A nice and lightning-fast compiled summary on the product releases and previews can be found at the 1001 Noisy Cameras.
However, I am completely not convinced with the appearances of the J1 and V1, they look rather ugly and toyish afterall and the "1" logo makes them even uglier than they appeared! :-o
(Picture source: Rob Galbraith DPI)
For more technical information, including the detailed product specs, just visit the official Nikon pages:-
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/
One unfortunate to note is that despite using a smaller 1" sensor than the micro-4/3's, the 1 bodies and lenses are not significantly smaller or lighter than the m4/3 counterparts! The late Pana X series lenses could be even smaller. So, another failed status given by me (picky person)! ;-)
Logging you in...
Pwong · 704 weeks ago
At least Pentax Q has an advantage in super tele, macro and on cine lens.
RiceHigh 110p · 704 weeks ago
Ying · 704 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 704 weeks ago
Ying · 704 weeks ago
From the product description, this camera sounds like it's a clever tool for dumb photographers - fire 25 shots and one is bound to be good - it even tries to "pick" what it thinks is the best for the user"
Ted Nugent · 704 weeks ago
With such a small sensor, why are the lenses so chunky?
Why are they so slow?
Why are the bodies close to m43?
Ugly? Hell, YES!
Toomas Kadarpik · 704 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 704 weeks ago
Pwong · 704 weeks ago
Michael A. · 704 weeks ago
Rene · 704 weeks ago
However, based on these specs and other facts, Nikon 1 cameras will sell better than the Pentax Q, for sure. They have a larger sensor, a size that is more acceptable, for those willing to pay this kind of money. They are cheaper or as cheap as entry level DSLRs, not more expensive like the Q. The crop factor is for the Nikon models is however 2.7x, much less ridiculous when compared to Pentax Q's 5.7x. Besides image quality, it means a little depth of field, instead of virtually non-existent depth of field like most compacts. They have some distinguishing new features like truly fast AF and FPS, and not just small size, which can be hard to use by adults. They have a good brand name, not a brand that gets sold every 2 years. The have visibility in all camera stores as well as accessible support, and they are more trusted, unlike Pentax that just ignores problems like SDM failures.
This is another nail in Pentax Q's coffin.
triplight · 704 weeks ago
No, it's not. Japan is the main target market for the Q and the Japanese are intelligent enought to tell the difference between a micro camera that was designed to be a digital re-creation of the Auto 110, and the wannabe m4/3 competitor that the much larger Nikon is. No one at Pentax is expecting the Q to be a world-beater, I'm surprised it even got released outside of Asia. Get a clue.
triplight · 704 weeks ago
OGL · 704 weeks ago
The market of mirrorless begin to offer rather doubtful, questionable products...
IMO.
there is good proverb - neither fish, nor fowl - it's about Nikon mirrorless....
Even Fuji X10 is more well-balanced camera for me than CX and Q.
Warpig · 704 weeks ago
You can see clearly when a product has had a well line of research and development (as the Q) and a product that seems to have been rushed from a prototype to selling. I'm a product designer for the record..
And what is going on with the colored cameras? Why everyone is copying Pentax ideas? First, everyone talked about the "risk" of Pentax offering multiple colors for their ILC, how stupid it was, that it won¡t sell, etc. Now all of them are making them. And thats only one of many things. I'm impressed that they haven't copied the Sv mode already.
That's why I love Pentax, always ahead of the others in new and photographer-needed ideas.
Chris · 704 weeks ago
One other example would be the Astrotracing feature of the O-GPS1. How come the tiny Pentax make the really smart innovations?