[junyo]

Point taken, but RF's faded considerably in the AF area because their zone focusing particulars could not keep up with the accuracy of SLR's. I have 3 RF's I still use for film! (Olympus 35 RC, Canonet, and Rollei 35S). There are and have always been IQ issues with RF's compared to SLR. The latter is bigger and bulkier but can take shots that an RF could not dream of (sports, wildlife, etc.). The sheer versatility of the SLR is what made its design the dominant one in advanced camera markets.

What I am saying is that there were quality shooting compromises between RF's and SLR's, and that split market is not dissimilar to what Pentax is doing with the Q. I am sure there are substantial numbers of Leica M9 users who also bought into the S2 system.

If you want compact now the IQ difference is in sensor size. You get that with P&S regardless and most DSLR users I know have a P&S somewhere in their array. There are still tradeoffs now.

I think the Q lenses are tiny, tiny, tiny compared to M43 and NEX. The whole package is substantially smaller than the other mirrorless offerings. It's the most souped-up P&S on the market and there is space for such a product.

But the price....Ouch!

Why, oh why, couldn't Pentax have just ripped off the Fuji X100? That camera is teh sexy.

[asdf]

I like this camera (from what I can tell), because:
1) Best camera is the one you have with you. My K-x is small, but still usually stays home.
2) Having nice bokeh is nice, but actually having subject in focus is much better.
3) Easy to play with different concepts. Want to try out ultra wide fisheye on your P&S? Well, now you can and you don't have to pay through your nose.

Is the MSRP of $800 correct? MSRP for the body should be $400, probably. It's a bizarro P&S.

[ogl]

And where are you getting this from, given everything else we've heard indicates there will be an APS-C EVIL coming out later this year?

The photo of body of Pentax Q and specs of two lenses were known several months ago...No any info about mirrorless with bigger sensor.
And Hoya said in presentation about 3 mount now. K, 645 and Q. As I understand - they've been developed this system for FIVE years. Pentax Q. Not another system with another sensor.

I don't think that Hoya will make 4th mount. They said that they made DIFFERENT mirrorless system...Not like m4/3, NEX or NX....Don't forget a lot of interviews of HOYA top-managers...

Pentax Q is DIFFERENT, but not better. It's different and WORSE.

[Aristophanes]

Actually, I think quite many people would be willing to spend some serious money for a FF Pentax camera. Mr. JSherman999 aka Moving_Comfort has a poll on Nikon DSLR forum in Dpreview where he is calling ex-pentaxians to give their reasons why they have jumped ship to Nikon, and it´s shocking how many people say that the only reason they go Nikon is because Pentax has no FF in sight.

This has been my experience as well. A lot of Canikon people are interested in Pentax, but the lack of FF as an upgrade path puts them off. Pentax glass is the best there is, and no doubt K-5 is a very good camera. Still it´s not even near the IQ and performance of say, D700, which you can have second hand at almost same price.

I don´t know why people are so negative towards FF??? Is there something scary in that? Does it make your APS-C cameras obsolete? If Pentax can put out a TOY camera with new lens system and five new lenses from scratch, then making a FF body and few lenses on that shouldn´t be a problem.

There is a very good thread going on where you can peek at some of the wonders of the FF: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/110876...-thoughts.html

This has become one of my favourite threads lately.

I am an FF user as well. I agree at a gut level that Pentax should make one.

But my marketing and economics brain says that the market is too small.

To enter, Pentax would need 2 lines of lenses equivalent to Canikon's 14-24 (Nikon's version is the lens God would use to see his Creation), 24-70, one series at the 2.8 pro end and the more affordable f/4 line. Then it would need the teles, same principles apply.

The one good thing is they have the primes locked up already save for a WA.

The investments here are, quite frankly, massive. The prices would be very high and the system may struggle to compete with Nikon or Canon, meaning that switchers may switch anyway. The $ is in the glass, not the body, so catering to legacy glass users is a profit-killing issue.

[Aristophanes]

Is the MSRP of $800 correct? MSRP for the body should be $400, probably. It's a bizarro P&S.

