[CWRailman]

n this short term retrospect, my take now is that the Q system is largely considered 'closed'.

You may be correct but honestly the Q-S1 which was only a cosmetic change from the Q7, has only been out one year. I really would not expect any action on that front for at least one more year. But then again, the 4/3 format has really taken off in the form of Olympus E-M5II and E-M10 small retro looking cameras which produce results similar to the K-5 and the Panasonic GM-1 and now the GM-5 which has an EVF (both of which are about the same size as a Q7). All of the 4/3 cameras use the same lenses and there are other companies now making lenses for the 4/3 cameras. On top of that Fuji came out with the small retro looking X-T10 which is a down scaled X-T1 and produces image quality similar to the K-5II. Some time ago I noted that Pentax really should look into developing something in that size/price range based on their existing 16mp sensor, which is what Fuji did and maybe some day they will but with their current legal issues such may not be possible. But then again, it’s only August and we do not know what surprises might be coming along. Personally I think Pentax hurt themselves when they came out with those toy lenses. To me that demonstrated that they really were not serious about the format.

---

Last edited by CWRailman; 08-18-2015 at 11:15 PM.

[reh321]

This thread has been going for a while now.
We have gone 08 (a well thought out, good quality UWA that is not selling that well due to price and small user base)
There has been the tele macro which at this point seems KIV.
As for camera models, its QS1 which is the same sensor as the Q7.
Then nothing.......

In this short term retrospect, my take now is that the Q system is largely considered 'closed'.
Just like the Pentax 110 system, its gotta end somewhere/sometime.
Its not uncomprehensive like the 110 too, since its already covering UWA 08; walk about zoom 02; Normal (01); tele (06); fisheye

However, with the temporary silence on the Q system, I believe Pentax is seriously thinking where this system should move on to.

Larger sensor? EVF? Attractive to Layman or enthusiast market? etc
Personally, I like a larger sensor with current lenses working in crop (Q7 mode).
.

As I look at where the lower-tier APS-C Pentax cameras (like the K-S2) are, and the needs of typical Q users, I believe that there are several relatively low-cost things Pentax could do:
(1) a 00 lens, which would be just like the 01 lens in build and cost, but have a focal length of roughly half of the 01 lens. (people tend to photograph things close to them, but the price of the 08 is very off-putting)
(2) make a WR version of the body, and replace 00, 01, 06 lenses by 10, 11, 16 WR variants.

Neither of these advances would require anything new - they would build on technology Pentax is already using, so the engineering should have minimal cost, and manufacturing change should be straight-forward.
Frankly, I've been surprised by the quality of images from my Q-7; I'm not convinced that moving to a larger sensor is required.

Personally, looking at the costs of a 01 lens and of a generic adapter, I think the Pentax K-to-Q adapter is also too pricey. Adding electronics to the adapter, so KAF3 lenses would maintain full capability, but keeping cost the same, would also make sense, but I'm not sure the market is there to support it.

I bought my Q-7 used-like-new back in December because I had reached the conclusion that Pentax had their hands full, and had already done a cosmetic upgrade, so I couldn't expect a new Q in 2015. I still feel that way.

Incidentally, apart from details, I don't really disagree with the recent comments by CWRailman.

[Tony Belding]

This thread has been going for a while now.
We have gone 08 (a well thought out, good quality UWA that is not selling that well due to price and small user base)
There has been the tele macro which at this point seems KIV.

What is KIV?

I hope the telephoto macro lens will eventually turn up. I've got money in my hand, Pentax! I'm throwing it at my computer screen! Why is nothing happening?

Personally, I like a larger sensor with current lenses working in crop (Q7 mode).

To me. . . The fashion these days is bigger sensors. Blindly following the current trend doesn't seem right to me. If sensor size is the criteria, then a Q with a slightly larger sensor is still going to lose out to M4/3 and everything bigger. Why try to compete in a metric where you're doomed to lose?

