Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-06-2015, 02:56 PM   #16
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Sofaking Quote
The Sony RX 100 itinerations and the Panasonic GM5 have pummeled it to the ground.

I agree. Panasonic paid attention to the critical comments on their GM-1 and corrected most of those issues on the GM-5 which makes it quite a camera for it's size though for those of us looking for maximum depth of field the Q7 still beats the GM-5. However in most other aspects the GM-5 outdoes the Q7.

By the way, I recently had an opportunity to handle a Q-S1 and it does not feel anywhere as good in the hand as the Q7. The owner said she was sorry that she had presold her Q7 in order to get the Q-S1 as she much preferred the feeling of the Q7. She upgraded just to get the supposed auto focus in movie mode but she did not seem satisfied with how that now works. Again I have to wonder what was Pentax thinking? What was their objective in changing the body from the Q10-Q7 and where are they going with that model numbering system. Does anybody in that company have any marketing experience? Do they realize that the photographic community does not take this series of cameras seriously and that lack of support or interest by such communities, which is important for the success and sustainability of any camera model, can lead to a premature death of the model. Do they care?

10-06-2015, 06:44 PM   #17
Senior Member
Suleeto's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 113
I think the Q-S1 naming is to coincide with K-S1 and K-S2.... K for DSLR, Q for tiny mirrorless. I honestly think the naming scheme is getting too weird. I think to keep it simple would be better... K or S meaning which lens mount, followed by a number indicating the camera... higher numbers mean newer or better specs, who knows.

As far as the question of the Q line's fate... I think it is running out of steam. Nobody else makes aftermarket lenses for the Q. And if you run K lenses with an adapter, you're dealing with a very impractical crop factor, leaving a 50mm lens more like a telephoto prime. If there were some 5 and 10mm K mount primes out there then maybe, but there just aren't.

So what is the fate of the Q? I think the Q line represents the modern equivalent to the PTX110 system from the film days. 110 cameras had special 110 lenses, and while they took great pictures, they were limited. To me, the Q and the PTX110 are the same idea, and limited. Fun, and even often useful, but never seeing development by the aftermarket. The Q makes picture taking fun, but it isn't ever going to be a serious camera system. It is not a replacement for a DSLR. Although given you have the 01 Prime and the 06 Telephoto lens, you could in a pinch use it for actual work if your DSLR was damaged and getting repaired. In a pinch. But not all the time.

I'm going to an art galley event tonight. I'm bringing the Q, with the 02 Standard Zoom and also a Pentax-M 50mm f2 on my new adapter. For fun.
10-07-2015, 11:20 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by Ontarian50 Quote
It does make you wonder where the Q will find room to grow.
If the newer sensor candidates have 14 or 20MP resolutions, then Q users will find that diffraction limits arrive even sooner. It's a bit of a limitation to the current system to have to keep lens apertures at f4.0 or wider. With a finer pixel pitch on an "upgraded" sensor, then we'd have to be shooting at f2.8 or wider?
And then Pentax would have to come up with a few wider aperture lenses to make that work.
Maybe the Q system is at its limit with 12MP sensors - and even though Q fans know how to make that work, the rest of the market will perceive 12MP as being behind the times.
Any thoughts?
If market conditions favor a higher resolution then a higher resolution will be provided. Whether the optics make it possible to make use of this higher resolution or not doesn't affect this outcome at all. (This is clearly true for compacts and phones, and the only reason it's not obvious elsewhere is better optics.)
10-07-2015, 11:56 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,325
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
If market conditions favor a higher resolution then a higher resolution will be provided.
But that's the problem - market always claims to demand "more megapickles", often without realizing all the true consequences of this.The mass market will never scream for something niche like foveon sensor, because the general public doesn't know much about CCD, CMOS, bayer, foveon.. even though, particularly for the Q, different sensor designs, even if with lower MP, might give it an edge.

