Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: What is your position on Q now?
I have Q already. 1715.74%
I have another camera of similar size/performance. 76.48%
I want no mirrorless camera at all. 1211.11%
I'd buy Q for lower price. 3229.63%
I'd buy Q sucessor with better performance. 87.41%
I miss macro lens for Q system.   00%
I miss better telephoto lens for Q system.   00%
I miss better wide angle lens with Q system. 21.85%
I want a superzoom lens with Q. 10.93%
Another reason. 2926.85%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-16-2012, 01:03 AM   #76
Site Supporter
bushwhacker09's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Parkway
Posts: 66
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Amazed someone says you can get comparable image quality to the Q for 1/3 the money after seeing Wheatfield's incredible moon shoot. What P&S could take that picture? The Q is two cameras in one. It is a high quality P&S that is in the ball park, quality wise, with any other premium P&S camera. It is also a system camera that gives some pretty specialized capabilities. What good is your cheaper camera's image quality if you can't even capture the picture to start with? The Q can be a very specialized tool that allows images to be taken in extreme situations.
thanks
barondla
Actually, a point & shoot didn't really take that picture. Show me the Q kit that includes that howitzer of a lens. Cute trick, I'll give you. Another thing my point & shoot cannot do is attach itself to a 100 hp motor and become a speedboat. Some of you folks want to live in a world where the Q is more than a quirky, laudable attempt at something new, enjoy the weather in that fantasy land. The OP asked why one would not be drawn to the Q, and I answered honestly--too expensive given the suspected image quality. However, if the price came down to around $400, I could see this interesting little camera finding its way into many more people's bags.


Last edited by bushwhacker09; 01-16-2012 at 01:18 AM. Reason: to attempt to be a bit nicer
01-16-2012, 02:34 AM   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I expect it is just lack of interest due to overlap with other owned cameras or lack of particular features (WR, for example) - these fairly obvious reasons are not really covered in the answers, so the only thing left is to pick "other reason".
Uh, I thought there are covered by "I already have camera of similar features" for the overlap and "I'd buy Q with higher performance" for the WR and other missing features. Maybe I should have expressed and explained these options more clearly...
01-16-2012, 04:22 AM   #78
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,066
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
I would not put the Q in the category of a "luxury item." Leica, yes. I don't think the Q's published specs would allow it to qualify as the "Rolls-Royce" of digital cameras. Again, I hope they sell well.
Leica's specs have never allowed it to qualify as a luxury brand, yet people seem to think it is one.

QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
I am sorry but Pentax is no luxury brand.
Neither is Chevrolet, but people seem to think that Cadillac is a luxury brand.
01-16-2012, 04:30 AM   #79
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,066
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
Actually, a point & shoot didn't really take that picture. Show me the Q kit that includes that howitzer of a lens. Cute trick, I'll give you. Another thing my point & shoot cannot do is attach itself to a 100 hp motor and become a speedboat. Some of you folks want to live in a world where the Q is more than a quirky, laudable attempt at something new, enjoy the weather in that fantasy land. The OP asked why one would not be drawn to the Q, and I answered honestly--too expensive given the suspected image quality. However, if the price came down to around $400, I could see this interesting little camera finding its way into many more people's bags.
Funnily enough, that moon shot taken by a Q.
People mount Canons onto telescopes all the time. Are you saying the resulting pictures aren't taken by a Canon because Canon doesn't make telescopes?
If you buy an SLR with a kit lens and them buy a good accessory lens, are you saying that the resulting pictures are not taken by your SLR? How about if you buy a 3rd party lens because Pentax doesn't make that focal length (lets say a 70-200/2.8 zoom). Are you saying that you are no longer taking pictures with your camera because you don't have the lens that came with the camera? Or that using a third party lens disqualifies the camera from taking pictures?
The flexibility of interchangeable lenses is what allowed me to mount the 600 onto the Q. How can you discount that so dismissively is beyond me. Your point fails the test of logic.

01-16-2012, 07:36 AM   #80
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,252
Since the Pentax Q didn't take the moon shot, I would be interested in knowing what did. How about it Wheatfield? What does the exif information say?

The Q is like a Swiss army knife - you can't review just the screwdriver and get an accurate view of the whole product.

thanks
barondla
01-16-2012, 09:58 AM   #81
Site Supporter
bushwhacker09's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Parkway
Posts: 66
Let me rephrase--that shot was taken by a Q body attached to some sort of monster lens. That kind of defeats a major selling point for the Q system, doesn't it? Does it have to be mated with such a lens in order for it to take a good enough picture to support your assertions? Geez, you answer a question honestly about why you didn't buy a Q, and several forum members act like you've insulted a family member. If YOU love the Q system, that should be enough. I don't have to like it in order to validate your passion for it, I hope.
01-16-2012, 03:42 PM - 1 Like   #82
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,066
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
Let me rephrase--that shot was taken by a Q body attached to some sort of monster lens. That kind of defeats a major selling point for the Q system, doesn't it?
Does mounting a micro 4/3 camera on a big lens defeat the purpose of that camera? Does mounting a super telephoto on a camera sized like a Nikon D3 make more sense than mounting a similar focal length on a Pentax K-X?
The purpose of an interchangeable lens camera is being able to change lenses, no more, and no less. You are taking one of the major selling features of the Q and discounting it as meaningless.


QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
Does it have to be mated with such a lens in order for it to take a good enough picture to support your assertions? Geez, you answer a question honestly about why you didn't buy a Q, and several forum members act like you've insulted a family member. If YOU love the Q system, that should be enough. I don't have to like it in order to validate your passion for it, I hope.
Frankly, I don't care what makes you passionate. Expect though, that if you make erroneous assertions, that they are going to be challenged. This isn't acting like you've insulted a family member, this is merely correcting assertions that are wrong.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 01-16-2012 at 04:49 PM.
01-16-2012, 05:02 PM   #83
Site Supporter
bushwhacker09's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Parkway
Posts: 66
God help anyone who ever gets stuck on an elevator with you...

01-17-2012, 07:06 AM   #84
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,066
QuoteOriginally posted by bushwhacker09 Quote
God help anyone who ever gets stuck on an elevator with you...
We've moved into the ad hominem attacks I see.
01-17-2012, 08:15 AM   #85
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,853
I believe the Q is a great little camera, but I can't see myself buying one because:

1. No EVF. Seriously, this is the big problem with most small ILCs. You can't expect me to buy something with interchangeable lenses and all the rest of it, then focus and compose on an LCD display, especially if I'm strongly backlit or the sun is out.

2. Price. There is very little appeal in buying a new camera with a whole new system of lenses for the price point of the Q. At half or even 5/8 the money I'd say it was a pretty sweet deal.

3. Lens Selection. There just aren't enough interesting options, and even the adapters don't help because an ultra-wide 35mm or APS-C focal length is still a telephoto on the Q.

I don't object to its size, as I think I'd find it comfortable, or its small sensor, as long as that sensor bears it out to be pretty decent, at least in good light. In fact, I think the Q would be a *great* camera to have if the following things are what you like:

1. Extremely fast, relatively compact, super-telephoto and ultra-telephoto lenses. The 5.6 crop factor means even relatively lightweight, super-bright lenses are Tele lenses, and in this way, adapting from the K or even 645 mount makes sense. 50mm f/1.4 becomes 280mm f/1.4. I know the depth-of-field is still that of a fifty, but you can get a lot closer with something a LOT brighter. For example, tossing the famous FA 100 f/2.8 Macro on the Q gives you a 560mm f/2.8, and that would be a HEAVY lens indeed to cart around for a full frame or APS-C camera, not to mention costing tens of thousands of dollars. If I were shooting wildlife, especially at twilight or dawn, I'd seriously consider one.

2. Concerts. The Q's small sensor and tiny focal lengths of its lenses for the equivalent FOV means that you can take concerts in dark clubs and venues where you'd have to be wide open with a 35mm camera to get the shot. Being able to get the whole band in focus at once without setting off an indoor nuke (flash) would be nice. And the camera is small, maneuverable and unobtrusive, all good qualities for a camera in a concert venue.

3. Studio Flash. The Q's Standard Prime and Standard Zoom lenses are equipped with in-lens leaf shutters, allowing 1/2000 flash sync.
01-17-2012, 10:16 AM   #86
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by elho_cid Quote
Uh, I thought there are covered by "I already have camera of similar features" for the overlap and "I'd buy Q with higher performance" for the WR and other missing features. Maybe I should have expressed and explained these options more clearly...
Just noticed your reply.

On "I have another camera of similar size/performance.": I didn't pick that because I don't really have a camera of similar performance - I just cannot justify the cost by the extra performance that the Q provides and my need for it.

As for the "I'd buy Q sucessor with better performance.", it should have specified "performance or features". For me performance is what affects results: sensor, lenses, processing - OTOH, controls, body build, WR are features.
01-17-2012, 11:01 AM   #87
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
Original Poster
Laurentiu you are right I was not very clear on the options. Yet I believe the poll shown some interesting results. So thanks for responding.
01-20-2012, 06:33 PM   #88
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
The Q is interesting, it's a form factor that allows some things that you wouldn't think of with a bulky DSLR. It's also a fun camera, while still featuring interchangeable lenses.

That said, the price is way off. The Q system has potential to be a good entry-level, but not in the current incarnation.
01-21-2012, 05:17 AM   #89
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,066
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
The Q is interesting, it's a form factor that allows some things that you wouldn't think of with a bulky DSLR. It's also a fun camera, while still featuring interchangeable lenses.

That said, the price is way off. The Q system has potential to be a good entry-level, but not in the current incarnation.
This misses the point. The Q is not meant to be another me too entry level camera.
It's build quality is far too high to be considered that.
You may disagree that a camera of this nature be built to such a high standard, but the fact is, Pentax chose to build the thing like a real camera, not a cheap plastic piece of junk.
And because of this, it's a little pricier than cheap, disposable plastic cameras.
If you can't live with that, move on. It's a simple concept that requires a mere modicum of smarts to get.
01-21-2012, 08:00 AM   #90
Loyal Site Supporter
i_trax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,097
the Q the marvel of engineering

there is absolutely nothing wrong with Q's sensor!
My black Q just arrived ( with 01+02 @AU$450) , possibly the same sensor as Canon SX40.
IQ is good, a bit of overexposed (blown highlights) in a very bright sun, need to update to 1.01 ( incl lenses) and play with a build in ND filter.
In Australian sun ( close to +40deg C in shade) the body runs very hot and 3" LCD absolutely useless!
desperately needs an optical viewfinder!
there are some old used for sale ,need to investigate
otherwise it is a joytoy!
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, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:09 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