[pinholecam]

You may be correct but honestly the Q-S1 which was only a cosmetic change from the Q7, has only been out one year. I really would not expect any action on that front for at least one more year. But then again, the 4/3 format has really taken off in the form of Olympus E-M5II and E-M10 small retro looking cameras which produce results similar to the K-5 and the Panasonic GM-1 and now the GM-5 which has an EVF (both of which are about the same size as a Q7). All of the 4/3 cameras use the same lenses and there are other companies now making lenses for the 4/3 cameras. On top of that Fuji came out with the small retro looking X-T10 which is a down scaled X-T1 and produces image quality similar to the K-5II. Some time ago I noted that Pentax really should look into developing something in that size/price range based on their existing 16mp sensor, which is what Fuji did and maybe some day they will but with their current legal issues such may not be possible. But then again, it’s only August and we do not know what surprises might be coming along. Personally I think Pentax hurt themselves when they came out with those toy lenses. To me that demonstrated that they really were not serious about the format.

I've been to Tokyo a couple of times during this past 3 years.
The Q did reasonably well as far as I see it being in every camera and electronics store I went,
Also seen it used by a few people over there.
To me, the clue to its success in Japan has been that it was never catered for the enthusiast.
Its a cute, well made, 'refined' touches camera, that is young and fun as well.
Think origami, sushi, the kawaii toys stuff/fads, and you might get an idea on this aspect that I am talking about.

Its a Jap niche camera, that did surprisingly well in Japan and it is no muscle product planned to take on any more serious compact or MILC.

To me, we (the serious, no nonsense, certainly no Kawaii, stiff upper lip ) enthusiast hoped on and demand things that aren't priority in the plan.


Now, the thing then is whether Pentax will consider us (the enthusiast) going forward with the system.
Hard to say, since enthusiast are hard to please and so far none of the Q success can be attributed to enthusiast buying enough of the cameras.
So we are equally likely to see QS2 with fancy new colors, built in selfie stick, Lowe limited edition tie-ins, etc and no newer sensor/tech as we are to seeing an enthusiast version of our dreams.

What is KIV?
I hope the telephoto macro lens will eventually turn up. I've got money in my hand, Pentax! I'm throwing it at my computer screen! Why is nothing happening?



To me. . . The fashion these days is bigger sensors. Blindly following the current trend doesn't seem right to me. If sensor size is the criteria, then a Q with a slightly larger sensor is still going to lose out to M4/3 and everything bigger. Why try to compete in a metric where you're doomed to lose?

KIV = Keep in View

I am playing around with close up filters + 06 zoom.
Magnification is controlled by changing the zoom on the 06.
Not too bad actually and I might put that want for a dedicated macro away for a while more.




06+x2 +2 close up filters

[starbase218]

To me. . . The fashion these days is bigger sensors. Blindly following the current trend doesn't seem right to me. If sensor size is the criteria, then a Q with a slightly larger sensor is still going to lose out to M4/3 and everything bigger. Why try to compete in a metric where you're doomed to lose?

If your argument holds true, the Nikon 1 system should also be failing, as it is still smaller than M4/3, and I don't think it is.

But I'm also not sure if they should give it a bigger sensor. The Q system (body and lenses) is tiny, that's one of its appeals. It's not about ultimate image quality anyway. It's about playfulness. A bigger sensor generally means bigger lenses, and you might lose some of that playfulness.

[wildman]

f your argument holds true, the Nikon 1 system should also be failing, as it is still smaller than M4/3, and I don't think it is.

Seeing as we are all just speculating...
... I think as sensor tech improves a 1 inch sensor will more and more become the sweet spot. Good enough quality. good enough low light performance, small enough etc.
More and more both high quality dedicated fast single zooms and ILC cameras with viewfinders in 1 inch format will become the norm. I'm speaking here of a dedicated photography tool - in other words a serious photographic camera for people like myself not some glorified PS.

APS-C will be the format of choice for those who really need extreme quality with reasonable sized glass - the new De facto "FF". So far as the mass market is concerned, 4/3 is a dead end and FF will become a niche market rather like medium format is now. The really small sensors will be limited to devices where photography is not the primary purpose.

You read it here first.

[jethro10]

If your argument holds true, the Nikon 1 system should also be failing, as it is still smaller than M4/3, and I don't think it is.

