[reh321]

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.

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.

---

Last edited by reh321; 10-09-2015 at 11:05 AM.

[Transit]

Oh dear what a bunch of moaners...

The Q7 is brilliant and I use it daily

[Bophoto]

I think Q has a great future if Pentax start to develop it. what Q line needs is 2 cameras, one like Q7 and one advanced. the advanced model can have room for a extra battery instead of that round thing on Q-S1 there you have your long finger and GPS or take GPS unit.
Room for 2 batteries for longer performance, astrophoto with sensorshift and more with the GPS unit.
A new Q adapter that have autofocus on F/DA lenses so you can use your FA 135 or DA300 fully automatic with autofocus.
A new lens line (perhaps like star lenses on K-mount), primes like 15/1,8, 20/1,4, 35/1,2, 50/1, 85/1 and 135/1,4 approx/ FF and zooms like 10-20/2, 24-105/2 and 70-200/1,7.
Pentax needs to use the nice thing with a small sensor, fast lenses so we can have a fast Shutter speed or don´t need to increase iso and we can use the "best" aperture.
And a external elektronic viewfinder.

[6BQ5]

That doesn't sound unreasonable in many ways. The hardware would be the same but the exterior of the body can have different markings and finishes. Also, the firmware would be different. A buyer wouldn't be paying extra for different hardware for the value of the firmware and the extra features.

[LeRolls]

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.

Agreed, could be a fun feature.

[CWRailman]

I think Q has a great future if Pentax start to develop it. what Q line needs is 2 cameras, one like Q7 and one advanced. the advanced model can have room for a extra battery instead of that round thing on Q-S1 there you have your long finger and GPS or take GPS unit.
Room for 2 batteries for longer performance, astrophoto with sensorshift and more with the GPS unit.
.

To add the second battery would increase the size of the camera as would incorporating many of the other features folks ask for. Addition of the suggested features might make the camera more desirable to folks with a photographic background but would the camera still be appropriate for it's target market?

Many of the features that have been asked for in the past are currently available in some of the 4/3 format cameras. Say the GM-5 for instance. But that camera sells for almost twice or in most markets at least 1.5 times what the Q series sells for but produces an image that has an IQ similar to a Pentax K-5. 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. Those that would pay the additional money are already being directed toward the Panasonic GM-5 which has a large, somewhat costly, selection of native lenses already available and more on the way. Where is the benefit to Pentax's bottom line to devote already limited resources to further development of the Q series?

I think the Q series, especially the Q7 was a great camera that Pentax failed to properly market. (I think the Q-S1 was a mistaken step backwards.) But as I have said in the past, since the 1980's what there is of a Pentax marketing division has never made a strong noticeable effort to properly market their products. Have you ever seen any advertising like this to come directly from Pentax?

You Tube

You Tube

Or this one

You Tube

You Tube

Every camera store owner or employee that I have ever talked with agrees that Pentax does poorly in marketing their products. But then some of them believe Pentax has nothing really worth advertising. I joke but I believe there is some truth when I say that using their current marketing techniques, Pentax would probably have trouble selling ice in the desert.

[THoog]

Have you ever seen any advertising like this to come directly from Pentax?

Well... yes, but it was in Japanese, or else the half-hearted attempts at marketing the K-S1, which Pentaxians generally slammed because they showed nice-looking young people with cameras (not that different from the GM5 promo). Sometimes, I don't blame Pentax for practically abandoning the US market.

[CWRailman]

..... which Pentaxians generally slammed because they showed nice-looking young people with cameras (not that different from the GM5 promo).

Many people who make such uninformed comments about marketing, as you mentioned and I have read as well, know little about global marketing and have never depended on their successful marketing of a product to pay their salary.Those who depend on sales to pay their bills understand and embrace such marketing efforts. There are many examples of marketing a product that was in second place only to have it become number one.One such success story here in the US was VHS verses Beta tape technology.Beta was far superior in most respects but due to Sony’s proprietary system which they did not license to others and poor marketing, VHS pretty much became the standard in a majority of homes. Pentax really needs to step it up or give it up.

[monochrome]

Do you want to pay up for everything Pentax makes so they can market / compete? An investment bank suggests Ricoh the parent company would sustain a negative earnings effect for three years should Ricoh choose to use that business model. That's just not their gig - hasn't been in the USA since the mid 80's. Pentax and now Ricoh are acting with intent and business judgement.

[Tony Belding]

To add the second battery would increase the size of the camera as would incorporating many of the other features folks ask for. Addition of the suggested features might make the camera more desirable to folks with a photographic background but would the camera still be appropriate for it's target market?

The whole point of introducing multiple models into the Q lineup would be to expand the target market, or perhaps target completely new segments.

Where is the benefit to Pentax's bottom line to devote already limited resources to further development of the Q series?

