Pentax Q in the Flesh

Couscousdelight · 09-06-2011, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

If Pentax is late, who was the first?

That's a good one.

Last edited by Couscousdelight; 09-06-2011 at 05:23 PM.

zxaar · 09-06-2011, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by glanglois

I have a great deal of respect for development engineers but they are the last group that should be allowed to project the camera's market price. I am confident that Pentax, regardless of who owns the brand, has product management and product development staff who provide direction to the engineers.

I did not mean to say that engineers decided the price. By they I meant people in pentax responsible for deciding the price.

I work with japanese company and I know that we (as engineers) have no say in how things are priced.

**ManuH** · 09-06-2011, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

If Pentax is late, who was the first?

Panasonic. Because they used a big sensor they don't qualify?

Art Vandelay II · 09-06-2011, 07:00 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by falconeye

Actually, as it turns out, the Q seems to be the best camera in its size class (enthusiast compacts). I agree it is expensive. But best in class is allowed to be expensive; because w/o alternative. It is not even the most expensive in its class if you think about the D-Lux 4 or Fuji X10 (all three are about the same price and as I said, only Q can turn a DA*300 into a 1000mm equivalent ...).

I've come to peace with the Q, I still think it was a mistake using such a small sensor instead of a 2/3's sensor, but if someone likes the Q then fine by me. However, I still don't understand claims like the one above about it being the best enthusiast compact. I simply disagree with that. In fact, the Q got me so interested in small sensors again (it's been a while) I started seriously looking at the competition and was so impressed from the XZ-1 I bought one on eBay for a whopping $335. Not bad for a pocket camera that can do this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympusuk/5571956753
(official Olympus UK sample)

Given, the MSRP on the XZ-1 is still $500, but that's a $300 savings over the Q. You have to really want to change lenses to pay that much more for the Q. Sadly, right now the Q doesn't have any lenses to make it worthwhile IMO. Pentax needs to release a really tiny ultra wide ASAP, a lens like that could make the Q interesting (assuming the price drops to under $600). However, until then the Q just doesn't make a whole lot of sense while cameras like the XZ-1 and LX-5 are all over eBay for under $400.

ogl · 09-06-2011, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

If Pentax is late, who was the first?

Micro 4/3. NEX. NX.

ogl · 09-06-2011, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

Given, the MSRP on the XZ-1 is still $500, but that's a $300 savings over the Q. You have to really want to change lenses to pay that much more for the Q. Sadly, right now the Q doesn't have any lenses to make it worthwhile IMO. Pentax needs to release a really tiny ultra wide ASAP, a lens like that could make the Q interesting (assuming the price drops to under $600). However, until then the Q just doesn't make a whole lot of sense while cameras like the XZ-1 and LX-5 are all over eBay for under $400.

I've tried XZ-1 RAWs - I'm impressed - it's rather good level at low ISO.

Kunzite · 09-06-2011, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

Panasonic. Because they used a big sensor they don't qualify?

They don't qualify because their cameras are too big.

ogl · 09-07-2011, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

They don't qualify because their cameras are too big.

Big or small. Who cares? It should be comfortable in hand. If you hands are like child's hands, you prefer one type of camera...if not, you prefer another...

The sensor is much bigger too.

Q with prime is smaller. But not so small to put into pocket of shirt.
And not too small with zoom lens.

All is relative.

falconeye · 09-07-2011, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by glanglois

One of the problems they faced was that researchers and engineers had great ideas whose value they were confident of. The market, in the end, decided the real value and often it wasn't what the engineers supposed.

Then they lacked good enough lead engineers.

The most successful companies have visionary enough leaders who are both engineer and marketeer. Think of SAP, Apple or BMW.

Originally posted by ogl

Q with prime is smaller. But not so small to put into pocket of shirt.

Depends on your shirt.
My Exilim FC100 (a 1000fps camera

) certainly fits a shirt pocket and is about a Q w/o lens (the FC100 is 1/4 thinner and lighter though).

So, a Q w/o lens certainly fits any shirt pocket.

If a lens (the 01 lens is 23mm and 37g) changes this will heavily depend on your shirt. But I agree, cargo pant pockets are a better place to carry a Q

PentaxMom Felua · 09-07-2011, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Depends on your shirt.
My Exilim FC100 (a 1000fps camera

) certainly fits a shirt pocket and is about a Q w/o lens (the FC100 is 1/4 thinner and lighter though).

So, a Q w/o lens certainly fits any shirt pocket.

If a lens (the 01 lens is 23mm and 37g) changes this will heavily depend on your shirt. But I agree, cargo pant pockets are a better place to carry a Q

Since I no longer need/stopped/refuse to carry everybody elses extra stuff I find my big brown lady purse extremely roomy. It now accomodates with great ease a k-5 + da 16-50, a e-p3 with 40-150, a panasonic ft3. I think I could squeeze in a Q. But then would have to leave behind a takumar with adapter. Or my water bottle or food or lower their volume. Could be done though. It is great to be used to drag along a lot. Quality comes with the fun.

glanglois · 09-07-2011, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Then they lacked good enough lead engineers.

