[Tony Belding]

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!

I'm sure they will be turning up on fleaBay for a long time.

[jethro10]

Well it certainly seems dead now.
I can handle that, but it would be nice for Pentax to at least let us know officially...

[Nicolas06]

To be honest to me the Q is based on a marketing lie. The idea is that even if you sensor is very small if you have interchangable lenses, you'll get high quality pictures.

Sure it is fun to use, it can be stylish but Pentax is not very good at marketing honestly.

If you are not satisfied with your sell phones pictures, and still want something small you have for me 2 choices:
- you take one of the high end compact camera with a 1", 1.5" or even m4/3 sensor. You get a real and visible quality boost toward your phone and get some real zooming capability.
- you take an m4/3 like an Olympus pen with the kit lense... The alternatives lenses give you the opportunity to get more quality when you want it like you can add a prime or 2 or a super tele-zoom and if you don't take all of this at the same time, you should have quite un-obtrusive camera system with decent quality.


The problem is the Q isn't able to touch the quality of either alternative and isn't even more stilish than a Olympus pen. The Q quality is too similar to a cellphone and on a 1/1.7 sensor so it fail in the claim to provide with great quality pictures. The Q would make much more sense without cellphones, but that not the case.

The interchangeable thing is a joke on such small 1/1.7" sensor : you can simply put a fixed lense that is small, of high quality and cover a wide range of framing. Going interchangeable is overkill.

[Suleeto]

The idea that the Q is "similar to a cellphone" is absurd. I have a cellphone with an excellent camera -- as cellphones go. It does not have as good of IQ as my Q7. Not even close. The ISO is also nowhere near as smooth as the Q at higher levels. I can't control shutterspeed, or aperture. I have some sort of "shake reduction" in my phone but it is rudimentary digital stabilization and not that good... the SR in the Q is great. The cellphone had absolutely NO true zoom. Not only does the 02 Standard Zoom set itself apart in that respect, if you want more range, the 06 is great. Then there is RAW output... and lens adapters... K, CCTV... can I do that with my phone? No. It is absurd to say any Q model is "similar to" even the highest spec phones.

Also.... lomography (as a PHILOSOPHY/MOVEMENT, NOT as a company) may have began with a cheap Russian product, but if you judge the lomographic ideology on the equipment then you don't get the movement at all. What matters most in lomography (as a movement) is portability, no hesitation, freedom to shoot whenever, however, and less energy spent on setting up a shot... and more energy spent on *taking* them often. The cross processing of chems to produce odd colorization is just a minor element in lomography (the movement, again and again stated so it isn't misunderstood for the company or specific cameras)... the Q might not be a cheap POS film point and shoot, it it's small size and easy controls make it slip into the lomo lifestyle easily... and in some respects, even the preset knob (as opposed to slower, intentional post processing in, say, LR or PS) is a sort of "on the fly" thing that yet again fits well with the lomo idea of "do it now!"

Still...

It does seem like the Q is indefinitely mothballed. Ricoh seems very cautious about officially saying *anything* about anything.... so it may just be on the back burner. They may be reevaluating things because the K-01 was not reviewed or received very well (a guess). The problem is the mindset that brought forth the Q series is now gone, focusing in other directions.

Maybe this doesn't mean "dead", just "coma". But we often pull the plug on coma patients that are in a coma for too long.

It's sad... but as was suggested, it will likely go the way of the Auto 110.

That doesn't mean it still can't take beautiful photos and still see use... but I think it was destined to die from day one, to be honest. Because eventually, the cellphone optic tech *will* be much better, with more controls... and strict lomography will fade away in favor of uber-convenience and finally decent mobile optics.

Leaving bigger bodies for more serious and/or deliberate work.

Which is pretty much where DSLR's are at now.

[eyeswideshut]

Boy, I sure hope those rumors of the Q's demise are greatly exagerated. We'll see after the FF's release next year.

[6BQ5]

@Nicolas06 : I disagree with you when you compare the Q7 to cell phone camera. Remember that the Q7 is capable of shooting and saving in RAW format. With proper technique it is possible to begin reaching toward u4/3 quality at low ISO. You may not reach it fully but you may come pretty close with good light. Also, don't forget that the Q lenses will be much higher quality than anything you can find in a cell phone camera. These two elements together enable making prints at 18"x24" which I think would be much, much harder to achieve with a cell phone camera. I don't doubt that cell phone cameras may get there one day but that day is not today.