$649 is more like it. Then it goes toe-to-toe with the LX-5 crowd with a premium for being an ILC.

$799 is stupidville. In fact, I suspect Hoya will have trouble filling orders in the North America and Europe at that price point (the Yen is far too high now; another problem).

[ogl]

I'm sorry, Ogl, I can't read Japanese.

And you are the only person that is saying there will be no APS-C mirrorless system.

Use translator. It helps.
OK. Let be. I think that Pentax Q is Pentax EVIL system and we won't see anything else from Pentax with APS-C sensor - EVIL I mean...

[deadwolfbones]

Pentax Q is DIFFERENT, but not better. It's different and WORSE.

More doomsday bullshit from our resident Chicken Little.

[eddie1960]

Price Point is the big issue here. lots of comments on the web say it's kinda fun a funky but $800 is too high. I would bet the price in NA and Europe is never that high by the time it arrives

[Unsinkable II]

1. As a former LX-5 and current S95 owner I disagree. The S95 is, in fact, too small. Both these cameras are costly and their lenses are by far the limiting factors.

I agree the Q does not compete on price here.

2. The Q is substantially smaller than any M43. Completely different market.

Again, the Q is seriously over-priced for the sensor size.

3. The Q is a fun camera, not a "serious camera system. The Sony HX9v gets poor reviews for its photo IQ.

4. Yup! The Q is too expensive for the sensor size.

We're in basic agreement that the ludicrous price is the issue. I do though think that for point 1, the Oly takes care of size and lens issues, and for point 2, the upcoming mini Pen is as small as many would be happy with. Also, I've found and read that the Sony HX9v is pretty darn good.

Anyway, loving the choices.

My disappointment is the type of acid Hoya are taking. More expensive than ALL OTHER evil cameras, with the cheapest, smallest sensor?

The SD1 pricing fiasco is but a month old.... does anyone at Hoya/Pentax go online?

[asdf]

Price Point is the big issue here. lots of comments on the web say it's kinda fun a funky but $800 is too high. I would bet the price in NA and Europe is never that high by the time it arrives

I looked around: G12 sells for $500. Maybe, $500 for the Q body would seem sensible.

[Evolution]

It frustrates me that they'll release this thing but we still can't get a firmware update for better control and framerate options in K5/Kr video.

[juu]

I think the Q lenses are tiny, tiny, tiny compared to M43 and NEX.

Actually, the zoom looked comparable to Olympus 14-42mm and the primes to the 20mm/17mm/14mm m43 pancakes. But need to see a side-by-side comparison.

The whole package is substantially smaller than the other mirrorless offerings.

It's certainly smaller. Whether "substantially" so can be debated to no end.

[panoguy]

The SD1 pricing fiasco is but a month old.... does anyone at Hoya/Pentax go online?

Not to english-language websites. Seriously, this is a bit worse than SD1 pricing, because the only thing unique to this camera is that it is both tiny in size and tiny in (long-term) lens selection. I don't expect "Q-mount Lens 06" to hit the market in 2011, or 2012, etc.

Watching the Engadget Q intro video, the operation seems identical to the other Optios. My Optio W90 cost (me) $160 and may have a crappier sensor, but is the same size with better looks, a permanent lens, and waterproofing. W-T-F season has begun!

[Ubuntu_user]

Folks, I think we need to remember that this probably isn't aimed at us DSLR users who are concerned with quality.
Yes, I agree that (1) the price is too high, and (2) the sensor is too small. However, the $800 MSRP is not what it will actually sell for. Just wait, I imagine the kit selling for more like $400-450. If it is any higher than that, the K-r would attract more buyers.

Basically, Pentax is doing what Pentax is good at—filling the niche market. Don't laugh, this will probably sell like hot cakes in Japan.

Would I buy one? Probably not since the IQ can't be as good as my K-5.

[eddie1960]

I'm guessing it could have been even smaller by eliminating the rear controls and going touch screen. i'm glad they avoided that pitfall