Why isn't the Q (and all other Q bodies) more popular?

adjutant · 03-09-2017, 05:18 PM

That's exactly the relationship between my Q-S1 and K-3 II. The former gets a lot more use because I can put it in a small bag with other tiny lenses that gives me exceptional reach. The 50-135 is HUGE AND CUMBERSOME compared to the incredibly tiny 15-45. But it's not just a matter of convenience. After processing and being resized for the web, images from the Q-S1 are just as good as from the K-3 II.

If you ask me why the Q isn't more popular, I think it is fundamentally due to its small sensor size combined with a relative lack of features. Everyone thinks, "well nowadays I can just get a tiny camera with APS-C or even Full Frame sensor!" And they wouldn't be wrong. Furthermore, the small sensor solution for people that want amazing stills and video features is micro four thirds. I have read comments online that are extremely prejudiced against sensors smaller than APS-C. They will not accept smaller sensors no matter what you say. These people are buying Fujifilm or Sony RX1. And anyone willing to tolerate a small sensor in exchange for a smaller kit and lots of features is shooting with micro four thirds cameras.

What were people saying when APS-C cameras started getting smaller and smaller? "Micro four thirds is dead!" "What's the point of this camera system if bigger sensors in tiny bodies exist?" Yet the system continues to persist by having high-end camera features.

Being a small sensor camera is no longer necessarily about having the smallest body. It's now about cramming all the features possible that one would find on a flagship FF DSLR while keeping the price point at ~$1000. It used to be that small sensor camera was about being a small toy or a small bridge until you could get a real camera. So manufacturers like Nikon purposefully gimped their mirrorless bodies. No way that kind of treatment would fly anymore.

If a future Q body is to have any hope of success, it will need to be a feature-packed camera with all the amenities of a flagship FF DSLR, but in a compact sensor body. This means viewfinder-less body is no longer an option. Tiny body is not a priority, since all the size-savings really come from the lenses themselves, to be honest.

**LaurenOE** · 03-09-2017, 05:24 PM

I bought the original Q, and while I loved the camera, the IQ and battery life were terrible. At the time, I could take a K5SII, take the grip off, and get a small form factor camera as a walk around. Again, the Q was a great little camera, just not enough for me to continue with the system...dunno, maybe I should just go out and get the last generation and give it a whirl again.

adjutant · 03-09-2017, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by LaurenOE

I bought the original Q, and while I loved the camera, the IQ and battery life were terrible.

My Q-S1 just barely lasted me a day's worth of shooting at the zoo. After that day, I bought a battery 2-pack from amazon for about 20 USD and I must say, it was an excellent purchase. 3 batteries is more than enough for any day's worth of shooting. The batteries are small and easy to slip into a small pocket. Though I would say spare batteries are a necessity for any mirrorless camera, they just can't beat optical viewfinders for battery life.

Unregistered User · 03-09-2017, 06:06 PM

The Qs are a specialized tool, it is a mistake to compare them to non-interchangeable compacts: none of them have fisheyes, ultra wides or fast short teles. The 1" and MFT cameras aren't as usable in macro or long tele situations. People who still buy compacts aren't looking for these features, however, which is why the Q system isn't as popular. There is also a price difference. All the better compacts cost at least twice if not four times the price of a Q-S1 and are often twice the weight (i.e., OMD EM10). Some people (me) don't like to carry around a $1000 camera in public.

We're about two generations away from smart phones taking over from small cameras completely—effectively killing that market (if it hasn't done it already.)

wildman · 03-09-2017, 09:55 PM

Speaking as the owner of the Q, Q-S1, Canon S95 and Pani ZS50...
...No VF and a small ILC system camera is a contradiction in terms.
For most people small means self contained - grab and go without also carrying around a bag of glass and messing with all the lens caps, cases etc.
I use the Q only for it's crop factor and have no conventional Q glass. It's only used on the back end of my 560mm glass.

