[ogl]

Typical OGL's Q-bashing.

typical nosnoop post.

I say 100% truth.

[Digitalis]

not bad IQ from such a small sensor, certainly nothing the Micro 4/3rds users have to worry about but still decent for what it is. If you are planning on making 36X24 inch prints from the output of this camera there are definitely better cameras to work with but for what it's worth the lenses seem to perform very well.

I say 100% truth.

you should consider a career in politics ogl.

[ogl]

not bad IQ from such a small sensor

you should consider a career in politics ogl.

too late...too late.

[UdonUdon]

typical nosnoop post.

I say 100% truth.

I'm not getting the point of this post. I looked at the 100% crops as well. I think these photos look great, and the prospect of carrying around such a small yet relatively powerful and versatile camera is amazing.

[Art Vandelay II]

not bad IQ from such a small sensor, certainly nothing the Micro 4/3rds users have to worry about but still decent for what it is.

There in lies the problem with the Q. m4/3's cameras will be compared directly to the Q from all the review sites. The Q looks really good for a $400 P&S, but the unfortunately Pentax has choosen to price it out of that range. IMO it should be compared to cameras like the Olympus XZ-1 and upcoming Fuji X50, even though those two have fixed lenses. However at $800 people are going to expect more of it. That pic Ogl linked to looks awful. The bokeh filter, who knows, it could work ok for some static situations, but never as good as the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 does in all situations. Samsung is also about to release the NX200, and with their pancake prime line up a person can get an ever so slightly larger camera that is going to put the Q to shame. The Q is a cool little camera, I admit that, but if Pentax doesn't lower the price on it very quickly then I just can't see it being very successful at all.

[ogl]

I'm not getting the point of this post. I looked at the 100% crops as well. I think these photos look great, and the prospect of carrying around such a small yet relatively powerful and versatile camera is amazing.

if these photos looks great for you it means that your requirements in photography as art are on very low level...you can make such photo by any P&S camera with small sensor and you will be happy...
for me - it's junk. I'm perfectionist

It hard to say that it's bad for 1/2.3" sensor... Maybe it's good...But I'm not specialist in bad photos.

[ogl]

However at $800 people are going to expect more of it..

$400 for Q kit is good price, not above...but not $800

[ogl]

PENTAX Q ?????? ???????? ? 01 STANDARD PRIME - ??????

more photos....

[UdonUdon]

if these photos looks great for you it means that your requirements in photography as art are on very low level

When I say great, I mean these photos show off a lot of potential. Also, this is really off-topic, but since when was art determined by IQ levels? When I admire the photos from Henri Cartier-Bresson, the Capa brothers, Harry Benson, and Annie Leibovitz's personal work, I see the art as a product of using light to its fullest, spacial awareness, patience, and being at the right place at the right time. None of my favorite photographs make me scream "WOW LOOK AT THE IQ OF THAT PHOTO!"

Basically, after I began to really observe the work of the iconic photographers of the past and present, I finally realized that being a perfectionist will only serve as a handicap. Granted I still admire great IQ when I see it, and I will always cherish my little legion of 8 Pentax and Takumar primes. However, what excites me even more is potential opportunity, and this is something that the Q system capitalizes on.

I know you probably did not mean it (I remember reading your earlier comment about yourself), but I would still like to say I found your comment a little offensive.

[Art Vandelay II]

When I say great, I mean these photos show off a lot of potential. Also, this is really off-topic, but since when was art determined by IQ levels?

Great post, and very true.

My issue with the Q is not that it can't produce nice images in the right hands, a talented photographer can produce wonderful images with near any camera. My issue is I simply think it was a bad decision on Pentax's part to create the Q instead of a larger sensor mirrorless camera (note: both of Sony's recently announced mirrorless cameras are in the top 20 at Amazon where as the Q is nowhere to be found in the top 100). Someone out there is going to create some fantastic art with the Q, but I'm still scratching my head over the Q from a marketing perspective. Pentax has seemed to go after the smallest niche imaginable.

Nikon is announcing their mirrorless camera on Sept 21st, and both the NX200 and Fuji X10 are being announced this week. My prediction is all them will outsell the Q by a wide margin.

Anyway, back on topic. The images in Ogl's last link look ok, but there is a lot of noise reduction being applied, even at ISO400.

