Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2017, 07:16 PM   #31
Site Supporter
ripper2860's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 884
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
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
Yeah. The mainstream consumer uses their phone. The pro and prosumer folks utilize APS-C or FF DSLR or Mirrorless cameras. The number of folks buying high-end ultra-compact is likely a small % of those already owning a DSLR and those current or former DSLR owners that don't care about ultra-compact have likely moved on to compact M4/3 or competitor compact mirrorless offerings. The only folks that give the Q any love seem to be Pentaxians and our numbers are dwindling as it relates to market-share. The Q is a niche product that when introduced was looking to solve a need that just didn't really exist. Unfortunately, the audience it found (Pentax loyalists) seemingly cannot sustain it.

We should accept the harsh reality that the Q's demise is likely at hand. I'm not a basher -- heck, I own one and am as disappointed as anyone. It just seems like a missed opportunity by Pentax. A better sensor and EVF and I would never have purchased my Sony a6000. Heck it may have even taken a bit of steam out of the M4/3 market. Doing something about it now may just be too late...

but we can dream, can't we?!


Last edited by ripper2860; 07-28-2017 at 08:42 AM.
07-27-2017, 08:13 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by ripper2860 Quote
those smart Pentax/Ricoh engineers can sort it out
Those 2 engineers that RI have, are too busy working on the Primes for the K1,12 hour shifts...so RI are working round the clock!
07-28-2017, 07:55 AM   #33
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,914
QuoteOriginally posted by Cipher Quote
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.
Well...it's death for the Q. It's no longer stocked. It's a dead system.

There was never a market for an ILC system with a small sensor. It was a strategic and marketing blunder.
07-28-2017, 09:14 AM - 1 Like   #34
Forum Member
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 78
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Well...it's death for the Q. It's no longer stocked. It's a dead system.

There was never a market for an ILC system with a small sensor. It was a strategic and marketing blunder.
There are almost no film cameras "stocked" anymore, but there are still people using them.

The Q system sold a lot of cameras and lenses for its run, doing better over its six years than its only only real competition, the arguably better but now officially defunct Nikon 1 series (that was the real marketing blunder.) Nothing will stop the onslaught of smartphones, so I've stocked up on Q bodies, enough to last my lifetime. Assuming that the electronics in the Q bodies don't self-destruct (a problem for all digital cameras), the nearly infinite variety of vintage glass (especially C & D mount lenses) will insure its continued popularity among experimenters and those seeking artistic effects. The Q was always a niche camera, marketed as such from the beginning. The Sony point and shoots were aimed at a mass market, a market which has now almost evaporated. The RX series are great cameras, but they were never a system.

07-28-2017, 09:37 AM   #35
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,914
QuoteOriginally posted by Cipher Quote
There are almost no film cameras "stocked" anymore, but there are still people using them.

The Q system sold a lot of cameras and lenses for its run, doing better over its six years than its only only real competition, the arguably better but now officially defunct Nikon 1 series (that was the real marketing blunder.) Nothing will stop the onslaught of smartphones, so I've stocked up on Q bodies, enough to last my lifetime. Assuming that the electronics in the Q bodies don't self-destruct (a problem for all digital cameras), the nearly infinite variety of vintage glass (especially C & D mount lenses) will insure its continued popularity among experimenters and those seeking artistic effects. The Q was always a niche camera, marketed as such from the beginning. The Sony point and shoots were aimed at a mass market, a market which has now almost evaporated. The RX series are great cameras, but they were never a system.
The Q system sold almost nothing.

Flickr data shows a staggeringly small user base compared to almost every other camera made since 2011. Almost no group activity.

The entire Q system was a dud from the start. Too small sensor.

It was always ranked dead last in ILC charts in sales data.

The Nikon 1 series is not defunct, I might add. The Q most certainly is. The problem with ILCs is the escalating costs of lenses (and the Q's $200 viewfinder). A Nikon 1 lens is no bargain, and that's where the problems lie. Sony avoided that and now dominates the quality 1" sensor market.

The dumb thing for Ricoh/Pentax was the opportunity lost when the acquisition brought the GR/GXR tech into the fold, but instead of optimizing a mirrorless GR system, they stuck by the Q, definitely a fatal mistake for the Q (remember....they did up the sensor size after initial launch total discrediting from the reviews). The GR series used to have smaller sensors (and the GXR had a small sensor module) before the latest GR. If they'd adapted a GR with a CX sensor they'd at least be with a system that could compete with Sony and Nikon and now Canon. A it stands, the Q was a dead end and took precious resources away from better mirrorless possibilities.

