The V1 is more appropriate for the flash maven, though we still don't have all the gear we'd want there. But I think overall, Nikon didn't think about their traditional customers much when they designed the Nikon 1's. Most of the design statements all seem centered on "finding the next Nikon customer." That's why I pointed out the Junior, Middle, Senior product notion that Nikon failed to execute on. Great, so Nikon attracts a new customer, one that previously only had a compact camera. Can Nikon now grow them into a DSLR customer? The cynical viewpoint would say "sure, because the Nikon 1 fails to deliver some of the things that the DSLRs do" (more pixels, fast/many lenses, excellent flash, user direct control, etc.). But if the Nikon 1 customer then realizes that they need new stuff (lens, flashes, remotes, etc.) AND has to learn a lot of new user interface stuff, they're not really locked into Nikon's systems, are they? Worse still, many of the questions/comments I'm getting are from the opposite direction: "if I'm a Nikon DSLR user and want a good competent carry-everywhere camera, is the Nikon 1 the answer?" Again, because there is so little carry-over, the answer isn't obviously a "yes". To me, this is a classic product management mistake. Nikon has three very disparate and non-connecting camera lines now (Coolpix, 1, DSLR). Worse still, performance and build quality and user experience are very different on those three, so it isn't "hey, my Coolpix was built really well and had a great user experience so I'll buy a Nikon 1 to get more performance." Instead, it's "my Coolpix broke, and I couldn't control everything I wanted to. I wonder what higher end camera I should buy?"
The camera industry in Japan is getting a lot like the Auto industry in the US was in the late 20th century. Nikon is feeling a bit like brand-happy GM (Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Cadillac, GMC versus Coolpix, 1, DX, FX).