imajypsee
no expiration date
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I'm going to have a closer look at this.. interesting offering.. good to see Pentax still thinking outside the proverbial box:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxQ/
Dave
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxQ/
Dave
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
" This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras"
My, my, they haven't been paying attention to what people think about smaller sensor even *without* trying it out.
My, my, they haven't been paying attention to what people think about smaller sensor even *without* trying it out.
jarski
Veteran
looks like p&s with changeable lenses.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Maybe the smaller sensor "could" work if they just reduced it from 12.4 to 6MP
Anyway, looks interesting but that's about it for me
Dave
From the few small images I've seen at 6400, it appears not to have much noise. It also doesn't have an anti-aliasing filter.
While I'm not big on small sensors, if a camera that uses one can make sharp and relatively noiseless image at high ISO while maintaining a decent amount of detail...while allowing you to pick out lenses matched to that sensor, I could care less that the sensor is small.
This is an intriguing camera to me because I love small digital devices and it would not be my only camera. Looks like it could come in handy at times. But I just can't do it at $800.
Last edited:
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
The Leica D-Lux 5 sells for $800 as well...though it has a slightly larger sensor.
segedi
RFicianado
Too small for prints (of the size I would want to print anyway) but perhaps the video will be OK.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
It looks like a fun camera, but I agree that it's ill conceived, especially in light of recent trends. I think the Dpreview.com comparison to the Auto 110 SLR is right on. The Auto 110 looked like a lot of fun, too, but it didn't appeal to me back when it was released for the exact same reasons this one isn't appealing to me. You would have thought that Pentax would have learned something from that venture. It doesn't take a genius to see the 110 film and small sensor analogy. Maybe they are trying to mimic Olympus' efforts.
/
/
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Looks like the marketing department was driven to create the "Worlds Something-est Something," and they went for 'smallest with interchangeable lenses.' I'd rather they aimed for "World's Best Something Practical."
I can't see a huge audience for this. The kinds of people who would most value interchangeable lenses in a micro-compact camera are also the ones who know most about how a larger sensor enables more variety and control over imagemaking. I've tried the Canon S90 and the Panny LX3, and sold each quite quickly because i don't like OneSizeFitsAll DOF. They were both great cameras, for what they do. I suppose if i went to a lot of parties and needed to 'preserve' those types of memories, a little snapshooter would be more useful. But, again - why the lens mount?
What does interest me is the 'bokeh filter.' I can't believe it will actually be something i'd want to use, but i'm curious to know how it's designed and implemented. I'm imagining the effect will be something like vaseline smeared on an optical filter. A clear center spot and then maybe some gradual blurring out to the edges? Maybe as cute as a Holga effect. But, then, it only works in JPEG mode, so...another miss.
Someone said it on TheOnlinePhotographer: Why isn't someone designing a full-frame camera the size of an Olympus OM or Nikon FE2? With an equally impressive optical viewfinder? I'm shocked, with Leica's M8/9 demonstrating that there's a market for a pro-build, very small but still completely capable camera, that Nikon and Canon haven't done it. An "EOS 2" — same sensor and specs as a 5DMkII, maybe.... That's the useful sort of 'miniaturization.' Not smallness just for the sake of smallness. Okay, Pentax. You own the market on this thing. Nice.
I can't see a huge audience for this. The kinds of people who would most value interchangeable lenses in a micro-compact camera are also the ones who know most about how a larger sensor enables more variety and control over imagemaking. I've tried the Canon S90 and the Panny LX3, and sold each quite quickly because i don't like OneSizeFitsAll DOF. They were both great cameras, for what they do. I suppose if i went to a lot of parties and needed to 'preserve' those types of memories, a little snapshooter would be more useful. But, again - why the lens mount?
What does interest me is the 'bokeh filter.' I can't believe it will actually be something i'd want to use, but i'm curious to know how it's designed and implemented. I'm imagining the effect will be something like vaseline smeared on an optical filter. A clear center spot and then maybe some gradual blurring out to the edges? Maybe as cute as a Holga effect. But, then, it only works in JPEG mode, so...another miss.
Someone said it on TheOnlinePhotographer: Why isn't someone designing a full-frame camera the size of an Olympus OM or Nikon FE2? With an equally impressive optical viewfinder? I'm shocked, with Leica's M8/9 demonstrating that there's a market for a pro-build, very small but still completely capable camera, that Nikon and Canon haven't done it. An "EOS 2" — same sensor and specs as a 5DMkII, maybe.... That's the useful sort of 'miniaturization.' Not smallness just for the sake of smallness. Okay, Pentax. You own the market on this thing. Nice.
IMO, small sensors outperform 110 film big time generally speaking. However, it could just be that I've never used 110 on a camera with manual controls or a nice lens.
Well, the intended target is most likely the toy camera types (but too expensive for them) or the type that likes small / cute electronic gadgets. Honestly, I'm sure this will be capable of very good photo quality for what it is...
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
The comparison isn't 110 film to 1/2.3 sensors. That's a given: the sensor wins out. I was thinking more like:
110 film is to 35mm film as 1/2.3" sensor is to APS-C or MFT sensors.
/
matthewm
Well-known
Ugly little thing, isn't it? Almost cute...
I just can't see the benefit of such a tiny camera when you could get something just slightly larger and have far better image quality (m4/3, NEX, etc.). And as someone else pointed out, there's always the option of the LX-5, DLUX-5.
Judging from the photo of the person holding the camera, it looks incredibly uncomfortable and cramped. Why wouldn't Pentax create something with the sensor from their K-X that is comparable in size to the NEX or GF series?
This is definitely interesting, but I'm guessing it will flop...
I just can't see the benefit of such a tiny camera when you could get something just slightly larger and have far better image quality (m4/3, NEX, etc.). And as someone else pointed out, there's always the option of the LX-5, DLUX-5.
Judging from the photo of the person holding the camera, it looks incredibly uncomfortable and cramped. Why wouldn't Pentax create something with the sensor from their K-X that is comparable in size to the NEX or GF series?
This is definitely interesting, but I'm guessing it will flop...
I understand, but to me a 1/2.3" sensor is closer IQ wise to a APS-C / m4/3 sensor than 110 film was to 35mm ... in every day use. 110 was just a mess. Even a cell phone is more capable.
The photo of the body without the lens shouldn't have been released...
They should have just shown this:
douglasf13
Well-known
The photo of the body without the lens shouldn't have been released...
They should have just shown this:
What a riot! That thing is tiny. I'd love one of those little guys...for a couple of hundred bucks.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
That's what I was thinking. Basically, for the most part, if you participate in a photo forum like this one, the Q is not for you.
Wes Medlin
Member
Hmm. If there's a K-mount adapter it could be fun. Let's see, normal lens is 8.5mm, and I have a 500mm K-mount mirror lens somewhere. Perfect match.