[Brightcolours]

[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1316793364' post='11790']

This is not a well-reasoned opinion. Or do you have a camera that does 10 frames per second with full autofocusing for each individual image? And also does 60 frames per second without continual autofocusing? All at full, 10-megapixel resolution? Hmm, a camera taking a picture once every 16 milliseconds, where every individual frame could be printed decently (over 150 dots per inch) at a 20 inch/50 cm enlargement size.



Seems to me that the new little Nikon has the possibility of being a supreme sports and wildlife camera, if/when there are lenses with the right focal lengths become available. Don't recall sports photos usually requiring pixel-scrutinizing quality. Will the new Nikons eventually drive the autofocus motors of Nikon mount lenses? If so, can imagine a Sigma 150mm F2.8 lens on the V1, giving you a sort of 400mm F2.8 rig of reasonable size. The V1 even has an EVF.



I'm not interested in this capability, but it seems silly to say that there is NOTHING unique about the Nikon V1.

[/quote]

Sports photos need a thin DOF. The speed seems fine, the sensor size and resulting DOF not so fine.



And about that Sigma... how do you get from 150mm f2.8 to 400mm f2.8?

It still is a 150mm lens, also on a V1. If you want to calculate a FF exquivalent, fine... 150 x 2.7 = 405mm. But then also calculate the equivalent f-value: 2.8 x 2.7 = 7.56.

So, you get a 400mm f8 lens. Not a 400mm f2.8 lens. Or a 150mm f2.8 lens. Depending how you look at it.