| Introduction | Measurement | Comparisons | Conclusion |
Although the Nikon 1 J2 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 both employ CMOS sensors of the same size, the differences lie in their respective resolutions. In fact, the J2 utilizes bigger pixels (3.38µm vs 2.4µm for the Sony RX100) on the same sensitive surface area. Lot of difference are measured too: with a DxOMark overall score of 66, the DSC-RX100 bests the Nikon 1 J2’s score of 54 by 12 points.
In terms of color depth, the Sony offers finer nuances than the Nikon, with 22.6 bits for the former versus 21.6 bits for the latter. The additional subtlety of the gradations is certainly a bit thin, but nonetheless represents measurable progress in our tests.
Dynamic range is the criterion for which Sony’s 1" CMOS sensor really racks up points: the RX100 captures 1.2EV more than the Nikon compact. This can be seen on the diagram: the dynamic range of the Sony sensor evolves more rapidly than the Nikon when the sensitivity is lowered. Equivalent at 1600 ISO for the two cameras, there is a difference of 1.2EV at 100 ISO.
As for low-light sensitivity, the physics retains its logic and underscores the excellent design of Sony’s new 1" sensor as opposed to that of the Nikon 1 J2. Displayed on-screen at 1:1, the RX100’s image appears more noisy than that of the J2, but when printed, the two images are comparable in terms of noise, thanks to a smoothed signal-to-noise ratio resulting in an equivalent 8 Mpix print for the high-resolution (20 Mpix) Sony.
Bulkier and with a larger sensor, the Olympus Pen E-P3 compact hybrid (and by extension, the Pen E-PL3 and Pen E-PM1) remains a serious competitor to the Nikon 1 J2. Despite their differences, the two rivals achieve DxOMark overall scores that are fairly close (54 for the Nikon versus 51 for the Olympus). The Nikon leverages its newer sensor design, whereas the Olympus sensor has scarcely changed since micro 4:3 cameras were launched in 2008.
It’s notably in terms of dynamic range that the Nikon 1 J2 distinguishes itself from the Pen E-P3 by obtaining 10.8EV vs 10.1EV (in other words, 0.7EV better).
Conversely, the advantage for low-light sensitivity logically belongs to the micro 4:3 sensor with its larger pixels and greater sensitivity, resulting in a gain of half a stop for the Pen E-P3.
Though the dynamic range of the two competitors is fairly similar at the lowest sensitivities, they clearly diverge as sensitivity increases, with the Pen E-PL3’s range dropping dramatically. The Nikon 1 J2 better resists the downward slide — but at the price of noise smoothing and thus a loss of resolution (see our article about half cooked raw).
Comparing a commercial camera such as the J2 with the latest Olympus pro camera may seem a bit incongruous. However, word is that Olympus is going to use this new sensor for the entire line, including for its upcoming Olympus EPL5 and EPM2 models (DxOMark results for these two cameras will allow us to verify this).
In the meantime, it should be interesting to compare the results of this new sensor with those of the J2. The difference is significant: measurements for the OM-D’s sensor produced a DxOMark overall score of 71, putting it well ahead of other micro 4:3 compact hybrids.
This leap in progress is seen across all measurement attributes. The color depth of this new sensor surpasses that of the Nikon 1 J2 by 1.5 bits. The dynamic range, always the Achilles heel of previous Pen micro 4:3 sensors, comes in at 12.3EV for the OM-D (which should mean the same results for the Pen E-P5 and E-PL5) — also 1.5EV better than the Nikon 1. Low-light image quality for the P3 was already 0.5EV better than the J2, so it’s no surprise that this new sensor is more than a full stop more sensitive.
Despite a larger sensor than the 2/3" CMOS of the Fuji FinePix X10, the Nikon 1 J2 achieves a DxOMark overall score that is surprisingly close to its rival’s: 54 for the Nikon vs 50 the Fuji.
Scores for dynamic range between the two cameras are likewise very close (+0.5EV in favor of the X10).
As for low-light sensitivity, the Nikon takes a slight lead (on the order of 0.5EV).
The Canon G1 X sports a large sensor — larger than a 4:3’s, and that has a particular impact on the low-light sensitivity criterion for which it scores 644 ISO versus 363 ISO for the Nikon 1 J2. However, this advantage of nearly a full stop better for low-light is pretty much the only criterion for which the Canon G1 X is truly superior to the Nikon 1, given that their dynamic range is absolutely equivalent and their color depth is very similar.
With an equally compact format, one might well prefer the Canon Powershot S100’s all-in-one solution. However, it uses a smaller sensor than the Nikon, whose 1" sensor gives it an advantage when it comes to low-light sensitivity. The Nikon achieves 363 ISO versus 153 ISO for the Canon S100 — that’s 1.3EV better.
The Canon provides a dynamic range that is 0.8EV more generous than the Nikon’s, but the J2 provides color depth that is 0.6 higher. These two criteria neutralize one another and so the two cameras end up with DxOMark overall scores that are in the same neighborhood (54 for the Nikon versus 50 for the Canon).
When it comes time to choose, one might well decide on the Nikon hybrid for its better sensitivity and its ability to take photos in burst mode up to 10 fps.
|
|
Added by birdlives |
November 08, 2012
Re: What a stupid camera
So you don't care about how cameras compare but you care about Amazon sales rankings? OK. Justin Bieber outsells most artists. Does that make his music the best? Not even close.
You said the Nikon 1 was a dead-end concept. But the very fact that it compares favorably to other cameras, even some with larger sensors means that not only is a NOT a dead end concept, but is a great choice for people wanting great IQ in a fast shooting camera. And I don't know if you've used both cameras (I've owned both a J1 and RX100) but the J1 and RX100 bodies are exactly the same size. Look up the specs. Identical size. The only reason the RX100 is popular is because it's one of the first P&S with a large sensor. That;s it. BUT it has muçh slower AF and performance than a J2. And the slow f4.9 lens at 100mm, is equivalent to f13.4 on FF. Not exactly desirable for portraits where you want subject/background separation. RX100 also has terrible macro performance, no macro mode. I don't know about you, but I like P&S for macro because they have deep DOF and focus extremely close. The RX100 doesn't, so why buy it? For 1/2 EV better high ISO vs other P&S? Not enough reason for me. The Nikon 1 cameras have blazing fast AF, super accurate predictive tracking that an RX100 can't even do. For sports/action photography an RX100 wouldn't even be anywhere in the running. The RX100 is a snapshot camera, no more. It's main selling point is size but the J2 without the lens is the same exact size, but is a much more versatile camera. Period. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by the Nikon 1 camera, but if you don't like it, find a different camera. Nobody cares if YOU think it's a stupid camera. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
November 08, 2012
Re: What a stupid camera
I only mentioned the sales because you mentioned the sales.
The RX100 is smaller in every measure. The RX100 is 101x58x36mm. The J1 112x61x30. And while the RX100 is deeper, that includes a lens with a 18-100mm equivalent focal length. Add in the 31mm of Nikon's 29.7-74.25mm equivalent lens and the J1 is larger all around. Even Nikon's 27mm pancake lens adds 22mm, still making the J1 larger. The RX100 grows when the lens extends, but that doesn't affect its pocketability. Moreover, the lens on the RX100 is both sharper and much faster, with a maximum aperture of f/1.8. I agree. One of the first P&S with a large sensor. It was groundbreaking. The problem is, this should not have taken them so long. This should not have been groundbreaking. Moreover, as we saw from Canon, simply putting a large sensor in a camera was not enough. It had to be engineered around that sensor and priced correctly. Canon produced the completely crap G1X and charged way too much for it. It was a sales failure as a result. It wasn't completely about the sensor. It was about the total package. I did little macro work with the RX100, so I cannot comment on it. But if you like macro work, why not get a dedicated lens on a larger sensor? I do all of my macro work with the 60mm EF-S on a Canon EOS 20D. It's an excellent combo. I agree that the J1 and V1 are faster cameras, but in their price bracket, my experiences with the E-M5 and the new NEX-6 were much better. I'm sure that the E-PL5 will be just as fast or faster as well. Other cameras will always be able to catch up, but the V1/J1 will always have a smaller, less capable sensor and a difficult value proposition unless Nikon drops the price significantly. I completely disagree that the V1/J1/V2/J2 are more versatile cameras. Unless Nikon produces a super-fast lens, the Sony will always have a huge ace in the hole. And being forced to carry around multiple lenses does not make the Nikon more versatile/compact, it makes it less. I am angered by the Nikon 1, not threatened. I am angered because it is the creation of an arrogant company that is relying on its massive distribution network to push out retrograde products at high prices. Instead of innovating, instead of giving us the most for our money, they try to maximize profits and prevent cannibalization of extant products. And when Nikon commands such a large hunk of the market, when they don't move forward, they drag the entire industry down to their speed. That pisses me off. Reply |
|
|
Added by bluevaping |
October 30, 2012
DXO Analyzer software
Another site that use DXO Analyzer software, the results look different.
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/nikon-1-j2-1095202/review/page:5#articleContent The process must be different. I guess this review is good information for cameras that work best with DxO software and DxO Optics Pro. Reply |
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
October 30, 2012
What a stupid camera
Really. The 1 is the very definition of a dead-end concept.
