[bushwhacker09]

I wonder who the target audience is for this camera? I can see it competing with the S95/G12 as a travel camera, but it would have to sell for roughly $600 or less (IMO) to be a viable option. If one is in the mood to tote lenses, why would they not simply grab their SLR? With that tiny sensor, I would imagine it would have to been targeted at folks who normally use a higher-end compact. Comments?

[Kenn100D]

I have a Sony TX-5 with a 10MP Exmor R sensor. The Pentax Q's Exmor R sensor is slightly larger but 12MP. I would wager the pixel pitch is the same.

But if Sony's sensor were optimized by Pentax (Process Algorithm), i think it would be much better. Just like K-5.

[Rondec]

But if Sony's sensor were optimized by Pentax (Process Algorithm), i think it would be much better. Just like K-5.

Maybe. I guess the biggest question is how workable the RAW files are. With all of the post processing options available for noise reduction, that would seem to be the way to go.

[cbaytan]

I wonder who the target audience is for this camera? I can see it competing with the S95/G12 as a travel camera, but it would have to sell for roughly $600 or less (IMO) to be a viable option. If one is in the mood to tote lenses, why would they not simply grab their SLR? With that tiny sensor, I would imagine it would have to been targeted at folks who normally use a higher-end compact. Comments?

The look shows it all. Memorabilia, novelty, Pentax collectors, oh yes, for who wants to pay 700 bucks for taking family pictures would audit Q's shutter clicks. Q will be lot better than the ipod and the Holga I guess.

[Internetpilot]

The whole concept smells like the old 110 format film SLR from many years ago, which was more a novelty than a serious camera .I would have thought that any photographer who is willing to carry around and change lenses frequently would want the quality of a decent sized sensor. When I want a compact high quality camera, I pinch the wife's Lumix. Given that most buyers would want to use their existing glass, the advantage of a super compact body is lost. I believe the Q will be a flop. Shame it was not made in APS C format as a compact alternative to a DSLR. What was going through their minds when they came up with this?

My entire Auto 110 4-lens kit (including flash and autowinder) fit in a custom Pentax case that was about the same size as my first Sony Walkman cassette player, which was about the same size as the typical 35mm camera body at the time. That translates to small size/weight convenience for a "serious photographer". A single one of my existing Pentax glass wouldn't fit in that bag. Why would anyone want to use bulky existing glass on a new ultra compact body? That defeats one of the main benefits of this new system -- size.

I used my Auto 110 kit at least weekly, with periods of daily, for the 3 years I lived in Japan. I have thousands of negatives, and dozens of print albums to show for it with gorgeous pictures/captured memories of Japan -- photos my friends with their full size SLR didn't get because what 18-year-old wants to go through their young life with a bulky SLR bag/kit weighing them down? I'm an "old man" approaching 50 years now, but I find myself thinking a similar thing: What old man wants to go through old age trying to keep up with grandchildren and a busy modern life in general with a heavy DSLR kit bending my back more than my 50 years are naturally doing?

I'm a long-time Panasonic fan (still own an original release month FZ1 and actually gave up DSLRs for a few years for a FZ50), so I understand why you pinch the wife's Lumix at need, but the Q will be a better camera than any Lumix since it will hold a place somewhere between the "bridge" camera and DSLR worlds.

I am a serious photographer, and I'm interested in the Q. I want DSLR features in the smallest and lightest possible package. I suspect that once again I will be getting great pictures and memories while my friends are defaulting to mediocre pics by way of their phone cameras because their DSLR systems were too bulky and inconvenient to bring.

[Michael Barker]

Yes - and for me, the fun started when I put down my P&S, gained the ability to control DOF, lock focus in dim light relatively quickly, and could count on good IQ past ISO 800. And gained access to all the wonderful, truly industry-leading K-mount lenses.

Not everyone wants control of DOF (Admittedly, I want it). There are plenty of people shooting 99% of the time at f/8 and higher on m43 and DSLR, where, by the way, diffraction is already eating away at image quality and they are using high ISO sometimes to get to f/8. Why would they do that? Ergonomics, smooth precise manual zoom, and because the IQ of circa-2009 sub-$600 compacts was not enough at the focal lengths they wanted to use. Now it's 2011 and they can shoot a Pentax Q wide open, losing nothing relevant to their needs vs. an E-PL1 or 500D.

A new, better P&S isn't my idea of photographic fun. A novelty, yes, cute, yes, but it just doesn't seem to have anything to do with Pentax. I feel as if a percentage of the Pentax forum just got very interested in a strange Sigma or Sony product, and started throwing insults at anyone who questioned that silly product.

It's a product targeted at people who like high-end compacts, i.e. not Pentax users.

If this takes a chunk out of Hoya's P&S development pie, then it just doesn't matter to me, and it occupies only slightly more space in my awareness than the latest Optio. I fear, though, that it's taking resources away from new aps-c k-mount lenses, a new AF module, a new SDM, and maybe even FF.

If they make a profit then there's more to spend on new APS-C stuff. Thank your lucky stars they did not create an APS-C or m43 mirrorless. That might have taken users away from APS-C DSLR which might have reduced Pentax's motivation to support that mount.

[Art Vandelay II]

I am a serious photographer, and I'm interested in the Q. I want DSLR features in the smallest and lightest possible package. I suspect that once again I will be getting great pictures and memories while my friends are defaulting to mediocre pics by way of their phone cameras because their DSLR systems were too bulky and inconvenient to bring.

I understand all that, that is the exact reason I'm done with DSLR's myself (and I'm "only" 34). Still though, the only problem I see is why would a serious photographer choose a camera with a sensor that small instead of something like the new Olympus E-PM1:

The weight difference is non existent. The size difference is pretty much non existent, the PEN will actually be cheaper than the Q, and finally unless Pentax has found a way to do something that no other company has ever done the image quality from the PEN will be much much much better. The only real advantage the Q will have is in telephoto lens size. A 500mm equivalent will obviously be rather small on the Q. However, that's not an issue for me. I never require anything over 135mm's.

[junyo]

Not everyone wants control of DOF (Admittedly, I want it). There are plenty of people shooting 99% of the time at f/8 and higher on m43 and DSLR, where, by the way, diffraction is already eating away at image quality and they are using high ISO sometimes to get to f/8. Why would they do that? Ergonomics, smooth precise manual zoom, and because the IQ of circa-2009 sub-$600 compacts was not enough at the focal lengths they wanted to use. Now it's 2011 and they can shoot a Pentax Q wide open, losing nothing relevant to their needs vs. an E-PL1 or 500D.

Except, you know, money. And high ISO quality. And a quality viewfinder.

If they make a profit then there's more to spend on new APS-C stuff. Thank your lucky stars they did not create an APS-C or m43 mirrorless. That might have taken users away from APS-C DSLR which might have reduced Pentax's motivation to support that mount.

More money to spend on APS-C SLRs after they've devoted energy to a completely new line of business with a lot of non-mutually useful resource demands. I'm finding it hard to believe that you get a better economy of effort building a compact that shares zero parts with your DSLRs versus a compact that shares at least some.

I understand all that, that is the exact reason I'm done with DSLR's myself (and I'm "only" 34). Still though, the only problem I see is why would a serious photographer choose a camera with a sensor that small instead of something like the new Olympus E-PM1...

So what you're saying is that you don't want to pay more for a (slightly) smaller package, with a sensor that can't go past ISO 800 w/o bursting into tears? Why do you hate Pentax so?

The Q is more fashion accessory than camera.

[Art Vandelay II]

So what you're saying is that you don't want to pay more for a (slightly) smaller package, with a sensor that can't go past ISO 800 w/o bursting into tears? Why do you hate Pentax so?

Haha. That is the way I feel sometimes. There are two sides to the fanboi coin, those that blindly say everything is great and will work out, and those that bash any and everything. Optimism is great, but some products companies produce just make me scratch my head. My two favorite photography companies are by far Pentax and Olympus, and each of them make me say WTF (Pentax Q, Olympus E-5) as often as they make me say wow (Pentax K-5, the new Olympus 12mm/f2).

[Rondec]

Except, you know, money. And high ISO quality. And a quality viewfinder.

More money to spend on APS-C SLRs after they've devoted energy to a completely new line of business with a lot of non-mutually useful resource demands. I'm finding it hard to believe that you get a better economy of effort building a compact that shares zero parts with your DSLRs versus a compact that shares at least some.


So what you're saying is that you don't want to pay more for a (slightly) smaller package, with a sensor that can't go past ISO 800 w/o bursting into tears? Why do you hate Pentax so?

The Q is more fashion accessory than camera.

First of all, Pentax's point and shoot department has been in disarray for years. Think of this as possible up date to that. Every decent camera company has point and shoots. This is a glorified one.

Second, I think the high iso isn't going to be that much worse than the K7. That's not too bad considering everything else. I would go on the record saying that I think it will sell well in the right markets and could strengthen Pentax's market position.

[eddie1960]

I've gotta say the samples i've seen so far aren't much worse than my K7 for noise

[hawk1500]

I've gotta say the samples i've seen so far aren't much worse than my K7 for noise

well, at least it's almost as good as the worst DSLR in terms of ISO Pentax has released in recent years, I guess that's the bright side.

[eddie1960]

well, at least it's almost as good as the worst DSLR in terms of ISO Pentax has released in recent years, I guess that's the bright side.

not as bad as my ds at 3200

[junyo]

First of all, Pentax's point and shoot department has been in disarray for years. Think of this as possible up date to that. Every decent camera company has point and shoots. This is a glorified one.

Glorified enough to command twice the price? Considering I can get a lot of premium P&Ss for $300-$400 cheaper, that's an awful lot of glory.

That's why I'm truly disturbed at this "this is not for us" justification. It doesn't even attempt to make the camera a value proposition for anyone, just the hope that Pentax is able to sucker enough chumps into buying it. Other than "small" and "cute" are there any photographic superlatives that can objectively be said about the Q?

Second, I think the high iso isn't going to be that much worse than the K7. That's not too bad considering everything else. I would go on the record saying that I think it will sell well in the right markets and could strengthen Pentax's market position.

Since the K7 isn't a current model I don't see how that's relevant. The sample I've seen has it clearly outclassed by the NEX C3's sensor. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the best it can hope for is not being blown out of the water by the various current 1/1.6 P&S sensors. Those and the current m43 cameras are the Q's competition and the camera's that it attempts to command a premium over.

[Vil]

Since the K7 isn't a current model I don't see how that's relevant. The sample I've seen has it clearly outclassed by the NEX C3's sensor. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the best it can hope for is not being blown out of the water by the various current 1/1.6 P&S sensors. Those and the current m43 cameras are the Q's competition and the camera's that it attempts to command a premium over.

It's relevant because people are still using the K7 and taking great pictures with it. Just because its ultimate picture quality may not be up with the best, doesn't mean the Q can't do the job when you need it to.