Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-10-2015, 11:05 AM   #46
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: New York
Posts: 22
Q Might Survive Better with EVF

QuoteOriginally posted by Sofaking Quote
The Sony RX 100 itinerations and the Panasonic GM5 have pummeled it to the ground.
It will go down in history as one of the quirky developments in digital camera history. I would say it's a buried niche product.. much like the K01, dead on arrival..
Well maybe, but the lenses are significantly smaller than those for the 4/3 sensor for the same (equiv.) focal length. To my mind, what is holding back the Q is the lack of even an optional-external EVF. I use my Q-S1 as a primary walk around camera now with the S01 prime and optical viewfinder, because I don't like composing on a screen (even with a Clearviewer, which helps some). Usually, if I want to change lenses, I switch cameras. If the next iteration of the Q, assuming there is one, had an EVF, I'd buy not only that camera and both the wide and long zooms, that's $1,000 in revenues for Pentax. (I'd sell my m4/3 gear.) If there are even some others like me, seems like a good move for Pentax. But we'll see.

---------- Post added 10-10-15 at 11:17 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Considering that the Q series is targeted for an entry level consumer who wants to move up from taking photo's with a cell phone, I am not sure if buyers would be willing to pay the substantial increase in price to get an EVF, higher IQ, wider dynamic range, improved or possibly tilt LCD screen etc.
Maybe, but that was not the target market of the original Q, which sold for about $800 if I recall. The EVF is key, in my view. To carry around a small kit with lots of focal length options, I'd sacrifice a bit of image quality. (I shoot 4x5 film when IQ is paramount.) But only if I had an EVF. The Q's optical EVF (which I use with S01 prime) is big enough that an external EVF could be about the same size, leaving the entire camera system, including the tiny lenses, significantly smaller than a m4/3 system and even significantly smaller than the Nikon 1 system.


Last edited by Lobalobo; 10-10-2015 at 11:11 AM.
10-10-2015, 12:32 PM   #47
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 222
QuoteOriginally posted by Lobalobo Quote

Maybe, but that was not the target market of the original Q, which sold for about $800 if I recall. The EVF is key, in my view. To carry around a small kit with lots of focal length options, I'd sacrifice a bit of image quality. (I shoot 4x5 film when IQ is paramount.) But only if I had an EVF. The Q's optical EVF (which I use with S01 prime) is big enough that an external EVF could be about the same size, leaving the entire camera system, including the tiny lenses, significantly smaller than a m4/3 system and even significantly smaller than the Nikon 1 system.
And to counter your argument. It seems that an EVF isn't in the target market.... Or there would have been one by now.
If we do get a new Q, I'd guess simple but worthwhile improvements like WiFi.
J
10-10-2015, 02:34 PM   #48
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by Lobalobo Quote
Well maybe, but the lenses are significantly smaller than those for the 4/3 sensor for the same (equiv.) focal length. To my mind, what is holding back the Q is the lack of even an optional-external EVF. I use my Q-S1 as a primary walk around camera now with the S01 prime and optical viewfinder, because I don't like composing on a screen (even with a Clearviewer, which helps some). Usually, if I want to change lenses, I switch cameras. If the next iteration of the Q, assuming there is one, had an EVF, I'd buy not only that camera and both the wide and long zooms, that's $1,000 in revenues for Pentax. (I'd sell my m4/3 gear.) If there are even some others like me, seems like a good move for Pentax. But we'll see.
.
Using the link below, though they increased the size when they added the EVF, the 4/3 sensor Panasonic GM-5 is slightly smaller with standard 12-32mm zoom lens than the Q7 with standard 5-15mm zoom lens.

If you want to compare fixed focal length lenses click on the lens and change them out.You can compare the Pentax 01 against the Panasonic 14mm and again they are very close.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#570.397,464.355,ha,t
10-10-2015, 04:21 PM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,984
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Using the link below, though they increased the size when they added the EVF, the 4/3 sensor Panasonic GM-5 is slightly smaller with standard 12-32mm zoom lens than the Q7 with standard 5-15mm zoom lens.

