[murrelet]

Another small point to consider, if you're looking to compliment the K-50, is the user interface. I went from a K100d to a Q, then a Q7. Menus, button placement and behavior, green button, information placement on the LCD, were all similar. It didn't take me long to get use to the Q, coming from a Pentax DSLR.

[reh321]

i'd vote for the larger sensor size olympus. i had the original q with the 01 prime, should be one of the better lens out there. still felt like the images were closer to point and shoot than dslr. don't get me wrong, it was fun and i've seen amazing pictures from the q line. it just wasn't for me.

Your last sentence is probably the most important. My experience was different. Before I got my Q-7, I had a Canon Elph (which the Q-7 replaced) and a Canon Rebel. My experience was that the Q-7 was much closer to the Rebel than to the Elph.

---------- Post added 12-04-15 at 06:42 PM ----------

Another small point to consider, if you're looking to compliment the K-50, is the user interface. I went from a K100d to a Q, then a Q7. Menus, button placement and behavior, green button, information placement on the LCD, were all similar. It didn't take me long to get use to the Q, coming from a Pentax DSLR.

I got my Q-7 before I got my K-30. Learning the K-30 was very easy because of my experience with the Q-7; they are very similar, but I personally find the Q-7 a tad easier to use.

[CWRailman]

That's TWICE the money!

It's twice the camera and has many of the features folks here have been wishing for in the next Q. So if Pentax adds all those features then that is how much a Q will cost. Nothing is free.

[johnmflores]

Hey Squirrel Mafia, what kinds of photos does your wife like to take?

[Tony Belding]

My mirrorless cameras today are a Pentax Q7 and an Olympus OM-D E-M5. I got the E-M5 first and adored it, then picked up the Q7 Premium Kit later, and now I find myself preferring to use the Q7 the majority of the time.

Being able to carry my entire kit -- with all the lenses -- in such a tiny bag is liberating. I never have to decide which lens to take with me. Just grab the bag!

The Olympus menu system is insane. It took me two weeks of tinkering, including many references to online articles and forums, to get all the options and preferences sorted it. Once all the preferences are set, things get better, but still not wonderful. The user interface is not as straightforward as Pentax's. I dislike touch screen controls, and I have disabled them as much as possible. If you actually like touch controls, then your experience could be different.

Surprisingly, the Q7 has a number of features, mostly software features, that the OM-D lacks: built-in HDR mode, interval shooting, focus peaking, DNG format, in-camera RAW development, post-process application of art filters, many more art filters than the OM-D, and the pop-up flash. (The E-M5 has no built-in flash.)

On the OM-D side, it dominates in raw performance. It's like driving a sports car. Everything is snappy and responsive. Burst shooting is like a machinegun. It can almost see in the dark at higher ISO settings. And the image quality is fantastic. The sheer capability of this camera can be thrilling. On the other hand, if you've already got a DSLR for "serious" shooting. . . then it may be harder to overlook all the Olympus's rough edges.

If I had to summarize, the Olympus is wonderful in some ways, annoying in others. The Pentax is more of a well-balanced package. It's dependable, rarely wowing me with what it can do, but also rarely leaving me annoyed or frustrated.

As others have observed, the Q7 images often seem to have a subtly film-like quality, as compared with the crystalline digital purity of the Olympus.

Lenses. . . I find the catalog of Q7 lenses meets my needs pretty well. The 01, 06 and 08 are the stars of the show. The 02 is decent enough, and I also have the 03 fisheye. All of them fit into the Q7 Premium Kit bag, which is really quite small.

However, there is no superzoom for the Q, and there is no fisheye like the little gem that Samyang makes for M4/3. The 03 is, um... Not a gem. It's usable and very tiny and lightweight, though.

I bought a Tamron superzoom lens for my Olympus. It's a great looking, well-built lens, and the image quality is good -- when it decides to focus. Once in a while it just won't lock on. Autofocus on the Olympus is frustratingly vague. It's extremely fast most of the time, but it doesn't pick out focal points as reliably as the Q7, and it doesn't show you exactly what it has decided to focus on, as the Q7 does on its display. The Q7's autofocus is as reliable as any I've seen. (Both cameras are pretty crummy at manual focus, but the Q7 at least has focus peaking.)

I'm not familiar with the E-PL6, so how much of this analysis applies to it, I am unsure.

