[Rondec]

I think you are missing the point of the appeal the X100 has for a lot of people. It's the fact that it's only one lens. For example I feel very liberated doing photography with only a 35mm lens. I have no need for anything longer than the 77 Limited and quite frankly rarely use it. Undoubtedly it's a niche market but so are a lot of things. It clearly is not a camera for everyone but for those who like it's a fantastic camera.

Very much a niche market. For those who want SLR quality without having to bother to think about lenses. Frankly, I enjoy thinking about lenses, but for similar price, you could get a DA 35 limited and a kr and just weld it on to the body. Granted the viewfinder wouldn't be as good and it would be a little bigger, but still...

[epqwerty]

I've seen heavy distortion of 8.5/1.9 at the removed pictures from IR.

If i recall correctly the pictures were removed from ir due to the camera being a pre production mode and was not fully complete to accurately give the public a good idea of iq. Just saying people should hold off on complaining about iq until after a production is complete.

[K-9]

Yeah, but they'd have to add about $4,000 in lenses to make it worthwhile!

Your basic Pro-level zooms to compete against Canikon are 14-24 and 24-70. And a long tele to 300mm (at least).

And we are talking f/2.8 on the up to 70mm reach, so to make it more cost-effective a non-Pro line of f/3.5-5.6's come into play at $600 a pop. Plus a walkaround 24-120 constant f/4. And a travel zoom from 28-300.

And the primes, where Pentax is covered save for WA. They'd need a 24 to go with the current FA Ltd's.

They'd need to put out 7 zooms and 5 primes. Nikon has 14 FF zooms and something like 20 FF-capable primes. That's the competition.

People already spend astronomical amounts for DA lenses, not usable on FF. I never did, and never would, but others have and would easily buy expensive new FF lenses. It's actually Pentax's own fault for dismissing FF lenses and switching themselves to all cropped sensor lenses. That's not planning for the future on their part.

I don't think this forum is representative of consumers of Pentax cameras as a group, at all. You are already biasing your sample set right there. How can you possibly prove this place is representative?

It's still a good sampling of Pentax users. You get 70% of people on the forum who say they would buy FF, you're numbers aren't going to be that dramatically different if you polled ALL Pentax users in the country. Pentax users are Pentax users, no matter if they're all in one place or not.

The main point I make here is that overall, I think the Q is a big gimmick that will not attract the amount of buyers necessary to justify having ever come out with this style camera. I think it will be a lemon for Pentax. Sorry, but I do. I also believe that a FF camera release by Pentax will be nowhere near a failure. Now, if Pentax cut the price of this camera in half, it would have a good chance of succeeding. Anywhere near the price it's at now, is set up for failure.

[epqwerty]

I actually have worked in retail. About 13 years. I've seen lots of people, fork over lots of cash, for lots of things you'd think was ridiculous. If Pentax users bought the $1600 K-5, they will buy the $2200 FF Pentax. Again, the only thing I said about this forum was I believed a poll would show more people will say they will buy FF. I still based my comparison on real world numbers outside this forum. I'll wager hard, cash money that a FF Pentax DSLR would outsell the Q.

You can say the same thing about the Q. Lots of people will profess to wanting the cute little thing, but the amount of people who actually fork over the cash will be pretty small. A compact camera at $800 is actually way over $$$ to value ratio, and way over the norm for that size sensor, than a FF Pentax would most likely be in it's price to sensor size value.

Okay this is going to be my last time in the ff conversation because we are really getting off topic from the Q. The purpose of the Q may not be suited for your needs, fine its not a problem. Your points about FF are valid. However, in a market mainly controlled by canon and nikon and with the economy at where it is at, does FF pentax camera have enough to stay afloat? Granted forum members will purchase it. New users will they which from nikon/canon? Or first timers can they be lured via sales rep to Pentax?

In my opinion, no it is far easier to sell to joey joe a canon or nikon. The user base for the FF camera will be limited to just us plus a little bit of deviation.

However, the Q is not marketed for us. You can see from just our numerous posts. You have some forum members liking the product despite its problems and willing to buy. I myself was originslly against it but in my opinion if price was lowered by even $150 id consider it. So you have a limited user base fromjust us.

Now you throw in new people into the mix. Who do you have in the market panasonic, olympus, samsung, and sony. For interchangable lens. Out of those only olympus is a camera maker. Pana sony and sammy are electronic company. (sony/minolta but not sure how much input minolta still has). Now pentax, out of all those brands only olympus and pentax have history and thus those that are going to buy based on reputation. Pentax is looking like a good choice.

Now think about size neither the samnsung or sony are pocketable. The olympus and panasonic are bigger and maybe pocketable. The pentax however can be pocketed size wise it is like an ipod but thicker easily fitted in a jacket pocket. im referring to the prime as the zoom lens seems like its pretty big. But compared to the sony zoom its still small.

Sensor size. I cant be certain but how many people who've bought a dslr kr kx or km use it only for family shots or vacationing? Or those people how many print 8x10? I know none of my cousins with dslr have. And i reckon there are many more that do not print larger than 5x8. I would think a majority of the photos are 4x6 or posted on the web.

