[pentaxian_tmb]

I had a first-gen Q that I sold to help fund a ricoh GR. Thinking about picking up a used Q10. Are Qs still relevant/useful in today's world? I never kept up on the differences in the newer models. Any advantage the 10 has over the 7?

[BigMackCam]

The Q cameras are absolutely still relevant, IMHO... I still use both my original Q and especially my later Q7 quite regularly. Despite owning and using some nice late-model APS-C and full-frame equipment, I still turn to the smaller Q cameras when I want to travel light and take great-looking photos. The only thing to consider, I suppose, is that neither the cameras or lenses are manufactured any more, so you're limited to what you can find in the used market.

The Q-S1 is the most recent, and has the same sensor as the Q7. The earlier Q10 and earliest Q have a smaller sensor. All are great, but the Q-S1 and Q7 boast improved image quality and a slightly wider field-of-view because of the larger sensor area. For me, the sweet-spot model is the Q7 - but all of them are very good. Note that a number of the original Q models have issues with the backup battery which can't be easily replaced. This results in loss of time and date settings when the main battery is swapped out or depleted. Otherwise, the camera functions normally, so it's only a minor inconvenience - but worth bearing in mind...

[ThorSanchez]

I've thought from time to time about either a Q or a GR to augment by K-3 II or III. But each time I had trouble justifying the cost and the additional stuff I'd have to carry around when I nearly always have my phone in my pocket. Especially now that I have a latest generation Google Pixel 6 with three different focal length cameras that includes optical zoom. There may be some edge cases where you could get obviously better photos with the Q or the GR, but not nearly enough for me to spend money and carry around another system.

And actually... the Q has about the same size sensor as the Pixel 6 does, lower pixel count, the Pixel 6 has three different focal lengths plus optical zoom, and the Pixel 6 has waaaaaay more computational wizardry. So I'd be pretty surprised if there were many cases where the Q produces a better image.

[BigMackCam]

the Pixel 6 has three different focal lengths plus optical zoom, and the Pixel 6 has waaaaaay more computational wizardry.

For me, that's the problem...

I like the fact that the Q cameras give a very DSLR / large-sensor-mirrorless shooting experience in terms of controls and ergonomics, but in a compact package - and the raw files are great. Sure, they don't have the same dynamic range, and higher ISO performance isn't as good - but it's surprisingly useable, and there's real enjoyment to be had from working with the files... in the same way I enjoy working with raws from my K-3 or Hasselblad HV. It's not just "like" shooting a proper camera, it is a proper camera. I'm struggling to think of a situation where I'd enjoy using my smartphone even half as much.

I say this not in criticism of smartphones... in some ways, they're great. I really like mine, and it's a useful photographic tool. It's just a whole different experience than a Q, IMHO...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-06-2022 at 11:07 PM.

[reh321]

I've thought from time to time about either a Q or a GR to augment by K-3 II or III. But each time I had trouble justifying the cost and the additional stuff I'd have to carry around when I nearly always have my phone in my pocket. Especially now that I have a latest generation Google Pixel 6 with three different focal length cameras that includes optical zoom. There may be some edge cases where you could get obviously better photos with the Q or the GR, but not nearly enough for me to spend money and carry around another system.

And actually... the Q has about the same size sensor as the Pixel 6 does, lower pixel count, the Pixel 6 has three different focal lengths plus optical zoom, and the Pixel 6 has waaaaaay more computational wizardry. So I'd be pretty surprised if there were many cases where the Q produces a better image.

The Pixel does have three prime lenses; the ‘Q’ has two zoom lenses, and it can use adapted lenses.
Neither the iPhone nor the Galaxy, nor the Pixel has a physical shutter.
I chose to not purchase a GR because of its lack of flexibility.
The smart phones are not much better.
I recently purchased a Q-S1 because my Q-7 was showing its age.
I wish Pentax were still making a ‘Q’ - it is still relevant.

