Originally posted by Verglace Bid difference, the range finders could take photos as good as their DSLRs. Pentax Q won't come close to a DSLR simply because of its tiny sensor. Its competing against point and shoots in terms of image quality and there are smaller more compact point and shoots. Those things will also be more compact as the lenses hide into the body where as with the Pentax Q it pokes out all the time. Then theres the price... really... $800?
Point taken, but RF's faded considerably in the AF area because their zone focusing particulars could not keep up with the accuracy of SLR's. I have 3 RF's I still use for film! (Olympus 35 RC, Canonet, and Rollei 35S). There are and have always been IQ issues with RF's compared to SLR. The latter is bigger and bulkier but can take shots that an RF could not dream of (sports, wildlife, etc.). The sheer versatility of the SLR is what made its design the dominant one in advanced camera markets.
What I am saying is that there were quality shooting compromises between RF's and SLR's, and that split market is not dissimilar to what Pentax is doing with the Q. I am sure there are substantial numbers of Leica M9 users who also bought into the S2 system.
If you want compact now the IQ difference is in sensor size. You get that with P&S regardless and most DSLR users I know have a P&S somewhere in their array. There are still tradeoffs now.
I think the Q lenses are tiny, tiny, tiny compared to M43 and NEX. The whole package is substantially smaller than the other mirrorless offerings. It's the most souped-up P&S on the market and there is space for such a product.
But the price....Ouch!