I want the next Q

**RobA_Oz** · 10-17-2014, 03:26 PM

I have, thanks Dave. Mine is the original Q, and later editions may be better suited. I doubt I'll ever part with it, by the way, because I love the build and the IQ (though that needs a bit of work in post, which I don't mind) but the limitation outdoors on a bright day is something I wish it didn't have.

alondrajack · 10-17-2014, 04:15 PM - **1 Like**

My first thought was "a detachable EVF" would be nice but then I realised that even though I also have problems with the bright days, this camera gives me an unparalled opportunity of creation. Now, I take the photographs outdoor as a challenge that I´m learning to enjoy, it is looking at things in a different way and I like my camera as it is.

reh321 · 11-03-2014, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by CWRailman

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.

My eyes simply cannot handle an LCD when taking pictures outdoors, and I won't buy a camera that I cannot use outdoors. I have seen a whole bunch of people having the same issues. If Pentax wants our business, then they will find a way of adding an evf; if they don't, then eventually I'll get one from someone else. It is very simple.

CWRailman · 11-03-2014, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by reh321

My eyes simply cannot handle an LCD when taking pictures outdoors, and I won't buy a camera that I cannot use outdoors. I have seen a whole bunch of people having the same issues. If Pentax wants our business, then they will find a way of adding an evf; if they don't, then eventually I'll get one from someone else. It is very simple.

You better start looking at other camera's then. And expect to pay more money, for a larger size body.

Pioneer · 11-03-2014, 07:48 PM

The Q was an answer to my own personal wishes when it came along. A tiny, interchangeable lens, portable camera. My biggest fear was that Pentax would do what every manufacturer in history seems to do to beautiful, minimal designs, add more stuff and make it bigger. And although the Q7 is marginally bigger, and not quite as well built as the original Q, so far they seem to have resisted that urge.

There are a lot of things I think can be done, all without making the camera any larger. I still have lots of wishes. A faster processor, better battery life. more and smaller prime lenses, improved colors and flare resistance for the display screen, a small, folding, wire-frame viewfinder. I would like the sensor resolution reduced and the photosites enlarged to produce better dynamic range. Maybe go with a Foveon design that improves color capture without enlarging the sensor. Of course without a much better processor and better battery life that would cripple the current camera so better to wait a while longer.

I am not thrilled that the Q7 is larger, but I do like the new, more tactile, buttons very much. Those little design touches are great but this camera already is great, and the potential for more is there without enlarging anything. Making things bigger is the easy way out. Whenever these discussions get started the first thing the unimaginative want to do is enlarge the camera. Instead why not figure out how to make it better inside the current form factor.

**monochrome** · 11-03-2014, 08:45 PM

I often modify technique to suit the design of a tool.

Recalling view cameras, I carry an opaque black piece of fabric that I drape over my head and the Q when Shooting in bright sunlight (I use a traditional, two-handed grip with the LCD about 6" in front of my face).

Problem solved!!

Pioneer · 11-03-2014, 08:55 PM

Good idea monochrome. Another idea I had was to build a small tent like the Crown and Speed Graphics attached to the back of their ground glass. It could fold up and sit in your pocket or wallet like a business card until you needed it. If you built it out of a gray card you could serve multiple purposes.

CWRailman · 11-03-2014, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Pioneer

The Q was an answer to my own personal wishes when it came along. A tiny, interchangeable lens, portable camera. My biggest fear was that Pentax would do what every manufacturer in history seems to do to beautiful, minimal designs, add more stuff and make it bigger. And although the Q7 is marginally bigger, and not quite as well built as the original Q, so far they seem to have resisted that urge.

There are a lot of things I think can be done, all without making the camera any larger. I still have lots of wishes. A faster processor, better battery life. more and smaller prime lenses, improved colors and flare resistance for the display screen, a small, folding, wire-frame viewfinder. I would like the sensor resolution reduced and the photosites enlarged to produce better dynamic range. Maybe go with a Foveon design that improves color capture without enlarging the sensor. Of course without a much better processor and better battery life that would cripple the current camera so better to wait a while longer.

I am not thrilled that the Q7 is larger, but I do like the new, more tactile, buttons very much. Those little design touches are great but this camera already is great, and the potential for more is there without enlarging anything. Making things bigger is the easy way out. Whenever these discussions get started the first thing the unimaginative want to do is enlarge the camera. Instead why not figure out how to make it better inside the current form factor.

