gavinlg
Veteran
What I want to know is how they came up with the $800 price for this thing? Yes it's an interesting looking little camera, yes I'd love to have a play with one, yes it's so ugly it's almost cute, and yes it's tiny.
BUT,
- The sensor is seriously tiny - around 50% smaller than the sensor in the current canon g12/s95 and olympuz zx1. I'd love to know how that 50mm f1.9 equiv lens will shoot - will it have any DOF control at all?
- The price is $800. You can pre-order it right now at adorama for that. When I can buy an e-pl1 with 14-42mm kit lens AND a 20mm f1.7 pancake for the same price as that pentax, why on earth would I even consider it?
BUT,
- The sensor is seriously tiny - around 50% smaller than the sensor in the current canon g12/s95 and olympuz zx1. I'd love to know how that 50mm f1.9 equiv lens will shoot - will it have any DOF control at all?
- The price is $800. You can pre-order it right now at adorama for that. When I can buy an e-pl1 with 14-42mm kit lens AND a 20mm f1.7 pancake for the same price as that pentax, why on earth would I even consider it?
ully
ully
Photocell size.
Photocell size.
My understanding is that backlit sensors have all the area for photocells because all the circuitry is on the opposite side. This leaves a lot of area for the light collectors.
Photocell size.
My understanding is that backlit sensors have all the area for photocells because all the circuitry is on the opposite side. This leaves a lot of area for the light collectors.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
This camera is not designed for you guys.
It is designed for the young, hip, Japanese market where such an item is a desirable fashion accessory and the price and technical spec is secondary.
It is designed for the young, hip, Japanese market where such an item is a desirable fashion accessory and the price and technical spec is secondary.
Zarkon
Newbie
$800 is the MSRP, actual street prices will be somewhat lower. Didn't the Ricoh GXR have a $900 price for just the body module alone. That camera now sells with a lens for $600.
Lugging around a full dslr combo on a hiking trip is no fun at all. Lets see the image quality from the cam before we pass judgement on it.
Lugging around a full dslr combo on a hiking trip is no fun at all. Lets see the image quality from the cam before we pass judgement on it.
gavinlg
Veteran
Pre-orders are currently at 800
Bill58
Native Texan
Pentax isn't dumb--they might just have something here. Will somebody (not me) here have the orbs to buy one and report back?
FrozenInTime
Well-known
It's intriguing :
Something the size of a Ricoh GRD III, but with a 50mm e. lens.
Given 2..3 years sensor advancement between the two, perhaps the image quality ( dynamic range and sensitivity ) is comparable.
On the other hand are the 'toy lenses' there to set appropriate expectations - in which case it's a well made, expensive toy.
Something the size of a Ricoh GRD III, but with a 50mm e. lens.
Given 2..3 years sensor advancement between the two, perhaps the image quality ( dynamic range and sensitivity ) is comparable.
On the other hand are the 'toy lenses' there to set appropriate expectations - in which case it's a well made, expensive toy.
gavinlg
Veteran
It's probably important to note that the sensor in this camera is actually smaller than the grd III sensor.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
damien.murphy
Damien
Should be about as successful as the Sigma dslr range. Whoever thought up this idea should get several slaps with a rolled up newspaper 
More seriously though, I have no intention of ever buying into a minority, unproven interchangeable lens system.
More seriously though, I have no intention of ever buying into a minority, unproven interchangeable lens system.
gavinlg
Veteran
Well, that's the thing... you wouldn't consider it as a first camera or even a backup camera, but as just something different to play around with.
Honestly, based on my other cameras, I'd take the Q over the Olympus.
Nobody bought the Pentax 110 SLR as their only camera... but then again, I'm not sure how many people bought it.
Last edited:
freeranger
Well-known
Exactly! So Kawaii!!!
