[jethro10]

However an 08 cannot maintain the perspective nor take the detailed photo's I accomplish with the 06, or for that matter with the 02 on my Q7

Agreed. And that's my point. They are different and do different things so it's no use comparing prices for things that are not comparable.

I visit a lot of old European cities and I couldn't get any of the interior shots of museums and art galleries without the 08, similarly the old narrow streets when we recently visited Tuscany in Italy.

BUT I could not have got the pictures I did of lake Bled in Slovenia without the 06.

They do different things so you can't compare. Makes no odds to me If a Q and several lens combo is the same price as the 08 if I can't take a lot of the pictures I want, I'd have just wasted my money.

J

---------- Post added 01-11-15 at 06:56 AM ----------

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't need 70 native lenses if 5 native lenses can cover all missions. Seeing the great excitement following the Canon and Nikon super zoom bridge cameras, I believe that a reasonable 100-300mm lens would complete the 01, 02, 06, 08 family,

I agree, a "superzoom" would give us all we need.

The only thing is say about the range available with M43 cameras is that it's obviously a more vibrant marketplace, and as we're learning. That's kinda important.

[Nicolas06]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't need 70 native lenses if 5 native lenses can cover all missions. Seeing the great excitement following the Canon and Nikon super zoom bridge cameras, I believe that a reasonable 100-300mm lens would complete the 01, 02, 06, 08 family

No you don't need 70 (it is more than that in fact) lenses. Sure. And many lenses are repeated by different brand on the m4/3 like it is on the K-mount. But this mean also mean more competition and that you can use the one that you prefer, there different prices, max appertures and size available.

The super zoom that some want for their Q already exist in m4/3 and there a TC too. So what about 900mm FF equivalent? It is right there. And you still have AF. Want some deph of field for your portraitures? There many to choose from depending the focal length you like, the apperture you want and the price you are willing to pay.

For me if you are advocating for ILC, you can't explain to me that having very few choice of native lense is an ideal situation. 5 is not enough. 20 may be great, a dozen may be acceptable, but the few lenses available is part of Q problem right now.

You could say you need only this super zoom, but this is something that is personnal, depend of what you shoot, what you want to do. That the whole point of ILC, many different lenses for many different needs.

[eyeswideshut]

No you don't need 70 (it is more than that in fact) lenses. Sure. And many lenses are repeated by different brand on the m4/3 like it is on the K-mount. But this mean also mean more competition and that you can use the one that you prefer, there different prices, max appertures and size available.

The super zoom that some want for their Q already exist in m4/3 and there a TC too. So what about 900mm FF equivalent? It is right there. And you still have AF. Want some deph of field for your portraitures? There many to choose from depending the focal length you like, the apperture you want and the price you are willing to pay.

For me if you are advocating for ILC, you can't explain to me that having very few choice of native lense is an ideal situation. 5 is not enough. 20 may be great, a dozen may be acceptable, but the few lenses available is part of Q problem right now.

You could say you need only this super zoom, but this is something that is personnal, depend of what you shoot, what you want to do. That the whole point of ILC, many different lenses for many different needs.

Nicholas, are you really having such a hard time acepting that other people decide differently from you?

[Nicolas06]

The Q7 more than holds it’s own when compared to even larger format cameras with similar pixel count and produced during the same time frame.

[...]

Man let's be honest you compare a 2008 camera with low pass filter with a 2013 camera without low pass filter. Sure the Q image is sharper at 100% (and has also more accentatuation) but to me the comparison is not fair.

This is objectively nice for Q and show it is capable of some nice shoots, but don't explain me this prove its superiority in any way.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-01-2015 at 05:25 AM.

[Nicolas06]

Nicholas, are you really having such a hard time acepting that other people decide differently from you?

No and you? Have you any issue that I give an opinion of why there no new Q from Pentax and that I discuss to defend my position? I assure you that it doesn't mean I don't respect others.

If you ever want to make progress, you need to put things into question. If I didn't go there arguing thinking the Q is not that an interresting compromize, there would be no possibility for other to prove the contrary or myself to show my views.

For an observer, it can be better to have several point of views depending of what their interrested are, this can help them refine their choices. For all participant, that also allow us to progress.

[reh321]

No and you? Have you any issue that I give an opinion of why there no new Q from Pentax and that I discuss to defend my position? I assure you that it doesn't mean I don't respect others.

If you ever want to make progress, you need to put things into question. If I didn't go there arguing thinking the Q is not that an interresting compromize, there would be no possibility for other to prove the contrary or myself to show my views.

For an observer, it can be better to have several point of views depending of what their interrested are, this can help them refine their choices. For all participant, that also allow us to progress.

Your words give the impression that you think the Q-family is hopeless - history has already passed on - and that there is little Pentax can do about it. I don't know if that is how you actually feel.

I do not feel that way. As I have already commented, various bridge cameras from Nikon and Canon are doing quite well. Add a Q-mount 100-300 lens, an EVF, WR (all except the EVF things Pentax has considerable experience with), and some actual marketing effort, and I believe a Q kit could be quite successful.

And, yes, we are allowed to respectfully disagree.

[Tony Belding]

As I have already commented, various bridge cameras from Nikon and Canon are doing quite well. Add a Q-mount 100-300 lens, an EVF, WR (all except the EVF things Pentax has considerable experience with), and some actual marketing effort, and I believe a Q kit could be quite successful.

That's one possible strategy, out of many that could be tried. There's lots of potential. They just need to make an effort.

