[kb244]

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.

:P When I get my Q10 I should try showing off over on Mu-43 forums in the "other systems" board and see what the reception is like there.

Generally speaking I haven't had much being poked at over my Oly, probably because I let the images speak for themselves more so than the gear (kind of hard to do when so many inquiring minds want to know what you shot with).

Seeing as most people especially general consumers will rarely ever print larger than 8x10, the smaller sensor size on the Q system along with their technology improvements should be more than plenty even with a little cropage. Most are going to end up web sized as well. Though I have printed a 44" x 71" (@ 200dpi) off of my 16 megapixel Olympus E-M5... by stitching about 18 images during a snow storm, using my 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 leica thread mount lens, the same could be done with the Q with the same degree of patience (minus maybe the snow storm part).

[UncleVanya]

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.

At what point does the q out perform m43 other than with crop factor telephoto/macro?

I'm all ears. I use an LX-7 with a similar sensor size to the Q. I'm familiar with how well they punch above their weight.

[UncleVanya]

Check out Heinrich Lohman's threads for consistently great examples of how well the Q cameras can perform in capable hands.

I agree. Now what is the advantage over m43?

[Tony Belding]

At what point does the q out perform m43 other than with crop factor telephoto/macro?

I'm all ears. I use an LX-7 with a similar sensor size to the Q. I'm familiar with how well they punch above their weight.

Here's the Q's advantage over M4/3:



Q7 body and five (5!) lenses, with hoods, spare battery and a couple of filters in a tiny bag that weighs nearly nothing.

[CWRailman]

I've been using a Q-S1 for a couple of months now and it has really quickly become my go-to camera. My K-1 barely gets used as I can carry a Q and Q-S1 with 5 lenses in a bag that would fit just the K-1 and one extra lens.

Here's another reason why I love using the Q-S1. The crop factor makes it extremely good for planetary and lunar photography. It's an absolute stunner, especially compared to the poor chaps with expensive telescopes and DSLRs that have to stack a million shots to get the same sharpness. Huzzah!

I think if you took the time to read all the threads in the Pentax Q forum you would already have the answer to this question as most folks have already voiced their opinions on this matter and a bunch of them have already moved on to other camera models. But it has injected a bit of life into what, like the camera it represents, has become a very dormant subject.

[UncleVanya]

Tomorrow I will post a picture of my GX-1 and 4-5 lenses ranging from fisheye to 100mm (200mm equivalent). As indicated the GM1 / GM5 route is even smaller. But I wanted cheap and my GX-1 was only $100 for a 16mp body. That's as cheap as any Q I have seen. Additionally the false equivalence is assuming f/2.8 lenses - my ISO performance is better than the Q so like the FF folks I don't need f/2.8 to get similar results in both depth of field and overall shutter speed. So I will compare against f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6 in some cases.

---------- Post added 03-10-17 at 05:21 PM ----------

For me:
1) macro beast
2) ability to use 16mm film lenses, especially Kerns, Angenieuxs, and Ektars with no cropping
3) size (yes, while eg the GM1 has a slightly smaller body, the Qs are more compact once you put the lenses into the equation)
4) price . A new GM1 is $400+, a GM5 $600+ Qs are so cheap now as to be nearly disposable. You can pick up a Q7 and lens kit for under $200.


Don't get me wrong, I own a couple of m4/3 cameras, and they definitely have their place. I just don't think it's an either/or, and I do find myself using the Q system much more often. I also owned a Samsung NX mini at one point which I sold, since even though it produced images as good as or better than my Q, it just wasn't fun to use. Too phone-like.

1 & 2 I completely agree with. 3 - Well... only if you falsely want f/2.8 as your point of comparison. My GX-1 fitted with a 14-42 is very thin and light. The GM1/GM5 are smaller still.

Here's a standard zoom comparison:
Compact Camera Meter

A prime lens comparison:
Compact Camera Meter

A telephoto zoom comparison and a fisheye comparison were not possible on that site since the telephoto Q lens is missing from their data and the body cap fisheye is missing from the Olympus data. The 35-100 f/4-5.6 however is very very small.

I'm not here saying there isn't any point to the Q - I get some of the use cases. However the marketplace for this size camera with interchangeable lenses is quite full of m43 options.

As for 4... my GX-1 cost me $175 including the EVF viewfinder which I also use on my LX-7. The GX-1 can be had for $100 all day long. It's not as small as a GM5 - so I do agree there is some advantage in the body but the lenses don't match up well in terms of compact options. The Q does well for an f/2.8 fixed aperture - but needs it due to the poor iso performance and very thick depth of field.

[CarlG]

UncleVanya, please don't. This is a forum for Pentax Q discussion. We quite accept that your camera is better, and we don't want to loose more Q users from the forum because they don't find the discussions interesting any more.

[reh321]

....
I'm not here saying there isn't any point to the Q - I get some of the use cases. However the marketplace for this size camera with interchangeable lenses is quite full of m43 options.

I bought my Q-7 as a low-budget birding camera because of its "magnification"; only after I got it did I realize how whisper quiet the leaf shutter is. If Pentax is not willing to push progress in those areas of strength, I'm not sure I see a good business case for continuing the line.

