>>4319844>N1 system was bungled by Nikon. It may have had potential, but the sensors they chose was poorSmall sensor means you need less glass to get closer to the object. We really REALLY need small sensor cameras right now in my opinion. Because even m4/3 with its crop factor of 2 isnt really compact. And these days even small sensors are pretty good, phones can see in the dark like nothing and they have tiny 1/3" sensors or somewhere around there. 1" sensor, at least these days, would be a pretty good compromise. Compact and cheap (smaller glass is cheaper), yet better than most compact cameras and phones, since sensor would be equal or bigger.
>But the images were underwhelming especially in less than perfect light.Idk, here is one of the few photos ive taken with that Nikon (yes, it did work sometimes but I suspect it was dying SoC or broken solder ball somewhere which is really hard to diagnose and id have probably killed it anyway during the repair). Id say it did well. Obviously not as good as bigger sensor (especially modern sensors), but decent enough.
That was taken indoors with artificial light, approx 1000 lux at desk ? with a pinhole (since lens dead).
Idk. UI of that thing was retarded too. "creative mode" my ass. Why not make standard "full retard" P A S M and whatever.
>Pentax QYeah, something like that would be pretty good. Essentially a digishit with interchangeable lens. Maybe slightly bigger sensor would have been better. 1/1.7" or 2/3 or whatever.
Other problem of those meme cameras is mount.
Nikon 1? There were like only 3 lenses made for it, rest is unobtanium, or variation on same shit. Adapter to F mount? $200!
It's like guns, camera should be made for lenses, not other way around. If it had F mount compatibility for reasonable money, or other mount (MFT or whatever)... I might have not hammered it and continued searching for fault.
