Pentax Q-S2 with EVF

Lobalobo · 11-01-2015, 12:53 PM

Having just purchased a Q-S1, I enjoy it immensely. Decent image quality in a small package with a camera that operates like a camera, rather than a cell phone. But unless I'm using the 01 prime and OVF, the camera stops being a joy to use because composing on the screen, even with a Clearviewer, is awkward. A number of other threads have included posts that express hope the next Q (presumably the Q-S2), if there is one, will have an EVF, at least as an external option. That would be great--essentially a digital version of the old Pentax Auto 110--and I'd buy all Q lenses (including the expensive wide-angle zoom) if that happened. Thought it might be interesting to open a separate thread and see whether others feel as strongly as I do that the Q camera system sorely needs an EVF (or whether I am just a dinosaur).

Adam · 11-01-2015, 12:56 PM

I hope they add an EVF too. It would also make focusing with adapted lenses a lot easier.

CarlJF · 11-01-2015, 01:11 PM

I have the original Q and don't think it needs an EVF. I take this as one of the compromises necessary for compactness. Adding an EVF would certainly means a bigger body, and if you don't want or need the size/compactness of the actual Q above all else, you're probably better to go for a m43... However, I've nothing against the possibility to add an optional EVF for those who want it.

**UncleVanya** · 11-01-2015, 01:24 PM - **1 Like**

Hot shoe connected EVF with a dedicated hot shoe on top to pass thru the flash signal would be great.

reh321 · 11-01-2015, 02:45 PM

I have both a genuine Hoodman (which is held against the LCD by pressure) and a Hoodman clone (attached to my Q-7 via the tripod connector). I have found each of them to be adequate - but they are a bother, and I would much prefer to have some kind of EVF, either optional or built-in.

**Tony Belding** · 11-01-2015, 05:36 PM

My experience with an Olympus OM-D made me into an EVF believer. I even prefer the EVF over a SLR viewfinder in some respects. I would love to see a future Q with some sort of EVF option, and I've love to see some indication of Ricoh/Pentax getting on the EVF bandwagon with any kind of camera.

However. . . I've been getting along better than I expected with my Q7. One thing I learned was to wear a black shirt. I also learned to shoot RAW (or RAW+) with Highlight Correction on "auto", and trust the camera to get the exposure close enough, most of the time. When a shot has really high contrast, HDR may be an option. In other words, I've adapted. It's not that bad after some practice.

Lobalobo · 11-01-2015, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by CarlJF

I have the original Q and don't think it needs an EVF. I take this as one of the compromises necessary for compactness. Adding an EVF would certainly means a bigger body, and if you don't want or need the size/compactness of the actual Q above all else, you're probably better to go for a m43... However, I've nothing against the possibility to add an optional EVF for those who want it.

The advantage of a Q system over m4/3 (which I own, by the way) is lens size; that's why I want the EVF.

**UncleVanya** · 11-01-2015, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Tony Belding

One thing I learned was to wear a black shirt.

? Why ?

**geomez** · 11-01-2015, 08:20 PM

I'd love an EVF but don't want to sacrifice size. Instead, I'd rather have a higher res LCD. That will certainly help with focusing. And you could always loupe the LCD to make an EVF.

**UncleVanya** · 11-01-2015, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by geomez

I'd love an EVF but don't want to sacrifice size. Instead, I'd rather have a higher res LCD. That will certainly help with focusing. And you could always loupe the LCD to make an EVF.

I'd love an external pop-on/off EVF ala Olympus Pen series cameras. Keep it in the pocket unless you need it then bring it out.

CWRailman · 11-02-2015, 07:39 AM - **1 Like**

Another EVF thread?? REALLY folks!!! That dead horse has been beaten long enough. Now I know how Bill Murray’s character in Ground Hog Day felt. Instead of wasting time talking about what it isn’t how about contributing photo’s to the threads demonstrating what it is? The “Let’s Share Shots with Q” thread is looking for contributions. Go to that thread to see my latest contribution. What have you posted in that thread lately?

CarlG · 11-02-2015, 09:21 AM

I like my three Qs exactly the way they are.

**UncleVanya** · 11-02-2015, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by CWRailman

Another EVF thread?? REALLY folks!!! That dead horse has been beaten long enough. Now I know how Bill Murray’s character in Ground Hog Day felt. Instead of wasting time talking about what it isn’t how about contributing photo’s to the threads demonstrating what it is? The “Let’s Share Shots with Q” thread is looking for contributions. Go to that thread to see my latest contribution. What have you posted in that thread lately?

I don't own a Q and this is one of the reasons I don't. I feel like the lack of an EVF option is a big negative. I'm not bashing the Q series - just lamenting and saying why I would be happy to buy one if such an option were made available. I like the form factor and think that it should be the external type like the micro 4/3 Olympus systems that have no built in EVF.

reh321 · 11-02-2015, 10:06 AM - **1 Like**

There are people here who say that the Q-family has low sales volume in the US and Europe, so it is a failure, and we shouldn't expect much more in the future.

