[Sluggo]

If a system works for you and the price is right then why not go for it.

Yup. All this hand-wringing about whether a piece of consumer electronics is going to be worth owning in the future has always seemed pointless to me, because by the time you get enough people with the same worry, the market has already started to adjust for the other worriers. If I'm not rubbing my last two pennies together, I'm fully willing to weigh the simple price of something against what results/enjoyment I anticipate from it in the short term. That's enough to take into account. It will be worth something in the future if/when I decide to let go of it -- less than I paid of course, but we are talking about digital cameras here.

[lytrytyr]

From the start the Q series needs at least a 1" sensor to compete with the likes of the Sony RX100.

No, because that would force top quality wide-angle and telephoto zooms to be too large.

[Aristophanes]

No, because that would force top quality wide-angle and telephoto zooms to be too large.

Both would be "large" regardless. The only thing that now differentiates system cameras from phone cameras is sensor size + optical enhancements. Both are needed to compete. The Q had a severe sensor quality deficit, mostly related to its too small size.

Sony proved this relentlessly with the success and marketing of their 1" series of RX cameras. Sony's marketing went right at the sensor size differentiator making it clear to all consumers that these sensors were NOT compact" cam in dimension. The Q failed all around. We got pretty colours instead.

[caliscouser]

1" sensor would have made the Q a different proposition, a little bigger, a little heavier, bigger battery, bigger lenses.

With 1/1.7" sensors starting to go into smart phones we'll see big performance improvements and development. We may get to the point of 1" sensor performance in a 1/1.7" chip which would give some of us what we want if Ricoh did put out a new Q body.

But really how much is enough? Only people like us on forums really obsess on sensor size and performance. I can already post-process Q-S1 RAW images to the 16" x 20" level which is kind of mind-blowing when you look at how tiny that sensor is in the camera.

[surfar]

The Q7/S1 rates one point under a M43(GM1) on DXO....they capture great images.The lens range is enough & the Q-K adapter makes it the best teleconverter there is.Use a $3 ebay loupe if the sun makes the screen unusable.

[lytrytyr]

Both would be "large" regardless. The only thing that now differentiates system cameras from phone cameras is sensor size + optical enhancements.

The 08 and 06 are certainly not "large".

Your so-called "optical enhancements" actually replace bulky wide-angle (18-27) and telephoto (70-200) FF zooms
for anyone who "only" needs the IQ of a 35mm camera with slide film.

Both would be "large" regardless. The only thing that now differentiates system cameras from phone cameras is sensor size + optical enhancements. Both are needed to compete. The Q had a severe sensor quality deficit, mostly related to its too small size.

Sony proved this relentlessly with the success and marketing of their 1" series of RX cameras. Sony's marketing went right at the sensor size differentiator making it clear to all consumers that these sensors were NOT compact" cam in dimension. The Q failed all around. We got pretty colours instead.

Try as I might, I am unable to take the lens off a Sony RX and use an extreme wide angle or medium or long telephoto or any one of a number of interesting vintage lenses. For my uses, I would say that is a fail. The Sony RX's may be the best point and shoot cameras ever made, but, at the end of the day, they are still a fixed lens point and shoot.

[RonHendriks1966]

The latest and new.....

- Q-S1 from august 2014
- Q 08 wide zoom from november 2013.

At some point everyone will stop asking for support....

[richard0170]

Want a larger sensor? Then you will need larger body, lenses etc. So you would have to switch to another system and manufacturer. If you do that it will cost you. As long as your q system is working I would keep it. Yes the low light performance is not great, but in good light the images good enough for 16"X12" enlargements for your wall. Yes its a shame that there have been no new developments in the system for a few years now, but what was good about it - size and flexibility - when it was originally launched are still valid today. Its my favourite digital to take on holiday. I, like you, have toyed with the idea that I need something with better low light performance, but the occasions that I really do are rare and with a bit of fore thought you can get around the problem. If I know I am going somewhere gloomy I take my DSLR, or a small cheap tripod.
Personally I would have liked to see an EVF on a Q model but I don't ever expect that to happen.
If you were to invest in a new system I fear that you will face the same problem further down the line, you will feel that whatever you have bought is not upto the latest thing. However, not only is film now a niche market but so too are digital cameras - just look at the sales figures and the lack of variety of models and manufacturers now. Without greater consumer mass there is no economic incentive for manufacturers to provide good quality products, at affordable prices. This situation is not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future
If you still really feel the need to upgrade for better low light image quality I would go S/H for a micro 4/3 or Fuji of around 3 years vintage as the bodies are very reasonably priced, and are almost as capable as the latest models in terms of AF and ISO performance, and are their equal in IQ otherwise. Unfortunately the lenses are still rather expensive

[ripper2860]

All I really want for the Q is an EVF. Heck, it can even be optional via a new accessory shoe (like Olympus). The Pentax X5 and other bridge cameras have a built-in EVF, so Pentax knows how to do it. I think the Q line and sales could really be reinvigorated with just a rework to allow an EVF option. Keep it small, light and ditch the over-priced optional OVF for an optional EVF.

