[shiner]

A voice of reason.

seems to me that most people's concerns about the Q are

(I) the price (which will come down after launch)

(II) the small size of the sensor and the potential negative impact that will have on image quality, particularly noise, DR and control of dof.

Perhaps we should all have a more open mind and just wait and see how this back illuminated sensor performs in reality - I suspect that it could be much better than many fear. The fact that they offer iso 6400 surely tells that they have confidence in its low light abilities.
The bokeh control option may also work well and solve concerns about dof.

Let's not kill this thing before its even hit the streets. It may actually be far more fun and perform better than many expect.

Oliver

[Rondec]

For me personally, pricing is a bit of an issue for the Q - especially when compared to the GRDIII, the LX5 and the X-Z1. But that simply means it isn't for me. I'm one of those waiting for a serious mirrorless or a Pentax FF.

But I quite honestly don't get all the hate for the Q. Personally, I know more people who'd rather drop the $1640 for the Q than pay cheaper for a Kr + 18-135. For those people, toting around a DSLR to a club or to a party just doesn't make sense. The Q makes a hell of a lot more sense to them.

Though IMO, Pentax dropped the ball on the launch by not including samples from the two toy lenses and the fish-eye. IMO, those three lenses are the biggest selling point of this system.

$800+ $80x2 for the prime kit plus the two toy lenses might sound a bit too much - but considering that most people who use Holga's (at least here in the Philippines) are the people who willingly drop $300-400 on a Lomo LCA or 4 different Lomo cameras - instead of the spending the same amount on an LX5/G12 etc.. not to mention at least $100-200 per month buying and developing 120 film - which means for them, dropping $1000 for a digital Lomo 2 lens kit + fast normal prime, is probably a pretty good deal.

I do get what Pentax was trying to do here. Pricing is my only beef with it, but I think street price will probably be closer to advanced compacts. I have no issues with the sensor size at all. Personally, I think Pentax would make more money from the Q vs a DA 500mm f/4, or a DA 300mm f/2.8, but that's just me.

But with that said, if Pentax wants to be different, I'd rather they come out with something like a digital TLR, or a no-frills Full Frame - no movie mode, just 3fps, just 3 AF points - a Full Frame Nikon D40 if you will - except sized like the boxy film FFs of old and priced below USD $1500. If you're going to be quirky, I'd rather they do it in style. Personally, I'd rather drop the cash on those than a D700 or a 5d clone or even a D3x clone.

If I wanted a sports-shooting or wedding shooting Full Frame, NiKanon already have those. If Pentax came out with a D800 clone at the same time that the real D800 came out - how many people do you think would buy it? Only people with the FA Limiteds. For most people, they'd rather buy the Nikon or the Canon.

Pentax isn't going full frame. They lack the lenses. On top of that, people buy full frame, not only for the look of full frame, but also for the specs that go along with full frame -- fast fps, speedy auto focus. Stripping all of those away, most people are going to struggle with reasons to purchase it other than price.

Since Hoya took over, Pentax no longer sells the cheapest cameras or lenses. Hoya decided, in their great wisdom, that they were going to turn a profit, even if it meant they only sold three of each item. For that reason, every product recently has had a really high launch price, that often comes down quickly after release.

[asw66]

I can't help but notice that there's a lot of space around the sensor in the Q. Perhaps we'll see other (larger) camera bodies with larger sensor chips using this mount down the track.

Hmmm. I'm starting to think that there's much more going on here than we're currently led to believe.

[ghelary]

I can't help but notice that there's a lot of space around the sensor in the Q. Perhaps we'll see other (larger) camera bodies with larger sensor chips using this mount down the track.

Hmmm. I'm starting to think that there's much more going on here than we're currently led to believe.

My feeling is that Pentax was "generous" on the lens mount and lenses specification (area covered) to be allowed to use any evolution of compact camera sensors. I don't think we shall expect anything on this front for the next generation(s) however.

[ogl]

I can't help but notice that there's a lot of space around the sensor in the Q. Perhaps we'll see other (larger) camera bodies with larger sensor chips using this mount down the track.

No way.

[RonHendriks1966]

I can't help but notice that there's a lot of space around the sensor in the Q. Perhaps we'll see other (larger) camera bodies with larger sensor chips using this mount down the track.

Hmmm. I'm starting to think that there's much more going on here than we're currently led to believe.

No way.

Why couldn't be there a little larger sensor in it in time? Is there a technical reason for? Let's say a sensor that is twice the size of this one?

[timh]

Why couldn't be there a little larger sensor in it in time? Is there a technical reason for? Let's say a sensor that is twice the size of this one?

Shouldn't take too long before someone figures out whether those lenses could support a larger sensor or not - they do seem bigger than they need to be (i.e. not miniscule) but I suspect that's probably just down to AF requirements.

[Andi Lo]

Pentax isn't going full frame. They lack the lenses. On top of that, people buy full frame, not only for the look of full frame, but also for the specs that go along with full frame -- fast fps, speedy auto focus.

You sure? Canon 5D? Of course the AF and FPS is still better than the entry level pentaxes / canons, but it is by no means speed daemon.

Why couldn't be there a little larger sensor in it in time? Is there a technical reason for? Let's say a sensor that is twice the size of this one?

The lenses have to be redesigned so that it can accommodate a larger sensor with a small mount size. Usually the mount / lens / sensor are designed to work together from the get go. We've seen a mount get a reduced sensor size (aps-c lenses used for full frame mounts), but never the reverse.

