[DSims]

Hope they haven't completed their lens lineup. We still don't have the promised macro lens. Many Qusers still want some FAST primes. Especially the wide angle one. I would love a pancake lens to make the Q more pocketable. Pentax is throwing away Q potential, if they don't bring out a tele bigger than the 06! What other system stops with a 200mm equivalent lens? A fast 45-135 would be so awesome with af.

It is time for Pentax to bring out a second Q-PK lens adapter. This one with AF. Adapter could hold extra battery power to make it work.

I agree that all these things would be great. In retrospect, my comment was actually more of about how much they didn't even have the basics complete until now. Everything they do after this is the "good stuff" - that which goes beyond the fundamentals. Oh, and BTW, I think the 08 is actually a bigger deal than many people are giving it credit for.

[hnikesch]

For me an upgrade to some type of global capture cmos electronic shutter that would eliminate the jello effect and improve the flash sync. with adapted and shutterless lenses and would improve the performance when using non Pentax adapted lenses.

+1 for AF adapter for DA lenses

[DaveInPA]

I definitely agree that an upgrade to the screen would be nice.

Removing the anti-alias filter seems to be the rage these days on camera models. Does the current sensor have an anti-alias filter? It would be interesting to see a Q without the anti-alias filter.

[grahame]

Does a Q have anti-alias filter?

[jethro10]

no, the Q7 is a-a filter free.
J

[grahame]

no, the Q7 is a-a filter free.

That is what I thought. Such a high pixel density sensor does not need an a-a filter.

[rendition]

4k option would be nice for next generation cameras. Tiny 4k in a small package, imagine that (aside from smart phone of course)

[monochrome]

I just spent five solid days visiting Michigan, with the entire distaff side of the extended family. My wife had her Q along and I took the Q7. Between us we had the 01, 02, 03, and 06 lenses several batteries and accessories and a tabletop tripod fitting in a Domke F5 shoulder bag (we flew carry-on and were delighted the entire camera kit fit in my small duffel bag). We left the K-3 and assorted standard lenses at home. On balance my experience was mixed - in some areas nearly disappointing. My wife, in her simple needs and constant use of P Mode, took many more pleasing photographs than I did. While we were generally pleased our cameras handled many things we wanted very well, there were some glaring problems:

1. The LCD was rendered unusable in bright light BEHIND the subject when the shooter was wearing a light-colored shirt. I was able to shade myself by contorting my left hand holding a large hat in front of and above the camera but out of the field of view. My wife was not successful with this technique. I made several takes to compensate - some were just lost opportunities.
2. I had set a limit of ISO 800. Handheld stability was a real chore below 1/60 without the three-point support of the forehead to a viewfinder. I have many shots exhibiting motion blur.
3. The focus point frequently erred, focusing on a distant object although the small square was clearly and completely covering the near subject.
4. Despite use of the tiny tripod I was unable to coax fireworks shots out of the camera, something I have done repeatedly with film cameras and DSLR's. For whatever reason I could not control the shutter very well.

I'll note these are complaints that were common to Pentax digital cameras prior to the K-3 and complaints I have regularly dismissed over my time as a K-01, Q and Q7 user.

I suspect a new Q will incorporate significant adaptations of K3 tecnology to improve these limitations.

[ruggiex]

I think after having scored a cheap Q7, I'm mostly interested if they could come up with collapsible lenses. I probably won't replace the 06 but if I could replace the 02 with a collapsible one (and hopefully offer better image quality than 02) then I'm all for it.

There certainly are plenty of things they can still tweak with the Q7. Maybe they will just ditch the Q10 line and offer only 1/1.7" sensor Q in two models - one premium build like original Q and one plastic build like the newer Q. But I most likely won't upgrade the Q7 until there is a big improvement in sensor tech.

[Transit]

.....

I don't know what's wrong with my analogy. .....

I thought it was quite humourous, no harm in a little humour

[Rick_B]

Bringing such a tiny camera body up to the eye seems ridiculous

Looking at a viewing screen to compose seems as ridiculous to me...the Q10 feels like one of the Rollei 35S cameras, small but a good performer, and I never had any problems bringing one of those to eye level...or an Olympus XA, Minolta 16's, Yashica Autorons, Minoxes, Pentax and Minolta 110 SLRs...then again, I've been peering thru viewfinders for over fifty years now, everything from my first Brownie Starflash to the Kalart synchcronized on Speed Graphics, and all points in between....using the display is more like when I use my Rolleiflex or Mamiya 645 1000S and their waist level viewfinders...except for the fact that the images aren't flipped around and 90 degrees from what you are actually photographing...

How often have you felt you needed to with the Q?

Every time I am outside and it's daytime.

Having a built-in and/or flipup EVF will make the body larger, which I'm sure Pentax don't want as the diminutive size is one of it's major features.