While I don't think the slight change in physical size between the original Q and the Q10-Q7 is significant, in fact my Q7 fits into the leather holder I had used with my Q so it can't be that much larger and I am one who appreciates the ergonomically inspired changes to improve the grip. I agree with you about those wishing to change the Q series by adding features such as EVF etc. There are other companies making cameras with those features and Pentax does not need to follow along. I enjoy the Q series for what it is. (Or as we have grown to refer to it as the Baby Pentax) I really enjoy seeing the images that photographers are producing with the Q series and sharing with us on this forum. Maybe more of that and less wishing for what it is not.

sapporodan · 11-04-2014, 01:41 AM

It is strange to read so many people don't seem to like the idea of adding an EVF, as it's just an attachment, it wont make the body any bigger to adapt the hot shoe with a few extra contacts. and you don't need to buy it if you don't want it.

Out of curiosity I slotted my Olympus VF-3 Viewfinder onto my Q, and it actually looked quite good, with the larger lenses the Q's not pocketable anyway, so the EVF made no real difference in handling, and it looked quite nice.

I don't even think making one would be that expensive, a compact electronic viewfinder would make a lot of Q owners happy.
Also a compact flash that can bounce like Nikon has for the 1 system would also be good.

**RobA_Oz** · 11-04-2014, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by sapporodan

It is strange to read so many people don't seem to like the idea of adding an EVF, as it's just an attachment, it wont make the body any bigger to adapt the hot shoe with a few extra contacts. and you don't need to buy it if you don't want it.

It is strange, isn't it? It's all very well to make the best you can with equipment that requires some extra effort because of what it doesn't do or have (and top marks to those who make that effort) but it's quite another thing to poohoo suggestions for changes to the next model. The question that Ricoh's marketing people would undoubtedly be asking is what next year's customers will find attractive, not what last year's customers want them to find attractive.

The notion of an optional accessory EVF provides a compromise that covers both sets of wants, but at a cost. Ricoh could clearly adopt this approach, as they've had such a system for their GR and GXR cameras for a long time, but the trend among compacts now is for an inbuilt EVF. Still, when have Ricoh or Pentax worried that much about other makers' trends?

sapporodan · 11-04-2014, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

Still, when have Ricoh or Pentax worried that much about other makers' trends?

Ha true. That why I love Ricoh and Pentax (and Sigma) They have always followed their own path and produce cameras and lenses that other manufactures would never do!

**Mikesul** · 11-04-2014, 05:24 AM

I thought the LCD was a deal killer when I first got the Q but I have become used to it and there is always a work around of some kind such as loupes, cloth head covers or ClearViewer. Whatever works for you. In the bright Arizona sun I at first thought that use of he Q without one of the above solutions was impossible but over the past year I find myself becoming used to using it often with only the minimally shaded LCD. I do not have as good a view as with an aid but it is usually adequate for framing even with the 06 at full length.

reh321 · 11-04-2014, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by 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!

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

emergo · 11-04-2014, 06:11 PM - **1 Like**

Too many "serious" photographers are closed minded snobs who dismiss the Q as a toy (as if that's a bad thing). Their noses are so stuck up their backsides that they've forgotten that photography is fun. Well, let them shout "bah, humbug." We know better.

reh321 · 11-04-2014, 07:08 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by emergo

Too many "serious" photographers are closed minded snobs who dismiss the Q as a toy (as if that's a bad thing). Their noses are so stuck up their backsides that they've forgotten that photography is fun. Well, let them shout "bah, humbug." We know better.

But they also know that it is hard to compose a shot if you can't see anything.
Several years ago my wife and I were at the Conway Scenic Railroad in New Hampshire when I saw an elderly woman struggling to take a picture. When she finally finished, she told me that one of the locomotives looked just like the one that her (late) husband had operated for a number of years, so she was determined to get a picture of it, but she could see virtually nothing on the LCD in the bright sunshine; in fact, I could see virtually nothing either, and was very grateful for the viewfinder on my camera.
I have had enough trouble composing pictures on an LCD in bright sunlight, even with the LCD turned up to maximum brightness, that I understand why many talk about an LCD turning you into a "point-and-hope" photographer.
Using an LCD to compose a photograph also tends to encourage poor posture - holding the camera so far from your body that your arms become levers, inducing unnecessary instability into the process.
The simple matter remains that Pentax will never win over a large portion of the market if they choose not to provide a viewfinder.
They get to make that choice.
Those of us buying cameras get to react to that choice.

