[CWRailman]

My initial, central point, was that an ILC can have many different personalities depending on the needs of the user; in fact, a small investment can change its personality in mid-stream. There is no point to scaling the picture I already have; that proves absolutely nothing. I had tried many other options. The point is that this $300 camera is serving double-duty for me (the user in this case):

I think that is the essence of the Q line especially for those of us who do not have deep pockets or are on restrictive financial budgets. Sometimes folks forget what Blunty stressed in his You tube review of the original Q and then followed up with his review of the Q7. As he says, this camera is NOT for everyone and it was not meant to be. Shooters who want absolute pixel peeping sharpness and big enlargements should not buy into the Q system and those who want a small pocketable reasonably priced camera system for which they do not have to mortgage the house should not consider purchasing a full frame camera. In similar manner, people who want the performance of a Ferrari don’t buy a Fiat and only an idiot would go out and buy a Ferrari expecting to get the economy of operation afforded by a Fiat.

[Suleeto]

The advantage of the Q is a certain Swiss Army knife quality. Super compact P&S one moment, superb street camera the next, amazing aerial pole or drone camera, followed by super telephoto monster. All of this with real camera handling and controls. Even Raw shooting is supported. There is nothing else like it. It may not be your primary camera, but it should be many people's 2nd or 3rd.

This. BAM. This right here.

*stomps boots on floor*

This is why I referred to it as a "super-lomographic" camera. No, it's not a cheapo film body from Russia or Lomography Co. It sacrifices the "hipster" side of the lomographic movement in favor of modern tricks, and MUCH, much, much more versatility than a lot of cameras... including the best point and shoots. If people don't think lens interchangeability affects photographic character in the image results, the are cuckoo... and not the kind of cuckoo that birders shoot with their Q's LOL

The Q is for people who enjoy *lifestyle* shooting. Not for people who are pixel peepers, or spec whores. It has areas it sacrifices (sensor size being the main one) in favor of MANY other advantages that make photography AN ART.

Yes, AN ART. It emphasizes photography as AN ARTFORM much moreso than any cheap film camera, or point and shoot digital, and especially moreso than any fullsized DSLR. Unless you literally carry your DSLR with you everywhere, every day.

And some people do! I tried that and broke a camera that way (and I am careful). This camera's small size isn't just novelty for me. It's WAY more manageable and therefore safer to take out everywhere. And still flexible. I have my 02 Standard Zoom on it, but also a small lens bag with the K adapter and two primes. I ENJOY USING IT. And I take pictures.

Which reminds me. I posted a bunch of photos in here a few pages back. I didn't do it to get praise. I did it to try to visually REMIND some folks that it can produce some great images. Most of those weren't even post processed, I just used the filter body options.

[monochrome]

Some people are confident enough to appreciate Q without seeking the approval of others.

[Suleeto]

Who is seeking approval here? This is about convincing the naysayers that this camera has a legitimate use in photography. Even if Ricoh may trashcan it for all time, it gets used, it produces some amazing images, and it DOES encourage the artform in a unique manner. This is bad?

LOL

Hell, from a purely journalistic point of view, it even has some uses since most journalism is moving towards web anyways.

[monochrome]

Who is seeking approval here? This is about convincing the naysayers that this camera has a legitimate use in photography. Even if Ricoh may trashcan it for all time, it gets used, it produces some amazing images, and it DOES encourage the artform in a unique manner. This is bad?

LOL

Hell, from a purely journalistic point of view, it even has some uses since most journalism is moving towards web anyways.

Sometimes I'm too subtke by half. What I meant is the criticisms on this thread have no effect on my opinion.

[Nicolas06]

You are using English in interesting, creative, and irrelevant ways. The crop factor of the Q-7 is 4.7 when compared to full-frame and roughly 3 when compared to APS-C. If you want to use this mysterious 2.2, then go ahead and use it for your own benefit; just don't expect me or anyone else to respond to your creativity.

Sorry to say that you didn't get it. The crop factor of 3 is for the physical size of the sensor. It would apply if you were comparing a 12MP Q with a 12MP APSC. Or if we were speaking of a 24MP Q vs a 24MP APSC.

