Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-23-2015, 09:58 AM   #61
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
I hate to be contradictory but the Q series is to Lomography like a hat is to shoes.Yes they both cover extremities of the human body and yes they both provide some degree of warmth and protection but like a hat and shoes they are polar opposites.

The Lomo is a very cheaply made analog (film based ) camera produced in Russia that developed a quirky following of artistic minded folks who liked to experiment.The Lomo line of cameras was inexpensive and this provided them with a means to enter the world of photography without straining their financial resources. Over the history of photography there have been numerous groups who have gravitated to an underperforming piece of technology that is priced within their means.Some of the photographic efforts to evolve from such groups are recognized for their artistic composition but though they strive for acceptance are seldom taken seriously by the mainstream photographic community.Similar groups evolved during the 110 camera phase and a few still exist.Then there are the spy camera advocates who embrace the diminutive cameras produced by the likes of Minox.Nobody would think to put the images shot with a Minox camera up against a larger sensor camera, but in their own right the Minox line are fun to use and owners accept the cameras for what they are.

The Q is none of those. It's well made and it's not cheap and it has some innovative features. In no way is it to be lumped into the class of Lomography and to do so is more of an insult to the brand which has already taken enough heat from the photographic community.The Q is a camera whose target market is/was people who want a bit more versatility from their image capturing device than what was attainable with the cell phones that existed at the time.It was designed to appeal to some who may want to appear chic/stylish and remain trendy without incurring the label of photo geek.Why else would a brand new camera be offered in white, of all colors, and then have that followed up by 200 color combinations.You cannot take that seriously.

This visual of the Qs target consumer is contrary to those normal impressions the general public have of photographers who hang a multi pound large sized extravaganza around their neck in order to impress everyone that they have some sort of photographic prowess alluded to by their extensive array of mostly black photographic equipment protruding from their body.You might see a girl in skirt and heels walking with a Q7 over her shoulder along side a small purse and it looks stylish but not so much if that heavy Canon with baseball bat length lens is weighing her down. Look at how Panasonic have marketed their GM-5 and their target consumer.

The problem with the Q series is how consumers perceive it and for that Pentax must burden the blame.Pentax is the poster child for ineffective marketing strategies.I have been using Pentax since the early 1970s and they have never mounted any kind of marketing program to get the word out to the general public about their products. While cameras with the same size 1.7 sensor, such as the Olympus Stylus 1, have gotten accolades from reviewers, Pentax has failed to get the Q series into the hands of marketing experts and explain what the camera is designed to do and let these people design a marketing campaign to properly introduce it to the general public.Instead they have ignored the general public and left it up to the quality conscious photographic community to find the camera and figure it out and basically the people in that community have little to no need for such a camera.Such irresponsibility in marketing leads to the potential target group being completely ignored therefore they are not aware that a camera designed for them exists. As a result those people are still using their cell phones to take pictures (stand at any tourist attraction, such as the Grand Canyon, and see how many are using cell phones to take pictures) and discussion groups such as this one with members of the photographic community continue to try and find a slot for the camera.

I believe that in years to come the Q series will take on a personality and maintain a following similar to the Pentax 110.People who have accepted the camera for what it is, expect no more, and enjoy its unique quirky personality.With a bit of marketing, and had they first introduced it with the 1.7 sensor, Pentax could have established the Q series as a small but effective participant in the mirrorless line of cameras but mid stream they chose to redirect their efforts and meager resources toward a full frame environment where they cannot compete with the already established Canon and Nikon brands.Everyone who has ever designed a marketing plan to introduce a competing product into an already existing market knows that they have to spend more on advertising than those already established in that market and I SERIOUSLY doubt that Ricoh will want to put that amount of financial resources and hinge the future of their company on a product designed to compete with industry leading Nikon and Canon.

By the way, has anybody noticed that while there are many Qs and Q10s listed for resale, there are practically no Q7s.The few Q7s I have seen for sale are listed near the costs of a Q-S1.


10-23-2015, 12:35 PM   #62
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,850
Likewise.

