[patarok]

Here's a suggestion, Denny. If you don't like a thread, don't join it. Easy, see.

100% agreed!

[reh321]

I have always insisted that my camera have a viewfinder, partly because my shooting style, based on years of experience, increases stability by holding the camera against my forehead, and partly because I have trouble seeing an LCD in sunlight.

Thus, when I got a digital pocket camera, I got a Canon Elph, because they did have a viewfinder. In recent years, however, I had trouble using that viewfinder. Eventually, last December I replaced it by a Pentax Q-7, which doesn't have a viewfinder; part of my reason for accepting its lack of viewfinder was my difficulty in using the Elph's OVF (I did get a Hoodman, also).

Because of a thread at another discussion forum, I located that old Elph this weekend, and compared its OVF to the OVF on my Pentax K-30. Measuring with a ruler is not very precise at this level, but approximate measures show that the OVF on the Elph is roughly 4x5mm, while the OVF on the K-30 is roughly 10x15mm - in other words the useless-to-me OVF is roughly one-third the size of the DSLR's OVF. If you look at my picture below, the Elph's OVF is basically flat, while the DSLR OVF has a rubber cup blocking incident light, and the OVF has a 3-D construction which pushes the actual "mechanism" away from my eye and making the optics work better. The general lesson is that we need to look at more than just presence/absence of viewfinder - actual construction details are also important.

[Suleeto]

The point I am making is that this EVF subject has been discussed to ad nauseam so why not move on or if one MUST get back on that horse, revive one of the old threads discussing this subject instead of starting another one and getting all the same comments again.

^^^^ Totally agree.

That and "Is the Q line dead" or "Will there be a new Q?" these threads are becoming counterproductive to Q model discussions at this point because everything that can be said, has been said many times. Until we hear from Ricoh on the matter, it does indeed beat a very dead horse lol

[geomez]

That and "Is the Q line dead" or "Will there be a new Q?" these threads are becoming counterproductive to Q model discussions at this point because everything that can be said, has been said many times. Until we hear from Ricoh on the matter, it does indeed beat a very dead horse lol

Preach

[Lobalobo]

^^^^ Totally agree.

That and "Is the Q line dead" or "Will there be a new Q?" these threads are becoming counterproductive to Q model discussions at this point because everything that can be said, has been said many times. Until we hear from Ricoh on the matter, it does indeed beat a very dead horse lol

Hey, here's an idea: if you don't like a thread, don't read it; don't join it. Easy. See.

[starbase218]

Actually, having used my Pentax Q10 quite a lot in the last few days, I'd much rather have a touchscreen than a viewfinder. The reason is that I like to experiment with different filters. Right now it's a pain to change e.g. the selective color filter and assign it to one of the front dial positions. I always forget how to do that and have to fiddle with the camera for a while. What if you could just touch the screen for the camera to select the color you tapped on, and then offer the option to save it under the dial? That sort of thing would be more appealing to me, as it encourages creativity.

Also a touchscreen is probably cheaper than an EVF, and I don't want the Q system to be expensive.

However, visibility of the screen in direct sunlight is not so good on my Q10. So if they can put in an air-gapless LCD or something, that would be nice too.

[reh321]

Actually, having used my Pentax Q10 quite a lot in the last few days, I'd much rather have a touchscreen than a viewfinder. The reason is that I like to experiment with different filters. Right now it's a pain to change e.g. the selective color filter and assign it to one of the front dial positions. I always forget how to do that and have to fiddle with the camera for a while. What if you could just touch the screen for the camera to select the color you tapped on, and then offer the option to save it under the dial? That sort of thing would be more appealing to me, as it encourages creativity.

Also a touchscreen is probably cheaper than an EVF, and I don't want the Q system to be expensive.

However, visibility of the screen in direct sunlight is not so good on my Q10. So if they can put in an air-gapless LCD or something, that would be nice too.

In summary, this is one of those "Your Mileage May Vary" situations. I dislike touchscreen, just as I dislike that funky dial on the front, because I sometimes discover that something has changed when I wasn't aware of having changed any settings. My "artistic intent" is to photograph what I actually see, so I seldom (intentionally) use color filters. On the other hand, since I often carefully plan a shot before I ever put the camera to my eye, personally I need a much better view than the LCD gives me in sunlight, which is why an EVF is one of the few things that would lure me to buy a new Q to replace my one-year-old Q-7.

My intention is not to disagree with you. As I said, this is one of those YMMV situations. It illustrates the various "wants" that a camera manufacturer has to deal with, and why some of us will be disappointed regardless of what the Q-S2 looks like ... if they ever get around to releasing another Q, that is.

---

Last edited by reh321; 12-29-2015 at 10:46 AM.

