Pentax Q in the Flesh

Jack Simpson · 08-19-2011, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Get in line @ B&H! Pre-order...

pentax q

The intervalometer, high-speed flash sync, HD video, image stabilization, and lens choices make this an interesting option for First-Person shooting...

Well, at least the MSRP prices are the same in Canada as they are in ObamaLand

I just received product codes and pricing yesterday (Thur Aug 18) from my Pentax
Sales Rep.

Cheers,

Jack

Art Vandelay II · 08-19-2011, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

If you use cameras without lenses then yes, NEX is smaller than m43 cams and much more pocketable than m43 cams.

Even if you compare the size of the GF3 to the size of the Q with pancake primes attached there's not much of a difference. Based on the size of my hands I just don't think I could use a camera much smaller than this:

That is right in the ballpark of my old G10, and it was borderline too small as far as I was concerned.

Quote:

Compare these things with similar zooms attached.

The Olympus 14-42mm is pretty tiny as is, but the rumors this week are that Panasonic is about to release some insanely small zooms. I personally wont be buying them because it sounds like they are going to function like a compact camera lens, complete with power zoom. But I imagine a P&S upgrader will feel right at home with them:
Pancake sized motorised zoom lens coming for Panasonic GF7, GH3 | EOSHD.com

Quote:

If you can not then there is not much advantages of m43s over dslrs.

Try carrying a m4/3's or even a NEX camera around a city for an entire day, or on a 10+ mile hike then say there aren't many advantages. I once brought both my K-7 and a NEX-3 to NYC for a week, I used the K-7 for all of 2 hours, and didn't get it out again. True, there are some DSLR's smaller than the K-7, but every single one of them aside from the Sony A33/A55 (which aren't even true DSLR's) have horrible pentamirror view finders that I personally can't stand using. For street photography there is simply no contest. You can shoot with these small EVIL's all day long and hardly anyone notices, but the second you whip a DSLR out people turn and look.

Quote:

As far as I am concerned m43 does not solve problem of packtablity. They are not small enough. They are only small with pancakes and pancakes are not available in every length that i would want plus lenses cost arm and leg to buy.

The Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is $325, the 20mm f/1.7 is $370. Just how cheap do lenses need to be? You are aware the Q is $800 right? As I said early, exactly how many pancake primes does a system need? Street shooters are already covered with m4/3's with the 12mm, 14mm, the 17mm, and the 20mm. I could happily shoot all year long with just the combo of the 12mm and 20mm. Here is a guy that uses a single prime for an entire year, and gets fantastic results. Not every lens for a system has to be tiny. When using a camera around my house, or in the studio I simply don't care what size the lens is.

But as mentioned early up this thread, the Q's problem is not that it is going to be an awful camera. I'm sure we're going to see some fantastic shots made with it. The problem is the competition it faces is simply better; and cheaper to boot. It sounds like Nikon CSC is going to be announced soon. If the rumors I've read about it are even partially true I just think the Q is DOA. Both are going after they same niche; small sensor, ultra compact, but with a 2.7x Sony sensor the Nikon CSC should simply be the better choice for most people.

eddie1960 · 08-19-2011, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

E
But as mentioned early up this thread, the Q's problem is not that it is going to be an awful camera. I'm sure we're going to see some fantastic shots made with it. The problem is the competition it faces is simply better; and cheaper to boot. It sounds like Nikon CSC is going to be announced soon. If the rumors I've read about it are even partially true I just think the Q is DOA. Both are going after they same niche; small sensor, ultra compact, but with a 2.7x Sony sensor the Nikon CSC should simply be the better choice for most people.

While i would tend to agree, Nikon has never been good at implementing small. their PS line is horrible (at least what i've tried) They also aren't very good at making a small SLR
Pentax has made some pretty crappy PS but they have always implemented Small SLRs very well

Nikon's strength will be brand and a better sensor perhaps, but i'm wait and see on how well designed it is given their history with PS and small cameras (Don't get me wrong I like the SLR's particularly the FF and a good chunk of the film ones as well. BUT I got given the EM when it came out and it was a horrible POS

ogl · 08-19-2011, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

While i would tend to agree, Nikon has never been good at implementing small. their PS line is horrible (at least what i've tried) They also aren't very good at making a small SLR

Nikon P&S cameras are not worse than Pentax. :ugh: Pentax has no any P&S camera with sensor bigger than 1/2.3".

eddie1960 · 08-19-2011, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Nikon P&S cameras are not worse than Pentax. :ugh: Pentax has no any P&S camera with sensor bigger than 1/2.3".

