http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101425nikonv1comparisonshots.asp

Again, I’m not talking about the super-zoom. The super-zoom is a powerzoom with internal focus and zooming. That’s why it’s so large and heavy. I’m talking about the 80-300mm equivalent. The Nikon 80-300mm equivalent is as large as the Panasonic kit zoom, and much smaller than any m43 80-300mm equivalent

No. You need to consider the FOV, not the focal-length. A 50mm on APS-C will have as much perspective distortion as a 75mm on FF if you want the same magnification, as you’ll be standing in the same spot to take the shot. The same goes for a 85mm vs a 135mm, a 35mm vs a 50mm or a 14mm vs a 24mm. It’s all about the FOV, and thus the distance you need to get the magnification you want. It doesn’t matter what sensor-size and thus focal-length get you that FOV.

Practically, then, the logic that larger sensors introduce lesser perspective distortion holds true even if technically sensor size has no bearing on the matter?

Example: I shoot a talking head with an 85mm lens on an EOS 5D Mk II and stand 8 feet away. To get the same shot on the EOS 60D using the same lens I would have to stand 12 feet away – therefore the perspective changes, because I had to change my position relative to the subject to accomodate the sensor restrictions.

To shoot a talking head at 8 feet away using the EOS 60D I would have to switch to a 50mm lens. This is fine. But perspective distortion will come into play when I have to use wider and wider lenses on the 60D to match the same FOV on the 5D – eg, to shoot equal to full frame 24mm on the 60D, I would need to use a 15mm (14mm) lens, which is almost fisheye territory. Hence, smaller sensors may not cause perspective distortion, but it will induce you to shoot in a way that there will be distortion at shorter focal lenses?

Is that correct?

What are Nikon going to do then? Probably either introduce the Nikon 2 system with APS-C, or go mirrorless in the D3200 and D5200. Which is what they should have done in the first place but didn’t have the balls to do.

Nikon will be reduced to a niche player at the upper mid to top end.

Well, when we’ve been told over the past 5 years that anything smaller than APS-C is too small to be taken seriously as a photographic imager, than it stands to reason that anything smaller than m4/3 must be FAR too small to be taken seriously at all.

Basically, I see this as a divine comeuppance to the detractors of the 4/3 standard. Now that their own have thrown out such a tiny sensor, let’s see if they will continue to walk the talk they have been talking these past few years. And evidently, some have, to their credit. Hence the bitterness among even hardcore Nikonians.

That’s not true. The kit lens on my Canon 30D positively dwarfs the kit lens on my GF1, ad they both cover more or less the same FOV (28-85mm) and have similar apertures (f3.5-5.6). Also, when talking about size, you should also take into account the girth – Leica M mount lenses can sometimes be as long or in fact longer than the Leica R SLR equivalents (in fact many Olympus OM Zuiko SLR lenses are shorter than the Leica M lenses), but when you look at the diameter, there’s where the biggest difference lies.

The Nikon 1 superzoom may or may not be shorter than the m4/3 equivalent, but the filter thread of 72mm is bigger than even my APS-C EOS standard zoom. The Panasonic 14-140mm is 10mm smaller than the Nikon 1 superzoom, and 5mm smaller than my APS-C EOS standard zoom.

This new ICL camera and it’s small sensor are the perfect indication Nikon’s weakness in the market (to compete with m4/3 and the NEX). Nikon has seen the profitability of this segment of the market (small mirrorless cameras with big sensors) and were “forced” to introduce something or be left behind (Pana, Oly and Sony already have at least a two year head start). Yet since they have no ability to manufacture large sensors that the buyers in this market are after, they are stuck with this offering. I have no doubt that given their druthers, Nikon would have loved for this camera to have a m4/3 or larger sensor. But Sony’s new cash cow in the camera market is the NEX line and they aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot by giving away that competitive advantage. Why would Sony sell sensors to a rival camera company for a product that would end up competing head to head with the NEX line?

I expect the delay might be something to do with a 2/3″ sensor for it, since it is about time the line had a proper leap rather than another very small incremental update.

Also, the PowerShot S100 would be a better choice than the Nikon J1 for many.

Nikon really do need to grow a pair of balls and start competing. Nobody who the J1 is aimed at cares about the speed of its image processor.