It’s been 9 months since I wrote my review of the Nikon 1 J5 and I finally gave in to a bout of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) that has been lingering for some time, purchasing a J5 this week. I had resisted the temptation to buy this particular camera as I was waiting for the new 20.8MP BSI sensor to find its way into an updated Nikon 1 V-series camera. With the recent earthquakes in Japan delaying various Nikon products the timing seemed right to buy a J5. I have some things planned for the second half of the year where the improved sensor performance of the J5 will be appreciated.
I haven’t had too much time to put this new camera to use, but I did manage a quick photo walk through town and a short visit to Bird Kingdom.
When buying new gear it is always important to clearly define how it will be used and what specifically it does differently, or better, than existing equipment. For me, the Nikon 1 J5 will be my primary camera for landscape images, as well as for flower and insect photography, especially when extension tubes are used. It will also likely become my preferred camera for street photography.
The new 20.8MP BSI sensor in the J5 performs noticeably better than the 14.2MP Aptina sensors in my trio of Nikon 1 V2’s. The dynamic range is rated at 12.0EV compared to 10.8EV according to DxO. Colour depth is also significantly better at 22.1-bits compared to 20.2-bits with my V2’s. This should help create better end results with my landscape, flower and macro-type images.
The sensor in the Nikon 1 J5 also does not have a low-pass filter so images are slightly sharper coming out of the camera. This should have a positive impact on images containing finer details.
There are some challenges of course. The Nikon 1 J5 does not have a viewfinder which is a bit of a hassle for me as I have never liked composing images from the rear screen of a camera. No doubt I will get used to doing this but I think it will be more difficult and a bit more time consuming to achieve the exact framing that I want with my images not having an EVF.
As a result I will likely end up using a monopod or tripod more often than I have in the past with my Nikon 1 gear. I expected to do this anyway with my landscape photography as it will allow me to shoot under a wider range of lighting conditions at ISO-160 which is the base for Nikon 1 cameras. And, as we all know, shooting any camera at base ISO delivers the best dynamic range and colour depth performance.
The Nikon 1 J5 will likely get some sporadic use during my client video work when I need to produce low angle or higher angle video clips as the tilt rear screen will allow me to frame clips without having to get on my belly or mount a ladder as frequently. The absence of an EVF and the inability to use an external microphone with the Nikon 1 J5 are limiting factors for my video business.
The sensor in the Nikon 1 J5 does perform quite a bit differently than the Aptina sensors in my Nikon 1 V2’s in terms of measured ISO. At the exact same manual exposure settings the Nikon 1 J5 (and the J4 and V3 for that matter) will underexpose images and video clips when compared to my Nikon 1 V2’s. It is quite common for digital cameras to have differences between the manufacturers’ stated ISO’s and the actual measured ISO. In the case of the Nikon 1 J5 there is about a 1/3 to 2/5 of a stop difference.
For example, at a manufacturer’s stated ISO of ISO-3200 as in the image above (i.e. the ISO setting on your camera) my Nikon 1 V2’s are actually shooting at ISO-2416. This compares with ISO-1853 with a Nikon 1 J5 or ISO-1750 with a Nikon 1 V3. Differences between manufacturer stated ISO’s and measured ISO’s aren’t of concern to many photographers as all that really matters is getting the right exposure, regardless of what their EXIF data indicates. When matching up video clips from multiple cameras when all manual settings are used it can complicate things.
So, while I will use the Nikon 1 J5 to capture specific types of video clips, my trio of Nikon 1 V2’s with their compliment of 7 batteries will remain the workhorses of my client video business. I usually shoot industrial scenes using multiple cameras so having consistency of exposures is important in terms of reducing editing work in post production.
I very quickly came to love the increased 20.8MP resolution of the J5 compared to the 14.2MP of my V2’s. This allows for a lot more cropping potential. And, when shooting under good lighting conditions will also provide more print enlargement potential.