Worse isn't just defined by sensors ogl, and i said pentax PS were pretty crappy as well
Worse for me is implementation and operation as well as sensor. IMO Nikon PSare horrible to use and the P7000 is horrible to use compared to it's competitors (like the G12 and LX5 amongst others)
Pentax doesn't really even compete much in this area any longer (that will likely change since the Ricoh line is quite good)

zxaar · 08-19-2011, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

Even if you compare the size of the GF3 to the size of the Q with pancake primes attached there's not much of a difference. Based on the size of my hands I just don't think I could use a camera much smaller than this:

m43 and NEX are only pocketable with pancakes attached.

About the costs.
As you said Q is 800$ (that includes lens too by the way), but it does not mean that you will be paying 800$ for next Q body. Pentax can offer you k-x kit for less than this so I am pretty sure Q bodies would be cheaper than this.

Plus it is hard to find 120$ 160deg view fish-eye in any system. That is cheap, isn't it.

At the moment here in Japan, Q is priced at 60,000 yen. I remember m43 kits were released for more than this here in Japan. So they were also not cheap.
I checked GF3 body is 40,000yen on yodobashi japan (where Q kit is 60Kyen). Add to it 20mm F1.7 (35,000yen) to be compared to Q with F1.9 lens.

OLYMPUS PEN E-P3 (BODY)is 80,000 yen at same shop here. E-PL1s is cheapest for 30,000yen but lens much slower than pentax Q kit.

Things are not cheap in m43.

---------------------------------------------------------

Other than that here are few observations about m43land:

Well, the sizes of APC and m43 and not that really different so , as far as noise is concerned they are very close.
APC is bigger than m43 and hence lenses will be always be bigger. You can not beat physics. (humm what happened to point #1 now). If you want compact camera you should go with m43.
m43 has telephoto advantage plus it has deeper DOF than APC.
Pentax Q has ridiculously smaller sensor than m43 and it is a joke. No serious photographer will ever use it.
Sizes are not that different when lenses are attached , it is virtually indistinguishable from m43 cams. (what happened to #2 now)

So slightly smaller m43 sensor than APC results in distinguishable size differences in lenses but a very small sensor than m43 can not produce smaller lenses than m43 system.

Blue · 08-19-2011, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

. . .True, there are some DSLR's smaller than the K-7, but every single one of them aside from the Sony A33/A55 (which aren't even true DSLR's) have horrible pentamirror view finders that I personally can't stand using. . .

Well, the *istD had a pentaprism.

ogl · 08-20-2011, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

Worse isn't just defined by sensors ogl, and i said pentax PS were pretty crappy as well
Worse for me is implementation and operation as well as sensor. IMO Nikon PSare horrible to use and the P7000 is horrible to use compared to it's competitors (like the G12 and LX5 amongst others)
Pentax doesn't really even compete much in this area any longer (that will likely change since the Ricoh line is quite good)

I've used Nikon P5000 for some time...It's hard to say something negative...Maybe skin colours were rather strange...But the camera is not bad in terms of controls and body quality.

But...Nikon P&S cameras are not the best at the market. You are right. I'd say it's close to low-end level.

Unsinkable II · 08-21-2011, 03:04 AM

Golly, 68 pages and counting on the Q!

It's certainly got people talking.

Hopefully it will do well for Pentax, but it'll be an emotional "lifestyle" purchase rather than a logical/sensible one.

If anyone I knew bought one, I'd probably berate them for not engaging their brain. It just makes NO sense.

Now, Nikon going one stop below M4/3? That's smart...

**Pål Jensen** · 08-21-2011, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

If anyone I knew bought one, I'd probably berate them for not engaging their brain. It just makes NO sense.
...

It is for those who want an extremely small camera with interchangeable lenses. That makes it sensible to remove a decent viewfinder.

Christine Tham · 08-21-2011, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

It is for those who want an extremely small camera with interchangeable lenses. That makes it sensible to remove a decent viewfinder.

It's also for those who don't want their subjects to be intimidated by them carrying a "pro" SLR.

Case in point: I was in a shopping centre yesterday and got bored so started taking random photos (with my Sony HX7V).

A security guy saw my Pentax camera bag, thought I must be using an SLR, and rushed over (presumably to tell me that photography is forbidden). When he saw I was using the Sony, his whole attitude changed, and he was all smiles and asked me if I needed any help.

