Camera Test: Is the iPhone 4s a good option for an every day camera?

Since so many people are obviously interested in the iPhone 4s and because Apple is touting the new optics as the "you-can't-believe-it's-on-a-phone camera," I figured why not give it a real world walk around test against an ordinary pocket camera.

Top: Canon PowerShot SX230 HS, below: the iPhone 4s

As much as people like to push comparisons to the max, I find no need whatsoever to compare the iPhone's camera to anything higher up the ladder than a decent consumer level camera. If you want to see still and video samples comparing it to DSLRs which are dedicated image-making machines with sensors a hundred times larger backed by hardcore processors behind state-of-the-art lenses that total thousands of dollars - look elsewhere.

The iPhone is a phone first and foremost, hence the name. It features a camera. Just keep this in mind. The sensor in the iPhone's camera is tiny. This comparison with a point-and-shoot camera isn't even really all that fair because the sensor in the Canon is larger and again, a part of a dedicated product designed to do nothing but make images.

Keeping this in mind as we dive into this comparison will help make things "fair." In addition, this isn't a comparison to prove that one is better or worse than the other. This isn't a test to see  if the iPhone can "beat" a "real" camera, but rather to see how well the 4s can hold up as a day-to-day photo device. Basically, I wanted to know, is it worth packing the extra camera for normal shooting or can the 4s serve this purpose.

If I'm doing serious shooting, I'm suing my DSLR. For fun, random, Facebook, Twitter pics, a point and shoot is far easier to work with and less cumbersome to carry. If I can get this same, or very similar, functionality in my phone, that's even better. Taking usable images and video on a device that is constantly connected with social networking and virtually every other communication avenue on earth eliminates the middle man - the computer.

So, how does it stack up?

The devices:

The iPhone 4s has an 8 megapixel sensor, a fixed aperture of f/2.4 and fixed focal length lens and no access to manual controls. The shutter is touch screen or volume button controlled and it has an LED flash. This makes it very much an Auto-only device. It also sports full 1080p video with stabilization and has geotagging built in it's files.

The Canon PowerShot SX230 HS is, by comparison, much more feature-laden. It sports a 14x optical zoom lens, larger size 12 megapixel sensor and provides various levels of manual control including white balance, ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. The lens has a variable aperture of f/3.1-5.9 and a built in stabilizer. The camera is also one of the newer consumer cameras that does have built in GPS, so geotagging is built in here as well. It has a standard pop-up flash and offers mini HDMI output and shoots 1080p video as well.

So, out of the gate, the Canon is heavily favored has more to offer. Remember, this isn't a battle, rather a comparison.

All images on the Canon were shot in auto mode at a comparable focal length to make things as neutral as possible. This made ISO, aperture and white balance camera selected. All images are unaltered right out of the camera. I just cropped them to the same ratio. No flash was used so that both cameras would have full access to rendering the image with the built-in features of the sensor.

PHOTOGRAPHS         

                                                                      

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/250th, f/4, ISO 250

iPhone 4s chose: 1/320th, f/2.4, ISO 64

In the above leaf images there are some noticeable differences. The Canon image is brighter and offers slightly more detail, but the iPhone's white balance is more accurate and the exposure is closer to reality. As you'll see, the iPhone offers more color saturation, which is nice for the most part, but can get it into some trouble.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/800th, f/4, ISO 100

iPhone 4s chose: 1/1500th, f/2.4, ISO 64

It's hard to tell in the smaller images, but the Canon does have a very slight edge in sharpness, but it's pretty close. The blue of the sky is more accurate on the Canon, something I'll mention more about on the iPhone as we go. The iPhone was more accurate again on white balance - with the exception of the blue - and exhibited less purple fringing than the Canon. This was most noticeable int he tree to the left of the frame. These two images are among the closest in the pool.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/2000th, f/4, ISO 100

iPhone 4s chose: 1/3200th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Again, the white balance on the iPhone is much more accurate overall. The cream stucco of the building and orange cast of the bricks are spot on in this light. The saturation of the 4s is also very good, but it is a tad strong in the blue of the sky. This saturation does bring some color pixelation/artifacts into play in a lot of sky images, where as the Canon, and most cameras, render it as a smoother tone. Even Apple's sample images on their site reveil this trate to a small degree.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS close crop of the above image

iPhone 4s close crop of the above image

Here is a close crop of the gymnasium picture from above. I chose an outdoor photo so that ISOs were at their lowest and shutter speeds at their highest to try to maximize image quality. As you can see, the Canon as slightly more resolving power, but it's close. No one would ever go this nuts on crop, but this gives some indication of the quality of image that the iPhone is capable of producing compared to a standard camera.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 11250th, f/4, ISO 320

iPhone 4s chose: 1/1151th, f/2.4, ISO 64

No, that's not a typo. The 4s' metadata indicated a bizar 1/1151th of a second shutter speed. That oddity aside these images speak volumes about how each camera rendered this image. In contrast to the building exterior above, these two images are perhaps the most unique interpretations of the same subject. The iPhone, again, was more accurate with white balance and that combined with the color saturation makes for a very good image here in my opinion. I actually had to double check and make sure I didn't label the images backward. This is a great example of how little megapixels can matter. Here, the 8MP at a better white balance and saturation produced a more pleasing image to me than the 12MP sensor.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/1600th, f/4, ISO 125

iPhone 4s chose: 1/3000th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Just when you thought the iPhone was going to win was seemingly without many flaws, you get this. This is an example of where a flat lens front and wide aperture can cause problems. Either way you dice it, the 4s is highly prone to lens flare in bright sunlight. This was taken around 1 p.m., so the sun was definitely high, but the Canon had little trouble. Also, without the ability to compose with optical zoom help, this could be an issue in many shooting scenarios. The lens flared in the upper right near the light source and in the lower left at the opposite corner. Without question the Canon did a much better job here, though the white balance on the 4s is still slightly more accurate.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800

iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250

In this lower light indoor situation, I find the Canon's white balance was more accurate, but I prefer the iPhone's warmer tones. The field is deeper on the 4s, despite the shallower aperture used - I suppose because of sensor size in relation to the aperture. Either way, both did a good job, especially considering the slower shutter speeds. Note that the ISO of 250 here was the highest selected by the iPhone in any test image I had. The same 250 was selected in the paddle image below. I'm not sure what the max is, but this might be close.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800

iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250 

Once again, the iPhone has more accurate and pleasing white balance. The color is more saturated and arguably more pleasing, at least to me. The Canon's higher ISO selection results in a slightly noisier image, but it does render more detail in the shadow areas - note the area between the paddle and the balls.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 160

iPhone 4s chose: 1/25th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Here is an indoor, low light, backlit scenario. Both cameras actually did a really good job considering the circumstances. The iPhone's warm white balance tendencies got sort of strong in the background near the window an did throw a gold cast on the jar. So, the warmth isn't always a plus. The Canon's cooler tendency renders a more accurate image here. The Canon shot is also slightly sharper.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/160th, f/4, ISO 200

iPhone 4s chose: 1/552th, f2./4, ISO 64

Again, this is another example of an uncommon shutter speed. The iPhone popped at 1/552th, which is an odd number (well, it's even, but you get my point). This was an interesting shot. I focused on the upper left window pane so that it would throw most of the tones in the dark. The iPhone really surprised me here. The metering did a very good job of rendering for the selected area. There is more detail in the stained glass and the light levels there are very good. As a result the other elements went darker, but that's to be expected. The Canon did a good job as well, but there is less detail in the window pane. Because the camera didn't meter it quite the same, the foreground is rendered much brighter.

HD VIDEO CLIPS

10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p

10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p

The iPhone got a little bit of light creeping in the left side, so it washed the tones out a bit, but overall, I like the way the 4s rendered the scene better. The result is much sharper actually and the color is very accurate. Note that the framing is slightly closer on the iPhone due to the default crop on the camera. Both were shot from a tripod with AF engaged before recording began. Both clips were imported into iMovie and trimmed to 10 seconds. No other alterations were made.

10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p

10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p

Here is a second clip from both cameras. Again, shot from a tripod with similar framing, imported into iMovie and cut to 10 seconds with no other alterations made. Note, I did have to use some optical zoom on the Canon to try and match the framing of the iPhone. Here, the Canon has the edge with resolution and there are less artifacts in the blue of the sky than on the iphone. Both cameras were focused on the flag. The iPhone wasn't quite as sharp at the flag, but rendered more detail in the trees. Both clips here are very similar.

CONCLUSIONS:

In short, the iPhone 4s is a more than worthy go everywhere option and proves that it can hold its own under all but the most extreme conditions. Lens flare is a problem in strong sunlight and the lack of optical zoom can limit composition and, of course, your ability close to your subject if walking forward is prohibited - think sporting events, museums, etc.

The camera in the 4s also seems limited by a somewhat moderate ISO max (my samples capped at 250) and there are no options for manual control. Autofocusing is rather quick and accurate, especially for a phone, and face detection - though not directly tested here - is a nice feature.

White balance is remarkably accurate and significantly better than on the iPhone 4 and even trumps the SX230 HS under most conditions. Colors have a pleasing warm tone and are nicely saturated, though blue skys can come out mildly dark and with some artifacts. Sharpness and and detail are both very good and on par with most point-and-shoot cameras. Noise is even well controlled and aided by the ISO ceiling.

Video is exceptionally good for a phone and produces sharp, color accurate and well exposed clips. Audio is on par with consumer cameras as well.

In a nutshell, the 4s is a noticeable upgrade from the 4 in terms of the camera feature. In fact, the only area where users might notice a negative trait is in the battery life. Though not tested directly, the battery does seem to drain a little faster, but the better results make up for this easily in my view.

Will it replace your current point-and-shoot? Well, that depends. If you take tons of images and battery life for talking, texting, emailing and Facebooking (ya, apparently it's a verb) might become a casualty, then consider carrying an extra imaging device. Also, if you need optical zoom, manual controls, a plethora of gimmicky settings (like night mode, landscape or underwater), HDMI ports, and the like, then you'll also want to look to make your images elsewhere. 

If, however, you are wanting a simple, convenient, capable imaging device that you're guaranteed to always have with you, then the iPhone is a talented option. It's capable of producing very good images under most normal conditions and it's ability to post or share images and clips directly from the same device is significantly handy for the social network addicted crowd.

When you consider that the iPhone 4s runs $200-400 (with 2-year contract) and that it is first and foremost a phone and mini computer that features a camera, it's actually an affordable option. The Canon SX230 HS retails for around $330 and is a camera only. In my opinion, the manual controls and versatility of the Canon are strong options that more knowledgable shooters will enjoy, but the speed, convenience, simplicity and all around excellent quality of the 4s camera might appeal to more audiences for every day use. Keep in mind that the Canon doesn't have a monthly fee either.

I've tested both cameras under what I consider real world conditions in how the majority of shooters are going to use these devices. The results speak for themselves. The iPhone can certainly hold it's own as an every day companion and the Canon just might make it's way to eBay just to eliminate one extra gadget.

I hope this review of the iPhone 4s camera was helpful.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Canon's 1DX an all-in-one pro solution?

Canon announced the new EOS 1D X camera on Tuesday to seemingly mixed reviews. For some, the new system is a departure from the expected take in the 1D line, while for others its a well-thought-out successor in a long line of legendary professional imaging tools.

For those who claim the former, they seem to feel that the rather scant megapixel count doesn't seem all that more advanced than the 1D Mark IV's 16MP sensor. Besides, the IV's sensor carried a peculiar 1.3x crop so gaining the realestate of the X's full frame sensor - Canon's third body to offer this size - would allow for the additional pixels without much perceived effort. But, there's more under the hood here than pixels, and it's those added features that make this a rather significant upgrade.

For starters you've got 12 fps performance out of the box and up to 14 fps in JPEG with proper settings engaged. This is a 25-33% increase in image capture performance. This is made possible by the dual - yes TWO - Digic 5+ image processors built into the body. The double-duty processing power also helps with the ISO performance. The new X touts a max normal ISO of 51,200, up from 12,800 on the IV.