The only way to compete with smartphones is with superior optics and sensors, and the latter will be satisfied by sensor size.
07-28-2017, 05:19 PM   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,311
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote

The only way to compete with smartphones is with superior optics and sensors
Balderdash. Look at the Fuji Instax.
Thanks
barondla
07-29-2017, 04:15 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Alayos92's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Seville
Posts: 31
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The Q system sold almost nothing.

Flickr data shows a staggeringly small user base compared to almost every other camera made since 2011. Almost no group activity.

The entire Q system was a dud from the start. Too small sensor.

It was always ranked dead last in ILC charts in sales data.

The Nikon 1 series is not defunct, I might add. The Q most certainly is. The problem with ILCs is the escalating costs of lenses (and the Q's $200 viewfinder). A Nikon 1 lens is no bargain, and that's where the problems lie. Sony avoided that and now dominates the quality 1" sensor market.

The dumb thing for Ricoh/Pentax was the opportunity lost when the acquisition brought the GR/GXR tech into the fold, but instead of optimizing a mirrorless GR system, they stuck by the Q, definitely a fatal mistake for the Q (remember....they did up the sensor size after initial launch total discrediting from the reviews). The GR series used to have smaller sensors (and the GXR had a small sensor module) before the latest GR. If they'd adapted a GR with a CX sensor they'd at least be with a system that could compete with Sony and Nikon and now Canon. A it stands, the Q was a dead end and took precious resources away from better mirrorless possibilities.

The only way to compete with smartphones is with superior optics and sensors, and the latter will be satisfied by sensor size.
Not wanting to polemize. Recently in a physical photography store, where he sells cameras from the big brands, I was told that the result of the photographs does not depend so much on the sensor as on the software that supports or develops it. And I was underlined that the sensor of the Q system has behind it a very good software that outperforms the pixels that the equivalent in cameras of Full Frame.
Thanks for reading me.
P.DF. I have posted some photos of flowers here and see the good performance of the Q sensor.
07-29-2017, 07:29 AM   #38
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,914
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Balderdash. Look at the Fuji Instax.
Thanks
barondla
They don't compete with smartphones.

In fact, Fuji's latest advertising shows them as a complement, including the smartphone printer system using Instax tech.

07-29-2017, 07:54 AM - 1 Like   #39
Forum Member
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 78
I suspect that Ricoh has an overstock of Q-S1s and lenses that they'll just sit on, selling slowly through Japanese vendors. As far as support goes, Ricoh still lists the Qs on their firmware update page, although I doubt they will put out any new versions. The Q7 and Q-S1 BSI sensors are very good and, like Alayos92 said, the software outperforms the pixels!

If it is any consolation for Q system users, the hatred expressed by "small sensor-phobics" toward the Nikon 1 system is even greater!

I'm wondering if Aristophanes has ever even seen a Q, much less used one?

Last edited by Cipher; 07-29-2017 at 08:11 AM. Reason: added question
07-29-2017, 01:25 PM - 1 Like   #40
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
They don't compete with smartphones.

In fact, Fuji's latest advertising shows them as a complement, including the smartphone printer system using Instax tech.
Please just shut up. Your obvious bias and hatred is really rather boring. The Q system may not not be for you, but it is good enough, even if imperfect, for plenty of other people. We all know that it is unlikely to be improved upon from what is currently available.We are just expressing a desire for what we would like, however unlikely that may be to come to fruition.
07-29-2017, 03:58 PM   #41
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,914
QuoteOriginally posted by richard0170 Quote
Please just shut up. Your obvious bias and hatred is really rather boring. The Q system may not not be for you, but it is good enough, even if imperfect, for plenty of other people. We all know that it is unlikely to be improved upon from what is currently available.We are just expressing a desire for what we would like, however unlikely that may be to come to fruition.
Bias? Just the facts as pretty much every reviewer stated right from the product's introduction. There was intrigue, but not a single reviewer could see the point in pushing small sensor ILCs.

YOU may appreciate it, but the mass market voted decisively against it. Also, the Q was never a Pentax hallmark of "value" in any form. This also killed sales as it was seen in Japan as a trinket product, not really photography tool. If you look at the Japanese marketing for it, it is used as a fashion accessory, not for taking photos! They had a whole ad campaign showing people showing off the camera, but never a photo from the camera or anyone using it as a camera. The lens advertising was more about the collectability than the functionality.