The most successful companies have visionary enough leaders who are both engineer and marketeer. Think of SAP, Apple or BMW.

Depends on your shirt.
My Exilim FC100 (a 1000fps camera

) certainly fits a shirt pocket and is about a Q w/o lens (the FC100 is 1/4 thinner and lighter though).

So, a Q w/o lens certainly fits any shirt pocket.

If a lens (the 01 lens is 23mm and 37g) changes this will heavily depend on your shirt. But I agree, cargo pant pockets are a better place to carry a Q

Good point re: engineers. There is always a point at which technology meets market savvy. It's preferable to have lead staff with a foot in both camps. In other companies, there are connections among people with those skills - a more difficult interface. I have worked at that interface, probably because I'm not very good at either.

Moving on .... I'm not worried about pockets but would be happy with a camera in a belt pouch or case. I carry my Panny TZ that way, whether I'm carrying my K-5 or simply running errands or meeting family on the weekend. I've yet to see how that would work with the Q, and hoping for the best.

**ManuH** · 09-07-2011, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

They don't qualify because their cameras are too big.

Well If you narrow it that way, you'll be always right or course

But personally I find the Q not small enough to fit in a pocket when you mount a lens on it, so does the small size difference really matters? Panasonic just released a pancake zoom, that is innovation.

stevbike · 09-07-2011, 07:37 AM

With the small size of the Pentax Q, it would be nice to see if there was any interest designing a underwater housing for the camera. Given the small sizing, a housing would ad some bulk but would make it nice handling underwater. I think that a wide angle lens suited to these needs may have to be designed. Any thoughts on if this sounds good or not?

jogiba · 09-07-2011, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

They don't qualify because their cameras are too big.

The GF3 with new 14-42mm power zoom lens is smaller than the Q with 5-15mm zoom but has a much larger sensor.

Kunzite · 09-07-2011, 09:29 AM

ManuH, if I'm not "narrowing" it down even an elephant would be more or less the Q's size

jogiba, the Q is smaller than the GF3 (not saying the GF3 isn't amazingly small). That one lens is indeed shorter but much thicker, however for Q you have much smaller alternatives (yes, I know, not the same focal range). How about the Q + Standard Lens 01?

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

09-06-2011, 04:06 PM	#1201
Couscousdelight Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Frog-eaters country Photos: Gallery Posts: 357	Originally posted by Kunzite If Pentax is late, who was the first? That's a good one. Last edited by Couscousdelight; 09-06-2011 at 05:23 PM.

09-06-2011, 04:10 PM	#1202
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by glanglois I have a great deal of respect for development engineers but they are the last group that should be allowed to project the camera's market price. I am confident that Pentax, regardless of who owns the brand, has product management and product development staff who provide direction to the engineers. I did not mean to say that engineers decided the price. By they I meant people in pentax responsible for deciding the price. I work with japanese company and I know that we (as engineers) have no say in how things are priced.

09-06-2011, 05:31 PM	#1203
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Kunzite If Pentax is late, who was the first? Panasonic. Because they used a big sensor they don't qualify?

09-06-2011, 07:00 PM - 1 Like	#1204
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by falconeye Actually, as it turns out, the Q seems to be the best camera in its size class (enthusiast compacts). I agree it is expensive. But best in class is allowed to be expensive; because w/o alternative. It is not even the most expensive in its class if you think about the D-Lux 4 or Fuji X10 (all three are about the same price and as I said, only Q can turn a DA*300 into a 1000mm equivalent ...). I've come to peace with the Q, I still think it was a mistake using such a small sensor instead of a 2/3's sensor, but if someone likes the Q then fine by me. However, I still don't understand claims like the one above about it being the best enthusiast compact. I simply disagree with that. In fact, the Q got me so interested in small sensors again (it's been a while) I started seriously looking at the competition and was so impressed from the XZ-1 I bought one on eBay for a whopping $335. Not bad for a pocket camera that can do this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympusuk/5571956753 (official Olympus UK sample) Given, the MSRP on the XZ-1 is still $500, but that's a $300 savings over the Q. You have to really want to change lenses to pay that much more for the Q. Sadly, right now the Q doesn't have any lenses to make it worthwhile IMO. Pentax needs to release a really tiny ultra wide ASAP, a lens like that could make the Q interesting (assuming the price drops to under $600). However, until then the Q just doesn't make a whole lot of sense while cameras like the XZ-1 and LX-5 are all over eBay for under $400.

09-06-2011, 09:07 PM	#1205
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Kunzite If Pentax is late, who was the first? Micro 4/3. NEX. NX.

