[Alizarine]

Hmm, now that you look at it, it does seem like a dead end for the Q line. Unless something ultra-revolutionary comes in sensors that small... I don't know. For some reason it could have been the most pocketable ILC out there - it should've sold a lot for what they wanted it to, but people kept on buying PENs and Lumixes and NEXs instead. Where did Pentax go wrong?

[walternewton]

Where did Pentax go wrong?

When the Q came out it was $800 - over $1000(!) if you added the zoom - while it gets good results from it's P&S sized sensor, only someone who wanted lens interchangeablity and REALLY prioritized size would have considered it a good value considering the lower cost competition - similar performing compacts like the Canon G12, or better performing 4/3 or even APS-C sized ILCs.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

When the Q came out it was $800.

Yes, the pricing was bad. They should have made a less expensive plastic version in tone with the toy lenses - that would have sold better. What good is a magnesium alloy body with few lenses to match it?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I should add that the Q, as a system, is not a bad idea. It is just that they haven't made it attractive enough. One way they could make it special is to put in a monochrome sensor like Leica did with their last M9 variation. Remove AA filter and demosaicing and you would get a tiny camera with great resolution and better noise performance than the size of the sensor would suggest. Add a compact 35mm equiv AOV lens and this would become a great street camera. It wouldn't cost more to produce than the current model and they can sell it for $800 as a high end product.

[Alizarine]

I should add that the Q, as a system, is not a bad idea. It is just that they haven't made it attractive enough.

Indeed, that's what I think of it too. Most DSLR users looking for a lightweight ILC system and P&S shooters looking for an ILC upgrade without the bulk of an SLR body aren't attracted to the Q because of... well not just the price (when it came out, but then again, not even now) but because of again, Pentax's lack of "marketing presence".

It could have been cheaper - though I would still prefer it to have a mag-alloy body - but nowhere reaching beyond $900. Then put it in some sleek fashion runs, pay some people to sport it for visibility, and that's it as much, prolly. But then again, taking that it was released during HOYA era...

I just hope Ricoh will give the Q system some justice with the next model. I would agree to a polycarbonate body like in the K-r, but at least include the K-mount adapter with it, like the EOS-M includes the EF adapter in the box. That way, new buyers will have a lot of choices!

[Fontan]

I should add that the Q, as a system, is not a bad idea. It is just that they haven't made it attractive enough. One way they could make it special is to put in a monochrome sensor like Leica did with their last M9 variation. Remove AA filter and demosaicing and you would get a tiny camera with great resolution and better noise performance than the size of the sensor would suggest. Add a compact 35mm equiv AOV lens and this would become a great street camera. It wouldn't cost more to produce than the current model and they can sell it for $800 as a high end product.

Wow. I love this idea. I will buy that.

[fuent104]

Yes, the pricing was bad. They should have made a less expensive plastic version in tone with the toy lenses - that would have sold better. What good is a magnesium alloy body with few lenses to match it?

You're really highlighted what I perceive to be a major problem in Pentax's approach: I think they make the cameras they want to make, rather than making cameras people want to buy.

You can't predict the future, and there is no way of knowing what people will buy. However, after having gone through the effort to create the Q system, it would seem like a no-brainer to release a stripped down version of the Q, which would allow people not to pay for some of the features they don't value. For example, a version with a less sturdy body and less shooting modes would have been a good idea, and they could have sold it for less. Perhaps different colors would have been a good idea, too. or a version with "scene" modes on the dial, rather than enthusiast modes.

I guess their market research told them people wanted a really really expensive toy. I say this because of the toy lenses. I don't think they are a terrible idea, but I think they make more sense if there is also a less robust body available. Hell, if they are going to try to appease the lomography crowd with the toy lenses, why not go all the way with the build quality?

It just doesn't seem to make sense. It's like they were unwilling to commit fully to either the enthusiast market or the less-than-enthusiast crowd.

[JPT]

Ricoh/Pentax's mirrorless strategy is very interesting. Until we see what they show at Photokina, we can only guess but guessing is fun, so here's my take.

GXR - This has been moderately successful for Ricoh within their usual kind of compact enthusiast market, especially in Japan. I wonder how many users just buy it for a specific unit, such as the APS-C 28mm or the M-mount. Development seems to have ground to a halt - there is nothing outstanding on their roadmap; they have stated that they won't bother producing the storage unit or projector units that were displayed at the launch of the system; and they still haven't updated the body in almost 3 years.
Prediction: Ricoh will focus on compacts only and introduce some new compact models that make the GXR superfluous. Ricoh fans will be too in love with the new cameras to care.