While I dislike the use of micro-SD cards in the Nikon 1 J5 I can put up with that given the image quality benefits the camera delivers. Not having an EVF and being saddled with a smaller buffer that takes far too long to clear, limits the J5 for birds-in-flight and other types of action photography.
As a still photography tool the Nikon 1 J5 is a significant improvement over my Nikon 1 V2’s and you will see many more of my articles featuring images from this camera in the future. At about $500 US including a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 PD kit lens I think the Nikon 1 J5 is a great little camera for the money.
Article and all images Copyright 2016 Thomas Stirr. No use, adaptation of any kind is allowed without express, written consent. Photography Life is the only approved user of this article. If you see it reproduced anywhere else it is an unapproved and illegal use.
Pls I would love to ask
What do you think about the Nikon 1 j4
And would you be able to use a J5 lense on a j4
All of the Nikon 1 cameras have the same mount and all are able to use the same 1 Nikkor lenses.
The dynamic range and colour depth of the CX sensor in the J5 is noticeably improved over the one that is in the J4 and V3 bodies. So, if overall image quality is important to you the J5 will deliver better quality, especially at base ISO. The J5 has better external controls than the other J-Series cameras and as a result has better handling. The J4 can be used with the Nikon 1 underwater housing.
Tom
Very informative stuff; I bought a J5 last year having owned a couple of V1’s. Inevitably there are a few limitations – no external flash provision and lack of an EVF being the major ones, and while there is little you can do about the former, I’ve found using a 3x screen magnifier with the screen flipped to horizontal allows me to use it like I used to on my old 6×6 TLR’s – i.e. looking down into the viewfinder with the camera at waist level, and yes, you can see the whole screen very well with these things. I use this setup mostly with the PD 10-100, but it also works extremely well attached to a 70-200 2.8 VR (plus FT1) for long shots. If I could send a photo of the setup I would. Hope this helps! Regards etc.
Hi Andy,
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the Nikon 1 J5 – it is always great to hear from real live users! I’ve been out with the J5 a few times now and I am getting more and more used to composing from the rear screen. Not my favourite thing to do, but for the photography genres I intend on focusing on with the J5 I think it will not be a problem at all.
Tom
Lovely work as usual, Tom. I notice this comment you made:
“…the inability to use an external microphone with the Nikon 1 J5 are limiting factors for my video business.”
Don’t you just sync in your editor? I usually use a dedicated audio recorder for the primary audio track, and then I sync all my cameras up in the editor. I use Premiere, and I use PluralEyes to sync all the audio and video together.
Because of that, I never worry that a camera doesn’t have a mic input.
Hi Spy Black,
My audio needs for safety videos are typically quite basic so when needed I capture voice on camera with a shotgun mic, wireless lav or similar.
Tom
Thank you for your thoughts, it is always a pleasure to look at your pictures.
I personally felt a little bit disappointed about the sensor performance of the initial Nikon 1 body’s, but it seems that
with the J5 Nikon goes in the right direction.
Please keep us informed about your work with the Nikon 1 equipment, thanks in advance.
Hi Markus,
The new 20.8MP BSI sensor in the J5 is a significant improvement…I will certainly be using this camera for the majority of my landscape and non-action images.
Tom
12 bit or 14 bit RAW?
I used a V1 for a while but the 12 bit raw was the limitation when the image is pushed in LR compared to the 700D images from the same day with 14 bit, big difference there… 14 bit would be a big step. Using a Coolpix A for most compact camera stuff now and the RAW files are excellent. No super zoom work with the CPA of course.
Dave, The limitation you noticed with the V1 was due to the dynamic range of the sensor being well below 12 bits, not due to it having 12 bits/channel raw instead of 14. If we were to compare the V1 to your Coolpix A set to 12-bit raw, the Coolpix A will have have better shadow detail due to the increased dynamic range of its larger sensor.
