[Christine Tham]

Niche? I refuse to understand that.

Limited lens selection.

Mediocre AF (compared to Canon and Nikon).

Resolution/megapixels nowhere near state of the art MF (Phase One) etc.

The 645D can't really be used in the same way that an EOS-1DS would be used for, and lets face it, and with all due respect to people like benjikan, the Pentax brand name carries very little respect among pros using FF.

If Canon and Nikon are the Microsoft and IBM of the camera industry, then Pentax is trying to be an Apple, and the Q is an attempt at making an "iPad" - I like it for precisely the same reasons why some people prefer an iPad over a laptop.

Think of it another way - the Q is basically a K-r with a DA35 f2.4 miniaturised to the size of a compact camera, with an image quality probably around K10D level (maybe slightly better). That's a pretty solid value proposition - at a price level similar to that of a K-r and DA35.

The whole point of owning a Q is having an SLR camera that's always available (in a handbag or briefcase) - it enables opportunities for taking photos that where a DSLR would be impractical/inconvenient.

[Christine Tham]

"no pro camera inside" concerts, here I come

+1

That's a great use case for the Q - situations where the use of a DSLR would be inappropriate, or frowned upon.

[junyo]

I am consistently amazed at the resilience of the fanboy spirit. In a couple of days they've managed to turn an expensive small chip P&S into the future of photography.

[Ash]

The Q system is hardly touted as the future of photography, nor will it be for so many photographers. It might however be a formidable opponent to the bridge and hybrid systems there are currently available, but only for that particular market. It does not, nor was it designed to, compare with dSLRs, which still remain the majority standard in professional and enthusiast photography.

[ogl]

I see very serious problems with Pentax Q.

First of all, no any sense in interchangeable lenses at 1/2.3" sensor. Useless.
Lenses are slow and sensor is tiny. Zoom is rather mediocre.

Second problem - price. Pentax Q with all lenses + VF is $1640.

Third problem is DUST. The sensor is very small and every speck of dust will be BIG spot at the photos.

Fourth problem is that Pentax Q with zoom lens loses compactness. Zoom is not folding zoom.

Fifth problem is weak battery. It's OPTIO's battery. It could only 200 pictures - I use the same one with my S10. Full HD video will eat battery very quickly.

P.S. All ideas in Pentax Q are the ideas of other brands.
High sync speed - there are in some Fuji P&S cameras.
Prime Lens - there is P&S with prime lens, for example - Ricoh GR Digital III and GR Digital II
Optical Viewfinder for $250 - it's too expensive and not compact. There are P&S cameras with External viewfinder.
TOY effects is easy to make with in-camera soft.
All ideas from another brands are simply mixed toghether in strange combination. Nothing new and unique. It's rather disappointing.


I think that we will see more problems with this ridiculous system later.

[Macario]

I am consistently amazed at the resilience of the fanboy spirit. In a couple of days they've managed to turn an expensive small chip P&S into the future of photography.

I am constantly amazed by people who write off everything Pentax releases if it isn't excactly what they want from Pentax

[Rondec]

If Pentax released a full frame camera, it would basically be a 645D with less resolution. Pentax chose the medium format market to compete in, because their strengths just don't play well in he full frame market. Slow-ish auto focus, buffers that fill quickly, etc. Even priced at just below 2000 dollars, it wouldn't draw photogs from other brands.

[Ash]

Sorry ogl. Your raised 'problems' are not all that serious and the system not as ridiculous as you make it out to be.
I'm no fanboy and I have no intention of getting this quirky little camera, but it does have a place, and it will stir interest in the P&S market.
The sense in the interchangeable lenses for this system is there for the P&S market - they are less obsessed about total DoF control.
Lenses will obviously be slower than that of any m4/3 or APS-C system. What do you expect? Again, the target market won't be as particular about it as us here, and how can we know how mediocre the lenses are anyway?
Price will surely be coming down soon after release. It will compare favourably to rival systems in value for money I think.
Then dust - So what? Easier to clean, and I don't even know if DR technology would be implemented in the system, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Zoom size is a matter of preference. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Have a look at the other bridge/hybrids with 24-30x zoom - they aren't exactly pocketable either.
Weak battery - batteries are cheap. If one's not enough for users, they can easily get themselves another one or two as backups.

With this kind of size, some things clearly have to give...
But guess what? The Q line doesn't end with the first Q camera - it's the first of many and each successive camera will boast of a newer sensor that will keep improving in IQ. So there is a foreseeable future in this technology.

[juu]

While ogl does overstate his points, I think the intersection of people who both are ready to accept a 1/2.33'' sensor and want interchangeable lenses to go along with that is extremely small. Time may prove me wrong.