Not saying it's not possible (like ghelary said pentax might have been "generous" with the mount, but certainly very very unusual and would make for a confusing mount.

[ogl]

Why couldn't be there a little larger sensor in it in time? Is there a technical reason for? Let's say a sensor that is twice the size of this one?

It's fantasies of forum users.
I've read in presentation that all lenses are developed and optimized specially for size of sensor.
Large sensor - do you mean 1/1.65"?
It's CCD sensor and HOYA refused current CCD sensors for Pentax Q. They've been waiting for BSI CMOS from Sony.

Anyway...Larger sensor means the circuit technology different from Pentax Q body...Do you acquainted with circuitry engineering?
It will be ANOTHER new body with larger sensor. Don't forget - Pentax Q has Shake Reduction mechanism too.
It's unreal to put LARGER sensor to this body. And it's also unreal to put into K-5 body larger sensor.
Even 1 additional mm inside Pentax Q body changes all work of circuit engineer.

[Clinton]

It's unreal to put LARGER sensor to this body. And it's also unreal to put into K-5 body larger sensor.

You sure we cant pack a full frame sensor behind a Q lens?

[Internetpilot]

Well whoever wishes for a digital Auto110 surely got it. Sensor size disappointing but we already expected that from the rumors...

This is what I was thinking as well. As a former Auto 110 owner, it has nostalgia appeal to me that was far from satisfied with the Optio i10.

I remember back in the day my friends with 35mm SLRs snubbed their noses at my mini SLR's 110 film cartridge, but I still enjoyed the Auto 110 a lot. People who saw no purpose in the Auto 110, won't "get" the appeal of the Q system either.

I don't think it looks ugly at all, and the pop-up flash is a feature more cameras that size should have. I do think it's overpriced, but I never pay anything close to MSRP for any of my cameras.

I'm interested in this camera.

[Aristophanes]

It's fantasies of forum users.
I've read in presentation that all lenses are developed and optimized specially for size of sensor.
Large sensor - do you mean 1/1.65"?
It's CCD sensor and HOYA refused current CCD sensors for Pentax Q. They've been waiting for BSI CMOS from Sony.

Anyway...Larger sensor means the circuit technology different from Pentax Q body...Do you acquainted with circuitry engineering?
It will be ANOTHER new body with larger sensor. Don't forget - Pentax Q has Shake Reduction mechanism too.
It's unreal to put LARGER sensor to this body. And it's also unreal to put into K-5 body larger sensor.
Even 1 additional mm inside Pentax Q body changes all work of circuit engineer.

I doubt they've completely locked the form factor into a single sensor size, especially given that they have only one supplier in Sony. There does appear to be a few mm added support space.

My benchmark for sufficient sensor size has always been the Fuji F30 at 1/1.7" (7.49 x 5.52 mm). That camera had exceptional low-light performance for a P&S.

Fuji used the near same form factor for its F-series between the 2.0 and 1.6 sensor sizes, and they pumped those out at regular intervals. The difference for the Q might might be equivalent to Canon's FF vs. APS-H (imagine a V.2.0 WR body, for example).

The Panasonic LX-5 is 1/1.63"
The Canon G12 is 1/1.7"
The Canon S95 is 1/1.7"
The Nikon P7000 is 1/1.7"
The Olympus XZ-1 is 1/1.63"

I am surprised/disappointed that Pentax went down what could effectively be "2 stops" in sensor size compared to the competition. If that is a locked in issue, then there will be problems for sales, especially to higher-end prosumers and their after-market $$$. I suspect the Sony sensor leapfrogs the list above considerably in technical achievements, but that lead will not last.

What's more surprising is they did this at a much higher price point. Everything else about the Q makes sense and is innovative/interesting/fun. This sensor size-cost divergence is the Achilles' Heel.

[Aristophanes]

I remember back in the day my friends with 35mm SLRs snubbed their noses at my mini SLR's 110 film cartridge, but I still enjoyed the Auto 110 a lot. People who saw no purpose in the Auto 110, won't "get" the appeal of the Q system either.

There's irony here aplenty!

The bane of the Auto 110 IIRC was not SLR snubs, but the evolution of advanced 35mm P&S's with terrific lenses, such as the Olympus XA series. The latter used superior film and people accepted the tradeoffs of the limited lens reach.

[Michael Barker]

Fast normal focal length lens, large DOF, premium build quality and handling. I don't believe there is any competition for this. While that's true, price is flexible. As soon as someone tries to copy this with a larger sensor, Pentax response can be to release a telephoto zoom whose quality/size cannot be matched.

Still, I feel like an idiot for arguing about this thing. Arguing about it is just missing the point.

I just wish I could have been in the room when they decided between 1/2.3" and 1/1.63". Then again, the 1/2.3" sensor size seems to be a more solid standard, and they needed to choose a size and stick with it, so maybe that explains it. Otherwise, G13, XZ-2, P8000 could all come out with 1/2.3" next year and leave Pentax as the only customer of the 1/1.7" sensors.

As for size, well, the LX5 is famously "not pocketable" because of its lens sticking out, and this thing is basically the size of an LX5 with a couple of extra filters added. Let the pocketability debates rage on...

P.S. motor-driven zooms suck for video.... and shallow DOF can be a pain in the neck for video....

[K-9]

I still say a full frame DSLR would sell better for them than the Q.