If you want to compare fixed focal length lenses click on the lens and change them out.You can compare the Pentax 01 against the Panasonic 14mm and again they are very close.
There is nothing in what you say here which should dooooom (there, I got everyone's favorite word in) the Q-family. Since Panasonic engineering managed to get an EVF into a body of that size, Pentax engineering should be able to do the same thing if Pentax actually cared. There is no reason to believe that the audience for these cameras is so focused on image quality that this downside of sensor size would eliminate the Q from consideration. On the other hand, the Q family has IBIS while the GM family doesn't, the reviews I've read indicate that the Q has more, and perhaps more useful such as HDR, "modes" available, and the upside of the smaller Q sensor - the apparent "magnification" applied to relatively inexpensive K or other mount lenses - still favors the Q family. I believe it would be fairly straight-forward for Pentax to apply their WR technology to the Q-S2, but only if Pentax cared.

This is all my viewpoint, of course. This is Ricoh's company, not mine. It is their asset, not mine. They get to decide what they will do with it. I would like for them to perfect technology that they could relatively quickly apply to the K-family if MILC suddenly became much more popular in APS-C and FF cameras. But it is Ricoh's company, and I am merely an interested observer.

I have a history of using cameras for a long time if the camera co-operates. I used my Pentax Super Program for eleven years. I am prepared to use my Q-7 for just as much time if no other camera comes along to provide a better solution to my birding task. Since I am currently 67, that means I may not need another camera. If this camera unexpectedly dies, at current prices I could just as easily buy another one. In that sense, I don't need for Pentax to do anything with the Q family ... but I would like to see them do it.

10-11-2015, 01:54 AM   #50
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,077
Japan sales main thing with Q me thinks
small cute colourful
10-11-2015, 12:28 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by Transit Quote
Japan sales main thing with Q me thinks
small cute colourful
The Q is a digital lomography camera. That's not the only thing it is, or can be, but I think lomography has always been lodged somewhere in the marketing concept. Thus: custom colors, toy lenses, random cross-processing and other art filter effects. In fact, I'd guess that it took a while for Pentax to realize the Q series had some traction outside that niche. Thus the appearance of higher-spec products like the 06 lens, 08 lens, Premium Kit and AF201FG flash.

Additional thought. . . It's a system camera. It has interchangeable lenses. Versatility is the point of such a system, and that's why it's a mistake to try and define the Q system's marketing niche too narrowly.
10-11-2015, 06:03 PM   #52
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
@Tony : I never thought of the Q as a lomo system but in retrospect it makes sense - not from a technical perspective but from a marketing one. That would explain the goofy toy lenses. The only aftermarket lenses I have seen for the Q are Holga branded plastic units. Adding all the in-camera cross processing supports the lomo slant. I have always seen logo as an analog format and I think many others do too. Being digital and expensive, the Q probably didn't attract large numbers of lomographers.

The non-toy lenses (01, 02, 06, and 08) are actually very sharp lenses. Their performance is limited by the tiny sensor.

I don't think the Q is going to disappear. It will sit on the back burner until Ricoh gets around to doing something with it. Even if Ricoh slashes the product from their line up the camera shutter will still work. Batteries will be available and they'll hold a charge today as they did before. I'm not too worried.
10-11-2015, 06:34 PM   #53
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: New York
Posts: 22
Lack of S01 Prime a Bad Sign

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
When I bought my Q-7 last December, I wanted a 01 with it; the little bag I use to carry my Q-7 has room for the camera with a mounted 01 and a separate 06, but the 02 makes things crowded. As I've commented many times already, in MF daze, I was used to having a prime standard lens, a zoom telephoto lens, and perhaps a prime wide angle, so a midrange zoom doesn't fit my usual way of operating, either. But I basically did not have that choice; I couldn't find anyone selling a Q-7 packaged with a 01, so I ended up buying a Q-7 + 02 + 06 package, and then bought a separate 01 from a Japanese merchant (and which eventually arrived on a slow boat from Japan). As much trouble as I had getting a 01 ten months ago, I'm not sure if things really have changed that much in the past year.

BTW - the 02 lens often stays home when we travel.
That Pentax (Ricoh) no longer sells the S01 prime, though it is the only lens that its OVF works with, is a bad sign for the future, I think. I live in Manhattan and was able to locate a grand total of one S01 to purchase new, from Adorama (B&H had none). The only other option for a new S01 would be to find an old unsold kit that used that lens then to sell off the body separately (if you wanted a newer model of the Q). If Pentax no longer wants to sell its most useful prime, it seems that it isn't seriously devoted to the system (notwithstanding the new wide-angle zoom). But I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to upgrade from a Q-S1 to a Q with an EVF option.

10-11-2015, 06:57 PM   #54
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,329
Perhaps Pentax is going to update or replace the #01 lens. They could do many things with it. Make it a pancake, make it brighter, weatherproof it, or something else.