[normhead]

Why are we discussing M4/3 options? That's like discussing M4/3 in a full full frame thread?

My deal with the Q is that I know for a lot of images 12 MP is lots. People can dream about better images with 4/3 but that's not what the camera is for. If I need better, I go for APS_c or K-1. If I need Q quality I use my Q-S1, the fact that there is better ignores the point. If the Q is all you need, the additional qualities of M4/3 are wasted. Exactly as if I can get the image I need from a K-3, then using the K-1 is wasted.

I paid about $300 USD for my Q-s1 with an 02 lens.I see the GM1 on Amazon for around $500. I don't see anywhere you can buy a 4/3 camera and lens for $100/ Exactly what are you discussing here?

SO, the prices you re talking about, $400 and $600

Additionally the false equivalence is assuming f/2.8 lenses - my ISO performance is better than the Q so like the FF folks I don't need f/2.8 to get similar results in both depth of field and overall shutter speed. So I will compare against f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6 in some cases.GM1

But you still lose on shutter speed. And you are talking about limiting DoF. For birds shots macros etc, we want to maximize it. IN which case you need ƒ5.6 on a 4/3 to give you the same DoF as you'd have on ƒ2.8 on a Q.

Sometimes it helps to see the benefits of a system if you aren't blinded by your love of what you've have.

What I care about is when I put my 60-250 on a q I get approx 1100mm equivalence with zoom to make it easy to find my subject. 4/3 won't get close to that you say?... sorry, don't want it.

With any camera you have to know what you are buying it for.

DA*60-250 and Q

Q-S1 and 02












What I bought it for, DA*60-250 Q-S1 and K2Q adapter


Really, for the first shots, the Q is enough, for the bird shot, 4/3 doesn't provide enough magnification. So why would I use 4/3 again?

YOu can say you would get better with m/3, but i could say I can get better with a K-1. You can always get better. That's not even an issue. The question is can you get more of what you want?

[luftfluss]

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.

I did use the Hoodman-clone with my Q7, but was still frustrated by the 460k LCD. Perhaps because I was so accustomed to the K-01 + Hoodman comob I simply could not grow comfortable with the lower-res LCD of the Q7.

I still have my Auto 110 lenses and Q adapter, just in case...

Q7 + Auto 110 50/2.8

[UncleVanya]

Why are we discussing M4/3 options? That's like discussing M4/3 in a full full frame thread?

YOu can say you would get better with m/3, but i could say I can get better with a K-1. You can always get better. That's not even an issue. The question is can you get more of what you want?

Because the thread is asking WHY the Q isn't more popular. I answered with reasoned care. I am not trying to get Q users to give up the Q. I love my LX-7 and see how good the sensor can be. However the thread's premise is why isn't the Q more popular. The reason is likely m43, pentax marketing, and serious compact cameras like the Sony RX100 and Panasonic LX100 and Fuji etc.

And I never meant to say you would get better with m43. I meant to say that the improved sensor allows you to use slower lenses at the same shutter speed and the shallower depth of field balances out when you use the slower lenses. The fact is I can shoot at f/5.6 at a similar shutter speed to the f/2.8 on the Q because I can shoot at a higher ISO with similar noise and detail. That does not make it "better" it does make it equivalent. I'm also not trying to say there is no space for the Q in the market - I'm saying it is a very thin niche.

The Q has a great niche with high crop factor shooting. But in the end that's about the extent of what differentiates it. That's worth it to many but in the marketplace most have little interest in that vs. just a small compact versatile camera platform. The blindness isn't on my end. I'm not asserting there is no value to Q. But when I hear people say that the reason that it should be popular is that it is so vastly smaller - I have to cry bull. The pictures of the equipment don't lie. The Q is not tiny compared to even my GX-1 when you consider thickness. Even in total bulk there are newer m43 cameras that can compete - yes some cost more. But that isn't the point; some cost vastly less.

Additionally as to cost. I am sorry if you misunderstood . I did not intend to suggest $100 for M43 plus lens - I also haven't seen the Q go for that. Bodies in the $75-100 range, primes in the $100-150 range are what I'm used to. I'm pretty sure with a larger 14-42 and a 12mp m43 body when can swing in under the $100 mark but at the expense of many advantages and not that competitive to the latest systems. The GX-1's sell all day long around $100 and the used 14-42 pancakes or chinese vendors on ebay selling new 12-32's run no more than $150. So for $250 you get both a body and a standard pancake lens. Not too shabby. That's about $50 more than what I see the Q series going for used with the standard zoom.

My message is this - m43 removes most of the consumer demand for something like the Q. The more esoteric uses remain unique. The m43 system has a huge advantage in marketing, lens selection, body selection, the availability of an EVF, etc. Does that make owning a Q stupid - of course not. The lenses and the system are quite capable and interesting. Should every Q user toss away their investment and buy m43? No.

---------- Post added 03-10-17 at 11:52 PM ----------

Really, for the first shots, the Q is enough, for the bird shot, 4/3 doesn't provide enough magnification. So why would I use 4/3 again?

