up and down with exposure compensation.

Overall the viewing experience is quite satisfactory with no serious deficits or problems.

Capture Phase, Operating  This is generally quite straightforward. Shooting Mode is set on the Mode dial then adjustments made with the Command Dial. All the buttons and dials are easily reached while holding the camera in shooting position and all operate smoothly with just the right amount of resistance and clicky feel.

The built in flash works well as a fill light source for backlit subjects. I use -1 stop flash exposure compensation for this purpose.

Some people have complained about the absence of touch screen controls but in my published evaluation touch screen controls are useless on a hand held camera especially one like the V2 which is designed to be used with an eye level viewfinder.

Press OK to activate the AF area then move it's position with the Multi Selector. This works quickly and is very effective. The only thing missing is a "return to center" function, so to return the AF area to center you have to nudge it back with the Multi Selector or switch the camera off then on again. On restart the AF area defaults to the center.

Overall camera operation is fast and efficient, making good use of the (relative to some other cameras) fairly limited suite of user control modules (buttons, dials etc).

Auto Iso  The algorithms controlling auto ISO tend to set a somewhat low ISO in low light levels, presumably to reduce image noise,  but this leads to low shutter speeds. This leaves the operator reliant on a steady hand and VR for sharp photos. VR is quite effective but of course does nothing to cope with subject movement. When using the camera indoors I find it essential to keep a constant watch on the shutter speed and switch to manual control of ISO if Auto ISO is producing shutter speeds which are too slow for handheld use.

Video  I have not yet tested video operation.

Nikon 1 V2 Review Part 4 Performance

Black   Browed Albatross.   Nikon V2, 10-100mm f4-5.6mm (Non PD) lens.  

Elements of camera evaluation  When reviewing a camera I look at four main qualities, Description, Image Quality, Performance and Ergonomics. This post details my findings about the most interesting aspect of the V2, namely it's performance.

Switch on/off   With a collapsing zoom lens mounted, the camera is switched on by rotating the lens barrel while holding down the lock button.  Switch off is by reversing this procedure.  With non collapsing lenses the camera can be switched on/off  by rotating the toggle switch around the shutter button 1/8 turn.

Shutter optionsThe camera has two shutter systems built in. Both are very capable. There is no direct way to choose between them however if [Silent Photography] is set to [Off] in the Shooting Menu, the camera will select mechanical shutter up to 5fps. If [Silent Photography] is set to [On] or the frame rate selected is greater than 5 fps, the camera will use the E-Shutter.   By the way "Silent Photography" means just that in single shot mode. The thing is so quiet it's hard to know if a photo has been taken.   At 15 fps and above the camera makes an artificial sound to let you know it is working. At 5fps with [Silent Photography] set the camera fires away without a sound which is a bit disconcerting at first.  Actually it's not absolutely silent. With one's ear pressed directly onto the lens the very soft sounds of the VR, AF and Aperture mechanisms can be heard.   If this camera had a bit better high ISO image quality it would be perfect for photography in situations where silent operation is required.

The mechanical shutter supports flash up to a shutter speed of 1/250 second and Continuous Drive/AF up to 5 frames per second.  The shutter sound is soft suggesting a physical shock absorber may be in place. I found no evidence of image blur due to shutter shock with the 10-100mm f4-5.6 lens adding confirmation to the idea that a shock absorber of some kind may be operating.

The E-Shutter supports flash to 1/60 second and is used for frame rates faster than 5 per second. I found various types of banding can occur in images made with the E-Shutter in fluorescent light. This appears to be shutter speed dependent.

EVF Performance  The EVF refreshes very fast after each exposure. So fast in fact that there is no appreciable viewfinder blackout at all, even when firing at 5 or 15 fps. I think all other makers of mirrorless cameras with EVF should beg, buy, copy or steal whatever EVF refresh technology Nikon is using in the V2 because it is very good indeed.

Phase Detect and Contrast Detect autofocus  The V2 has a very sophisticated dual autofocus system. It runs both phase detect and contrast detect, both technologies operating directly on the imaging sensor. Phase detect is used in bright light, contrast detect in low light. The camera decides which will be used.  There is no opportunity for the user to select one or the other.

Autofocus, single shot, AF-S, subject reasonably static   The Shooting Menu provides three AF-Area Modes: Auto-Area, Single-Point and Subject Tracking. Auto-Area is convenient but gives the user no control over the actual AF Area selected. Subject Tracking is a feature found in many mirrorless cameras. This endeavours to hold focus on a selected subject element as it moves laterally across the frame. If the Auto [Green camera symbol] Mode is set, the camera will use Face Detect or Auto-Area Autofocus Mode.

For all tests I used Single-Point Mode which provides the highest level of speed, user control, reliability and  accuracy.

I noted while testing that the AF system needs vertical lines (in landscape orientation) or texture on which to focus.