They will update the Q after the FF is finished.
10-11-2015, 07:48 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I have always seen logo as an analog format and I think many others do too. Being digital and expensive, the Q probably didn't attract large numbers of lomographers.
Probably so. And yes, lomographers love film. However, they aren't religious about it. The Lomography company has made a few lenses for digital cameras, including a set for Micro Four Thirds. And if you check The Ten Golden Rules, they don't say anything about film versus digital.

Rule #1: Take your camera everywhere you go

Easier to do with a Q7 than with a Lomography Belair! Plus, the cost of all that film and processing is murder.
10-11-2015, 08:47 PM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,455
Just 30 months ago Denver told us Q was intended to be a system and was viewed as the only real growth opportunity in the lineup. Then 645z happened. And 2014 happened. And everything seems to have changed.
10-18-2015, 12:15 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,984
QuoteOriginally posted by Lobalobo Quote
That Pentax (Ricoh) no longer sells the S01 prime, though it is the only lens that its OVF works with, is a bad sign for the future, I think. I live in Manhattan and was able to locate a grand total of one S01 to purchase new, from Adorama (B&H had none). The only other option for a new S01 would be to find an old unsold kit that used that lens then to sell off the body separately (if you wanted a newer model of the Q). If Pentax no longer wants to sell its most useful prime, it seems that it isn't seriously devoted to the system (notwithstanding the new wide-angle zoom). But I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to upgrade from a Q-S1 to a Q with an EVF option.
As I said in my message which you quoted
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
When I bought my Q-7 last December, I wanted a 01 with it; the little bag I use to carry my Q-7 has room for the camera with a mounted 01 and a separate 06, but the 02 makes things crowded. As I've commented many times already, in MF daze, I was used to having a prime standard lens, a zoom telephoto lens, and perhaps a prime wide angle, so a midrange zoom doesn't fit my usual way of operating, either. But I basically did not have that choice; I couldn't find anyone selling a Q-7 packaged with a 01, so I ended up buying a Q-7 + 02 + 06 package, and then bought a separate 01 from a Japanese merchant (and which eventually arrived on a slow boat from Japan). As much trouble as I had getting a 01 ten months ago, I'm not sure if things really have changed that much in the past year.
I bought my S01 directly from a Japanese merchant, because I couldn't find a US source for them; that merchant is still selling them

Amazon.com : Pentax-01 Standard Prime for Pentax Q Mount : Camera Lenses : Camera & Photo

I suppose it is possible that the merchant could have saddled himself with an enormous inventory of S01, but I have no reason to believe that. Do we have any actual evidence that Pentax has permanently ended production of the S01? Since they haven't kitted the Q-7 or Q-S1 here with the S01, maybe they just believe there is a very limited market here for the S01. I'd agree there seems to be very little future for the S01 in the US, but I don't see how we can predict world-wide future for the Q-family from this.
10-18-2015, 01:15 PM   #58
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote

...

I suppose it is possible that the merchant could have saddled himself with an enormous inventory of S01, but I have no reason to believe that. Do we have any actual evidence that Pentax has permanently ended production of the S01? Since they haven't kitted the Q-7 or Q-S1 here with the S01, maybe they just believe there is a very limited market here for the S01. I'd agree there seems to be very little future for the S01 in the US, but I don't see how we can predict world-wide future for the Q-family from this.
Ricoh most likely produces products in batches with quantities that probably range in the mid-hundreds to low thousands. Internal inventory must drop to a certain point at a certain rate of drop to trigger the production planning system to start tooling up for another production run. Their internal inventory drops when wholesalers and distributors place orders. If no order is placed then nothing gets shipped. If nothing is shipped and inventory is not dropping then another production run is not triggered. It's the job of sales and marketing to remind the wholesalers and distributors to order these goods for sale to us.

I agree that the market for a prime lens is limited compared to that for a zoom. A zoom provides "good enough" quality for the masses and is much more versatile. Ricoh could very well cancel the 01 prime if the demand is not strong enough. That doesn't mean the Q line is dead. It just means the 01 prime may hover somewhere between dead and rare when it comes to currently supported production.
10-18-2015, 03:36 PM   #59
Forum Member
paulcote's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
I got an original q. Then I got another q with an 01 lens. I picked up the 06, 07, and the three toys so I have all but the most expensive lens. Then I got the Q-S1, but I would really like a flip out screen. I love the flip out on my mx-1 and my other pentax bridge camera. I have a pentax k500 and am tempted to get the KS1 just for the flip out. I am getting older and don't like bending down that much.
10-23-2015, 01:57 AM   #60
Senior Member
Suleeto's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 113
A flip-out screen on a Q seems contrary to the overall design of the Q series.