[6BQ5]

A u4/3 camera system will beat the snot out of a Q series camera in terms of sheer performance. Responsiveness, IQ, lens selection, AF performance, etc. Think of all the characteristics that you can put a number to. A u4/3 will always win the numbers game. However, the Q was never intended to compete with numbers. I think it was designed to compete on elements like "fun" and "creativity". A Q series camera is a tiny little thing and is easily mistaken for a simple P&S if it is even noticed at all. This makes it a perfect camera for going unnoticed in street photography, for instance. I think you can capture candid shots with a Q that would be harder to do with a u4/3 system without being noticed. Spy camera?

You should also consider where your images will land. Are you going for large poster sized prints or just posting somewhere on the internet? Any Q is more than enough for internet posting. Cell phone cameras can do that.

Will you be shooting at high ISOs in the dark? All cameras work well at base ISO. Maybe some more well than others but none will disappoint. Start going up to ISO 400 on the Q and zoom in to 100%. Now that may rattle your nerves! What's all that ... that ... noise? It's like ISO 100 film grain. Now crank up the ISO to 800 or 1600! Image quality may be a lost cause. A u4/3 system could still keep going strong up to ISO 3200 before everything breaks down. But, wait! Zoom back out to the actual target size. Now image quality looks ok. Maybe the colors are off at higher ISO.

I think of my cameras as tools for a job or situation. When I travel by plane I take my Q7 with my 01, 02, 06, and 08 lenses. The whole kit is teeny tiny. Being small I can pull the camera out on the plane and just have fun with the silent shutter. No need to look like a photographer by lifting the camera up to my eye. When I travel by car then my Olympus M10 goes along with me for the most part. A sling bag with 2-3 lenses is all I need. Two zooms and a prime. The lenses are small enough that a decent sling bag will do the trick. When I am staying local or if I need ultimate IQ regardless of bulk then the K-3 rises to the top. Pretty simple. It's my Small-Medium-Large.

If you're willing to put aside numbers and qualitative metrics then the Q is like Legos for cameras for adults. Play, play, play! Otherwise, if you're looking for APS-like performance in the smallest possible package then u4/3 is your answer.

[Tony Belding]

A Q series camera is a tiny little thing and is easily mistaken for a simple P&S if it is even noticed at all.

Personally, I think the Q-S1 looks like somebody at Pentax took a Q7 and gave it a couple of extra whacks from the Ugly Stick. As long as you stick with basic black, though, it's pretty discreet. Also quiet, compared with my Olympus (which is not particularly noisy in its own right).

I did get a couple of puzzled looks at a car show when I was filming a burnout contest. Many people had their phones out. I had the Q7 with the 06 lens and the lens hood on. What the hey is that?

[UncleVanya]

I just debated and researched p&s style vs q vs pen cameras for months. I needed to acquire a camera to take to Europe for a family trip. My father in law and brother in law and wife and two kids are going - so the DSLR is a bit much to take and manage while herding cats.

In the end I opted for the Panasonic LX7. The f1.4-2.3 lens coupled to a 12mp 1/1.7" CMOS sensor (only 10mp available due to multiple aspect mode), with strong manual controls and raw won me over. So far (2 days into stateside testing) I am happy. The zoom range is "equivalent" to a 16-60 (24-90 full frame) on the k3. Depth of field is (like the q7) huge. Macro mode allows 1cm close focus.

So far I'm very impressed.

The camera is also on sale at B&H for ~ $278. An optional electronic viewfinder is $149. The lx100 with slightly slower 24-70 full frame equivalent lens and 4/3 sensor is over $670. The lx100 is also larger.

This YouTube video that compared the lx7, lx100, and gx7 (interchangeable lens 4/3) is helpful to compare the cameras.

You Tube

You Tube

[johnmflores]

I just debated and researched p&s style vs q vs pen cameras for months. I needed to acquire a camera to take to Europe for a family trip. My father in law and brother in law and wife and two kids are going - so the DSLR is a bit much to take and manage while herding cats.

In the end I opted for the Panasonic LX7. The f1.4-2.3 lens coupled to a 12mp 1/1.7" CMOS sensor (only 10mp available due to multiple aspect mode), with strong manual controls and raw won me over. So far (2 days into stateside testing) I am happy. The zoom range is "equivalent" to a 16-60 (24-90 full frame) on the k3. Depth of field is (like the q7) huge. Macro mode allows 1cm close focus.

So far I'm very impressed.

The camera is also on sale at B&H for ~ $278. An optional electronic viewfinder is $149. The lx100 with slightly slower 24-70 full frame equivalent lens and 4/3 sensor is over $670. The lx100 is also larger.