There are people here who say they are happy with their current Q camera.

I stand firmly between those two groups.

in 1973 I bought a Canon QL19 rangefinder camera. Over the next 42 years, I was a Canon user for 26 of those years and a Pentax user for 16 of them. 53 weeks ago, as a Canon user I almost bought a Canon EOS-M to be my primary/pocket camera and a Canon SX-50 to be my birding camera, but the lack of an EVF for the EOS-M stopped that. This year, Canon has released a pricey ($250) clip-on EVF and an EOS-M3 that uses it. If they had made that decision a year earlier, most likely I would not be here. Instead, I did some research, including asking a bunch of questions that some of you got tired of hearing (and told me so), and in December 2014 I bought a Q-7 as my pocket/birding camera, then in May 2015 I bought a K-30 as my primary camera.

During the 85 months I used a Canon Elph I took 2448 (29/month) pictures with it; during the 10 months since I bought the Pentax Q-7, I have taken 565 (56/month). Part of the difference is the fact that I also taking birding pictures with the Q-7, but a bigger factor is that simple fact that the Q-7 gives me much better images than the Elph did; sometimes, for various reasons, I will reach for the Q-7 even when the K-30 is available. The Q-7 is a good camera, but it would be a much better camera if it had some kind of EVF option. I know some of you are tired of hearing that, but others of us are tired of not having it. Yes, I could go back to Canon, or go to Sony, or go to Olympus, but I don't particularly want to do that, and you shouldn't want me to do it.

As I've said multiple times, I believe that the Qoncept is valid, but an EVF would make it openly successful in the US and Europe, and I see nothing wrong about talking about improving any camera. Living things evolve; only dead things stay exactly the same.

CWRailman · 11-02-2015, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

I don't own a Q and this is one of the reasons I don't. I feel like the lack of an EVF option is a big negative. I'm not bashing the Q series - just lamenting and saying why I would be happy to buy one if such an option were made available. I like the form factor and think that it should be the external type like the micro 4/3 Olympus systems that have no built in EVF.

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.

11-01-2015, 12:53 PM	#1
Lobalobo New Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: New York Posts: 22	Pentax Q-S2 with EVF Having just purchased a Q-S1, I enjoy it immensely. Decent image quality in a small package with a camera that operates like a camera, rather than a cell phone. But unless I'm using the 01 prime and OVF, the camera stops being a joy to use because composing on the screen, even with a Clearviewer, is awkward. A number of other threads have included posts that express hope the next Q (presumably the Q-S2), if there is one, will have an EVF, at least as an external option. That would be great--essentially a digital version of the old Pentax Auto 110--and I'd buy all Q lenses (including the expensive wide-angle zoom) if that happened. Thought it might be interesting to open a separate thread and see whether others feel as strongly as I do that the Q camera system sorely needs an EVF (or whether I am just a dinosaur).

11-01-2015, 12:56 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,593	I hope they add an EVF too. It would also make focusing with adapted lenses a lot easier. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-S2 compatibility with lenses	Britta	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	4	09-11-2015 05:34 AM
Photos with New Pentax K-S2	cainmh	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	3	06-22-2015 06:03 AM
Fotodiox Q to K with Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Lens on Pentax Q	SonDa5	Pentax Q	3	12-26-2012 06:29 PM
EVF for K-01 - The EVF Solution that some want in a product that already exists?!	spade111	Pentax K-01	36	02-07-2012 03:13 PM

11-01-2015, 01:11 PM	#3
CarlJF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,185	I have the original Q and don't think it needs an EVF. I take this as one of the compromises necessary for compactness. Adding an EVF would certainly means a bigger body, and if you don't want or need the size/compactness of the actual Q above all else, you're probably better to go for a m43... However, I've nothing against the possibility to add an optional EVF for those who want it.

11-01-2015, 01:24 PM - 1 Like	#4
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,384	Hot shoe connected EVF with a dedicated hot shoe on top to pass thru the flash signal would be great.

11-01-2015, 02:45 PM	#5
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,175	I have both a genuine Hoodman (which is held against the LCD by pressure) and a Hoodman clone (attached to my Q-7 via the tripod connector). I have found each of them to be adequate - but they are a bother, and I would much prefer to have some kind of EVF, either optional or built-in.

11-01-2015, 05:36 PM	#6
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	My experience with an Olympus OM-D made me into an EVF believer. I even prefer the EVF over a SLR viewfinder in some respects. I would love to see a future Q with some sort of EVF option, and I've love to see some indication of Ricoh/Pentax getting on the EVF bandwagon with any kind of camera. However. . . I've been getting along better than I expected with my Q7. One thing I learned was to wear a black shirt. I also learned to shoot RAW (or RAW+) with Highlight Correction on "auto", and trust the camera to get the exposure close enough, most of the time. When a shot has really high contrast, HDR may be an option. In other words, I've adapted. It's not that bad after some practice.

