I've just gotten a v1 and have been reading the posts about the FT-1 adaptor. I have several DX lenses which would certainly give a wider range to the v1...but my question is why? If the purpose of the camera is to have a smaller form-factor than a dslr and then you still have to carry a bag of large, heavier lenses, why not just stick with the dslr albeit a larger kit. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the v1's grab-and-go appeal? Help me out here, guys and gals...what am I missing? I've only had the v1 a few days and am really trying to like it but it seems like the pricey adaptors, underpowered flash, slow lenses, etcetera make this a camera that fills a niche that doesn't exist. I'm not trying to be v1 negative but I feel I must be overlooking something "special" and I would love to make this my 2nd camera. Right now it sits in about the number "5" position of cameras I grab to shoot with. Thanks for you input. Gleemor
#1. "RE: Why an FT-1(newbie question)" In response to Reply # 0
Yes and no. It definitely diminishes the grab and go nature of the Nikon 1 camera but the appeal of the FT1 adapter is with telephoto shots. Just like a DX camera puts more pixels in a smaller area vs the equivalent pixel count FX camera, so the CX camera puts even more in a smaller area. The effect is like filling the frame more. So for people, like me, who like birding and wildlife and macro this is really nice. It's hard to get close enough and harder to fill the frame. This is like a cheat without cropping. That's the big appeal.
#3. "RE: Why an FT-1(newbie question)" In response to Reply # 0
The 1 Series appeals on two different bases. One basis is the grab-and-go usage you noted. With its small lenses, these are relatively pocketable cameras. The other basis is the huge crop factor and subsequent telephoto advantage. Some people are going to be more interested in one of these bases than the other, but for me, they are both of interest.
Frankly, if I was looking only for a small camera, I'm not sure the V1 would be my first choice. Its additional appeal as a telephoto body makes it worth having as my grab-and-go camera as well. That said, it does a quite serviceable job as a stand-alone camera system.
#4. "RE: Why an FT-1(newbie question)" In response to Reply # 3
I agree with your assessment! For the OP ...I only offer that for me I would not buy the V1 for my only pocket camera. There are others out there that I would look at first. But the V1 fits very nicely into my bag as a 2.7x teleconverter that, as said above, puts all the pixels in the center of my good glass and makes my 70-200VR a 189-540 VR f/ 2.8 lens and with my TC-17EII a 321-918 VR f/4. Not as good as my D800 but VERY usefull when I need the long 'reach'.
"My most rewarding photos are those that capture something I didn't 'see' in the frame....so just SHOOT."
#6. "RE: Why an FT-1(newbie question)" In response to Reply # 0
I think that when (if?) longer 1 series and faster 1 series lenses become available there will be less need for the FT-1, though of course if one happens to have a $5k to $10k lens lying around its nice to be able to use it to get some otherwise unattainable shots (where else can you find a 540mm FOV f/2 lens, for example). The faster 1 series lenses are already showing up...18.5 mm f/1.8 for example, with rumors of others imminent.