“14-bit vs 12-bit RAW – Can You Tell The Difference?”, by John Sherman:
photographylife.com/14-bi…12-bit-raw
Hi Dave,
I had a look on the DxO site re: dynamic range and colour depth of the Nikon 1 V1 and the Canon 700D. There’s actually not that much of a difference with dynamic range scoring 11.0EV for the V1 and 11.2EV for the 700D. These are at base ISO’s of course and depending on the ISO you were using the difference could have been greater at higher ISO’s. There also isn’t much difference in colour depth with the V1 scoring 21.3 and the 700D coming in at 21.7. A difference of 0.4 usually would not be noticeable for most people. Again, these scores are at base ISO and things could be different at higher ISO’s. I’m not familiar enough with 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW to comment.
Tom
Hi Thomas
Great pictures as usual!!
One thing I would like to read in your future articles about the J5 is any difficulties you experience using the LCD screen in bright sunlight since you don’t have a EVF.
To me the bright sun light is going to create problem which is why I’ve never been a big fan of using my smart phone’s camera or using the LCD screen of DSLRs.
Regards,
Duane
Hi Duane,
Not having an EVF does make things a bit more difficult in terms of composing images for folks like us that prefer a viewfinder. I anticipate taking my wide-brimmed Tilly off my bald head more often to shade the EVF and using a monopod more frequently as a result! The camera is small and light enough that shooting with one hand outdoors is not an issue.
Tom
Hi Thomas
What a brilliant idea in using your wide brim Tilly hat to shade the camera so you can see!!
If I has been as smart at you in coming up with idea I might have considered the J5 instead of hunting for a used V2 (which I bought specially for the EVF and the grip).
Duane
Hi Duane,
The V2 is my favourite V-series camera…and they are very hard to find in the used market! I think you will enjoy the cameras. Who knows…a J5 may still be in your future.
Tom
Beautiful shots and a thoughtful post on the new gear. I find my J5 also great for macro work using a DX lens and FT-1 adapter or close-up lenses. I will be doing more experimenting with extension tubes soon.
I also find the camera very good for street photography. Is looks like a little P&S so people pay less attention to you and seem less self-conscious than if you are hlding a full size DSLR. People are now used to phone cameras everywhere so no EVF also lessns attention to your presence. The practice shooting fom the LCD also helps with my newly converted D600 infrared that i shoot in Live View.
I like my J5 a lot and am glad to see omeone adopting it who will share that experience in places like this website. Keep up the thoughtful posts and beautiful photos.
Thanks for the positive comment Joe – much appreciated! I’m not sure from your post if you are using DX lenses and extension tubes with your J5 and FT-1. My favourite set up for extension tube use is the 1 Nikon 30-110mm with a set of 3 MOVO tubes. It is so light and easy to handle and the 30-110 in this application is a stellar little performer. If you want to try a really small set up I can recommend giving it a try!
Tom
To date I have primarily used the 40mm DX Micro lens with the FT-1 adapter. The setup works quote well but is restricted by the single fixed focus point. I have a set of the Vello extension tubes but have been reticent about using them since my only experience goes back over 30 years on a film Minolta. I do have the 30-110 lens to use with them.
I also have a Canon 500D close-up lens that also works well with my FX setup that i will also use with the 30-110 lens to see which arrangement works best for me. The fun of many options.
Options are always good Joe!
Tom
Hi Tom,
Great article… clear and concise info regarding purchasing/upgrading to a new camera regarding what you are going to use it for and how it is better than what you currently use. Very informative about the differences between your current V2 cameras and the J5. As always, beautiful pictures.
Vinnie
Thanks Vinnie – I’m glad the article was of benefit for you!
Tom
Tom,
Great photo,s, thanks for sharing them. Is the sensor in the j5 the same as the one Nikon will using
In the new DL series camera,s?
