Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-24-2011, 11:11 AM   #31
Senior Member
shadowsonoureyes's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 136
pretty sure that I wouldn't be interested in a camera without a viewfinder...and the thought of spending an additional $250 to accessorize a camera with a viewfinder seems exessive.

I'm sure this camera will find its mark...just not with me at this point.

10-24-2011, 12:24 PM   #32
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
QuoteOriginally posted by rcarindom2003 Quote
Why I personally disliked , crop factor.. bokeh gone, so useless for me. And like me , many will hate Q for that... try to understand a simple thing, its not cribbing, its like you wanted the next big thing like K-5 and you are provided with P&S sensor.. Already said, good for landscape where you want everything in focus, but here also Q is gone, it will need 1mm lens to get effective 7 to 8 mm FOV. Which part is not understandable here???
Sorry, but what lenses are you shooting on your APS-C or full frame to get 7mm FOV? Are you talking about fisheye landscapes? In film days, 28mm was considered wide angle. I can get 28mm FOV with my 5mm Computar lens.
10-24-2011, 06:20 PM   #33
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by knightzerox Quote
I understand a lot of loyal Pentax fans were hoping for a new K-3 or some super amazing Pentax mirror-less camera and are quite disappointed that they got the Q instead.
Actually, a lot of people were expecting a mirror-less, which is exactly what they released. But it's so full of compromises (image quality, sensor size, new mount, no EVF, absurd price) that everybody is left wondering why they should bother.
10-25-2011, 02:01 PM   #34
Senior Member
garethwebber's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kent, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 104
QuoteOriginally posted by garethwebber Quote
Think a comparison between The iPhone 4s and the q may be more appropriate. Both have small backlit sensors.

The reason a say this is that if the phone is good enough for snaps then no one will buy a compact, or equivalent such as a Q. There will not be enough difference to justify camera.

Think aps-c slr, or mirrorless of that size, provide enough ergonomic and PQ differences but not convinced the smaller cameras will.

G
Engadget has a review in now: http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/25/pentax-q-interchangeable-lens-camera-review/

G

10-25-2011, 08:41 PM   #35
New Member
rcarindom2003's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 19
QuoteOriginally posted by devorama Quote
Sorry, but what lenses are you shooting on your APS-C or full frame to get 7mm FOV? Are you talking about fisheye landscapes? In film days, 28mm was considered wide angle. I can get 28mm FOV with my 5mm Computar lens.
You wish to pursue this , I dont wish to, many people are there. I work with 2 systems, canon 60D and pentax k-7. I am loyal to canon because its much faster focusing , and loyal to pentax for its colors ...

Please google fisheye lens , you will be aware of the different lenses out there.

Simply to contradict 28mm FOV , please use tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens, its surprisingly good lens with less distortion , effective 16- 24mm in FF. Nevermind, if you are happy with 28mm, so be it

Regards,
Arindom
10-25-2011, 09:27 PM   #36
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
QuoteOriginally posted by rcarindom2003 Quote
You wish to pursue this , I dont wish to, many people are there. I work with 2 systems, canon 60D and pentax k-7. I am loyal to canon because its much faster focusing , and loyal to pentax for its colors ...

Please google fisheye lens , you will be aware of the different lenses out there.

Simply to contradict 28mm FOV , please use tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens, its surprisingly good lens with less distortion , effective 16- 24mm in FF. Nevermind, if you are happy with 28mm, so be it

Regards,
Arindom
Yes, but you said landscapes. Landscapes are not usually shot with a fisheye lens. That's why I asked. No need to get defensive. And yes I'm aware of rectilinear UWA lenses. I own a Tamron 10-24mm lens for K-mount. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your english, but my point in using 28mm field of view as an example was to show that traditionally film photographers considered 28mm pretty wide and ok for landscapes.

Last edited by devorama; 10-28-2011 at 07:52 AM.
10-28-2011, 02:40 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Anton Magus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 355
I guess it really doesn't matter what people on this forum think, or what even what reviewers think of the Q...
At the end of the day its what potential camera buyers think that matters. Camera buyers are a picky bunch of people. They look at the reviews and comments
of the experts, but ultimately they look at the specs being offered and they look at the price. Then they buy what delivers best for the price, within their budgets.

Pentax Q sales in Japan - where they just love the novelty of small yet well-constructed things - has fallen to #77 on the BCN sales charts.
Last week it was at #74 and sales have been consistently declining since its "high" point at #11 on Sept 7, shortly after launch. By Sept 13 it had fallen to #47.

