Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2011, 11:33 AM - 1 Like   #1111
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
No, it's more expensive than a P&S.

I can't speak for Ogle, but I've said from the beginning that it enters the fray already-niched into the hello-kitty market. It's not a terrible thing to start out with a safety niche, problem is that market probably isn't robust enough from Pentax's perspective to really embrace a $800 device that may be eclipsed in a matter of months by another whimsical device like it. Pentax was probably hoping to add a good-sized chunk of folks who are actually interested in photography to that group - problem is, folks interested in photography tend to comparison shop with more than one eye open and see that there are probably better alternatives.

'Q' would be a pretty intriguing choice if the body alone was priced at $300, with lenses extra. I'd still probably not buy one, but I'd think it was a smarter offering and IMO would hold up better against similarly-performing competition.

Here's what Thom Hogan said re 'Q' - a bit harsh, but he cuts to the chase and highlights the problem the 'Q' will have in the amateur/enthusiast market:



"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 .... Meanwhile, the rest of us will be taking better pictures with an Olympus XZ-1 for half the price.







.
For the love of jeebus, this, +1000.

I too agree with Ogl. We're now at 80 odd pages of back and forth and to date, and one by one, as the purported advantages of the Q get toppled, it's supporters keep moving the goalposts to thinner and more tenuous rationalizations of the camera. Well great, if a camera who's claim to fame is charging a premium for being cute and small(ish), and besting the same performance (in one singular aspect of overall camera performance) as a 4 generations old SLR floats your boat, great. Hopefully for Pentax there are millions of you. But please quit demanding the rest of us to put aside common sense just because it has "Pentax" on it. I just bought a Samsung TL500, and guess what, it takes amazing pictures, fits in my pocket, and it cost less than 1/3 the price of a Q.

And, cue being called a troll...cue passive aggressive insult sequence.

09-02-2011, 12:10 PM   #1112
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
The price is a problem. There are too many small mirror-less large sensor cameras these days around that price.

- $500 for the camera + kit lens. It would compare well to the Canon G12 at $479 and Olympus 4/3rds cameras that go around $700. The Fuji x10 is probably coming in under the Q price wise as well.
- Offer lenses that make the Q more of an enthusiast camera system. It should have a high quality f0.95 prime available. A tilt-shift lens would be interesting as well. The current lineup of lenses are alright, but f1.9 with such a small sensor isn't going to cut it. Those cheap toy lenses can stay.
- Offer an add-on flash that isn't gigantic compared to the Q.
- Make the K-mount adapter available in two forms (basic mechanical, full function with AF and such). That would be the only tie-in for current Pentax users.
09-02-2011, 12:31 PM   #1113
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by sjwaldron Quote
The price is a problem. There are too many small mirror-less large sensor cameras these days around that price.

- $500 for the camera + kit lens. It would compare well to the Canon G12 at $479 and Olympus 4/3rds cameras that go around $700. The Fuji x10 is probably coming in under the Q price wise as well.
Retail pricing in Australia:

Canon G12: $799

Olympus E-PL3 with kit lens: $800 (that's what Ted's quoted me last weekend)

Pentax Q: $799

Seems to me that the Q is priced rather competitively against it's main rivals (I think the Panasonic GF3 is also similarly priced), and according to the review that zxaar provided the link to, it's image quality is better than these cameras in terms of dynamic range and high ISO.

Size: Q is distinctly smaller. For some of us, that's important.

Q and GF3 are the only ones with a prime as a kit lens. Q is the only one offering a standard prime as a kit lens.

Of course this is just my opinion, I'm a minority of one blah blah blah ...
09-02-2011, 12:42 PM   #1114
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Or how about this - someone's isT D is now a P&S because images are worse than Q.
Actually, the *ist D was a great 6Mpixel camera, with good image quality and acceptable high ISO. I bought it, and my brother still uses it. I was actually disappointed when I upgraded to the K10D (high ISO). The main downside to the *ist D is that it's a bit sluggish.

I would say the Q is directly comparable to the *ist D - a first generation camera with pretty reasonable image quality and potentially sluggish performance.

09-02-2011, 12:57 PM   #1115
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
and according to the review that zxaar provided the link to, it's image quality is better than these cameras in terms of dynamic range and high ISO.
Yes, but it's not a Pentax exclusivity. If the sensor is good it will be used by Canon, Olympus, etc. The only exclusive features that Pentax could provide are IMHO specialty lenses.
09-02-2011, 01:07 PM - 1 Like   #1116
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
still I'm wondering about the effort of some people in posting massages* to a camera they claim they would never ever dare to touch
I think the motivation behind anti-Q posts, certainly my own, is that all of us are fans of Pentax and we simply believe Pentax made a huge mistake and wasted resources that could have otherwise been put to good use. Many of us wanted a camera that can compete with a Leica M9 for 1/5th of the price. Based on the pre-orders of the Sony NEX-7 we were right in wanting one, not only for our personal use, but for the good of Pentax. Who knows where the Q system will be in 5 years, it may take off in Japan and sale like crazy for all I know; but if I were betting, my money would be on the Q system being forgotten all about in a few years. Cameras such as the Fuji X10 simply make more sense for the small sensor market IMO. I applaud Pentax for trying something different, god knows Canikon bore me to death most of the time, but I wish they would have chosen a different unique route.

As far as the Photography Blog samples go. The noise control is quite good for a small sensor it seems, nothing you can't get from an E-PM1 for $300 less of course, but not bad. However what is going on with the barrel distortion? I know m4/3's lenses are designed without worry of distortion and then corrected digitally, it looks like Pentax is doing the same thing, but forgot about the correcting the distortion part of it. This is the worst distortion I've ever seen from a standard prime.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 09-02-2011 at 01:26 PM.
09-02-2011, 01:18 PM   #1117
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
Yes, but it's not a Pentax exclusivity. If the sensor is good it will be used by Canon, Olympus, etc. The only exclusive features that Pentax could provide are IMHO specialty lenses.
A really high-quality little macro would enhance it's appeal. It's probably going to have good enough IQ at base ISO to produce some acceptable amateur macro an close-focus results, and has the large DOF built in, even if it's diffraction-limited to f/4 effectively. It would make an adequate little fun-macro kit, although again, too expensive probably for what it offers.

In addition a compact, high-quality little telephoto prime would be nice, something in the 120mm range, maybe f/2 or f/2.8.

It would have been better if Pentax had been able to offer these lenses out of the gate, with the body alone set at $350 or $400.



.

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-02-2011 at 01:32 PM.
09-02-2011, 01:28 PM   #1118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Retail pricing in Australia:
Canon G12: $799
Olympus E-PL3 with kit lens: $800 (that's what Ted's quoted me last weekend)
Pentax Q: $799
Seems to me that the Q is priced rather competitively against it's main rivals (I think the Panasonic GF3 is also similarly priced), and according to the review that zxaar provided the link to, it's image quality is better than these cameras in terms of dynamic range and high ISO.
Size: Q is distinctly smaller. For some of us, that's important.
Q and GF3 are the only ones with a prime as a kit lens. Q is the only one offering a standard prime as a kit lens.
Of course this is just my opinion, I'm a minority of one blah blah blah ...
I was talking about the going rate on popular online stores that are safe and usually offer decent prices. So I'm currently assuming the Q will stay around $800 for a few months at least in my previous comment.

Seeing as we are from opposite sides of the planet, there can be different factors involved to say whether a camera is a good deal or not.
Search results for: 'canon g12' - Ted's Cameras
Shows $599.95 for the G12, which seems like a bad deal, but better than a crazy retail price of $799. Back many years ago I bought a G9 for $500 and it was a pretty decent camera, but back then there were not many...or any... cameras like it. Even $500 for a G12 now seems like a bad purchase given alternatives.

In the USA, the G12 is $469 (Adorama) and $479 (B&H). Looking at B&H I see the E-PL3 for $799 and a E-PM1 with lens for $499 (preorder). The E-PM1 seems like more of a rival to the Q as they are both small and have positives/negatives between them.

