[jethro10]

I'm happy with the shape size and weight.
Can't wait to see though, what the next few iterations of it brings in the likes of sensor performance and speed. Perhaps a better screen also.

[rendition]

For the new version of Q, I do not want more MP but I want a more powerful processor, more option for framerates, and 4k. GoPro has similar sensor 5.7x crop factor and new one GoPro4 is having 4k.

[RobA_Oz]

I agree, I like my Q7's the way they are. When I want something more than that I pick up the K-5 or K-5IIs. I do not know why folks can't be happy with something the way it was designed.

The major reason my Q doesn't get more use is the limitation that bright sunlight places on being able to see the LCD screen. I don't much like the need to compose at arm's length, either, not to mention the battery capacity limitation that is exacerbated by the LCD.

Never mind the small sensor - if a Q with an EVF was made, I'd upgrade from my original Q. As it is, I'm considering the options from Fujifilm, Panasonic and Sony.

[MD Optofonik]

Remove the articulated flash and add an EVF. I would use the EVF more often than the flash.

This.

---------- Post added 10-13-14 at 05:36 PM ----------

The major reason my Q doesn't get more use is the limitation that bright sunlight places on being able to see the LCD screen.

Because of this.

For me it's all about usability. Here we have a camera with surprisingly good IQ for it's sensor size but it's hobbled by sub-par usability. The egregious design gaffs are the cluttered LCD (in the original metal Q, subsequently fixed in the plastic fantastic versions) and lack of viewfinder, optical or otherwise. I, like many who have reviewed the camera, don't understand the omission of such photographer centric features. Perhaps if they hadn't included RAW capability people like me would have ignored it.

As it is, it's difficult to ignore something so close to genius. Imagine a crazy small really well built camera designed for photographers and consumers with adequate disposable income. Imagine it's a real system camera that's truly versatile; well suited to discreet street photography, astrophotography, P&S, OOC Holga style imagery, time-lapse, and has usable video. I know. Keep imagining but
I'm just sayin'.

More and more Pentax seems like the little kid playing Pee Wee football who has an unobstructed run to the end zone but falls down for no apparent reason other than just running our of steam a few yards before making a touchdown.

---

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 10-13-2014 at 06:19 PM.

[CWRailman]

This.

---------- Post added 10-13-14 at 05:36 PM ----------



Because of this.

For me it's all about usability. Here we have a camera with surprisingly good IQ for it's sensor size but it's hobbled by sub-par usability. The egregious design gaffs are the cluttered LCD (in the original metal Q, subsequently fixed in the plastic fantastic versions) and lack of viewfinder, optical or otherwise. I, like many who have reviewed the camera, don't understand the omission of such photographer centric features. Perhaps if they hadn't included RAW capability people like me would have ignored it.

As it is, it's difficult to ignore something so close to genius. Imagine a crazy small really well built camera designed for photographers and consumers with adequate disposable income. Imagine it's a real system camera that's truly versatile; well suited to discreet street photography, astrophotography, P&S, OOC Holga style imagery, time-lapse, and has usable video. I know. Keep imagining but
I'm just sayin'.

More and more Pentax seems like the little kid playing Pee Wee football who has an unobstructed run to the end zone but falls down for no apparent reason other than just running our of steam a few yards before making a touchdown.

Inability to see in the sun, the need to compose at arms length, EVF, cluttered LCD, the Q series is positioned to appeal to a market that does not seem to be hampered by such problems. Young folks especially in the markets such as Japan where Pentax is the strongest do not consider those an issue. In such markets a lot of useful info on the LCD is considered a strength.

You do not have a view finder on a cell phone and yet, MORE PHOTO”S ARE TAKEN WITH CELL PHONES THAN WITH CAMERA’S. Those folks don’t seem to be hampered by the lack of a viewfinder in fact they seem to prefer not having to squint through one. Pentax heard that report and the Q is a response to that. While some will not buy it because it lacks an EVF, I probably would not buy it if it had one because except for the increase in pixel count, that would be too close to the Olympus I had several years back. One of the big wants on DSLR’s for a few years was “live view” and that is what the Q series has. So no matter what you put into a camera someone is going to want the opposite. It’s like the guy who wants the performance of a Corvette but the fuel economy of a Chevy Spark EV. (Actually such people seldom have the money to purchase either car so they have no impact on either market.)

