[luftfluss]

At another discussion board, every-so-often someone will ask "How can I take pictures in an old church, where the lighting is dim and they don't allow tripods or flash?" The answer usually involves buying a camera for $1000+ and then adding on an f/2.8 (or better) lens for at least another $1000. I have "just" a Q-7 kit that cost me just over $400, including the extra 01 lens I bought. Attached here is a picture I took using that Q7+01 in an old mission church, where they didn't allow tripods, didn't allow flash, and they keep the church quite dark. This is not a perfect picture; I could fix it up some in post-processing, but I think looking at the original is more instructive. Perhaps a more expensive kit would be needed if I were producing a picture for a poster, but for display on my computer, this will be just fine. A Pentax Q-7 has nothing to apologize for.

Here's the thing, though: that $400 could have bought you an Olympus EPM2 + kit lens, and it could have produced your photo with better IQ. If we are comparing the Q system with other systems based solely on a price-vs-performance, the Q will lose. The Q has its own charms and abilities that are readily duplicated by other systems, and IMO Pentax should play to those strengths.

---------- Post added 03-14-15 at 10:35 PM ----------

There was a previous interview with Ricoh concerning the Q when the Q-S1 came out - I'm not sure who was it who answered, but from Pentax's response it seems they're pretty dedicated to continuing the Q line, albeit many of its sales lie in Japan. Not sure about your first question as to what's the usual thing the Japanese do with their Qs- though I see a lot of them trying lenses from other small mounts like 110 and for CCTVs, of sorts. One of the biggest problems though, like what you said, is sensor development - aside from Sony who else makes a 1/1.7" nowadays? It would've been a lot better if Pentax had its own sensor fab... but that's dreaming too big.

As for returning the Q to its first "premium" iteration - like the premium version of the GR - that would be even more niche. While it's true that many of us here in PF give value to a high-quality body, many of the purchases came when the Q moved to a plastic body construction... and also, Pentax wants the Q mount to be the most "fun" of their ILC's, and if that's the case, then the bigger the sensor, the more "serious" things are getting (as how I see Pentax with the progression from Q to 645, the latter which they relegate to professionals).

I appreciate your well-considered reply.

re: the magnesium-alloy body of the original Q, I don't think that accounts for the fact that it was so expensive. I believe Pentax really wanted to milk the early adopters. I bet many enQusiasts would pay $100 for a "premium" body, and I bet even more frivolous users who are accustomed to nice things would pay that, also. And I doubt the mag-alloy body costs $100 more to produce than the plastic body of the succeeding Q's.

I think many of us believe that the Q7 is aimed at "primarily Japanese girls" with the implication that they have little interest in the camera other than as a step-up from their smartphones. I'm hoping that a large segment of Q users are enthusiasts who consider the Q to be "serious" as well as "fun", and that Pentax will see this and throw us a few bones.

---------- Post added 03-14-15 at 10:42 PM ----------

They could put in a bigger sensor, maybe 2/3". So, the lenses wouldn't fully cover it -- but it could use a variable portion of the sensor to produce different aspect ratios. That's something very few other cameras do, and it would be cool.

AFAIK, only Fuji makes a 2/3" sensor any more.

---

Last edited by luftfluss; 03-14-2015 at 07:39 PM.

[LightBug]

Raw burst speed and buffer write speed are two thing I would like see improved in Pentax compact cams, including q and mx1.

[Tony Belding]

AFAIK, only Fuji makes a 2/3" sensor any more.

Is that a problem? I haven't heard anything bad about Fuji sensors.

For that matter... This is Ricoh we're talking about, not a Kickstarter project working out of someone's garage. If they need a 2/3" sensor, I'm sure they can get somebody to produce one.

[luftfluss]

Is that a problem? I haven't heard anything bad about Fuji sensors.

For that matter... This is Ricoh we're talking about, not a Kickstarter project working out of someone's garage. If they need a 2/3" sensor, I'm sure they can get somebody to produce one.

I like the Fuji sensor, but its a different animal than the one Pentax uses. Its X-Trans, not Bayer. Its expensive to manufacture. Images produced with X-Trans have a different look to them. The back-end processing required is very different than with Bayer. And none of the major imaging programs - Adobe, Corel, DxO, Silkypix, etc - optimally convert Fuji RAWs.

Ricoh is a large company, but their camera business in comparatively small. I doubt they could realistically provide enough order volume to get any fab to commit to a custom-sized sensor. And, at the very least, the kit zoom would vignette with a sensor larger than 1/1.7".

