[reh321]

My biggest gripe is the rather mediocre LCD, which we need to manually focus adapted lenses.....and when used with LCD magnifiers the poor LCD quality becomes apparent making manual focus difficult......obviously the lack of an eye viewfinder is really tough.

Wouldn't making a (smaller) EVF of sufficient quality to distinquish sharp edges be even harder than making a (larger) LCD of sufficient quality to distinquish sharp edges?

[pacerr]

The single biggest improvement in the Q's would be to upgrade the 3" LCD from 460,000 pixels to the 921,000 pixels as used for the K5.

[Pioneer]

The single biggest improvement in the Q's would be to upgrade the 3" LCD from 460,000 pixels to the 921,000 pixels as used for the K5.

I'm not so sure about that. Won't that put additional drain on the already taxed Q battery? A bigger battery would then be necessary and that in turn results in increased size and weight.

If I need to be able to see the LCD for critical focus I just use a 3rd party Hoodman. It does increase the size but I only need it when using manual focus lenses, and that is almost always done on a tripod. The great majority of the time I just use the rear LCD without a cover, or an optical viewfinder.

Again we have a situation where people would like to apply large camera, dSLR concepts to a tiny camera. We need to eliminate those tendencies and come up with solutions that will work inside the present small package. If we don't we will end up with another K-01 sized camera in the long run.

[pacerr]

That's a good point and reinforces the fact that trade-offs and compromises accompany all changes.

The fact remains, however, that the ability to critically focus the VF-less camera without the need to carry something the size of the Hoodman may be worth the reduced battery life for some of us. Extra batteries are a fact of life with the Q's anyway.

[vonBaloney]

Making the screen bigger and better doesn't make it easier to see in the bright light. What other solution is there besides a shade or viewer of some kind? I've seen collapsible hoods that don't add to the profile of the camera (much) until you are actually using it, but I don't see how you can get around needing one if you want to be able to manually focus (or just see what you are doing) under certain lighting conditions.

[CoachLittle]

Biggest disappointment is the lack of an EVF without a doubt in my case. You are going to sacrifice some in IQ going down to the smaller sensor, but you'll be amazed at what the IQ on the Q series can do. The biggest NON-disappointment comes in sheer fun and also the weight advantage to carrying a Q7 and a couple of lenses. Way lighter and NO disappointment there

I have a Q7, Q, and the 01, 02, 03, 06 and 07 lenses, (and the K-Q adapter) as well as a K-50 with the twin lens WR kit and a couple of inexpensive extra lenses. I travel a lot for work, and like to have a camera with me. The K-50 while a GREAT camera, never makes those trips - it's just too much extra to haul. The Q7 goes everywhere in one of those little Optio bags. I find the fisheye 03 a disappointment (hard to get focus), and my 02 lens is ok but not great. The 01 Prime is absolutely STELLAR. The 07 is just a toy, fun for goofing, or it just stays on the Q body in case I want to take a super small cam with me. The 06 is also a terrific lens. I tried out an Olympus XZ2 on a recent trip too, and the menu system was harder than heck to get my head around compared to the Q and K-50.

It is said often that the best camera is the one you have with you. The Q/Q7 are easy to travel with, batteries are inexpensive, a couple of lenses - and you're good to go. It's hard not to do well with a Q7-01-06 kit. Again, the 01 prime on the Q7 is just amazing at F1.9, and the 06 stays at F2.8 for the full range. That gets you a lot of coverage in a small kit bag and limited weight - and it will easily fit in a jacket pocket or small pouch bag. Again, the 02 is ok, but I rarely use it because the 01 is so much clearer.

For around town, or nature shots, it is great fun to take the K-50 out. And the lack of a viewfinder on the Q7 IS a bummer (focus peaking is darn tough to get exactly right). For general purpose fun though - the Q7 is hard to beat. Also, don't forget the little knob on the front of the Q for changing to user set modes - that is a great thing to set up if you want different types of photos on the quick.

Just my $.02. Cheers!

[pickone]

I'd go the other way around. Use the DSLR for wide angle shots and keep an 06 mounted on the Q. That telephoto lens is tiny. This is what I may end up trying when my Q7 kit arrives soon.

I lost my 06 lens on the beach recently, small can be a bad thing sometimes. I miss it but didn't miss it until after a tide cycle would have claimed it. Never got to use it that much since acquiring it. I was using an adapted lens to shoot seals, so the 06 was long enough.