Apple has been selling products for years especially their IPhone based on it being cool to own and be seen with one. Hence their popularity. Pentax appears to be taking a page out of Apple’s marketing strategy. In the camera market, the Q series is positioned as a fashion accessory that is a step up from taking photo’s with a cell phone and it does that quite well. Several of the reviewers, who are closer to high school age than retirement age, actually caught that fact. The rest were too caught up in their ever lengthening list of expectations. The advertisements that Pentax has on the Q series does not show a new Q camera bouncing off some middle age pro photographers belly, it shows one swinging off some slender women’s hip. Why do you think they make it in so many colors? How many other camera’s offer as many color combinations? They even have a cute names the “Q”, Q10, Q7 etc..

I applaud Pentax for not following the path taken by the other camera manufactures but for finding a little vacancy in the camera market and successfully exploring it. After experimenting with first a used Q then a Q10, I’ve added two Q7’s to my camera tool box and I am happy with what they do for me. They can do things my K-5 and K-5IIs cannot do and vice versa. Expecting them to be the everything camera is well……….

I forgot to mention that I have recently purchased two new Q10's which I will be giving as Christmas presents to people who currently use DSLR's.

[RobA_Oz]

While it's true that the Q has appealed to a (largely Japanese) market segment, it's also true that the design was initiated at a time when viewfinders of any kind had largely disappeared from simpler cameras, some of which were also very competent. My wife has a Samsung EX-1, which lacks a viewfinder and, while not an ILC camera, is similarly well-built as the Q. Though there are many things she likes about it, including the IQ and the low-light performance, she finds the inability to frame easily in bright sunlight hampers her ability to get some of the photos she wants, to the standard she likes.

Good on the people who don't find a need for a viewfinder. All I can say is that they must be mostly taking photos in places where they don't suffer the effects of glare on the LCD. I see some of those people using large DSLRs doing just that.

The Q, though, is exactly what those who buy and continue to use it want it to be, be it hipster fashion accessory, extreme telephoto body or whatever the attraction may be. There are probably several factors that inhibit its success in Western markets, sensor size being one of them, but the lack of an EVF is probably another, especially when there are competitors now that outsell the Q by a wide margin and which have an EVF. The Q started a trend that it has been overtaken by - saying we should applaud Pentax for finding that trend is true enough, but it isn't enough.

[barondla]

I don't see the harm in building the next Q with a detachable EVF. Those who don't want to pay for it don't have to. Those who don't want to carry it don't have to.

Being small is an important part of the Q. It isn't the only aspect of the Q. There are real camera controls and other things. If we were only worried about size, the Q would not be our camera. There are smaller PnS. Extra lenses make the Q larger. Pentax even makes an optical viewfinder that makes the Q bigger.

The Q is a genius design. It can be pushed even further.
thanks
barondla

[fs999]

i dont know why people insist on destroy the concept of a small camera by sugesting to add this and that, if you want an evf and a grip there are several other cameras to chose from

an evf and a grip on the Q are absolutely useless, my advice to you is to learn how to take pics without an evf/ovf free yourself from that old concept, stop living in the past and embrace the future




p.s. that camera looks ugly as sin

Why can people don't let other people express their desires as they want ? If you want an evf free camera you can buy the Q-S1...

I agree, I like my Q7's the way they are. When I want something more than that I pick up the K-5 or K-5IIs. I do not know why folks can't be happy with something the way it was designed.

I am never happy with what I have, I want more !

[CWRailman]

That original posting looked a bit familiar. If you go back to the first post in this thread, remove the grip from the camera, move the Quick Dial to the top of the camera and DO NOT put that button on, and call it the MX it actually reminds me of the iconic Pentax film MX or ES cameras that were popular during their time. Personally I am disappointed that Pentax used the MX designation on their current offering.

Many years ago, someone once told me that “happiness is not getting what you want but wanting what you already got.” I have always found that to be true.

[fs999]

That original posting looked a bit familiar. If you go back to the first post in this thread, remove the grip from the camera, move the Quick Dial to the top of the camera and DO NOT put that button on, and call it the MX it actually reminds me of the iconic Pentax film MX or ES cameras that were popular during their time. Personally I am disappointed that Pentax used the MX designation on their current offering.