Therefore, what the Q brings is a small compact that can be used ideal for a market where people want dslr features without the hassle. It has a user base from old customers. Plus can lure new people who are dslr first timers. Its a good marketing area to be in. Since nikon and canon are not in the market and the olympus dslr is not as popular compared to pentax. Pentax can claim more popularity and captalize on the kr kx reputation.

As for r&d, many are assuming the stole resources from the slr division but i have not seen any reports of this. As far as we know it could have been taken from the p&s division. And ff wise it may not be out today but eventually pentax will build one but right now just isnt the time for them to put that money in. Once pentax gets its feet solidly planted i expect them to come out with ff.

That is all from me

[hcarvalhoalves]

Sensor size. I cant be certain but how many people who've bought a dslr kr kx or km use it only for family shots or vacationing? Or those people how many print 8x10? I know none of my cousins with dslr have. And i reckon there are many more that do not print larger than 5x8. I would think a majority of the photos are 4x6 or posted on the web.

Sensor size has nothing to do with printing. That sensor has as much megapixels as many others. But sensor size means a lot, photography-wise. DoF, high ISO performance and overall quality, for instance.

That doesn't mean the system as a whole is a failure, as I expect better CMOS sensors in the future, regardless of size. But in the current status quo, there's a serious mismatch of price x quality on this Pentax Q.

[K-9]

I believe the Nokia N8 cell phone's camera has a larger sensor size than the Q and is 12MP. It has 720p video and a ND filter feature. It came out last year, too.

You get a smartphone along with the camera for $379.00. Instant photos to flickr or anywhere via the net. Zeiss lens. All for half the Q's price.

I just don't know if the interchangeable quality Pentax lenses will be enough to get great images from such a small sensor.

[Aristophanes]

People already spend astronomical amounts for DA lenses, not usable on FF. I never did, and never would, but others have and would easily buy expensive new FF lenses. It's actually Pentax's own fault for dismissing FF lenses and switching themselves to all cropped sensor lenses. That's not planning for the future on their part.

Pentax did so because the cost curve on an FF sensor was 16x that of an APS-C.

Only recently (Nikon D700) has that curve begun to come down.

it was not lens issues that thwarted FF development but sensor costs. Even Leica was bitten by that dilemma and released the uncharacteristically compromised M8 with a 1.33 crop sensor.

Take a look at the price lists for long glass in FF. Then you'll see the cost problem exploding again. Even with the DA* lenses being pricey for Pentax, if you want the equivalent in FF you'll outlay 3-4x as much for comparable FF glass, in part because they have to be so much larger for long glass.

To keep a mass market Pentax had no choice but to switch nearly entirely to APS-C. The market spoke as all other consumer-level producers cropped as well. Even Hasselblad and Mamiya/Phase ONe cropped their initial MF offerings substantially due to sensor cost issues. now, those costs are coming down and they too are increasing the mm diagonals on their sensors.

The Q has really nothing to do with DSLR FF's or APS-C or M43 mirrorless markets save as 2nd units; in fact, the sensor size telegraphs that its marketing aim is strictly at the top-end compact and bridge camera systems (where Pentax has been weak to non-existent) with a twist of toy fun thrown in.

This market aim is wise because it fills in gaps in the Pentax line at the same time as elevates the compact above what people routinely acquire in their smartphone cameras.

[junyo]

Very much a niche market. For those who want SLR quality without having to bother to think about lenses. Frankly, I enjoy thinking about lenses, but for similar price, you could get a DA 35 limited and a kr and just weld it on to the body. Granted the viewfinder wouldn't be as good and it would be a little bigger, but still...

Or those who don't want the setting ruined by mirror/shutter noise. Or who want high speed flash sync. Or direct access to the pertinent controls. Or direct subject viewing with no blackout. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

There's nothing magical about interchangeable lenses. In an SLR, as a jack of all trades, swapping lenses makes sense. For what these cameras are, a single fixed lens is fine. It's a "life" camera, and life doesn't stop for you to change lenses. A wide to normal prime, or a moderate zoom, and yeah, wield it to the front. That's actually how most rangefinder shooters have always worked; virtually all of Henri Cartier-Bresson's work was done with a single lens. Besides, you throw the idea of size and portability out of the window once you have to bring something to carry a bunch of fragile metal and glass accessories.

[jsherman999]

Here's a stock answer based on just scanning what you wrote :-)

Sigh...

If you really want an FF camera, suggest you sell your Pentax gear and buy Canon or Nikon. I don't think Pentax is a company/brand that is aligned to what you want.

They already lost several thousand dollars that I would have preferred to send their way.

As I tried to get across in that post, (maybe just 'scan' the last paragraph again?) Even though I often write about it from the context of 'me', it's not about me.

I don't want them to go away as a company. Mirrorless and what's below that - on it's way up with a bullet - is a dangerous basket to put a lot of eggs in right now... for a DSLR company. The wrong product just wastes a lot of time and resources that could have gone elsewhere.

