Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-13-2017, 05:32 AM   #61
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,912
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
In order to be "textbook", you should have a conclusion with no competition. Even today small sensors are successful in super-zoom cameras such as the P900 with its 1/2.5" sensor; the Q-S1 with its 1/1.7" sensor provides seriously better IQ. I believe Pentax could have handled the "Q" differently - for example, building the K-to-Q adapter to be fully functional, providing AF in K-mount lenses mounted on a "Q" - but their thinking seems to have focused entirely on the "school girl" market; they forfeited much of the benefit of the flexibility inherent in an ILC line.
Adapters....don't work.

They are more likely to cannibalize a system rather than make the market larger, diverting potential purchase in this case from K-mount.

Small sensors in discrete cameras have become extremely rare and are almost all in lower end consumer grade, no smartphone buyers, or in some superzoom/bridge cameras which still have a rump market. Other than the zoom and some handling ergonomics, these cameras are directly competing with smartphones and their built-in processing lab. I watch the cruise ship discharge 4x a week and t is the great hair crowd toting the bridge cameras.

The smartphone add-on optical market was a "thing" and now appears to have faded into near oblivion.

08-13-2017, 07:25 AM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,723
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Looking at price of the 01 lens, the adapter is probably over-priced
Both have their leaf shutters.
The lens has a little bit of glass, but the adapter has an aperture lever!

---------- Post added 08-13-17 at 09:29 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I guess there is no point to discussing this since the Q is all but buried
You can still buy the elements of the Q system,
and you can still use them to take those photographs
that you cannot get any other way.
08-13-2017, 08:47 AM - 1 Like   #63
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Adapters....don't work.

They are more likely to cannibalize a system rather than make the market larger, diverting potential purchase in this case from K-mount.
My adapter works just fine for me. However, I have to set aperture manually and focus manually, and I'm guessing that a minority of users would be willing to do that. When I purchased my Q-7, my other choice was a bridge camera. I'm quite certain that a more convenient adapter would have increased sales of "Q" cameras, diverting purchases from Canon and Nikon bridge cameras, perhaps increasing sales of K-mount lenses and making the "Q" more financially lucrative..



---------- Post added 08-13-17 at 11:52 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
You can still buy the elements of the Q system,
and you can still use them to take those photographs
that you cannot get any other way.
Yes, you are 100% correct about this. This discussion is moot, because we're talking about what Ricoh didn't do and most likely can't do now, but I've had my Q-7 for 33 months now so Ricoh's decision making may have hurt their bottom line, but not what I am able to do.

Last edited by reh321; 08-13-2017 at 08:53 AM.
08-13-2017, 09:07 AM   #64
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,912
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
My adapter works just fine for me. However, I have to set aperture manually and focus manually, and I'm guessing that a minority of users would be willing to do that. When I purchased my Q-7, my other choice was a bridge camera. I'm quite certain that a more convenient adapter would have increased sales of "Q" cameras, diverting purchases from Canon and Nikon bridge cameras, perhaps increasing sales of K-mount lenses and making the "Q" more financially lucrative..



---------- Post added 08-13-17 at 11:52 AM ----------

Yes, you are 100% correct about this. This discussion is moot, because we're talking about what Ricoh didn't do and most likely can't do now, but I've had my Q-7 for 33 months now so Ricoh's decision making may have hurt their bottom line, but not what I am able to do.
Adapters can only degrade IQ, not increase it. That is only going to increase in the future.

Take the new Olympus 12-100/4 lens. It has in-lens 1.5x stabilization. OK, nothing special. Lots of lenses do.

Now add in the 5 stop IBIS in the Olympus camera bodies and suddenly that lens has 6.5x stops of IS. People are getting handled 20s exposures. Only made possible by dedicated lens/body engineering from the same brand.

That is the future, even in a consortium like m43. This is the Holy Grail for the DSLR brands as they find their way forward in a declining market...NOT adapters.

This is why we are seeing an influx of cheap, toy, FE, ultra-wides, and even fast 50s lenses—most manual focus—from East Asian optical sources. They are cannibalizing the market where the high-IQ, dedicated lens/body systems won't go.