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

10-17-2014, 03:26 PM	#31
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	I have, thanks Dave. Mine is the original Q, and later editions may be better suited. I doubt I'll ever part with it, by the way, because I love the build and the IQ (though that needs a bit of work in post, which I don't mind) but the limitation outdoors on a bright day is something I wish it didn't have.

10-17-2014, 04:15 PM - 1 Like	#32
alondrajack New Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 13	My first thought was "a detachable EVF" would be nice but then I realised that even though I also have problems with the bright days, this camera gives me an unparalled opportunity of creation. Now, I take the photographs outdoor as a challenge that I´m learning to enjoy, it is looking at things in a different way and I like my camera as it is.

11-03-2014, 06:55 PM	#33
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by CWRailman 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. My eyes simply cannot handle an LCD when taking pictures outdoors, and I won't buy a camera that I cannot use outdoors. I have seen a whole bunch of people having the same issues. If Pentax wants our business, then they will find a way of adding an evf; if they don't, then eventually I'll get one from someone else. It is very simple.

11-03-2014, 07:16 PM	#34
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by reh321 My eyes simply cannot handle an LCD when taking pictures outdoors, and I won't buy a camera that I cannot use outdoors. I have seen a whole bunch of people having the same issues. If Pentax wants our business, then they will find a way of adding an evf; if they don't, then eventually I'll get one from someone else. It is very simple. You better start looking at other camera's then. And expect to pay more money, for a larger size body.

11-03-2014, 07:48 PM	#35
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	The Q was an answer to my own personal wishes when it came along. A tiny, interchangeable lens, portable camera. My biggest fear was that Pentax would do what every manufacturer in history seems to do to beautiful, minimal designs, add more stuff and make it bigger. And although the Q7 is marginally bigger, and not quite as well built as the original Q, so far they seem to have resisted that urge. There are a lot of things I think can be done, all without making the camera any larger. I still have lots of wishes. A faster processor, better battery life. more and smaller prime lenses, improved colors and flare resistance for the display screen, a small, folding, wire-frame viewfinder. I would like the sensor resolution reduced and the photosites enlarged to produce better dynamic range. Maybe go with a Foveon design that improves color capture without enlarging the sensor. Of course without a much better processor and better battery life that would cripple the current camera so better to wait a while longer. I am not thrilled that the Q7 is larger, but I do like the new, more tactile, buttons very much. Those little design touches are great but this camera already is great, and the potential for more is there without enlarging anything. Making things bigger is the easy way out. Whenever these discussions get started the first thing the unimaginative want to do is enlarge the camera. Instead why not figure out how to make it better inside the current form factor.

11-03-2014, 08:45 PM	#36
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I often modify technique to suit the design of a tool. Recalling view cameras, I carry an opaque black piece of fabric that I drape over my head and the Q when Shooting in bright sunlight (I use a traditional, two-handed grip with the LCD about 6" in front of my face). Problem solved!!

11-03-2014, 08:55 PM	#37
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	Good idea monochrome. Another idea I had was to build a small tent like the Crown and Speed Graphics attached to the back of their ground glass. It could fold up and sit in your pocket or wallet like a business card until you needed it. If you built it out of a gray card you could serve multiple purposes.

11-03-2014, 09:32 PM	#38
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by Pioneer The Q was an answer to my own personal wishes when it came along. A tiny, interchangeable lens, portable camera. My biggest fear was that Pentax would do what every manufacturer in history seems to do to beautiful, minimal designs, add more stuff and make it bigger. And although the Q7 is marginally bigger, and not quite as well built as the original Q, so far they seem to have resisted that urge. There are a lot of things I think can be done, all without making the camera any larger. I still have lots of wishes. A faster processor, better battery life. more and smaller prime lenses, improved colors and flare resistance for the display screen, a small, folding, wire-frame viewfinder. I would like the sensor resolution reduced and the photosites enlarged to produce better dynamic range. Maybe go with a Foveon design that improves color capture without enlarging the sensor. Of course without a much better processor and better battery life that would cripple the current camera so better to wait a while longer. I am not thrilled that the Q7 is larger, but I do like the new, more tactile, buttons very much. Those little design touches are great but this camera already is great, and the potential for more is there without enlarging anything. Making things bigger is the easy way out. Whenever these discussions get started the first thing the unimaginative want to do is enlarge the camera. Instead why not figure out how to make it better inside the current form factor. While I don't think the slight change in physical size between the original Q and the Q10-Q7 is significant, in fact my Q7 fits into the leather holder I had used with my Q so it can't be that much larger and I am one who appreciates the ergonomically inspired changes to improve the grip. I agree with you about those wishing to change the Q series by adding features such as EVF etc. There are other companies making cameras with those features and Pentax does not need to follow along. I enjoy the Q series for what it is. (Or as we have grown to refer to it as the Baby Pentax) I really enjoy seeing the images that photographers are producing with the Q series and sharing with us on this forum. Maybe more of that and less wishing for what it is not.

