[unixrevolution]

I hear so much about the optical viewfinder on the Q being a necessity...it makes me wonder...

If the Q is not a touch-screen (And I don't think it is) What about fitting it with a Screen Loupe for bring sun conditions?



The DSLR Video guys love these things, since you can't shoot video on a DSLR through the optical finder.

Thoughts?

[wlachan]

Stick anything on the Q seems to defect its sole advantage. No?

[wlachan]

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.

But the question remains, why toy like lenses for an overbuilt body?

[hcarvalhoalves]

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.

The camera might be well built, but the IQ and lenses are just regular. Besides, I doubt the price has much to do with built quality. If I'm not mistaken, it's not even weather resistant, is it?

The high-price is more likely related to the R&D costs that went into Q. The sensor is probably not cheap either, backlit CMOS is a new-tech and, at that size and pixel density, not many other manufacturers besides Pentax might be driving demand to lower it's price.

[snostorm]

But the question remains, why toy like lenses for an overbuilt body?

... because they're cheap tele and wide prime alternatives that allowed Pentax to offer more than three lenses at introduction and illustrated the size/weight differential between Q lenses and the APS-C/µ4/3 "compact" MILC systems. Naming them "Toy" was probably a marketing mistake, but what other on-word name would have better?

Overbuilt body? In a world filled with cheap disposable merchandise, you're actually complaining about build quality that's too good? I'm sorry, but I'll never complain about a company that sets the bar too high in build quality.

IMO, they would have been better off introducing the K to Q adapter at the same time, and illustrating that with the DA 18-55 Kit lens for the DSLRs,, this would expand the Q's capabilities with a very compact 100-300 EQ f 3.5-5.6 tele zoom that focuses close enough to give better magnification than a 1:1 dedicated macro on an APS-C (at MFD and 55mm, 20mm fills the frame horizontally against @24mm with an APS-C). With the other Kit lenses, -- DA 50-200 will give a 275-1100, and with the DA 55-300, you'd have a 300-1650.

Pinning the marketing mistakes of Pentax/Hoya on the camera, regardless of how they may be, or have been taken by the uninformed is a very weak argument.

Stick anything on the Q seems to defect its sole advantage. No?

Not any more than it defeats the size advantage of any MILC which would share the same shortcoming of having to use the LCD as a VF -- which is almost all of them. . .and with little or no crop factor difference, they offer little else, while the Q has DSLR-like external controls and the crop factor for extreme macro and super compact fast ultra tele.

Scott

[Smeggypants]

I havent' bought one becuase the Q is a rather pointless camera for my style of shooting. I have 2 K5's and a plethora of lenses for when I go on proper overt shoots. When I really need a descrete camera I use my little Sony TX-5 which is no bigger than a mobile phone and allows me to a take pics in shops, etc where a device looking like a camera would be frowned upon.

Plus the Q is far too expensive for the sensor it sports.

The onyl plus side for the Q is that it adds a novelty additions to the Pentax product line up and as long as it doesn't lose them money ( debatable, I support them bringing out quirky products )

[elho_cid]

I don't know about other countries but here in Czech republic the price of Q dropped significantly this week. Pentax Q with 2 lenses is now the same price as the Fuji X10. That's already tempting, as the IQ is about the same and Q has the flexibility to accept other lenses.

[unixrevolution]

On the American Pentaximaging.com website, the Q kit has dropped to 749.99 regular price, and is on sale right now for $699.00.

[Anton Magus]

Now Pentax have announced the K-01 (the camera the Q should have been) I predict the Q's price will drop even more.

[Wheatfield]

I'm sure if Pentax had thought the Q should have been an overweight fugly horse, they could have built it that way. The Q is no more in the same market segment as the K-01 as the K-01 is in the same market segment as the 645D.
The Q has the appeal of small size, nice looks and excellent build. The K-01 has the appeal of
ummmmm
hmmmmm
eerrrrrrr
Kinda leaves one scratching one's head.

[JHD]

The Q has the appeal of small size, nice looks and excellent build. The K-01 has the appeal of
ummmmm
hmmmmm
eerrrrrrr
Kinda leaves one scratching one's head.

As a paper weights go, the k-01 has the advantage.

[Anton Magus]

The Q is no more in the same market segment as the K-01 as the K-01 is in the same market segment as the 645D.

Both are mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras designed to do the same job.
And it wasn't me that put them in the same market segment, it is a wide range of authoritative photography websites.

While you may think that the K-01 is an "overweight fugly horse" many others like the way it looks.
And it will, for sure, produce far better quality images that the Q.

[Wheatfield]

Both are mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras designed to do the same job.
And it wasn't me that put them in the same market segment, it is a wide range of authoritative photography websites.

While you may think that the K-01 is an "overweight fugly horse" many others like the way it looks.
And it will, for sure, produce far better quality images that the Q.

Ken Rockwell writes an authoritative website.
Do better than that.
I'm sure it is able to produce better quality pictures than the Q. My Pentax 6x7 will produce better quality pictures than the K-01. Does my point trump your point?

[Anton Magus]

Ken Rockwell writes an authoritative website.
Do better than that.

Yep - I figured you for a Ken Rockwell follower.

[Clicker]

I have a use for it now, i'll be doing a lot of upskirt shooting