[Aristophanes]

I thought the Q's backlit 1/2.3" sensor was used because it slightly outperforms the slightly larger sensors in the Panasonic Lx5 and the Canon S95 and G12. By outperforms, I mean more Dynamic Range and better high ISO. Someone showed test results to demonstrate at the other forum, but I can't remember where they came from.

The problem isn't the sensor per se. It's the price. As is it's a $400 kit with a rebate for a toy lens. For an $800 camera it needs a 50% larger sensor (at least). It's got the IQ of an average to high-end P&S. Yippee.

I'm not seeing the value in the Q. Great body, shame about the face.

[audiobomber]

The problem isn't the sensor per se. It's the price.

Several people in this thread said that Pentax should have used a larger sensor, 1.6" or 1.7" like in the Panny or Canon models. The point I was making is that these sensors are not backlit, so would not have been an improvement and actually don't perform quite as well as the smaller backlit sensor that Pentax chose. In this case just comparing sensor size isn't valid because the technology is different.

Price is a marketing thing, nothing to do with engineering. Pentax marketing dept always seems to come out high and back off. They think the camera will sell sufficient quantities at this price or slightly below. Those who disagree won't buy. If sales are below expectation, they'll drop the price. For now it is what it is, buy it or don't.

[Zygonyx]

Thank you for your inputs snowstorm and audiobomber.
I fully agree with your views.
A had the opportunity to try the Q with its sandard prime today, in the car and back home : i must say i am very happy with the quality of the results, on a P&S format, and using several internal filters.
You can see some here :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/159142-q-pentax-flickr-group.html
Basically, this camera is made for the physical shooting pleasure in fully controlable modes, and for having fun in exploiting its treatment potential.
I just hope Pentax will soon issue two more primes, on the short and portrait ranges (respectively 24 and 85mm équ.), as the toy lenses don't quite match my quality expectations.

[snostorm]

Hi deanm3,

Sorry, I got caught up in some of the answers to the thread. . .

Thanks for posting your opinions on the Q! Your thoughts concerning the build quality and handling of the camera are good input and valuable, and have been added to my personal decision database, and confirm the great majority of first impressions that have been written concerning these qualities. The handling and performance aspects of a camera are the hardest to judge from information gleaned online, and all the input we can get still isn't really enough -- hands on is the only real way to judge if a camera can work for any individual.

I won't take issue with your conclusions concerning IQ, though what I've seen so far makes me feel that they may not be justified. The thing about IQ is that no two people really see this the same way, and I'll just have to see what I can do with the camera, both shooting and in PP to get final results.

I've yet to buy a digital camera that out of the box pleased me as much as I had expected after examining samples from others online. This includes the DS, K100DS, K10, K20, K-7, and even the K-5. It always took anywhere from 200- 1000 shots before I settled in and actually understood what it took to for me to get what I thought were pleasing results from the camera for me. I know that this will be the same with the Q.

Thanks again for taking the time to put your impressions into writing for the forum members.

Scott

[Rupert]

Maybe one of these.......small but with a viewfinder and LCD...no video or LV...minimal programming, mostly just Av Tv etc......nothing fancy, plain and simple in a well built and weather sealed body. K mount for all those great small Ltds.......Key word being simple.......anyone interested? Just wondering?
Regards!

[sjwaldron]

Maybe one of these.......small but with a viewfinder and LCD...no video or LV...minimal programming, mostly just Av Tv etc......nothing fancy, plain and simple in a well built and weather sealed body. K mount for all those great small Ltds.......Key word being simple.......anyone interested? Just wondering?
Regards!
Attachment 103805

Buy one of the APS-C mirrorless that are currently available, gut it, and put it in that camera body?

[bimjo]

Maybe one of these.......small but with a viewfinder and LCD...no video or LV...minimal programming, mostly just Av Tv etc......nothing fancy, plain and simple in a well built and weather sealed body. K mount for all those great small Ltds.......Key word being simple.......anyone interested? Just wondering?
Regards!
Attachment 103805

Nah, they need to bring back the LX with interchangeable viewfinders in digital form. I'd agree with all your other points though.

[Rupert]

You know guys, Ricoh is pretty innovative......I would not be surprised if they surprised us? Could be something that we haven't even though of yet? I see changes ahead for Pentax, and my bet is they are for the better. Let's hope!
Regards!

BTW- Although I stick by what I wrote about small cameras, I think for some the Q might be a perfect choice. It is not for me, but it does have some admirable features that would be just what some might need. Some of the photos I have seen are certainly not bad at all, and better than some I have seen from other small cameras.

[conradj]

A couple days ago, just for nostalgic fun since i don't have film anymore, i dusted off my MX, twisted a lens on it and took it with me for a couple hours making Air Photography. Lovely big viewfinder notwithstanding i've been spoiled by the K-7 and K-5. The MX just doesn't do it for me anymore. It even feels strange and antiquated, and very limited, in my hands, and i carried this thing with me for decades.

Change and technological development isn't always bad. Long live the new stuff.

And, long live the memory of larger than life people who used equipment like that and even more old fashioned and dicky stuff to create the work that is the foundation of the world of photography as i know it, pictures far better than what i can make even with the modern cameras i have now.

[rparmar]

Nothing has changed you are still wrong. You were also claiming that k20 collects 4 times more light than Q, which was also wrong.

My statements have all been backed up by detailed articles and evidence from optics and engineering. Would you care to present any evidence for your statements? Please quote the "4 times more light" claim in context with your refutation.

I think there's little use in answering negative posts concerning the Q as these posts make little sense.

Likewise continuously posting cheerleader-type content-free posts makes little sense. I have never claimed the Q doesn't have a market. I have merely refuted falsehoods and marketing guff spewed by people who claim to be photographers, but whose interest is only in what new gadget they can spend their money on next.

Want a small sensor? My advice is to buy a Panasonic DMC-LX5.

[Smeggypants]

At the end of the day, the Q is a point and shoot camera. There is no reason to expect it to give better pictures than any other similarly sized pocket camera.

The attraction of the Q lies not in image quality (for people like me at any rate) but in the fun of being able to change lenses and use it like a DSLR. If it was really as good as a DSLR then people would stop buying K5s tomorrow.

It is a shame that it doesn't have a bit larger sensor though.

.... of course but for the price it should have a bigger sensor and better IQ. I have a Sony TX-5 which also uses the Exmor R sensor, so I'm pretty used to the kind of IQ to be expected from the Q already. however the TX-5 cost me less than £200. I bought it becuase I wanted something discrete for times when camera with a sticky out lens would be unacceptable of intimidating.

A friend of mine just bought a Canon G12 and I found the IQ to be better than what I've seen from the Q so far

[audiobomber]

A friend of mine just bought a Canon G12 and I found the IQ to be better than what I've seen from the Q so far

The lens and jpeg processing could have more to do with that than the sensor.

[Smeggypants]

The lens and jpeg processing could have more to do with that than the sensor.

Possibly on the lens, although the Q is much more expensive than the Q


The G12 images were shot RAW, the Q shoots RAW too. I would imagine the Pentax examples would be RAW.

[Spock]

Sensor aside, I question what the purpose is for interchangable lenses when the ones on offer don't really offer much advantage over the zooms in most point and shoots.

The prime lens would have been interesting if it was a f1.0 and the zoom would have been useful if it was a constant F2.0 but they're not. As it stands, all that we have is a zoom that, for the range, is no faster than the zoom in my 2004 point and shoot. And the prime is not fast enough to offer any real advantage over the built-in zooms in many other point & shoots. As for the toy lenses - they really are just toys - just a waste of money.

The Q is a great, looking, well built camera but the Q system as it stands is not particularly attractive. Maybe if and when more serious lenses come out it will be more appealing to serious photographers looking for a compact system - but not now sadly.

[zxaar]

I hate to dig up someone's posting history but you left me no choice.

My statements have all been backed up by detailed articles and evidence from optics and engineering. Would you care to present any evidence for your statements? Please quote the "4 times more light" claim in context with your refutation.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/157710-pentax-q-k-mount-ad...ml#post1636496

What it lets me do is give up the quality of a relatively large APS-C sensor (23.60 x 15.70mm) for that of a tiny 6.17 x 4.55mm sensor. There is no measure by which that is an improvement.



You need to learn how equivalence works because currently you are spewing nonsense. There is no free ride. The "crop factor" means that with the Q you are shooting with only a fraction of the potential of the lens as it would be on APS-C.

That fraction happens to be 0.275. So my K20D is about four times more effective at capturing light than this toy camera.

If I want to crop the centre quarter out of the image and pretend I am shooting with the Q I can! Please tell me how it is a good thing that I have this choice forced on me for each and every shot.

So back it up "by detailed articles and evidence from optics and engineering." So far you have not done it contray to what you have been writing. Show me that k20d is 2 stops better than Q.