[DaveBlack]

Great post, and very true.

My issue with the Q is not that it can't produce nice images in the right hands, a talented photographer can produce wonderful images with near any camera. My issue is I simply think it was a bad decision on Pentax's part to create the Q instead of a larger sensor mirrorless camera (note: both of Sony's recently announced mirrorless cameras are in the top 20 at Amazon where as the Q is nowhere to be found in the top 100). Someone out there is going to create some fantastic art with the Q, but I'm still scratching my head over the Q from a marketing perspective. Pentax has seemed to go after the smallest niche imaginable.

Nikon is announcing their mirrorless camera on Sept 28th, and both the NX200 and Fuji X10 are being announced this week. My prediction is all them will outsell the Q by a wide margin.

Anyway, back on topic. The images in Ogl's last link look ok, but there is a lot of noise reduction being applied, even at ISO400.

Photos from the Q looks better to me than I would expect. So I am happy with this. Still the camera is very expensive for the image quality one gets out of it.

I totally agree that the Sony new models will out sell the Q. People are out pre-ordering the new Sony's while they are waiting to see how the Q will do.

Most likely the new Nikon will also out sell the Pentax Q. The 2.6 crop sesnor sounds interesting. Smaller lenses and close to m-4/3 in image quality. I have given up hope of Samsung ever coming out with a camera that I would want. The new Fuji might be a great seller. The X100 sure has been.

I am still waiting for a small compact camera to take caving with me. It needs to be a rugged camera and being WR wll be a big plus. I really don't want to give up much on IQ. An APC-S (w/ K-5 sesnor) WR mirrorless Pentax with a high-end WR lens would suit me well.

Dave

[Christine Tham]

Photos from the Q looks better to me than I would expect. So I am happy with this. Still the camera is very expensive for the image quality one gets out of it.

I totally agree that the Sony new models will out sell the Q. People are out pre-ordering the new Sony's while they are waiting to see how the Q will do.

Yes, the picture quality of the sample images are acceptable to me as well. Although ogl is right - my Sony HX7V (16Mp Exmore sensor) also delivers similar quality, if I take into account the lens which is not as good and Sony's more aggressive noise reduction at high ISO. But I feel the raw sensor performance is similar.

Where the Q wins is (hopefully) usability, a characteristic of Pentax DSLRs that I love.

The new Sony NEX-7 looks really hawt on specs, and yes there are a certain class of buyers who will buy purely on spec.

For me, I will never buy a camera until I have held it in my hands and taken a few shots.

So far, I have tested the NEX C3, the Panny G3 and GF3, and Olympus E-PL3. I didn't really like any of them, but the GF3 is probably closest out of the bunch.

Hopefully the Q is coming out next month. I'm looking forward to trying it out - not fully committed, but I think I'm reasonably confident it is the right camera for me (to supplement my K-5).

On the other end of the scale, I am also awaiting Canon's next full frame body - I am also strongly considering buying a full frame Canon (mainly because a friend has a good set of lenses that I can borrow). I'm hoping it will be a 5D Mark III rather than 1Ds Mark IV, since the 5D will be vastly more affordable.

[zxaar]

typical nosnoop post.

I say 100% truth.

Looks better than anything any m43 camera would produce.


Here is officical sample GF3 at iso 160, 100% crop
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/gallery/lens.html

[zxaar]

For me, I will never buy a camera until I have held it in my hands and taken a few shots.

This is true. i also do not buy camera without trying.

[Art Vandelay II]

Looks better than anything any m43 camera would produce.

Surely you can't be serious. Lets ignore for a moment that m4/3's sensors are large enough to give DOF control, something most photographers require, and just compare images at various ISO's using Imaging Recource's handy comparison tool: Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

If you don't feel like using that here is an ISO3200 comparison screenshot from the G3 and the K5 (the ISO king of the APS-C world). Can you even tell which is which? Even if you do get lucky enough to guess correctly the difference in the two is so minimal that it won't make a difference in any real world shots.

Further, the extreme corner crop of the trees you chose to post as a sample showing how poorly m4/3's sensors perform was taken using the cheapest and worst lens in all of the m4/3's line up. Why not look at shots taken from the new pancake 14-42mm power zoom lens that is bundled with the GF3? That seems to be a more accurate comparison with the Q. With lenses attached they are about the same size, and about the same price.