Nikon 1 J1 vs Pentax Q

Winner
Nikon 1 J1

44

Pentax Q

38

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon 1 J1

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
1,200 fps
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
60 fps
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
1400 ms startup delay
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
94 ms shutter lag
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax Q

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 46 sample photos taken by the Nikon 1 J1.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax Q.

competitors

Nikon 1 J1 Competitors

Nikon 1 J5

Nikon 1 J5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$463 - $497 with 10-30mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Color depth Better color depth
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies
Nikon 1 V1

Nikon 1 V1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$495 body only

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Autofocus Slower autofocus
Nikon 1 J2

Nikon 1 J2

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$400 with 10-30mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Color depth Worse color depth

Pentax Q Competitors

Pentax Q-S1

Pentax Q-S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$203 - $216 body only

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Size Slightly larger
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$325 - $749 body only

$449 with 18-55mm lens

Lens availability Much more lenses available
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Built-in focus motor Doesn't have a built-in focus motor
Pentax Q7

Pentax Q7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$255 body only

$301 with 5-15mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies

discussion

Nikon 1 J1
1 J1
Nikon

Report a correction
Pentax Q
Q
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments