[junyo]

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.

People are still using and taking great pictures with Yashicamats. That doesn't mean that a) that's the gold standard for image quality, or b)that the Yashicamat is a viable new production camera. So again, it needs to be compared to its contemporaries.

[glanglois]

There was a time when I wouldn't have touched a car with a two liter engine - nowhere near enough displacement to allow me to keep up with traffic without buying a specialty car with a racing heritage and therefore unaffordable. Note, please, that I'm in the American auto market where, at one time, cubic inches were everything.

After all, small engines (and small sensors) just cannot deliver. Simple physics. Everybody knows that ....

It's clearly time to wring another stop or two from 1/2.33" sensors.

Time passes. Technology improves engine performance. Sony's good at sensors.

I'm eager for the improvement, even if I prefer the package of another maker. A Panny TZ-20 with a new Sony sensor (an impossible dream) would be enough for me to part with the money prior to release.

We'll see about the Q product line, of which this is only the first.

[Smeggypants]

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

yes this is possible.


However I've never seen any examples of the K-5s sony sensor in other cameras where the K-5 was much better though. The NIkon D7000 exaples Ii saw weren't much different than the K-5 for example.

My main beef with the Exmor R sensor in my Sony Tx-5 is the smear laden noise reduction. And you can't turn it off. Higher ISO images 400 and above look like a worn out VHS tape.

I hope the Q at least improves on this and allows the disabling of the NR.

I even disable ALL NR onboard mty K-5s and apply it in PP in lightroom to my choice

[RonHendriks1966]

I even disable ALL NR onboard mty K-5s and apply it in PP in lightroom PSE to my choice

+1 on that because that looks ugly. Q should be doing this aswell.

[Raffwal]

This is good. John... Ned... talk to Japan.

I wouldn't count on the Pentax HQ listening to them that much. Pentax is clearly a company prioritizing the Japanese market and Pentax USA is just your local pusher.

[Rondec]

People are still using and taking great pictures with Yashicamats. That doesn't mean that a) that's the gold standard for image quality, or b)that the Yashicamat is a viable new production camera. So again, it needs to be compared to its contemporaries.

Isn't the Pentax K7 still on the official Pentax website as a current camera? I doubt it is in production any more, but I do think it is current. Isn't also bascially the same sensor that is used in the current Samsung NX cameras?

As others have said noise reduction looks pretty aggressive, but if you can leave it off and do more in post processing, that would probably be the best.

[eddie1960]

yes this is possible.


However I've never seen any examples of the K-5s sony sensor in other cameras where the K-5 was much better though. The NIkon D7000 exaples Ii saw weren't much different than the K-5 for example.

My main beef with the Exmor R sensor in my Sony Tx-5 is the smear laden noise reduction. And you can't turn it off. Higher ISO images 400 and above look like a worn out VHS tape.

I hope the Q at least improves on this and allows the disabling of the NR.

I even disable ALL NR onboard mty K-5s and apply it in PP in lightroom to my choice

Well with the Q you will have the option of shooting DNG, so you should be able to do your own noise reduction.

[MrPetkus]

+1 on the Oly PM1 rather than the Q. I'm all for novelty but aside from a larger sensor and Oly's outstanding JPEG engine, they offer a nice EVF.

[Internetpilot]

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.

Like I've said, I'm a long-time Panasonic fan, but the whole m4/3 endeavor holds zero interest for me because the lenses are still too big to offer me much advantage over my previous Panasonic FZ50 or even my current Pentax KX.

I've previously posted in another thread how much I didn't care for the lack of quality I'm getting out of the 18-55 kit lens, to the point that I bought a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to use instead. Guess what I've found myself leaving the house with more often than not? My KX with only the short kit lens (and a small pack of crow for a snack). The kit lens is so lightweight and has no lens shadow when using the onboard flash, so I can leave my external flash (and extra batteries for it) at home. Even bringing along my 55-300 lens, that's a rather lightweight kit (for me), but I still would love to have something significantly smaller.

I love the improved quality and features of a DSLR, but hate the kit bulk. Love the low light, hate the shutter noise. Love the size of a DSLR in my large hands, hate the size and weight in a bag on my shoulders where it resides most of the time.

That's what appeals to me about the Q, and I'm sure I'm not alone...well, maybe on this forum, but not in the real world.