The point is that when the novelty of a trendy new product wears off, then the only thing which will maintain sales is that item's value-for-money proposition
and that's exactly where the Q fails dismally. This is exactly what camera buyers have seen, and they are voting with their feet.
10-28-2011, 03:17 AM   #38
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
It does feel like there is a lot of animosity towards this particular camera for some reason. I don't know that it has much future since Ricoh bought Pentax -- seems like it hits the same niche that the GXR camera/modules do.

I think the hard part with mirrorless is picking a size sensor that truly makes it portable. If the end result of your design process is a camera that when you include the lens is the size of a small SLR (like the kx) then what is the point?

10-28-2011, 11:12 PM   #39
New Member
rcarindom2003's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 19
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If the end result of your design process is a camera that when you include the lens is the size of a small SLR (like the kx) then what is the point?
The main problem is target audience, the developers and designer of Pentax Q knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted to create a P&S replacement, and they did that. Why many buyers are disappointed and dismayed, cause keeping some of the features like Olympus and Sony Mirrorless, they are doing just fine, why pentax thought about a tiny weeny sensor design

Increasing the sensor size doesnt mean increasing the size of the mirrorless to a small SLR, I dont think sony Nex look anything like Pentax k-X in size... or the olympus , they wanted to create something unique, they created alright, but forgot the people who wanted to keep a mirrorless inspite of them having a DSLR... or the people who wants to jump to mirrorless from SLR..
10-29-2011, 02:50 AM   #40
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by rcarindom2003 Quote
The main problem is target audience, the developers and designer of Pentax Q knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted to create a P&S replacement, and they did that. Why many buyers are disappointed and dismayed, cause keeping some of the features like Olympus and Sony Mirrorless, they are doing just fine, why pentax thought about a tiny weeny sensor design

Increasing the sensor size doesnt mean increasing the size of the mirrorless to a small SLR, I dont think sony Nex look anything like Pentax k-X in size... or the olympus , they wanted to create something unique, they created alright, but forgot the people who wanted to keep a mirrorless inspite of them having a DSLR... or the people who wants to jump to mirrorless from SLR..
Nex is small in size only when using the pancake lenses. Stick one of the zooms on it and the size advantage just really shrinks, mainly because the sensor is the same size as the sensor in a kx. I think Pentax will probably eventually replace their lower end camera with mirrorless, probably with some kind of EVF and maybe that will make people happier.

I personally like the SLR form factor and take mine everywhere I go (K5).
10-29-2011, 09:18 PM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by rcarindom2003 Quote
The main problem is target audience, the developers and designer of Pentax Q knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted to create a P&S replacement, and they did that. Why many buyers are disappointed and dismayed, cause keeping some of the features like Olympus and Sony Mirrorless, they are doing just fine, why pentax thought about a tiny weeny sensor design

Increasing the sensor size doesnt mean increasing the size of the mirrorless to a small SLR, I dont think sony Nex look anything like Pentax k-X in size... or the olympus , they wanted to create something unique, they created alright, but forgot the people who wanted to keep a mirrorless inspite of them having a DSLR... or the people who wants to jump to mirrorless from SLR..

You misunderstand. A Sony Nex is very small and compact, just like a compact P&S camera. It's also targeted towards novices and people using compact cameras but who want better quality images, take pictures of their dog/kids/whatever but is in a familiar P&S format. Unfortuantely, the size of the Nex with a lens on it is very large because it uses same size lenses as a APS-C sized SLR. That's the problem with the Nex. You're target market is a beginner and users who've used P&S's now have gigantic lenses attached to their compact body style cameras. They are no longer smaller then a regular SLR unless you only use the pancake lenses which are also "large" to a P&S user.

This is true for any mirrorless camera. Until they design lenses that can be very very tiny while still using large APS-C sensors, your mirrorless cameras will continue to be "large". There is no compromise on this yet. What that means is you need to decide on the LARGEST camera and lens you are willing to carry and pick the appropriate sensor size that corresponds to that level of compactness for the ENTIRE system.

Here are the smallest to largest mirroless-camera systems for example:

Pentax Q -> Nikon 1 -> Micro Four Thirds cameras -> APS-C sized cameras

All Pentax and Nikon have done is fill in the other extreme end. What companies are realizing is no-one wants to carry around an SLR unless you are a enthusiast or a pro. People want to take pictures of their kids, pets, and have their camears offer better IQ then their phone or P&S. And to reiterate something I said earlier, most people's phone have enough IQ for 75% of people. However, any digital camera with at least 2-3 megapixels and good IQ from 5-6 years ago is good enough for 95% of people's current photography needs. The market is less about print and more about web and digital media and you just do not need a lot of resolution when your average image size tends to be 1024x768. Any larger image shrunk down to this size will look fantastic, and there's nothing wrong with that. IQ, megapixels, and looking at 100% image crop views are going to become irrelevant to all but pro's and enthusiasts in the next few years. The bottom of the barrel cameras are continuing to rise in quality and resolution and in 5 years when phone cameras have 12-18 megapixel cameras in them, a very poor IQ images reduced to normal viewing sizes will look great.

