[stormtech]

Recently posted in depth review posted

Pentax Q7 Review: Digital Photography Review

[Adam]

I'm surprised they got to it so quickly! Looks like a fair evaluation: good camera overall, but there are still better options out there if interchangeable lenses aren't a priority.

[kenafein]

Seems like a pretty fair review. If the camera ever comes down in price, like the original, it will be a great value.

[Docrwm]

Mediocre review at best. The advantage of the crop factor is mentioned once in the conclusion. Nowhere did I see it's macro ability even touched upon.

[DDoram]

The review illustrates that Pentax will have a challenge making the Q system popular for a mass market. While it is popular in Japan and I like it, most people don't seem the value in the camera.

Dale

[snostorm]

Mediocre review at best. The advantage of the crop factor is mentioned once in the conclusion. Nowhere did I see it's macro ability even touched upon.

Hi Doc,

I agree. Also only a passing mention of super tele ability and other advantages of being able to adapt SLR lenses where the crop factor makes the Q series very different from any other ILC system. She didn't even mention the sync speeds that are possible with the leaf shutter lenses, or the fact that the Q system (unlike all the other compacts -- even the "enthusiast" class ones -- and any other mount system I can think of), offers a very affordable FE lens.

To me, this review essentially illustrates how little passion the reviewer has for photography, and how limited her vision is for what a camera can do to expand one's photographic capabilities. They test a camera from the perspective of what they normally shoot, and can't expand that perspective to what the camera is actually capable of doing.

With the Q, I had to cut the reviewers a little slack because Pentax had not yet released their own K to Q adapter, but with the Q7, there's really no excuse.

At least they posted a full review, something that they didn't bother to do with the Q.

Scott

[stormtech]

I agree with you Scott. dpreview is usually very bland with their Pentax reviews for some reason, but I was actually surprised they posted an in depth review at all on the Q7.

[kenafein]

Hi Doc,

I agree. Also only a passing mention of super tele ability and other advantages of being able to adapt SLR lenses where the crop factor makes the Q series very different from any other ILC system. She didn't even mention the sync speeds that are possible with the leaf shutter lenses, or the fact that the Q system (unlike all the other compacts -- even the "enthusiast" class ones -- and any other mount system I can think of), offers a very affordable FE lens.

To me, this review essentially illustrates how little passion the reviewer has for photography, and how limited her vision is for what a camera can do to expand one's photographic capabilities. They test a camera from the perspective of what they normally shoot, and can't expand that perspective to what the camera is actually capable of doing.

With the Q, I had to cut the reviewers a little slack because Pentax had not yet released their own K to Q adapter, but with the Q7, there's really no excuse.

At least they posted a full review, something that they didn't bother to do with the Q.

Scott

Pentax hasn't released a macro lens or a lens to take advantage of the super tele aspect of the camera. If Pentax released a 100-300/4.5 for the camera, with autofocus, every birder on a budget would own one. They'd be able to offer something nobody else does. It wouldn't matter, to me, if the lens was the size of the DA55-300. It would still be the most compact birding kit around. The K-Q adapter is pretty great, but auto focus, with SDM or HSM lenses, would have been appreciated. It would have been a game changer. The Nikon 1's adapter supports autofocus, why can't the Q's? I like my Q, but I think Pentax is squandering some of its potential. Why haven't they provided an external flash? Where is the wide prime? I'm not intending to start a fight, but I don't think the review was unfair. Perhaps the reviewer wasn't very excited to get this particular camera, though. I can see that.

[Docrwm]

Pentax hasn't released a macro lens or a lens to take advantage of the super tele aspect of the camera. If Pentax released a 100-300/4.5 for the camera, with autofocus, every birder on a budget would own one. They'd be able to offer something nobody else does. It wouldn't matter, to me, if the lens was the size of the DA55-300. It would still be the most compact birding kit around. The K-Q adapter is pretty great, but auto focus, with SDM or HSM lenses, would have been appreciated. It would have been a game changer. The Nikon 1's adapter supports autofocus, why can't the Q's? I like my Q, but I think Pentax is squandering some of its potential. Why haven't they provided an external flash? Where is the wide prime? I'm not intending to start a fight, but I don't think the review was unfair. Perhaps the reviewer wasn't very excited to get this particular camera, though. I can see that.

Pentax has hundreds of lenses that take advantage of those features, there are thousands if you include C, D, M42, etc mount lenses. Again, does it do everything - nope but then neither do the $3000+ FF cameras. The main point is that the review was poor because it missed key issues - even small things like having the only FE lens in its size class. It wasn't unfair just incompetently done, which is more damning IMHO.

[monochrome]

I'm surprised they got to it so quickly! Looks like a fair evaluation: good camera overall, but there are still better options out there if interchangeable lenses aren't a priority.