I am skeptical whenever I hear this argument about Pentax's limited resources. Ricoh is not a small startup company operating out of somebody's basement. They can get the resources. However, there has to be a level of confidence that the product in question will really pay off. They've had a few fumbles in recent memory.

[SteveNunez]

To answer the original posters ? asking if the Q is dead- I'd have to say yes.
Great little camera and exceptional build quality- esp. original Q.......but nothing new in a LONG time signals the end of the line for the Q series.

If they could squeeze higher image quality it "could" have a chance at some success......but cameras like the GM1 & GM5 are as small yet boast better IQ and much better video.......it would be hard for the Q line to gain share.

Nice camera and I'm still a fan of them- it's just that it's time to shine has passed as other cams have miniaturized and have beaten it on all IQ fronts...............at least it will have allot of DOF for those who need or want it.

Q has been fun.

(just my opinion- no bashing guys)

[6BQ5]

I am skeptical whenever I hear this argument about Pentax's limited resources. Ricoh is not a small startup company operating out of somebody's basement. They can get the resources. However, there has to be a level of confidence that the product in question will really pay off. They've had a few fumbles in recent memory.

I also agree that Ricoh can get the resources lined up. The question is what amount of return an investment of people and resources must make for Ricoh to consider the endeavor? Maybe the idea, product plan, etc must make 10x minimum what Ricoh puts into it. Or maybe there is a set dollar value, like $10MM in the 1st year. Lining up a global team of 20 engineers, marketing specialists, and backroom sourcing/financial/QA/etc people may cost $1.5MM to $2MM in salary alone. Now add new materials and tooling and the investment may be $3MM to $8MM.

If I were Ricoh then I would put that money toward something that will give $20MM to $50MM (or even more!) back. The Q product line isn't going to do that. New product development for the Q may be a slow process that happens on a rainy day. That still doesn't make me not want new Q products.

[Tony Belding]

If I were Ricoh then I would put that money toward something that will give $20MM to $50MM (or even more!) back. The Q product line isn't going to do that.

Well, this is where we disagree. I think it's possible to create some exciting products based on the Q-mount, to generate some buzz, to move the needle. Obviously that needs to be something other than a mere update or restyling of the existing body, though.

[eyeswideshut]

Well, this is where we disagree. I think it's possible to create some exciting products based on the Q-mount, to generate some buzz, to move the needle. Obviously that needs to be something other than a mere update or restyling of the existing body, though.

I couldn't agree more.
The Q is a diamond in the rough but Ricoh is not coming through. They seem not to want to capitalize on two intrinsic advantages of a small sensor: large depth of field (macro lens) and long reach (a mega superzoom). Nor do they address the apparent shortcomings of no evf, very short battery life and generally sluggish performance. Seems to me a small DSLR shaped Q with big battery and very good OVF coupled with release of a macro and a long zoom lense would go a long way towards reinvigorating the Q.

[6BQ5]

@Tony Belding and @eyeswideshut : I agree with you that the Q is a cool, exciting, and fun camera. There's a Q7 with a complete set of lenses sitting on my shelf. Consider me an advocate! I hate to sound like a party pooper here but the u4/3 format owns the space that the Q system could reside in. The bodies are almost as small as the Q, IQ is almost as high as APS, and there are more lenses available than you can shake a stick at. Everything we ask for in lenses and features and more already exists in the u4/3 universe : EVFs, bigger batteries, sharper LCD screens, etc. Updating the Q with new features and expanding the lens line up will definitely move the needle forward but it would hardly make a dent in the industry overall. The opportunity for that kind of impact has long since passed. I think Sony understands this very well and that is why I think there isn't a small format ILC in their line up. Nikon is still trying to figure this out with their J series. They have the money to keep learning and maybe they will punch through u4/3's dominance. Canon is trying too but the verdict hasn't come in yet.

Ricoh took what must have been a $5MM to $8MM investment and created the 645Z. It seems like that payback has been huge both financially and in marketing. Looking at what the internet says, I think the camera went viral and hurt the competition pretty hard. A FF body is the next arrow Ricoh intends to fire at the market. With the right pricing and positioning the upcoming FF body could do what the 645Z did. Nikon and Canon may have been able to accept Sony stepping in with their A7 but they may not be able to take an advanced K-mount FF body too. I think these are the kinds of investments Ricoh wants to make.

The Q product line is probably still turning a profit, even if it is small. Sustaining the current Q product line probably requires minimal cost so Ricoh might as well sustain it for the time being. The biggest "cost" is the production time that could be used to build other higher margin, better selling products. For this reason, I don't think we'll see the Q disappear. Instead, the Q is becoming a niche product with upscale pricing for devoted fans who want a very specific user experience. Perhaps this is the poor man's Leica?

I'm sure we'll see updates such as an extra lens, higher performance video recording, and maybe even a better quality LCD screen in time ... but that time is not tomorrow.