I do agree with you that the Q finds itself in a bad spot with its tiny sensor. The sensor's performance begins to break down at 800 for larger prints whereas u4/3 can keep going slightly behind 1600-2400 depending on the specific camera and the shooting situation. It becomes hard to overcome sensor noise in the Q in tough situations.

I have both a Q7 and an Olympus M-10. Both cameras are an absolute blast to use. Their capabilities overlap in some cases but not in other cases. I wish Ricoh could find some niche application for the Q and market it. Otherwise, the Q has very little hope. Shoppers may as well get a Fuji XQ2 and be done..

[Na Horuk]

To be honest to me the Q is based on a marketing lie. The idea is that even if you sensor is very small if you have interchangable lenses, you'll get high quality pictures.

But the Q will get higher quality pictures than any P&S or smartphone (released in the same year). And not just because of the lenses, but also the features. The Q has a lot of features that are found in DSLRs and not in many P&S. I think you mentioned the main reason for problems, though. Its the competition from some Sony cameras and m4/3 cameras, Olympus, Fuji. Some of these are not much bigger than the Q, but they have bigger sensors and more native lenses available.

What I would really like to see the Q try is a square sensor, with dual-ISO. That would greatly help with DR, and possibly with noise, as well.

[Nicolas06]

But the Q will get higher quality pictures than any P&S or smartphone (released in the same year). And not just because of the lenses, but also the features. The Q has a lot of features that are found in DSLRs and not in many P&S. I think you mentioned the main reason for problems, though. Its the competition from some Sony cameras and m4/3 cameras, Olympus, Fuji. Some of these are not much bigger than the Q, but they have bigger sensors and more native lenses available.

What I would really like to see the Q try is a square sensor, with dual-ISO. That would greatly help with DR, and possibly with noise, as well.

It will not get higher quality picture than any P&S because many P&S have same or greater sensor size and quite decent optics too. I don't trust the Q to trump an LX100 or even an LX7.

Some smart phone sensors are 1/2.5" or 1/2.3" (for example whole Sony experia Z line is 1/2.3"). The Nokia Lumia 1520 and 930 have an 1/2.5" sensor, HTC one M9 serie has 1/2.4"...

Versus the Sony Z serie, there only 0.6EV gain versus the other this is more like 1EV... But vs a full frame, there 4EV difference. A Q sensor is much more like a smartphone quality wise than a full frame... or even an APSC.

The obvious compromises between 1/2.3" and 24:36 or APSC are not 1/1.7" but 1" and m4.3 sensors. Instead of a mere 0.6EV gain you are more at 2-3EV and that make a real visible difference.

You don't need to wait to get a smartphones that provide quality similar to your Pentax Q. The latest Sony experia already provide a quality that is very similar to it!

I agree on the features, but only vs Smartphones because compacts do offer quite a lot already, some will offer more.

[monochrome]

Whatever. It's an empty argument. We like them - lots of others like them. Maybe you don't.

Done.

[Nicolas06]

Whatever. It's an empty argument. We like them - lots of others like them. Maybe you don't.

Done.

Yeah but maybe the market is a bit tiny then ? Not to say I want to prevent to get your Q or an upgraded one. I was more providing information: the Q provide fun, that for sure and people can buy them because of that. For the picture quality, the Q is at a level of a compact camera. And one I say compact camera, I'am excluding expert/higher quality camera. The interchangeable lense excuse is to get more quality than a compact. This isn't going to work when an LX7 is a good and the serie of 1" compact camera all perform significantly better.

[monochrome]

Don't bother. MindMadeUp.

There's a reason K-01 and Q have their own Forum - and it isn't because they are both mirrorless.

It is to segregate the apostate.

[gt6plus]

Yeah but maybe the market is a bit tiny then ? Not to say I want to prevent to get your Q or an upgraded one. I was more providing information: the Q provide fun, that for sure and people can buy them because of that. For the picture quality, the Q is at a level of a compact camera. And one I say compact camera, I'am excluding expert/higher quality camera. The interchangeable lense excuse is to get more quality than a compact. This isn't going to work when an LX7 is a good and the serie of 1" compact camera all perform significantly better.

Was the Q ever marketed as having "better image quality" because of the interchangeable lenses? I didn't think Pentax did any marketing....
I enjoy it for its versatility in using cine lenses among others.

[reh321]

It will not get higher quality picture than any P&S because many P&S have same or greater sensor size and quite decent optics too. I don't trust the Q to trump an LX100 or even an LX7.