Hi Doc,

I agree. Also only a passing mention of super tele ability and other advantages of being able to adapt SLR lenses where the crop factor makes the Q series very different from any other ILC system. She didn't even mention the sync speeds that are possible with the leaf shutter lenses, or the fact that the Q system (unlike all the other compacts -- even the "enthusiast" class ones -- and any other mount system I can think of), offers a very affordable FE lens.

To me, this review essentially illustrates how little passion the reviewer has for photography, and how limited her vision is for what a camera can do to expand one's photographic capabilities. They test a camera from the perspective of what they normally shoot, and can't expand that perspective to what the camera is actually capable of doing.

With the Q, I had to cut the reviewers a little slack because Pentax had not yet released their own K to Q adapter, but with the Q7, there's really no excuse.

At least they posted a full review, something that they didn't bother to do with the Q.

Scott

I agree with you Scott. dpreview is usually very bland with their Pentax reviews for some reason, but I was actually surprised they posted an in depth review at all on the Q7.

Pentax hasn't spent much time building a relationship with DPR, encouraging reviewers to look at the extended possibilities, talking to Amazon about the relationship between the reviews and sales throughput or anything else the other makers have likely done for years and years.

Getting a quick, full review is a first step - and actually a decent start at rebuilding the realtionship. Ricoh still has to prove they are here to stay and build the brand, not just another Hoya.. This will take years, mot months or quarters. That's why Ricoh states goals and vision in "intermediate term" terms.

And Ricoh have to overcome Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony and Olympus whispering in the ears of every decision-maker associated with DPR and Amazon.

FWIW, whatever price they paid, Q users tend to like their cameras for what they are. The issue (as in the K-01) is always getting more people to try them.

[kenafein]

Pentax has hundreds of lenses that take advantage of those features, there are thousands if you include C, D, M42, etc mount lenses. Again, does it do everything - nope but then neither do the $3000+ FF cameras. The main point is that the review was poor because it missed key issues - even small things like having the only FE lens in its size class. It wasn't unfair just incompetently done, which is more damning IMHO.

I can attach almost every lens ever made to my NEX, but they don't spend a lot of time mentioning that in their reviews. I think they're reviewing native products/applications, not adapted ones. I bought my Q specifically for super-tele, but I don't think that's their market. Adam gave a great review of the Q as a cheap telephoto option. There is room for niche articles on enthusiast sites, but DPReview isn't so adventurous.

[monochrome]

I can attach almost every lens ever made to my NEX, but they don't spend a lot of time mentioning that in their reviews

Cough . . .gasp . . . . choke . . . what?

That's the entire reason to own a NEX.

Q will not likely EVER receive a full-on positive review anywhere because it isn't built to achieve what reviewers consider thier standard. Q is built to be good enough for the average Joe and more fun that the average PnS.

A camera for my wife, not for me.

But whatever. I frankly don';t give a d what DPR or anybody else thinks about Q or Pentax or Ricoh. In fact, these days I don't care what anybody else thinks about anything. Because Anybody Else isn't putting money in my bank account and Anybody Else doesn't get to take it out either.

[kenafein]

Cough . . .gasp . . . . choke . . . what?

That's the entire reason to own a NEX.

It's a popular reason, but it doesn't get more than a mention in a DPReview, which was my point. They don't focus on esoteric uses for a camera. Though, to be fair, they did review the latest focal reducing adapters, separately.

[snostorm]

I can attach almost every lens ever made to my NEX, but they don't spend a lot of time mentioning that in their reviews. I think they're reviewing native products/applications, not adapted ones. I bought my Q specifically for super-tele, but I don't think that's their market. Adam gave a great review of the Q as a cheap telephoto option. There is room for niche articles on enthusiast sites, but DPReview isn't so adventurous.

Hi kenafein,

This is true, but with the Nex, the resulting image is the same as you can get with any APS-C camera with the obvious differences in sensors and processing engines. It does not enhance or change the capabilities of the photographer in any way, except for differences in technique to achieve essentially the same results.

With the Q series, the crop factor changes the nature of any SLR lens so drastically from what we're used to that this should be mentioned more than in passing. This is a "feature" that most novices and many experienced photographers miss when they look at the Q system only from a size and IQ perspective. As an ILC, the Q can do things that other cameras in this sensor format cannot dream of achieving, and it can do things that cameras in any other ILC system cannot do. Comparing it with other cameras in the same format or other MILC systems from strictly a size or IQ perspective cannot do the system justice because the other cameras cannot go where the Q system cameras can.

