[uccemebug]

I am certain that there will be smart phones that sport Q mount

I don't see this ever happening. It would blow the slim profile of the smart phone altogether.

[Fontan]

I don't see this ever happening. It would blow the slim profile of the smart phone altogether.

Can there be a pancake Q mount?

[Art Vandelay II]

The segment of the market which Q is targeted to probably has no idea what DOF is. I don't think that matters at all for its success.

Are there a lot of people out there interested in an $800 interchangeable lens magnesium compact camera that don't know what DOF is? There may be some like Christine that view infinite DOF as a bonus, but I imagine the vast majority of this market cherishes the ability to shoot at f/2 with soft backgrounds. Even if there are some ignorant of sensor size limitations I'm sure the review sites will quickly point out that deficiency. Heck, DPR might have killed it for a good number of people in just the second paragraph in their preview:

"The advantage of this is that the lenses for the Q mount can be made a lot smaller than those for other systems, but the downside is that the image quality is more likely to resemble that of a compact camera than a DSLR."

Don't most people buy expensive cameras do so for better image quality? Either way, I'm sure Pentax has done their market research, but the Q seems like it's aimed at the smallest possible niche imaginable (well, next to $40,000 medium format backs).

[ogl]

Either way, I'm sure Pentax has done their market research, but the Q seems like it's aimed at the smallest possible niche imaginable (well, next to $40,000 medium format backs).

I think that Hoya didn't make any serious marketing research worlwide. They've been cutting, downgrading, tearing Pentax all this time, got what they want and sell Pentax Imaging at last after announcement of Q.

And I think Pentax Q was ready at least 2 years ago. This idea could be interesting some time ago...But now...It's just for Japanese market.

[Art Vandelay II]

Instead of photos in someones hand to judge size, DC Watch has tons of size comparison photos against some of the Q's competitors:



dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/pview/20110701_457277.html

Still no sample images though. Very odd. The worldwide release date is August 11, and we still haven't seen sample images officially. Perhaps they are hoping to ship them before people see photos taken with it?

[redpigeons]

its a sexy tool , but too expansive and bad lens choice for the tool
could be the #1 urban camera , but not with a normal lens , and it is upsetting me a lot , it like pentax was listening to everything I wanted , and then released a street camera with the wrong lens

[eddie1960]

its a sexy tool , but too expansive and bad lens choice for the tool
could be the #1 urban camera , but not with a normal lens , and it is upsetting me a lot , it like pentax was listening to everything I wanted , and then released a street camera with the wrong lens

I have to agree a wide prime is the missing link to this camera, i can shoot street at a normal focal length but prefer a wider FOV

I have another use as well, when i take out my Bronica kit to shoot this isn't far off my light meter for size so i'll likely take it instead and use it like a polaroid back when shooting my 75, assuming it's meter is good (in reality it should be easily capable of metering as well as my ancient Minolta meter)

[redpigeons]

yes 35mm lens its a staple for any one that would conceder this camera for what it is best for , small quite range finder style with potential good IQ , I am sure that normal lens would be good , but at the end it is a normal lens ( its sounds like a budget decision more then anything to me )

[Christine Tham]

Are there a lot of people out there interested in an $800 interchangeable lens magnesium compact camera that don't know what DOF is? There may be some like Christine that view infinite DOF as a bonus, but I imagine the vast majority of this market cherishes the ability to shoot at f/2 with soft backgrounds.

Can I respectfully ask that you don't try and marginalise my position and project your needs as the needs of the majority?

I never said that I viewed "infinite DOF as a bonus" - please don't put words into my mouth. However, I did say that DOF isn't everything, and high DOF for the purposes I intend to use the camera is actually good. Note: high does not have the same meaning as infinite.

I would argue that expecting a standard prime to provide soft backgrounds is a niche requirement. When I started out photography (in the 70s on a rangefinder) - I would reach out for a standard prime for speed, not bokeh. Indeed, the bokeh of most standard primes is rather harsh. If I want soft blurry backgrounds, I would go for a telephoto. Pentax has yet to release a good telephoto for the Q but they are working on it. In the meantime, the standard prime can used as per any other camera with a standard prime - for speed, not bokeh. And if someone wanted bokeh, there is a bokeh filter (yet to proven how effective this is).