Pixelsmithy
Newbie
I thought I would resurrect this thread, because I wanted to note that my reaction to the Q was much like many of yours. I couldn't get past both the small sensor and the "cute factor" to take this camera very seriously. So I didn't. And then I tripped across a post on Pentax Forums that made me totally re-examine my preconceptions and learn a little bit about both the sensor in the Q and the amazing capabilities built into that little wonder. I now believe that the Q is the best camera (read: most impressive achievement) coupled with the WORST marketing in the history of the universe. (Look! It's TINY!) now that it's price is coming down I think it deserves another round of discussion and consideration, especially as the ultimate "accessory" for "serious" photographers ( of any brand). I did more investigation, read more OWNER reviews and saw the words "fun" and "joy" more than I've ever seen in any camera reviews before.
I believe that the Q is an absolute no-brainer at less than $400. For "serious" DSLR shooters it should be viewed as a camera that can actually EXTEND your capabilities:
1) the best camera is the one you have with you. There is no excuse to be without the Q on your person at all times. That alone can mean capturing a lot of images where you think "I wish I had my camera for that."
2) the excellent Exmor-R sensor ( and what Pentax engineers can do with the data it produces) makes this more than just a small P&S sensor. Dismissing it for it's size and not recognizing the advantages of the backlit Exmor-R is missing a huge part of what makes the Q extraordinary.
3) this little wonder can be used by people who know nothing about photography BUT it offers *all sorts of control* you are used to seeing only on big DSLRs if you want to use them (starting with RAW files, if you want them. It's in-camera processing is also extremely customizable and almost like having Photoshop built-in to the camera. If you prefer post-processing then you have the option of shooting RAW (or RAW+)
4) the small sensor's deep DOF works *for you* very well for macros and super telephoto. Put a 100mm macro on this camera and you can get the entire bug in focus, not just a thin slice like you would on an APS-C camera (or even worse a FF camera). That same lens gives you a fast 550mm equiv. (which you might want to compare in price to the lenses you would need to achieve the equiv. FOV on other systems.) Yes, you'll have to manually focus but you can do it.
I just popped for a used Q kit with the 8.5mm f1.9, an extra battery, a C-Mount Adapter, a C to K-mount adapter and a metal hood/cap for the 8.5mm, all for $395 shipped. I then also ordered a Pentax 6x7 to K adapter ($38 from China), as I'm interested in experimenting with a 165mm f2.8 lens on both the Q and my K-5. The Q will be waiting for me at work on Monday, and I'm stoked to try it.
Those of you who thought it had merit but was too expensive, should look again because it is approaching half price land. Those of you, who like me, were prejudiced at the way it was marketed or the simply by its small sensor had better look again! You may not know what you are really missing.
Footnote: I plan on getting a 3x HoodLoupe for it, which will probably get a fair amount of use, but I think they would be a good idea for most cameras that lack a viewfinder.
I believe that the Q is an absolute no-brainer at less than $400. For "serious" DSLR shooters it should be viewed as a camera that can actually EXTEND your capabilities:
1) the best camera is the one you have with you. There is no excuse to be without the Q on your person at all times. That alone can mean capturing a lot of images where you think "I wish I had my camera for that."
2) the excellent Exmor-R sensor ( and what Pentax engineers can do with the data it produces) makes this more than just a small P&S sensor. Dismissing it for it's size and not recognizing the advantages of the backlit Exmor-R is missing a huge part of what makes the Q extraordinary.
3) this little wonder can be used by people who know nothing about photography BUT it offers *all sorts of control* you are used to seeing only on big DSLRs if you want to use them (starting with RAW files, if you want them. It's in-camera processing is also extremely customizable and almost like having Photoshop built-in to the camera. If you prefer post-processing then you have the option of shooting RAW (or RAW+)
4) the small sensor's deep DOF works *for you* very well for macros and super telephoto. Put a 100mm macro on this camera and you can get the entire bug in focus, not just a thin slice like you would on an APS-C camera (or even worse a FF camera). That same lens gives you a fast 550mm equiv. (which you might want to compare in price to the lenses you would need to achieve the equiv. FOV on other systems.) Yes, you'll have to manually focus but you can do it.
