I want the next Q

sapporodan · 11-06-2014, 09:30 AM

I think its time we all need to agree to disagree on this viewfinder issue, otherwise this argument will never end.

Its a bit like arguing over which is better a 35mm or a 50mm prime..............seriously please don't ever start that one

jethro10 · 11-06-2014, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by sapporodan

I think its time we all need to agree to disagree on this viewfinder issue, otherwise this argument will never end.

Its a bit like arguing over which is better a 35mm or a 50mm prime..............seriously please don't ever start that one

I think that's something we can all probably agree upon!

J

CWRailman · 11-06-2014, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by reh321

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??

I started a new thread on holding the Q and reducing glare to demonstrate my methods.

reh321 · 11-06-2014, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by sapporodan

I think its time we all need to agree to disagree on this viewfinder issue, otherwise this argument will never end.

Its a bit like arguing over which is better a 35mm or a 50mm prime..............seriously please don't ever start that one

I really don't think that is going to happen.

There are people here who seem to be totally satisfied without a viewfinder.

There are others here who have said that they would love to have a Q but the lack of an EVF is a deal-breaker.
They may feel disloyal somehow when they look at, or even actually buy, an Olympus or Panasonic, but if Pentax won't meet their need, they don't know what else to do other than to beg Pentax to hear their need.

CWRailman · 11-06-2014, 05:55 PM

Prior to the K-20, Pentax did not offer a “Live view” mode. Though it had one of the best viewfinders in the industry, if you read comments from that time period, those who claimed to be potential customers said they would not buy it because it did not offer “Live view”. Now the Q series has “Live view” and no viewfinder and potential customers say they won’t buy it because it does have a EVF. I guess there is just no pleasing everyone. And that is why Baskin and Robbins offers 31 flavors.

Na Horuk · 11-06-2014, 06:18 PM

That looks a lot like the Fuji XT1. And I like it!

reh321 · 11-06-2014, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by CWRailman

Prior to the K-20, Pentax did not offer a “Live view” mode. Though it had one of the best viewfinders in the industry, if you read comments from that time period, those who claimed to be potential customers said they would not buy it because it did not offer “Live view”. Now the Q series has “Live view” and no viewfinder and potential customers say they won’t buy it because it does have a EVF. I guess there is just no pleasing everyone. And that is why Baskin and Robbins offers 31 flavors.

I don't know what the breakdown is between those who insist on "live view" and those who insist on a viewfinder.

Personally I view "live view" as primarily for inexperienced people who hold the camera at arm's length while trying to take a picture; but that may just be my impression. I do know that most of those at the UglyHedgeHog, a general photography site where I am a regular, are even more adamant than I am in demanding a viewfinder. In fact, I was delayed for a few minutes getting back to this discussion because I was involved over there with a discussion where people are dissing "live view" as a means of composing and focusing. Maybe Pentax is willing to ignore that segment of the market. They get to make that decision; I would be disappointed, but then I will just go on with Olympus or Sony, because Pentax does get to make that decision. I do know that Sony is having corporate financial issues, so this would be a good time for others to try to get settled in the mirrorless niche.

That is why some of us have suggested either that they produce a "deluxe" version which includes an EVF or that they provide an optional reasonably-priced clip-on EVF

---------- Post added 11-06-14 at 09:25 PM ----------

I have now watched the DP Review interview with John Carlson of Ricoh. Two things caught my attention as relating to this discussion:

(1) he indicated some confusion / changing of direction concerning which market segment the Q series was aimed at. If their primary interest now is people who currently use cell phones to take pictures, then they would be wooing people who hold the LCD out in front of them while aiming using "live view", and those people might not value an EVF at all.

(2) he said that their goal is to provide better control than is available using a compact camera or a phone. He may have been thinking in terms of Tv/Av/P/M shutter control options, burst mode, etc, but IMHO composition is a major component of control.

As I have already said, I believe I could get a lot out of a Q camera, and right now I'm just looking. My actual decision could be a couple of years away. I would like for Pentax to make the Q more useful to me, but I can't force them to market to me. If I don't fit into their future, I will cope.

**luftfluss** · 11-06-2014, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I don't know what the breakdown is between those who insist on "live view" and those who insist on a viewfinder.

Personally I view "live view" as primarily for inexperienced people who hold the camera at arm's length while trying to take a picture; but that may just be my impression. I do know that most of those at the UglyHedgeHog, a general photography site where I am a regular, are even more adamant than I am in demanding a viewfinder. In fact, I was delayed for a few minutes getting back to this discussion because I was involved over there with a discussion where people are dissing "live view" as a means of composing and focusing. Maybe Pentax is willing to ignore that segment of the market. They get to make that decision; I would be disappointed, but then I will just go on with Olympus or Sony, because Pentax does get to make that decision. I do know that Sony is having corporate financial issues, so this would be a good time for others to try to get settled in the mirrorless niche.

That is why some of us have suggested either that they produce a "deluxe" version which includes an EVF or that they provide an optional reasonably-priced clip-on EVF.