Camera manufactures needed to start differentiating between themselves and start offering something to make phone users buy their cameras. The Enthusiast and Pro market is smaller then the consumer electronic market. Mirrorless cameras were a way to help reduce cost(get rid of mechanical parts), apply technologies leveraged in the P&S category, and offer consumers a product that could justify a purchase and jump over their phone.

This brings us back full circle that a camera's capabilities and ability to let a photographer create the photos they want are what is most important. A base level of IQ will become standard. Some camera's will work better for you then others. It depends on what you need.

The Pentax Q is for enthusiasts familiar with SLR's that want a compact body with most of the same features of an SLR and good IQ in a very tiny compact system size.

The Nikon 1 is for novices to enthusiasts ( v1 version ) that want better IQ then P&S, fast autofocus, simpler P&S controls but with a trade-off in a larger overall size for the camera and lenses and build quality.


I saw the Nikon 1 in Best Buy today and tried it out. I would not trade it with my Pentax Q for these reasons below. These may not apply to you and your needs of course.


1. No manual control buttons/easy access to changing features(no program mode dial ). This was my biggest complaint. It just doesn't handle like an SLR for quick adjustments to settings. This was my same complaint for the Sony Nex.

2. Larger camera body, heavier, large lens. Felt like carrying a large version of a LX-5 or Canon G12 but with a giant lens on it. The camera had the 10-30 lens equipped. Wasn't very compact.

3. Quality of camera. It's very plastic. It feels very cheap. My cheaper P&S canon's and most P&S's I've held felt of better quality. It really feels like a $100-200 camera at most. Not to say the camera is bad, just that in quality it really looks bad. The pop-up flash I thought was very poor because it feels hollow and felt like it might have come out of a plastic model kit for toys. The Lens did turn well.

There are things I did like about the Nikon 1 system but I'm not giving a comparison review, just stating the three things that made that system for me not appropriate. I feel after seeing the price of the Nikon 1 that the Q's price is somewhat justified. The extra $150 for the much better build quality, quick access to manual controls, and very compact system size was worth the difference.
11-16-2011, 04:13 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Northern Soul's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The North of England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 491
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
My blackberry, when held steady by something stationary, takes very sharp pics. This is why I don't have a Q
Ooh - I have a Blackberry too. The camera is ok, as you say. I do wish there was some way to adjust the exposure on it; even exposure compensation would do, but from my (very brief) research into it, I don't think there is an easy way to do it in the software.

If you could control the exposure, I'd just need a Blackberry 9800 to K adaptor and I'd be away.

Serious point - I didn't really 'get' the Q, but now I do; I want one so I can photograph wildlife in a way that I couldn't otherwise afford. Q + Q>K adapter + 70-200 f2.8 = 390-1100mm f2.8, and Q plus a macro lens is a huge magnification. And when I'm not out shooting wildlife with it, I can keep it in my coat pocket or in the car. I just want it to be a few hundred pounds cheaper (I can wait - need to buy the 70-200 yet anyway) and have an option of an electronic viewfinder. Perhaps Q2 will have that?
11-16-2011, 05:48 AM   #43
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,233
Original Poster
The problem is that 99% of consumers won't try cool ideas like that- which leaves little appreciation for the Q by the general consumer population.
11-16-2011, 08:12 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Northern Soul's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The North of England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 491
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
The problem is that 99% of consumers won't try cool ideas like that- which leaves little appreciation for the Q by the general consumer population.
That's also cool with me (as long as it doesn't drag Pentax under, and there is little chance of that since Ricoh have just spent a lot getting it) - it means that they will (fingers crossed) get cheaper, and be cheaper still on 'a popular auction site' in a few years.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, comparison, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, review, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-5 Full-length Review by PentaxForums.com Adam Pentax K-5 79 12-14-2011 02:53 AM
DP Review comparison of K5, D7000 & 60D shots geauxpez Pentax News and Rumors 57 11-17-2010 09:46 AM
K-7 Review on spanish Pentax forum and brands comparison cooldude14es Pentax DSLR Discussion 47 08-02-2009 05:52 AM
pentaxforums in Photo Review Australia chrisman Photographic Technique 4 11-28-2007 11:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:30 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top