Nikon Showcase Nikon 1 Samples

They are really good - which size "tubes" did you used and how much nearer can you get

what fvalue did you use?

Thank you! I use all three together for a total of 47mm. The cicada was f/8, ISO 400, and 1/320 with -.3 EV. The bee was f/5.6, ISO 400, and 1/124, also with -.3 EV. Both on a monopod. The minimum focus distance without the tubes is 3.3 feet. I have't measured, but it seems like maybe two feet or so is the distance with the tubes.
 
Thank you! I use all three together for a total of 47mm. The cicada was f/8, ISO 400, and 1/320 with -.3 EV. The bee was f/5.6, ISO 400, and 1/124, also with -.3 EV. Both on a monopod. The minimum focus distance without the tubes is 3.3 feet. I have't measured, but it seems like maybe two feet or so is the distance with the tubes.

just been reading about the CX sensor and apparently the indicated ISO400 on a CX camera is equal to ISO1080 on an FX camera and f5.6 if taken at 300mm on CX = f15 or even higher on an FX camera.

It is also "impossible" to have an f2.8 lens on a compact camera at anything over the equivalent of maybe 50mm, despite what the manufacturers claim, so "impossible to have true f5.6 or even f8 at 300mm on a CX sensor, without an enormous lens … no matter what the camera (aperture) says.
 
just been reading about the CX sensor and apparently the indicated ISO400 on a CX camera is equal to ISO1080 on an FX camera and f5.6 if taken at 300mm on CX = f15 or even higher on an FX camera.

It is also "impossible" to have an f2.8 lens on a compact camera at anything over the equivalent of maybe 50mm, despite what the manufacturers claim, so "impossible to have true f5.6 or even f8 at 300mm on a CX sensor, without an enormous lens … no matter what the camera (aperture) says.

Huh?
 

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/DtDotqLx6nA?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/DtDotqLx6nA?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
As a note in the video above the author confuses focal length with field of view. The aperture and the focal length written on a lens can't change and are correct. The made photo in the end is effected by the crop factor and different field of view. The light passes through the lens isn't less because it is a 1" sensor behind it.
 
As a note in the video above the author confuses focal length with field of view. The aperture and the focal length written on a lens can't change and are correct. The made photo in the end is effected by the crop factor and different field of view. The light passes through the lens isn't less because it is a 1" sensor behind it.

I think that he had quite a few responses to this video and/but he "sticks to his guns" in a follow up vid ……. is he not referring to the "total light" falling on the sensor ……not the light per square whatever? Obviously smaller sensor less total light

I find his vids very interesting, he has a really pleasant personality, presents very well and seems totally honest. It is refreshing to see someone so openly share his thoughts, knowledge and experience, and of course he has the beautiful Chelsea by his side ….. good luck to him

I cannot really dispute anything he says as I am far from having any expert knowledge, but it seems to make sense to me ….. the bits that I can understand!!!
 
In a very narrow sense i suppose we can say he is technically correct but in a practical sense he completely misses the point, imo.
 
V1 with the 10-100 manual zoom
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    494 KB · Views: 93
My newest friend

My newest friend, whom I have called Cecil. Unless he is a she, then she will be called Cecilia. Actually I think it's a she because she doesn't like having her photo taken. Nikon V1/30-110mm through lounge room window. (For non Aussies, it is the kookaburra, a member of the kingfisher family and our nation's iconic bird.)

Shy
15368547985_bc619ed5c4_c.jpg
Kooka1 by Ozimax, on Flickr

Strutting his stuff on our front verandah railing
15368245202_037d555de9_c.jpg
Kooka2 by Ozimax, on Flickr
 
Yep, love the snake too. Crazy shot.

Your opinion on the 70-300 CX?

Thank you! The 70-300mm CX is one of those rare things that lives up to its hype. It is better than the Nikon 80-400mm VR, the Sigma 50-500mm, and any of the several 70-300mm FX format lenses I used with m DSLR.

I use it with some extension tubes and it makes a fine macro lens, too.

It's weakness is the camera body. The dynamic range and noise control isn't up to DSLR levels. But then again, you have the 2.7x crop factor.
 
Thank you! The 70-300mm CX is one of those rare things that lives up to its hype. It is better than the Nikon 80-400mm VR, the Sigma 50-500mm, and any of the several 70-300mm FX format lenses I used with m DSLR.

I use it with some extension tubes and it makes a fine macro lens, too.

It's weakness is the camera body. The dynamic range and noise control isn't up to DSLR levels. But then again, you have the 2.7x crop factor.

Thanks Lava. I'm thinking of purchasing one of these. Not sure if I can obtain one in Oz at the moment.
 
My newest friend, whom I have called Cecil. Unless he is a she, then she will be called Cecilia. Actually I think it's a she because she doesn't like having her photo taken. Nikon V1/30-110mm through lounge room window. (For non Aussies, it is the kookaburra, a member of the kingfisher family and our nation's iconic bird.)

Shy
15368547985_bc619ed5c4_c.jpg
Kooka1 by Ozimax, on Flickr

Strutting his stuff on our front verandah railing
15368245202_037d555de9_c.jpg
Kooka2 by Ozimax, on Flickr

Absolutely *love* that first one. What a shot, a shy kooka!
 
Back
Top