I've been giving my Q7 a lot of thought. I asked myself, "Why did I buy this?" What benefit is it? What is the point? Do I really have a use for it, or was I sold purely on novelty and "cute vintage styling" factor (sorry Q-S1 owners, I think that ended with the Q7)? What is the point of the Q.... for ME? Yes, everyone has seen and enjoy's Blunty cracking comments about the Q and he gets the message across that "Q means FUN!"... but was it really? There were times when reaching for the DSLR was just *easier* because of a real viewfinder and snappy manual controls (even with my legacy full MC primes). So then why the Q?

And then I considered more what Tony Belding said, which is worth quoting yet again:

QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
The Q is a digital lomography camera. That's not the only thing it is, or can be, but I think lomography has always been lodged somewhere in the marketing concept. Thus: custom colors, toy lenses, random cross-processing and other art filter effects. In fact, I'd guess that it took a while for Pentax to realize the Q series had some traction outside that niche. Thus the appearance of higher-spec products like the 06 lens, 08 lens, Premium Kit and AF201FG flash.
And so I took it with me. Everywhere. And I mean EVERYWHERE. I had been using a soft lens bag that was kinda squarish and vintage and held the Q7 nicely, but instead opted for this convertible case:



And I carried it. In my car. In my backpack. On my person when just walking to wherever. Somewhere along the lines of the lomographic lifestyle. And I *used* it. It was less conspicuous than the DSLR. But way more flexible than my cellphone... which is a Galaxy Note 3, with a pretty good camera -- as cellphones go. I found myself using the preset knob for nice, instant digital filter effects. I found myself taking shots at odd angles. I started noticing little objects and random people and thinking, "Let's get that real quick." And doing it.

Yes, I think die-hard, artsy-fartsy photographers that make photography their total obsession do this with full sized cameras, but I have other interests, and I think lomography demands a compact, quick and easy tool to operate in that "grab it and move on" mentality.

And the Q7 has delivered for me. Time and time again.































And I began to understand how, due to its size, it's more convenient to keep close. And yet, it still possesses a familiar suite of controls almost like my DSLR... once you learn to use them, you can control aperture and shutterspeed with ease. And the custom quick select knob on the front makes insta-lomo results easy. No, it's not true lomographic use because it's a digital format. So not in the strictest of senses. But it *does* capture the *intent* of lomography. And it does so beautifully. And CONVENIENTLY, which is very within line of lomographic ways of thinking.

But is that the extent of considerations towards a Q series? NO, not at all!

Tony also adds:

QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Additional thought. . . It's a system camera. It has interchangeable lenses. Versatility is the point of such a system, and that's why it's a mistake to try and define the Q system's marketing niche too narrowly.
And this is true! Some of the shots I just posted were using the "JR" style Q to K adapter (the one with aperture control for non-A-ringed lenses, but no internal shutter like Pentax official adapter)... and many people use this and similar adapters for extreme telephoto shots. Wildlife, the moon, and other more general applications. I threw a 50mm f2 Pentax-M lens on mine with excellent results. We all know those M 50mm lenses are super crisp.

So... it's not necessarily a professional or even a "serious" camera. Noooooo. BUT -- it is a FUN camera! And well beyond "point and shoot", due to its lens system and accessories like Q to K adapters. HOWEVER -- it fully intrudes on "point and shoot" territory, and does so like a CHAMP.

Maybe I won't be using it for professional portrait work. Or to shoot a wedding. Or for technical/industrial commercial applications.But there is NO question in my mind now what the purpose of the Q series is: ART! FUN! CONVENIENCE! Those three elements promote USE! Spontaneous use! And from an artistic point of view, that was the intent of the lomographic movement and Lomography's success with their rudimentary rangefinder rip-off camera clones. The Q is just the unintended MASTER camera of such an artistic approach to photography. It is a *natural* at it. Add an 01 Prime for fast glass, or an 06 Telephoto, or a Shield Lens... or even a K lens, and you have a super flexible lens system.

A "Super-Lomographic" camera.

It's unique among photography devices. And super-cool. Maybe the small sensor won't be giving you any poster sized prints, but it WILL be giving you some surprises to share over the web, or even in an 8.5 x 11 photo album. Which is nice to hand to people who want to see what YOU like to shoot.

Think about that.
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 01:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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