Those are great shots and I agree. That isn't the point. This isn't a competition. This is marketing and market acceptability. As for your use of m43 - no I don't see it working for what you want. You leverage the crop factor well. Most consumers would never use anything but a couple of native lenses.

---------- Post added 03-10-17 at 11:54 PM ----------

I bought my Q-7 as a low-budget birding camera because of its "magnification"; only after I got it did I realize how whisper quiet the leaf shutter is. If Pentax is not willing to push progress in those areas of strength, I'm not sure I see a good business case for continuing the line.

Leaf shutter is nice. Electronic shutters are too. The Q development cycle is falling behind. A nice global full sensor electronic shutter would be awesome but I don't know if anyone is developing the sensors in that size towards that.

---------- Post added 03-11-17 at 12:06 AM ----------

UncleVanya, please don't. This is a forum for Pentax Q discussion. We quite accept that your camera is better, and we don't want to loose more Q users from the forum because they don't find the discussions interesting any more.

Hold on my camera IS NOT better. It is different. The lack of the high crop means that I can't do what you can do with an adapted 300mm shot of the moon. I can't get incredible high res macro shots in the same way. The discussion was never about m43 - it was trying to answer "Why isn't the Q more popular". And when people toss the FUD that the Q is a much smaller platform than any other ILC I cried bull and showed that it was possible to be nearly the same size with m43. I don't want the Q to die - but I have a huge problem seeing any path for it that doesn't ruin the differentiation that it has to offer.

[kb244]

Here's the Q's advantage over M4/3:



Q7 body and five (5!) lenses, with hoods, spare battery and a couple of filters in a tiny bag that weighs nearly nothing.

While the body is not as small, my grab-n-go lens are comparable and faster (all of them f/2 or faster).
The E-P3 off to the right with it's kit 17/2.8 for reference since it's similar size to a Q (just not as short), I haven't used my E-P3 in quite some time since getting the E-M5.



So usually if I just want to have a small shoulder bag for a quick grab and go without using any of my adapted lens it's the :
- E-M5 Mk 1 with a JB Peruvian walnut grip
- Olympus 12mm f/2.0 on front
- Olympus 45mm f/1.8
- Panasonic 20mm f/1.7
- Olympus 9mm f/8

And sometimes, I'll grab the Jupiter-11 135/4 which is a rather compact (but heavier) leica thread mount lens that is sharp as a tack wide open (it's one I'm looking forward to trying out on the Q10 next week to see how much reach I get).

But in a nutshell, I fit all that in my small nat geo bag with room to spare for batteries, air bulb, some pads, rain cover, etc. The goal though with the Q10 for me, is to do about the same, minus the bag when I either don't want to take the whole ensemble, or would be concerned about the local. I'll still use my e-M5 for any 'serious' work. But it's not that huge a difference from the look of it lens wise, except the Q definitely has a leg up on a smaller zoom.

[zippythezip]

Here is a shot of two of my cameras, to me it sums up why I dont use my Q as much as far as size. Lenses for my Oly seem so expensive though.
I am not saying Q is not as good, hell it takes nice photos. I got tired of the lack of view finder.
Here is a link to some of my Q photos, many taken for the single and daily challenges. https://www.flickr.com/photos/133712283@N03/collections/72157679223470891/

[normhead]

OK< I'll buy into the Q isn't doing well because of 4/3 when you guys provide even a shred of evidence that that might be true. So, far it's just you guys making up stuff. The Q wasn't marketeds as competition to M4/3. It was marketed as the world's smallest interchangeable lens camera. And from what I understand it did quite well in Japan, but never really caught on over here although over in the Q thread it would seem quite a few people own them.

It always amazes me how many people think the success of one product is because some other camera that they happen to own is better.These kinds of threads really attract those types.

Owning a Q-S1and a K-3, I have no desire to investigate M4/3. There isn't enough difference between APS-c and M4/3 to make me consider it.

Just as easily as you guys claim it's all about M4/3, I could just as easily assert, that had nothing to do with it. The simple fact is, every format has it's strengths and weaknesses and what I'm seeing here is the same old stuff we used to see from the FF people, who couldn't understand the value of APS-c.A bunch of dudes invested in a format that may or may not be relevant to anyone else.

[kb244]

Here is a shot of two of my cameras, to me it sums up why I dont use my Q as much as far as size. Lenses for my Oly seem so expensive though.
I am not saying Q is not as good, hell it takes nice photos. I got tired of the lack of view finder.
Here is a link to some of my Q photos, many taken for the single and daily challenges. Collection: Pentax Q system

Lack of a viewfinder would be fine for me, so as long as the screen itself were able to tilt up like on my E-M5 , waist-level style. Sadly most new cameras on the market, if they do have a LCD screen that comes out, it's almost always fully articulated which I don't like at all compared to just a tilt screen (when shooting street, most people change behavior whenever a camera comes up to the eye, or a screen is swung outward to the side, with the waist level I can take most of the shots naturally, and if on a tripod setting up for a scene I don't have to worry every third person stopping thinking they're going to block the shot, I would much rather people walk thru naturally as I'll time myself around them).