Other notable improvements are the 400,00 actuation rated shutter mechanism, full 1080p video with multiple frame rates including 24 fps and dual CF card support.

There are a host of other changes, but this covers the most significant. It will be available in March for around $7000, which is somewhat competitively priced, though I feel $6000 would be more appropriate.
 So, why the mixed reviews?

Well, for one, there are simply too many pixel counters out there. 18MP is plenty for what this camera is designed to shoot - basically everything that's not going to be on the cover of a major magazine; and even then, it's probably enough. It's target audience is going to be the the photojournalists, sports shooters and wedding photographers that are Canon loyal. The body is designed to take a beating and deliver nearly half a million shots before shutter failure. Basically, it's a do-it-all workhorse for professional photographers.

Look, 18MP is plenty of resolution, especially when high ISO performance comes into play. If you need studio quality, medium format-rivaling resolution, pick up a 5D Mark II for less than $3000 and be quiet. Or, better yet, wait for the MIII. Those in this camp should consider the minuscule difference in resolution anyway - keep reading. You're not going to get 30MP with ultra high ISO performance at 10+ fps...at least not yet.

The only direct competition with this camera is the aging Nikon D3 series which boasts 12MP and 10-11 fps. The D3's ISO performance as become legendary and at a price tage of less than $6000 it will remain a force to compete with. Rumors are churning about a D4 that should hit the market around the same time with a possible announcement around the first of the year, perhaps at PMA. This could make for an interesting race if Nikon plays its cards right.

Those that like this announcement get what it is: a slightly overpriced professional go-to body. It attempts, I think, to eliminate the multi-body-depending-on-assignment predicament that some shooters face. For some Canon shooters the question might be: "do I grab my $2400-6000 high resolution full frame camera or my lower resolution high speed work tank?" This attempts to blend the two I think. Remember, the 5D MII and 1Ds MIII are only 21MP. The X then is 2MP up from the 1D MIV and only 3MP down from the 5D and 1Ds and you're gaining full frame coverage in a body that's even faster than the MIV. The problem with this blend is the price. If you have the 1Ds (forget the 5D for a moment) at $7000 and the MIV at $5000 and you're really trying to sort of appeal to BOTH audiences, wouldn't $6000 be a more accurate figure? Make it $5500 and you've got something incredible here.

Would I buy it? If I were back to shooting Canon and I wanted a do-it-all body, then absolutely - but I might wait a bit for the price to drop. I shoot sports and weddings, so it's ideal. It's enough resolution for bridal portraits and promotional materials and enough speed, durability and ISO performance to handle the rest. Several Canon shooters won't be tempted by this, however. Many, who shoot predominantly in one field may elect to remain with their current lineup. Wedding and portrait shooters rave about the 5D series and feel it's more than capable in low light. Action shooters my feel that an extra 2MP and 2fps won't justifiably alter their workflow enough to fork over seven grand.

If nothing else, you'll see the cost of the 1D MIV and 1Ds plummet and hit the used market. So, if you've been wanting one of these, hold on until spring and you can pick up a great camera for a lot less money.

For me, a Nikon shooter, the most interesting thing about this announcement is what it will do to the Nikon  line. If there is a D4 coming in the next 6 months, how will it compare? The rumored D800 could be announced next week, but if the rumors are true, it'll be a dream machine for studio and landscape photographers, but the focus on resolution and lack of emphasis on low light and speed performance will jar a lot of loyalists. Most owners are in the D700 camp because it was a cost effective option that offered great low light performance, admirable shooting speeds and acceptable resolution in a cost-effective package. Again, it's a prosumer version of what Canon is trying to push on the professional crowd with the X. One thing's for sure, only time will tell how well the new X will be received and what competitors are cooking up to compete with it.

Be safe and happy shooting.

-R

Farewell to a visionary and icon - Steve Jobs

Today the world lost a truly magical mind. Steve Jobs, co-founder and, until six weeks ago, CEO of Apple, Inc., passed away  at the age of 56.

