Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-07-2011, 10:56 PM   #1231
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,436
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That wasn't the point. He said they were too big. They are not. The GF2 and GF3 then. Well the Q isn't as pocketable as the s95 either. If I wanted to use a true ultra wide, I would want a 15mm or 18mm on full frame. Lets face it an 8.5mm on a Q (1/2.3") isn't exactly an ultrawide field of view at the equivalent 47mm fov.
Yes they are. Just because some m4/3 cameras are amazingly small and because one lens is shorter (not smaller!) when collapsed than the biggest Q lens to date doesn't mean they're equal in size.

Of course the so-called Standard Lens 1 is not an ultrawide, but a normal.

09-08-2011, 07:09 AM   #1232
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Yes they are. Just because some m4/3 cameras are amazingly small and because one lens is shorter (not smaller!) when collapsed than the biggest Q lens to date doesn't mean they're equal in size.

Of course the so-called Standard Lens 1 is not an ultrawide, but a normal.
I like how you dodged the LX3 and LX5 just because of his post regarding them having fixed lenses. Furthermore, I never said the GF2 and GF3 were smaller just that they are small and with any of the primes will fit in most of my shirt pockets but like a said are a little heavy, but so is the Q just not as heavy.
09-08-2011, 08:31 AM   #1233
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,436
If it makes you feel better, I'll repeat what others said and what you already know: the LX3 and LX5 have fixed lenses and they aren't that small (bigger than the Q in every dimension, but the collapsible zoom is of course shorter).
Maybe the Q is "just not as heavy" enough to make the difference?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That Pentax could have done things differently (i.e. by mimicking or even worse, joining m4/3 - if one can call this "doing things differently")? They didn't. They made the Q, which is IMHO an unique and interesting camera. Way too expensive, though (but even so, it sells in Japan).
09-08-2011, 09:32 AM   #1234
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If it makes you feel better, I'll repeat what others said and what you already know: the LX3 and LX5 have fixed lenses and they aren't that small (bigger than the Q in every dimension, but the collapsible zoom is of course shorter).
Maybe the Q is "just not as heavy" enough to make the difference?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That Pentax could have done things differently (i.e. by mimicking or even worse, joining m4/3 - if one can call this "doing things differently")? They didn't. They made the Q, which is IMHO an unique and interesting camera. Way too expensive, though (but even so, it sells in Japan).
I agree that the Q is a unique and interesting camera and has potential. On the other hand, the aspect that truly interests me about the Q is the 1080P video capability. My point is that the 1/2.3" sensor even if it is the best in that size ever made is still just a 1/2.3" sensor. This is a serious compact camera and one of the challenges is to get the largest sensor in the smallest package with the ability to control the aperture and shutter and iso etc. The interchangeable lens in the category is a plus but not necessarily the only plus.

In no way am I or have I ever advocated Pentax go with a 4/3 sensor except in a digital auto 110 sized camera. I don't think they should have done anything smaller than an aps-c sensor with an interchangeable lens system. Lastly, it is still too heavy to carry around more than 15 or 20 minutes in a shirt pocket although a field cloths pocket may be o.k. The LX5 is 8 ounces with lens, the Q is 7 ounces without the lens. Some people need to quit getting their panties bunched up in debates and discussions if others aren't in 100% agreement with them. I don't hate the Q, but I am not sold on it at this point. The reason the LX3 and LX 5 get mentioned is they are an informal bench mark for serious compacts.

09-08-2011, 12:15 PM   #1235
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,436
You agree with that, and I, of course, agree the sensor is as small as it is (well, it looks like the Q can accommodate a larger sensor but still in the "compact" category - waiting for BSI versions?). I disagree with seeing the interchangeable lens as just a "plus" - without it, the Q would be just another high end compact (no chance Pentax would sell it at the current price). Without it the Q would indeed compete with the LX5 and tons of other similar cameras.
By the way I'm not sold either, not for this price. Yet I'm giving it a chance and I'm trying to judge it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

I reserve final judgement about Q's size after I'll hold one; however I'm not comfortable even with my phone (115g) in my shirt's pocket. I don't think it's reasonable to ask for a Q-level camera to be lighter than that; let's keep our discussion in the "reasonable" realm.
09-08-2011, 12:27 PM   #1236
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I don't think it's reasonable to ask for a Q-level camera to be lighter than that; let's keep our discussion in the "reasonable" realm.
I am still watching out for a lens array type compact camera. Could be the size of a credit card with APSC class sensor surface (if combining enough lens elements). Each lens module(~5 mm max. high) is a chip module soldiered onto a little PCB, think 24 of them being 4x4mm each. They exist now, mass produced for the cell phone industry. Such camera could even be incorporated into some iPhone 7. I am sure, Jobs will if he's still around then.