Earlier on in this thread there was a link to an article that provided info on the marketing research that Pentax did (in Japanese) parts of which I then translated to English. That link shows that Pentax knows exactly who they are targeting, and the size of that target segment.

You keep on bringing up image quality - the market survey Pentax did says that for the target market image quality is a secondary consideration. The primary consideration is size, ability to change lenses, followed by ability to control shooting parameters. Eerily, that almost exactly describes what I am looking for. Just because that target includes someone like me and excludes someone like you does not invalidate their product or the research.

[dylansalt]

time will tell, time will tell

there hasn't yet been a Pentax compact that has flown off the shelves - wait hang on - I don't see any on shelves these days

time will tell

Iphone image quality compared to my crappy Sony HX5v = CRAP!!

I do own the Iphone - yes it's better than some other phones but not the latest Samsung's - still crap

I think a few togs here have lost the plot

[Clicker]

My SX30is and Pentax H90 have been passed on to make room for this system...and yes, i ONLY care for an image

X100 is here

[elkarrde]

Like every enthusiast photographer, I've been striving for fast glass and big sensor/film to achieve shallow DoF. In the process, I realized almost all of my photos were taken at medium-to-small apertures, I've been aiming for as much DoF as possible, while still being hand-holdable (meaning, bigger sensors are actually a disadvantage), I'm not printing photos bigger than A4 size, and that most used camera was my phone camera (being the best made at that time, that wasn't a problem - SonyEricsson K800i). Also, I realized my bigger cameras constantly got left at home. Recently I switched to HTC Android-based smart phone, I'm using it's camera and numerous camera apps constantly, and I'm amazed how good pictures it can spit out, with only three controls left for me - exposure compensation, ISO and spot metering. If Pentax Q, with full controls and raw output, can match smart-phone image quality, I'm buying it as soon as wide(r) fast lens becomes available.

[junyo]

I would argue that expecting a standard prime to provide soft backgrounds is a niche requirement. When I started out photography (in the 70s on a rangefinder) - I would reach out for a standard prime for speed, not bokeh. Indeed, the bokeh of most standard primes is rather harsh. If I want soft blurry backgrounds, I would go for a telephoto. Pentax has yet to release a good telephoto for the Q but they are working on it. In the meantime, the standard prime can used as per any other camera with a standard prime - for speed, not bokeh. And if someone wanted bokeh, there is a bokeh filter (yet to proven how effective this is).

A 50mm lens on 35mm film has a whopping 1.02 ft of DOF at f/1.4 @ 10 feet, 1.45 ft at f/2. So even the most common consumer normal prime was capable of decent separation. I don't recall anyone calling it "bokeh" back in the day, or analyzing it like fine wine, it was just the out of focus area.

And if one just wants 'bokeh effect', Photoshop Elements and a regular P&S would likely be cheaper than the Q.

And even looking at the camera purely as a fast glass platform one has to ask why? The Sony sensor in the NEX for example will give reasonable quality results at ISO 6400 (based on output from the K-x and K-r). Based on previous examples of the sensor in the Q, ISO 800 is probably the usable limit without doing some sort of image stack NR. So effectively, an f/5.6 lens on the NEX would offer comparable IQ (in terms of noise) to an f/2 on the Q once the lighting gets dodgy (which is a good chunk of the time for a 'take everywhere' camera). To each his own, but the concept continues to escape me.

[rawr]

I imagine the vast majority of this market cherishes the ability to shoot at f/2 with soft backgrounds.

Ugh. How wrong you are. I think [hope?] most people are over the bokeh cancer.

It's not the reason I bought my DSLRs, nor anything I particularly value in using my Fuji F200EXR point-and-shoot or my NEX-5. Indeed, I particularly value my Fuji point-and-shoot for the fact that it has massive DOF.

Don't most people buy expensive cameras do so for better image quality

Indeed they may. But shooting wide open and aiming for bokeh isn't about image quality. It's a technical characteristic of particular sensor size and lens and aperture pairings, as well as simply an artistic device.

[Clicker]

Some of you guys have to realize the Q is another tool for another set of uses, its not being introduced to replace a dslr. Just like there are P&S. or M43 users, there's going to be Q users.