[BigMackCam]

The more I shoot with my Q7, the more I feel that the only difference I'd *really* like to see in a future Q is a high resolution (920k or better) screen so I can focus better. An EVF would be great - yes - but it would have to be *very* high quality. A high res LCD screen would be much easier and cheaper to implement, and it would transform the camera when using manual focus lenses including those coupled via the K-to-Q adapter...

[jethro10]

I think the last 3 posts highlight a point that should be/is really obvious. Changes, if we even get a new Q, must be cheap, and appeal to the masses.
WiFi, touch screen, tilt screen, hi res screen, etc.

[starbase218]

In summary, this is one of those "Your Mileage May Vary" situations. I dislike touchscreen, just as I dislike that funky dial on the front, because I sometimes discover that something has changed when I wasn't aware of having changed any settings. My "artistic intent" is to photograph what I actually see, so I seldom (intentionally) use color filters. On the other hand, since I often carefully plan a shot before I ever put the camera to my eye, personally I need a much better view than the LCD gives me in sunlight, which is why an EVF is one of the few things that would lure me to buy a new Q to replace my one-year-old Q-7.

But do you shoot RAW or JPEG with the Q? And if you shoot RAW, do you do post-processing?

Btw, we do agree on the LCD being not good in sunlight. And I want a solution for that, too.

My intention is not to disagree with you. As I said, this is one of those YMMV situations. It illustrates the various "wants" that a camera manufacturer has to deal with, and why some of us will be disappointed regardless of what the Q-S2 looks like ... if they ever get around to releasing another Q, that is.

I just see the Q as a fun camera. Not that I forget about composition etc when I use it, but it's a light and small camera. The concept of that, to me, fits with experimenting on the scene, doing no or minimal postprocessing, and shooting in JPEG. Just a lightweight solution for when having immediate results with minimal fuss is more important than absolute image quality. So this will not get the best quality, and I accept that. If quality is that important, maybe I should bring my DSLR instead of the tiny Q.

Anyway, that's what I think.

O, and also, the next Q should not exaggerate the ISO values (Pentax Q10 : Measurements - DxOMark).

[reh321]

I think the last 3 posts highlight a point that should be/is really obvious. Changes, if we even get a new Q, must be cheap, and appeal to the masses.
WiFi, touch screen, tilt screen, hi res screen, etc.

Having thought more since my last post, I believe that Ricoh would be wasting engineering effort if a next Q doesn't have an EVF - touch screen, hi-res screen, WiFi are all things an IPhone already does. Cell Phone cameras are improving at such a rate that a Q would need something more than those added to it if doesn't want to go the way of the point-and-shoot camera, namely run over by the Apple juggernaut.

[ccc_]

I picked the original q (NIB) for 100 USD awhile back
takes great pictures
really compact until you stick a lens on it
but no viewfinder

found a pentax ovf for very little money
works on both the q +50mm equivalent and the k01 +40mm
but no focus confirmation

for a little under 400USD I ended up with two pleasant niche cameras

this august I found a new fuji x30 for a bit over 300usd
takes great pictures
it's almost as quirky as the q

it HAS a viewfinder!
a very good viewfinder

the size difference is significant but the Fuji fits in most of my pockets

my first impression of the x30 was...wow, this is what the q should have been!

after almost five months the q rarely gets to play
it really is a good camera but in an area with lots of sun it just doesn't cut it

so if somebody is counting votes
YES for a viewfinder

[starbase218]

I picked the original q (NIB) for 100 USD awhile back
takes great pictures
really compact until you stick a lens on it

Good point. The 01 is nice and sharp and actually quite small, but it does stick out a lot. There is the 07 lens, but that is not really a good general-purpose lens. So.. the Q does not really fit in most of my pockets.

As for the X30... I'm sure it's a great camera, but it doesn't have interchangeable lenses.

A viewfinder on the Q would be nice though. I can also see that. But it would probably make it bigger and more expensive too. The OVF only works well with the 01, and as such I find it too limiting.

[RobA_Oz]

I bought an X30 for casual use because not only is it compact and has an EVF built in, but also it has an LCD screen that flips out. It's a great little camera, but I must say that I prefer the photos my original Q produces. They are, of course, rather different beasts because of the X30's fixed lens and the Q is small, but the Q system is not compact when in use.

At the expense of flogging an allegedly dead horse, I believe a revised Q with an optional EVF would attract a greater number of buyers, but it would need updating in other areas, too, as others have noted. A collapsible kit zoom would make it more compact.

[Tony Belding]

I've openly wished for a "Super Q" with an EVF. . . And yes, it would be bigger. And yes, it would be more expensive. It would be less "Q-like" than the Q we have now.

The answer would be to have more than one Q-mount camera in the lineup. Don't stop making the tiny Q. Produce them both! Sort of like Olympus produce both the PEN and the OM-D.

However, M4/3 is the mainstay of Olympus's product line. Q isn't the mainstay of Pentax. So. . . As long as Q is a footnote after the K series and the 645 series, this probably won't happen.