[MMVIII]

Well, some interesting thoughts, fair enough.
But... (I'm sorry, but I rather risk being called a fanboy with pointing out another perspective because I think that negativeness is a inherent phenomenon of internet-fora)...
...now, but, to have another look at this glass on the table, you claim to be half empty, a cheap and bold analogy:

for a long time all computer freaks and nerds were trained to compare their hardware by certain numbers, be it CPU-speed, amount of RAM, HD-size etc. It made sense, as long as some programs did not run if underspecified. But technology matured and - that should be my point - led to a diversification with different products covering different needs. You got heavy load workstations, notebooks with power an portability but also netbooks and tablets/pads.

Who wants to argue, that it's completely insane to buy a pad which compromises ergonomics, processing power and costs the same or even more than a workstation? It's good enough for what it is intended to do, I think that's the magic formula, which may be hard to accept for people which have been looking for maximum quality for years now and have researched and argued in this manner in fora like this.

Is exactly the Q the system to bring a paradigm-shift? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I do see some potential, others find it ridiculous, well, guess we have to wait and see.

But what makes me glad is:
- Pentax shows they are thinking out of the box with some cojones
- they are keeping a quality approach e.g. with the magnesium body and lenses...
- they show creative solutions (shutter in lens, built in filters...)

Now it has to show that it is good enough and than they would definitely get some applause from me

[MMVIII]

btw.
I don't know if this has been posted here, but here are some slides from the presentation which show some considerations and analyses by the manufacturer of the cam, just for comparison to "analyses" here

- if someone can read japanese it would be probably helpful -

dc.watch translated page

[Kenn100D]

I see very serious problems with Pentax Q.

First of all, no any sense in interchangeable lenses at 1/2.3" sensor. Useless.
Lenses are slow and sensor is tiny. Zoom is rather mediocre.

Second problem - price. Pentax Q with all lenses + VF is $1640.

Third problem is DUST. The sensor is very small and every speck of dust will be BIG spot at the photos.

Fourth problem is that Pentax Q with zoom lens loses compactness. Zoom is not folding zoom.

Fifth problem is weak battery. It's OPTIO's battery. It could only 200 pictures - I use the same one with my S10. Full HD video will eat battery very quickly.

P.S. All ideas in Pentax Q are the ideas of other brands.
High sync speed - there are in some Fuji P&S cameras.
Prime Lens - there is P&S with prime lens, for example - Ricoh GR Digital III and GR Digital II
Optical Viewfinder for $250 - it's too expensive and not compact. There are P&S cameras with External viewfinder.
TOY effects is easy to make with in-camera soft.
All ideas from another brands are simply mixed toghether in strange combination. Nothing new and unique. It's rather disappointing.


I think that we will see more problems with this ridiculous system later.

There is no serious problem with the Q. Q is for somebody else. It is not branded by Pentax as Pro/Semi Pro/ but just the smallest ILC in the world. Also, would you sacrifice your company by aiming the smallest ILC camera with so so image quality?
I think not. So Pentax put enough time to this camera to be the world smallest ILC with the best image quality that the sensor can produce. So that's why the price come out as it is. Not the price of any P&S.

As for the toy camera effect, Tell me a serious photographer will like to have a toy camera effect that come out through a lens rather than software based effect. I ask you then, would you rather have a picture taken with the DA* quality lens that is sharp and natural rather than so so lens and spend hours in the front of computer trying to reach that same level of sharpness and color?

[Aristophanes]

While ogl does overstate his points, I think the intersection of people who both are ready to accept a 1/2.33'' sensor and want interchangeable lenses to go along with that is extremely small. Time may prove me wrong.

People will continue to buy compacts regardless, and that includes a sensor of this size.

The whole point of the Q is to put some distance between small sensors and cameraphones, with the up-market, after-market temptation of having interchangeable lenses and other controls. People buy 4-wheel drives and never leave pavement.

One thing is known is that many people still want a dedicated camera for higher quality shooting than a smartphone offers.

The sensor is probably excellent as Sony has been designing fantastic chips. It just may not have enough gross area to suck in enough light to compete against the next gen of LX-5/S95 chips that are larger, especially not at this price point. Likely the make or break for the Q as an up-market competitor is going to come dow to low-light/ISO performance vs. the competition. People *will* pay a premium for ILC, as they did with the Auto 110.

One also has to wonder if Pentax has a PLan B where the Q is served up as a non-ILC bridge camera model.

[lithos]

True but there's the "omg it's an Apple product buy buy buy!" factor that almost no other company has. Besides, Apple buyers are used to paying way more for something (compared to, say, a Windows laptop).

Apple is a completely different market to anything else, and it always makes me chuckle when people think "Company X could be like Apple!" Apple sells a "lifestyle," not an actual product.

[jsherman999]

If Pentax released a full frame camera, it would basically be a 645D with less resolution.

And smaller, with much faster AF lock, better relative ISO performance, much faster shot-to-shot response time, faster buffer write, and the ability to mount and use almost all K-mount lenses, save a few DA zooms and a couple DA primes. And it would cost 1/4 or 1/5 the price of the 645D.


.