No optical company wants you to divert your consumer $$$ to another brand via adapter. That is market death. They will give up the peripheral market but lock in the proprietaryness (sic) if there is a significant IQ deliverable.

Adapters. Don't. Work.

08-13-2017, 09:32 AM   #65
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,215
By the way, it's already well-know fact at pentaxforums, but I want to remind

Q lenses were made by this company Interchangeable lens | Nidec Copal Corporation
08-13-2017, 10:21 AM - 2 Likes   #66
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Adapters can only degrade IQ, not increase it. That is only going to increase in the future.

Take the new Olympus 12-100/4 lens. It has in-lens 1.5x stabilization. OK, nothing special. Lots of lenses do.

Now add in the 5 stop IBIS in the Olympus camera bodies and suddenly that lens has 6.5x stops of IS. People are getting handled 20s exposures. Only made possible by dedicated lens/body engineering from the same brand.

That is the future, even in a consortium like m43. This is the Holy Grail for the DSLR brands as they find their way forward in a declining market...NOT adapters.

This is why we are seeing an influx of cheap, toy, FE, ultra-wides, and even fast 50s lenses—most manual focus—from East Asian optical sources. They are cannibalizing the market where the high-IQ, dedicated lens/body systems won't go.

No optical company wants you to divert your consumer $$$ to another brand via adapter. That is market death. They will give up the peripheral market but lock in the proprietaryness (sic) if there is a significant IQ deliverable.

Adapters. Don't. Work.
You are talking about entirely different matters from what I have been talking about.

Have you actually seen this equipment? The adapter has no glass, so there is no reason for it to affect IQ. The sole purpose of this adapter is to make focal lengths available that were not previously available, made possible by dedicated lens/body engineering from the same brand.

This is an adapter that allows Pentax bodies to use Pentax lenses, increasing desirability of both body and lens, keeping $$$ with Pentax that otherwise would go to Nikon or Canon.

My Adapter Does Work.





Last edited by reh321; 08-13-2017 at 10:57 AM. Reason: no glass
08-13-2017, 11:59 AM   #67
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,912
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
You are talking about entirely different matters from what I have been talking about.

Have you actually seen this equipment? The adapter has no glass, so there is no reason for it to affect IQ. The sole purpose of this adapter is to make focal lengths available that were not previously available, made possible by dedicated lens/body engineering from the same brand.

This is an adapter that allows Pentax bodies to use Pentax lenses, increasing desirability of both body and lens, keeping $$$ with Pentax that otherwise would go to Nikon or Canon.

My Adapter Does Work.
It's a kludge. All optics are developed to splash across a specific plane of a specific dimension. All you are doing is overlapping by an extension not part of the original design envelope.

Adapters are tech marketing people think up to foster some backward facing loyalty. Look at the cine world for more relevant discussions.

Current lens design is VERY specific to a format. Just one. Look at the contortions of FL with the whole DFA thing in Pentaxland. Is a DA*200 really FF? B&H says NO!!!!

Adapters take a non-native optical formula, complete with barrel distortions and pincushioning and other intractable of the optical path, and marry them to a different image plane.

This is precisely why companies create new mounts. It's the raison d'Ítre of the optical market. Adapters are not a strength towards superlative IQ at value; they are a weakness.

people have made adapters out of soup cans and they "work". But are they a precisely engineered optic designed for a very specific focal plane with assured dimensions? No. The Q even switched sensor sizes!!! The GXR was designed as a modular system precisely because Ricoh argued you cannot make lines work with different sized sensors.

People tried 135 lenses on 110 and APS-C film systems..even with "approved adapters". None were ever satisfactory. Same for all the 645 adapters to 135 systems.

This is an ancient argument and the conclusion has ALWAYS been the same. For optical and value fidelity, adapters don't work. They make poor economic and engineering sense.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 08-13-2017 at 01:46 PM.
08-13-2017, 12:32 PM - 2 Likes   #68
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,324
So what?
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
None of this takes away from the fact that the Q is no longer a system, is no longer in stock, is an orphan product line, and is the perfect example of where a market zigs and where Pentax zagged, leaving Pentax with dead IP and no foothold in the mirrorless market save for the GR, which is a unique beast and not in the growth segment.