I just popped for a used Q kit with the 8.5mm f1.9, an extra battery, a C-Mount Adapter, a C to K-mount adapter and a metal hood/cap for the 8.5mm, all for $395 shipped. I then also ordered a Pentax 6x7 to K adapter ($38 from China), as I'm interested in experimenting with a 165mm f2.8 lens on both the Q and my K-5. The Q will be waiting for me at work on Monday, and I'm stoked to try it.
Those of you who thought it had merit but was too expensive, should look again because it is approaching half price land. Those of you, who like me, were prejudiced at the way it was marketed or the simply by its small sensor had better look again! You may not know what you are really missing.
Footnote: I plan on getting a 3x HoodLoupe for it, which will probably get a fair amount of use, but I think they would be a good idea for most cameras that lack a viewfinder.
ChrisN
Striving
...
I just popped for a used Q kit with the 8.5mm f1.9, an extra battery, a C-Mount Adapter, a C to K-mount adapter and a metal hood/cap for the 8.5mm, all for $395 shipped. I then also ordered a Pentax 6x7 to K adapter ($38 from China), as I'm interested in experimenting with a 165mm f2.8 lens on both the Q and my K-5. The Q will be waiting for me at work on Monday, and I'm stoked to try it.
... You may not know what you are really missing.
...
Sounds like fun! I'll be looking forward to your report.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Love mine. Shot it with an old 200mm Nikkor, making it over 1000mm. Quite fun.
IQ is superb in normal usage, a terrific little jewel of a camera.
IQ is superb in normal usage, a terrific little jewel of a camera.
Pioneer
Veteran
You know, if there had been on-line forums when the original Leica 1st hit the bricks I can imagine the posts to sound just like many of your own.
I am absolutely amazed by this camera and I am shopping for one right now. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Q is a reincarnation of Leica. I think it may be even better. It certainly fits Barnack's design objectives. High quality, small form factor, easy to use, highly portable, "good enough" image quality and price be damned.
I think Pentax has the same potential success story on their hands with the Q if they will stick with it. However I am afraid that the short product cycles of today will work against it. But I am going to take that chance and give the little guy a try.
I am absolutely amazed by this camera and I am shopping for one right now. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Q is a reincarnation of Leica. I think it may be even better. It certainly fits Barnack's design objectives. High quality, small form factor, easy to use, highly portable, "good enough" image quality and price be damned.
I think Pentax has the same potential success story on their hands with the Q if they will stick with it. However I am afraid that the short product cycles of today will work against it. But I am going to take that chance and give the little guy a try.
thegman
Veteran
I doubt I'd buy a Q, but it's a ballsy product to release by Pentax, and looks like a nice little thing. Pentax brings out some strange stuff, some works, some doesn't but at least it's not the same-old, same-old like you tend to get from Canon or Nikon.
imajypsee
no expiration date
I started this thread and decided not to buy the Q at the release price. Now that the price is where it should be for this tiny wonder, I finally laid out the dough. It's a great little camera. With the "standard prime" it's small enough to go in my purse or fanny pack. (I also bought a Nikon 1j1 and wish I'd bought the 1v1; still might). Anyhow, the Q is a Pentax which means I can use my legacy lenses (lots of M42) with a $14.95 adapter. Nikon wants a fortune and I'd have to buy some NiKon glass (though the Nikon 1 lenses are superb in themselves).
If the Q had a real viewfinder it would be perfect (you can buy a composing VF).
Q and Takumar 35/3.5
Standard prime
made lemonade by imajypsee, on Flickr
If the Q had a real viewfinder it would be perfect (you can buy a composing VF).
Q and Takumar 35/3.5
Standard prime
made lemonade by imajypsee, on Flickr
Last edited: