Nikon 1 V1 vs Pentax Q

Winner
Nikon 1 V1

49

Pentax Q

37

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon 1 V1

Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Digital
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
1,200 fps
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
60 fps
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
1300 ms startup delay
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax Q

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon 1 V1.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax Q.

competitors

Nikon 1 V1 Competitors

Nikon 1 J5

Nikon 1 J5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$497 with 10-30mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
High-speed framerate Lower speed movies
Nikon 1 J1

Nikon 1 J1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$260 with 10-30mm lens

Autofocus Faster autofocus
Color depth Better color depth
Viewfinder No viewfinder
Nikon 1 V3

Nikon 1 V3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,197 with 10-30mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Color depth Worse color depth

Pentax Q Competitors

Pentax Q-S1

Pentax Q-S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$209 - $247 body only

$359 with 5-15mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Slightly higher resolution screen
Thickness Slightly thicker
Pentax Q10

Pentax Q10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$190 body only

$603 with 5-15mm, 15-45mm lenses

Color depth Better color depth
Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Nikon 1 J1

Nikon 1 J1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$260 with 10-30mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Startup delay Much less startup delay
Image stabilization No image stabilization

discussion

Nikon 1 V1
1 V1
Nikon

Report a correction
Pentax Q
Q
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments