[Blue]

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.

Well, it would be a lot easier and more likely for the Q to be considered a P&S and used like one. Its kind of like having a .32 gun in the boot just in case. However, if one is expecting real trouble, they are more likely to be packing "the big guns." PhaseOnes are the big guns. Lets face it, the Q has a P&S sensor. In photography, sensor size is analogous to displacement in racing, "There is no replacement for displacement."

[zxaar]

Well, it would be a lot easier and more likely for the Q to be considered a P&S and used like one. Its kind of like having a .32 gun in the boot just in case. However, if one is expecting real trouble, they are more likely to be packing "the big guns." PhaseOnes are the big guns. Lets face it, the Q has a P&S sensor. In photography, sensor size is analogous to displacement in racing, "There is no replacement for displacement."

It does not matter what sensor it has, Q is an interchangeable lens system with Q mount lenses. It is same as other systems like K mount pentax dslrs.

Image quality and price are debatable things, and each user has different expectations and see things differently. IQ may be measured in some sense but pricing is upto user as to how much he can pay or want to pay. (For example i saw K-5 in very good condition for 77000Yen , but I would be buying Q (99% chance) that would cost 80000yen with zoom. Some other guy might have bought k-5 instead of Q, its also perfectly alright. )

One can say that Q has P&S like IQ in his opinion, but he can not say that

Yes. Not bad for P&S camera for USD400 at ISO125.

Because Q is not a P&S.


The thing about OGL is that from the day Q is announced he has vitiated threads with his anti-Q crusade. Which is why he is perennially trolling when it comes to Q and it is very annoying as a reader of this and other forums.

[Christine Tham]

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.

Not really - most camera stores here will discount if you ask politely enough. If I buy the Q, I certainly will not be buying it at retail.

The G12 is being discounted more heavily because it's an old model (most stores will sell it at closer to $500 if you haggle) , and there are rumours it will be replaced soon. In any case it's clearly being outclassed by the new models (and it does not have interchangeable lenses) so even at half the price it's probably not such a great buy.

But the Pentax Q, Panasonic GF3 and Olympus E-PL3 are all selling for around the same RRP so they will all have around the same street price.

Out of those 3, I would remove the E-PL3 from my short list. dpreview said high ISO performance is mediocre, the camera is bigger than it's competitors and (in my eyes) uglier. The kit lens is also fugly and huge. The only positives for this camera are the articulating screen, and supposedly fast focus (okay it focused pretty quickly when I tested it, but I don't think the focus accuracy is very high - there's a few missed shots).

The Q and the GF3 are both in my short list at the moment. The GF3 plus Leica 25mm lens is going to be expensive, and dpreview reports slow focusing on the 20mm lens. Actually, I found the GF3 to focus quite slowly on the Leica 25mm as well, so Panasonic's focusing system doesn't seem to work well with primes that have shallow DOF.

Q I haven't tested yet, but essentially for A$799 retail (I'm thinking street is $100 less maybe?) I get exactly what I want - a small compact camera with manual controls, raw mode and a standard prime. The gotcha at the moment is the lag time between shots - hoping zxaar can provide an update today on lag time for raw or jpeg only.

[frank]

AF w/ GF1+20/1.7 is pretty fast, same with 14/2.5. And these two pancakes plus a GF1 is my favorite setup when I got out w/ the kids nowadays I'm even off-loading some Pentax lenses because I don't use them much anymore ...

[stevbike]

Well, it would be a lot easier and more likely for the Q to be considered a P&S and used like one. Its kind of like having a .32 gun in the boot just in case. However, if one is expecting real trouble, they are more likely to be packing "the big guns." PhaseOnes are the big guns. Lets face it, the Q has a P&S sensor. In photography, sensor size is analogous to displacement in racing, "There is no replacement for displacement."

I have to say something here. I like to walk the dogs we have and carrying heavy D-slr is not really easy to use. I have used my simple Fuji A700 to get some pictures that are more then would think to expect from a P&S type. Seeing that the A700 is a basic version of what the Q is, I see that carrying a small basic can get you some amazing pictures. The image quality from the smaller sensor will not give you the same from a larger but the smaller camera can get into spots that a bulkier camera can not.

The price will sort itself out and expect the price to drop as the camera becomes more common if it lasts in the market place. From what I have read, the Q has been designed with a slightly larger sensor so that could be changed as well. Given the specs that the Q along with the control that it offers, I am looking forward seeing so amazing images from the Q once it gets out more to the public.

Also factor in the fact that most users of D-slrs really do not get the most out of their cameras. They are set on auto and the owners understanding of even basic picture taking is limited. They come from a P&S background and the advanced features the D-slr will not be used. For a person that understands what a larger D-slr can do, using a smaller advanced camera like Q can produce some amazing images if they what to use a smaller camera at times. There are times when carrying a bulky large camera is not really suitable at times.

[Class A]

The Fujifilm X10 looks classier than the Q, AFAIC. Can't help but think that this is important in this segment; maybe even more important than having an interchangeable lens system.

[Christine Tham]

The Fujifilm X10 looks classier than the Q, AFAIC. Can't help but think that this is important in this segment; maybe even more important than having an interchangeable lens system.

Sorry, I think it looks horrible (besides, it's just a compact camera, with a zoom lens). I didn't like the X100 either - I played with it at PMA and disliked almost everything about it.

The Q and the GF3 looks kinda cute, And the GF3 is available in pink, which is the colour I will pick if I buy it.

I do wish the Q comes in silver, or pink. Actually, pink body with silver lens would be my preference.

[conradj]

i want mine in brown and dark orange please. And don't care what colour the lens is since i'll tape it up anyway.

[Christine Tham]

i want mine in brown and dark orange please.

Fan of Rilakkuma? :-) I think there is a K-r Rilakkuma Edition :-)

[Christine Tham]

Thought so - here it is:

[asw66]

But I think the main point in the Q that has been ignored in this discussion is: this little camera with the somehow tiny sensor is part of a new camera system with a new mount and interchangeable lenses that, IIRC support at least sensors up to 1,7, and, I find it funny not to have read this until now, offers the opportunity to bring new sensors which might have one advantage to larger formats: they use cutting edge sensor technology at an affordable price. That's the main difference between the Q mount and P&S cameras, cheep ones or high end like Fuji X100: you will never have the chance to use a part of your investment (the high quality lens) with a new sensor What you buy is what you will keep, that's it. I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax brings a Qf with a Foveon-sensor, at least technically and from a price-point of view this sensor should be fitting and not be at an astronomical price range as the larger version in the Sigma. It could be, and here I'm maybe just dreaming, that this is the ideal platform for all new technologies: aptiva APS-C or Q-Format? Guess?

It's the first of a system, you keep your investment in lenses, we will see to which use they will come, but I see some potential.

Yes, I think that the Q system has a lot of potential. I'm not interested in the current body, but Pentax aren't targeting me or people like me at this point. Hoya/Pentax have produced one well-judged product after another these past few years (let's hope that Ricoh's influence is no less astute). I've learnt to trust their judgement.

So this product doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in its current form. Is it just an aberration? Or does it represent just the first manifestation of a system that will grow in depth, diversity and appeal as time goes on? My money's on the latter.

[conradj]

Fan of Rilakkuma? :-) I think there is a K-r Rilakkuma Edition :-)

eep! i've been found out! It's too complicated, must go back to sleep.

--i just blew my savings on a K-5, won't be able to make the early
adopter premium on the Q: going to have to wait till the price goes
down a bit.

[Blue]

I have to say something here. I like to walk the dogs we have and carrying heavy D-slr is not really easy to use. I have used my simple Fuji A700 to get some pictures that are more then would think to expect from a P&S type. Seeing that the A700 is a basic version of what the Q is, I see that carrying a small basic can get you some amazing pictures. The image quality from the smaller sensor will not give you the same from a larger but the smaller camera can get into spots that a bulkier camera can not.

The price will sort itself out and expect the price to drop as the camera becomes more common if it lasts in the market place. From what I have read, the Q has been designed with a slightly larger sensor so that could be changed as well. Given the specs that the Q along with the control that it offers, I am looking forward seeing so amazing images from the Q once it gets out more to the public.

Also factor in the fact that most users of D-slrs really do not get the most out of their cameras. They are set on auto and the owners understanding of even basic picture taking is limited. They come from a P&S background and the advanced features the D-slr will not be used. For a person that understands what a larger D-slr can do, using a smaller advanced camera like Q can produce some amazing images if they what to use a smaller camera at times. There are times when carrying a bulky large camera is not really suitable at times.

I guess you missed the part where I said the GF2 and e-P1 are my P&S, (i.e. .32 gun in my boot) so I do use a smaller camera at times. I really don't see the Q playing with the m43 bodies. I would lay out $800 for the Leica D-Lux-5 before I would the Q. The interchangeable lens system with it isn't that much of an advantage. Pentax will have to boost the lens lineup which if they do will pull R&D and resources from the K-mount and 645 lenses as well as flash system etc.

Edit: Wait . . . my dSLR's have an auto setting?

[Blue]

It does not matter what sensor it has, Q is an interchangeable lens system with Q mount lenses. It is same as other systems like K mount pentax dslrs.

Image quality and price are debatable things, and each user has different expectations and see things differently. IQ may be measured in some sense but pricing is upto user as to how much he can pay or want to pay. (For example i saw K-5 in very good condition for 77000Yen , but I would be buying Q (99% chance) that would cost 80000yen with zoom. Some other guy might have bought k-5 instead of Q, its also perfectly alright. )

One can say that Q has P&S like IQ in his opinion, but he can not say that



Because Q is not a P&S.


The thing about OGL is that from the day Q is announced he has vitiated threads with his anti-Q crusade. Which is why he is perennially trolling when it comes to Q and it is very annoying as a reader of this and other forums.

You are drinking if you don't think sensor size matters. Interchangeable lenses aren't going to magically make a little sensor perform like a 1/1.63", m4/3 or aps-c sensor. The camera in my avatar I have had since junior high. The limiting factor in it wasn't the body nor the lenses, it was the film. Unfortunately by the time the film tech got quite good, it had been out of production for over 10 years. That film had negs the size of m4/3 sensors. If sensor size didn't matter, Pentax never would have come out with the 645D.

I simply have serious doubts about a Q system being sustainable.

[frank]

Got the Q today. All I can say it's really cute:





It's really small:







Menu system is almost the same as K5/Kr, I guess we don't need to read the manu to use this little camera.



Haven't really played yet, but one thing for sure, the AF is really fast for such a small camera. First impression is that it's faster than GF1+20/1.7. But I need to do a side by side comparison later on