[normhead]

II'll believe the Q didn't do well because of M4/3 when I see some kind of evidence. A bunch of guys going on about their cameras isn't going to be evidence. That's just guys going on about their cameras. You say the two things are related, I say they are not. Apparently it did very well in Japan topping the sales charts at one point. Is there no M4/3 in Japan? My guess is it just didn't appeal to the North American "bigger is better" mentality. Perhaps the Japanese are just more prepared to accept that smallest is what they want, and don't care as much about the alleged benefits of larger sensor size.

Wider DoF, in this case two stops wider, is in itself a compelling reason to go smaller. Sometimes you don't want to fuss with focus. You just want everything in focus, So, no, telephoto is not the only advantage of a smaller sensor. every advantage of 4/3 over a Q is s two edged sword that cuts both ways. Sometimes it's an an advantage, sometimes it's a disadvantage. It all depends on the circumstances and what you want out of the picture.

Understand guys, that just because you can't see the advantages of the Q, doesn't mean there aren't any.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-11-2017 at 07:38 PM.

[kb244]

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.

Monday I'll have a q to show in comparison. Least next to the older E-P3 (the slightly newer E-PM1 and E-PM2 models are smaller than that). But lens wise the Q just from what I've seen still seems smaller.

Did see this over on ePhotozine ( Olympus PEN Mini E-PM1 CSC Review ) but it's showing the 01 prime instead of the comparable 02 zoom (the article was for the Oly E-PM1, not so much for the Pentax)







You'll probably notice the lack of built in flash on the Olympus which required an accessory port slide in flash (was included with the camera much like it was included with my E-M5 which also does not have a popup flash).



(From : Olympus PEN E-PM2 review | Camerahoarders.com )

The E-PM2 with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 puts it at a much closer comparison to the Pentax Q10/7 with a 01 Prime, with comparable equivalent focal length (40mm equiv on the panasonic, 47/39mm on the Q10/Q7).

Switching to a Olympus Bodycap 9mm f/8 (18mm equiv) compared to the 07 Shield lens 11.5/9.1 (63.5/53mm equiv) is nearly identical, except the Olympus body cap lens is much higher in image quality (and much wider) for about the same price.

[IMG]blob:http://imgur.com/75b5e28d-c7b6-4109-973d-66d647775e00[/IMG]

So size wise it can be done, but it seems almost like you sacrifice more feature wise under the hood, or have to stick to primes in order to match the Q's size.

---------- Post added 03-11-2017 at 09:47 PM ----------

Wider DoF, in this case two stops wider, is in itself a compelling reason to go smaller. Sometimes you don't want to fuss with focus. You just want everything in focus, So, no, telephoto is not the only advantage of a smaller sensor. every advantage of 4/3 over a Q is s two edged sword that cuts both ways. Sometimes it's an an advantage, sometimes it's a disadvantage. It all depends on the circumstances and what you want out of the picture.

Though because of the smaller sensor size, lens quality starts to fall apart from f/5.6 and up, so you lose out on that wider DOF further up with the image quality going down. But now days most people only need to step up the aperture for exposure control, which is probably why the camera has a built in ND filter (as some of the lens they offer are fixed in their aperture).

The way I see it, there's a tool for every person, Pentax just didn't do as strong marketing it against the competitors in showing how the Q might be a perfect fit for some people. I know some people who drool at image quality, but will never in their life show off something larger than say 1920x1440 on social media or email, and even if the resolution is lower than a similarly sized micro-4/3, 4x6 and 8x10 printing should be perfectly fine from the Q, in fact it might *appear* more impressive to average consumers who see strong contrast and vibrance as a sign of quality/aesthetics.

[Tony Belding]

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.

I think you're just making my point for me. It's a less versatile kit. Where are your zooms? Where's your 200mm equivalent reach? And yet, your bag will still come out bigger and heavier than my Q7 Premium Kit bag. I find that these comparisons generally work out that way. The M4/3 advocate compromises this, cuts back on that, and eventually manages to come up with a kit that's only about double the volume and weight of the Q's bag, and then holds it up and pronounces victory. "M4/3 is better! I've proven it!"