Jobs was behind some of the greatest technological innovations of our time. Believe it or not MP3 players weren't always collectively referred to as iPods and cell phones used to have keypads.

The question used to be, "How do we compete with Microsoft?" Now, the world is trying to keep up with Apple.

He stepped down as CEO a little over a month ago and the company held it's first major product announcement of the post-Jobs era yesterday with the unveiling of the iPhone 4s.

People have questioned how Apple would function with Jobs simply on the sideline. Now the world will watch the company progress without its founder, pioneer and, for lack of a better word, inspiration.

Apple's future will undoubtedly be strong. Jobs has left his mark on the company and industry as a whole. He taught us that it's okay to try new things and to do what others never dreamed possible. To borrow from a former company slogan, he taught all of us to "Think Different."

He gave us products we needed, products we wanted and products he promised we'd want. He revolutionized the music industry, made computers intuitive and fun, and forever changed how we connect with the world around us; and that world is a slightly dimmer place without him. 

My prayers are with the Jobs and Apple families. He will be missed.

Great Gadgets for Photographers: Kertz's Studio Lighting Setup PSD

I've decided to start blogging more, when I get the time, and one of the things I want to try and start doing regularly is posting information and links about great gadgets for the working photographer. These gadgets can range from actual equipment to setups to post production techniques to philosophy. Anything that I have found to be beneficial in my workflow, I'll try to highlight in these posts.

Though often the gadget in question might require a financial investment, I'm going to start things off with a FREE tool that is highly customizable and exceptionally handy in logging your technique with lighting setup and ultimately sharing that idea with others.

Today I'm talking about Kevin Kertz's handy Photoshop file for Studio Lighting Setups. You can download it by clicking here. The linked document is a zipped PSD file that's rather small in size, but robust in features.

The idea is simple, provide photographers with the ability to create a virtual representation of the studio or location lighting setup they've implemented. Here's an example:

Keep in mind that the tools are designed to illustrate an overview of the setup from above. Here is a mockup of how I approach my head shots for the athletic media guides. Once arranged the final product can be saved as a JPEG file and stored for future reference, emailed to a friend or coworker, or posted online.

What makes this PSD file so handy is the variety of tools that Kevin has preloaded. There are two backgrounds to choose from, three cameras (35mm, medium format and large format) subjects both with and without shadows (human and a ball for inanimate subjects) and a buffet of lighting systems and modifiers. You can choose from plain strobes or gridded or gelled or a strobe shooting through a diffusion screen. Select both gridded and non-gridded softboxes and strip boxes, beauty dishes, hair lights, gobos, reflectors, umbrellas and ring flashes. Add or remove a grid and even turn on arrows and note windows for sharing ideas, settings, etc.

Think this is only for studio pros? Think again. Although I didn't find an off camera flash graphic, using a standard strobe and turning the background paper off is a great way to illustrate outdoor shoots as well. Here's a very basic example:

Here is the lighting setup I used for the women's soccer cover shoot that I did on the football field. I used the subject with shadow to indicate the light direction and then picked the strobe with a gel for reference. I was using a Nikon SB-800 on a stand but did have a CTO gel to balance with the setting sun. For some shots I did use a second SB speedlight on a stand at a lower height, but it was only on one of the four sessions so I just left it off.

The note windows and arrows are handy for creating an all-in-one graphic for the setup. Since I typically add discussions with my illustrations and since many setups can be come bogged down with icons, etc., I tend not to use these tools as often. However, for basic reference, you can easily add these elements. Here's the same setup but with notes added followed by an image taken under the illustrated setup:

Amanda Gemmell - Faulkner University Women's Soccer

Here is the same setup, but I added the other "subject" I mentioned previously - the ball with shadow - since it was a soccer shoot. This example shows the settings and approximate distances, etc., that I basically used for the shoot. This is a way to make quick points that are self-contained in the images and require little additional explanation. As you can see the ideas and possibilities are endless.

Overall its an easy and fun tool to use. There are several options to choose from and if something isn't exactly what you wanted, you can just add a note box and explain it. If you are accustomed to using layers in Photoshop, this is an outstanding reference tool and the elements are already made for you.

