[reh321]

BTW, f2.8 on such a small sensor really isn't all that spectacular. It turns out being the FF equiv of f13, the advantage of the shallow DOF of a fast lens is lost on that sensor. And while the leaf shutter lenses and high sync speeds are great, it isn't something your average user needs or really even cares about. The people who want those types of features are up market on DSLRs and Medium Format

We spend soooo much time here talking about technology for the sake of technology and don't think much beyond that. I would have to check my records, but I may not have taken a flash picture with my Q at all over the past year, and even when I did, a 1/60 sync speed would have been fast enough - in fact, that was the fastest sync speed available to me way back when I had leaf shutter on my range finder cameras. To me, I value the leaf shutter because of the noise, or lack thereof, given off by my Q when I take a picture during a ceremony {no flash} - and that is why I take it. I'm guessing that most true amateurs would also view lack of noise as the primary benefit of the leaf shutter, and based on how smart phones are used, I'm guessing that most don't care much about DOF either.

[monochrome]

Pentax is a sophisticated camera company. My Olympus XA is a sophisticated film camera in a tiny package. Q is a sophisticated Mirrorless camera in a tiny package.

They should make it more sophisticated, and make the effort to market it to enthusiasts and pros as a fully-featured Mirrorless camera. That probably means a great EVF and good video, which so far Pentax has not done! Otherwise they should start from scratch with a larger mount and sensor, an adapter, and allow crop mode for Q lenses.

We'll just have to wait to see what kenspo means by "a couple small surprises".

Theta is Ricoh's high volume consumer camera.

[johnmflores]

Those samsung cameras failed because they tried to be a cell phone with a large camera attached, that doesn't make sense as a primary device, its too large to carry every day. I'm thinking the camera as being an optional companion to the phone. The camera does all of the work, then sends it to the phone (via bluetooth or wifi) where it is automatically uploaded through a background process via 4g. No need to take the phone out of your pocket. Put a large enough screen on the back of the camera and it shouldn't be an issue to type on. Most all of the target market knows how to type on a screen either directly or through swipe gestures. Several power saving features could help with the battery issue. Turn the wifi/bluetooth radio off when not in use is just one that wouldn't be hard to do.

You've now made the Q bigger with a bigger screen and bigger battery and the SOC and antennas of a phone. So now you have a bigger camera with a small 1/1.7 sensor. I'm not sure that's going to sell.

And I think you underestimate how terrible the UX is. Most people type on a phone by cradling it in both of their hands and typing with their thumbs. Try picking up a camera and simulating the same. The camera is considerably thicker than a phone, with a lens attached, and with more body around the screen, and it's heavier. It's going to be awkward.

[GateCityRadio]

I've never understood that argument. I like to have as much depth of field as possible so images have more than just a sliver of in-focus area. Shallow depth of field is great for movies when used to isolate a subject for dramatic emphasis. In a still photograph it just makes most of the picture blurry. You can easily blur backgrounds in PP. You can't sharpen blurry backgrounds.

In Blunty's video review he raves about the out of focus bokeh of the 06, with numerous examples.

You can easily blur a background in most cases with f4-f5.6 with the right lens and still get a sharp image. f13 not so much. I'd rather get the real subject isolation in camera (which is pretty easy and takes a second or two to adjust the aperture) instead of spending that time in front of a computer putting tacky looking fake blur in the background. I rarely use lenses wide open, when I had the DA50 I was mostly between 2.8-4 and had no problem getting the entire subject in focus and still get acceptable subject isolation.... But thats just me.

You've now made the Q bigger with a bigger screen and bigger battery and the SOC and antennas of a phone. So now you have a bigger camera with a small 1/1.7 sensor. I'm not sure that's going to sell.

And I think you underestimate how terrible the UX is. Most people type on a phone by cradling it in both of their hands and typing with their thumbs. Try picking up a camera and simulating the same. The camera is considerably thicker than a phone, with a lens attached, and with more body around the screen, and it's heavier. It's going to be awkward.

I never said anything about a bigger battery, or cell phone antennas. Many small cameras already come with WiFi and NFC (basically every sony nex in existence has this and they are very similar in size to Q), the SOC of these phones are pretty small ...most cell phones are pretty small (thin) already. I actually had my nexus 5 apart just a few weeks ago and the main board only takes up less than a quarter of the area in the phone, the battery takes up most of the space. Battery power can be saved with better power management, not to hard to implement in software, android already does this. Sure a camera is thicker, but I'm thinking of a layout where the screen takes up the majority of the space behind the camera, keep a control wheel in the front for the more advanced users and a mode dial on the top and a play button on the top, everything else is touch screen. As much as cell phones sell and how often we use them, I really don't see where the user interface is that bad, as I said, most of us grew up with this advancing tech and can type (or swipe) on a touch screen blindfolded. I know this tech wouldn't be for everyone, and I guess especially not you or many of the advanced users on here, but it would bring more people into the fold and get more people interested in photography. At some point pentax (ricoh) needs to make a splash in the market to increase market share and get third parties to take the brand seriously again. The K1 is an awesome start and many pentax users will probably upgrade, the problem is how many new users are attracted to the brand...the average person doesn't even know pentax exists. Make a small, well built camera with a familiar interface that the average person could just pick up and use would be a good start. The connection to social networks would really sell it to the younger crowd, and maybe a fraction of those people would be so impressed they will continue up market to a APSC DSLR to learn more.

I'm not saying this would be the only Q on the market, obviously there would be an advanced "traditional layout" model similar to what we have now for the more advanced user.

[surfar]

Those samsung cameras failed because they tried to be a cell phone with a large camera attached

Which model Samsungs are you referring to?

---------- Post added 10-03-16 at 12:29 PM ----------

---------- Post added 10-03-16 at 12:29 PM ----------

Make a small, well built camera with a familiar interface that the average person could just pick up and use would be a good start. The connection to social networks would really sell it to the younger crowd, and maybe a fraction of those people would be so impressed they will continue up market to a APSC DSLR to learn more.

Thats just been done, YI technology.....Released in the last week in Europe and Asia.

[Tony Belding]

The existing Q series exists very much in the conventional DSLR paradigm. To try and make it more phone-like would require a complete re-invention and transformation. Doing it halfway, by merely grafting on a few phone-like features, would only create a compromised product that would satisfy nobody.

[CarlJF]

You can easily blur a background in most cases with f4-f5.6 with the right lens and still get a sharp image. f13 not so much. I'd rather get the real subject isolation in camera (which is pretty easy and takes a second or two to adjust the aperture) instead of spending that time in front of a computer putting tacky looking fake blur in the background. I rarely use lenses wide open, when I had the DA50 I was mostly between 2.8-4 and had no problem getting the entire subject in focus and still get acceptable subject isolation.... But thats just me.

Well, you seem to miss the point. The Q is for those occasions when you don't want or can, for whatever reason, carry your DSLR. So, yes, you can have more DOF control with a DSLR, but it doesn't matter at all because when you carry the Q, it's because you will not have your DSLR anyway. You can have the best DSLR in the world with an f-0.5 lens, but you will not get more bokeh. Simply because it will sit somewhere on a shelf... And you will have quite a big problem getting focus and subject isolation with a camera that isn't with you...

Why is it so difficult to understand that the Q (and similarly small cameras) are for those occasions when you don't want to carry a DSLR? If you can bringthe the DSLR with you, obviously it's the one you should use, and nobody denies that. But if you don't want it and carry the Q, you work with what you have and accept its limitations in exchange of small size and discretion. Or, simply put, a picture with Q is still way better than no picture with the DSLR, no matter the bokeh... Comparing the two is mostly useless because the alternative to using the Q isn't the DSLR, it's no camera, or a P&S, or a phone...

[GateCityRadio]

The existing Q series exists very much in the conventional DSLR paradigm. To try and make it more phone-like would require a complete re-invention and transformation. Doing it halfway, by merely grafting on a few phone-like features, would only create a compromised product that would satisfy nobody.

Well it would obviously need a new mainboard and a user interface (which could just be an android skin if they decide to use that as the OS), a new layout to take advantage of the touchscreen, and the touch screen itself. It would take serious software development and third party app support for it to work to its full potential (like instagram and FB). One of the hardest parts ,lens mount and lens development, is already done/in progress, you have a sensor already. You have proven SR. So software and hardware to make the screen and wireless systems work, which all exist in some form or another already. Pentax has some experience with wifi and NFC already, the KS2 has both, I know the K70 and K1 both have wifi at least.

Again I'm not saying completely replace the Q line up with one camera like this. Obviously the existing layout would live on as a more enthusiast oriented model, which most of the diehards here would use.

The system is obviously in a state of flux, no new hardware in a while. its dead one week then the next week it isn't.

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 10:48 PM ----------

Well, you seem to miss the point. The Q is for those occasions when you don't want or can, for whatever reason, carry your DSLR. So, yes, you can have more DOF control with a DSLR, but it doesn't matter at all because when you carry the Q, it's because you will not have your DSLR anyway. You can have the best DSLR in the world with an f-0.5 lens, but you will not get more bokeh. Simply because it will sit somewhere on a shelf... And you will have quite a big problem getting focus and subject isolation with a camera that isn't with you...

Why is it so difficult to understand that the Q (and similarly small cameras) are for those occasions when you don't want to carry a DSLR? If you can bringthe the DSLR with you, obviously it's the one you should use, and nobody denies that. But if you don't want it and carry the Q, you work with what you have and accept its limitations in exchange of small size and discretion. Or, simply put, a picture with Q is still way better than no picture with the DSLR, no matter the bokeh... Comparing the two is mostly useless because the alternative to using the Q isn't the DSLR, it's no camera, or a P&S, or a phone...

Actually, I do understand (the reason why I have a NEX, and owned a MX-1), and so does sony and fuji, its not the DSLR the Q is up against....it small mirrorless cameras which have APSC sized sensors and are about the same size as the Q. You can get DSLR quality photos, more DR, shallow DOF all in a small package. DOF is important to me coming from a DSLR. But clearly that advantage is lost on this small sensor, even with a f2.8...which is why I said that 2.8 really isn't that much of an advantage when other mirrorless cameras can do shallow dof. The people coming up from a cell phone won't care about DOF. People in the market for an advanced mirrorless camera however want the same function as their dslr except in a smaller package and Sony, Fuji, and M43 are doing that.

The Q is a snap shot camera, slightly higher quality and control over a smart phone, but doesn't touch the other mirrorless cameras in the market. So play to its strengths as a snap shot camera and integrate social media connectivity and market it towards the people that find that important....

Give the Q a chance to make it....make it something special that people outside our little group would actually want to use. Then the system can live on, otherwise it looks like it will die out and we all lose that way.



---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 10:50 PM ----------

Which model Samsungs are you referring to?

The galaxy camera.

---------- Post added 10-03-16 at 12:29 PM ----------

---------- Post added 10-03-16 at 12:29 PM ----------



Thats just been done, YI technology.....Released in the last week in Europe and Asia.

Cool, I'll look into that.

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 11:09 PM ----------

I'm guessing that most true amateurs would also view lack of noise as the primary benefit of the leaf shutter, and based on how smart phones are used, I'm guessing that most don't care much about DOF either.

That was my point. Shallow DOF isn't something this camera will do easily, so I don't see the constant f2.8 zoom as that great of an advantage. The people moving up from a smart phone won't care too much about f2.8 or DOF, what they will care about is connectivity and ease of use. The people who care about DOF will either just shoot with a DSLR or get a mirrorless with a larger sensor.





I'm not trying to insult anyone or bash this camera. So please don't take it that way. I just want to see it survive and I think it could do that if it would be marketed towards its strengths and maybe adapt to go along with the social media generation. I think I got my point across here (after repeating the same thing several times), so I'll bow out before a firefight starts and stuff gets taken the wrong way. I love pentax as much as the next person on here. Have fun with your fun little quirky Q's, and I hope the system continues to live on.

[surfar]

Those samsung cameras failed because they tried to be a cell phone with a large camera attached

which model Samsungs ?

[GateCityRadio]

which model Samsungs ?

Galaxy Camera is the first one that comes to mind. I believe there was one NX that was shaped like a larger DSLR that had a similar function.

[surfar]

Galaxy Camera is the first one that comes to mind. I believe there was one NX that was shaped like a larger DSLR that had a similar function

OK, well you may be confused.

The Galaxy,Galaxy 2 and Galaxy NX were never phones....but they were connected cameras.They didnt fail either, Samsung introduced the concept and did a production run, their popularity wasnt overwhelming so a 2nd run wasnt justified.All were extremely capable cameas just like the other Samsung cameras.

[GateCityRadio]

OK, well you may be confused.

The Galaxy,Galaxy 2 and Galaxy NX were never phones....but they were connected cameras.They didnt fail either, Samsung introduced the concept and did a production run, their popularity wasnt overwhelming so a 2nd run wasnt justified.All were extremely capable cameas just like the other Samsung cameras.

I was speaking about the galaxy camera initially, I knew the NX wasn't a phone, idk why I thought the galaxy camera was a phone. I would consider a fail being this part "their popularity wasnt overwhelming so a 2nd run wasnt justified." they didn't sell well obviously.


Edit: I think what I was thinking about was the Galaxy S "zoom" phones.

[surfar]

[quote=GateCityRadio;3789874]Cool, I'll look into that.[/qhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSP5_t1OIkg



---------- Post added 10-03-16 at 04:27 PM ----------

they didn't sell well obviously.

They sold them all...just about unobtainable now.

the Galaxy S "zoom" phones

Same scenario, a certain amount were produced, there are not many sitting around in old stock that i know of.Very capable P/s cameras and OK/good phones depending whether you got S4 Zoom or Zoom K.

Check out the YT link, itll give you the lowdown on the Chinese attack on MILCs

[CarlJF]

That was my point. Shallow DOF isn't something this camera will do easily, so I don't see the constant f2.8 zoom as that great of an advantage. The people moving up from a smart phone won't care too much about f2.8 or DOF, what they will care about is connectivity and ease of use. The people who care about DOF will either just shoot with a DSLR or get a mirrorless with a larger sensor.

You don't see the advantage of a 2.8 lens because you only look at DOF. But 2.8 also let in much more light than the usual 5.6 zoom. Which is great in low light, particularly in a small sensor camera like the Q which you want to use at relatively low ISO. It mitigates partially one of the disadvantage of the small sensor and this is why it's a great pairing with Q. Not because one is looking for shallow DOF... If you can't live without this shallow DOF, then obviously the Q isn't for you and you would be better with something else. But a lot of people accept it and are able to work with this limitation. Not even without saying that at telephoto FL, shallow DOF is often as much a problem than a blessing...

[GateCityRadio]

You don't see the advantage of a 2.8 lens because you only look at DOF. But 2.8 also let in much more light than the usual 5.6 zoom. Which is great in low light, particularly in a small sensor camera like the Q which you want to use at relatively low ISO. It mitigates partially one of the disadvantage of the small sensor and this is why it's a great pairing with Q. Not because one is looking for shallow DOF... If you can't live without this shallow DOF, then obviously the Q isn't for you and you would be better with something else. But a lot of people accept it and are able to work with this limitation. Not even without saying that at telephoto FL, shallow DOF is often as much a problem than a blessing...

How many more times do you want to repeat the same exact things back and forth? Lol....okay so 2.8 is good on low light on a small sensor, so is 5.6 on a camera with a larger sensor that can handle higher iso with less noise...so its kind of a wash, unless you want to include the fact that you have more DOF control on the camera with the larger sensor, which is a clear advantage to most photographers. There isn't any real size advantage to the Q over other mirrorless cameras with larger sensors (except maybe the FF A7 series) and most all of those other cameras have a similar feature set (except the leaf shutter on the Q and wireless on the Sony/Fuji cameras). I don't understand how shallow dof its such a problem on a long zoom on APS-C or FF anyway....instead of shooting wide open at 2.8, step it down to f4 and get the whole subject in focus and still get subject isolation....I don't seem to have these problems on any lenses because I use the correct aperture for the subject. If you truly understand how aperture affects DOF (and also focal length and distances) it really isn't a problem. I mean damn, if you think its bad on APS-C try shooting medium format lol. Oh god I'm repeating myself again....I think its time to quit this thread..lol.

I didn't think putting an idea out there to help pentax/ricoh sell the Q to a larger market would get the natives so restless....lol. #changeisbad
Lets just agree to disagree and sit back and see where pentax/ricoh actually goes with the Q.