I love M4/3. I still have my E-M5, though it's in need of repair. If I was only going to have one system, I think it would be M4/3. I feel like it's the best all-purpose compromise of size and weight, image quality, responsiveness, versatility. . . and the lens catalog is excellent. However, I'm not limited to one system. I can have both my Q7 and my Sony A7, and I think they complement one another well. And I can easily stuff the A7 and three or four lenses into my Ona Bowery bag, which is not that big as camera bags go. (It's not nearly as small as the Q7 bag, but it's not big.) So, does that prove that Full Frame is the best, and M4/3 is doooooomed?? (I think the "M4/3 is doomed" subject comes up on DPR about as often as "DSLRs are doomed" and "compact cameras are doomed" and "the industry is doomed", etc. They're a cheerful bunch.)

[kb244]

I think you're just making my point for me.

If you read back of course, I wasn't the person saying that m43 would be a suitable replacement, I mainly pointed out how it 'could' replace it, but also pointing out the pitfalls it would suffer if you tried to claim m43 "does the same" as it were.

Far as anyone saying M4/3 is doomed... I don't really ever hear that, but then I don't frequent sites like DPR, FredMiranda, etc where DSLRs and full frame seem to be king.

[zippythezip]

The OP stated he love the Q and used it more than his K1.
I can agree on this, only in my case I was using my K5. I would carry the K5 in the car and when getting to a town switch to my Q7. This I did for quite a time until I started to look for something smaller than the K5. I did not want to get bigger or go FF, just something more portable. So I got my E-M10 to replace my K5 not my Q cameras, I did not realize till I started to use it that I had replaced both.
I only carry two lenses, the 12-32 pancake and the very good but cheap 40-150. They fit easy in the same bag my Q took and cover the same thing.
This week is full moon time, thats right Q adapter and moon shots.

[normhead]

The Q is smaller, I madeI the right decision. And it's still available. We don't need no stinkin 4/3.

That's a picture that could be of my camera, it sure is cute.

Those other guys are ughhhhhh glee.

The Q has dials, like a real camera, not some toy.

Two can play this game.

I'd go take some Q shots right now but my wife took it. I'm going to have to institute a signup sheet so I get my fair share of time with it.

[reh321]

.....
The Q has dials, like a real camera, not some toy.

One of the things I like about my Q-7 is that its controls are virtually identical to the controls on my K-30, so I don't have to retrain myself when I switch cameras {and each camera allows me to do the things important to me without having to dive into the menu system}

[n3eg]

This is the old DSLR vs. Micro Four Thirds war, only turned around. Yes, I think micro four thirds is better than the Q format. It didn't stop me from buying a Q10 though. Why? I wanted the smallest sensor so I could use my C mount lenses, which despite what everyone says never really perform well on micro four thirds. It also gives me another camera to use my Pentax 110 lenses on. It's also fun to use and show off to the full frame crowd, just like I did with the Auto 110 back in 1981. It's a fun camera to use, and I like small cameras. So while it will never be a replacement for shooting with my E-M5 II, it stands alone in a class by itself.

[normhead]

Tess is back with her Q pictures

The Depth of field is incredible and gives a perspective you just won't get with a larger format camera. It gives you an ability to keep the whole photo in focus, you just won't get with a 4/3, APS-c of FF camera. These images look razor sharp even on a 4k monitor.







Focus is on the first dog that is not more than 4 feet away, but the second dog's nose is completely sharp. Try that with your APS_c, 4/3 or FF sensor camera.



Do we need to do any more education as to why you might prefer a Q to a 4/3, or can we end the nonsense now?
Honestly, my studio teacher used to explain why sometimes he preferred 110 to 8x10. But here we are all these years later discussing the same prejudices.

If you are a photographer and understand these things, why you would want a Q has absolutely nothing to do with why you might want 4/3. Just like APS-c and FF, they are different, not necessarily better. For some images, the smaller sensor does the better job. If you don't have anything else that will get that type of image, the Q is the better choice. If you're talking APS-c and 4/3 or APS-c and Q, the Q definitely gives you more difference between the bodies to do with one what you can't do with the other.

I went with Q because it was the smallest sensor interchangeable lens system. The existence of M 4/3 doesn't change that, one iota. I suspect the camera is less popular, because folks have been programmed to always pick the largest sensor given two similar options. They'll even pay more money for it, even if the smaller sensor is more what they need. What you need and what you trick yourself into buying are often two different things.

