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
Phase detection autofocus
Badge
fast and accurate
Thin
Thickness
1.2"
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax Q

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses
Weight
Light-weight
200 g
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

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 S1

Nikon 1 S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$299 with 11-2mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Color depth Worse color depth
Nikon 1 V1

Nikon 1 V1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$495 body only

$399 with 10-30mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Low light performance More noise at high ISO
Nikon 1 J3

Nikon 1 J3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$180 body only

$480 with 10-30mm lens

Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Color depth Worse color depth

Pentax Q Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$744 with 12-32mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Color depth Better color depth
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Pentax Q-S1

Pentax Q-S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$348 body only

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Size Slightly larger
Nikon 1 V1

Nikon 1 V1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$495 body only

$399 with 10-30mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Image stabilization No image stabilization

discussion

Nikon 1 J1
1 J1
Nikon

Report a correction
Pentax Q
Q
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments