Pentax Q pricing

**RobA_Oz** · 09-18-2011, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The Auto 110 was priced below SLRs as I recall, and often sold as an "all you need" kit.

The Q price is totally bizarre, embarrassing even.

There's a lot of it about, these days. It doesn't seem to stop people buying it (think Vivienne Westwood, Jean-Paul Gaultier, John Galliano, Blahnik, Hermes make-overs of prestige cars - you get the point).

What do you call the pricing of an Aston Martin Zagato? While I agree the pricing of prestige goods bears little relationship to their functionality, if you're selling them and people are buying them, then so what? The relative pricing of the Q doesn't put it in the league of potential ownership that some of these prestige brands occupy, but it is within reach of a lot of people, if not everyone, and if they buy to get what they think it offers, then Pentax has achieved what it wanted to, and positioned the brand a bit higher in the general marketplace than it was before.

Will it degrade the brand in the other market segments? I think probably not, because, if it works, it will most likely stimulate the other manufacturers into a "me-too" following, because they watch the marketplace in a lot more detail than we do. I haven't read a bad review, so far.

Not every product has to be subject to a strict left-hemisphere logical decision-making process by consumers. If you don't like it, ignore it. It may go away, but then again, it may not.

**barondla** · 09-18-2011, 09:17 PM

To be fair,
the Q has higher construction quality than a KR. The build is more like a K-5 - minus the weather proofing. It comes down to X. Timex vs. Rolex. Don't count the little Q out. It seems capable of very high quality images.
thanks
barondla

jeverettfine · 09-19-2011, 11:28 AM

I was interested in the Q from the first time I heard of it, but decided fairly quickly it wasn't for me (yet). I come from a place and viewpoint that is perhaps a bit different, being a Leica user. I have owned both the Leica CL 2 lens system and the Minolta CLE 3 lens system (which is actually the superior camera). True they are film cameras, but I still prefer their simplicity and especially the optical viewfinder. I'll stick with a full size slr for a while longer. The Q is still floating around in my brain though.

ps there is a near mint condition CLE kit for sale on ebay right now with the three lenses, body, flash, and accessories (including the beautiful leather case), BIN $2763.95 I think it is worth it!

**Aristophanes** · 09-19-2011, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

Not every product has to be subject to a strict left-hemisphere logical decision-making process by consumers. If you don't like it, ignore it. It may go away, but then again, it may not.

I have seen a great many terrific, well-made, over-priced products fondled at the counter only to never see the inside of the customer's bag. The camera industry is littered with such failures.

With the possible exception of Leica and the quirky polar-opposite exception of some Lomo cameras, I have yet to see a camera viewed as anything but a functional device when money is on the table and market for the item is discussed. Lenses can be another matter as there is always hopeful enthusiasm (if I get x telephoto I'll be a bird photographer), but not for bodies. I've hung out with some pretty diehard Leica users and they tie their lust for Leica to IQ. And the Lomo kids are just having fund and/or drunk/stoned/naive.

Most high-end products go to people for whom value is so relative as to be meaningless. The Pentax Q is not anywhere near that esteem.

Nokia a tried to do this with their phones. How'd that work out? Oh, right. Apple put out a device that plays Plants vs. Zombies.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 09-19-2011 at 02:41 PM.

Smeggypants · 09-19-2011, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by barondla

To be fair,
the Q has higher construction quality than a KR. The build is more like a K-5 - minus the weather proofing. It comes down to X. Timex vs. Rolex. Don't count the little Q out. It seems capable of very high quality images.
thanks
barondla

The Q is capable of producing Images comparable to decent point and shoots. It's Exmor R sensor (Exmor R is used in other P&S Cameras) is pretty damn good compared to previous generations of tiny sensors. I bought a P&S precisely becuase it had an EXmor R sensor. but the Pentax Q costs twice the price of such P&S cameras. I would expect a camera of the price of the Q to have at least a 2/3rds sensor and preferably a 4/3rds

Anvh · 09-19-2011, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

The Q is capable of producing Images comparable to decent point and shoots. It's Exmor R sensor (Exmor R is used in other P&S Cameras) is pretty damn good compared to previous generations of tiny sensors. I bought a P&S precisely becuase it had an EXmor R sensor. but the Pentax Q costs twice the price of such P&S cameras. I would expect a camera of the price of the Q to have at least a 2/3rds sensor and preferably a 4/3rds

But the Q isn't a compact though but a CSC, diferent kind of camera.

The Panasonic GF3 with the prime lens is only €50 cheaper.
Good the GF3 has a larger sensor but the Q has build-in SR, better build quality and better controls/interface

Compare to that camera the Q doesn't look that expensive.

jeverettfine · 09-19-2011, 02:07 PM

Having never even held a Pentax Q, I am not sure I am really qualified. I am absolutely sure quite good images can be made using the Q, a tool is a tool and does what it is designed to do. I am very impressed with the large line of lenses offered for the Q. In that Pentax kills all its competition in the small interchangeable lens camera market, just as it does with the DA* line of primes. Nobody is ever going to exceed the IQ of Leica without pricing their products beyond the reach of all but the very wealthy (Leica may be pretty close to doing that). The Sony Nex is probably the closest competitor to Pentax Q. I prefer the look of the Q. Besides, when you see lens prices like $4900 for an E lens...that's beyond even Leica.

Smeggypants · 09-19-2011, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

But the Q isn't a compact though but a CSC, diferent kind of camera.

The Panasonic GF3 with the prime lens is only €50 cheaper.
Good the GF3 has a larger sensor but the Q has build-in SR, better build quality and better controls/interface

Compare to that camera the Q doesn't look that expensive.

Not compact?? A significant part of it's marketing and raison d'etre is it's compactness. If it's not a compact then why make it so small? A slighter larger design could have accommodated a larger and better sensor.

conradj · 09-19-2011, 03:54 PM

Well i'm not compact either tho i used to be.

i might just spring for a Canon ELPH 100 HS instead of the Q. CHDK will run on it soon enough, and i'll then have DNG output along with all the control of it i want, albeit using funny button sequences.

Doesn't have the lens that the Q has, but it's pretty good.

Anvh · 09-20-2011, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

Not compact?? A significant part of it's marketing and raison d'etre is it's compactness. If it's not a compact then why make it so small? A slighter larger design could have accommodated a larger and better sensor.

Yes the camera is a compact but it's not a point and shoot camera you're refering.
I thought you understood the term compact camera...

wow yes they could but they would be just like everyone else.
Why buy the Q then if you can get a Olympus, Panasonic or a Sony?
Pentax is trying to be different, i don't think that's a bad thing.
Nikon is also joining the CSC battle with a camera like Olympus and Panasonic so there will be 5 companies making almost the same kind of camera, so i'm glad Pentax is doing something different then the rest.

Smeggypants · 09-20-2011, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Yes the camera is a compact but it's not a point and shoot camera you're refering.
I thought you understood the term compact camera...

wow yes they could but they would be just like everyone else.
Why buy the Q then if you can get a Olympus, Panasonic or a Sony?
Pentax is trying to be different, i don't think that's a bad thing.
Nikon is also joining the CSC battle with a camera like Olympus and Panasonic so there will be 5 companies making almost the same kind of camera, so i'm glad Pentax is doing something different then the rest.

I haven't a problem with Pentax "doing somethign different" - In fact I applaud that and it's always nice to see little oddities put onto the market. but as well as it's high pice I can't see what Market it's aimed at. the term compact to me is a camera that's compact. The Q is a compact. msot people who want a compact want it for it's compactness and to have something to simply point and shoot. So why buy a Q? if you want an interchangeble lens camera which is smaller than a DSLR, then Sony's NEX system is a good bet and has a decent image quality becuase of a decent sized sensor

Similarly no one is going to by a DSLR with a 2/3rds sensor, so why buy a smaller interchangeable lens camera with a 1/2.3" sensor

Anvh · 09-20-2011, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

So why buy a Q? if you want an interchangeble lens camera which is smaller than a DSLR, then Sony's NEX system is a good bet and has a decent image quality becuase of a decent sized sensor
Similarly no one is going to by a DSLR with a 2/3rds sensor, so why buy a smaller interchangeable lens camera with a 1/2.3" sensor

The NEX system isn't that much smaller, neither are the m4/3
Yes the camera self is smaller but the lenses aren't or at least not by that much.

Don't know if you ever looked in your camera bag to see what takes up the most space, the lenses or the camera

jeverettfine · 09-20-2011, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by jeverettfine

ps there is a near mint condition CLE kit for sale on ebay right now with the three lenses, body, flash, and accessories (including the beautiful leather case), BIN $2763.95 I think it is worth it!

Well, the CLE kit sold. Wonder if someone here bought it?

Wish Pentax would hire reps again and get their cameras back in the brick and mortar shops like Precision Camera here in Austin. I'd love to fondle one for a while.

Smeggypants · 09-20-2011, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

The NEX system isn't that much smaller, neither are the m4/3
Yes the camera self is smaller but the lenses aren't or at least not by that much.

Don't know if you ever looked in your camera bag to see what takes up the most space, the lenses or the camera

My point is that I believe those who are into photography to the extent where they will take out multiple lenses will also want to preserve IQ as much as possible even that means taking out larger lenses.

OK the Q has got more features than the average point and shoot, but why settle for the IQ of an average point and shoot

**barondla** · 09-20-2011, 09:32 PM

The Pentax Q has better image quality than the average P&S. The top tier P&S cameras might equal it - don't know. The only top tier I have is the Pana LX2. The Q beats it in most, if not all situations I have tried it in. Pana has probably made improvements since the LX2.

I will eventually get around to comparing it to the Olympus Pen. I have the EPL1. The Pentax Q is definetly a faster camera to use than the Olympus. It will be interesting.

The Sony Nex is the camera I don't understand the market for. Compact body mated to huge lenses. They look silly and akward. The menu system is pretty bad too. They do take nice pictures.

I like the ability to customize the camera with interchangeable lenses. Often times will pick the single lens for the situation and only carry it. What other P&S has a fisheye? I carry the Q when I would not have taken another camera (like a DSLR). So any shot I get with it is just "extra points". I shoot lots of different styles and lenses (8mm rectilinear to 2110 tele). The Q gives me the chance to have this diversity w/o carrying a 30lb bag. Small differences in image quality isn't as important to me as not getting the shot I had in mind. I like extremes. The Q is the best bet to allow this and still be portable. It is far from my only camera (have 8 DSLRs and 2 interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras). It is the camera to take when I am not going to TAKE photographs.
thanks
barondla

ps Wow, didn't realize the CLE was worth so much. Have two CL's. Need to dig them out and exercise them.

09-19-2011, 11:28 AM	#18
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Interested but not sure... I was interested in the Q from the first time I heard of it, but decided fairly quickly it wasn't for me (yet). I come from a place and viewpoint that is perhaps a bit different, being a Leica user. I have owned both the Leica CL 2 lens system and the Minolta CLE 3 lens system (which is actually the superior camera). True they are film cameras, but I still prefer their simplicity and especially the optical viewfinder. I'll stick with a full size slr for a while longer. The Q is still floating around in my brain though. ps there is a near mint condition CLE kit for sale on ebay right now with the three lenses, body, flash, and accessories (including the beautiful leather case), BIN $2763.95 I think it is worth it! Last edited by jeverettfine; 09-19-2011 at 11:48 AM.

09-19-2011, 02:07 PM	#22
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Not really qualified Having never even held a Pentax Q, I am not sure I am really qualified. I am absolutely sure quite good images can be made using the Q, a tool is a tool and does what it is designed to do. I am very impressed with the large line of lenses offered for the Q. In that Pentax kills all its competition in the small interchangeable lens camera market, just as it does with the DA* line of primes. Nobody is ever going to exceed the IQ of Leica without pricing their products beyond the reach of all but the very wealthy (Leica may be pretty close to doing that). The Sony Nex is probably the closest competitor to Pentax Q. I prefer the look of the Q. Besides, when you see lens prices like $4900 for an E lens...that's beyond even Leica.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax SMC 200mm A* f2.8 Pricing advice	LennyBloke	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-08-2011 06:56 AM
Pentax K7 Pricing	A.M.92	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	01-22-2011 10:19 AM
USA Pricing vs Canada Pricing	Babbs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	11-18-2010 05:27 PM
no pricing of pentax lens in B&H catalog	cyy47	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	11-05-2009 09:19 PM
Help pricing a Pentax H2	Stephanie	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	14	11-05-2009 11:46 AM

09-18-2011, 09:10 PM	#16
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by Aristophanes The Auto 110 was priced below SLRs as I recall, and often sold as an "all you need" kit. The Q price is totally bizarre, embarrassing even. There's a lot of it about, these days. It doesn't seem to stop people buying it (think Vivienne Westwood, Jean-Paul Gaultier, John Galliano, Blahnik, Hermes make-overs of prestige cars - you get the point). What do you call the pricing of an Aston Martin Zagato? While I agree the pricing of prestige goods bears little relationship to their functionality, if you're selling them and people are buying them, then so what? The relative pricing of the Q doesn't put it in the league of potential ownership that some of these prestige brands occupy, but it is within reach of a lot of people, if not everyone, and if they buy to get what they think it offers, then Pentax has achieved what it wanted to, and positioned the brand a bit higher in the general marketplace than it was before. Will it degrade the brand in the other market segments? I think probably not, because, if it works, it will most likely stimulate the other manufacturers into a "me-too" following, because they watch the marketplace in a lot more detail than we do. I haven't read a bad review, so far. Not every product has to be subject to a strict left-hemisphere logical decision-making process by consumers. If you don't like it, ignore it. It may go away, but then again, it may not.

