A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Nikon Digital - Cameras and Scanners > Nikon 1v vs. Olympus Pen EP-2

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Look Read More

Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Look

Canon has announced its long-awaited 7D Mark II. Take a first look at this impressive DSLR, which will begin shipping in November 2014.

Latest Learning Articles

Portrait Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

Portrait Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial)

Learn the basics of Portrait Photography in Part II of this video tutorial, covering the essentials on timing, posing, and cropping.


Nikon 1v vs. Olympus Pen EP-2

Jack Flannery , Oct 26, 2011; 11:44 p.m.

I have an EP-2 that is my little, walkaround camera. I don't have any complaints except the AF is slow. For stills it is very good. Anyway, I'm sort of a Nikon guy and was wondering if anybody has handled the 1v and what did they think. I suppose I would just keep the Olympus as it is only a couple years old and works fine. But I am curious how well the viewfinder works, especially when compared with the Pen's. Thanks for any opinion.
Jack

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Frank B. Baiamonte , Oct 27, 2011; 12:20 a.m.

I briefly handled a 1V at a camera shop last night, it felt okay in the hand, and I liked the placement and position of the EVF. I do have an E-P2 with the VF-2 EVF, but did not have it with me to compare side by side. I don't recall the specs, but I suspect that the VF-2 may be better than the EVF on the 1V. If you don't have the (absurdly expensive IMO) VF-2, and just use the rear LCD on your E-P2, then there is a point in favor of the 1V. I like the ability to articulate the EWVF on the Olympus, but that thing does kind of sit up on top of the camera in an odd way. My only lens is the 17/2.8, and the balance of the whole package is just odd somehow. Isn't the sensor on the 1V supposed to be a lot smaller than the Micro 4/3? That would be a point against the 1V.

Ilkka Nissila , Oct 27, 2011; 07:52 a.m.

Isn't the sensor on the 1V supposed to be a lot smaller than the Micro 4/3?

Well, the relative crop is 1.35 so it's not an Earth-shattering difference. It seems that Nikon's better handling of noise partially compensates for the smaller sensor at high ISO whereas at base ISO the MFT has an edge in detail, but some of this may be due to differences in lenses. I think the Nikon product is clearly aimed for a lower image quality expectation but on the other hand at least some of the lenses are very small to compensate for that. The 10-30 and the 10mm are certainly very small.

I find I prefer the EVF of the V1 (1V is a Canon film SLR) compared to the accessory of the E-PL3. Both have a delay though so it may be difficult to time the shots.

Shun Cheung , Oct 27, 2011; 10:18 a.m.

Concerning sensor size, I have posted this area comparison a few times. The Nikon One CX format has a 13.2x8.8mm = 116.16 square mm sensor while 4/3 is 18x13.5mm = 243 square mm. In other words, CX is about 47.8% of the area of 4/3, less than half. However, the aspect ratio is different. For comparison, DX is about 44.4% of the FX area.

I have never used the V1, but I have some experience with the J1 now. Overall it is a nice camera, but the lack of convenient controls really bothers me, but as Nikon keeps on telling me, I am not among their targeted market for the Nikon One series. AF on the J1 is certainly quite fast for contrast-detect AF. I would say you can safely use the J1 for up to ISO 800. Above that, it is kind of iffy.

Hopefully I'll have an opportunity to check out the V1 soon. If there is any significant EVF viewfinder delay, I am sure it will be very annoying for any action photography.


Nikon CX Format

Sanford Edelstein , Oct 27, 2011; 10:32 a.m.

No matter how they spin it, size counts. That is why the $100 Yashicamat I bought at a garage sale took far superior photographs to my Leica M6. You would be taking a step down with the Nikon if final results is the most important thing to you.

Shun Cheung , Oct 27, 2011; 11:38 a.m.

Size certainly matters, but it is more a high-ISO issue and lens availability issue. Achieving shallow depth of field can also be an issue. Otherwise, I have printed a few images from the J1 at/near its base ISO 100 to 8.5x11 on my Epson 3880 and they look quite good.

I don't know about the Olympus EP-2, but it is much harder to control the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO on the J1, and the lack of good external flashes with some power to bounce, etc. that makes it much harder to capture excellent images in the first place. The Nikon One series is intended to be improved point and shoots. To that end I think they are fine cameras, but they simply cannot replace my DSLRs.

Peter Hamm , Oct 27, 2011; 11:48 a.m.

I was watching someone shop at Wal Mart for a new camera recently, they were moving up from Point and Shoot, and all the control that people on forums like this love is totally lost on them. They want flexibility, they want ease of use, they want small, and they don't want to mess with exposure much. They are shooting their kid playing soccer, they want some video and stills, and they are viewing on YouTube or posting on facebook or maybe printing the odd 4 x 6, and occasionally larger.

It made me realize that Nikon's "1" is a genius move for those people. They buy it and they are going to be totally delighted.

Jack Flannery , Oct 27, 2011; 12:04 p.m.

Thanks for the responses. I suppose I need to reiterate a bit. I am a motorcyclist and storage space is a bit limited sometimes. The EP-2 is great but the EVF gets in the way sometimes. The battery life on that camera is also frustrating, due to the EVF. I think I will just let this ruminate for a while, or just stick with the micro 4/3's stuff.

Leif Goodwin , Oct 27, 2011; 12:57 p.m.

Sanford Edelstein said: "No matter how they spin it, size counts. That is why the $100 Yashicamat I bought at a garage sale took far superior photographs to my Leica M6."
Because whilst they both use film with the same grain size, the Yashicamat takes larger format film, so at a given print size the Yashicamat print will have smoother tones, as the grain will be less evident. Digital is not comparable.

Ilkka Nissila , Oct 27, 2011; 01:18 p.m.

the Yashicamat takes larger format film, so at a given print size the Yashicamat print will have smoother tones, as the grain will be less evident. Digital is not comparable.

But this is exactly what is seen with different digital sensor sizes.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses