[Super K]

Hey drewski, was it a BLACK Q7 on Kijiji you found? If so, congratulations!!!

And, if you're looking for a good home for that Q7, I have one. Been looking around GTA for a LONG time, trying to find a Q7/Q-S1. Please, PM me!

Cheers!

[drewski]

Hey drewski, was it a BLACK Q7 on Kijiji you found? If so, congratulations!!!

And, if you're looking for a good home for that Q7, I have one. Been looking around GTA for a LONG time, trying to find a Q7/Q-S1. Please, PM me!

Cheers!

Hmm.. I thought I'd posted an answer here last week, but for some reason I don't see it here today. Anyway, I PMed you SuperK, the Q7 is actually going to another friend of mine who also has a Q. I agree the Q7 is quite hard to find in the GTA, and having used both the Q7 and Q-S1 now, I must say I kinda like the Q7's handling better, but still prefer the Q-S1's ability to do continuous AF during video shooting.

Bit of a tangent here, but I also just realized that if you shoot videos on a Q-S1 and then take that SD card and put it into a Q7 or a Q, videos taken from one camera aren't viewable on any other camera type, but the pictures are. Really weird.

[tabjohnson]

I know this idea has been mentioned before, but a monochrome Q with no Bayer filter would be so very cool. It shouldn't be too costly to develop or produce. We get higher ISO sensitivity, more resolution. The B&W body would take up about the same space in my bag as a couple of rolls of B&W film. And there would be nothing else like it on the market.

Tony, What a street shooter! Add wifi and a tilting screen and all the urban hipsters would toss their Fuji's for a mono-Q.

[lithedreamer]

Tony, What a street shooter! Add wifi and a tilting screen and all the urban hipsters would toss their Fuji's for a mono-Q.

I guess it depends how big of a sensor you 'need'? The Q has a smaller sensor than APS-C (the Fuji cameras) and micro 4/3s and the RX100's 1" sensor.

[Chetverovod]

Tony, What a street shooter! Add wifi and a tilting screen and all the urban hipsters would toss their Fuji's for a mono-Q.

Maybe something like cheap googleglass instead of the tilting viewfinder.

[kb244]

Most people take photographs with their phone, and are not likely to spend $$$ on a camera anymore.
If you understand what they are missing, you will understand the difference between the kit lens and the 08 on a Q.

My phone doesn't give me full manual control or the PASM equivalent... or the ability to change lens outside of clipping on a little subpar glass piece over the existing lens, can be cumbersome. In some situations your phone (which now days carries all your contacts, logins, social media accounts, pics you might not want to share, two factor authentication apps, etc) is probably better left in your pocket.

In lieu of the the not-yet-released macro lens (09?), I wonder what insanity my Tamron SP 90/2.8 1:1 lifesize macro would give me (being lifesize, and 504mm equivalent) If the local Meijer garden has the butterfly exhibition this year, that could be interesting, assuming shake reduction can handle it if I got a high enough shutter speed.

I would not mind seeing a new Q, maybe another sensor bump depending on how much coverage the existing Q lens can give. But in the mean time as the prices drop on them, especially used ones I'll be keeping my eye peeled for probably a Q-S1 next. (lens I tend to buy new, bodies, I tend to buy used).

I've used a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro with the Q, it works well, but is somewhat bulky. I've also used a 90mm Rodenstock APO enlarging lens (fitted to a gutted SMC 50mm f2 lens) which was excellent for macro, although clumsy. For portable use, a 24mm Pentax 110 lens with its close-up lens (with an aperture reducer) is cheap, excellent and tiny. Most C-mount cine lenses work well with extension rings, although a good one (Kern, Canon, Nikkor, Angenieux, Wollensak) is expensive.