[ebk]

Try amazon.com/uk/de

[reh321]

The Q system is holding it's value well.

There is still some "demand", and the supply is really really slim. I have no idea what price Ricoh could get if they released a whole new batch.

[MD Optofonik]

There is still some "demand", and the supply is really really slim. I have no idea what price Ricoh could get if they released a whole new batch.

A new batch with incremental improvements might sell well. The r&d is well paid for so if the tooling is still "there" the price could come down as well. Something as simple as adding an electronic viewfinder, could differentiate and revitalize the system. Even without major changes it's still a unique camera system.

[AntonioS]

Some years ago I had the opportunity to handle one. It's indeed a fun camera to use, but not very practical.


- It's small but not pocketable.

- It has interchangeable lenses but the IQ is so-so, not better than any other camera with similar size sensor, for example the Panasonic LX5/7 was way better.
- No EVF and with a small rear LCD makes its use a pain

In my opinion it was aimed to the Pentax 110 nostalgics.
But again, it was a fun camera to use.

[MD Optofonik]

The Nikon 1 J5 (top model) goes for about the same as a Q7. The Nikon 1 lenses aren't holding value, they are prone to breakage. You can get a J1 with lens for less than $100. Nikon 1 cameras aren't as easily adaptable as the Q's, in what I've read on other forums it seems that there isn't much interest in them, which is too bad, they take great pictures.

Fujifilm has a bunch of MILC models, the older ones are pretty cheap, they definitely have fans.
MFTs are in a different universe, it seems to me that interest in that format has stalled.


I think there are still vast quantities of Q10s and Q-S1s in Japan, but not so much the Q-7s. Its hard to say what levels of Q lens inventory exist.

What is "MILC"? "MFT"?

[cmohr]

What is "MILC"? "MFT"?

MILC - Mirrorless Interchangable Lens Camera.

MFT - Micro Four-Thirds ( Sensor format)

[MD Optofonik]

Some years ago I had the opportunity to handle one. It's indeed a fun camera to use, but not very practical.


- It's small but not pocketable.

- It has interchangeable lenses but the IQ is so-so, not better than any other camera with similar size sensor, for example the Panasonic LX5/7 was way better.
- No EVF and with a small rear LCD makes its use a pain

In my opinion it was aimed to the Pentax 110 nostalgics.
But again, it was a fun camera to use.

I came to accept the Q cameras as a "system" after I realized a Q was never going to be "pocketable" beyond the 07 lens. I can take the entire Q system, two bodies and eight lenses, with me and it fits in this with room to spare for a random K-mount lens. As a result I will take it places where I would not take a larger camera and all it's lenses. On a light day my APSC requires at least this. My entire APSC system requires this and I'm still not not taking everything I own in the system. To be fair, when referring to my APSC system, "entire" would include several flash units, wireless triggers, gels, lighting stands, umbrellas, sand bags, etc.

I think of the Q system a bit like my Leatherman Wave kit (the entire kit). I'm not going to take my toolbox with me wherever I go but that Leatherman kit has proven more than capable of fixing more things on the spot than anyone realized at the time. It's way more than just better than nothing; it's a genuine micro toolkit and if it can't get you out of a small jam, you ain't in a "small" jam.

The Q System was dismissed early on by many reviewers but they didn't have the entire system at their disposal at it's initial release. The word "fun" was bandied about by a few critics but that was considered faint praise by most folks when they saw the price. I felt the same way but stuck it out until I had acquired the entire system including, and by no means an insignificant "add-on", the Adapter Q. It wasn't until I acquired the entire system and had everything it offers at my disposal that I "got it".

---------- Post added 05-27-19 at 21:43 ----------

MILC - Mirrorless Interchangable Lens Camera.

MFT - Micro Four-Thirds ( Sensor format)

Copy and thanks.

The micro 4/3 thing was huge; it was like the critic's darling for awhile. What happened?

---

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 05-27-2019 at 09:49 PM.

[ffking]

What happened?

Another, younger, darling came along

[reh321]

Some years ago I had the opportunity to handle one. It's indeed a fun camera to use, but not very practical.

- It's small but not pocketable.

That depends entirely on how large your pockets are and how much you are willing to stuff them. When I'm asked to take a photo during our church service I have on occasion taken my Q-7 in the small messenger bag I have, but on other cases I have carried Q-7 + 02 lens in my pants pocket.

