[creampuff]

The Q is often stocked out locally where I am, and the local retailers do sell a lot of cameras. I'm not sure many on this forum have actually tried the Q because if they did, I'm sure many would be quite impressed by what this camera is capable of. Build quality is pretty good and it's really compact.

[snostorm]

the weakest point is battery, I have ordered 2 extra and i will be taking Q with 01+02 to Europe with me, that's it , just the Q.

Carrying extra batteries is really not much of an issue though. . . they're very cheap, very small/light (4 of these are easier to carry than 1 extra for the K-5 or 1 set of AAs for the DS or K100DS), and very quick to change, even if the camera is tripod mounted. I have 4 spares now, at a total cost of less than $20, including a spare compact wall recharger that can also be used in a car. These make me good for at least 750-1000 shots in a day, which is considerably more than I anticipate ever needing with this camera.

Scott

[rawr]

What does 'failure' mean anyhow.

If an artist makes a great song, but it isn't No 1 in the charts world-wide, are they a failure? If a photographer takes an amazing photo, but it isn't immediately bought by the Getty Museum, are they a failure too? Failure depends on where you set your goalposts.

Personally I think the Q is a decent enough little camera. However it is not for me, mainly because while it is very compact, when a lens is mounted it is still too deep (31mm body, then add a lens) to be truly pocketable (as in shirt top pocket). I like the image quality, and the RAW support, but for a take-with-you-everywhere camera, for me it's got to be more pocketable.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The only Pentax cameras I have seen mentioned by people outside the Pentax ecosystem are the Q and the 645D.

[Anvh]

Agreed and agreed. Pentax had the foresight to make it possible to have future Q models with slightly larger sensors. The ceaseless march of technology will get us to the point where they'll be able to get near K-5 performance in the Q, DOF excepted of course. How cool will that be?!

There is potentional in the mount when we look at the diameter and the register for a lot faster lenses so it might very well be posiable to get some decent amount of OOF with the Q maybe in the future.

[Wheatfield]

What does 'failure' mean anyhow.

Americans (the OP is one of those creatures) have a somewhat different view of winners and losers. Most of the world, if you come in second or third place, you've done well, though someone else has done better. The American fetish for winning means that second place puts you firmly in the spot of being first place loser, and it just goes downhill from there.

[monochrome]

Americans (the OP is one of those creatures) have a somewhat different view of winners and losers. Most of the world, if you come in second or third place, you've done well, though someone else has done better. The American fetish for winning means that second place puts you firmly in the spot of being first place loser, and it just goes downhill from there.

From Vince Lombardi, the iconic Green Bay Packers football coach from 1959-1967:

"If it doesn’t matter who wins, why do they keep score?"

(How very American of me). There, I said it for yo.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-24-2012 at 10:14 AM.

[Wheatfield]

From Vince Lombardi, the iconic Green Bay Packers football coach from 1959-1967:

"If it doesn’t matter who wins, why do they keep score"

(How very American of me). There, I said it for yo.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[johnmflores]

Americans (the OP is one of those creatures) have a somewhat different view of winners and losers. Most of the world, if you come in second or third place, you've done well, though someone else has done better. The American fetish for winning means that second place puts you firmly in the spot of being first place loser, and it just goes downhill from there.

You haven't been to the US in a while I guess. These days kids are taught that everyone's a winner.

[Biro]

Actually, both Wheatfield and John are correct. Wheatfield's take on general American cultural perceptions about winning and losing is correct. But go into almost any elementary or middle school and you'll find it's all about feeling good about one's self. Everyone's a winner. That goes not only for sports, but academic performance as well. Take that for what it's worth and read into it what you will.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I had a chance to pick up and play with a Q at Cameraland in New York a few months ago (when I picked up my E-PM1). First off, the build quality is superb. There is some heft to that little camera. Second, it looks a lot better in person (in metal?) than in photos. I was tempted to take one home but it was just too much money for a camera with that small a sensor. But I really liked it. If, as someone has posted, it can be readily found under $500 I would be tempted again.

Is the Q a success or failure? I can't say... but I will say it was a brave and creative move by Pentax.

[SteveM]

Cross posted from what I put in the interview thread....but it's relevant for the Q

From BCN......a year old, I can't find this years list, but I don't suspect it has changed that much.

Percentage DSLR APS-C: 71.5%
Percentage DSLR FF: 1.8%
Percentage Mirrorless: 19.1%
Unknown: 7.6%

If you check the latest data for the US, which goes to the 80th most popular DSLR.....Pentax doesn't register. Not one camera.

If you check Japan stats....3 of the 80 most popular dslrs are combinations of the "Q". The only other Pentax listed is the K-5 in spot #42.

Considering the Pentax Q is not the most popular DSLR on this forum, but it is (presumably) for Pentax sales, how representative is this forum for Pentax?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Considering the Pentax Q is not the most popular DSLR on this forum, but it is (presumably) for Pentax sales, how representative is this forum for Pentax?

Not much, I think, but we definitely have a lot of people here that think that they are representative for the Pentax user base.

[pinholecam]

Failure? Certainly not!
Just wrong pricing, which will not be so for long


A couple of us Pentax users were pretty poisoned after handling one in the recent Pentax outing.

I've always like it, but found the price at launch to be too expensive.
At the next price drop, I'll get one.

[PentaxMom Felua]

I'll get one too, I would very much like one for use in crowded musea.
It's so me. Unf. it is not turquoise. Totally irrelevant of course.
It has future, it must have. I want it for telereach aswell. And I fully understand why young and elderly people buy the q. It is not a failure, it is not. It is beautiful - really really small. Maximum quality for such a small (sensor) and therefore very advantageous (fysical) size. Men want to put those things in shirtpockets, I want to put it in a very small purse, a museum allowed size. And out in restaurants and café's and bars it won't litter all over the tables/counters. It is easy to take with you in the ladiesroom, and I can think of some more. Sure, a p&s is cheaper and small aswell, BUT no: no system, not that brilliant excuse for allowing oneself to use and enjoy such a small cam. It is a camera, you see, ... a proper one.

[PentaxMom Felua]

K-01 fills me with ambiguous feelings. Lets say, I hope there will be one in the future with flipscreen. I don't really need a vf. Not even in bright sunlight. Don't you see what is in front of you? Don't you understand the scene you want to visualize with your picture? Don't you get used to your camera's screen and how it translates your view? I do. If the scene doesn't compell me to catch it, useally long times of wanting it to be catchable the way I want to do that delivers a second rate composition. But if the lines and objects present them in combination with the light in the spell of the moment, it fits a screen as well as a vf. And just about is nearly always perfect, just only then. K-01 will do that well enough in good light. Just curious to get to know its performance in less favourable light. And its ability with fast moving things. I'll see.
As fas as yippie I can use all the old lenses, no, that is not important to me. Nor is a smaller form for the K-01 very important to me, as long as there are no cumbersome extending humps, etc., bricky is good. But very important is less weight. I am an aging woman and not a weightlifter. So, I'd go for newer and lighter lensdesigns. But hope they will be fast. Fast is good. Fast is needed. They don't need to be really tiny, but they do need to be lightish and fast.
So, I really hope K-01 will evoluate. I do. With all new lenses, better adapted for mirrorless.
But as I see it, I think for tele I shall be better off with m43. IQ a bit less, but also much better, because lighter, smaller, therefore more easy to bring, nicer to handle in cities, and so on.