While it wouldn't surprise me to see this confirmed in the near future, I somewhat disagree about the value of the system as a whole. I still own the V1 with the 18.5mm lens, and while not quite as competent as some of the later
bodies, it's a nifty little camera and built like a tank - much more robust than everything *of a comparable size* available with a
sensor, and it *has* a very good EVF too, still way better than what's built into the GM5, for instance (it's as good as the one in the E-M10, easily). And while it's true that the 16MP sensors are much, much better than the first 1" sensor, it was actually competitive compared to the older 12MP sensors that were out at the time of its arrival - no small feat, especially considering that Sony certainly was reluctant to share their early 1" sensors with anyone. More importantly, the images this camera puts out are very nice and quite workable, AF is very compelling, and battery life is impressive (though I don't really need that in my usage). If I need to quickly document something, I still reach for that camera - portable files (even in RAW), yet consistent quality and somewhat easier to get their best out of them than is the case with
(which by extension means that
files offer considerably more latitude, of course - the 16MP files are, as already mentioned, way superior).
The JPEGs are very usable too; I like both the Neutral and Monochrome profiles - this is SOOC (IIRC):
generations (station shot 2) on Flickr
btw. I couldn't have taken that image with any compact (apart from the GR) because startup on those is laggy *at best*, sometimes downright slow - while switching on the V1 and pulling it up to my eye was one movement, no wait (the best moment had already gone even so, and that image you see wouldn't have lasted for another 2 seconds - that's why I didn't take another half-step forward to frame this better: The opportunity was about to end).
I think the worst decision on Nikon's part was pricing, particularily early on - it was way out for all models; once prices came down (I paid roughly $250 for my camera, brand new), the cameras presented great value. I think Nikon treated most models like small series items (*exclusivity* driving up production cost and market prices) - which promptly forced the cameras to become just that. If it was an experimental platform, they should have tried to get as many of those cameras out there as possible to see how their performance held up - if you're counting in a loss, you might as well see it through. As it is, it was mainly the overpricing that protected other lines, not the quality of the images - most people would have been completely satisfied with what those cameras put out.
M.