Personally, I wouldn't want Pentax to divert their R&D dollars into making a FF body - I prefer to see them spend that making more lenses for the Q system,...

Good lord.

How is it that a whiff of novelty can cause people to lower their standards so significantly?

Anyway, let's hear what Thom "I Love Pentax" Hogan thinks:


"June 23 (news and commentary)--Pentax today joined the mirrorless (or ILC) market with what can only be regarded as an oddball entry: the Q is a very small interchangeable lens camera with a 1/2.3" sensor (same as many compact cameras). It also costs more than any compact camera at US$800, and that's with just a 47mm f/1.9 equivalent lens.

Some of you may remember the old Auto 110 system, where Pentax (and Kodak) tried to invent a small, new film format. Why the folks at Pentax think it's worth repeating that mistake, I don't know. When 4/3 was originally announced, I accused Olympus of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Pentax has now officially brought a pea shooter slingshot. Or a paper weight.

The problem is that if you use the compact camera sensors, you're competing against...wait for it...compact cameras. Pentax gave the new Q (is the naming department on vacation or watching Bond movies?) five lenses, a "normal" f/1.9, a kit-zoomish f/2.8-4.5, a fisheye, and two lenses labeled Toy Lens that cost US$80 each (again, what's with that naming department?). Let's see, they're competing against some compact cameras with longer focal length ranges that are f/1.8-2.2. To what end is the "interchangeable lens" aspect helpful in that if you're already starting at a deficit?

Someone will surely bring up the "cute" or "retro" aspects (it looks a bit like a toy film-era camera), but as I've written before, if you go for fad-dominated design, you've completely lost the thread of camera making. Meanwhile, we've got startups like Lytro (next story) breaking entirely new ground. Who do you think is more likely to win that dance? At least the Pentax Q has a new Scene exposure mode we haven't seen before: Forest. Apparently Pentax designers can't see the trees for the forest.

dpreview called the Pentax Q "ever-so-slightly eccentric." No, it's not slightly anything. It's over-the-top bizarre. Bizarre enough that Pentax will sell a few to people who are more interested in being able to pull a mini-mini-SLR out of their pocket to impress others ("Name's Bond. Thom Bond"). Meanwhile, the rest of us will be taking better pictures with an Olympus XZ-1 for half the price.
...
"


.

[cbaytan]

If you really want an FF camera, suggest you sell your Pentax gear and buy Canon or Nikon. I don't think Pentax is a company/brand that is aligned to what you want.

.

You forgot to suggest 645D to him, people are tend to forget Pentax has an FF camera, in fact better than FF. Besides not much bigger than D3x or 1Ds.

Kodak's ancient 35mm film size made an un-erasable pattern in the heads. It is normal, but it is time to forget 24x36mm. 645 is there waving hands to your wallets.

[Christine Tham]

You forgot to suggest 645D to him, people are tend to forget Pentax has an FF camera, in fact better than FF. Besides not much bigger than D3x or 1Ds.

I was going to actually, but then it would be bad advice.

The 645D is a niche camera for a niche market, and not exactly comparable to a "mainstream" pro FF camera.

If a FF DSLR is what someone wants, I wish they would just stop trying to wish Pentax become a brand that it isn't, and just go and buy a Canon or Nikon.

And leave Pentax to continue to manufacture the products I want. At the end of the day, it's all about me. :-)

[Ash]

I believe Brangdon's made a fair point regarding the Q-mount as a system for the future, not just a fad. The appeal for the X100 will soon become yesterday's history with the next novelty P&S produced, but the Q-mount is more forward-thinking. It has the potential to keep growing, both in bodies and in lenses.

FF may well come for Pentax some time in the future, closing the gap between APS-C and MF, but for now the focus is elsewhere and we ought to accept that for what it is...

[RonHendriks1966]

I believe Brangdon's made a fair point regarding the Q-mount as a system for the future, not just a fad. The appeal for the X100 will soon become yesterday's history with the next novelty P&S produced, but the Q-mount is more forward-thinking. It has the potential to keep growing, both in bodies and in lenses.

I'm on this to:

CaSoNiOlyPaSam -> Pentax 1 : 2

Hands down on that score!

[cbaytan]

The 645D is a niche camera for a niche market, and not exactly comparable to a "mainstream" pro FF camera.

Niche? I refuse to understand that. The question ıs what are you behind? Supposedly fancy brand or IQ? D3x and 645D comparisons out there.

I believe I understand the Pentax futuristic views, 1- a toy camera system, with almost size of a modern car key, which is Q system, 2- An APS-C system and a 3- medium format system which also substitutes FF dSLR system. All we consumers want is those should be cheaper systems corresponding at least to others right? Obviously low sale volumes do not permit that as Canikons do. This is the main problem with Pentax. Pentax has also QC issues too.

[odyn]

Ok, with an appropriate adapter for K-mount, one could put on a good old FA50 1.4 to this camera, effectively getting an equivalent of pocketable 197mm f1.4 system. "no pro camera inside" concerts, here I come