10-07-2015, 12:16 PM   #20
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
If market conditions favor a higher resolution then a higher resolution will be provided. Whether the optics make it possible to make use of this higher resolution or not doesn't affect this outcome at all. (This is clearly true for compacts and phones, and the only reason it's not obvious elsewhere is better optics.)
I am not sure about the physical size of the largest sized sensor that can be used with the existing series of Q lenses but adding MP is NOT the answer.Improving the quality of the existing sensor or increasing it’s size so higher quality pixels can be used such as what transpired when they went from the 1/2.3 to the 1/1.7 sensor is something to consider but adding MP to the existing size will actually result in a lowering of image quality.If they went to the 2/3 sensor with higher quality pixels then we would again see a slight improvement in image quality. If you increase the MP and your image quality goes down it really does not matter how many MP your camera has, nobody will buy it and those that do will provide less than desirable feedback. Though there are WEB sites and books that have explained this, unfortunitely many consumers are either swayed by misinformed sales people or maybe they are not aware of this issue hence they think more MP equates to a higher quality image. I think the days of the MP race are nearing an end as consumers are getting better informed.
10-07-2015, 12:38 PM   #21
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
I don't think the Q line is dead as much as it is simply not getting the same amount of attention as Ricoh's other products. We all see a flurry of activity and then everything goes dead and silent for many months. Then suddenly everything fires back up and it all goes dead again. When I say dead I mean dead - no product updates, no lenses, no FW updates .... nothing! This pattern doesn't change my affection for the system or how I use it. I still shoot several "dead" film cameras and they work just fine.

Personally, I would love to see a longer focal length macro prime. A lens like that would complete the Q line up. There would be one of everything, for the most part. Three zooms cover from UWA to telephoto. There would be two sharp primes and a fun fisheye. I suppose some could argue for a super zoom that would go from 4mm to 20mm but I don't think I would jump on it right away.

I would love to see a jump from 12 MP to 14 MP or 16 MP but not at the expense of limited dynamic range, increased image nose, and worse color sensitivity. The lenses are sharper than what the sensor can resolve and I think 16 MP would increase the amount of details in portraits and close-up work. A 2/3" sensor would be nice if it happens to work with existing lenses. The 03 fisheye would definitely be out. I've seen uncropped 4:3 images from the Q7 and the view is like a circular fisheye. However, the difference between 1/1.7" and 2/3" is pretty small. Diffraction shouldn't be an issue. The DoF of the Q system is huge so most people ought to be shooting with the lenses at near wide open apertures anyways. f/2.8 with the crop factor of 4.7x is like f/13 or something crazy like that in FF speak. Do you really need more DoF? Shoot wide open and use the ND filter if you need to regulate the amount of light coming in. Maybe a macro application would change that ... I don't know.

The best upgrade Ricoh could perform is an upgraded AF system if the lens can support it. That, and a faster response for quasi-quick action shots.
10-07-2015, 12:53 PM   #22
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,728
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I don't think the Q line is dead as much as it is simply not getting the same amount of attention as Ricoh's other products. We all see a flurry of activity and then everything goes dead and silent for many months. Then suddenly everything fires back up and it all goes dead again. When I say dead I mean dead - no product updates, no lenses, no FW updates .... nothing! This pattern doesn't change my affection for the system or how I use it. I still shoot several "dead" film cameras and they work just fine.

Personally, I would love to see a longer focal length macro prime. A lens like that would complete the Q line up.
I'm guessing that the market for that would be mediocre, but that may just be me. Back in the daze of MF, when prime 50mm was the common standard lens, many of us had a zoom telephoto and two prime lenses - a standard and a wide-angle. The 06 works just fine for most of my needs beyond the 01 lens. The only additional lens I can see myself buying would be a prime wide-angle if it were priced similar to the 01. I wouldn't get enough utility from a longer prime, and the 08 is priced way too high for the added utility I'd get from it.
10-07-2015, 02:33 PM   #23
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Diffraction shouldn't be an issue. The DoF of the Q system is huge so most people ought to be shooting with the lenses at near wide open apertures anyways. f/2.8 with the crop factor of 4.7x is like f/13 or something crazy like that in FF speak. Do you really need more DoF? Shoot wide open and use the ND filter if you need to regulate the amount of light coming in. Maybe a macro application would change that ... I don't know
.
Personally I have always thought that unless it is extreme, and the 01,02 and 06 lenses do not fall into this category, the amount of diffraction encountered when shooting at small apertures is more than offset by the additional information derived from the increase in depth of field. I’m actually quite tired of seeing the over abundance of selective focusing shots which seem to have gotten popular in the last quarter century. I seldom shoot at the largest f stop but in using the Q7 to photography models I am always shooting at or near f8. I wish more folks would increase the depth of field in their shots. When your eye looks at the entire picture the brain is more accepting of a slight decrease in overall sharpness when it is offset by an increase in clarity of foreground and background. This is actually how your eye and brain coordinate for you to see. If diffraction was such an issue, all lenses would have an aperture fixed at the point of optimum sharpness like the 110 lenses and we would adjust shutter speed and ISO to obtain the proper exposure.