Now we were saying of the number of MP that remain if you go to Q framing with an APSC. This was say to be 2.6 MP. because well the APSC has 24. (24 / 3 * 3 = 2.66MP). This is direct application of this crop factor of 3 your speak of.

Now in term of visible detail the Q is able to display 12MP while the APSC on the same surface has 12MP. In surface that a factor of 4.5 (4.8 when MP are rounded to 2.5MP only). There 4.5 time less pixels in the APSC than the Q from the same surface... If the pixel density is expressed not per surface area (2 dimension) but for a distance (like X pixels per mm and not X pixel per mm2), then you need to take the square root. This give you 2.12, Rounded to 2.2 coming from 2.5MP approximation.

So yes I should not have said crop factor because it confused you even if this is a crop factor. But because this term has already another meaning, the pixel density factor maybe would be a better term.

If you try to honestly follow what has been said still this doesn't change the reasonning and doesn't mean the Q got suddenly better because my naming convention what bad, the compution itself is valid.

[morane_j]

I know that if an APSC was used instead, there would be no more than 2.5MP or 4.8 time less pixels. But how many real MP was there in that Q image posted? Or if your prefer how capable was that 300mm to begin with? Would it provide more on Q than on APSC, because this is the claim? If I resize it by a factor of 4.8 in surface or 2.2 in height and witdth, then I have the same pixel density than the APSC camera. If the resized image look quite sharp, then maybe there more than 2.5MP worth of data, more than the 24MP APSC can record, I could try another re-sizing, a more moderate one to estimate how much I gain with the Q.

Doing that I have seen that basically for the posted picture, I see that the resized picture look reasonably sharp, not outstanding neither and lacking constrast. I know prime that do better than than on an APSC crop. For example the 50-135, the DA35 macro or the FA77. If I'am more moderate, in the cropping, it doesn't look that sharp.

The conclusion is that for the tested lens, the Q didn't provide signifcantly more detail. The lens is not sharp enough and the try to mount it on the Q, while fun doesn't provide anything more than the fun to try.

Knowing the quality of catadioptric optical design, I would not think that the 500mm you tried would fare any better so while the number your posted are impressive (2800mm equivalent), this doesn't mean you get more details. Let compute differently if you prefer. Imagine you use your APSC body with 24MP, you reframe to 2800mm equivalent FF, so 1866mm on APSC. Counting you start from 500mm, you have only 1.7MP worth of data remaining.

1.7MP is what? This is arround the resolution of a full HD picture. This is a picture full screen with potentially lot of details. Did you get something sharper than that ? Honestly?

While the Q made you try and that sure fun, the fact you didn't try with your DSLR is not your DSLR fault, it is your lack of willingness to try fun things with it, no more

Sure the Q is something small and fine and that stay a real adventage but quite many people try all sort of things with their DSLR too, they mount telescopes, they add TC, they add extension tube, they reverse their lens, they try to adapt old projector lenses... they try lenses with psychedelic bokeh, they simulate a lens baby rendering by adding some butter/oil on the front element... Evening is possible.

I will not insist more on this, my point was just that while fun the Q didn't have much in term of quality, nothing more than comparable alternatives. There only the look, the size, and the fun. That seems a lot said like this, but people will have as much fun with their Olympus Pen and still have a fantastic look something small too... And more picture quality. Some people will have similar experience with a Nex. Some will prefer an RX100, my father brought an X10 on sale for 200$ already some time ago. That still another devide that provide a bit more in term of quality. Sure you don't have ILC on this one but you get the feeling of a very good camera with fantastic controls.

I just don't see a huge market for the Q. Just my point of view.

Sorry for the incoveniance, I'll stop there.

well you're just saying that a huge and heavy DSLR has a better IQ than a Q... Humm i'm sure everybody here knows that.
And you know what, an even bigger MF camera cropped will have a better IQ than a DSLR or a Q.

[6BQ5]

The Q may be dead but this thread is not!

[boriscleto]

The Q may be dead but this thread is not!

We could start talking about cheese Better yet, cheese and bacon...