I don't have complete info, and lord knows Nikon is being cagey about the sales for this camera, but is the 1 still actually selling? All of my contacts and friends in the business say that the 1 isn't selling at all, but most of them work in camera shops. Are these selling at Best Buys and Targets? Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
|
|
Added by DXOMARK |
October 31, 2012
Re: What a stupid cameraVery surprised that Nikon can come put with such an UGLY camera. LOL ! ! ! I guess the product engineer was asleep or quarreled with his wife the day when the camera was designed. Or perhaps it is a JOKE from Nikon ? ! Reply |
|
|
Added by birdlives |
November 01, 2012
Re: What a stupid camera
I guess you didn't bother reading the article where the J2 competes very well against both the RX100 and cameras with larger sensors like the Olympus EP3.
And the Nikon 1 has the advantage of actually being able to do great AF tracking because of the PDAF (a feature that NO current mirrorless has) and shoots 12 to 15 fps burst rate. If that kind of performance is "stupid", where does that leave the competitors? So I don't know what's stupid about a camera with solid IQ, and AF and processing performance that blows the doors off the competitors. The J1 is a best seller on Amazon, is found in all big box stores like Best Buy and Costco here in the US, and is consistently in the top sellers in the Asian markets. Lastly, here's a tip. It's not enough to say something is "stupid" you have to say why you think it 's stupid. Reply |
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
November 04, 2012
Re: What a stupid camera
Birdives,
I absolutely read the article. I don't care how it compares to other cameras, I have problems with the very concept of the camera. It's an overpriced camera with a tiny sensor that will always underperform other cameras with larger sensors. It's the same reason why almost everyone discounted 4/3 when it first launched back in 2003. 4/3 was designed to solve technical issues of the time. Those issues no longer exist, so we are left with a camera system that is by design inferior. The Nikon 1 takes this problem to a new level. Sony's RX100 is much more logical. Take a small sensor and make a small camera. Don't take a small sensor and make something bulky. The IQ is good for a sensor of its size. To say that it is generally good is an overstatement. All of my time with the J1 left me feeling like I was using an expensive point-&-shoot... which I was, and the images looked like it. If Nikon had taken the benefits of the V1/J1 and put it into a P&S with top-quality glass, I would have called it a marvel--the next generation of P&S technology, destined to compete with the influx of cell phone cameras. But they didn't. Instead, they built a bulky, fundamentally inferior camera at a high price. And I don't understand how you can say it compares well with other cameras. Vis-a-vis the Sony, 1.6 fewer stops of dynamic range? You call that comparing well? And it doesn't compete at all in comparison to the Olympus E-M5. And while we're on the subject of comparing it to 4/3 sensors, they sucked! Everyone knows that the 4/3 sensors made by Panasonic weren't competitive. That's why Olympus (finally!) ditched them for Sony, and why even Panasonic has likely started using Sony's sensors for the GH3. The continuous shooting uses a great number of technical tricks (such as the electronic shutter) that results in distortion of images that I don't like. The standard, "shutter-open-expose-shutter-close repeat" mode of continuous shooting is only 5fps (on the V1, the J1 only has an electronic shutter). Moreover, the burst rate fills up the buffer so quickly, that you can only capture a second of time in photos. The window is too small. I have as good a chance of getting a shot if I simply fire off one and hope that I got it. That's not to say that it's bad. Using the standard 5fps shooting rate allows for ten seconds of time. That's good, but no better than other cameras. And the J1 and V1 only began selling well on Amazon after the large price drop in anticipation of the J2 and V2. Before that they were somewhere around 500th. The J1 only has 73 reviews after being on the market for a year. The V1 has 47. The Sony RX100 has 159 after having been out for only five months and is still, right now, outselling the V1 and J1. The V1 is #144 in "camera & photo," while the RX100 is #14. The Sony NEX-5n is #17. For further information, we can look to Flickr. The J1 is 32nd in the Nikon list, and the V1 is 46th. They don't even appear on any other lists. The J1 had 82 users yesterday upload images, the V1 only 48. The NEX-5n had 311. The RX100 had 167. The E-M5 had 339. Even the old Panasonic GF1 had 173. All of the data indicates that the Nikon V1/J1 are being destroyed in the marketplace. And rightfully so. They are overpriced and under-designed, intended not to provide the consumer with the most for their money, but wedge a product into Nikon's extant product line-up without competing with their DSLR business. It is a cowardly product. Moreover, merely being available in locations doesn't equal sales. And the Asian markets are unique. Both Panasonic and Olympus have been doing very well there, and everywhere else they are tanking hard. So here's a tip for you, too. Don't condescend to people you don't know and about whom you have little information. Nor should you read into their posts and infer things they didn't say. Reply |
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
|
The Nikon 1 J2 retains many of the same characteristics of its older brother, the J1, including its 1", 10-Mpix CMOS sensor. Other than its new 3", 921,000-point screen, the new version of Nikon’s compact hybrid puts particular emphasis on creative modes. How does the Nikon 1 J2’s sensor perform with respect to its predecessor, to its direct competitors, and to expert-level hybrids and compacts? Some answers from DxOMark. |