[Pioneer]

Part of the reason people don't talk about it is that most serious photographers won't even look at a camera without a viewfinder option.

If Pentax is happy with the size of their current clientele, they can stick with the current design.
If Pentax wants to pull more of us into the fold, then they will need to provide a viewfinder option.
It is very simple, actually

You are so certain you should probably go to work in marketing. Better yet maybe become CEO of Ricoh.

I'm not even sure which "serious" photographer you are referring to. If you are discussing Professional photographers I kind of doubt this was the target market in the first place.

I think you are dead wrong. If you "grow" the camera to become something it wasn't designed for it probably still won't attract any "serious" photographers, but it will lose the market it has carved out for itself already. But, what do I know? Like I said, it was the perfect camera for me. It isn't for you.

You can hope Ricoh is reading your posts and agreeing, I sincerely hope they are not.

[CWRailman]

If Pentax wants to pull more of us into the fold, then they will need to provide a viewfinder option.

So if you are not currently a Pentax owner then what are you doing on this forum? Are you really interested in learning about and supporting Pentax products or you just Trolling?

[magkelly]

One of the reasons I went Olympus vs Pentax for this type of camera even though I have tons of Pentax lenses was because of the Olympus systems excellent VF. At this point I'm settled with a couple of E-P3's and a VF and I love them. I would not trade them for a Q honestly. But if they had done something more like this with a really good removable VF? I might have waited and gone Pentax...

[raider]

@reh321

Correct me if I am wrong....I don't think all Olympus, Panasonic and Sony mirrorless have the EVF sockets...only the higher end ones do..even if they have the EVF option, the EVF is not cheap either...most people just wouldn't bother to buy an optional EVF. I think it is a bit unfair to sideline the Q since this is no different to any other medium range mirrorless cameras.

For instance, the GM1 has no EVF and there is no option to add one. The latest GM5 has an EVF but it is not exactly the same price range as the Q.

[Tony Belding]

I would love to see a more upscale Q with an EVF. I'm picturing something like a mini-SLR. I don't like the idea of a detachable EVF, though. It needs to be integrated into the camera body. Replacing the in-body flash with the EVF and having an external flash might make sense, even.

Producing such a camera would not somehow force Pentax to stop making the minimalist tiny Q sans viewfinder. They have a range of different DSLRs now with different features and price points. It's not crazy to imagine having multiple Q models with different features and price points. I actually think the Q system has a bright future, and this sort of evolution would make a lot of sense.

[magkelly]

@reh321

Correct me if I am wrong....I don't think all Olympus, Panasonic and Sony mirrorless have the EVF sockets...only the higher end ones do..even if they have the EVF option, the EVF is not cheap either...most people just wouldn't bother to buy an optional EVF. I think it is a bit unfair to sideline the Q since this is no different to any other medium range mirrorless cameras.

For instance, the GM1 has no EVF and there is no option to add one. The latest GM5 has an EVF but it is not exactly the same price range as the Q.

I can't speak for the others but actually with Olympus you have several EVF's available at various price ranges. The best and newest one is still a tad expensive for my budget but I was able to get the next one down the line and it works fairly well on all of my cameras. It was worth it to me. It made a huge difference in terms of my enjoying and using my M43 cameras. Most of the Olympus M43 cameras can use an EVF. It's used just like an external flash accessory in the same place on top. The earliest EVF not all of them can use that, but most of the later models they can. It was a huge selling point for me that ability to grab an EVF. No, it wasn't as cheap as I would have liked, mine was bought used actually, but it was a "must have" accessory for me. I am able to use an EVF on my cheaper E-PL1 model too. Not just on my more high end E-P3's.

[reh321]

In searching the Internet I've found a product called a "hood loupe" that goes over a 3" LCD and provides shaded view of the LCD. This is claimed to be a close approximation of an EVF. Has anyone here used one of these on a Pentax Q? I can see how this device might make the Q useable outdoors if Pentax will not include an actual EVF, assuming that it actually works with the Q.