[reh321]

Here's the thing, though: that $400 could have bought you an Olympus EPM2 + kit lens, and it could have produced your photo with better IQ. If we are comparing the Q system with other systems based solely on a price-vs-performance, the Q will lose. The Q has its own charms and abilities that are readily duplicated by other systems, and IMO Pentax should play to those strengths.

You miss the important of my comments in the context of this thread. Having now looked at my pictures on my home computer, rather than on the laptop I was traveling with, I am more convinced than ever that only a pixel-peaker, or someone who prints poster-size prints, would see any advantage to the larger m43 sensor. The 1/1.7 sensor is just fine for the rest of us. I have possession of two older 70ist-200ist Vivitar zoom lenses purchased in the early 1980's; the Canon FD mount that my mother purchased has been obsolete for twenty years now, but the Pentax K mount that I bought would work with any Pentax camera for sale today. In light of that Pentax tradition, and since I see no over-riding problem with the sensor currently used by the Q-family, I see no reason for the future of the Q-family to include a different sensor. It is just fine as it is.

[luftfluss]

You miss the important of my comments in the context of this thread. Having now looked at my pictures on my home computer, rather than on the laptop I was traveling with, I am more convinced than ever that only a pixel-peaker, or someone who prints poster-size prints, would see any advantage to the larger m43 sensor. The 1/1.7 sensor is just fine for the rest of us. I have possession of two older 70ist-200ist Vivitar zoom lenses purchased in the early 1980's; the Canon FD mount that my mother purchased has been obsolete for twenty years now, but the Pentax K mount that I bought would work with any Pentax camera for sale today. In light of that Pentax tradition, and since I see no over-riding problem with the sensor currently used by the Q-family, I see no reason for the future of the Q-family to include a different sensor. It is just fine as it is.

In your post, you stated "buying a camera for $1000+ and then adding on an f/2.8 (or better) lens for at least another $1000", so you already made the comparison between a Q and a larger-sensor camera.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but I can tell easily that your shot is from a small-sensor camera. It has a kind of flatness (not depth of field) that small sensors produce. It has nothing to do with poster-size prints or pixel-peeping. It what it is.

You really don't see the issue with the 1/1.7" sensor? Its not going to be around too much longer... its already slowly being phased out in favor of 1" sensors. For example, of all the rumors & product announcements these last few months, there are no Canons with 1/1.7" sensors. Canon used to sell more 1/1.7" sensor cameras than anybody. In fact, I can't recall any announcements or rumors from any company relating to a camera using the 1/1.7" sensor.

[reh321]

In your post, you stated "buying a camera for $1000+ and then adding on an f/2.8 (or better) lens for at least another $1000", so you already made the comparison between a Q and a larger-sensor camera.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but I can tell easily that your shot is from a small-sensor camera. It has a kind of flatness (not depth of field) that small sensors produce. It has nothing to do with poster-size prints or pixel-peeping. It what it is.

I never claimed that the Q-family is directly competitive with the more expensive cameras, but I do claim that it is a reasonable replacement for those of us who choose not to spend that kind of money or to lug that kind of mass around with us. Maybe your eyes can see that kind of difference; without a direct comparison I don't miss the "depth" you miss (a result of # bits of color, perhaps), but I would definitely miss the dollars from my wallet and the space from my carry-on luggage.

You really don't see the issue with the 1/1.7" sensor? Its not going to be around too much longer... its already slowly being phased out in favor of 1" sensors. For example, of all the rumors & product announcements these last few months, there are no Canons with 1/1.7" sensors. Canon used to sell more 1/1.7" sensor cameras than anybody. In fact, I can't recall any announcements or rumors from any company relating to a camera using the 1/1.7" sensor.

That is a potentially misleading statement. Canon and Nikon may not be using 1/1.7 sensors, but they are using even smaller sensors. Both of them recently introduced new cameras with 1/2.3 sensors (Canon SX-60 and Nikon P-900).

Furthermore, most importantly, I stand by my comment relevant to this thread. I don't believe that Pentax will abandon the Q-family, nor redefine it, as long as it has a clientele, and I don't believe that a larger sensor is consistent with the Q-family as currently defined.

[surfar]

one word sums up the future of the Q family and its well known


FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUNNNNNNN ! ! !