I shoot candids at parties and family get-togethers with a Q and a 50 f1.4. This gives me a very unintimidating and totally silent (if I use a 3rd party adapter) camera that shoots at 180mm FOV at f1.4 so I can get the the head shots I like to take from across the room. Sure, I can sacrifice the 2 stops in aperture and shoot my K-5 at higher ISO with a 200mm f2.8, but I'm no longer inconspicuous, and the "candid" nature is much more difficult to get when everyone knows there's a photographer in the room. I don't consider this "niche" photography. . .

This is the lack of vision that I talked about in my first post in this thread.

RE: your first post to this thread -- A Q mount 100-300 f4.5 would have to be at least as large as an FA* 300/4.5. The front element would have to be 67mm like the FA*300 (FL/fstop = Aperture (entrance pupil or front element diameter) -- 300mm/4.5= 66.67mm -- you can't change the nature of optics, even if it's for a smaller format sensor), and the zoom would add size and weight. It could conceivably be made lighter than the 3lbs 4oz of the 100-300 f4 Sigma, but not by that much without sacrificing material stability needed for the optics. Of course the price would be similar, if not more than the Sigma (if it were still made), but I'd say it would be easily well over $1K, and the weight of the focusing elements would require a larger motor, so battery drain would be a problem with the Q. This is an unrealistic suggestion, IMO.

AF for adapted lenses -- at least limited AF, just for critical focus, is another matter. If they used the design philosophy behind the F 1.7x AFA, it seems possible to make a TC that would fit between the K to Q adapter and the body that incorporates focusing elements and a standard Q system in-lens AF motor. It would necessarily have some magnification because of the added registration distance it would cause, and it would not AF over the entire range of the original lens, so the user would need to prefocus manually to get the lens into the focusing range of the AFA. You'd also lose some light due to the mag factor. It would not need to be as deep as sthe 1.7x AFA since there would not be the same design goal -- the 1.7x AFA was meant to be a transitional unit that allowed full focus range AF with an MF 50mm lens (the kit lens of the MF film era) to introduce users to AF. It would just need to have enough focusing range to get critical focus from a set parameter of what would be considered "close" to in-focus my most people. In use, a person would actuate AF, manually focus the lens, then when this got close enough, the AFA would take over and lock critical focus. It would be similar to using CIF (trap focusing) on Pentax DSLR bodies, but would allow better timing for triggering the shutter.

Of course, they could implement CIF in the Q bodies for adapted lenses, and this would probably satisfy most people, I would think. . .

They probably could have offered AF with adapted AF K mount lenses, but the great majority of these are screw drive, and that would mean incorporating a motor and a different AF feedback system into the Q. SDM would probably be easier, but either would mean a significant increase in battery drain from a battery that's already marginal. I suspect that the AF would be very slow also, and not really satisfactory for most, so they probably deemed it not worth the effort (or added expense for that matter). It would have been groundbreaking, but it's proving hard enough to convince even dedicated Q users that the Pentax adapter is worth the price (I think it is) -- add AF and $200-300 to the price for slow AF that cut the battery life to 100 shots, and I would even balk at the cost/benefit.

Scott

[kenafein]

Hi kenafein,

RE: your first post to this thread -- A Q mount 100-300 f4.5 would have to be at least as large as an FA* 300/4.5. The front element would have to be 67mm like the FA*300 (FL/fstop = Aperture (entrance pupil or front element diameter) -- 300mm/4.5= 66.67mm -- you can't change the nature of optics, even if it's for a smaller format sensor), and the zoom would add size and weight. It could conceivably be made lighter than the 3lbs 4oz of the 100-300 f4 Sigma, but not by that much without sacrificing material stability needed for the optics. Of course the price would be similar, if not more than the Sigma (if it were still made), but I'd say it would be easily well over $1K, and the weight of the focusing elements would require a larger motor, so battery drain would be a problem with the Q. This is an unrealistic suggestion, IMO.

Birding is expensive. An AF option for less than $1500 would be a bargain. I am not too certain on the specifics of lens design, but a DA*200 like lens would work just fine, if it had autofocus. If they could make a QA specific version, that's even slightly smaller, that would be great. They could even add a battery to the lens. Center point AF, on an independently powered lens, should be fast enough, I'd buy it. Considering the new larger sensor, they might even be able to create a version of the DA55-300, for the Q7, without diffraction issues.

I shoot candids at parties and family get-togethers with a Q and a 50 f1.4. This gives me a very unintimidating and totally silent (if I use a 3rd party adapter) camera that shoots at 180mm FOV at f1.4 so I can get the the head shots I like to take from across the room. Sure, I can sacrifice the 2 stops in aperture and shoot my K-5 at higher ISO with a 200mm f2.8, but I'm no longer inconspicuous, and the "candid" nature is much more difficult to get when everyone knows there's a photographer in the room. I don't consider this "niche" photography. . .

It's niche, because most photographers don't use adapted lenses. It is an esoteric pursuit for hobbyists and enthusiasts. I'm not saying it's not cool.