 Outdoors in good light the V2 focusses very fast indeed. One could hardly imagine faster AF performance. It is very sensitive in the sense that the AF system will focus promptly on the least hint of texture. It is also accurate. In my many hundreds of test photos of still subjects none was out of focus. It is however possible for the camera to focus on some subject element other than that desired. The classical case is the small bird in a tree situation. If the focus rectangle is larger than or extends beyond the edges of the subject bird the camera is likely to focus on something bright/contrasty in the vicinity of the bird, either in front of or behind the desired point. Unfortunately in their (mostly successful) efforts to simplify operation of the V2, the camera's designers have not included a facility for user control over the size of the active AF area.

Indoors in lower light levels the AF slows from lightning fast to merely prompt. Sometimes there is a little hunting before the system locks on. In very low light, without the focus assist lamp, the V2 is not in the same league as the latest Micro 4/3 cameras which are amazingly fast, sensitive and accurate. But it usually does find focus after some hunting and is reliably in focus when so indicated by the green focus rectangle and double beep.

Shot to shot time, Single Shot, AF-S, AF on each frame  After each shot, the camera will fire again just about as quickly as I can press my finger down. By the stopwatch I counted 10 shots per 3 seconds [3.6 shots per second]  pressing the shutter separately for each shot.

Autofocus Continuous, Continuous Drive, Predictive AF on a moving subject   The V2 can manage predictive AF at 5 fps [with mechanical shutter] or 15 fps [with e-Shutter] with AF on each frame. I am unaware of any other camera at any price which can match this performance.

For my initial series of tests I used motor vehicles approaching or departing the camera position and accelerating or braking as they left or approached a slow corner. I used the Nikon 1 10-100mm f4-5.6 lens at 100mm focal length for all tests. I ran several tests each with about 100 frames in lighting which varied from sunny to shade. I used a Sandisk 95MB/sec card for all tests.

5 fps, Continuous Drive, AF-C   At 5 fps the camera fired 72 RAW frames (or 88 Fine JPG) at 5 fps before the frame rate abruptly slowed indicating a full buffer. The buffer cleared in 25 seconds if I stopped firing at 72 frames. If desired, I could continue firing and/or making adjustments to camera settings with the buffer incompletely cleared.  This level of performance has been, until the arrival of the V1 and V2 cameras, only found in very expensive professional DSLRs.

15 fps, Continuous Drive, AF-C   The camera fired 47 RAW shots (or 80 Fine JPG)  in 3 seconds giving a measured rate of 15 fps, before the frame rate slowed abruptly indicating a full buffer, which cleared in 24 seconds if I made no further shots.

Setting [Auto Distortion Control] to [On] in the Shooting Menu did not slow the frame rate.

Predictive AF accuracy  Speed is all very well but if the resulting frames are not in focus all that speed is worthless. I compared the V2 at 5 and 15 fps with a Panasonic Lumix GH3 fitted with Lumix 45-150mm lens at 150mm focal length. The GH3 ran at 4.6 fps with AF-C  on each frame, filling the buffer at 28 frames.

  

Camera/Lens	Measured Frame Rate	% Frames sharply in focus	% Frames slightly unsharp	% Frames out of focus
Nikon V2/10-100mm at 100mm	5	68	30	1
Lumix GH3/45-150mm at 150mm	4.6	76	22	2
Nikon V2/10-100mm at 100mm	15	58	35	7

Comment

* It is often stated by camera reviewers that phase detect AF is better for following a moving subject than contrast detect.  These results call that view into question. With the specific equipment used in the conditions present, the Lumix GH3 [which uses contrast detect AF exclusively]  with budget zoom lens scored a slightly higher percentage of frames sharply in focus than the V2 which would have been using phase detect AF for the test photos.

My guess is that if or when Panasonic raises it's sensor sample rate to about 500 or even 1000 times per second then contrast detect AF on sensor will easily match the best phase detect systems for both speed and accuracy with predictive AF.

* The percentage of sharply in focus frames fell when the V2 frame rate went from 5 to 15 fps.

* My observation while scanning the many hundreds of test photos was that with the V2 in particular, the likelihood of a frame being sharply in focus increased if the subject was in direct sunlight [as opposed to shade] at the time of the exposure.

* It is my experience that best predictive AF performance of a camera is enabled when  AF-Tracking (Lumix) a.k.a Subject Tracking (Nikon) is set to to OFF. I always use single point AF area positioned at the frame center for this type of work.  