**luftfluss** · 03-09-2017, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Cipher

The Qs are a specialized tool, it is a mistake to compare them to non-interchangeable compacts: none of them have fisheyes, ultra wides or fast short teles. The 1" and MFT cameras aren't as usable in macro or long tele situations. People who still buy compacts aren't looking for these features, however, which is why the Q system isn't as popular. There is also a price difference. All the better compacts cost at least twice if not four times the price of a Q-S1 and are often twice the weight (i.e., OMD EM10). Some people (me) don't like to carry around a $1000 camera in public.

We're about two generations away from smart phones taking over from small cameras completely—effectively killing that market (if it hasn't done it already.)

The lens on the Panasonic LX3/5/7 started at 24mm eq, and there was a .75x wide angle adapter that worked very well. I used one on my LX7, giving me 18mm @ f/1.4 and provided very good sharpness across the frame at f/2.8. One could also attach the well-regarded Olympus TCON 1.7x to several of the premium small-sensor compacts and have decent results, although not as sharp as the Q's tele lens, as well as a fisheye attachment.

I thought the 01 Prime was a real ace in hole for the Q system. So nimble and so much fun! Unfortunately my copy was badly decentered, and I sold it off as well as my Q7 because I found the low-res LCD somewhat frustrating to use casually with adapted lenses.

kb244 · 03-10-2017, 03:41 AM

I have a used Q10 on the way with only about 400 shutter count along with a 02 standard zoom lens, I also went ahead and ordered the 07 shield lens and a Fotodiox L39/M39 Leica thread mount adapter, both amazon shipped for about $52 on my amazon credit with a guaranteed delivery this coming sunday, didn't know USPS had a contract with them for sunday deliveries.

Based on the reviews I was researching before I pulled the trigger on the Q10 kit, I would probably have to say in comparison to other ILC cameras in my opinion the popularity, least in the US fails because:
1) Not a slew of native lens offerings (especially no third party offerings) as people seem to look at that when considering a new system, though adaptability is nice, but it's nicer when I can get a Pentax-K adapter to micro-4/3rd for under $20 yet seems like I have to actually hunt for a decent one to Q, it was oddly easier to get the LTM adapter domestically.
2) Image quality, least compared to my Olympus E-M5 (mk1) which I bought twice (first time around 380 used with grip and such, and second time around 320 when the first one died, used with more accessories) is subpar, despite all the reviewers mention of "IQ" isn't what the system is about.
3) Marketing, Pentax doesn't seem to market it as heavily. I've heard of the Q system but the biggest alarm bells that people keep bringing up is how "tiny" the sensor is, but having gotten very sufficient images out of my 2.0x crop factor camera compared to some people's APS-C and full frame I've learned not to always judge the sensor size in regards to what impresses people. Would have been nice to see the marketing help dismiss that predictable backlash.
4) Original price imo was insanely priced for what it was. That probably stuck with some people who looked at it once, and didn't look back at it not seeing the price dropping.

I highly doubt the Q10 will replace my Olympus for more of my serious work (ie: KarlBlessing.com), but for the price I wanted something fresh-to-me and even smaller than my old E-P3, to use as my gotta have a camera on me kind of thing. I could normally use my phone, but my phone isn't so instantaneous and doesn't shoot 12-bit dng or have interchangeable lens or let me slap on one of my pocketable adapted lens. I get jittery if I don't have a camera on hand to the point that I'll even wear my Pentax MX I recently got just so that I have something to shoot with, even if I can't really carry around my arsenal to every event.

Essentially it's going to replace my Olympus TG-630 for pocket use, but with obviously much more control and quality. Though it won't be waterproof, drop-proof, crush-proof like the TG-630, so when I'm visiting my kids I'll obviously still bring the little tg-630 for them to run around with while I shoot them with the Q10 without getting my shoulders tied up with a camera bag packed with gear or worrying that the quality won't be "high enough".