My only recommendation is that you leave the white background layer on. This layer reveals Kevin's information, etc. and will give him appropriate credit for the design of the layout tools as well as direct others interested in using his tool to his website.

If you shoot portraits or still life with any type of off camera flash this is a superb archiving and learning tool. I find that I throw some ideas together before shoots with lighting setups I want to try. I can use it as a visual strategy and it helps take some guess work out of the equation and it's much easier to read than my sloppy sketches.

Give the PSD a try. It's free, just don't use it for commercial purposes. It should be a reference and learning tool. Thanks Kevin for the hard work and wonderful design.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Nikon's long-awaited announcement arrives - to mixed thoughts

It has been rumored for some time now that the world could expect a "big" announcement from camera titan Nikon. The public thought that the announcement would come a handful of weeks ago, but only a small release of Coolpix cameras made their debut.

Then rumors started about a new announcement date of Sept. 21 and sure enough, at midnight, an official press release announced Nikon's entry into the mirrorless arena.

Here's the rundown, if you're in the market for a mirrorless system, it's probably worth the wait until late October when the new V1 and J1 offerings from Nikon hit the shelves - or so we hope. The system offers plenty to admire and several things to question. Let's take a quick preliminary look at the Nikon 1 system.

Potentially good:

Size: The 1 system is tiny for an ICL (interchangeable lens) system. In fact, Nikon claims that the V1 is the smallest and lightest in the world with a built in EVF.

Options: The 1 system comes in two flavors, a base J1 body and a bigger brother in the V1. They have the same features, but the V1 offers a 1.4 million dot EVF that's auto activated when you raise it to your eye, has a magnesium alloy body, both an electronic and mechanical shutter and an accessory port for external flash and GPS unit as well as an external mic port.

Lenses: Both bodies will be offered in kit format with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens (more on this in a minute). With a 2.7x crop factor this works out to a 27-81mm equivalent and makes for a good general purpose lens. Other optics that will be available in the beginning include a 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 VR (81-297mm eqiv.) a 10mm f/2.8 prime (27mm eqiv.) and a full range zoom in the 10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (27-270mm equiv.). This is a decent lens lineup right out of the gate, but Nikon has SIX additional prototype lenses in the pipe that range from fast portrait primes to macro optics to sports zooms.

Accessories: The V1 is compatible with the new SB-N5 external flash for more powerful fill (the J1 has a popup flash built in) and the new GP-N100 GPS unit for geo tagging images, etc. Finally there is the FT-1 which is an optical converter which lets users mount existing F mount lenses on their 1 series bodies.

Specifications: The sensor, though smallish by comparison to other mirrorless systems (more in a minute) offers 10 MP resolution and full 1080p HD video at 30fps or 1080i at 60fps. The bodies incorporate a new hybrid 73-point AF system that uses both contrast and phase detection for optimal autofocus accuracy in a variety of conditions. The shutter speed caps out at 1/4000th on the mechanical shutter (V1) and 1/160000th on the electronic shutter. The camera can capture up to 10 fps in autofocus mode for rapid-fire action-stopping images. The sensor boasts an ISO range of 100-6400 with hi/lo expansion.

Potentially bad:

CX Sensor Size: For most people, this is going to be the kicker. Many, myself included, think the introduction of the CX sensor size is rather odd. Here's why. Nikon's late to the mirrorless game. In fact, the only other camera manufacturer that anyone really cares about that's not in the game now is Canon. So, let's consider the competition. The companies that really started the fad are Olympus and Panasonic with their open format micro 4/3 offerings. Two huge benefits for O and P are: 1. the sensor is roughly TWICE as large as the Nikon CX offering here and 2. the mount is an open standard, making lenses from multiple manufactures simple to use and the selection much broader. Virtually all offering from O and P have slightly higher resolution, but it's rather negligible in therms of numbers, but perhaps not in terms of image output.