Worse, the Q ranked dead last in ILC sales in every measure. Market data demonstrates clearly that consumer compacts are not only declining, they might disappear forever. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus all saw this coming with better business planning that Ricoh/Pentax. They have alternatives positioned and they ALL feature larger sensors. In fact, that is their spelling point, blatant in the advertising. Sony, Nikon and Canon have been explicit in their marketing that an ILC is centred around a larger sensor than a "compact", so the Q was labouring against the market norm. It went fashion "cute" while the tech and sales went for larger sensors and superior features. It's a decisive shift.

The worst part? Every industry watcher saw this from Day One of the Q's launch. The Q has always baffled because it tried to fashion upscale the compact sensor at a time when Sony (the #1 manufacturer by far) was closing its small sensor fabs and shifting to smartphone sensors and larger sensors for the rump dedicated camera market. I've heard form one major distributor that the Q was so complicated to stock and sell, it actually contributed to Pentax's lost shelf space overall, perhaps irretrievably harming the future of Ricoh/Pentax cameras entirely.

In the camera industry you probably couldn't pick a better example of how a company read the market and the tech trajectory so poorly. This is business 101...a textbook case suitable for the classroom.


08-13-2017, 12:37 PM - 1 Like   #69
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It's a kludge. All optics are developed to splash across a specific plane of a specific dimension. All you are doing is overlapping by an extension not part of the original design envelope.

Adapters are tech marketing people think up to foster some backward facing loyalty. Look at the cine world for more relevant discussions.

Current lens design is VERY specific to a format. Just one. Look at the contortions of FL with the whole DFA thing in Pentaxland. Is a DA* really FF? B&H says NO!!!!

Adapters take a non-native optical formula, complete with barrel distortions and pincushioning and other intractable of the optical path, and marry them to a different image plane.

This is precisely why companies create new mounts. It's the raison d'Ítre of the optical market. Adapters are not a strength towards superlative IQ at value; they are a weakness.

people have made adapters out of soup cans and they "work". But are they a precisely engineered optic designed for a very specific focal plane with assured dimensions? No. The Q even switched sensor sizes!!! The GXR was designed as a modular system precisely because Ricoh argued you cannot make lines work with different sized sensors.

People tried 135 lenses on 110 and APS-C film systems..even with "approved adapters". None were ever satisfactory. Same for all the 645 adapters to 135 systems.

This is an ancient argument and the conclusion has ALWAYS been the same. For optical and value fidelity, adapters don't work. They make poor economic and engineering sense.
Have you tried it???

This is the best birding combination I have ever had. Others, who have even better lenses, do even better. Yes, a native Q-mount lens would be great, but this is better than any other available alternative, better than what people are getting with Canon SX-50/60 or Nikon P900.





08-13-2017, 01:47 PM   #70
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,912
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Have you tried it???

This is the best birding combination I have ever had. Others, who have even better lenses, do even better. Yes, a native Q-mount lens would be great, but this is better than any other available alternative, better than what people are getting with Canon SX-50/60 or Nikon P900.




You just posted examples proving my point.
08-13-2017, 02:02 PM   #71
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 368
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You just posted examples proving my point.
Okay, you're not a fan of the Q. I think we all got it. No need to bludgeon the subject to death.

By the way, have you ever owned one? Ever used one? if so, fair enough. If not, then you are evaluating a spec sheet and not a real world experience with all kinds of intangibles that are difficult to measure and describe.

So which is it?
08-13-2017, 02:17 PM   #72
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,912
QuoteOriginally posted by caliscouser Quote
Okay, you're not a fan of the Q. I think we all got it. No need to bludgeon the subject to death.

By the way, have you ever owned one? Ever used one? if so, fair enough. If not, then you are evaluating a spec sheet and not a real world experience with all kinds of intangibles that are difficult to measure and describe.

So which is it?
I've used the Q. Great body, terrific engineering in model 1. Quality glass. The Auto 110 all over again. Portable. Stylish.

Way too small sensor. 1" or CX sensor was both technically feasible in that form factor (Sony and Ricoh get APS-C into something not much larger) and at relatively decent price points.