I suspect if Pentax had a line of affordable adapters for a number of antiquated systems (ie: mounts that current brands no longer hold a patent on, or would not be interested in defending) the popularity might go up further, but I guess there's also a drawback in ensuring that they work for said antiquated mounts. I really like the idea that their K adapter has a included shutter (leaf?), just not too crazy about a $200 adapter for it when the only Pentax lens I'm shooting are all mid-to-lower manual focus that cost the same or less than the adapter (Pentax-M 28/3.5, Pentax-M 50/1.4, Rokinon 85/1.4). Still would be nice if they opened up the mount to third party manufactures, might see all kinds of crazy offerings (heh... if so, maybe lensbaby would actually come out with a lens that does exactly the same thing as 04, but somehow justify it for $500 more).

Anywho really looking forward to receiving the Q10 which seems to be the same age as my E-M5.

**Tony Belding** · 03-10-2017, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by adjutant

If a future Q body is to have any hope of success, it will need to be a feature-packed camera with all the amenities of a flagship FF DSLR, but in a compact sensor body. This means viewfinder-less body is no longer an option. Tiny body is not a priority, since all the size-savings really come from the lenses themselves, to be honest.

What you describe sounds like the "Super Q" that I've called for -- sort of like a midget OM-D.

normhead · 03-10-2017, 06:48 AM - **1 Like**

One of every 10 cameras in my house is a Q-S1. It's a very popular camera around here.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2017, 08:17 AM

The Q System is an acquired taste. Those who use a Q and like it have overcome the objections. Unfortunately Pentax didn't promote the camera (in the west) and make enough people curious enough to try it.

I have a business meeting coming up in Salt Lake City. I can either put my entire Q kit (Q7/01/02/03/06 + batteries, polarizer, Loupe, charger and tiny tripod) in a corner of my suitcase or lug my K-1/28~105/(pick 2 primes) + charger, batteries, 540FGZ as a carry on. If they weigh my camera bag it's a $29 charge!

Ahem

wildman · 03-10-2017, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

I have a business meeting coming up in Salt Lake City. I can either put my entire Q kit (Q7/01/02/03/06 + batteries, polarizer, Loupe, charger and tiny tripod) in a corner of my suitcase or lug my K-1/28~105/(pick 2 primes) + charger, batteries, 540FGZ as a carry on. If they weigh my camera bag it's a $29 charge!

But the question remains:
Why the Q and not a half dozen other equal, if not better, small cameras for such a trip?
At least that's the question Pentax should be asking.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2017, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by wildman

But the question remains:
Why the Q and not a half dozen other equal, if not better, small cameras for such a trip?
At least that's the question Pentax should be asking.

Because I have a Q7?*

*I know that's a non-answer, but I started with a Q for its original reasons and bought the larger sensor body upgrade.

reh321 · 03-10-2017, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

....
I found the low-res LCD somewhat frustrating to use casually with adapted lenses.

Since my intention from the beginning was to use my Q-7 as a birding camera with adapted lenses, a Hoodman-clone was part of my original kit, because I already knew I would need shelter from the sun - and magnification was a bonus. In my case, I've found the shelter+magnification+focus-peaking to work well for me.

HarisF1 · 03-10-2017, 11:05 AM

I've got two Q-S1 bodies, an original Q and I've just gone and bought a Q-10. I really want a Q-7 but they're fairly sparse here.

The Q-S1 is amazing but the front grip (or lack thereof) is a bit of a turn-off.

**Tony Belding** · 03-10-2017, 11:56 AM - **1 Like**

Whenever I've mentioned the Q system in the forums over on DPReview (which, I hasten to add, is not representative of the broader camera market), I'm generally met with either stony silence (because I'm so un-hip, I guess) or someone chiming in that M4/3 is so much better.

Sometimes I wonder if the M4/3 geeks are so tired of being picked on for their teeny tiny toy joke sensor that they're just happy to find another format even smaller that they can vent on.

03-09-2017, 09:55 PM	#20
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Speaking as the owner of the Q, Q-S1, Canon S95 and Pani ZS50... ...No VF and a small ILC system camera is a contradiction in terms. For most people small means self contained - grab and go without also carrying around a bag of glass and messing with all the lens caps, cases etc. I use the Q only for it's crop factor and have no conventional Q glass. It's only used on the back end of my 560mm glass. Last edited by wildman; 03-09-2017 at 10:01 PM.