[Internetpilot]

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?

I don't know...you've described the Apple marketing/design strategy perfectly, and their crappy devices sell like there's no tomorrow and for twice the price of the competition, which actually offers more and better features in their respective devices.

I think small and cute with a recognizable "major" brand name in Pentax could take the Q a long way in the current electronics market.

[stevbike]

At the present time I use a small Fuji A700 and S1500 along side my Pentax K-m. I like using the smaller cameras when I do not need to carry a bulkier camera around. For what they are, I get some surprising images from them. They give me about the same amount of flexiblityas the D-slr as far exposure control goes. Cell phone based cameras lack this as far as I know. After reading the specs on the Pentax-Q, it looks to have about as much control over the picture as any D-slr. Time will tell if it is a hit or not. The price willl be the big thing to look at. I will expect the prices to drop to levels where it can be competitive in the market place.

[dlacouture]

I wouldn't count on the Pentax HQ listening to them that much. Pentax is clearly a company prioritizing the Japanese market and Pentax USA is just your local pusher.

You may have a tad more chance going through Pentax Europe, as, IIRC, European Pentax sales volumes are nearly those of Japan... So maybe they have more weight...

[uccemebug]

Think Harajuku/Shibuya. That seems like the market to me--I can see hipser guys and ojou-sama's there using this.

I dunno. Those kids a) shoot film and b) are massively underemployed.

[edit: holy crow was this comment really ten pages back from current...]

[Ash]

I don't know...you've described the Apple marketing/design strategy perfectly, and their crappy devices sell like there's no tomorrow and for twice the price of the competition, which actually offers more and better features in their respective devices.

I think small and cute with a recognizable "major" brand name in Pentax could take the Q a long way in the current electronics market.

Sounds like you don't know or appreciate *why* people are willing to drop twice the price on the competition despite seemingly better specs on paper...

I can assure you, it's not just marketing.

Pentax is in a different situation. Whilst it has a lot of marketing to do for the Q to get out into the masses, it caters for a group that many of us are just not in. And that's fine. Horses for courses.

From my own perspective, whilst I'm much more keen to hear of a Pentax FF announcement rather than that of the Q, it doesn't matter all that much to me as APS-C has made significant improvements and the K-5 is one step in the right direction towards photographic satisfaction, in work and in play. Of course, a part of me still wants to have a system that exploits the full potential of classic FF lenses such as the FA ltds...

[Internetpilot]

Sounds like you don't know or appreciate *why* people are willing to drop twice the price on the competition despite seemingly better specs on paper...

I can assure you, it's not just marketing.

20-year career network engineer here -- I've known about and had the misfortune of dealing with Apple since its infancy. It's the same old limiting and under-featured hardware/OS with the only recent change being a vastly superior marketing strategy.

My older two children insisted on iPhones and iPads depite my attempts to convince them otherwise. I did draw a firm line when they wanted a MacBook for their college notebook solution. Why? Because when they break, they're broken -- you have to send them in to Apple for repair. They're still far from the industry standard so a lot of required apps and even some websites will not run on them. How "smart" is anyone to buy a smartphone that only lets you put on it specifically what Apple says you can put on it? Doesn't seem very "smart" to me. Same scenario with an iPad.

When my son got his iPad last Christmas I was having career flashbacks of failed attempts to network AppleTalk. Being a network engineer, I have pro level Cisco routers and wireless access points in my house (yes, I have stock in the company -- haha). The overpriced iPad will not connect to them unless I remove all security/encryption. Called up Apple Tech Support, told them what network infrastructure I have as well as my level of expertise in this area, and guess what I was told? "Oh, yeah...you need an Apple Airport..."

I guess Cisco hardware is good enough to run most of the internet, but not good enough for Apple devices...?

So, as you can see, I know and appreciate high quality hardware (Cisco). Apple just doesn't fit that description in my significant experience.

Again, I am one of those "suckers" Junyo mentioned who is interested in the Q, but unlike the i-People who line up overnight at the local Apple Store to pay the overblown full MSRP for the latest i-Device, I won't be paying MSRP for the Q.

I can't remember the last time I paid MSRP for anything, and I don't think that Pentax really expects most people to to do so. I predict the Q will settle down to a nice street price a little higher than the higher end point-n-shoots, which is exactly where it should be.