I was considering replying "Yeah - can you hold my Sony compact camera for me, which I fish out my K-5 to take some *real* photos?" :-)

Last few weeks, I have using my Sony almost exclusively (to "train" myself before getting the Q) and it's been liberating - I feel like I can take photos anywhere and no one cares. I have even taken photos in changing rooms and toilets - people may think I am weird, but I would probably have been arrested if I was using an SLR.

conradj · 08-21-2011, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

Last few weeks, I have using my Sony almost exclusively (to "train" myself before getting the Q) and it's been liberating - I feel like I can take photos anywhere and no one cares. I have even taken photos in changing rooms and toilets - people may think I am weird, but I would probably have been arrested if I was using an SLR.

yes!

i do the "i'm mentally defective with a big, mungy camera i dunno what to do with' bit, but it's just not the same as carrying something small that slides under the radar.

johnmflores · 08-21-2011, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

It's also for those who don't want their subjects to be intimidated by them carrying a "pro" SLR.

Case in point: I was in a shopping centre yesterday and got bored so started taking random photos (with my Sony HX7V).

A security guy saw my Pentax camera bag, thought I must be using an SLR, and rushed over (presumably to tell me that photography is forbidden). When he saw I was using the Sony, his whole attitude changed, and he was all smiles and asked me if I needed any help.

Kudos for the security guard for knowing that Pentax makes cameras!

**barondla** · 08-21-2011, 08:39 PM

Can't wait for the Pentax Q to arrive. I already have other cameras for my main work ( including K-7 and Olympus EPL1). This camera will be for pure enjoyment - perhaps used only once in a while. My fear is it is too big. Love small cameras. Even use a Minox B 9.5mm film spy camera and the Pentax A110.

Saying a slr size camera is useless for street photography is absolute HOGWASH. Years ago Mary Ellen Mark & Bruce Davidson visited our university, and both had large 35mm cameras. Not to mention all the wonderful work done with Contax and Leica rangefinders.
thanks
barondla

lithos · 08-21-2011, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by barondla

Can't wait for the Pentax Q to arrive. I already have other cameras for my main w Not to mention all the wonderful work done with Contax and Leica rangefinders.
thanks
barondla

Careful...implying that the Leicas are big can get you lynched...

But of course they are. Save for the pentaprism bump, the Pentax M-series film cams are smaller than the Leica Ms.

08-19-2011, 09:13 AM	#1007
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by zxaar If you use cameras without lenses then yes, NEX is smaller than m43 cams and much more pocketable than m43 cams. Even if you compare the size of the GF3 to the size of the Q with pancake primes attached there's not much of a difference. Based on the size of my hands I just don't think I could use a camera much smaller than this: That is right in the ballpark of my old G10, and it was borderline too small as far as I was concerned. Quote: Compare these things with similar zooms attached. The Olympus 14-42mm is pretty tiny as is, but the rumors this week are that Panasonic is about to release some insanely small zooms. I personally wont be buying them because it sounds like they are going to function like a compact camera lens, complete with power zoom. But I imagine a P&S upgrader will feel right at home with them: Pancake sized motorised zoom lens coming for Panasonic GF7, GH3 \| EOSHD.com Quote: If you can not then there is not much advantages of m43s over dslrs. Try carrying a m4/3's or even a NEX camera around a city for an entire day, or on a 10+ mile hike then say there aren't many advantages. I once brought both my K-7 and a NEX-3 to NYC for a week, I used the K-7 for all of 2 hours, and didn't get it out again. True, there are some DSLR's smaller than the K-7, but every single one of them aside from the Sony A33/A55 (which aren't even true DSLR's) have horrible pentamirror view finders that I personally can't stand using. For street photography there is simply no contest. You can shoot with these small EVIL's all day long and hardly anyone notices, but the second you whip a DSLR out people turn and look. Quote: As far as I am concerned m43 does not solve problem of packtablity. They are not small enough. They are only small with pancakes and pancakes are not available in every length that i would want plus lenses cost arm and leg to buy. The Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is $325, the 20mm f/1.7 is $370. Just how cheap do lenses need to be? You are aware the Q is $800 right? As I said early, exactly how many pancake primes does a system need? Street shooters are already covered with m4/3's with the 12mm, 14mm, the 17mm, and the 20mm. I could happily shoot all year long with just the combo of the 12mm and 20mm. Here is a guy that uses a single prime for an entire year, and gets fantastic results. Not every lens for a system has to be tiny. When using a camera around my house, or in the studio I simply don't care what size the lens is. But as mentioned early up this thread, the Q's problem is not that it is going to be an awful camera. I'm sure we're going to see some fantastic shots made with it. The problem is the competition it faces is simply better; and cheaper to boot. It sounds like Nikon CSC is going to be announced soon. If the rumors I've read about it are even partially true I just think the Q is DOA. Both are going after they same niche; small sensor, ultra compact, but with a 2.7x Sony sensor the Nikon CSC should simply be the better choice for most people. Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 08-19-2011 at 09:22 AM.