03-10-2017, 09:34 AM	#26
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by monochrome I have a business meeting coming up in Salt Lake City. I can either put my entire Q kit (Q7/01/02/03/06 + batteries, polarizer, Loupe, charger and tiny tripod) in a corner of my suitcase or lug my K-1/28~105/(pick 2 primes) + charger, batteries, 540FGZ as a carry on. If they weigh my camera bag it's a $29 charge! But the question remains: Why the Q and not a half dozen other equal, if not better, small cameras for such a trip? At least that's the question Pentax should be asking. Last edited by wildman; 03-10-2017 at 09:46 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why isn't the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM More Popular with Pentaxians?	les3547	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	53	03-03-2016 05:47 AM
Why GoPro’s Success Isn’t Really Isn't about the Cameras	interested_observer	General Photography	16	07-01-2014 05:05 PM
Why isn't Pentax more popular?	elbeasto	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	50	03-26-2013 11:11 PM
why aren't 50-135 more popular?	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	01-07-2012 11:03 AM

03-09-2017, 05:18 PM	#16
adjutant Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 100	That's exactly the relationship between my Q-S1 and K-3 II. The former gets a lot more use because I can put it in a small bag with other tiny lenses that gives me exceptional reach. The 50-135 is HUGE AND CUMBERSOME compared to the incredibly tiny 15-45. But it's not just a matter of convenience. After processing and being resized for the web, images from the Q-S1 are just as good as from the K-3 II. If you ask me why the Q isn't more popular, I think it is fundamentally due to its small sensor size combined with a relative lack of features. Everyone thinks, "well nowadays I can just get a tiny camera with APS-C or even Full Frame sensor!" And they wouldn't be wrong. Furthermore, the small sensor solution for people that want amazing stills and video features is micro four thirds. I have read comments online that are extremely prejudiced against sensors smaller than APS-C. They will not accept smaller sensors no matter what you say. These people are buying Fujifilm or Sony RX1. And anyone willing to tolerate a small sensor in exchange for a smaller kit and lots of features is shooting with micro four thirds cameras. What were people saying when APS-C cameras started getting smaller and smaller? "Micro four thirds is dead!" "What's the point of this camera system if bigger sensors in tiny bodies exist?" Yet the system continues to persist by having high-end camera features. Being a small sensor camera is no longer necessarily about having the smallest body. It's now about cramming all the features possible that one would find on a flagship FF DSLR while keeping the price point at ~$1000. It used to be that small sensor camera was about being a small toy or a small bridge until you could get a real camera. So manufacturers like Nikon purposefully gimped their mirrorless bodies. No way that kind of treatment would fly anymore. If a future Q body is to have any hope of success, it will need to be a feature-packed camera with all the amenities of a flagship FF DSLR, but in a compact sensor body. This means viewfinder-less body is no longer an option. Tiny body is not a priority, since all the size-savings really come from the lenses themselves, to be honest.

03-09-2017, 05:24 PM	#17
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	I bought the original Q, and while I loved the camera, the IQ and battery life were terrible. At the time, I could take a K5SII, take the grip off, and get a small form factor camera as a walk around. Again, the Q was a great little camera, just not enough for me to continue with the system...dunno, maybe I should just go out and get the last generation and give it a whirl again.

03-09-2017, 05:32 PM	#18
adjutant Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 100	Originally posted by LaurenOE I bought the original Q, and while I loved the camera, the IQ and battery life were terrible. My Q-S1 just barely lasted me a day's worth of shooting at the zoo. After that day, I bought a battery 2-pack from amazon for about 20 USD and I must say, it was an excellent purchase. 3 batteries is more than enough for any day's worth of shooting. The batteries are small and easy to slip into a small pocket. Though I would say spare batteries are a necessity for any mirrorless camera, they just can't beat optical viewfinders for battery life.

