Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
It depends how you are comparing it to the Nikon, but the Q is much smaller than the Nikon cameras. The Nikon lives up with m4/3s and NEX as far as size/weight. Nothing compares to the size of the Q.my feeling is that if you want that kindofathing, the the Nikon rather eclipses it. Am I wrong?
What I mean is that Nikon designed the entire interface with the consumer in mind. There's no PASM- you have to dig into a menu and it's cumbersome. But you have the "best photo" thing, the photo , the video switch. I applaud Nikon for coming up for something new, but it's consumer oriented.>This shouldn't mean I am saying it's bad, but it's not with the enthusiast/more experienced photographer in mind.
Not sure what you mean. The Nikon 1 should have fast AF and other top features. Have to see how the video is. The Q has too low bit rates.
The two model's interface does not differ much at all.Seems I first get the P1 into my hands. Also the the two models seem to differ.
Since you have the Q, have you had a chance to use a micro four thirds EPL-3? What set of Pros a Q has over it in your opinion? (if any)Seems I first get the P1 into my hands. Also the the two models seem to differ.
HI CharlesIt depends how you are comparing it to the Nikon, but the Q is much smaller than the Nikon cameras. The Nikon lives up with m4/3s and NEX as far as size/weight. Nothing compares to the size of the Q.