But I'm also not sure if they should give it a bigger sensor. The Q system (body and lenses) is tiny, that's one of its appeals. It's not about ultimate image quality anyway. It's about playfulness. A bigger sensor generally means bigger lenses, and you might lose some of that playfulness.

Possible the closer you get to m4/3 the less it fails? Ie. The worse quality (smaller sensors) is failing the most?

---------- Post added 22-08-15 at 12:03 PM ----------

Seeing as we are all just speculating...
... I think as sensor tech improves a 1 inch sensor will more and more become the sweet spot. Good enough quality. good enough low light performance, small enough etc.
More and more both high quality single zooms and ILC cameras with viewfinders in 1 inch format will become the norm and APS-C will be the format of choice for those who really need extreme quality with reasonable sized glass.
You read it here first.

I think this is very close to what will happen in the next few years, we have a Cannon g7x and because of it's fast lens, for low light concerts, the pics are close to being as good as our Sony alpha 6000 for us and the size of it all is a lot easier to carry round.

But I still go back to my Q7 for the super wide 08 lens as it's all so tiny.

[Tony Belding]

If your argument holds true, the Nikon 1 system should also be failing, as it is still smaller than M4/3, and I don't think it is.

It's not? You mean they're still making it?

I thought the Nikon 1 was the Microsoft Zune of mirrorless cameras.

[starbase218]

It's not? You mean they're still making it?

I thought the Nikon 1 was the Microsoft Zune of mirrorless cameras.

The Nikon 1 J5 was announced in april this year, so I think they are.

Nikon 1 J5: Digital Photography Review

---------- Post added 08-22-2015 at 06:22 PM ----------

Seeing as we are all just speculating...
... I think as sensor tech improves a 1 inch sensor will more and more become the sweet spot. Good enough quality. good enough low light performance, small enough etc.
More and more both high quality dedicated fast single zooms and ILC cameras with viewfinders in 1 inch format will become the norm. I'm speaking here of a dedicated photography tool - in other words a photographic camera.

APS-C will be the format of choice for those who really need extreme quality with reasonable sized glass - the new De facto "FF". So far as the mass market is concerned, 4/3 is a dead end and FF will become a niche market rather like medium format is now. The really small sensors will be limited to devices where photography is not the primary purpose.

You read it here first.

You may be right in terms of image quality, but aren't you forgetting that smaller sensors mean less DOF? (again, that doesn't bother me so much in case of the Q)

[jethro10]

The Nikon 1 J5 was announced in april this year, so I think they are.

Nikon 1 J5: Digital Photography Review

---------- Post added 08-22-2015 at 06:22 PM ----------



You may be right in terms of image quality, but aren't you forgetting that smaller sensors mean less DOF? (again, that doesn't bother me so much in case of the Q)

Yes, but there has to be enough people to care about this with this size sensor before the marketing people in manufacturers care.
There probably isn't enough people though.

[reh321]

To me. . . The fashion these days is bigger sensors. Blindly following the current trend doesn't seem right to me. If sensor size is the criteria, then a Q with a slightly larger sensor is still going to lose out to M4/3 and everything bigger. Why try to compete in a metric where you're doomed to lose?

I'm not sure where you get that from. There is much excitement here about the upcoming FF camera, but that is because it is something new. Elsewhere, I see as much excitement about APS-C as about FF, and as much excitement about M43 as about APS-C, and as much excitement about cameras with even smaller sensors (namely the new bridge cameras) as about M43. There are various different needs out there, and Image Quality does not dominate all other measures. Cameras will ultimately succeed based on the complete package. The Q family, with controls very very similar to controls on the K family, has a good chance to succeed in its own little niches, where "succeed" is defined as bringing in more money and "good will" than it costs Ricoh.

---------- Post added 08-22-15 at 03:09 PM ----------

aren't you forgetting that smaller sensors mean less DOF?

Are you sure about that??

I've heard many comments from users of smaller-sensored cameras who think they are getting too much DOF and want to get some bokeh.

[patarok]

As I look at where the lower-tier APS-C Pentax cameras (like the K-S2) are, and the needs of typical Q users, I believe that there are several relatively low-cost things Pentax could do:
(1) a 00 lens, which would be just like the 01 lens in build and cost, but have a focal length of roughly half of the 01 lens. (people tend to photograph things close to them, but the price of the 08 is very off-putting)
(2) make a WR version of the body, and replace 00, 01, 06 lenses by 10, 11, 16 WR variants.

Neither of these advances would require anything new - they would build on technology Pentax is already using, so the engineering should have minimal cost, and manufacturing change should be straight-forward.
Frankly, I've been surprised by the quality of images from my Q-7; I'm not convinced that moving to a larger sensor is required.

Personally, looking at the costs of a 01 lens and of a generic adapter, I think the Pentax K-to-Q adapter is also too pricey. Adding electronics to the adapter, so KAF3 lenses would maintain full capability, but keeping cost the same, would also make sense, but I'm not sure the market is there to support it.


Incidentally, apart from details, I don't really disagree with the recent comments by CWRailman.

totally agree...
what i really would wish for (as most people will) is a WR Q Body with according lenses... AND a floppy screen would be cool too. sensor can be the same as it is in the Q7 + wifi, nfc, gps and an optional EVF that one could mount on the hotshoe. ... i would buy it even if it is 399 Body only... but at the moment... honestly, when i look at the price tag of the Q7 i don't really know how it qualifies to be 399€ body only. It is a good camera. you can get very pretty results with it, but at the moment i would prefer a Olympus XZ-1/XZ-2, Fuji X20/X30, Sony RX-100/RX-100M2 or some other compact with a 1/1.7" or bigger sensor over it.

But as there is the color and fun factor... i guess i will buy me a Q one time in the future... at least i expect a WR Body....I guess it would even sell very well in Europe, when it comes with a TOY equivalent of the new "DA 18-50mm DC WR". (but with a focal length equivalent to "35-90mm" or so...)
So one would have the FIRST SMALL and (hopefully) affordable ILC which would be indeed a replacement for a WR compact as there is REALLY no weathersealed digital compact with extractable (out of the body) - and therefore most likely better - optics.
AFAIK the market only offers 2 options - buy a brick with a hole in it, or buy a bulky bridge-camera from Fuji and you have a weathersealed camera for under 600bucks...that is something alike a digital compact camera but it is not.
Because as far as im concerned, a good digital compact has extractable optics. and a Bridge Camera is called Bridge camera because it is a bridge between compact cameras and DSLR/ILC.

If Pentax has a WR sealed version of let's say a MX-1 in some drawer... a WGMX-1 or an MX-2 for instance, they should open this drawer now or make a WR version of the Pentax Q. Which would indeed be a replacement for a WR compact (if it comes with the according lens).

[starbase218]

Are you sure about that??

I've heard many comments from users of smaller-sensored cameras who think they are getting too much DOF and want to get some bokeh.

Ah, I meant the opposite.

[starbase218]

It just occurred to me, instead of increasing the sensor size, putting all the existing lenses in a crop mode and coming out with new designs (sounds like a lot of work) they could also make the Q system... cheaper. I wanted to get a Q, but there was no way I would spend 600 euros or more on the Q-S1, 02 and 06 zooms. So I bought used: a Q10 with the 02 for 150 euros (170 including shipping), and then another 50 euros for a very good deal on the 06. I also got the 01 for 50 euros and just recently I bought the 03 new for about 90 euros.

The problem is, the Q system competes with advanced compacts too. So it should be priced accordingly. The Powershot S120 costs 260 euros and that includes a lens. The Q-S1 starts at 300 euros, body only. Make it cheaper, offering the kit with the the 02 zoom for about 320 euros.

That is, if Pentax wants the Q to go this direction.

Also, bring out more lenses. It seems like development has more or less come to a halt. Maybe a good-quality 16mm portrait prime (09 portrait prime?) And maybe a good-quality wide-angle prime.

[Pioneer]

DOF and Bokeh can be addressed in software so the lack of it with the smaller sensor is less of a problem than some would make of it.