These are indeed among the reasons why I've stayed away, Ricardo. However, what may change the equation somewhat are:
- If you're a Nikon user and can use Nikon AF-S lenses with AF (the 85mm f/1.8 seems to be particularly well suited, but there are others too)
I think that's a nice extra, but it goes to point back to sports/birding. I honestly wouldn't look forward to a smaller system because I can use big DSLR lenses on it- that defeats the purpose. One reason I haven't cared much for m4/3rds using my 4/3rd lenses.
I do understand this is a personal want/need on that point so if someone likes that aspect, that's certainly an advantage for them.
- The modularity of the V3, making it span from GM1 to at least E-M5 and partly the E-M1 (AF)
I actually expect the AF to be better than the EM-1. I have seen what the Nikon 1 V1 can do, so I expect better here. I agree the size span is very attractive- one reason I am looking at this model at all.
- Unique high speed features, photo as well as video
That points back to sports. Though I agree those wanting video also, that's attractive. But Panasonic m4/3rds does phenomenal video. I suppose the slo mo modes are interesting for those into that.
- The inclusion of a very compact waterproof (as opposed to water resistant) body and lens in the system
I really don't care one bit about it, since I am specifically looking at the V3. Though I agree for those who do actual scuba diving, this is attractive.
The open question is image quality, particularly at high ISO. M4/3 has come incredibly far in that area. Also, the Panasonic video capabilities are rather unique, although they don't offer anything near 120fps in a compact body.
That one is easy- m4/3rds will have better IQ, period. The question here is more: " is the IQ enough for what you want/need." Given my work with the Pentax Q7, the answer for myself seems to be "it sure seems it's good enough."
In fact, if Pentax/Ricoh released an F1.0 prime for the Q7 I think I would be set, and I wouldn't be looking. I don't have much trouble using the Q7 well in daylight. At night it becomes more trying, even then I have gotten some shots. So I am thinking a Nikon 1 giving say 1- 1.3 stops better than Q in lower light, along with a faster prime would pass the "minimum to do some nice work I consider good enough" - but it goes back to the issue I mentioned on size vs m4/3rds.
I'm rathe happy with what I have at the moment, but it would be fun to try
I will say I absolutely love the Ricoh GR. The only reason I am looking at this is because I am not a wide angle photographer, and while the Ricoh GR crop modes help a lot here, the most "tele" mode is a 47mm. I think I would be happy if I can touch 150mm (which Nikon 1 system is currently missing but at least it does 85mm).
(yes I am discounting the zooms, I am talking about the primes because I want to make sure I could use it for the night).
So what's holding me back from m4/3rds?
EM-1 - concluded not interested, though if I found myself doing a lot of weddings I wouldn't mind picking one up. Too big for what I want. Not a super fan of the ergonomics (though better than E-3/E-5). And no leaf shutter or e-shutter (this is a key requirement for me now).
GM1 - horrible camera to use. I really really ended up hating it.
GX7 - this one is the big question. Why I haven't picked this up. I think it just didn't feel quite right when I did. Also I found it a bit bigger than what I want.
Olympus EM-10- I would have picked one up if Olympus had an e-shutter option, but they don't yet.
That also points to another problem in the Nikon 1 system... do I go for one now only to find Panasonic does the GM2 and does it right? This is why I am looking for key Nikon 1 advantages.
- Ricardo