IME, the closest parallel to the Q-line was the Olympus Pen-F 1/2-frame camera of the '60's. I wasn't especially pleased with the IQ of the 1/2-frame format but it was the only ILSLR SYSTEM that satisfied my need for a very compact kit at the time. The A110 is a reasonable comparison as well.
10-23-2015, 01:19 PM   #63
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
@CWRailman - Aren't you a little harsh with your view re lomography? The Q is anything you and I make of it and if someone feels the Q is close in spirit to the marketing geniuses from Austria - well so be it. Who are we to say. To paraphrase Walt Whitman, The Q is large, it contains multitudes.

As far as marketing goes you are probably right. Pentax never did a good (or indeed any) job of it. And yet, in Japan young ladies understand the Q(ute). It is we in the West that find the concept of the Q hard to understand. Remember all the reviews that somehow insisted on comparing it to other ILC cameras? Of course the Q "lost" as it is the ILC with the smallest sensor and yet that is precisely the point of the Q. @Professor Batty proposes to outfit the Q with a 1" sensor - but please, what is that going to solve. It will no longer be the Q, we'd have to buy new lenses and thus we might as well get a little Panasonic with a 4/3 sensor which is bigger still and for which I at least have a plethora of lenses already. Enlarging the sensor is a loosing proposition. Where are you going to stop? Will logic dictate to go to 4/3, APS C, FF, Medium format? Where do you stop. The simple fact of the matter is that you either "get" the Q knowing the limitations (and advantages) of the small sensor or you get one of the myriad of other cameras with larger sensors.

If Pentax want to save the Q from oblivion in the medium to long run they need to grow beyond simply being small and Q(ute). Pentax should 1) finally release the two lenses that play to the strengths of the Q's small sensor: A decent macro and a really long zoom like other manufacturers have in their bridge cameras. Something from say 200mm to 1500mm ff equ. 2) Pentax should think about an additional larger body that can accomodate an EVF, a larger battery and a tilt/swivel screen to aid in macro photography. Such a camera would then be compared to other bridge cameras and reviewers would suddenly marvel at the fact that - unlike bridge cameras - it has an interchangeable mount... That is something even we in the west will understand :-)
10-23-2015, 02:05 PM   #64
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
Did you read my post?
Sure did. But are you certain that the Q mount will accomodate a 1" sensor? From all accounts it was designed for 1/1.7 from the start and only featured an even smaller sensor in the beginning for lack of availability.

So let me ask you this, when EVERY ilc in the world already features a larger sensor than the Q, why should Pentax go larger with this camera? Wouldn't they loose their one major USP such as I outlined in my post?

10-23-2015, 03:08 PM   #65
Forum Member
paulcote's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Sure did. But are you certain that the Q mount will accomodate a 1" sensor? From all accounts it was designed for 1/1.7 from the start and only featured an even smaller sensor in the beginning for lack of availability.

So let me ask you this, when EVERY ilc in the world already features a larger sensor than the Q, why should Pentax go larger with this camera? Wouldn't they loose their one major USP such as I outlined in my post?
what is a USP?

Last edited by paulcote; 10-23-2015 at 03:09 PM. Reason: forgot question mark.
10-23-2015, 04:23 PM   #66
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by paulcote Quote
what is a USP?
USP = Unique Selling Proposition.
Marketing speak for "I will make you an offer you cannot refuse..." ;-)

---------- Post added 24-10-15 at 01:40 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
@eyeswideshut

I don't want a larger Q.

If anything, the Q could be even more compact with a redesign of the quick dial and the IR port and by eliminating the built-in flash.

The dimensions of a 1" sensor is 12.8mm x 9.6mm, which is almost exactly the size of the opening in the sensor housing in a Q7.

