Very different cameras. I wouldn't compare it. If we were talking about image quality the EM1 wins hands down. Even if you could do some jobs the same way with both, I don't see the V3 winning against the EM1 anymore than an EM1 winning against a Nikon D4s. Each has a tier to belong to, and to me the V3 just looks overpriced (V3 should be like $900 USD tops as sold in the USA with the bundles).
There is just no comparison between a pro camera like D4s and EM1. Besides the difference in AF and the accessories available, the D4s works with almost every Nikkor lens and flash made in the last +30 years.
I would suggest that the V3 makes the EM1 look old tech. The V3 is a showcase of the MILC technology of the future.
How can a camera that has considerably worse image quality, worse build quality, lesser lens selection, and which is lacking standard features (viewfinder+flash, swivel flash, remote flash, focus peaking, etc.) be the "showcase of the MILC technology of the future"? Are you joking HappyVan?
No, he's not. His Nikon fanboi colors are flying high though.
If that's the future, than MILCs have NO future.
Micro Four Thirds sells way more cameras than Nikon 1, has at least 4 different companies making bodies for it and countless companies making lenses for it. The future is much brighter for Micro Four Thirds than Nikon 1. It will only take one decision by one Nikon senior executive to end the Nikon 1 line and that will be the end of that.
What's particularly troubling for Nikon 1 (like Pentax Q, another HappyVan 'technology of the future') is that they picked the wrong end of the sensor range, the smaller end where it more closely competes against cellphone cameras. Cellphone cameras are ravaging the market for low-end and small cameras. Cellphone clip-on cameras are also going to eat into that market. All camera markets are feeling that pressure, but none more so than small-sensor cameras where the IQ difference is less compelling.
This is a very one dimensional view! First of all, 4/3 isn't a new standard, has been around for quite a while,
Has been around since the E-1 and died with the E-3. The E-5 was just a last straw but no more lenses since 2009. If I am not wrong, all except one pro lens lens was release before 2007. That's a pretty long time, and a system with that history is a dead system.
and m43 is just an extension of the 4/3 standard,
No, it is a totally new system. From the beginning, very poor support for 4/3 lenses, just like the poor support of OM lenses in the 4/3 system. In this respect, backward compatibility, Nikon is definitely miles ahead, even in the Nikon 1 system. MFT improved FT support but their lenses are not good enough for CDAF, so they will NEVER be good performers on MFT.
only problem is technology wasn't there to back up the idea, which has it's problems as easily seen through the 1st gen. m43 cameras.
Not really true, technology was there, but this happens when you don't consider backward compatibility and don't care about former users. Olympus has a history of not caring about their customers. They did not care about OM users and they did not care about FT users, they just want you to buy a totally new system every time they change something in the system.
It all started with oly & pan, and the main reason was they couldn't break into the DSLR market so they had to find another the way.
Of course they couldn't break into the DSLR market with their stupid ideas. Basically, they dug their own grave the same day they released the E-1 because they thought that they can release a totally new camera and ignore long time Oly users without any significant punishment. If they would have taken their own customers more seriously they would be a winner today, or at least be there in the same league as Pentax. The idea of 4/3 system was good, but they had a crappy sensor, a crappy AF, very few lenses and zero backward compatibility. That was what killed them. If they would have had auto aperture and AF assist support for OM lenses when they released the E-1, instead of that stupid solution of brand new flange back distance and forcing you to use that dumb MF-1, crippling even the focus assist LED from working, plus would have fixed the AF issues of E-3 and ditched that crappy Panasonic sensor then customers like me would have believed in their future and would still use their DSLRs... Of course, a less corrupt corporate management would have helped them as well, just like better marketing and customer support, but basically, if you ignore your customers they will leave. That's the hard facts of consumer business. If loyalty is not rewarded, news travel fast and that punishes every company very hard today.
As sensor technology advances, m43's problems started to diminish.
No, the sensor technology was there, available for others, just like for Oly.
Product-wise m43 has 4 years head start. Standard-wise, even longer. Now who's to say in another 4 years time 1" sensor couldn't catch up? I think people should be wise to learn from m43, in not to dismiss a standard or system too quickly.
Nikon is definitely serious about the Nikon 1. They are making new lenses and new bodies. What else could proof their intentions? If they made a stupid decision about excluding the EVF or not, we will see. Anyway, it is their decision, and if customers will punish them then they will be gone soon, but if their decision was right we will see that soon as well. For now, I am not worried about their future, unlike Olympus, Nikon as a company is not entirely dependent on the Nikon 1, so even if the Nikon 1 would be gone in a year time, Nikon as a company is still solid. I don't think Olympus can stand another failure though, and if they fail with the MFT due to tougher competition then they will be gone forever, much like Minolta, or even more, if the whole MFT range dies out due to Panasonic not willing to support a failing system.
Truth is I get a camera as it matches what I need/want.