This YouTube video that compared the lx7, lx100, and gx7 (interchangeable lens 4/3) is helpful to compare the cameras. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DNBrtTLwd2I

I sold my LX7 a couple of years ago to a friend. I regret it about once a week. It's basically a Q with a really nice fast zoom lens glued to the front and highly recommended. It's even down below $200 now!

Panasonic Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 10.1 Megapixel Digital Camera with 3.8x24mm Wide-Angle Leica Optical Zoom Lens, 9 FPS High Speed Continuous Shooting, Black DMC-LX7K

I'm tempted to pick one up again, but so far I've purchased more gifts for myself than others lol so I'm holding off.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Hey Squirrel Mafia, what kinds of photos does your wife like to take?

She takes a shot of anything she thinks that looks interesting. Landscape, people, animals, low light, etc. Basically everything, except action type shots like sporting events & related. This is funny 'cause that little Canon A590 can actually take very decent hand held low light shots. It's nowhere near the K-50's ability, but for what it is, it performs very well. Mind you that this was Canon's entry level P&S at the time it was being sold. We've tried other similar P&S from other manufacturers including Nikon in the past & none of them come even close to it in hand held low light shooting.

Being able to carry my entire kit -- with all the lenses -- in such a tiny bag is liberating. I never have to decide which lens to take with me. Just grab the bag!

This is what makes the Q-S1 so tempting. I carry my bag with the K-50, flash, & 4 lenses all the time when I go just about anywhere that I think I can take interesting photos & this is kind of bulky, but I don't mind. I'll even have the tripod in my hand too on occasions & I deal with it.

I could probably carry the Q-S1 & all the lenses in my pocket. Hahaha! I'm exaggerating here, but you get the gist.

You should also consider where your images will land. Are you going for large poster sized prints or just posting somewhere on the internet? Any Q is more than enough for internet posting. Cell phone cameras can do that.

Will you be shooting at high ISOs in the dark? All cameras work well at base ISO. Maybe some more well than others but none will disappoint. Start going up to ISO 400 on the Q and zoom in to 100%. Now that may rattle your nerves! What's all that ... that ... noise? It's like ISO 100 film grain. Now crank up the ISO to 800 or 1600! Image quality may be a lost cause. A u4/3 system could still keep going strong up to ISO 3200 before everything breaks down. But, wait! Zoom back out to the actual target size. Now image quality looks ok. Maybe the colors are off at higher ISO.


If you're willing to put aside numbers and qualitative metrics then the Q is like Legos for cameras for adults. Play, play, play! Otherwise, if you're looking for APS-like performance in the smallest possible package then u4/3 is your answer.

We do print out a lot of our photos. I've done up to 30x45 prints out of the K-50. I've done 16x20 low ISO prints out of her 8MP Canon A590. Anything larger than that will start looking a bit pixelated & mushy at the same time.

After toying around with some ISO100 to ISO12800 DNG files from the Q-S1 in Lightroom & RawTherapee, I believe that I could probably get a 24x36 low ISO print out of the Q-S1 & maybe even up to an 11x17 ISO 6400 print. As the ISO climbs up, the pictures do get grainier, but it actually looks pleasing, especially if reducing the color noise or converting them to black & white.

The Q-S1 does look like a small fun camera. Heck even the specs make it look like a small P&S camera, but with the ability to change lenses. The shutter speed is P&S like with 1/2000 max speed. Hahaha!

But yeah! The M43 system is more serious. I'm pretty sure that I can get same sized prints out of an M43 camera that I can get out of the K-50. I can get up to a 30x45 ISO 100 print down to an 11x17 ISO 12800 print out of the K-50. These sizes are pushing the limit of the K-50s sensor. This is after post processing the DNG file, though. An OOC jpeg can't give me those sizes.

[reh321]

The shutter speed is P&S like with 1/2000 max speed. Hahaha!

The electronic shutter on the Q goes to 1/8000

I'm not sure these shutter speeds are meaningful.

For example, the Q's electronic shutter reads the sensor one line at a time. It may spend 1/8000-th second on each line, but it takes 1/30-th second to read the entire sensor. Often you go with those high speeds because you're trying to "stop" some kind of motion, and this herky-jerky reading method can lead to a totally chaotic image, with the various pieces tossed all over the place.

[12thgear]

Here's my perspective as an owner of a Pentax Q, Q7, Olympus OM-D E-M10, and Pen Lite E-PL6.