There are certainly technical reasons why a 1" sensor won't work in the current Q bodies (and the Q lenses will never cover a 1" sensor) but that doesn't mean that a future camera couldn't use the Q lens system with a larger sensor which was cropped in firmware, similar to the way MFT bodies now handle C mount lenses. Even a good 2/3" sensor would allow for non-cropped squares and enhanced SR.
I'm arguing for two Q body shapes - one as small as is practical, one as large as is necessary to accomodate some things many users have missed. Regarding sensor size, I haven't checked the figures but if you say the diameter of a 1" sensor is the same as the mouth of the Q mount, it will be a tight fit at best (and don't forget shake reduction...) Anyway, what would be the point? Why don't I buy into Nikon 1 or MFT? Is the world really waiting for Pentax to grow the sensor of the Q only to recycle some Q lenses? If the market really wants bigger, it'd be best to start fresh and join the mft consortium - scuttling the Q. At least there would be plenty of lenses available from day one.
10-23-2015, 05:43 PM   #67
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,462
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
The marketing of the Q cameras has been pretty much non-existent in the U.S.
Pentax is pretty much nonexistent in the U.S.
10-23-2015, 05:52 PM   #68
Forum Member
paulcote's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 96
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
USP = Unique Selling Proposition.
Marketing speak for "I will make you an offer you cannot refuse..." ;-)

---------- Post added 24-10-15 at 01:40 ----------



I'm arguing for two Q body shapes - one as small as is practical, one as large as is necessary to accomodate some things many users have missed. Regarding sensor size, I haven't checked the figures but if you say the diameter of a 1" sensor is the same as the mouth of the Q mount, it will be a tight fit at best (and don't forget shake reduction...) Anyway, what would be the point? Why don't I buy into Nikon 1 or MFT? Is the world really waiting for Pentax to grow the sensor of the Q only to recycle some Q lenses? If the market really wants bigger, it'd be best to start fresh and join the mft consortium - scuttling the Q. At least there would be plenty of lenses available from day one.
Instead of micro 4/3, well I was so tempted when they had a two lens kit of the Sony a6000 which has an APS C sensor and a flip screen and a viewfinder for 499 dented box. i have a sony wx220 and it has the Bionz etc. and seems to take very nice photos albeit its all automatic.

10-23-2015, 06:16 PM   #69
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Pentax is pretty much nonexistent in the U.S.
Exactly!! And because they do a far better job of marketing their products to the general public as well as the photographic community, people who are interested in a small high quality cameras are moving toward Panasonic and Olympus. In the past four quarters Olympus has shown a decent profit from the sale of their 4/3 series cameras.

It would not matter if Pentax came out with a host of high quality lenses for the Q mount. Without a target market that would not make any sense. As demonstrated by the poor sales of the 08 lens, there is an insignificant amount of folks from the photographic community who would buy them, and since Pentax does not advertise to the general public that community will not purchase such lenses. So after they sell a few hundred, basically not enough to recover their costs of development, they will still have a dated product that fills a non existent void.

They really need to step up their marketing or continue loosing market share. Maybe Ricoh purchased them to gain access to their development resources in other areas such as medical instruments and in time will again let the photographic division die like they did with their 35mm film cameras.
10-23-2015, 06:38 PM   #70
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,296
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Maybe Ricoh purchased them to gain access to their development resources in other areas such as medical instruments and in time will again let the photographic division die like they did with their 35mm film cameras.
You do know that Ricoh bought the Cameras and Sports Optics, medical stayed with Hoya. Medical is the only reason Hoya bought Pentax in the first place. The eye glasses division had been sold off before the merger, they survey instruments division was sold off after the merger.
10-23-2015, 07:09 PM   #71
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,462
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Maybe Ricoh purchased them to gain access to their development resources in other areas such as medical instruments and in time will again let the photographic division die like they did with their 35mm film cameras.
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Medical is the only reason Hoya bought Pentax in the first place.
That and fairly substantial real estate holdings.
10-23-2015, 08:19 PM   #72
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,462
Just thirty months ago Ricoh considered Q the Future - the real growth opportunity in the entire camera line.

My how quickly things change.
10-24-2015, 01:41 AM   #73
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteQuote:
The 1" sensor would also allow for square images, utilizing the full potential of the lens coverage.
Sensor over-provisioning (to coin a term) is an intriguing idea, and one that very few camera makers have tried. Panasonic is on the only one I can think of that's done it. A Q-series camera with an oversized sensor would be cool.
10-24-2015, 06:15 AM   #74
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,462
QuoteOriginally posted by i83N Quote
Is q camera line dead?
Likely yes, it appears.
10-24-2015, 09:11 AM   #75
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
If that's the case then drop everything on your wish list and buy every Q lens, accessory, and adapter. Once it's all gone then there will not be any more!
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 11:43 PM. | 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