Such credit card size camera could rival an APSC camera with f/2 lens regarding DoF and ISO. If the lens modules can be tilted by leveraged piezo elements, it could even emulate a 3-4x zoom using prime lens modules only.

I once thought this is what Lytro is about but it seems they are missing the boat. I would have 2-3 patents to file for such a design A limited refocus capability would be unpreventable.

Last edited by falconeye; 09-08-2011 at 12:34 PM.
09-08-2011, 12:39 PM   #1237
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
The aesthetic of the Q suggests it is meant to be seen and not in a pocket.

And most women do not have pants pockets.
09-08-2011, 12:41 PM   #1238
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The aesthetic of the Q suggests it is meant to be seen and not in a pocket.

And most women do not have pants pockets.
They do have those tiny purses.

09-09-2011, 03:44 AM   #1239
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Interesting article that mentions the Q:
Canon Hanging on to Mirrors Means Opportunity for Sony, Panasonic Cameras - Bloomberg
09-09-2011, 04:21 AM   #1240
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Interesting detail from the article:
Canon earned 114.8 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in profit by selling 5.9 million traditional SLRs last year.
This means the average profit per Canon SLR sold is $250.

It is rare to get a source for such figures. Thanks.
09-09-2011, 07:58 AM   #1241
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Interesting detail from the article:
Canon earned 114.8 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in profit by selling 5.9 million traditional SLRs last year.
This means the average profit per Canon SLR sold is $250.

It is rare to get a source for such figures. Thanks.
Well, that's assuming the author wasn't being lazy and mixing figures.

Is $1.5B the overall company profit including all camera/lens sales, or strictly dSLR body sales?
09-09-2011, 08:45 AM   #1242
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,908
50% average profit on a product is quite good.
09-09-2011, 09:15 AM   #1243
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
50% average profit on a product is quite good.

not only good completely unrealistic. I spent 25 years in the C.E business including Cameras and I can tell you margins are no where near that at any level from manufacturer down to supplier. sounds like they applied Canon's total profit to 1 division
09-09-2011, 09:27 AM   #1244
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
You have to love goober writers that don't know the definition of an SLR and use a word like "paradigm shift" in the same passage. In fact, that article reads more like an infomercial hocking the mirrorless cameras.

QuoteQuote:
In mirrorless SLRs, first introduced by Panasonic Corp. in 2008, electronic sensors send the data directly to the LCD screen. That allows camera makers such as Sony and Panasonic to skip mirrors, prisms and the optical viewfinder.
The technology may be the biggest “paradigm shift” in the SLR industry in six decades, Mizuho Securities Equity Research analyst Ryosuke Katsura wrote last year.
The trouble with lumping and % is that they can be misleading, misinterpreted and misrepresented. The % of slr of ALL cameras has typically been low although it has fluctuated. However, the % of "cheap" cameras has been high. There were a lot of other non-slr cameras sold in the long film era.
09-09-2011, 10:20 AM   #1245
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,908
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
not only good completely unrealistic. I spent 25 years in the C.E business including Cameras and I can tell you margins are no where near that at any level from manufacturer down to supplier. sounds like they applied Canon's total profit to 1 division
Not unrealistic

Last year, Apple won a trial against a reseller of counterfeiting Ipod. During the trial, Apple reclame 50% of the net profit of the resseller, when the court ask "why ?" Apple, gives them reports done by an independant auditor that proves that Apple was doing at least 50% net profit per each Ipod sold here, in France.

However, yes, it is the total profit of Canon for the whole year.
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 04:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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