[reh321]

So if you are not currently a Pentax owner then what are you doing on this forum? Are you really interested in learning about and supporting Pentax products or you just Trolling?

My first two SLRs were made by Pentax, the second being a Super Program which I bought in 1984. During the time I used that camera, my two daughters were born and grew up, and I carried that camera, along with with its zoom lens and Vivitar 285 flash, to countless school events; I believe that I took more pictures with that camera than with any other camera. Around 1994 I started thinking about getting a replacement camera, so I spent some time looking at AF cameras from Nikon, Canon, and Pentax; I eventually got a Canon because I liked the controls better. In 2005 the Canon failed at a wedding; the next week we were leaving on vacation, so I bought a supply of the button batteries that the Super Program consumed like candy at times, and took it with me because I knew that it worked. When we got home, I determined that the only real problem with the Canon was the flash, so for the next couple of years I used either my pocket camera or the Super Program when flash was called for. In 2007 I moved to digital by purchasing a Canon Rebel, which could use the AF lenses I already had.

Now I am at the point I faced in 1994, thinking about new camera(s), but in no hurry to actually do anything.

I have a list of "needs" to be met by my camera(s). In recent years I have met those "needs" by a combination of two cameras, a pocket camera and an SLR. It has occurred to me that a Q and a K-50 are candidates to meet those "needs". That is why I am here ... to learn more about what Pentax is now, as opposed to what I remember from thirty years ago. I did not begin this discussion, but I have become involved because I thought there was at least some possibility that someone from Ricoh Pentax might read here on occasion, and since they have plenty of time to modify their line, I put my 2-cents worth in. I will never worship a camera or a camera company - I do have a church for that purpose - so I will never be a cheerleader for any company, but I would like to see Pentax succeed. I would like to see the Q be more than the niche player it currently is. I am sorry if you think that is being a troll.

[magkelly]

I've used a loupe on my Olympus before I got the EVF. It did help outside some but I didn't much care for it. Too bulky and awkward.

[emergo]

But they also know that it is hard to compose a shot if you can't see anything.

The simple matter remains that Pentax will never win over a large portion of the market if they choose not to provide a viewfinder.

Oh Yes, I totally agree. I was just poking fun at all the self-proclaimed "serious" photogs out there who like to dismiss a camera because they think it's beneath them.

Although I personally haven't had too much trouble composing with the LCD, in my opinion (opinion, remember) an EVF MUST be part of the next Q camera in order for the system to survive in the marketplace. I think a camera like the Panny GM5 pretty much clinches that, with its built in EVF.

The lens I enjoy using most on my Q is a 1940s era Wollensak Cine Raptar. It can be pretty challenging to focus in the sunlight, and an EVF would solve that. I really love my Qs - I have two of them - however, a camera like the GM5 could lead me away from the Q system.

Ricoh/Pentax seems to be a very purposeful company (and by that I mean kinda stubborn). They have a philosophy that drives their product offerings, and it seems that they really wanted the Q to appeal to a mass audience that simply wants a fun, small camera to take snaps with. I don't think they ever considered that an enthusiast audience would be interested in the Q, and designed the features accordingly. Then they seem dead set on staying the course once they've made up their minds. This is the reason we don't have a Pentax FF. "Why create FF when we offer the 645? That is our premium product," they seem to be saying. I appreciate that they are designing products that other companies aren't, but frustrations are inevitable. Much of that frustration is born out of our enthusiasm for the brand and their products and a wish for them to succeed - so of course we are going to be opinionated about what they need to offer to succeed.

[magkelly]

The one thing on my later Oly's that's almost as good as an EVF and actually that has made it possible for me to use it a whole lot less actually is the touch screen tap focus thing. I never ever thought I'd like a touch screen on a camera but I love the one on my E-P3's. It makes it so easy to quickly pick a focus point on the LCD and get that perfect shot. It's pretty awesome actually. One little touch and BOOM!

[reh321]

Oh Yes, I totally agree. I was just poking fun at all the self-proclaimed "serious" photogs out there who like to dismiss a camera because they think it's beneath them.