11-01-2015, 05:58 PM	#7
Lobalobo New Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: New York Posts: 22 Original Poster	Originally posted by CarlJF I have the original Q and don't think it needs an EVF. I take this as one of the compromises necessary for compactness. Adding an EVF would certainly means a bigger body, and if you don't want or need the size/compactness of the actual Q above all else, you're probably better to go for a m43... However, I've nothing against the possibility to add an optional EVF for those who want it. The advantage of a Q system over m4/3 (which I own, by the way) is lens size; that's why I want the EVF.

11-01-2015, 08:08 PM	#8
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,384	Originally posted by Tony Belding One thing I learned was to wear a black shirt. ? Why ?

11-01-2015, 08:20 PM	#9
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	I'd love an EVF but don't want to sacrifice size. Instead, I'd rather have a higher res LCD. That will certainly help with focusing. And you could always loupe the LCD to make an EVF.

11-01-2015, 08:22 PM	#10
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,384	Originally posted by geomez I'd love an EVF but don't want to sacrifice size. Instead, I'd rather have a higher res LCD. That will certainly help with focusing. And you could always loupe the LCD to make an EVF. I'd love an external pop-on/off EVF ala Olympus Pen series cameras. Keep it in the pocket unless you need it then bring it out.

11-02-2015, 07:39 AM - 1 Like	#11
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Another EVF thread?? REALLY folks!!! That dead horse has been beaten long enough. Now I know how Bill Murray’s character in Ground Hog Day felt. Instead of wasting time talking about what it isn’t how about contributing photo’s to the threads demonstrating what it is? The “Let’s Share Shots with Q” thread is looking for contributions. Go to that thread to see my latest contribution. What have you posted in that thread lately?

11-02-2015, 09:21 AM	#12
CarlG Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 417	I like my three Qs exactly the way they are.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-02-2015, 09:45 AM	#13
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,384	Originally posted by CWRailman Another EVF thread?? REALLY folks!!! That dead horse has been beaten long enough. Now I know how Bill Murray’s character in Ground Hog Day felt. Instead of wasting time talking about what it isn’t how about contributing photo’s to the threads demonstrating what it is? The “Let’s Share Shots with Q” thread is looking for contributions. Go to that thread to see my latest contribution. What have you posted in that thread lately? I don't own a Q and this is one of the reasons I don't. I feel like the lack of an EVF option is a big negative. I'm not bashing the Q series - just lamenting and saying why I would be happy to buy one if such an option were made available. I like the form factor and think that it should be the external type like the micro 4/3 Olympus systems that have no built in EVF.

11-02-2015, 10:06 AM - 1 Like	#14
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,175	There are people here who say that the Q-family has low sales volume in the US and Europe, so it is a failure, and we shouldn't expect much more in the future. There are people here who say they are happy with their current Q camera. I stand firmly between those two groups. in 1973 I bought a Canon QL19 rangefinder camera. Over the next 42 years, I was a Canon user for 26 of those years and a Pentax user for 16 of them. 53 weeks ago, as a Canon user I almost bought a Canon EOS-M to be my primary/pocket camera and a Canon SX-50 to be my birding camera, but the lack of an EVF for the EOS-M stopped that. This year, Canon has released a pricey ($250) clip-on EVF and an EOS-M3 that uses it. If they had made that decision a year earlier, most likely I would not be here. Instead, I did some research, including asking a bunch of questions that some of you got tired of hearing (and told me so), and in December 2014 I bought a Q-7 as my pocket/birding camera, then in May 2015 I bought a K-30 as my primary camera. During the 85 months I used a Canon Elph I took 2448 (29/month) pictures with it; during the 10 months since I bought the Pentax Q-7, I have taken 565 (56/month). Part of the difference is the fact that I also taking birding pictures with the Q-7, but a bigger factor is that simple fact that the Q-7 gives me much better images than the Elph did; sometimes, for various reasons, I will reach for the Q-7 even when the K-30 is available. The Q-7 is a good camera, but it would be a much better camera if it had some kind of EVF option. I know some of you are tired of hearing that, but others of us are tired of not having it. Yes, I could go back to Canon, or go to Sony, or go to Olympus, but I don't particularly want to do that, and you shouldn't want me to do it. As I've said multiple times, I believe that the Qoncept is valid, but an EVF would make it openly successful in the US and Europe, and I see nothing wrong about talking about improving any camera. Living things evolve; only dead things stay exactly the same.

11-02-2015, 10:39 AM	#15
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by UncleVanya I don't own a Q and this is one of the reasons I don't. I feel like the lack of an EVF option is a big negative. I'm not bashing the Q series - just lamenting and saying why I would be happy to buy one if such an option were made available. I like the form factor and think that it should be the external type like the micro 4/3 Olympus systems that have no built in EVF. 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.