Out of all the cameras listed above, the OM-D E-M10 is my favorite. It's pretty much a do-it-all camera, it handles well, and it's highly customizable. It's also a pretty responsive camera with pretty fast AF and a decent burst mode. It's still small enough and light enough that it's a pleasure to take nearly everywhere. The EVF hump adds a bit of bulk, but I think it's worth the tradeoff. The 16MP sensor takes great photos and still performs well in low light. The 3-axis IBIS works very well. I'd say image quality is almost on par with Pentax 16MP APS-C cameras. JPEGs out of the camera can look lovely and RAW is even better. I love all the available manual controls and the twin control dials are very useful. There was a huge learning curve to setting up the E-M10 just the way I wanted it, but the payoff is it feel likes MY camera. I also think the Micro Four Thirds system offers a ton of compelling, affordable lenses. I mostly use fast-ish primes (Panasonic 14mm f2.5, Olympus 25mm f1.8, Sigma 60mm f2.8), but I'm also pleasantly surprised by a couple of the inexpensive zoom lenses.

My next favorite camera is the Q7. I really like taking photos with the Q system cameras. As long there's good light these cameras take surprisingly good photos, especially RAW. I've printed 13x19 images (RAW, tuned in Photoshop) that had no business looking as good as they did. Image stabilization seems to work well too. It can be tough to catch fast action with the Q cameras, but for fun, hobby photography they're just charming as heck. I appreciate how tiny the body is, and especially how tiny the lenses are. I also love that these pocketable cameras still offer a lot of familiar Pentax DSLR style controls and customization. I think that's a big part of the appeal: lots of functionality and photographer-focused thinking in a tiny body. My favorite lenses are the 01 Prime (a really special little lens) and 06 Telephoto Zoom. My only beef with the Q system is battery life sucks. I imagine everything I said about the Q7 can be applied to the Q-S1, since they're awfully similar.

Finally we have the Pen Lite E-PL6, which is still an excellent camera with image quality identical to the OM-D E-M10. Its stabilization system is simpler and there's no EVF (you can add one, but then you're at E-M10 pricing again) but it still performs very well as an image taking tool. I just don't find it nearly as engaging to use as the other cameras. The control layout is much more point-and-shoot style. The only control dial is a ring on the back around the control pad. It's tiny and fussy. It's fully customizable like the OM-D E-M10, but that doesn't fully solve the issue. There's still plenty of manual control, but you'll be relying on the touch screen and menus a little more. Objectively it's a much better camera than my Q7, but it's not as satisfying to operate.

So I guess my advice is to look for deals on the OM-D E-M10. Periodically Olympus also runs refurb specials. If you can get it at a price you like I think it's a very easy recommendation. Otherwise, I'd probably recommend the Pen Lite E-PL6 even though I like the Q7/Q-S1 more. Micro Four Thirds is still a more practical system to invest in, and since you mentioned low light shooting, that's an area where the more capable sensor really comes into its own. But if you're thinking more with the heart and go with the Q-S1, I get it, I really do.

[reh321]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

[Tony Belding]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

If anybody wants to try taking pics to demonstrate this phenomenon, a helicopter might be a good subject to try. I've seen it done before (not with a Pentax AFAIK) resulting in weirdly curved and distorted helicopter blades.

It's not a problem that comes up too often in normal shooting.

[paulcote]

I would like to surprise my wife with a new camera. Let me give you some background. She has an old 8MP Canon A590 IS point & shoot that she really loves. It's pretty old, but it still takes decently good pictures. What makes that camera more amazing is that when we were up in Bishop, CA a few years ago, she accidentally dropped the camera into the creek that was coming out of the dam. It took me a few minutes to retrieve it, since it was lodged in between some rocks in the creek, but after a bit of contortioning, I was able to get it out. We thought it was toast, but after sticking it in some rice overnight, it worked! It has been working for the past 5 years. So you can see why she loves her camera.

However, the camera does have its quirks. Even when we load fresh new AA batteries into it, sometimes the camera still warns that the batteries are low. We have to keep taking them out & shaking the camera a bit for it to finally work. Sometimes the camera shuts off on its own, but overall, the camera still shoots decent photos.