So after a bit more research, in the USA I see the Q with the G12 and E-PM1, both of which will be around $500. Just my opinion though.

09-02-2011, 01:39 PM   #1119
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
A really high-quality little macro would enhance it's appeal.
In addition a compact, high-quality little telephoto prime would be nice, something in the 120mm range, maybe f/2 or f/2.8.
.
Two good lens suggestions right there.

I think Pentax would have had a much better chance if they had put WR into the Q system (body + lenses). If it manages to stick around maybe they might...

The Q is interesting to me due to the size and some other bits, but I would miss and integrated optical viewfinder for sure.
09-02-2011, 01:55 PM   #1120
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Agree with what??? That Q is a P&S?? Is this you are agreeing to.

Is image quality your cretietria to decide if something is P&S or not???

Since DR of m43s seems to worse than Q, are they also P&S??

Or how about this - someone's isT D is now a P&S because images are worse than Q.


so lets get this one thing clear - Q is not a P&S.



And about IQ and price.

Well there are lots of over priced products in the market (Sigma SD1, D3X etc etc). It is nothing new. A company offers a product at some price, if you don't think price is alright then do not buy it, no-one is putting gun on his head or your head to buy it.

You can have an opinion , like you probably do. But your friend ogl is outright trolling. Only a blind would fail to see this. He can burn all he wants - Q is not a P&S.

He can write that 5 million times here, but this fact is not gonna change.
My point & shoot is a e-p1 and GF2 so yeah, I'll call the Q a P&S. IF I bought it, that is what I would use it for.
09-02-2011, 03:35 PM   #1121
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
My point & shoot is a e-p1 and GF2 so yeah, I'll call the Q a P&S. IF I bought it, that is what I would use it for.
you can call D3X also a point and shoot, if this is your definition. One can call any name to anything there is no need for naming the categories. If you want you can call cellphone a car.

Last edited by zxaar; 09-02-2011 at 03:47 PM.
09-02-2011, 03:37 PM   #1122
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
Technically the Q is not a P&S, it's a serious camera with a tiny sensor. It may perform very well for its size but it's still tiny. M.
yes this is the point. Regardless of price and IQ, Q falls in interchangeable lens category.
09-02-2011, 03:43 PM   #1123
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
I think the motivation behind anti-Q posts, certainly my own, is that all of us are fans of Pentax and we simply believe Pentax made a huge mistake and wasted resources that could have otherwise been put to good use. Many of us wanted a camera that can compete with a Leica M9 for 1/5th of the price. .
We as a user can not do anything about it. We as consumer can only make decision based on what we have in market and what price it is offered at. Like I briefly toyed with idea of NEX7, but then decided that its too much money to spend when I will always end up using k-x. Its no use feeling bad about it, we are only ones at loss here, pentax or any other organization is interested in making money and not in making you or me happy.
09-02-2011, 04:04 PM   #1124
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
you can call D3X also a point and shoot, if this is your definition. One can call any name to anything there is no need for naming the categories. If you want you can call cellphone a car.
Lets see you ride your cell phone to work or the grocery store. Seriously, my P&S is a GF2. That is the roll it fills for me. It is not a dSLR replacement. It will fit in a shirt pocket with a 17mm lens. The e-p1 won't quite fit. I have no qualms about someone using a D3x to fill that roll. However, that is the only roll the Q can fill.
09-02-2011, 04:09 PM   #1125
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Lets see you ride your cell phone to work or the grocery store. Seriously, my P&S is a GF2. That is the roll it fills for me. It is not a dSLR replacement. It will fit in a shirt pocket with a 17mm lens. The e-p1 won't quite fit. I have no qualms about someone using a D3x to fill that roll. However, that is the only roll the Q can fill.

There is a reason things are classified, thats my point. Personally feel free to call anything anyname.

I do agree that if you point and shoot then you can call it (or any other cam like say PhaseOnes) as point and shoot , but do not expect others to know your terminology.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh! pickles Pentax Film SLR Discussion 8 08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay dantuyhoa Post Your Photos! 9 11-11-2008 11:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top