Thanks
Sherm
Thanks Sherm – I’m glad that you enjoyed the images! Based on published specifications the 1″ CX sensor in the DL series is 20.8MP so the assumption is that it will likely be the same sensor that is in the Nikon 1 J5. No one knows for sure of course.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thank you very much for your article and delightful images, and the link to the article on your website.
The difference between a camera’s ISO setting and its ISO value measured by DxOMark is easy to explain by comparing the following contradictory statements [my emphasis added using “**”]:
“ISO sensitivity (also known as ISO speed) is a numerical value calculated from the exposure provided at the focal plane of a digital camera to produce specific camera output signal characteristics.
ISO Standard 12232 defines **two ways** to measure ISO sensitivity. The first relates sensitivity to the exposure necessary to saturate the camera. The second, seldom used, compares the relative exposures to obtain different signal-to-noise ratios. The more common saturation-based method is described below…” — DxOMark, retrieved 2016-05-23.
“The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006[60] gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of **five different techniques** for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model. Three of the techniques in ISO 12232:2006 are carried over from the 1998 version of the standard, while two new techniques allowing for measurement of JPEG output files are introduced from CIPA DC-004.[61] Depending on the technique selected, the exposure index rating can depend on the sensor sensitivity, the sensor noise, and the appearance of the resulting image. The standard specifies the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and **not of individual components such as digital sensors**, although Kodak has reported[62] using a variation to characterize the sensitivity of two of their sensors in 2001.” — Wikipedia, retrieved 2016-05-23.
If we consider the case of an ISO-less sensor, doubling the ISO setting alters only the scaling of its electron counts within the confines of the camera’s 14-bit integer RAW output data. E.g. set the camera ISO to 12,800; meter on a grey card, which is Zone V (5): do we really want the scene highlights to clip at Zone VIII (8); or would we prefer a camera that sets its actual ISO to, say, 6,400 and clips at Zone IX (9), without suffering any degradation whatsoever in its signal-to-noise ratio? I’d much prefer to rely on the latter camera.
When relying on reversal films and/or digital camera JPEGs, it is important that the ISO rating is honoured in order to provide a reasonable level of consistency when using external ambient light meters and flash meters. At high ISO settings, the ISO ‘accuracy’ of digital camera RAW output is a non sequitur because it depends entirely upon which of the five methods is chosen to quantify the camera’s ISO 12232 rating. DxOMark has chosen to use a method that isn’t at all useful to my particular photography requirements, but I’m not implying that their method is useless — indeed, I admire DxOMark for choosing one method then sticking with it.
With ISO-less sensors, the camera’s ISO control provides exactly the same function as the image editor’s ‘Exposure’ control (within the confines of the 14-bit integers that are transferred from the camera to the editor).
Thomas Stirr, and other members of the Photography Life team, have made it abundantly clear that the end results depend on the skills of the photographer, not on the DxO rating (or any other performance benchmark) of the equipment they use!
Hi Pete,
Thanks for adding your technical expertise to the discussion! I’m glad that I confessed in one of my earlier articles (Celebrating #100 with Readers) that I’m not a technically oriented guy when it comes to photography…and I never will be! You mentioned an ISO-less sensor in your comment and I think many readers are like me and would like to better understand what is meant by that term, and most importantly, if their camera has an ISO-less sensor what that means in a practical sense in terms of adjusting their photography technique.
Tom
My comment applied, perhaps even more, to non-ISO-less sensors. Iliah Borg is the only person I’m aware of who is able to definitively answer which cameras have a non-ISO-less, an ISO-less, or a dual-step sensor.