03-09-2017, 06:06 PM	#19
Unregistered User Guest	The Qs are a specialized tool, it is a mistake to compare them to non-interchangeable compacts: none of them have fisheyes, ultra wides or fast short teles. The 1" and MFT cameras aren't as usable in macro or long tele situations. People who still buy compacts aren't looking for these features, however, which is why the Q system isn't as popular. There is also a price difference. All the better compacts cost at least twice if not four times the price of a Q-S1 and are often twice the weight (i.e., OMD EM10). Some people (me) don't like to carry around a $1000 camera in public. We're about two generations away from smart phones taking over from small cameras completely—effectively killing that market (if it hasn't done it already.)

03-09-2017, 10:49 PM	#21
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by Cipher The Qs are a specialized tool, it is a mistake to compare them to non-interchangeable compacts: none of them have fisheyes, ultra wides or fast short teles. The 1" and MFT cameras aren't as usable in macro or long tele situations. People who still buy compacts aren't looking for these features, however, which is why the Q system isn't as popular. There is also a price difference. All the better compacts cost at least twice if not four times the price of a Q-S1 and are often twice the weight (i.e., OMD EM10). Some people (me) don't like to carry around a $1000 camera in public. We're about two generations away from smart phones taking over from small cameras completely—effectively killing that market (if it hasn't done it already.) The lens on the Panasonic LX3/5/7 started at 24mm eq, and there was a .75x wide angle adapter that worked very well. I used one on my LX7, giving me 18mm @ f/1.4 and provided very good sharpness across the frame at f/2.8. One could also attach the well-regarded Olympus TCON 1.7x to several of the premium small-sensor compacts and have decent results, although not as sharp as the Q's tele lens, as well as a fisheye attachment. I thought the 01 Prime was a real ace in hole for the Q system. So nimble and so much fun! Unfortunately my copy was badly decentered, and I sold it off as well as my Q7 because I found the low-res LCD somewhat frustrating to use casually with adapted lenses.

03-10-2017, 03:41 AM	#22
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	I have a used Q10 on the way with only about 400 shutter count along with a 02 standard zoom lens, I also went ahead and ordered the 07 shield lens and a Fotodiox L39/M39 Leica thread mount adapter, both amazon shipped for about $52 on my amazon credit with a guaranteed delivery this coming sunday, didn't know USPS had a contract with them for sunday deliveries. Based on the reviews I was researching before I pulled the trigger on the Q10 kit, I would probably have to say in comparison to other ILC cameras in my opinion the popularity, least in the US fails because: 1) Not a slew of native lens offerings (especially no third party offerings) as people seem to look at that when considering a new system, though adaptability is nice, but it's nicer when I can get a Pentax-K adapter to micro-4/3rd for under $20 yet seems like I have to actually hunt for a decent one to Q, it was oddly easier to get the LTM adapter domestically. 2) Image quality, least compared to my Olympus E-M5 (mk1) which I bought twice (first time around 380 used with grip and such, and second time around 320 when the first one died, used with more accessories) is subpar, despite all the reviewers mention of "IQ" isn't what the system is about. 3) Marketing, Pentax doesn't seem to market it as heavily. I've heard of the Q system but the biggest alarm bells that people keep bringing up is how "tiny" the sensor is, but having gotten very sufficient images out of my 2.0x crop factor camera compared to some people's APS-C and full frame I've learned not to always judge the sensor size in regards to what impresses people. Would have been nice to see the marketing help dismiss that predictable backlash. 4) Original price imo was insanely priced for what it was. That probably stuck with some people who looked at it once, and didn't look back at it not seeing the price dropping. I highly doubt the Q10 will replace my Olympus for more of my serious work (ie: KarlBlessing.com), but for the price I wanted something fresh-to-me and even smaller than my old E-P3, to use as my gotta have a camera on me kind of thing. I could normally use my phone, but my phone isn't so instantaneous and doesn't shoot 12-bit dng or have interchangeable lens or let me slap on one of my pocketable adapted lens. I get jittery if I don't have a camera on hand to the point that I'll even wear my Pentax MX I recently got just so that I have something to shoot with, even if I can't really carry around my arsenal to every event. Essentially it's going to replace my Olympus TG-630 for pocket use, but with obviously much more control and quality. Though it won't be waterproof, drop-proof, crush-proof like the TG-630, so when I'm visiting my kids I'll obviously still bring the little tg-630 for them to run around with while I shoot them with the Q10 without getting my shoulders tied up with a camera bag packed with gear or worrying that the quality won't be "high enough". I suspect if Pentax had a line of affordable adapters for a number of antiquated systems (ie: mounts that current brands no longer hold a patent on, or would not be interested in defending) the popularity might go up further, but I guess there's also a drawback in ensuring that they work for said antiquated mounts. I really like the idea that their K adapter has a included shutter (leaf?), just not too crazy about a $200 adapter for it when the only Pentax lens I'm shooting are all mid-to-lower manual focus that cost the same or less than the adapter (Pentax-M 28/3.5, Pentax-M 50/1.4, Rokinon 85/1.4). Still would be nice if they opened up the mount to third party manufactures, might see all kinds of crazy offerings (heh... if so, maybe lensbaby would actually come out with a lens that does exactly the same thing as 04, but somehow justify it for $500 more). Anywho really looking forward to receiving the Q10 which seems to be the same age as my E-M5.