Some smart phone sensors are 1/2.5" or 1/2.3" (for example whole Sony experia Z line is 1/2.3"). The Nokia Lumia 1520 and 930 have an 1/2.5" sensor, HTC one M9 serie has 1/2.4"...

Versus the Sony Z serie, there only 0.6EV gain versus the other this is more like 1EV... But vs a full frame, there 4EV difference. A Q sensor is much more like a smartphone quality wise than a full frame... or even an APSC.

The obvious compromises between 1/2.3" and 24:36 or APSC are not 1/1.7" but 1" and m4.3 sensors. Instead of a mere 0.6EV gain you are more at 2-3EV and that make a real visible difference.

You don't need to wait to get a smartphones that provide quality similar to your Pentax Q. The latest Sony experia already provide a quality that is very similar to it!

I agree on the features, but only vs Smartphones because compacts do offer quite a lot already, some will offer more.

You are talking about completely different markets here!! The benefit of an ILC comes from its ability to change personality by changing lenses. Not everyone needs personality other than well-lighted mildly wide-angle, but an ILC is for those of us who do.

For example, my wife had a conference in Des Moines, Iowa, (about seven hours from our home) this past week. I was able to take the time off, and she took a vacation day, so we both went.

We wandered around a wildlife sanctuary on part of her day off, and I wandered farther afar when she was at her meetings.

Her hobby is bird-watching; I have never been able to assemble a passable birding system within what I'm willing to spend on that, which is one of the reasons I got the Q-7. Since I got that camera at the end of last year, I've been auditioning various adapted lenses to use for birding; in general, my experience is that newer lenses give me better CA than older ones do, but every so often I find a lens that gives me hope of getting better resolving power, which is the primary weakness of the lens I'm currently using. Frankly, at my low budget, I may just have to be satisfied with less resolution, because even that is better than anything I had before.

Anyway, on this trip I took an elderly 300mm M42 Super Takumar; turns out that CA sinks this lens regardless of how it would otherwise have resolved onto the small Q-7 sensor - but even the pictures I took with it were more useful than I could have taken with any cellphone, because back in the motel room they helped my wife sort out what she had been seeing flit about through her binoculars.

When I went off on my own, I drove past a truly desolate-looking one-room school house. My family really enjoys going up to Greenfield Village, a collection of old Americana assembled by Henry Ford; formerly, I thought it was unfortunate that Mr. Ford had moved all these buildings from where they belonged, but then I came to discover that much of American doesn't value their old stuff. This school house was one of those - it would have been good if Mr. Ford's successors had rescued this building fifty years ago. I have a Nokia cellphone that I got a couple of weeks after I got the Q-7; I originally selected it because of its camera, but I use it only when I'm planning on sending a picture to someone, because I've found that the Q-7 (which normally lives in a pouch on my belt) takes pictures which are so much better. In this case, I planned on sending the picture to my wife and our daughters, so I got out the cellphone. That was a waste of effort. The sky was covered with clouds, but it was much brighter than the school house; I suppose I could have walked much closer so that the school house was most of the picture, but I wanted the picture to show how isolated the school house truly is ... and the cellphone just couldn't handle the darkish school house against the brightish clouds. Thus, I went to the Q-7 on my belt.

These are just two examples, from the past few daze, showing the limitations of cell phone cameras. Some times they do a wonderful job, but many tasks are just plain beyond them.

[CWRailman]

When I went off on my own, I drove past a truly desolate-looking one-room school house. My family really enjoys going up to Greenfield Village, a collection of old Americana assembled by Henry Ford; formerly, I thought it was unfortunate that Mr. Ford had moved all these buildings from where they belonged, but then I came to discover that much of American doesn't value their old stuff. This school house was one of those - it would have been good if Mr. Ford's successors had rescued this building fifty years ago. I have a Nokia cellphone that I got a couple of weeks after I got the Q-7; I originally selected it because of its camera, but I use it only when I'm planning on sending a picture to someone, because I've found that the Q-7 (which normally lives in a pouch on my belt) takes pictures which are so much better. In this case, I planned on sending the picture to my wife and our daughters, so I got out the cellphone. That was a waste of effort. The sky was covered with clouds, but it was much brighter than the school house; I suppose I could have walked much closer so that the school house was most of the picture, but I wanted the picture to show how isolated the school house truly is ... and the cellphone just couldn't handle the darkish school house against the brightish clouds. Thus, I went to the Q-7 on my belt.