Manual Focus  This camera's very poor manual focus arrangements are disappointing and perhaps reveal ambivalence in the product development team about the  intended target user group. At the time of writing the only Nikon 1 series lens with a manual focus ring is the 32mm f 1.2.  To enter Manual Focus Mode the user must access the Shooting Menu or press the F Button then scroll round to the Focus Mode icon. Press OK, then scroll to the MF position. Press OK. Then press OK again. Now an analogue distance scale appears at the right of the screen, unfortunately without actual distances indicated, just an infinity sign at the top and a flower at the bottom. A box indicates the degree of screen enlargement. Zoom into the image with the Command Dial. Rotate the Multi Selector ring to move the focus point. I found it extremely difficult to judge when the image was in focus, there being no clearly defined in/out focus differentiation. The whole manual focus system is a dreadful kludge, tediously slow to operate, imprecise and almost useless in practice. Fortunately the autofocus system is generally very reliable.

Summary  The V2 delivers very good to outstanding Continuous Drive, Continuous AF, Predictive AF, EVF refresh and buffer size. Manual focus is dreadful.  It's a curious mix.

Nikon 1 V2 Review Part 3 Image Quality

Marina, Nikon 1 V2, 10-100mm f4-5.6 lens at 30mm. 

Introduction   The V2 has many features and capabilities which might make it attractive to the enthusiast photographer seeking good performance and image qualiy in a wide range of conditions. But the bottom line for any camera's appeal is it's image quality.

DXO Mark Score  DXO (dxo.com)  rates the V2 image quality at 50. This is in compact camera territory. The Sony RX100 Mk 2, with the same size sensor, scores 67, the Nikon 1 S1 with 10 mpx sensor scores 56 and the Nikon Coolpix P330 with a much smaller 1/1.7" sensor scores 54.  So, on the numbers the V2 doesn't look very appealing.  However a DXO Mark score is not the final word about image quality.

Noise    I compared the V2 in real world conditions with two cameras which I had on hand at the time, a Lumix G5 and Lumix GH3, both Micro 4/3 system cameras with a substantially larger sensor.  I used RAW files converted in Adobe Camera Raw 8.1 at default settings. You would expect the M4/3 cameras to beat the V2 and they did but but not by a great margin.

With the V2 at base ISO, I found noise easily visible in even toned shadow areas. This was not the case with the m4/3 cameras.

At high ISO levels in the range 1600-3200-6400, I found that  the V2 gave up about 0.7 stop to the G5 and  about 1.3 stops to the GH3.  In other words an ISO 1600 photo with the V2 had about the same noise level as one taken at ISO 2500 with the G5 and 4000 with the GH3.

Nikon V2

Lumix G5

Lumix GH3

Dynamic RangeUsing RAW files converted in ACR 8.1 and working the sliders to best effect, there was surprisingly little difference between the three cameras in the amount of highlight and shadow detail which could be extracted from a scene with high subject brightness range.  The main difference lay in the amount of noise present in the shadow areas. Images from the V2 had more noisy shadows then those from the G5 which in turn were more noisy than the GH3.

Exposure  I used Matrix Metering in all conditions. Over more than 2000 exposures I found very few which did not make best use of the available dynamic range of the sensor. Overtly wrong exposures were rare.

White Balance  With the camera set to Auto White Balance for all tests I found little about which to complain in any set of conditions interior or exterior.

Color  Colors were generally accurate in all conditions with few adjustments being required in ACR.

Resolution  Some years ago my main camera was a Canon EOS 20D with  an 8 Mpx sensor. I discovered that images of quite high resolution could be made with this camera given a good quality lens. The V2 has a 14 Mpx sensor which should be able to deliver very detailed images with a lens of sufficient quality. The 10-100mm f4-5.6 lens which I used for this series of tests appeared able to reveal most of the sensor resolution at it's wide end but not at the long end.

Depth of Field, ISO and Image Quality  For any given angle of view and lens aperture, a small sensor camera will exhibit more depth of field than one with a large sensor. Whether this is desirable or otherwise depends on one's requirements. For the landscape/documentary/architecture  photographer large depth of focus can be desirable as the job specification may require all subject elements to be rendered sharply. However for the portraitist, a softly blurred background is more likely to appeal.  

In many general photographic situations the IQ disadvantage suffered by small sensor cameras can be offset by the ability to use wider apertures for the same depth of field. Compare a full  frame camera to one with a Nikon CX sensor. Let us say the full frame camera requires f11 for sufficient depth of field. At the same framing the CX camera will only require f4 for the same depth of field.  This means the CX camera can use a higher shutter speed, removing the need for a tripod, or a lower ISO setting, or both.  When just ISO is used to achieve the same effective exposure, if the full frame camera needed ISO 1600, the CX camera can use ISO 200.  Now look at the DXO Mark scale of image quality ratings. You will see that 15 points on the scale is equivalent to one stop of image quality. The best full frame cameras score about 95, the V2 scores 50, which is 3 stops lower. The point of all this is that in some situations you could achieve almost the same image quality with the smaller sensor as with the larger one, in a more compact, lighter, less expensive package.  

Summary  Overall image quality of the V2 in real world practice is in line with the DXO Mark score. However images of excellent quality can be made if the ISO setting is kept to the lowest setting consistent with avoiding camera shake.