I was looking to get her the latest Canon ELPH 350 point & shoot, but after looking around the Internet & junk, I decided that it might not be the best thing. Her old Canon A590 IS has a f2.6-f5.5 lens which actually does very well in low light. The new Canon ELPH 350 has a f3.6-f7.0 lens. It seems like it wouldn't do as well in low light, but I did read some reviews & one tester did mention that this is probably one of the cheapest point & shoot cameras that can do some low light work. I'm still up in the air about this camera. The only thing it has going for it is the fact that it's super slim & she can take it in her purse just about everywhere.

Earlier this year, I got 2 Pentax K-50 cameras & 4 lenses. A black one for me & a red one for the her. I love shooting with them, but she's not too thrilled with hers. She'll only use it when we go out specifically to shoot. I use mine for just about everything. She typically prefers her A590, but she does recognize that the image quality of the K-50 is leaps & bounds better. She does enjoy post processing the RAW files that she likes as well. I'm actually thinking of unloading one of the K-50 bodies & picking up a K-3, but that's a whole other story.

This is where a different kind of camera comes to mind for me. I think she would love a mirrorless camera. I have read, looked around, & toyed with a few of them. I have narrowed them down to a couple of them. The Olympus Pen E-PL6 & the Pentax Q-S1. The idea of an almost 100% touch screen camera plus the massive amounts of M43 lenses is what I find appealing about the Olympus Pen E-PL6. The super compactness of the Q-S1 is what appeals to me as well. Less lenses, but that cute little cameras seems to be able to take some pretty decent photos, despite its small sensor. Yes, they are both a tad bit larger than her Canon A590, but I think she'll love the idea of a small camera, but with the ability to change lenses & shoot in RAW. That can't be achieved with the Canon ELPH 350.

Both of these cameras seem to offer so much for so little. Both of them sell for about $300 with a kit lens & $400 with 2 kit lenses. Each one has its pluses & minuses. Olympus has more lenses, but the Pentax is a lot smaller & compact. The image quality of the Olympus is a bit better than the Pentax, but the Pentax image quality is still leaps & bounds better than her old Canon A590. Yes. The Olympus could get more expensive with lenses in the long run & the Pentax only has 8 lenses, but I don't really need that many lenses. I could go on & on, but I think I'm dead set on one of these two cameras. I have already looked at all the pros & cons, but. I can't figure out which one of these 2 I want to get for my wife.

I'm not a brand whore, brand loyalist, or anything like that, but I'm really big on bang for the buck. I have shot with Canon, Nikon, & Sony DSLRs in the past & currently shoot with Pentax DSLRs, since their cameras & lenses offer a lot of bang for the buck. I don't care if it's a Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Panasonic, Pentax, or whatever, but if it can do a lot for little money, I'm all over it.

So my fellow mirrorless Pentaxians, what would you do? Get the Olympus Pen E-PL6 or the Pentax QS-1? I know that I'm on a Pentax forum, but I'm pretty sure that I'll get some unbiased responses & comments. Thanks!

I just read your post again and I have that same canon around here or close to it and found out if you use lithium AA batteries then it works way better. Just wanted to mention on Woot they have factory reconditioned Fuji X10s which don't have changeable lenses but the lens is pretty fast anyways. 160 bucks.

There's an optical viewfinder on her Canon right? and theres one on the Fuji X10. Its a bit dated but its cool looking. I just ordered me one and I need it like a hole in the head. Still I think I will like it.

Carrying lenses and changing lenses is not that pleasant. Does your wife like changing lenses? Sounds like she didn't like the DSLR that much. I have a Fuji XT10 and xm1 and carrying them and lenses is a little easier than a DSLR but ..... Its nice with a pancake lens on it to carry around. Other lenses feel big.

I have a little Sony WX220 10X zoom camera that seems to have a super brain in it and you can't mess up the pictures hardly. That camera is credit card sized. I can easily fit it in the coin pocket of my jeans. No viewfinder though. It does well in low light because of the magical computer in it and you can hand hold it at very long shutter speeds etc. and it takes multiple shots if it has to. It has built in voodoo or something. Sort of like an elph but I don't know if elphs have the voodoo. My Sony has auto, auto plus and auto super plus or something.

If she likes Retro and Rangefinder, check out that Fuji X10 for 160 bucks or maybe look at the X30? The sensor size is a tad bigger than the QS1 as its the next size up.

The sensor sizes getting bigger on the micro 4/3 and on the APS C (fuji Xt10, xm1 etc or Sony a6000) allows you to use higher iso without noise than the smaller sensor cameras plus Fuji lenses for their X series can be pretty fast but expensive. Probably the panasonic/olympus also has very nice lenses too. Lenses cost more than cameras it seems.