PetaPixel

The Nikon 1 V3 Falls Short of Cheaper MFT Shooters in DxOMark Tests

dxov3_1

DxOMark is certainly not the be-all-end-all of camera sensor testing outfits, but what it has going for it is consistency and a whole lot of experience. So while you might not put much stock in their sensor scores, DxO is a great resource for comparing sensor performance between models.

We say all this because there are some Nikon fanboys who will immediately be upset by the news that DxOMark claims the new Nikon 1 V3 might not live up to its price tag.

First, the positives: even though Nikon has increased the megapixel count of the V3 sensor over previous models, it seems to have had no negative impact on color depth, dynamic range or low-light ability. But that’s sort of where the good news ends, because it hasn’t led to any measurable improvements either.

dxov3_3

And it only gets worse from there, because not only did cheaper Micro Four Thirds cameras beat out the sensor in most cases — that’s expected given the larger sensor — some compacts with the same or even smaller sensors managed to match or beat the V3 as well.

dxov3

Of course, this doesn’t mean they’re better cameras. The $500 Canon G16 and $700 Sony RX100II might outperform the V3 in DxOMark’s tests, but neither can shoot 20fps with AF tracking or 60fps without. Nor can either camera match the V3’s super-fast AF.

Still, it would have been a huge boon for Nikon had the sensor in the V3 outperformed or matched its competition, given the steep price tag the company decided to attach to the V3 at launch. Head over to DxOMark by following the link below to read the full review.

Nikon 1 V3 sensor review: Ahead by design? [DxOMark via The Phoblographer]


 
  • Neimu

    Should have been better for the price.

  • LeighMiller

    Pathetic…another camera that nobody asked for. The worst of it is that the V1 was a better camera all around. Shameful.

  • James

    When I saw the teaser the other day, i was actually excited, but I think this says it all.

  • bill

    Guess what? You don’t have to buy it!

  • bill

    If anything maybe Fuji can reverse engineer the Nikon and figure out how to make a camera that can actually focus faster than my dead grandma using her Polaroid 250

  • lord eels

    Fuji is a pain, better sony a7

  • nikon hater

    It doesn’t have to be released.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    The Fuji’s may not have the fastest autofocus – but the images from them, when used by someone who can shoot are amazing – it’s a wonderful sensor that pretty much sees in the dark…

  • Mack

    Where Nikon really falls short is in its failure to honor its warranties.

  • Simon

    The Fuji X-Trans sensor is nothing special. It’s all just heavy in-camera processing.

  • Chimpanzee

    Very disappointing performance. I was tempted by the specifications and the looks, but in the end, the image quality is what’s most important. The V3 is mediocre at best. I say, skip it and get a used V1.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Clearly you’ve never shot with one; its a fantastic sensor. And there is no processing on the RAW files I get out of my Fuji…

  • timbo

    The olympus is more than twice the price and Sony lenses are awful and need massive in camera processe to straighten their massive barrel distortion out, the canon is big and so doesn’t fit in this comparison, and the Panasonic focusing is poor with and under spec’d… so what is left… sure its compromised but only the nikon.

  • Simon

    O, I’ve shot with one Bob. Again, nothing special, just heavy in camera processing. Don’t fool yourself man. I get the same results from any 16 megapixel Micro Four Thirds camera. But who cares about that stuff anyway, this is an article about the Nikon V3 camera.

  • Nikkel

    Don’t forget the Fuji X-Trans crap. Like Simon says, heavy in camera processing to get rid of the noise.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    There is no in-camera processing when you shoot RAW files, only in the jpgs, which still look brilliant. If you think you are getting the same results from a 16mp sensor that is 30% smaller and has smaller receptors, you seriously need to bone up on your physics. Aside from the fact that the combo w/ the fuji lenses are pretty much unmatched, except in the sony cameras of the same class.

    This is coming from a pro Nikon shooter of over 25 years, who owns all of their best glass, and has used their flagship bodies my entire career.

    I’d choose the fuji’s over the Nikon V series any day of the week.

  • Florence Griffith

    actually fuji raw files are not raw…there is some processing going on there to smooth out noise…I do know this. I have shot with an X-E2…I am not a fanboy of any system…just give me what works for me…I want to like the x-trans system…but right nowthere are still issues even in the X-T1 with artifacts and that smoothing that they do …even in raw….I hope the pro 2 is the answer…that is what I am waiting for…but for me shooting in the street and sports…the fuji is too slow…miss too many images…I own a nikon 1 v1 …got it when the price bottomed out…and I love it for what it is…in good light and that is what I get usually in shooting outdoor sports….this camera can track better than most cameras except maybe the D4…enjoy your fuji and happy shooting

  • Florence Griffith

    I have a V1 and it is not for sale…I did get it when the price bottomed out…if you are an outdoor sports shooter it performs very nicely in the right hands

  • Mardock

    “I get the same results from any 16 megapixel Micro Four Thirds camera”

    HAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, of course you do.

  • barney klingenberg

    It’s possible with the latest 16mp m43’s.
    But not with the older panasonic sensors