What I failed to highlight in the Wikipedia article was the extremely important part of the ISO 12232:2006 standard: “…for determining the exposure index rating **at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model**.” Using integer arithmetic, it is impossible to avoid degrading the signal-to-noise ratio when using non-integer ISO multiplier values: all the third- and half-stop intermediate ISO settings away from the sensor’s base ISO. These intermediate settings don’t actually degrade the electron count signal-to-noise ratio, they degrade the system signal-to-noise ratio because the unwanted noise = the photon shot noise plus the distortion caused by the rounding errors inherent in multiplying the integer electron counts by non-integer values. E.g. an electron count of 1 at base ISO 100 is still 1 at ISO 149, but it becomes 2 at ISO 150 all the way up to ISO 249, then 3 from ISO 250 up to 349, etc. This doesn’t visibly affect the highlights, but it is the fundamental reason why the measured signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range plots versus ISO are neither a straight line nor a smooth curve.
In practical terms, the technological idiosyncrasies of each camera make and model I summarise thusly: to accomplished photographers, it is next to irrelevant; to the vendors of hardware, software, and especially benchmarking companies, being able to tout a 0.2 of a binary digit of performance difference is their main, if not their only, source of revenue.
Most of my photography during the last decade has required using higher than base ISO and having enough highlight headroom to occasionally recover in post-processing, so I don’t care what actual ISO my cameras are using according to DxOMark. I care only that they work well with their internal meters and with my hand-held light meters. The amount of exposure compensation required on my Nikon cameras varies across the models from 0 to -2/3, but I have no problem remembering the amount each model requires hence I’ve never bothered applying the correction via their menu option. The only thing that surprised me was discovering after a photo-shoot that one of my Nikkors has a miscalibrated aperture control lever: fortunately, the camera had enough RAW headroom at high ISO to enable me to recover the overexposure in post-processing.
Hi Pete,
Thank you, once again, for taking time to provide additional details on this subject. The big takeaway for me is to more fully understand the variances between my V2’s and J5 in order to properly integrate the J5 with my other cameras. Rather than assume differences based on DxO lab testing I can certainly see the value in doing some real life experimentation of my own so I really understand the nuances of the different cameras and how they perform at various ISO’s. That way I can determine the amount of exposure compensation needed to more seamlessly integrate my J5 in with my V2’s and thus avoid needless work in post.
Tom
Pete/Thomas,
I, for one, had never really given DxOMark much weight in selecting or judging a camera. It was a personal feeling based on using cameras that were ranked so-so or poorly acc. to their analysis. Thanks for sharing your expertise on the ISO topic.
I have, among others, a Nikon 1 V3 and love it, with the 70-300mm and all. Would I like a less noisy sensor? Of course, but every camera+sensor is a compromise and you have to look at the whole package. No wonder, Thomas, that used V2’s and V3’s are hard to find…
Thanks.
Hi Antonio,
Test data on sensor performance is only one, relatively small factor to consider. I selected my V2’s for many other reasons other than DxO scores. My V2’s actually rank 269th out of 314 cameras tested by DxO…but I still love ’em! I have heard from so many Nikon 1 owners who ended up enjoying their Nikon 1’s much more than first anticipated…especially owners of V2 and V3 models.
Tom
Antonio, Most of my photography was with 35 mm film. Imagine the DxO score for colour reversal film, which has a recording dynamic range of only 4—6 EV, yet it can produce stunning results when displayed via a slide projector and a large screen, as does reversal film cinematography.
The ‘best’ camera gear for us to own is that which is both intuitive for us to use — especially on the spur of the moment — and we have with us when those truly-worth-capturing moments arise. Such a camera system is very unlikely to be a top-end 35 mm or larger format system because these are far too large to be carried around everywhere in our pockets and purses.
My most frequently used cameras for wedding (and other event) photography were pocket-sized 35 mm autofocus film cameras, despite always having a high-end 35 mm Nikon SLR gear strapped around my neck. Small cameras are psychologically far less intrusive and intimidating to people, and to other animals, than are bulky cameras and lenses. It is all about acknowledging and honouring comfort zones, levels of tolerance, and photographer-induced stress — which have nothing whatsoever to do with the DxOMark ratings of inanimate camera bodies!