[sapporodan]

The Q's in a tricky position, It's a great camera but it's not getting the reignition it deserves. Its a wonderful concept that I still feel is let down by the lack of lenses compared to the competition.

And now the competition has lenses and body's the almost same size as the Q's, Pentax really needs to step up the game.

Pentax/Ricoh still seem tight lipped about the future of the Q I really hope it's not going to become a dead system, I know they have said they will support it, but
I cant even find any recent rumours let alone facts about its future.

Come on Pentax give us some love.

[TER-OR]

I'd definitely consider getting a wider prime for the Q. I like the 01 images, but for some purposes, it's a bit tight. The 02 is always there, though.

It's a bit of an oddball, though, with lenses costing what they do - for a tiny system it seems incongruous since the bodies are relatively inexpensive. The wider primes turn it into a pseudo-rangefinder though, which is every bit as convenient and spontaneous as the old film rangefinders were.

[reh321]

I'd definitely consider getting a wider prime for the Q. I like the 01 images, but for some purposes, it's a bit tight.

Interestingly enough, the standard prime 01 lens gives roughly the same field of view on the Q that a 48mm lens would give on a 35mm film camera;
on a Q7, it gives roughly the same field of view that a 40mm lens would give on a 35mm film camera.
Of course, 50mm was considered to be the standard lens in 35mm film days.
I'm thinking that we may have become accustomed to wider fields of view in recent years, which would explain why point-and-shoot cameras start off at such a wide-angle point.

[reh321]

At another photography forum, someone is complaining that his Nikon 1 won't provide certain services, such as magnification when manual focusing and exposure information, when using "foreign" lenses. I assured him that the Pentax Q family does those things regardless what lens you are using.

In other news, my Canon Rebel suddenly died yesterday. Although I consider my Q to be my secondary camera, I told my wife that this was not an "urgent" issue, because my Q-7 is sufficiently capable for anything I need until I sort out what is happening with K-50, K-S1, K-S2, K-3 cameras. This is the first time I've had a secondary camera that I would have said such things about. Last year I would have been very uneasy about not having a primary camera with our daughter's grad school commencement just nine days away.

[iCrop]

This from https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/147-pentax-mirrorless-cameras/240457-aeri...i-phantom.html

[fuent104]

Interestingly enough, the standard prime 01 lens gives roughly the same field of view on the Q that a 48mm lens would give on a 35mm film camera;
on a Q7, it gives roughly the same field of view that a 40mm lens would give on a 35mm film camera.
Of course, 50mm was considered to be the standard lens in 35mm film days.
I'm thinking that we may have become accustomed to wider fields of view in recent years, which would explain why point-and-shoot cameras start off at such a wide-angle point.

The 50mm was the one that came with the camera, but nobody ever considered it wide, and I personally believe the idea of the 50mm as a "normal" lens is marketing with nothing to substantiate it. The field of view looks absolutely nothing like what I see with my eyes.It looks like a short telephoto to me.

Film point-and-shoot cameras typically had 28mm lenses, or something similar.

I really want an 01-quality wide prime and an 01-quality telephoto prime.

[TER-OR]

Film point-and-shoot cameras typically had 28mm lenses, or something similar.

I really want an 01-quality wide prime and an 01-quality telephoto prime.

Most sold with 50mm and 135mm lenses. The 24-28mm range seems to be next most common, which would have been moderately wide, probably not far off wide normal view. I think "normal" kind of means magnification, not angle of view - but it's probably not exact anyway...

Now 01 quality wide angle? Yes. Very yes. Telephoto? Maybe. I've used the Q as my wide angle when my K5 has longer lenses, a nice combination.

[Tony Belding]

on a Q7, it gives roughly the same field of view that a 40mm lens would give on a 35mm film camera.
Of course, 50mm was considered to be the standard lens in 35mm film days.

The designation of a normal or standard lens is somewhat arbitrary, since you never know how the image is going to be viewed. However, according to Wikipedia: "For still photography, a lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is considered to be a normal lens..." If you follow that guidance, then a "true normal" lens for a full-frame 135 format camera would be 43mm. (And I don't think it's coincidence that we have the Pentax-FA 43mm Limited.)

35mm film cameras are sort of the exception to the rule. The original Leica shipped with a 50mm lens -- according to legend, because that's what Oskar Barnack had handy in the workshop when making the prototype in 1913! The Leica was, of course, highly influential and widely copied. And so the nifty fifty tradition began.

However... It seems like most medium format cameras are closer to the "true normal" film diagonal, though. The diagonal of 6X6 format film is 79.2mm, and my Ricoh Diacord G has an 80mm lens. The diagonal of 6X9 film is 101.0mm, and my Fuji GW690 has a 100mm lens. They stayed very close to the formula.

[reh321]

Most sold with 50mm and 135mm lenses. The 24-28mm range seems to be next most common, which would have been moderately wide, probably not far off wide normal view. I think "normal" kind of means magnification, not angle of view - but it's probably not exact anyway...

Now 01 quality wide angle? Yes. Very yes. Telephoto? Maybe. I've used the Q as my wide angle when my K5 has longer lenses, a nice combination.

As I've commented before, in the days before auto-focus, I was quite happy with three lenses - 28, 50, and telephoto zoom. I use the 01 most of the time with my Q7, so I also would be happy to have a 4 or 5mm lens to add to my 01 and 06 (and leave the clunky 02 at home!) - assuming that the prime wide-angle was priced more like the 01 and much less like the 08, that is.

[VoiceOfReason]

To be honest I haven't really been using my q10 all that much since I got it. I still plan on trying to use it for astrophotography, but for every day use my K3 is hard to beat.

[Nilnoc]

My wife and I have been fortunate enough to do some serious traveling in the past few years. We carried a K-5 and K-3. Got to be a bit of agony when walking for hours through a foreign city.

So last fall I looked for something lighter. And ended up with the then new Q-S1. Then I bought more Q lenses. Then I found a Q-S1 body for $199 and bought it.

Our last trip to Netherlands and Belgium, we took two Q's and the 01, 02, 06 and 08 lenses. Quite happy with the results. Confession, also took the K-3 and the WP 18-55mm kit lens. I have many other K series lenses, but that's my only WP. I did use the K-3 the one day it rained. We used the Q's all 10 other days.

Yesterday, I was in Washington DC for the WWII Warbirds flyover. The Q's were useless for capturing the airplanes in flight, and the K-3 with 55-300 did the job. I learned something doing WBIF. Next time the photos should be a tad better. I tried to have a shutter speed low enough not to freeze the propellers. Turns out 1/500 mostly stops the propellers. Might as well have gone to a higher shutter speed and perhaps had steadier pictures.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskaqx3F5