Going up the ladder, you have Sony, with its NEX system which offers a standard APS-C sensor on board. It boasts the highest resolution sensor on the market with the new lineup offering 24 MP of larger sensor data. The APS-C sensor is the same size that's in the majority of consumer and enthusiast DSLR bodies and at a resolution few can match at the time of this post.

So what? Well, typically (though not always) larger sensors can handle detail and color better than smaller sensors and this gets exponentially better as the ISO increases. The new image test of choice is how well a sensor/lens combo handles moderate to low light levels with regard to image noise and detail. So with Nikon's CX sensor weighting it at half the size of m4/3 and 1/4 the size of the industry leading NEX sensor, Nikon is going to have it's work cut out if it wants to compete with the industry leaders.

Saving grace - if Nikon has manages to produce images equal to or better in quality than the bulk of it's rivals despite the smaller sensor, it's going to be a game-changer for sure. Right now there's a funky middle ground in the ICL camera market. The mirrorless "advantage" was supposed to be superior quality in a smaller package. Kinda like Blade, the day-walking vampire slayer. Mirrorless was sort of touted as having "all of the strengths (of a DSLR) and none of the weaknesses (bulk, weight, cost)." So, you get a smaller, lighter, capable, flexible system that costs less (potentially) and does virtually the same thing as it's bigger brother. Was mirrorless designed to tempt the avid pro? No. No SI shooter or Vogue photographer is going to shoot anything important on a tiny ICL unless it's for fun. Will they make enticing personal walk-around cameras? Yes. For those of us used to lens choices and manual versatility, yes - as long as we can justifiably afford a completely new auxiliary system!

The problem has been in image quality. So far, normal, every day images have been great out of all but the worst mirrorless systems. In fact, the Panasonic GF line and Olympus Pen cams have been extremely popular with users. However, when the light falls, the images do tend to suffer. Sony has done more in this territory with it's larger sensor, but even it can come up short. In fact, many have indicated that given it's obvious size advantage it should actually do better. All of these offerings trump point-and-shoot images even from the higher end contenders like the Canon G series, which also rivals the mirrorless market in price.

So, if the Nikon 1 system can manage strong image quality, especially in lower light, it will make a run and might just find itself at the top of the pile in the ever-growing mirrorless pool. If, however, the smallish sensor does suffer from weak quality, the entry might just be dead on arrival. It's really going to come down to the sensor. If it performs, Nikon's got a home run. If it fails, the line will fail. They came along simply too late in the game to hope to build a broad fan base on anything but brand loyalists if the images aren't strong.

The provided sample images from Nikon do reveal wonderful color reproduction, good detail and effective low light performance to ISO 800. However, these images are always strongly controlled situations that the average shooter would never mimic and the low light shot is more a moderate ISO boost in subpar light than in a bat cave at 6400. We will see more on this soon.

Lens Selection: It's good that Nikon is offering four lens choices that cover a very respectable focal range. However, many enthusiasts who know what they are looking for will be patiently awaiting those faster prime prototypes that Nikon has put un display - especially with the smaller sensor. Why? Well, theoretically the smaller sensor will offer weaker low light performance, so a faster lens will help in that regard as well as potentially helping with shallow DOF. However, the later is strongly effected by the sensor size as well, so a wider aperture alone won't likely make a massive difference in a blurrier background.

Nikon has been an industry leader in optics for forever, so maybe they have an ultra wide design coming down the line. They do have a wide angle "landscape" prototype, but no focal length numbers are available yet. Right now 27mm is as wide as you're gonna get, which is respectable, but for a lot of users, they're gonna wanna see something approaching the 20mm range or even wider. Panasonic offers a 7-14mm f/4, which with the mere 2x conversion equates to a 14-28mm. Now the lens also costs around $900, but it's available for those who want it and will work on either Olympus or Panasonic bodies.

Advantage - as of now all but the 10mm prime are equipped with VR which makes hand-held work easier.