[sapporodan]

You miss the important of my comments in the context of this thread. Having now looked at my pictures on my home computer, rather than on the laptop I was traveling with, I am more convinced than ever that only a pixel-peaker, or someone who prints poster-size prints, would see any advantage to the larger m43 sensor. The 1/1.7 sensor is just fine for the rest of us. I have possession of two older 70ist-200ist Vivitar zoom lenses purchased in the early 1980's; the Canon FD mount that my mother purchased has been obsolete for twenty years now, but the Pentax K mount that I bought would work with any Pentax camera for sale today. In light of that Pentax tradition, and since I see no over-riding problem with the sensor currently used by the Q-family, I see no reason for the future of the Q-family to include a different sensor. It is just fine as it is.

If you ignore the amount of mega pixels, smaller sensors still have less dynamic range and worse ISO performance, and they are important factors in image quality.
But I have a PC connected up to a 37" TV and when the screen saver goes off its starts flicking through my photos, and I honestly can't tell the difference between shot's taken with the Q or an SLR or a Mirrorless.

I do think Pentax needs to up the megapixels, as too many people turn their noses up at a 12 megapixel sensor nowadays, and that's going to start to damage sales. But I would rather have a decent 10 megapixel sensor with better ISO and DR!

[barondla]

Sapporodan, the thing that worries me about the sensor is there doesn't seem to be any quality improvement. None of the Q have better quality than the original model. The only exception might be the Q7. I would argue it gets improvement only from the larger sensor. Not a better sensor. Has sensor tech stalled?

I would never change the sensor size again to use the Fuji sensor. Pentax needs manufacturers to choose from. Locking into a size only one company makes is a terrible idea. Kind of like the original ful frame with Philips sensor. We still havan't recovered from that one.

Love snostorm's TeleQ idea.
thanks
barondla

[kwb]

I wish the quick dial becomes fully rotatable instead of being with a hard stop as it is now.
Allow us to assign effects/aperture/shutter speed/iso to that dial in addition to selecting effects and such.

If Ricoh insists to print numbers on each position for selecting effects, fully rotatable 5 position is OK but a bit clumsy for adjusting aperture or shutter speed (larger angle needed for one step), maybe 8 position is a good compromise, or 10 position with each number printed twice, i.e. "* 1 2 3 4 * 1 2 3 4", or something like that.

[ophillip]

They should release a really fast short telephoto lens. Something like a 20mm f1. That would be awesome.

What they shouldn't do is ditch the current line for a 'Q2' type release with a micro four thirds sensor, meaning existing lenses are obsolete. They wouldn't, would they?

[sapporodan]

They should release a really fast short telephoto lens. Something like a 20mm f1. That would be awesome.

What they shouldn't do is ditch the current line for a 'Q2' type release with a micro four thirds sensor, meaning existing lenses are obsolete. They wouldn't, would they?

I agree changing the sensor size again would not be practical.

And completely agree on a 20mm f1! . Why not just go for it and go crazy, they could have fun releasing lenses under their 'Toy lens' range. How about a 50mm f0.95, if its a Toy lens they don't have to worry about the image quality as much and just have fun, if its cheap people will buy them.

Although I still wish Sigma would release their 60mm DN in a Q mount.

[Tony Belding]

I like the Fuji sensor, but its a different animal than the one Pentax uses. Its X-Trans, not Bayer. Its expensive to manufacture.

That's just the color-filter layer, isn't it? It doesn't seem like it would be hard to produce a Bayer sensor on the same line -- but maybe that's just my ignorance showing?

Ricoh is a large company, but their camera business in comparatively small. I doubt they could realistically provide enough order volume to get any fab to commit to a custom-sized sensor. And, at the very least, the kit zoom would vignette with a sensor larger than 1/1.7".

If other camera makers continue dropping 1/1.7", then it could soon become, effectively, a custom-sized sensor. What happens to Q then?

Hmm... How do Sigma get their Foveon sensors produced, I wonder? The volume has got to be tiny on those.

Vignetting on a larger sensor is not a problem. This can be turned into an advantage by only using a portion of the sensor and cropping to different aspect ratios. The question then becomes: what is the next readily-available step up in size from 1/1.7"?

[someone902]

My take on it is to improve the Pentax Q without loosing its biggest advantage over other camera systems. For me that's portability.

I can do without an EVF if it means that that the Q will stay compact.

A deeper buffer for burst shooting would be great, 5 fps is already good in my opinion for a camera in this class.
Adding WIFI will only increases its usefulness combined with its portability.
A high res screen would be a great addition too.