[Suleeto]

Yeah if you're saying it's "better" to carry the DSLR around with you everywhere for that spontaneous photographic result, then no we wont ever agree. Decent camera bodies aren't cheap. I bought the Q for "lifestyle" photography. My regular DSLR is for intended sessions, be it work, art, or situations where I go in *expecting* to seriously shoot.

I'm not gonna carry my DSLR everywhere with me and risk damage or worse get robbed of it.

The Q is easier to manage and even conceal but offers way more ability than my cellphone.

[Tony Belding]

There's no question in my mind that the Q system has value. But if it is abandoned, then the question becomes where to place the blame. . .

Should we blame the 645Z, because its great success has convinced Ricoh that bigger is better?

Should we blame the full-frame camera (K-FF?) for consuming development resources that otherwise might have gone to Q?

Should we blame the Q-S1 for looking like somebody beat on it with the Ugly Stick?

[Steve.Ledger]

Who should we blame when both cats don't like a brand of cat food? The cats, the producer or the cat carer for trying something new?
Ans: None of the above are to 'blame'..

I think 'blame' is the wrong word to use. First, we don't know if the Q line has been abandoned, all I see are a number of people expecting their expectations to be met and when they aren't they draw conclusions without a shred of officially supported evidence.

I also see (once again) that people forget about the Asian market which is significantly larger than the US market or the Western market in general for this type/style of camera.
Ricoh certainly don't produce all those colour variations solely for a Western market.

Wait and see..

[monochrome]

Go away. This is our Forum.

[CWRailman]

There's no question in my mind that the Q system has value. But if it is abandoned, then the question becomes where to place the blame. . . Should we blame the 645Z, because its great success has convinced Ricoh that bigger is better? Should we blame the full-frame camera (K-FF?) for consuming development resources that otherwise might have gone to Q? Should we blame the Q-S1 for looking like somebody beat on it with the Ugly Stick?

All of those points could be considered as distractions or in the case of the Q-S1 a very misguided step backward however I put the blame, if there is to be any, squarely on the shoulders of Pentax Marketing. I know I keep bringing this up but no matter how good or bad a product is does not matter if the world does not know about your product and if they do not know about your product you "ain’t" going to sell any. Pentax could wrap the camera in hundred dollar bills and unless such is publicized it still will not sell. What I cannot figure out, is if Pentax is so ashamed of their product that they will not advertise it or get it out to reviewers with a statement indicating it's intended market, then why do they stay in the business of producing those products? If you have a business or sell a product don’t you want everyone to know about your business or product?


When the Q series first came out Pentax should have produced a video such as this explaining what the camera was and basically explaining the benefits of using it. It does not cost anything to produce such a video and posting it on You Tube is free. In so doing they might have also identified their target market. No!!! That is not how they work.Pentax makes a product and puts a few out there to see who finds interest in it. Notice near the end of this video, which demonstrated one of the first Micro 4/3 cameras, that Panasonic indicates what lenses are available and commits to what will be coming in the near future. Yes they did produce those lenses plus a few more high quality lenses in a timely manner. Pentax will not even commit to what time of day it is.

You Tube

You Tube

I have also heard that Pentax does not cooperate with reviewers in getting them copies of their cameras for review. Scroll down about three quarters of the page to where the Pentax cameras are listed and see what this reviewer has to say about getting cameras from Pentax for review.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/digital_camera_and_lens_reviews.shtml


If you want to know why the Q series might be ending put the blame on a lack of marketing and cultivation of a market base not so much any deficiencies of the camera. If Pentax is redirecting it's resources to the bigger is better concept then more power to them but they should not continue to mislead buyers by statements that leave them wishing, hoping and dreaming about products for the smaller formats they already own.


By the way, maybe it’s just a coincidence but I have recently noted several listings for complete multi lens Q7 systems on Ebay. Maybe owners are dumping while the dumping is good?

[Suleeto]

Well I will continue to take my shots on my lousy, sub-standard sensor-equipped camera LOL.

I think the Q fits my personality, both in the kinds of shots I enjoy taking the most, and in my on-the-go needs. With some room to experiment with K and C and D and 110 lenses. I'm happy with it.