A bit off topic here but that school house is not in as bad of condition as the Menlo Park Lab before it was relocated to GreenfieldVillage.In volume 3 of the book titled Menlo Park Reminiscences by Francis Jehl, on page 1124 there is a photo of what Edison’s Menlo Park looked like when Henry Ford found it. The roof and much of the second floor is gone and not much remained but a skeleton which was listing to one side.Henry sent teams out to scour the areas and buy back boards that had been stolen/repurposed by farmers. According to the book, in some cases he had to purchase entire barns but according to reports he was able to recover nearly 75% of the original structure.Had he not done that then the Menlo Park lab would have just been a memory supported by photos. PS. Outside of Colonial Williamsburg, Greenfield Village is one of my favorite spots.

[Nicolas06]

You are talking about completely different markets here!! The benefit of an ILC comes from its ability to change personality by changing lenses. Not everyone needs personality other than well-lighted mildly wide-angle, but an ILC is for those of us who do.

For example, my wife had a conference in Des Moines, Iowa, (about seven hours from our home) this past week. I was able to take the time off, and she took a vacation day, so we both went.

We wandered around a wildlife sanctuary on part of her day off, and I wandered farther afar when she was at her meetings.

Her hobby is bird-watching; I have never been able to assemble a passable birding system within what I'm willing to spend on that, which is one of the reasons I got the Q-7. Since I got that camera at the end of last year, I've been auditioning various adapted lenses to use for birding; in general, my experience is that newer lenses give me better CA than older ones do, but every so often I find a lens that gives me hope of getting better resolving power, which is the primary weakness of the lens I'm currently using. Frankly, at my low budget, I may just have to be satisfied with less resolution, because even that is better than anything I had before.

Anyway, on this trip I took an elderly 300mm M42 Super Takumar; turns out that CA sinks this lens regardless of how it would otherwise have resolved onto the small Q-7 sensor - but even the pictures I took with it were more useful than I could have taken with any cellphone, because back in the motel room they helped my wife sort out what she had been seeing flit about through her binoculars.

When I went off on my own, I drove past a truly desolate-looking one-room school house. My family really enjoys going up to Greenfield Village, a collection of old Americana assembled by Henry Ford; formerly, I thought it was unfortunate that Mr. Ford had moved all these buildings from where they belonged, but then I came to discover that much of American doesn't value their old stuff. This school house was one of those - it would have been good if Mr. Ford's successors had rescued this building fifty years ago. I have a Nokia cellphone that I got a couple of weeks after I got the Q-7; I originally selected it because of its camera, but I use it only when I'm planning on sending a picture to someone, because I've found that the Q-7 (which normally lives in a pouch on my belt) takes pictures which are so much better. In this case, I planned on sending the picture to my wife and our daughters, so I got out the cellphone. That was a waste of effort. The sky was covered with clouds, but it was much brighter than the school house; I suppose I could have walked much closer so that the school house was most of the picture, but I wanted the picture to show how isolated the school house truly is ... and the cellphone just couldn't handle the darkish school house against the brightish clouds. Thus, I went to the Q-7 on my belt.

These are just two examples, from the past few daze, showing the limitations of cell phone cameras. Some times they do a wonderful job, but many tasks are just plain beyond them.

Sure cellphones aren't perfect, and I'am not advocating them but they offer more and more. A bit better phone would have handled the school picture just fine, at worst with an HDR mode. Hey my phone at least handle panos while I must do everything by myself on my K-mount camera!

I agree the Q pictures can be lot of fun but I'am sure that mounting a 300mm lens on it is really typical usage.

Oh many tried there but typically a 300mm, doesn't outresolve a modern APSC sensor so a crop on an APSC body would have done as well. A cheapo used 70-300 consumer zoom is quite unexpensive and you would be really started in the field.

If you insist on the size of the body and the high price of a DSLR (well one DSLR used can be got for less than $200) then buy a used nex and mount your 300mm on it. Some can be brought used for 150$, no more than what you would pay for a Q. And really when you want to mount a 300mm anyway on it, I wouldn't say the Nex body size is the limiting factor.

Not that I want to prevent anybody from using the Q and that you can't do fun things with it, it is just that you can do many fun things with any mirorless anyway. They are not that expensive if you buy used and even the basic model new is quite affordable.

That the problem of the Q: it is a bit smaller and provide some fun but there no differentiator except the size and this come with an heavy tax on quality. Price wise one can get a nice used mirorless in m4/3 or APSC Sony E for similar price as the Q and get much more picture quality and a size that is still reasonnably small.