The IQ could never find a value proposition other than in near perfect, natural light. The moment the sensor hit small sensor limits, the optics could not make up the difference, all at too high a cost. Sony's RX100 series proved that.

My main point is that the Q hamstrung Pentax. Misplaced resources. Poor market and tech foresight. Management deserve the criticism to avoid things like this in the future.
08-13-2017, 03:06 PM - 2 Likes   #73
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I've used the Q. Great body, terrific engineering in model 1. Quality glass. The Auto 110 all over again. Portable. Stylish.

Way too small sensor. 1" or CX sensor was both technically feasible in that form factor (Sony and Ricoh get APS-C into something not much larger) and at relatively decent price points.

The IQ could never find a value proposition other than in near perfect, natural light. The moment the sensor hit small sensor limits, the optics could not make up the difference, all at too high a cost. Sony's RX100 series proved that.

My main point is that the Q hamstrung Pentax. Misplaced resources. Poor market and tech foresight. Management deserve the criticism to avoid things like this in the future.
We agree about Ricoh's hamstringing the "Q", but not about the rest. The pictures I am getting with my birding outfit are better than "super zoom" cameras are producing with their smaller sensors, but most users are unwilling to go to the effort I have been willing to go to. I don't know how competing in the 1" category would have worked for Pentax, nor even whether there is even a market there {Nikon's experience is not encouraging}. I am quite certain that Pentax could have competed in the "super zoom" category, and Canikon have proven there most certainly is a market there.

---------- Post added 08-13-17 at 06:07 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You just posted examples proving my point.
Those images are much much better than what you would get with a Canon SX-50 or a Nikon P900. If you don't know that, then "discussing" with you is a waste of effort, and I won't bother with that anymore.
08-14-2017, 01:36 AM - 1 Like   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,010
QuoteOriginally posted by aristophanes Quote
i've used the q
how much?

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 07:38 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Great body, terrific engineering in model 1
It wasn't!

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 07:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Portable
yes, WE know that.

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 07:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Stylish.
I don't think so.

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 07:43 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Way too small sensor
That's Y the bigger size was introduced.

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 07:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
My main point is that the Q hamstrung Pentax
So much so that they had to make 4 versions!

---------- Post added 08-14-17 at 07:53 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Adapters....don't work.
Did you use one?
08-21-2017, 11:41 AM   #75
Site Supporter
Alayos92's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Seville
Posts: 31
QuoteOriginally posted by PhilSheldon Quote
My take on this is that the Q system clearly appears to have been discontinued... but so what? The cameras still work, there will be used examples around for many years along with the lenses to go with them, so what does it matter. The system was obviously successful enough for there to be a few new versions to be released, but the camera market has collapsed over the past 5 years, especially the compact/small sensor market in the face of the smartphone boom.
I am forever buying, selling and playing around with different cameras and was always curious about the Q system but always felt that it didnt 'quite' make the grade for the price. I favoured the Fuji X system instead. However, last week I spotted a Q10 with 02 lens on eBay for £87, boxed and in mint condition... so for that price I couldnt resist it. since it has arrived I am quite impressed. It is never gonna win any picture quality awards, but its size and functionality are awesome. I have always gravitated towards cameras that are more usable rather than the image quality they produce, as I think that you are bound to take better photos with a camera you are comfortable with rather than one that on paper gives the best images. I think back to a few years ago when I had a Nikon D200 and Nikon D7000 at the same time, the D200 was WAY behind the D7000 on image quality, but the layout and usability made the D200 my 'go to' camera.
So, although the Q may be discontinued, it will now lead its own life with other people like me who pick them up to find out what it is all about and inject some joy and fun into our photography in the process along with those who were enthusiasts from the start.
Who cares how many it did or didnt sell? What does it matter to us? If you love it, use it and enjoy it, if you dont, use something else!
The question should be 'What do Pentax do next?' This once giant of the photography industry surely need some sort small ILC? Maybe join the M4/3 brigade?
Totally agree...!!! What does it matter if you enjoy with the little Q-S1 ..!?
I've been with her for a year now and she never ceases to amaze me ... and now with 07 a new world to discover of unreal images ...
I will continue having fun with your possibilities ...
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 02:15 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