The Q represented the worst effort of the dedicated camera industry against the onslaught of smartphone cameras and higher end systems (like Sony, Fuji XT and MF, Canikon FF, Leica). If anything, the Q is a cautionary tale representing a complete mis-read of the technologies going forward, consumer sentiment, actual use, and the history of photography. It reminds of when Olympus trip to get into AF SLRs and bombed out, spending 25 years in compact purgatory. The stupid thing about the Q is that it began in the Hoya era and should have been killed mercifully at the very start of the Ricoh takeover with a quick, mirrorless shift to GR-based options. Instead, we get a Quiet death, stalled MF development (thanks Fuji), 4 bodies in the DSLR style (more than ever), halting lens releases, a decent if aging GR option, and nothing in the pipe for the only segment that is growing in dedicated cameras: mirrorless. We'd still have the Q if it had gone to a 1" sensor from the get go. That's the shame. If there was ever a camera product with a single, fatal flaw, it was the Qs sensor problem. We could have had a 1" Q, an APS-C GR and DSLR, and FF K-mount, a studio MF system. All those resources went to nothing and, if you follow the thread on Ricoh's financials, there is serious concern that the Ricoh/Pentax camera divisions not earning its way to continue. A very large amount of the blame could be laid at the Q as a terrible business project.

And it is dead. No improvement. Dead.

And I'm not going to pull my punches. As with anyone heavily invested in Pentax glass, this is a discussion that needs to happen.
07-29-2017, 04:48 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Just the facts as pretty much every reviewer stated right from the product's introduction. There was intrigue, but not a single reviewer could see the point in pushing small sensor ILCs.
Q shots have been on Magazine covers, I suppose just about every reviewer doesn't read magazines!
07-29-2017, 05:13 PM   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,311
I pointed out a camera that sells well, thus competing with cell phones. It doesn't take great lenses or sensor. It takes originality. Something the camera market is very low on. Just because Fuji makes a printer for cell phones, doesn't mean they aren't competing. The Instax film lures cell phone owners to use camera film. If you have film for the printer why not get an Instax camera?

Facts are Fuji sold approx 5 million Instax cameras last year. Profits are up. Cell phone sales are flat or down.

There are many things Ricoh could do with the Q system. They just have to think original and do it. The small sensor hasn't stopped the Theta at all.

Thanks
barondla
07-29-2017, 11:27 PM   #44
kwb
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 189
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Also, the long tele on the RX series are much greater than anything the Q has produced.
You sound as if RX series can always take long tele shots that Q series cannot compete quality-wise. If that's really what you mean, that's physics-defying and incorrect.

Please find me the best moon picture taken with the best of the best super bridge camera, RX 10 III (or II or the original RX 10). You can google some, find some more on flickr, probably some more elsewhere. Stacking is welcome. Take time to choose the best one and post the link.

Then look at my moon pictures taken with Q7 with various optics on flickr. As an example you might want to see this one taken with a 3" reflector (700mm, F/9.2) that costed me 100 USD shipped new, this is the cheapest of telescopes that snobs stay away with 10 foot pole paired with the lowliest, dud-from-the-start of a camera.

Moon by k kwb, on Flickr (I've posted this specific picture multiple times, sorry if this bothers people.)

Compare mine with yours. You can magnify mine on flickr to scrutinize. Is your best RX10 picture greater than anything my Q7 has ever produced?

If you're finding what I'm finding, there is a reason for that. It might be obvious but I can explain if needed.

BTW RX10 III is a fantastic technology marvel which produces great, great pictures. Some capable people use it for birding and their results are nothing less than stunning!
07-30-2017, 12:13 AM - 2 Likes   #45
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,637
As long as existing stuff continues to work, the Q system will get support from me
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adapter, bodies, bridge, camera, cameras, evf, k-mount, lens, market, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pm, q-s1, q10, q7, ricoh, sales, sensor, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lightroom 4 K-50 not supported ps1984 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 23 06-30-2016 08:29 AM
New Pentax 24-70 lens already supported by Lightroom DeadJohn Pentax News and Rumors 26 10-11-2015 05:56 PM
Is the pentax K5 still supported? eliris Pentax K-5 4 05-22-2013 08:01 AM
Nature So so tall, small, so beautiful newmikey Post Your Photos! 3 06-03-2011 03:11 AM
supported browser versions? foxglove Site Suggestions and Help 9 09-20-2006 07:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top