How big are you trying to enlarge grahame?
I am looking at a 12x19 print hanging on my wall right now that was taken with the original Q and the standard 02 zoom. It is bright, colorful and I can see the veins in the leaves of the trees that are close. Obviously it is not possible to pick the leaves out on trees that are far off on the mountains. I used a tripod and the timer instead of the anti-shake, but I suspect it would have done all right with the anti shake as well.
I think that some people (reviewers are the worst) only want to pick certain images to blow up 100% on their computer screen to make their judgements on a camera or a lens. I personally find it better to take your file and print it at the size you want, then live with it for awhile. That gives me a far better idea of what it will be like to live with the photographs I get when I actually use the system.
---------- Post added 08-31-2016 at 08:44 AM ----------
To be honest, the biggest problem I originally had with the Q system was the size. I was used to carrying around the K10D or a film slr and the size of the Q made me feel a little self conscious. I mean face it, no serious photographer walks around with a little point and shoot...right? They need a big camera like a full frame professional Canon or Nikon. Or maybe a Pentax 645Z.
But then I started to print my photos. The biggest I can go at home is 13x19 (or something like that.) When I started to print I realized that I could easily go 8x10 (which is 95% of my work) or even as high as 13x19 if the photo had enough detail. I gradually lost my need to be packing around something that was only serving to demonstrate the size of my ..... (ahem).
Don't worry, I still carry around my film or digital 645 Pentaxes, and my various 35mm slr and dslrs. I enjoy working with them. But the reality is, if I am traveling and have to pack small, the Q is the choice every time.
Of course, as in anything in life, your mileage may vary.