11-04-2014, 01:41 AM	#39
sapporodan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 123	It is strange to read so many people don't seem to like the idea of adding an EVF, as it's just an attachment, it wont make the body any bigger to adapt the hot shoe with a few extra contacts. and you don't need to buy it if you don't want it. Out of curiosity I slotted my Olympus VF-3 Viewfinder onto my Q, and it actually looked quite good, with the larger lenses the Q's not pocketable anyway, so the EVF made no real difference in handling, and it looked quite nice. I don't even think making one would be that expensive, a compact electronic viewfinder would make a lot of Q owners happy. Also a compact flash that can bounce like Nikon has for the 1 system would also be good.

11-04-2014, 04:03 AM	#40
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by sapporodan It is strange to read so many people don't seem to like the idea of adding an EVF, as it's just an attachment, it wont make the body any bigger to adapt the hot shoe with a few extra contacts. and you don't need to buy it if you don't want it. It is strange, isn't it? It's all very well to make the best you can with equipment that requires some extra effort because of what it doesn't do or have (and top marks to those who make that effort) but it's quite another thing to poohoo suggestions for changes to the next model. The question that Ricoh's marketing people would undoubtedly be asking is what next year's customers will find attractive, not what last year's customers want them to find attractive. The notion of an optional accessory EVF provides a compromise that covers both sets of wants, but at a cost. Ricoh could clearly adopt this approach, as they've had such a system for their GR and GXR cameras for a long time, but the trend among compacts now is for an inbuilt EVF. Still, when have Ricoh or Pentax worried that much about other makers' trends?

11-04-2014, 04:19 AM	#41
sapporodan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 123	Originally posted by RobA_Oz Still, when have Ricoh or Pentax worried that much about other makers' trends? Ha true. That why I love Ricoh and Pentax (and Sigma) They have always followed their own path and produce cameras and lenses that other manufactures would never do!

11-04-2014, 05:24 AM	#42
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	I thought the LCD was a deal killer when I first got the Q but I have become used to it and there is always a work around of some kind such as loupes, cloth head covers or ClearViewer. Whatever works for you. In the bright Arizona sun I at first thought that use of he Q without one of the above solutions was impossible but over the past year I find myself becoming used to using it often with only the minimally shaded LCD. I do not have as good a view as with an aid but it is usually adequate for framing even with the 06 at full length.

11-04-2014, 08:30 AM	#43
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by 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! 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

11-04-2014, 06:11 PM - 1 Like	#44
emergo Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Coloroado Photos: Gallery Posts: 271	Too many "serious" photographers are closed minded snobs who dismiss the Q as a toy (as if that's a bad thing). Their noses are so stuck up their backsides that they've forgotten that photography is fun. Well, let them shout "bah, humbug." We know better.

11-04-2014, 07:08 PM - 1 Like	#45
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by emergo Too many "serious" photographers are closed minded snobs who dismiss the Q as a toy (as if that's a bad thing). Their noses are so stuck up their backsides that they've forgotten that photography is fun. Well, let them shout "bah, humbug." We know better. But they also know that it is hard to compose a shot if you can't see anything. Several years ago my wife and I were at the Conway Scenic Railroad in New Hampshire when I saw an elderly woman struggling to take a picture. When she finally finished, she told me that one of the locomotives looked just like the one that her (late) husband had operated for a number of years, so she was determined to get a picture of it, but she could see virtually nothing on the LCD in the bright sunshine; in fact, I could see virtually nothing either, and was very grateful for the viewfinder on my camera. I have had enough trouble composing pictures on an LCD in bright sunlight, even with the LCD turned up to maximum brightness, that I understand why many talk about an LCD turning you into a "point-and-hope" photographer. Using an LCD to compose a photograph also tends to encourage poor posture - holding the camera so far from your body that your arms become levers, inducing unnecessary instability into the process. The simple matter remains that Pentax will never win over a large portion of the market if they choose not to provide a viewfinder. They get to make that choice. Those of us buying cameras get to react to that choice.