Although I personally haven't had too much trouble composing with the LCD, in my opinion (opinion, remember) an EVF MUST be part of the next Q camera in order for the system to survive in the marketplace. I think a camera like the Panny GM5 pretty much clinches that, with its built in EVF.

The lens I enjoy using most on my Q is a 1940s era Wollensak Cine Raptar. It can be pretty challenging to focus in the sunlight, and an EVF would solve that. I really love my Qs - I have two of them - however, a camera like the GM5 could lead me away from the Q system.

Ricoh/Pentax seems to be a very purposeful company (and by that I mean kinda stubborn). They have a philosophy that drives their product offerings, and it seems that they really wanted the Q to appeal to a mass audience that simply wants a fun, small camera to take snaps with. I don't think they ever considered that an enthusiast audience would be interested in the Q, and designed the features accordingly. Then they seem dead set on staying the course once they've made up their minds. This is the reason we don't have a Pentax FF. "Why create FF when we offer the 645? That is our premium product," they seem to be saying. I appreciate that they are designing products that other companies aren't, but frustrations are inevitable. Much of that frustration is born out of our enthusiasm for the brand and their products and a wish for them to succeed - so of course we are going to be opinionated about what they need to offer to succeed.

I apologize. I think we basically agree here. I'm half thinking of getting a gold&black (I'm a Purdue grad) K-50 because it would irritate those who take their photography too seriously, and looking less like a pro reduces the scrutiny when I'm lining up a picture.

As far as the mass appeal market is concerned, I believe it is dead, in the US at least ... thanks to the cell phone. I don't expect camera companies to make much money there ever again, so they'll need to repurpose any products that were expected to succeed there. Now, apparently the Pentax Q and the Canon EOS-M are doing well in Asia, so conditions/expectations there must be somewhat different from Europe and North America.

[lytrytyr]

It has occurred to me that a Q and a K-50 are candidates to meet those "needs".

I have that combination, and find it works very well.

If you crank up the brightness on the Q screen (and on the K-50 for live view),
then there are very few situations where you can't see what you're doing.

Also, with the K to Q adapter, your K-50 lenses end up being super-telephotos,
without the size penalty.

[reh321]

So if you are not currently a Pentax owner then what are you doing on this forum? Are you really interested in learning about and supporting Pentax products or you just Trolling?

Today I discovered a thread entitled "Q series LCD and recent observations", in which you observed that the majority of users were having issues with LCD-only cameras/phones; have you found a good solution to this issue, or is it something I need to continue to worry about as I consider the possibility of my getting a Pentax Q that would, amongst other things, replace my viewfinder-equipped Canon Elph??

[jethro10]

You are so certain you should probably go to work in marketing. Better yet maybe become CEO of Ricoh.

I'm not even sure which "serious" photographer you are referring to. If you are discussing Professional photographers I kind of doubt this was the target market in the first place.

I think you are dead wrong. If you "grow" the camera to become something it wasn't designed for it probably still won't attract any "serious" photographers, but it will lose the market it has carved out for itself already. But, what do I know? Like I said, it was the perfect camera for me. It isn't for you.

You can hope Ricoh is reading your posts and agreeing, I sincerely hope they are not.

I agree.
Although my wife has an APS-C camera with a viewfinder, and does use it now and then, I hardly ever take pictures at eye level and often wonder what all the fuss is about.
The only really good VF I've ever seen is one that pivots, that at least gives you a better range. The Wifes VF's on the left of the camera, my dominant eye means my (modest) nose gets in the way and smudges the screen.

I don't often see a need for a VF for me. I often holiday in May and or Oct, so it's never as bright, I like night shots, the screen is way better for this, I like museums, stately homes, concerts and the like, all for me are better suited to a screen.
I do get the odd, and I mean odd time it's very sunny where I'm standing and I need to cup the top of the screen with my hand, and on those time, I'm glad the Q is small and light to give me a free hand.

It seems to me that at some point in time, it became VF=Serious, or VF=Better Picture. When it should have been VF=Sometimes useful, but never necessary.

J