Hot Shoe: The lack of a hot shoe is not going to phase most people, but more experienced shooters might be turned off by this. It's a similar issue that the early Sony NEX bodies faced as well, though the new NEX flock has the ridiculous proprietary shoe added. Most of the Panasonic and Olympus offerings, including the X series, have a standard shoe. This is helpful if you want to add a larger flash option or a radio trigger system. I know this sounds advanced for such a system, but it's actually super handy. When I traveled with my Olympus E-PL2 system to Hawaii with our softball team, I used the hot shoe countless times. I set my Nikon speedlight on a shelf or on a small stand to the side and triggered it with my handy Alien Bees radio transmitter and receiver. They are both tiny and it makes for a versatile lighting setup. Just for fun I even did some portraits in the studio with the Olympus.

Is it a deal breaker? Probably not, but the little SB-N5 add-on will not compare in versatility or power to a more capable SB speedlight. I suppose if you have an optical slave it'll work, but a popup flash in that situation is just as helpful.

Cost: At $650 to $900 (suggested retail) for a single lens kit it's not cheap, but nicely in line with some of the other offerings. The larger sensor Sony NEX-C3 comes in at $600 and the NEX-5 retails for $650. The NEX-5N has a tag of $700 and the new NEX-7 with 24mp presses on the wallet at $1350 with comparable lens.

The new Olympus E-P3 costs $900 and the new E-PL3 is $700. Panasonic's GF2 runs $500.

The thing to remember is this; a brand new Nikon D3100 DSLR with 18-55mm is only $650 and currently $600 with some instant savings options.

And those add on lenses? Not much cheaper. The 10mm and the 30-110mm will have a suggested retail of about $250 each. A 70-300mm lens can be had for about $170. Keep in mind that that's a 105-450mm equiv. on a DX sensor. It lacks the VR ability, however. And that 27mm 2.8 equivalent? The superb 35mm (50ish mmm equiv.) f/1.8 DX is longer, but faster and costs only $199.

The cost of the optics is not excessive, but it will make consumers considering this as a SECONDARY camera think twice.

Looks: Though it's about as essential as having nice-looking golf clubs, since the camera is a tool and not the end product, people want pretty equipment. I'm less concerned about this since I'll use anything that gets the job done effectively, but the esthetic quality is indeed a bit off, especially in the V1. The EVF hood makes for what appears to be a half-witted effort by a first year industrial design student. Suffice it to say that the designers would be fired if they worked at Apple, but that's not the point. They were obviously trying to keep it clean and simple and to that end I think they might have succeeded though few have had a hands-on experience as of yet.


THE EARLY VERDICT: In my opinion it's an odd, but interesting offering. It's compelling for a few reasons. 1. Nikon's finally in the mirrorless game and could make huge waves if the 1 series is well-received. 2. It's small and light and despite this, seemingly feature laden. 3. The lens choices are good for a startup and the others look like they could bring a lot to the table. 4. It's somewhat pricey, but well within the range of what you'd expect for this type of system. 5. It's a new gadget that a lot of people are gonna wanna play with.

The questionable: 1. I'm concerned about the image quality and overall performance, though as I mentioned earlier, the standard images available right now look fairly strong. 2. Ergonomics, will the system be too smallish for practical use without HAVING to use a neck strap? Some of these smaller cameras can come free easily in your hands.

Overall I think, and certainly hope, this is a strong contender for Nikon. In the point-and-shoot market Nikon is getting spanked by Canon in terms of image quality and they really need this venture to be productive.

The BIGGEST problem with this announcement is the LACK of a new pro DSLR. I know, it has nothing to do with this camera, but the fact that so many were expecting a D700 replacement at least has inadvertently made the early 1 system flavor a bit sour. Perhaps the new higher end camera is still indeed coming soon and perhaps Nikon felt that it would overshadow the 1 announcement if launched together. Who knows? Hind sight is always 20/20, but it seems that at last for US audiences a D700 upgrade today followed by the 1 system next week would have made more sense. It's been forever since any full frame updates have come out of Nikon and users keep seeing the improvements offered by other manufactures - mainly Canon - and are starting to wonder what gives.

Any undo negatives will soon fade from the 1 system facade to make way for any serious negative reactions that are legitimately based on performance once testing is under way.

The 1 system is promising, but only time will tell if it will be a true contender in the mirrorless market.