I feel like the Q system has suffered from a few mis-steps (such as the Q10, the Q-S1, and the toy lenses), and it has suffered even more from distractions. The move from Hoya to Ricoh was great for Pentax, but it was a distraction. The 645Z has been great (and very profitable), but it's a distraction. The K-FF (or whatever it'll be called) is cause for much excitement, but from the Q's standpoint it's yet another distraction. The Q system keeps getting pushed onto the back burner.

[dansamy]

I haven't read this entire thread. That being said, I kind of wish that Pentax had used a 4/3 or a 1" sensor. The compact camera sensor just didn't appeal to me.

[alliumnsk]

Go to the DPReview site. Bring up the review of the Q7 then on one of the comparison pages you can bring in similar shots from various other cameras. That will give you an idea of how the Q7 compares to other cameras from Pentax as well as other manufactures..

it's not what he asked for. I have done a comparison exactly about he asked for: http://forum.ixbt.com/topic.cgi?id=20:31271-3#83

lol why he can't do it himself, he has a Q, doesn't he?

---------- Post added 11-04-15 at 04:00 PM ----------

Nicholas, are you really having such a hard time acepting that other people decide differently from you?

oh, irony!!

[patarok]

The super zoom that some want for their Q already exist in m4/3 and there a TC too.

This thread is not about m4/3. POINT

This thread is about the Q and its future... "To be or not to be! That is the question—."
And if you look around a bit... you'll see since the appearance of the FF is fixed, things turn to Q in the forums... For me this is a Sign that Q is not dead...

And a WR superzoom plus a WR Q-S2 would be a real killer to other systems(if marketing is good...) IMHO...
But all that is just fiction, just like some people fancying about optics that deliver a more shallow DoF when shooting portraits...

To me, the Q system is just a very lightweight and playful system that one really gets to like when he plays around with it a bit.
It is not a coincidence that they call those lenses "PLAY" that is what this system is about... Having fun with your camera...
The neat side-effect here is that the pix IQ from the new Q's sensor line in conjunction with for instance the Q01 or Q02 beat the sh.. out of Canons G1X for instance. also border sharpness with original Q lenses is very good.
Compare it to what you want, just go to dpreview.com...
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

The only question is: would we be willing to hand out about 549 Euro or more for ... lets say a dedicated Q portrait lens with either 17mm or 18,5mm focal length and F:0.9?? i guess no... a real pentaxian would go to ebay and search for "video-lens"+"16mm"+"F:0.9" or so,... results are soft? no problem, let's say its art.. :P

No, just to get back to reality ---> an ibelux lens with F:0.85 for E-mount or whatsoever will cost you a rockin' 1200 Dollars or so.
maybe. i would like to hear all of your opinions to such a 18,5mm lens with F:0.9 or F:0.85...

But i throw in my 2 cents first and say - we all would rather be happy when we would see something like this Telephoto i fancied about earlier...

AND: !! Keep in mind! There is indeed another Q lens on the roadmap it says: "Telephoto MACRO" But as we all know this lens will have to yield for the FF DSLR...
(I hope I used the word yield correctly here, as i am no native english tongue...)

[BigMackCam]

A neat side-effect here is that the pix IQ from the new Q's sensor line in conjunction with for instance the Q01 or Q02 beat the sh.. out of Canons G1X for instance. also border sharpness with original Q lenses is very good.
Compare it to what you want, just go to dpreview.com...
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

I've never really thought about how the Q7 compares to other cameras IQ-wise - it wasn't a factor in me buying one, as I simply wanted high mag capability with my K lenses. But after reading your post, I went over to DPR and did some comparisons. Wow... this little fella really punches above its weight. Most impressive is the sharpness across the frame, with Pentax's own lenses...

[patarok]

That was where i wanted to point at.

The first to iterations where not so good. but since the Q7 sensor upgrade... it just rocks...

[kwb]

Wow, this thread is going fast.

In my original posting, I had said this was a mediocre lens (in this setting, at least) which was tested here and found wanting.

Hi reh321, yes you said that, no dispute here from me? Hmm, do you think I attacked your image or something???

I've never criticized nor complained about your lens and your image in any context whatsoever. That was a non-issue to me. Read my posts again if in doubt. You said that your Q7/lens combination was useful for you and your wife when on vacation/conference. That's awesome. Isn't that what counts?

Look, the only thing I'm saying is that down-scaling seems to be a viable poor man's method to see if a specific sensor can extract more details from a specific lens than other sensors with lower pixel density. If the point of this test in general is uninteresting to you, that's fine, I already told you that I'll support such a position. That doesn't mean that I don't respond to you when you make a statement that questions one premise of the validity of the test or the other, especially when what you say doesn't make sense.

When you tried to defend your position that it doesn't make much sense for you to down-scale your image, you questioned the validity of the test in general, not just for your image, by making statements that are equally applicable to your image as well as others ("mysterious" factor, "This arithmetic is both unneeded and incorrect"). Later you made another statement questioning the validity of the test for already rescaled image in general. Whenever such a thing happens I'd like to hear more, and if what you say doesn't make sense I challenge. It's as simple as that.

To me, my responses to you were about the test method, not about your image. If what you had to say about the test method made sense to me I wouldn't have responded to you, I would have made just one post about my image and that would have been it.

Thanks for reading.

[barondla]

Ricoh just sent me a Cyber Monday e-mail with 20% off lenses. It had all Pentax lenses. Including Q. Ricoh/Pentax hasn't forgotten the Q.
thanks
barodla

[Nicolas06]

Ricoh just sent me a Cyber Monday e-mail with 20% off lenses. It had all Pentax lenses. Including Q. Ricoh/Pentax hasn't forgotten the Q.
thanks
barodla

I don't think there any link between discounting what you have in inventory and investing more on something for the future.