[reh321]

The micro 4/3 thing was huge; it was like the critic's darling for awhile. What happened?

Pentax intended that camera for a particular domestic market. They were inflexible in their thinking, apparently never considering other obvious uses for the "Q", and when that market moved on, they had no reason to continue producing the camera.

[barondla]

Wonder why Pentax never made a proper pancake lens for the Q system? As neat as the 07 Shield Mount lens is, it kind of throws salt in the wound. An easily pocketable quality lens would do wonders for the system. Are they afraid of cannibalizing the GR?

Perhaps there are technical hurdles? None of their APS-c pancakes have to fit in a leaf shutter. That requires extra room. The 01 is fairly thick for a standard lens of 8.5mm focal length.

It could be argued that even with the shortest registration distance of any interchangeable lens camera, the Q struggles to offer one of the advantages of mirrorless cameras. The registration distance is really quite long for the system's lens focal lengths. The sensor guard causes this. Not sure an SLR mirror would take any more room. I would love a Q body without the guard.

A weather proof Q with a high quality pancake lens and evf would be a great set up.

Thanks,
barondla

[n3eg]

As always with cancelled cameras, it made a good second camera but not a first. In my case, it's a fifth.

[luftfluss]

The micro 4/3 thing was huge; it was like the critic's darling for awhile. What happened?

Mirrorless full frame came along and suddenly the size difference wasn't as humongous as it once was.

Smartphones with ever-improving cameras and software and "computational photography" really made them adequate for many tasks.


Also, it seems like m/43 stagnated at 16MP for a long time. And mid-range Olympuses at 16MP were being seriously undercut in price by 20+ MP Canikons.

[EFats]

Some years ago I had the opportunity to handle one. It's indeed a fun camera to use, but not very practical.
- It's small but not pocketable.
- It has interchangeable lenses but the IQ is so-so, not better than any other camera with similar size sensor, for example the Panasonic LX5/7 was way better.
- No EVF and with a small rear LCD makes its use a pain
In my opinion it was aimed to the Pentax 110 nostalgics.
But again, it was a fun camera to use.

Sorry, I think I will have to disagree with most of those points

• It is not really a pocketable camera, but I'm not a big guy and I could cram the Q-S1 + 02 into my regular dress pant pockets. Not nice, but works in a pinch. There isn't going to be many truly pocketable cameras that are going to hold up to the Q shooting experience. Anything that is that small is going to get beat by the smartphone.
• IQ? It takes great pictures, easily. Even if you're pixel peeping, based on what I saw over on DPReview, even the Q7 holds its own against the LX7 and I would say even better at higher ISO's. The Q-S1 is at least as good as the Q7
• A pain to use? You kind of bring the camera in front of your face, you frame the shot and click the button. Couldn't be easier. I would argue it's even easier than having to look through a viewfinder (optical or electronic). The screen easily holds up even in bright sunlight. The only time it didn't work so well was when rotated and I was wearing polarized sunglasses.

The Q is not for everyone but have you tried taking it out for a real try and not just handling it in the shop?
The problem really is that people turn their nose up at the paper specs and never give it a try. There's a proper place for this camera. Unlike a smartphone, it's a proper photographic tool, it's more convenient and enjoyable to use. And unlike a full size DSLR or mirrorless, it's way easier to pack the body and a bunch of lenses for a trip. It's so small and light that it's never a burden to carry around with you all day.


I'm sure there are other small "prosumer" cameras out there that are pretty good, but didn't sell well (Olympus...) but how many of them have as many ardent fans as the Q-series? There's probably a good reason for that...

[2old4toys]

I'm sure there are other small "prosumer" cameras out there that are pretty good, but didn't sell well (Olympus...) but how many of them have as many ardent fans as the Q-series? There's probably a good reason for that...

I have an Olympus EM10mkii which is fantastic compact mirror less with EVF, tilt screen, higher resolution, compact lenses... but regardless, I still prefer to holiday with every Q AF lens, some fast manual C lenses and a Q and a QS1 body and small external flash, a small tripod all in a bag a 1/3rd of the size and weight I’d need to carry even for m4/3 kit. I just get way more use out of the Q system.