Originally posted by 99exposures I would take a 1/1.7" sensor too, as long as it has the smallest pixel pitch that makes sense. Why? Because then i can get max resolving power with max reach, on a shoestring budget.
Image quality will never be the strength of the q. Dont even bother.
There is a difference between "not a strength" and "weakness".
I purchased my Q-7 last December; I could have purchased a Q or a Q-10, but I bought the Q-7, for very specific reasons. I have identified seven specific uses I make of a camera, and I want to cover those uses with at most two cameras, so one camera needs to meet more than just one of them. I had gone through this logic around Halloween 2014, when Canon came out with their SX-60, and the SX-50 was offered at close-out prices. I decided that the widest view available on the SX-50 limited its utility to me, and its Image Quality further limited it. I eliminated the 1/2.3" members of the Q family for exactly the same reasons. Since I got my Q-7, I have been extremely pleased by the Image Quality it provides to me. I will not claim IQ as a strength of this camera, but it is not a weakness either; I was especially pleased with pictures I took on our trip to San Diego, when the Q-7 + 01 lens was my preferred combination for taking pictures in darkish old churches. From comments made about IQ of the various super-zoom bridge cameras, I believe that regressing back to the smaller sensor would also regress back to a lower IQ, and equally importantly, potential new purchasers would be concerned about it. On the other hand, when my "primary" camera, a Canon Rebel, unexpectedly died last May, my experience with Q-7 IQ made me willing to use the Q-7 as a temporary "primary", which enabled me to be patient in finding a new "primary"; I believe all that would be thrown away by going to the more crowded sensor.
Added thought: We're celebrating Thanksgiving today because our older daughter arrived from San Diego yesterday evening. I'm using my Q-7 most of the time, because it is so much smaller / convenient to carry around than my K-30 is, but still (with 02 lens) gives me a good range of views and reasonable IQ. I'm not convinced I would feel that way if I had a Q-S2 with a smaller sensor.
---------- Post added 11-27-15 at 11:48 AM ----------
Originally posted by luftfluss What's happened is that individuals who refute the "Megapixel Myth" are guilty of the same nature of thought processing that plagues individuals who believe "More Megapixels are Better": both look for a singular bottom-line "fact" and cling to it, never contemplating that technology improves.
Personally, I would have no issue with using a modern 1/1.7" sensor on the Q-S2; in fact, that is what I assume they would do. My issue would be with regressing back to a smaller sensor.