[richard0170]

All I really want for the Q is an EVF. Heck, it can even be optional via a new accessory shoe (like Olympus). The Pentax X5 and other bridge cameras have a built-in EVF, so Pentax knows how to do it. I think the Q line and sales could really be reinvigorated with just a rework to allow an EVF option. Keep it small, light and ditch the over-priced optional OVF for an optional EVF.

I know I said that I would like an EVF, but on consideration it might not be such a good idea as it would probably drain the battery more quickly unless you remembered to turn of the LV. So we would end up with a larger body to accommodate a larger battery - so might as well go to a larger system. Oh Well.
I have the over priced OVF for my 01 prime. I got it S/H. and yes it was still over priced! It works OK though. No good with zooms however. I do have an old zoom optical viewfinder, can't remember the name, with parallax adjustment for 35mm cameras covering the range 35mm to 135mm. It did n't cost a lot, around £50 off Ebay. It provides a good quality if small image. If you can work out the crop factors you may find one useful. Another 2 reasonably cheap solutions for the 01 prime at least is ti get an old Kodak folding sports finder (50mm focal length, in 35mm terms) or a Voigtlander Kontur finder. These are available S/H for 35mm (50mm focal length), 6X6 cm (80mm focal length) or 6X9cm (105mm focal length. This latter will be closest to the 01 prime coverage. Unfortunately its also the rarest! Arrrgh! There is also a chap in Isreal that provides a 40mm equiv. optical viewfinder with a very good image at around £50, but the casing is a bit naff. He can be found on Ebay providing a range of finders. The Kontur finders are excellent as you use compose with both eyes open, as you do with the Kodak sports finder.

/

[ripper2860]

Surely an EVF can be designed so as to draw the same or less power than the current LCD. and I imagine one would switch between LCD and EVF as opposed to using both simultaneously. I think OLED EVF tech (there's now Ultra-low power OLED) and battery tech have improved since the last Q refresh in 2014. Given advances, I think those smart Pentax/Ricoh engineers can sort it out where there would be no need for a larger battery compartment to yield the same or even better battery life. Just thinking out-loud...

[Aristophanes]

Try as I might, I am unable to take the lens off a Sony RX and use an extreme wide angle or medium or long telephoto or any one of a number of interesting vintage lenses. For my uses, I would say that is a fail. The Sony RX's may be the best point and shoot cameras ever made, but, at the end of the day, they are still a fixed lens point and shoot.

With 4-6x the resolution and ISO of the Q!


Much, much, much bigger fail.

The market has spoken. Decisively.

Also, the long tele on the RX series are much greater than anything the Q has produced.
The RX 10 for example has 24-600mm f/2.4/4on a 1" sensor. The Q has nothing to compete against that.

An "extreme wide angle" on a small sensor is pointless. We were saying that the day the Q was released.

With 4-6x the resolution and ISO of the Q!


Much, much, much bigger fail.

The market has spoken. Decisively.

Also, the long tele on the RX series are much greater than anything the Q has produced.
The RX 10 for example has 24-600mm f/2.4/4on a 1" sensor. The Q has nothing to compete against that.

An "extreme wide angle" on a small sensor is pointless. We were saying that the day the Q was released.

Actually, the pixel density of the Q and the RX are very close to each other. My wide angle pics on the Q are perfectly fine, for tabletop work they are hard to match. Telephoto on the Q begins where the RX 10 leaves off, as the numerous photos shot with 300mm and longer (1300mm equivalent) lenses that are on the forum show. The RX10 is three times bigger and cost four times as much. Might as well get a K-1.

Lighten up! It isn't a life and death competition.

There are more pretty girls than one, you know.

[Na Horuk]

Small sensors and hardware have gone a long way since the last Q was developed. If they just made an update with brand new sensor and some better processing (NR, sharpening) it would look much better. But I don't think that's the issue.
The problem is that Q is not super cheap. And everyone has a camera or two on their smartphone, tablet, so small cameras are not as popular. People don't think the advantage of the Q is worth the money. So where can the Q go? Super premium compacts are a small market, and the Oly, m43,Sony, even Leica already have some cameras situated there