I downloaded some images from a Pixel 6 and found them to be heavily processed, the "zoom" images were awful. That said, the best of them were on a par with heavily processed Q images, a different approach I guess. I like the natural look of the Q files:



The Q's still are relevant for me, even in jpg there is plenty to work with, and the high ISO files look like film grain. Time is catching up with the Q's—mine still all work, but modern electronics seem to have a limited lifespan.


Looking at it from a monetary angle, you can get a Q7 with the 02 and the 06 for about $300, add another $100 for the 01 and you're set. Some of the available c-mount lenses are really cool, I love my Navitron 75mm f1.3 and my Cosmicar 50mm f1.4, no amount of digital processing is going to match those.

[ThorSanchez]

For me, that's the problem...

I like the fact that the Q cameras give a very DSLR / large-sensor-mirrorless shooting experience in terms of controls and ergonomics, but in a compact package - and the raw files are great. Sure, they don't have the same dynamic range, and higher ISO performance isn't as good - but it's surprisingly useable, and there's real enjoyment to be had from working with the files... in the same way I enjoy working with raws from my K-3 or Hasselblad HV. It's not just "like" shooting a proper camera, it is a proper camera. I'm struggling to think of a situation where I'd enjoy using my smartphone even half as much.

I say this not in criticism of smartphones... in some ways, they're great. I really like mine, and it's a useful photographic tool. It's just a whole different experience than a Q, IMHO...

I suppose I've broken down my photography into two bins: 1) The relatively serious stuff I really want to get good results from, and I use the K-3 Mark III, and 2) everything else where the phone and the techniques of the phone are fine.

Every time I try to come up with a third scenario in between those two it's never nearly big enough to spend all that cash on a GR, Q, etc. Especially now that while the Q may be a proper camera its tech is several photographic generations behind the times.

---------- Post added 06-07-22 at 07:58 AM ----------

The Pixel does have three prime lenses; the ‘Q’ has two zoom lenses, and it can use adapted lenses.
Neither the iPhone nor the Galaxy, nor the Pixel has a physical shutter.
I chose to not purchase a GR because of its lack of flexibility.
The smart phones are not much better.
I recently purchased a Q-S1 because my Q-7 was showing its age.
I wish Pentax were still making a ‘Q’ - it is still relevant.

The Pixel 6 actually has an optical zoom in one of its three camera sensors. Something like a 25-100mm equivalent. Along with a normal, and a wide angle that's something like an 18mm equivalent.

I realize that some people just never warm to their phone camera, but I find it to be a very useful tool. Even occasionally producing results that would be challenging with the Pentaxes.

---

Last edited by ThorSanchez; 06-07-2022 at 04:58 AM.

[reh321]

I suppose I've broken down my photography into two bins: 1) The relatively serious stuff I really want to get good results from, and I use the K-3 Mark III, and 2) everything else where the phone and the techniques of the phone are fine.

Every time I try to come up with a third scenario in between those two it's never nearly big enough to spend all that cash on a GR, Q, etc. Especially now that while the Q may be a proper camera its tech is several photographic generations behind the times.

A “Q” costs less than $300 these days - petty cash compared to a K-3iii.
Now if Pentax came out with a new one, it would cost more, but that isn’t going to happen {sob}.

[ThorSanchez]

A “Q” costs less than $300 these days - petty cash compared to a K-3iii.
Now if Pentax came out with a new one, it would cost more, but that isn’t going to happen {sob}.

If I had unlimited resources and time I'm sure I'd have a Fuji system, a full frame system with a bunch of weird old swirly lenses, who knows what else. But I still don't know if I'd have a Q because it's 10+ year old tech with a cell phone sized sensor. If I wanted a separate, small ILC system with lenses that aren't compatible with anything I have now I'd probably go M4/3rds.

Even at $300 plus lenses there are a lot of other photography tools I'd rather put those resources towards.

[reh321]

If I had unlimited resources and time I'm sure I'd have a Fuji system, a full frame system with a bunch of weird old swirly lenses, who knows what else. But I still don't know if I'd have a Q because it's 10+ year old tech with a cell phone sized sensor. If I wanted a separate, small ILC system with lenses that aren't compatible with anything I have now I'd probably go M4/3rds.