09-06-2011, 09:14 PM	#1206
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II Given, the MSRP on the XZ-1 is still $500, but that's a $300 savings over the Q. You have to really want to change lenses to pay that much more for the Q. Sadly, right now the Q doesn't have any lenses to make it worthwhile IMO. Pentax needs to release a really tiny ultra wide ASAP, a lens like that could make the Q interesting (assuming the price drops to under $600). However, until then the Q just doesn't make a whole lot of sense while cameras like the XZ-1 and LX-5 are all over eBay for under $400. I've tried XZ-1 RAWs - I'm impressed - it's rather good level at low ISO.

09-06-2011, 10:54 PM	#1207
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by ManuH Panasonic. Because they used a big sensor they don't qualify? They don't qualify because their cameras are too big.

09-07-2011, 12:21 AM	#1208
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Kunzite They don't qualify because their cameras are too big. Big or small. Who cares? It should be comfortable in hand. If you hands are like child's hands, you prefer one type of camera...if not, you prefer another... The sensor is much bigger too. Q with prime is smaller. But not so small to put into pocket of shirt. And not too small with zoom lens. All is relative.

09-07-2011, 02:36 AM	#1209
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by glanglois One of the problems they faced was that researchers and engineers had great ideas whose value they were confident of. The market, in the end, decided the real value and often it wasn't what the engineers supposed. Then they lacked good enough lead engineers. The most successful companies have visionary enough leaders who are both engineer and marketeer. Think of SAP, Apple or BMW. Originally posted by ogl Q with prime is smaller. But not so small to put into pocket of shirt. Depends on your shirt. My Exilim FC100 (a 1000fps camera ) certainly fits a shirt pocket and is about a Q w/o lens (the FC100 is 1/4 thinner and lighter though). So, a Q w/o lens certainly fits any shirt pocket. If a lens (the 01 lens is 23mm and 37g) changes this will heavily depend on your shirt. But I agree, cargo pant pockets are a better place to carry a Q

09-07-2011, 02:59 AM	#1210
PentaxMom Felua Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Veluwe Posts: 339	Originally posted by falconeye Depends on your shirt. My Exilim FC100 (a 1000fps camera ) certainly fits a shirt pocket and is about a Q w/o lens (the FC100 is 1/4 thinner and lighter though). So, a Q w/o lens certainly fits any shirt pocket. If a lens (the 01 lens is 23mm and 37g) changes this will heavily depend on your shirt. But I agree, cargo pant pockets are a better place to carry a Q Since I no longer need/stopped/refuse to carry everybody elses extra stuff I find my big brown lady purse extremely roomy. It now accomodates with great ease a k-5 + da 16-50, a e-p3 with 40-150, a panasonic ft3. I think I could squeeze in a Q. But then would have to leave behind a takumar with adapter. Or my water bottle or food or lower their volume. Could be done though. It is great to be used to drag along a lot. Quality comes with the fun.

09-07-2011, 04:57 AM	#1211
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Originally posted by falconeye Then they lacked good enough lead engineers. The most successful companies have visionary enough leaders who are both engineer and marketeer. Think of SAP, Apple or BMW. Depends on your shirt. My Exilim FC100 (a 1000fps camera ) certainly fits a shirt pocket and is about a Q w/o lens (the FC100 is 1/4 thinner and lighter though). So, a Q w/o lens certainly fits any shirt pocket. If a lens (the 01 lens is 23mm and 37g) changes this will heavily depend on your shirt. But I agree, cargo pant pockets are a better place to carry a Q Good point re: engineers. There is always a point at which technology meets market savvy. It's preferable to have lead staff with a foot in both camps. In other companies, there are connections among people with those skills - a more difficult interface. I have worked at that interface, probably because I'm not very good at either. Moving on .... I'm not worried about pockets but would be happy with a camera in a belt pouch or case. I carry my Panny TZ that way, whether I'm carrying my K-5 or simply running errands or meeting family on the weekend. I've yet to see how that would work with the Q, and hoping for the best.

09-07-2011, 06:41 AM	#1212
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Kunzite They don't qualify because their cameras are too big. Well If you narrow it that way, you'll be always right or course But personally I find the Q not small enough to fit in a pocket when you mount a lens on it, so does the small size difference really matters? Panasonic just released a pancake zoom, that is innovation.

09-07-2011, 07:37 AM	#1213
stevbike Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Newbury, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 268	With the small size of the Pentax Q, it would be nice to see if there was any interest designing a underwater housing for the camera. Given the small sizing, a housing would ad some bulk but would make it nice handling underwater. I think that a wide angle lens suited to these needs may have to be designed. Any thoughts on if this sounds good or not?

09-07-2011, 09:14 AM	#1214
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Kunzite They don't qualify because their cameras are too big. The GF3 with new 14-42mm power zoom lens is smaller than the Q with 5-15mm zoom but has a much larger sensor.

09-07-2011, 09:29 AM	#1215
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	ManuH, if I'm not "narrowing" it down even an elephant would be more or less the Q's size jogiba, the Q is smaller than the GF3 (not saying the GF3 isn't amazingly small). That one lens is indeed shorter but much thicker, however for Q you have much smaller alternatives (yes, I know, not the same focal range). How about the Q + Standard Lens 01?