While undoubtedly many people who compose via the camera's LCD screen hold the camera out at arms' length (photozombies), not everyone does so. Some of us K-01 users hold the camera with our elbows clamped to our sides and the hands positioned in a traditional SLR-type grip. This results in the camera being less than 12" away from the head. I've been using this technique with various P&S cameras for well over a decade. I've also bonked myself in the head more than once, so accustomed to putting my eye to my DSLR's OVF that I've distractedly tried to do the same thing with my P&S.

People's preferences for EVF/LCD/OVF are all valid, and I especially appreciate that many cameras provide the option of using more than one.

Pioneer · 11-06-2014, 09:33 PM

I don't mind an EVF. Just don't slab it somewhere like some afterthought. Incorporate it into the current form factor.

Maybe you can put the viewfinder window behind the current popup flash unit. The feed will come from the screen anyway, why does an EVF have to take up that entire corner front to back? Use your imagination for crimeny's sake. Everyone just wants to turn the camera into some wannabe, minnie, SLR looking thing. Yuk! This just makes it bigger. Even an EVF that slides into the flash socket is better than that, as long as it does not require some huge socket on the back.

---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 08:38 PM ----------

What about using the display screen we have now? Have a small clip on that slides into the flash socket with a rubberized, magnified, eyepiece that overhangs the top center of the current display screen. When it is slid in place the screen blacks out and a small square/rectangle in that center part of the display screen lights up under the magnified eyepiece. You put your eye to it like a normal viewfinder and look at it like a normal viewfinder.

I don't know. Think outside the box a bit. At least that will keep your nose from smashing into the display screen!

magkelly · 11-07-2014, 12:13 AM

The simple solution for suiting both camps of thought would be to make it an optional accessory, like Olympus does. Or at least removable for when you don't need it. I don't have to use the EVF all the time to use my M43 cameras. I can, but it's optional. I can also use the touch screen. I use both, whatever works. I do find the EVF very helpful when it's bright. The LCD can be pretty useless then. Or sometimes when I am using MF lenses. But I can still take it off and put it away when I want to. Best of both worlds I think.

11-06-2014, 09:33 PM	#69
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	I don't mind an EVF. Just don't slab it somewhere like some afterthought. Incorporate it into the current form factor. Maybe you can put the viewfinder window behind the current popup flash unit. The feed will come from the screen anyway, why does an EVF have to take up that entire corner front to back? Use your imagination for crimeny's sake. Everyone just wants to turn the camera into some wannabe, minnie, SLR looking thing. Yuk! This just makes it bigger. Even an EVF that slides into the flash socket is better than that, as long as it does not require some huge socket on the back. ---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 08:38 PM ---------- What about using the display screen we have now? Have a small clip on that slides into the flash socket with a rubberized, magnified, eyepiece that overhangs the top center of the current display screen. When it is slid in place the screen blacks out and a small square/rectangle in that center part of the display screen lights up under the magnified eyepiece. You put your eye to it like a normal viewfinder and look at it like a normal viewfinder. I don't know. Think outside the box a bit. At least that will keep your nose from smashing into the display screen! Last edited by Pioneer; 11-06-2014 at 09:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bought the Q! Now I have Q(uestions)	Caat	Pentax Q	4	06-12-2014 03:22 AM
Pentax, please add in camera focus stacking to the next Q body.	barondla	Pentax Q	8	06-07-2014 03:00 AM
For Sale - Sold: I WANT A Q!! My K7 Kit is all for Sale	Pioneer	Sold Items	7	08-15-2012 10:21 PM
Why I might want the Pentax Q	Clinton	Pentax Compact Cameras	47	07-04-2011 01:00 PM
At last I know, what next camera I want...	Male Gorilla	Pentax News and Rumors	17	03-26-2009 06:13 PM

11-06-2014, 09:30 AM	#61
sapporodan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 123	I think its time we all need to agree to disagree on this viewfinder issue, otherwise this argument will never end. Its a bit like arguing over which is better a 35mm or a 50mm prime..............seriously please don't ever start that one

11-06-2014, 09:39 AM	#62
jethro10 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Lake District Posts: 222	Originally posted by sapporodan I think its time we all need to agree to disagree on this viewfinder issue, otherwise this argument will never end. Its a bit like arguing over which is better a 35mm or a 50mm prime..............seriously please don't ever start that one I think that's something we can all probably agree upon! J

11-06-2014, 09:54 AM	#63
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by reh321 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?? I started a new thread on holding the Q and reducing glare to demonstrate my methods.

11-06-2014, 12:05 PM	#64
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,178	Originally posted by sapporodan I think its time we all need to agree to disagree on this viewfinder issue, otherwise this argument will never end. Its a bit like arguing over which is better a 35mm or a 50mm prime..............seriously please don't ever start that one I really don't think that is going to happen. There are people here who seem to be totally satisfied without a viewfinder. There are others here who have said that they would love to have a Q but the lack of an EVF is a deal-breaker. They may feel disloyal somehow when they look at, or even actually buy, an Olympus or Panasonic, but if Pentax won't meet their need, they don't know what else to do other than to beg Pentax to hear their need.