Even at $300 plus lenses there are a lot of other photography tools I'd rather put those resources towards.

How you spend your money is your choice.
All of my real camera systems are Pentax.

I would never use something from Google even if they gave it to me.
They make money by selling information, and I’m not going to give it to them.

[BigMackCam]

while the Q may be a proper camera its tech is several photographic generations behind the times

I still don't know if I'd have a Q because it's 10+ year old tech with a cell phone sized sensor.

Honestly, the age of the tech I'm using at any point never crosses my mind - other than when I'm acquiring vintage lenses for my collection (in which case the older it is, the more of a kick I seem to get out of it ). I only care about it doing the job I want in a way I like - which is probably just as well, as all of my cameras and lenses - not just my Q / Q7 - are "behind the times" (though it wasn't always so). The most recent camera model I own is the K-3II. I've not found it especially lacking or limiting because of its age (in fact, the only serious limitation I've encountered is my own artistic creativity), and I don't see a huge number of images online that are strikingly better - or were only made possible - because of newer tech. I guess there must be some, but I've not come across them yet, so far as I'm aware...

[Dartmoor Dave]

I'd be using a Q without hesitation if they would just make one of the darn things with a viewfinder of some sort. Just give me a 35mm full frame equivalent lens and a clip-on optical viewfinder to match and that'll do for me.

[reh321]

Honestly, the age of the tech I'm using at any point never crosses my mind - other than when I'm acquiring vintage lenses for my collection (in which case the older it is, the more of a kick I seem to get out of it ). I only care about it doing the job I want in a way I like - which is probably just as well, as all of my cameras and lenses - not just my Q / Q7 - are "behind the times" (though it wasn't always so). The most recent camera model I own is the K-3II. I've not found it especially limiting because of its age (in fact, the only real limitation I've encountered is in my artistic creativity), and I don't see a huge number of images online that are strikingly better - or were only made possible - because of newer tech. I guess there must be some, but I've not come across them yet, so far as I'm aware...

I wish Pentax would update the "Q" and make it even better - but when I look at what my "Q"s produce, neither age of the technology nor size of the sensor is an issue. My Q-7 does show its age at time - mostly in not starting the first time, but the photos that come from it are still fine.

[csa]

"Especially now that while the Q may be a proper camera its tech is several photographic generations behind the times."

It's tech many be behind the times; but I absolutely love mine (original Q), that I just purchased a Q7, arriving tomorrow!

The quality of photos, to me is outstanding for such a little camera!

[BigMackCam]

"Especially now that while the Q may be a proper camera its tech is several photographic generations behind the times."

It's tech many be behind the times; but I absolutely love mine (original Q), that I just purchased a Q7, arriving tomorrow!

The quality of photos, to me is outstanding for such a little camera!

Agreed, Carol... and, you know, camera buttons and dials don't care much about whether they're one or ten generations old. Just the ergonomics and physical control aspects of the Q cameras are enough to convince me... I've never enjoyed the experience of shooting with a smartphone touch-screen for control, and holding a fairly large, thin body at arms' length while doing so just isn't pleasurable for me. For similar reasons, I don't like using on-screen keyboards on smartphones, and far prefer a physical keyboard. I've seen kids who can type with astonishing speed on their phones using their thumbs, but I dislike the experience intensely (I even preferred the tiny keyboard on my old Blackberry device to a touch-screen keyboard). I'll use it for short texts and e-mails, but that's as far as my patience extends. I dare say those same kids who are used to smartphone screen keyboards are probably just as happy controlling their camera from the touch screen too - but at 53 years old, I'm not one of them I like having my smartphone camera available to use at any time... It's a genuinely useful tool that can produce some nice-looking images and has some clever tricks up its sleeve for achieving that; but I'll pick up my Q or Q7 in preference if I want to actually enjoy my photography whilst keeping the size of my kit to a realistic minimum...