10-07-2015, 03:18 PM   #24
Site Supporter
ronniemac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oxford
Photos: Albums
Posts: 101
Many of us oldies (who use reading glasses and like bright sunlight) would really appreciate an Electronic View Finder.

I personally would really like Pentax to model such a camera on the original Q body, it would entice me to cough up for the wide angle zoom and the promised macro.

Otherwise, I'll stick with my Q, 01 standard prime ,02 standard zoom, 03 fisheye, 06 telephoto zoom, and Pentax Q to K mound adapter. My opinion of the expensive O-VF1 external viewfinder is that it just doesn't cut it.

Last edited by ronniemac; 10-07-2015 at 03:26 PM.
10-07-2015, 06:18 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
But that's the problem - market always claims to demand "more megapickles", often without realizing all the true consequences of this.The mass market will never scream for something niche like foveon sensor, because the general public doesn't know much about CCD, CMOS, bayer, foveon.. even though, particularly for the Q, different sensor designs, even if with lower MP, might give it an edge.
Of course it's a problem, but it's been my (nearly) universal experience. The possible exception is foveon cameras, but marketers figured out a way to claim bigger numbers for them, so they probably don't count.
10-07-2015, 09:06 PM   #26
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,728
QuoteOriginally posted by ronniemac Quote
Many of us oldies (who use reading glasses and like bright sunlight) would really appreciate an Electronic View Finder.

I personally would really like Pentax to model such a camera on the original Q body, it would entice me to cough up for the wide angle zoom and the promised macro.

Otherwise, I'll stick with my Q, 01 standard prime ,02 standard zoom, 03 fisheye, 06 telephoto zoom, and Pentax Q to K mound adapter. My opinion of the expensive O-VF1 external viewfinder is that it just doesn't cut it.
The Q-family has several accessories that are seriously over-priced, including that silly viewfinder and the K-to-Q adapter. The lack of an appropriately-priced wide-angle lens is actually more important to me than IQ in saying that my Q-7 is suitable to be my backup camera, but I could never consider it for my primary camera role. I accept that they may never provide an EVF, although I would love one, and the collapsible Hoodman I got on sale for $50 from B&H kind of makes the viewfinder issue moot. However, when we were visiting our daughter in San Diego, I became convinced that the LCD doesn't provide me with sufficient detail to compose pictures as I prefer (normally, before I put the camera to my eye, I map out exactly what I want in the picture I'm about to take; even with the Hoodman clone I was using at the time, I could not always identify the landmarks in the low-contrast deserty area that defined the picture I wanted to take).
10-08-2015, 04:46 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,503
I would love to love the q series. I think it is so freaking cute and small and I like the novelty of an ILC that size. But the compromises nag at me. This camera like the Samsung NX-mini seems awesome but in the end the fixed lens alternatives seem to exceed it in key ways.

A rumor out there is that the 01 prime is discontinued. I can't confirm this but if true that would signal waning support for the platform. I do notice the number of packages with the 01 has fallen. But I still see it listed on major sites like adorama and b&h. I assume distribution channel still has stock even if it is indeed discontinued.
10-08-2015, 05:12 AM   #28
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
I hope the 01 is not discontinued. It's a jewel of a lens! I think it was mistake for Hoya back then and Ricoh now to not push this lens more in the marketplace. The Q line could have gotten more exposure as a stealthy street photography camera with that lens. Instead, the 02 zoom lens became the corporate family favorite and was the chosen lens to be packaged with the Q.
10-08-2015, 05:41 AM   #29
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
I guess that a new sensor is worth waiting for. Using the same sensor doesn't make much sense in updating with a new model now.
10-08-2015, 08:05 AM - 1 Like   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,503
Does anyone know if a pixel shift opportunity might be possible? Still life and landscape use might not be the main use for the Q but it would be an interesting marketing trick.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
arc, bodies, camera, camera line, history, hope, iq, length, lenses, mft, minutes, mirrorless, months, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor, size, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anyone have a good comparison of the Q line? Mothballs Pentax Q 30 12-28-2015 02:22 PM
Given up on old Q- is Q7/Q-S1 much improved? SteveNunez Pentax Q 39 11-06-2015 04:55 AM
Camera is DEAD! Coldcanuk Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 05-25-2015 07:33 AM
Dead Q StigVidar Pentax Q 8 01-15-2014 06:11 AM
Is Q the right camera? mblumm Pentax Q 38 04-26-2013 03:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top