11-06-2014, 05:55 PM	#65
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Prior to the K-20, Pentax did not offer a “Live view” mode. Though it had one of the best viewfinders in the industry, if you read comments from that time period, those who claimed to be potential customers said they would not buy it because it did not offer “Live view”. Now the Q series has “Live view” and no viewfinder and potential customers say they won’t buy it because it does have a EVF. I guess there is just no pleasing everyone. And that is why Baskin and Robbins offers 31 flavors.

11-06-2014, 06:18 PM	#66
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	That looks a lot like the Fuji XT1. And I like it!

11-06-2014, 06:34 PM	#67
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,178	Originally posted by CWRailman Prior to the K-20, Pentax did not offer a “Live view” mode. Though it had one of the best viewfinders in the industry, if you read comments from that time period, those who claimed to be potential customers said they would not buy it because it did not offer “Live view”. Now the Q series has “Live view” and no viewfinder and potential customers say they won’t buy it because it does have a EVF. I guess there is just no pleasing everyone. And that is why Baskin and Robbins offers 31 flavors. I don't know what the breakdown is between those who insist on "live view" and those who insist on a viewfinder. Personally I view "live view" as primarily for inexperienced people who hold the camera at arm's length while trying to take a picture; but that may just be my impression. I do know that most of those at the UglyHedgeHog, a general photography site where I am a regular, are even more adamant than I am in demanding a viewfinder. In fact, I was delayed for a few minutes getting back to this discussion because I was involved over there with a discussion where people are dissing "live view" as a means of composing and focusing. Maybe Pentax is willing to ignore that segment of the market. They get to make that decision; I would be disappointed, but then I will just go on with Olympus or Sony, because Pentax does get to make that decision. I do know that Sony is having corporate financial issues, so this would be a good time for others to try to get settled in the mirrorless niche. That is why some of us have suggested either that they produce a "deluxe" version which includes an EVF or that they provide an optional reasonably-priced clip-on EVF ---------- Post added 11-06-14 at 09:25 PM ---------- I have now watched the DP Review interview with John Carlson of Ricoh. Two things caught my attention as relating to this discussion: (1) he indicated some confusion / changing of direction concerning which market segment the Q series was aimed at. If their primary interest now is people who currently use cell phones to take pictures, then they would be wooing people who hold the LCD out in front of them while aiming using "live view", and those people might not value an EVF at all. (2) he said that their goal is to provide better control than is available using a compact camera or a phone. He may have been thinking in terms of Tv/Av/P/M shutter control options, burst mode, etc, but IMHO composition is a major component of control. As I have already said, I believe I could get a lot out of a Q camera, and right now I'm just looking. My actual decision could be a couple of years away. I would like for Pentax to make the Q more useful to me, but I can't force them to market to me. If I don't fit into their future, I will cope.

11-06-2014, 09:20 PM	#68
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by reh321 I don't know what the breakdown is between those who insist on "live view" and those who insist on a viewfinder. Personally I view "live view" as primarily for inexperienced people who hold the camera at arm's length while trying to take a picture; but that may just be my impression. I do know that most of those at the UglyHedgeHog, a general photography site where I am a regular, are even more adamant than I am in demanding a viewfinder. In fact, I was delayed for a few minutes getting back to this discussion because I was involved over there with a discussion where people are dissing "live view" as a means of composing and focusing. Maybe Pentax is willing to ignore that segment of the market. They get to make that decision; I would be disappointed, but then I will just go on with Olympus or Sony, because Pentax does get to make that decision. I do know that Sony is having corporate financial issues, so this would be a good time for others to try to get settled in the mirrorless niche. That is why some of us have suggested either that they produce a "deluxe" version which includes an EVF or that they provide an optional reasonably-priced clip-on EVF. While undoubtedly many people who compose via the camera's LCD screen hold the camera out at arms' length (photozombies), not everyone does so. Some of us K-01 users hold the camera with our elbows clamped to our sides and the hands positioned in a traditional SLR-type grip. This results in the camera being less than 12" away from the head. I've been using this technique with various P&S cameras for well over a decade. I've also bonked myself in the head more than once, so accustomed to putting my eye to my DSLR's OVF that I've distractedly tried to do the same thing with my P&S. People's preferences for EVF/LCD/OVF are all valid, and I especially appreciate that many cameras provide the option of using more than one.

11-07-2014, 12:13 AM	#70
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	The simple solution for suiting both camps of thought would be to make it an optional accessory, like Olympus does. Or at least removable for when you don't need it. I don't have to use the EVF all the time to use my M43 cameras. I can, but it's optional. I can also use the touch screen. I use both, whatever works. I do find the EVF very helpful when it's bright. The LCD can be pretty useless then. Or sometimes when I am using MF lenses. But I can still take it off and put it away when I want to. Best of both worlds I think.