09-18-2011, 09:17 PM	#17
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	To be fair, the Q has higher construction quality than a KR. The build is more like a K-5 - minus the weather proofing. It comes down to X. Timex vs. Rolex. Don't count the little Q out. It seems capable of very high quality images. thanks barondla

09-19-2011, 12:16 PM	#19
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by RobA_Oz Not every product has to be subject to a strict left-hemisphere logical decision-making process by consumers. If you don't like it, ignore it. It may go away, but then again, it may not. I have seen a great many terrific, well-made, over-priced products fondled at the counter only to never see the inside of the customer's bag. The camera industry is littered with such failures. With the possible exception of Leica and the quirky polar-opposite exception of some Lomo cameras, I have yet to see a camera viewed as anything but a functional device when money is on the table and market for the item is discussed. Lenses can be another matter as there is always hopeful enthusiasm (if I get x telephoto I'll be a bird photographer), but not for bodies. I've hung out with some pretty diehard Leica users and they tie their lust for Leica to IQ. And the Lomo kids are just having fund and/or drunk/stoned/naive. Most high-end products go to people for whom value is so relative as to be meaningless. The Pentax Q is not anywhere near that esteem. Nokia a tried to do this with their phones. How'd that work out? Oh, right. Apple put out a device that plays Plants vs. Zombies. Last edited by Aristophanes; 09-19-2011 at 02:41 PM.

09-19-2011, 01:22 PM	#20
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by barondla To be fair, the Q has higher construction quality than a KR. The build is more like a K-5 - minus the weather proofing. It comes down to X. Timex vs. Rolex. Don't count the little Q out. It seems capable of very high quality images. thanks barondla The Q is capable of producing Images comparable to decent point and shoots. It's Exmor R sensor (Exmor R is used in other P&S Cameras) is pretty damn good compared to previous generations of tiny sensors. I bought a P&S precisely becuase it had an EXmor R sensor. but the Pentax Q costs twice the price of such P&S cameras. I would expect a camera of the price of the Q to have at least a 2/3rds sensor and preferably a 4/3rds

09-19-2011, 02:05 PM	#21
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Smeggypants The Q is capable of producing Images comparable to decent point and shoots. It's Exmor R sensor (Exmor R is used in other P&S Cameras) is pretty damn good compared to previous generations of tiny sensors. I bought a P&S precisely becuase it had an EXmor R sensor. but the Pentax Q costs twice the price of such P&S cameras. I would expect a camera of the price of the Q to have at least a 2/3rds sensor and preferably a 4/3rds But the Q isn't a compact though but a CSC, diferent kind of camera. The Panasonic GF3 with the prime lens is only €50 cheaper. Good the GF3 has a larger sensor but the Q has build-in SR, better build quality and better controls/interface Compare to that camera the Q doesn't look that expensive.

09-19-2011, 03:03 PM	#23
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Anvh But the Q isn't a compact though but a CSC, diferent kind of camera. The Panasonic GF3 with the prime lens is only €50 cheaper. Good the GF3 has a larger sensor but the Q has build-in SR, better build quality and better controls/interface Compare to that camera the Q doesn't look that expensive. Not compact?? A significant part of it's marketing and raison d'etre is it's compactness. If it's not a compact then why make it so small? A slighter larger design could have accommodated a larger and better sensor.

09-19-2011, 03:54 PM	#24
conradj Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 188	Well i'm not compact either tho i used to be. i might just spring for a Canon ELPH 100 HS instead of the Q. CHDK will run on it soon enough, and i'll then have DNG output along with all the control of it i want, albeit using funny button sequences. Doesn't have the lens that the Q has, but it's pretty good.

09-20-2011, 05:43 AM	#25
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Smeggypants Not compact?? A significant part of it's marketing and raison d'etre is it's compactness. If it's not a compact then why make it so small? A slighter larger design could have accommodated a larger and better sensor. Yes the camera is a compact but it's not a point and shoot camera you're refering. I thought you understood the term compact camera... wow yes they could but they would be just like everyone else. Why buy the Q then if you can get a Olympus, Panasonic or a Sony? Pentax is trying to be different, i don't think that's a bad thing. Nikon is also joining the CSC battle with a camera like Olympus and Panasonic so there will be 5 companies making almost the same kind of camera, so i'm glad Pentax is doing something different then the rest.

09-20-2011, 12:30 PM	#26
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Anvh Yes the camera is a compact but it's not a point and shoot camera you're refering. I thought you understood the term compact camera... wow yes they could but they would be just like everyone else. Why buy the Q then if you can get a Olympus, Panasonic or a Sony? Pentax is trying to be different, i don't think that's a bad thing. Nikon is also joining the CSC battle with a camera like Olympus and Panasonic so there will be 5 companies making almost the same kind of camera, so i'm glad Pentax is doing something different then the rest. I haven't a problem with Pentax "doing somethign different" - In fact I applaud that and it's always nice to see little oddities put onto the market. but as well as it's high pice I can't see what Market it's aimed at. the term compact to me is a camera that's compact. The Q is a compact. msot people who want a compact want it for it's compactness and to have something to simply point and shoot. So why buy a Q? if you want an interchangeble lens camera which is smaller than a DSLR, then Sony's NEX system is a good bet and has a decent image quality becuase of a decent sized sensor Similarly no one is going to by a DSLR with a 2/3rds sensor, so why buy a smaller interchangeable lens camera with a 1/2.3" sensor

09-20-2011, 12:38 PM	#27
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Smeggypants So why buy a Q? if you want an interchangeble lens camera which is smaller than a DSLR, then Sony's NEX system is a good bet and has a decent image quality becuase of a decent sized sensor Similarly no one is going to by a DSLR with a 2/3rds sensor, so why buy a smaller interchangeable lens camera with a 1/2.3" sensor The NEX system isn't that much smaller, neither are the m4/3 Yes the camera self is smaller but the lenses aren't or at least not by that much. Don't know if you ever looked in your camera bag to see what takes up the most space, the lenses or the camera

09-20-2011, 01:57 PM	#28
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Originally posted by jeverettfine ps there is a near mint condition CLE kit for sale on ebay right now with the three lenses, body, flash, and accessories (including the beautiful leather case), BIN $2763.95 I think it is worth it! Well, the CLE kit sold. Wonder if someone here bought it? Wish Pentax would hire reps again and get their cameras back in the brick and mortar shops like Precision Camera here in Austin. I'd love to fondle one for a while.

09-20-2011, 07:26 PM	#29
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Anvh The NEX system isn't that much smaller, neither are the m4/3 Yes the camera self is smaller but the lenses aren't or at least not by that much. Don't know if you ever looked in your camera bag to see what takes up the most space, the lenses or the camera My point is that I believe those who are into photography to the extent where they will take out multiple lenses will also want to preserve IQ as much as possible even that means taking out larger lenses. OK the Q has got more features than the average point and shoot, but why settle for the IQ of an average point and shoot

09-20-2011, 09:32 PM	#30
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	The Pentax Q has better image quality than the average P&S. The top tier P&S cameras might equal it - don't know. The only top tier I have is the Pana LX2. The Q beats it in most, if not all situations I have tried it in. Pana has probably made improvements since the LX2. I will eventually get around to comparing it to the Olympus Pen. I have the EPL1. The Pentax Q is definetly a faster camera to use than the Olympus. It will be interesting. The Sony Nex is the camera I don't understand the market for. Compact body mated to huge lenses. They look silly and akward. The menu system is pretty bad too. They do take nice pictures. I like the ability to customize the camera with interchangeable lenses. Often times will pick the single lens for the situation and only carry it. What other P&S has a fisheye? I carry the Q when I would not have taken another camera (like a DSLR). So any shot I get with it is just "extra points". I shoot lots of different styles and lenses (8mm rectilinear to 2110 tele). The Q gives me the chance to have this diversity w/o carrying a 30lb bag. Small differences in image quality isn't as important to me as not getting the shot I had in mind. I like extremes. The Q is the best bet to allow this and still be portable. It is far from my only camera (have 8 DSLRs and 2 interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras). It is the camera to take when I am not going to TAKE photographs. thanks barondla ps Wow, didn't realize the CLE was worth so much. Have two CL's. Need to dig them out and exercise them.