Many years ago, someone once told me that “happiness is not getting what you want but wanting what you already got.” I have always found that to be true.

That original posting looked a bit familiar. If you go back to the first post in this thread, remove the grip from the camera, move the Quick Dial to the top of the camera and DO NOT put that button on, and call it the MX it actually reminds me of the iconic Pentax film MX or ES cameras that were popular during their time. Personally I am disappointed that Pentax used the MX designation on their current offering.

you're right, the top of the viewfinder is from the original MX (I just removed the Asahi marks)

[barondla]

I agree using MX for a PnS( even a great PnS) was a waste of a good designation. Like putting Corvette on a Chevy Volt. The MX deserved more.
thanks
barondla

[sapporodan]

You know it's nice to see people talking about the Q. Its depressing to see so little few people talking about this great little camera!

And although a new body would be wonderful, I am getting fed up waiting so long for news about the new lenses!

[Rick_B]

fs999, don't let the naysayers get to you, I really like your concept illustration.

I, too, would use my Q10 a helluva lot more if it were more amenable to photography outside on sunny days, there is just so much info and detail that you can't see when all you have is an LCD screen...so, I have to drag my bigger K5 along for use then.

LCD displays aren't a "new way" of photographing, quite far from it, it is actually a throwback to view and plate cameras of the 19th century, but even my Crown Graphic has a pop-up shield over the ground glass to help compose and focus in brighter light conditions, but the Kalart and optical viewfinders do just as well, for the most part...maybe something along the lines of the viewfinder hood/magnifier like on the Rolleiflex I have could be implemented somehow? But, the Q out in the sun is just useless, without, that is, a loupe/hood...then it's OK..but, talk about big...there goes the size advantage....

People who's eyesight need correction also benefit from eye-level viewfinders with adjustable dioptric correction, or as I did with my OM series of cameras, an eyepiece that fits the viewfinder with a correction lens for my eyesight, looking into the K5's viewfinder is a joy even when using preset aperture, manual focusing lenses...

I do like the idea of the removable evf that would slide into something like a flash shoe and make contact with the camera to supplant the back panel display...that way if you didn't want to have the slightly larger size of the EVF on top, you could take it off...

It would have also been handy at a recent Ian Anderson concert when the ushers were looking around for people with cell phones and compact cameras with their displays pointing out where each and every "photographer" was so they could be told to quit taking pictures....the Q10 and I got popped, too...so, I only ended up with one half way decent shot of him...bummer...

Indoors, though, the Q is fine. Night time, the Q is fine. Bright, sunny days? Meh.

It almost makes me wish I wouldn't have spent the money on it and bought some other kind of small "bridge" camera with an optical viewfinder, I sure would have used it more during the day...

So, why do I carry around the Q10?

For the same reason that I carried the Pentax 110 SLR, or the Minolta 16 or 110 SLR, or a Minox, or an Autoron, an Olympus XA, or an Olympus Pen Half Frame...to have a small camera that isn't perceived as a "professional" camera, a camera that is less intimidating to subjects, or one that is small enough to put in a pocket of my cargo shorts, one that I can take with me just about anywhere without having to take a physically larger device for the shots....I loved the XA out on motorcycle road trips, it would easily fit into one of the locking storage cubbyholes on my Yamaha Seca Turbo, my KX (35mm) was just too much, and even my OM-1 was a few times the volume of the little XA...but with the XA I could at least see through it's tiny viewfinder on a sunny day to compose my shots....not always something easy on a sunny, summer day in south Texas with the Q10....

And your larger grip?

Well, with my XXL size hands anything that keeps me from fumbling something is definitely appreciated!

As always, YMMV

.

[fs999]

Thank you Rick_B !

That's a good idea !
The EVF could be even be popup and the flash put in the center over the lens like in the RX100 III...

[DaveInPA]

The major reason my Q doesn't get more use is the limitation that bright sunlight places on being able to see the LCD screen. I don't much like the need to compose at arm's length, either, not to mention the battery capacity limitation that is exacerbated by the LCD.

Never mind the small sensor - if a Q with an EVF was made, I'd upgrade from my original Q. As it is, I'm considering the options from Fujifilm, Panasonic and Sony.

Rob,

Have you tried increasing the screen brightness to its maximum? I found that really helps with usability in bright daylight.

Dave