[zippythezip]

Well yes I do love the depth of field, the clarity of some shots is amazing, I have to throw a few examples in here also.
06 lens is a real nice lens.

sunrise,

The 08 lens though expensive is fantastic

and you can always put on another lens, here is my DA 50 1.8 adapted,

This one I dont think I could have with another camera due to room etc, 02 lens,

this one I feel would make a nice jigsaw picture, 06 lens, well I ve convinced myself to take the camera with me today... =)

[HarisF1]

I was extremely disappointed when I used my K-3 for the first time ever. Every camera that I had ever used up to this point gave great, sharp images. And here was my first ever DSLR (and I didn't even know about sensor sizes) and it kept returning blurry images. My mobile would take very sharp pics again and again, but the K-3 was really variable. The 'problem' showed itself again when I took my K-3 and my phone to Snowdonia on a summer outing and took loads of pictures with the DSLR. Strangely though, the best image I captured that day was taken with my phone. It was a wide angle panoramic shot of a blue lake surrounded by mountains. It was extremely sharp and full of colour.

The main difference was down to sensor size. I soon realised that I had to make compromises when using the K-3 over my phone.

[kb244]

I was extremely disappointed when I used my K-3 for the first time ever. Every camera that I had ever used up to this point gave great, sharp images. And here was my first ever DSLR (and I didn't even know about sensor sizes) and it kept returning blurry images. My mobile would take very sharp pics again and again, but the K-3 was really variable. The 'problem' showed itself again when I took my K-3 and my phone to Snowdonia on a summer outing and took loads of pictures with the DSLR. Strangely though, the best image I captured that day was taken with my phone. It was a wide angle panoramic shot of a blue lake surrounded by mountains. It was extremely sharp and full of colour.

The main difference was down to sensor size. I soon realised that I had to make compromises when using the K-3 over my phone.

:P Well "sharpness" at the point of focus and camera shake due to the sensor size and using a slower shutter, are different than the "I see everything!" wider DoF the point and shoot gives. Bit more of a learning curve with DSLRs (more so than mirrorless because you don't exactly see what you get). I noticed what some people call sharp, I call oversharpened or chunky void of details.

Course it doesn't matter too much if you're sizing for the web 90% of the time. Which probably should have been where Pentax should have aimed the system at general consumers rather than enthusiasts.

[HarisF1]

There lies another problem. Pentax really need to sort their SOOC Jpeg files. It's all well and good having the best quality sensors for the top of the range cameras but at least provide something that newbies can be proud of when they're using the entry level cameras.

Example: If I pick up a K-S2 and the Canon equivalent (700d or so), the 700d feels so much more refined and the SOOC images look way better. The Pentax sensor might be better but it won't look that way to a newbie waiting to splash the cash on a new camera.

Luckily, the Q series have decent SOOC Jpeg files (and half the time I use the monochrome option anyway!)

[kb244]

There lies another problem. Pentax really need to sort their SOOC Jpeg files. It's all well and good having the best quality sensors for the top of the range cameras but at least provide something that newbies can be proud of when they're using the entry level cameras.

Example: If I pick up a K-S2 and the Canon equivalent (700d or so), the 700d feels so much more refined and the SOOC images look way better. The Pentax sensor might be better but it won't look that way to a newbie waiting to splash the cash on a new camera.

Luckily, the Q series have decent SOOC Jpeg files (and half the time I use the monochrome option anyway!)

Kind of how I feel about the SOOC jpeg with my Olympus E-M5 , as long as I set it to SF or F. But I'm always doing either just Raw, or Raw+Jpeg because I'm almost always going to edit, but for the sake of events having a good SOOC jpg on hand can be very useful.

I would prefer to see samples like this out of the Q, I know I'm not going to get it, but I'm ok with that, it's nothing special here, except this is a 100% crop (not the full image sized down to web) out of my old E-P3 using a cheap Sigma 60/2.8.

[kb244]

Ok, so the Q10 arrived today along with two other lens (so 01, 02, 07 in all). Just a quick shot of it next to my E-P3 (which I don't really use anymore so it's just been sitting in the drawer with the 17/2.8 which I also don't use), and E-M5, along with my native-only lens (no adapted lens in the shot) with the exception of the Panasonic GH1 and Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN-art lens used to take these pictures.