08-19-2011, 02:39 PM	#1011
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II Even if you compare the size of the GF3 to the size of the Q with pancake primes attached there's not much of a difference. Based on the size of my hands I just don't think I could use a camera much smaller than this: m43 and NEX are only pocketable with pancakes attached. About the costs. As you said Q is 800$ (that includes lens too by the way), but it does not mean that you will be paying 800$ for next Q body. Pentax can offer you k-x kit for less than this so I am pretty sure Q bodies would be cheaper than this. Plus it is hard to find 120$ 160deg view fish-eye in any system. That is cheap, isn't it. At the moment here in Japan, Q is priced at 60,000 yen. I remember m43 kits were released for more than this here in Japan. So they were also not cheap. I checked GF3 body is 40,000yen on yodobashi japan (where Q kit is 60Kyen). Add to it 20mm F1.7 (35,000yen) to be compared to Q with F1.9 lens. OLYMPUS PEN E-P3 (BODY)is 80,000 yen at same shop here. E-PL1s is cheapest for 30,000yen but lens much slower than pentax Q kit. Things are not cheap in m43. --------------------------------------------------------- Other than that here are few observations about m43land: Well, the sizes of APC and m43 and not that really different so , as far as noise is concerned they are very close. APC is bigger than m43 and hence lenses will be always be bigger. You can not beat physics. (humm what happened to point #1 now). If you want compact camera you should go with m43. m43 has telephoto advantage plus it has deeper DOF than APC. Pentax Q has ridiculously smaller sensor than m43 and it is a joke. No serious photographer will ever use it. Sizes are not that different when lenses are attached , it is virtually indistinguishable from m43 cams. (what happened to #2 now) So slightly smaller m43 sensor than APC results in distinguishable size differences in lenses but a very small sensor than m43 can not produce smaller lenses than m43 system. Last edited by zxaar; 08-19-2011 at 02:55 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh!	pickles	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay	dantuyhoa	Post Your Photos!	9	11-11-2008 11:57 PM

08-19-2011, 09:07 AM	#1006
Jack Simpson Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Penticton, BC Posts: 251	Originally posted by johnmflores Get in line @ B&H! Pre-order... pentax q The intervalometer, high-speed flash sync, HD video, image stabilization, and lens choices make this an interesting option for First-Person shooting... Well, at least the MSRP prices are the same in Canada as they are in ObamaLand I just received product codes and pricing yesterday (Thur Aug 18) from my Pentax Sales Rep. Cheers, Jack

08-19-2011, 09:37 AM	#1008
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II E But as mentioned early up this thread, the Q's problem is not that it is going to be an awful camera. I'm sure we're going to see some fantastic shots made with it. The problem is the competition it faces is simply better; and cheaper to boot. It sounds like Nikon CSC is going to be announced soon. If the rumors I've read about it are even partially true I just think the Q is DOA. Both are going after they same niche; small sensor, ultra compact, but with a 2.7x Sony sensor the Nikon CSC should simply be the better choice for most people. While i would tend to agree, Nikon has never been good at implementing small. their PS line is horrible (at least what i've tried) They also aren't very good at making a small SLR Pentax has made some pretty crappy PS but they have always implemented Small SLRs very well Nikon's strength will be brand and a better sensor perhaps, but i'm wait and see on how well designed it is given their history with PS and small cameras (Don't get me wrong I like the SLR's particularly the FF and a good chunk of the film ones as well. BUT I got given the EM when it came out and it was a horrible POS

08-19-2011, 10:06 AM	#1009
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by eddie1960 While i would tend to agree, Nikon has never been good at implementing small. their PS line is horrible (at least what i've tried) They also aren't very good at making a small SLR Nikon P&S cameras are not worse than Pentax. :ugh: Pentax has no any P&S camera with sensor bigger than 1/2.3".

08-19-2011, 10:15 AM	#1010
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by ogl Nikon P&S cameras are not worse than Pentax. :ugh: Pentax has no any P&S camera with sensor bigger than 1/2.3". Worse isn't just defined by sensors ogl, and i said pentax PS were pretty crappy as well Worse for me is implementation and operation as well as sensor. IMO Nikon PSare horrible to use and the P7000 is horrible to use compared to it's competitors (like the G12 and LX5 amongst others) Pentax doesn't really even compete much in this area any longer (that will likely change since the Ricoh line is quite good)

08-19-2011, 07:26 PM	#1012
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II . . .True, there are some DSLR's smaller than the K-7, but every single one of them aside from the Sony A33/A55 (which aren't even true DSLR's) have horrible pentamirror view finders that I personally can't stand using. . . Well, the *istD had a pentaprism.