Maybe, and I do appreciate the Q10's small size...but, I have XL hands and a bit larger size body would actually be more ergonomically correct for me...my K-5 sans battery grip is too small for me to comfortably use....but, with the grip it's just right....I found the same thing when I went from my Pentax KX (film) to the Olympus OM system, an OM body with their motor drive or winder was so much easier for my sausage fingers to manipulate that it wasn't until the K-7 came on the scene that I started getting serious about Pentax again...

I do have one of the optical viewfinders that were used with rangefinder cameras and auxiliary lenses to help when pointing the Q10, but not having the information that an EVF has makes it a lot less useful than what could be...and the "gain" that they have makes night time photography easier, too...

I also picked up one of the cheap Chinese magnetic view screen loupes and that does help, but even having an EVF that fit into the flash shoe would be less cumbersome than the loupe.

The Q10 is a great little camera and I am glad I have one....I'm also glad I have a "real" DSLR for those times that the Q just won't cut it...

[jethro10]

Looking at a viewing screen to compose seems as ridiculous to me...the Q10 feels like one of the Rollei 35S cameras, small but a good performer, and I never had any problems bringing one of those to eye level...or an Olympus XA, Minolta 16's, Yashica Autorons, Minoxes, Pentax and Minolta 110 SLRs...then again, I've been peering thru viewfinders for over fifty years now, everything from my first Brownie Starflash to the Kalart synchcronized on Speed Graphics, and all points in between....using the display is more like when I use my Rolleiflex or Mamiya 645 1000S and their waist level viewfinders...except for the fact that the images aren't flipped around and 90 degrees from what you are actually photographing...



Every time I am outside and it's daytime.



Maybe, and I do appreciate the Q10's small size...but, I have XL hands and a bit larger size body would actually be more ergonomically correct for me...my K-5 sans battery grip is too small for me to comfortably use....but, with the grip it's just right....I found the same thing when I went from my Pentax KX (film) to the Olympus OM system, an OM body with their motor drive or winder was so much easier for my sausage fingers to manipulate that it wasn't until the K-7 came on the scene that I started getting serious about Pentax again...

I do have one of the optical viewfinders that were used with rangefinder cameras and auxiliary lenses to help when pointing the Q10, but not having the information that an EVF has makes it a lot less useful than what could be...and the "gain" that they have makes night time photography easier, too...

I also picked up one of the cheap Chinese magnetic view screen loupes and that does help, but even having an EVF that fit into the flash shoe would be less cumbersome than the loupe.

The Q10 is a great little camera and I am glad I have one....I'm also glad I have a "real" DSLR for those times that the Q just won't cut it...

The Q range is what it is. A Q with all these bits added on people want ends up being something other than a Q in size. It was made small in purpose!
The Q needs to stay small and built in evf free to remain a Q. It has a small body, and small, less powerful battery to keep it small. It's packed tight in there and heat from a more powerful processor would likely be a problem.
Realistically it will be a slight evolution from the 7.
Optional evf possibly. But I'd be happy with a better screen that tilts.
The q needs to stay q size. Most of these other wish list items are making a bigger camera than a Q.

J

[Pioneer]

Like most I can see where improvements to the camera would help. But to be truthful I would be happier if they would get serious about the lenses. I do like the 08 zoom, it was a nice addition, but I think the macro and some quick primes would be perfect.

I use a viewfinder on mine a LOT, I am hardly ever without one. I have also taken to carrying a small, Hoodman-like viewfinder for the rear display screen. This does help in those frustrating circumstances mentioned by Monochrome. But I will admit, an EVF would be nice, if it isn't too big.

The one thing that I am not interested in seeing is to have the Q grow in size. This seems to happen to every small camera I really like. So far Pentax has managed to avoid it, I hope Ricoh can keep from messing it up too badly.

[barondla]

The one thing that I am not interested in seeing is to have the Q grow in size. This seems to happen to every small camera I really like. So far Pentax has managed to avoid it, I hope Ricoh can keep from messing it up too badly.

Agree. Same problem with car models. Every year they get bigger and bigger. Look at the Z cars, Ford Thunderbird, etc.

The Q must stay Q sized. That is it's charm. That and FUN.
thanks
barondla

[jethro10]

Agree. Same problem with car models. Every year they get bigger and bigger. Look at the Z cars, Ford Thunderbird, etc.

The Q must stay Q sized. That is it's charm. That and FUN.
thanks
barondla

That's the point I was trying to make, a lot of these "wish list" things make it bigger, and it becomes a "different" Pentax model, not a Q.
I can get a Q with either 08 or 02 lens in my trouser pocket on an evening when were out, I need to keep it that way. Can use the wife's Sony a6000 for bigger stuff.
J