---------- Post added 01-05-15 at 02:28 PM ----------

I lost my 06 lens on the beach recently, small can be a bad thing sometimes. I miss it but didn't miss it until after a tide cycle would have claimed it. Never got to use it that much since acquiring it. I was using an adapted lens to shoot seals, so the 06 was long enough.

I meant the 06 was "not" long enough

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[SteveNunez]

I'd be really bummed out if I lost my 06!

[Pioneer]

That's a good point and reinforces the fact that trade-offs and compromises accompany all changes.

The fact remains, however, that the ability to critically focus the VF-less camera without the need to carry something the size of the Hoodman may be worth the reduced battery life for some of us. Extra batteries are a fact of life with the Q's anyway.

I don't disagree that critical focus on the Q/Q7 can be tricky. Usually my little Hoodman works pretty well but it is bulky so I don't carry it unless I know I'll be using it.

I pack a small 8x magnifying loupe with me when using my large format cameras to ensure I am achieving critical focus on the ground glass. I may try packing my little magnifying loupe with me the next time I am out. Like I said, I am almost always on a tripod when doing this kind of work so maybe this will help. Maybe I can even throw a small dark cloth over me and the camera when I am doing it.

[SteveNunez]

LCD's have gotten much better since the original Q has been released.......there's no reason why Pentax couldn't upgrade the LCD without making it any larger than current size w/o affecting current drain........there are tons of 3" LCD's which are super thin.........it's one of the few technologies that improves at a staggering rate- just look at the plethora of tablets and smart phones with high res LCD's- not to mention the few modern compacts that are out currently........Pentax really needs to upgrade the LCD for the next Q version (if there's a new one ~~) it would add in the fun factor tremendously.

[pacerr]

Shielding the LCD screen from ambient light will always be a last ditch solution to a negative factor. But even with that black cape over your head you can see a significant difference in the clarity and resolving power between a .4M and a .9M pixel screen even if not using a magnifier. It's similar to the difference between course and fine ground glass or micro-prism focusing aids.

I've purchased or "MacGyvered" numerous hood and magnifier accessories but they don't address the issue of a course-grained LCD when manually focusing. The Q's already have 3" screens, they simply lack satisfactory resolution.

[SteveNunez]

Agreed- higher res 3" screen would be an excellent upgrade........a tilt out one would be SPECTACULAR!

[Pioneer]

Agreed- higher res 3" screen would be an excellent upgrade........a tilt out one would be SPECTACULAR!

Doubling the resolution alone significantly increases power consumption. Where does that additional power come from?

A tilt screen will definitely increase the size and likely require more power as well.

By the time you guys get done porking up the Q the OP may as well stay with his dSLR.

[reh321]

Doubling the resolution alone significantly increases power consumption. Where does that additional power come from?

If they did double the resolution, then the prospective user would have to decide whether s/he could live with the added power consumption. I don't quite yet have a hood for my Q7, so I don't yet have a personal opinion about whether I want that. However, extreme telephoto pictures were one of the factors motivating my decision to buy the Q7 (since my wife is a bird watcher). so I'd be concerned about anything that severely limits my ability to hand-focus adapted lenses.

A tilt screen will definitely increase the size and likely require more power as well.

From my observations of other cameras, I'm thinking that tilt-LCD would add roughly 1/8" to the "depth" of the camera. i don't see any reason why it would affect power usage.

[pacerr]

extreme telephoto pictures were one of the factors motivating my decision to buy the Q7.... so I'd be concerned about anything that severely limits my ability to hand-focus adapted lenses.

And this is the concern for many who choose the Q for its adaptability for extreme telephoto use at relatively little cost. The limitations of the low pixel count is quite apparent when using a magnifier and also in comparison with a .9M screen.

No doubt Pentax didn't anticipate (or accommodate) the potential market for manual focus use among a relatively small sample of the intended market or a different screen might have been spec'ed.

A quick search for the power spec's for such VF screens hasn't been enlightening but if it's proportional to the difference in larger monitor screens the power hit may not be so significant as to be prohibitive.

The OP queried the "greatest dissatisfaction" and the ability to focus via the existing LCD screen is my only real critique. Anything else is simply part of the accepted compromise in handling associated with the small size.