08-20-2011, 04:28 AM	#1013
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by eddie1960 Worse isn't just defined by sensors ogl, and i said pentax PS were pretty crappy as well Worse for me is implementation and operation as well as sensor. IMO Nikon PSare horrible to use and the P7000 is horrible to use compared to it's competitors (like the G12 and LX5 amongst others) Pentax doesn't really even compete much in this area any longer (that will likely change since the Ricoh line is quite good) I've used Nikon P5000 for some time...It's hard to say something negative...Maybe skin colours were rather strange...But the camera is not bad in terms of controls and body quality. But...Nikon P&S cameras are not the best at the market. You are right. I'd say it's close to low-end level.

08-21-2011, 03:04 AM	#1014
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Golly, 68 pages and counting on the Q! It's certainly got people talking. Hopefully it will do well for Pentax, but it'll be an emotional "lifestyle" purchase rather than a logical/sensible one. If anyone I knew bought one, I'd probably berate them for not engaging their brain. It just makes NO sense. Now, Nikon going one stop below M4/3? That's smart...

08-21-2011, 04:07 AM	#1015
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Unsinkable II If anyone I knew bought one, I'd probably berate them for not engaging their brain. It just makes NO sense. ... It is for those who want an extremely small camera with interchangeable lenses. That makes it sensible to remove a decent viewfinder.

08-21-2011, 01:27 PM	#1016
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by Pål Jensen It is for those who want an extremely small camera with interchangeable lenses. That makes it sensible to remove a decent viewfinder. It's also for those who don't want their subjects to be intimidated by them carrying a "pro" SLR. Case in point: I was in a shopping centre yesterday and got bored so started taking random photos (with my Sony HX7V). A security guy saw my Pentax camera bag, thought I must be using an SLR, and rushed over (presumably to tell me that photography is forbidden). When he saw I was using the Sony, his whole attitude changed, and he was all smiles and asked me if I needed any help. I was considering replying "Yeah - can you hold my Sony compact camera for me, which I fish out my K-5 to take some real photos?" :-) Last few weeks, I have using my Sony almost exclusively (to "train" myself before getting the Q) and it's been liberating - I feel like I can take photos anywhere and no one cares. I have even taken photos in changing rooms and toilets - people may think I am weird, but I would probably have been arrested if I was using an SLR.

08-21-2011, 01:34 PM	#1017
conradj Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 188	Originally posted by Christine Tham Last few weeks, I have using my Sony almost exclusively (to "train" myself before getting the Q) and it's been liberating - I feel like I can take photos anywhere and no one cares. I have even taken photos in changing rooms and toilets - people may think I am weird, but I would probably have been arrested if I was using an SLR. yes! i do the "i'm mentally defective with a big, mungy camera i dunno what to do with' bit, but it's just not the same as carrying something small that slides under the radar.

08-21-2011, 04:24 PM	#1018
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Christine Tham It's also for those who don't want their subjects to be intimidated by them carrying a "pro" SLR. Case in point: I was in a shopping centre yesterday and got bored so started taking random photos (with my Sony HX7V). A security guy saw my Pentax camera bag, thought I must be using an SLR, and rushed over (presumably to tell me that photography is forbidden). When he saw I was using the Sony, his whole attitude changed, and he was all smiles and asked me if I needed any help. Kudos for the security guard for knowing that Pentax makes cameras!

08-21-2011, 08:39 PM	#1019
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Can't wait for the Pentax Q to arrive. I already have other cameras for my main work ( including K-7 and Olympus EPL1). This camera will be for pure enjoyment - perhaps used only once in a while. My fear is it is too big. Love small cameras. Even use a Minox B 9.5mm film spy camera and the Pentax A110. Saying a slr size camera is useless for street photography is absolute HOGWASH. Years ago Mary Ellen Mark & Bruce Davidson visited our university, and both had large 35mm cameras. Not to mention all the wonderful work done with Contax and Leica rangefinders. thanks barondla

08-21-2011, 10:56 PM	#1020
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by barondla Can't wait for the Pentax Q to arrive. I already have other cameras for my main w Not to mention all the wonderful work done with Contax and Leica rangefinders. thanks barondla Careful...implying that the Leicas are big can get you lynched... But of course they are. Save for the pentaprism bump, the Pentax M-series film cams are smaller than the Leica Ms.