03-10-2017, 06:32 AM	#23
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 779	Originally posted by adjutant If a future Q body is to have any hope of success, it will need to be a feature-packed camera with all the amenities of a flagship FF DSLR, but in a compact sensor body. This means viewfinder-less body is no longer an option. Tiny body is not a priority, since all the size-savings really come from the lenses themselves, to be honest. What you describe sounds like the "Super Q" that I've called for -- sort of like a midget OM-D.

03-10-2017, 06:48 AM - 1 Like	#24
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	One of every 10 cameras in my house is a Q-S1. It's a very popular camera around here.

03-10-2017, 08:17 AM	#25
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	The Q System is an acquired taste. Those who use a Q and like it have overcome the objections. Unfortunately Pentax didn't promote the camera (in the west) and make enough people curious enough to try it. I have a business meeting coming up in Salt Lake City. I can either put my entire Q kit (Q7/01/02/03/06 + batteries, polarizer, Loupe, charger and tiny tripod) in a corner of my suitcase or lug my K-1/28~105/(pick 2 primes) + charger, batteries, 540FGZ as a carry on. If they weigh my camera bag it's a $29 charge! Ahem

03-10-2017, 10:02 AM	#27
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by wildman But the question remains: Why the Q and not a half dozen other equal, if not better, small cameras for such a trip? At least that's the question Pentax should be asking. Because I have a Q7?* *I know that's a non-answer, but I started with a Q for its original reasons and bought the larger sensor body upgrade.

03-10-2017, 10:58 AM	#28
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by luftfluss .... I found the low-res LCD somewhat frustrating to use casually with adapted lenses. Since my intention from the beginning was to use my Q-7 as a birding camera with adapted lenses, a Hoodman-clone was part of my original kit, because I already knew I would need shelter from the sun - and magnification was a bonus. In my case, I've found the shelter+magnification+focus-peaking to work well for me.

03-10-2017, 11:05 AM	#29
HarisF1 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 543 Original Poster	I've got two Q-S1 bodies, an original Q and I've just gone and bought a Q-10. I really want a Q-7 but they're fairly sparse here. The Q-S1 is amazing but the front grip (or lack thereof) is a bit of a turn-off.

03-10-2017, 11:56 AM - 1 Like	#30
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 779	Whenever I've mentioned the Q system in the forums over on DPReview (which, I hasten to add, is not representative of the broader camera market), I'm generally met with either stony silence (because I'm so un-hip, I guess) or someone chiming in that M4/3 is so much better. Sometimes I wonder if the M4/3 geeks are so tired of being picked on for their teeny tiny toy joke sensor that they're just happy to find another format even smaller that they can vent on.