Pentax Q - I think Pentax developed this to enter the premium compact market (LX-5, GRD, X-1 etc.) where they had previously been absent. People have been talking about it as if it was a huge commitment that has sucked resources from other cameras, but when you consider the accessories and converter lenses that are released for cameras in this segment, is it really that much more effort to make a few lenses? If they release a couple more lenses for it, price it competitively and promote it more, to mainly women in Asia, it could do well.
Prediction: They continue with the Q for a while, but if it doesn't make a profit, they'll can it eventually and leave that market to the Ricoh models.

Pentax K-01 - Although I like mine, I don't think has been selling well in Japan. I say that because the price has dropped more quickly than the Q or the GXR did. But it is not such a big deal, it is just one more camera which uses K-mount.
Prediction: I think with some improvements there is room for mirrorless cameras within the K-mount range and as EVFs become cheaper and better than OVFs, the technology will move up the range.

So actually, I don't think we have seen their "mirrorless strategy" yet. I think they will make a new mount supporting full frame, which is designed to be an eventual successor to K-mount. It would have an IQ advantage over existing mirrorless systems and a size advantage over full frame DSLRs. It makes sense to me and there have been hints about it (for example, the interview with Kitazawa-san last December).

[Raffwal]

I don't really know what is Pentax's mirrorless stategy.

But I feel the Q was a bad choice to begin with. Having a smaller sensor is sometimes a great compromise between portability/size and IQ. Like µ4/3 cameras, perhaps even Nikon 1. But having a sensor about as small as the average P&S cameras do is IMO a silly idea. Of course an up-to-date fly dropping sized sensor does not look so bad compared to a decade old bigger ones, but a form factor like the Q combines the worst aspects of a P&S camera and a MILC.

The K-01 on the other hand shows a lot of promise in my opinion. I wouldn't buy a MILC without a viewfinder, but perhaps the next model will have one. Using the K mount makes the cameras thicker than MILCs with new mounts, but the market is different for Pentax compared to for example µ4/3 and NEX. Those two already more or less split the market between them, leaving some niche for higher end products like the Fuji which will not sell in large quantities. Coming this late to the game Pentax with a new mount would be left with what drops from the table of µ4/3 and NEX. But using the K mount makes it a potential mirrorless system (with AF) for people with K mount lenses. And I actually find the new deeper K mount lenses a clever thing. Take advantage of the missing mirror and make thinner lenses that protrude deeper in the body thus reducing the whole thickness while allowing the use of older lenses. And it seems that the flange focal length of the K mount would allow much thinner cameras as well like we've seen with K mount film cameras. So when they manage to make the electronics and SR smaller, there's room for further size reduction.

[LamyTax]

GXR - This has been moderately successful for Ricoh within their usual kind of compact enthusiast market, especially in Japan. I wonder how many users just buy it for a specific unit, such as the APS-C 28mm or the M-mount. Development seems to have ground to a halt - there is nothing outstanding on their roadmap; they have stated that they won't bother producing the storage unit or projector units that were displayed at the launch of the system; and they still haven't updated the body in almost 3 years.
Prediction: Ricoh will focus on compacts only and introduce some new compact models that make the GXR superfluous. Ricoh fans will be too in love with the new cameras to care.

I'm not sure if Ricoh is staying in that market at all. A few dozen Ricoh engineers went to Pentax, and the compact camera stuff went from Pentax to Ricoh.

Pentax Q - I think Pentax developed this to enter the premium compact market (LX-5, GRD, X-1 etc.) where they had previously been absent. People have been talking about it as if it was a huge commitment that has sucked resources from other cameras, but when you consider the accessories and converter lenses that are released for cameras in this segment, is it really that much more effort to make a few lenses? If they release a couple more lenses for it, price it competitively and promote it more, to mainly women in Asia, it could do well.
Prediction: They continue with the Q for a while, but if it doesn't make a profit, they'll can it eventually and leave that market to the Ricoh models.

To my knowledge, the Q is selling quite well, especially in Japan.

Pentax K-01

- Although I like mine, I don't think has been selling well in Japan. I say that because the price has dropped more quickly than the Q or the GXR did. But it is not such a big deal, it is just one more camera which uses K-mount.
Prediction: I think with some improvements there is room for mirrorless cameras within the K-mount range and as EVFs become cheaper and better than OVFs, the technology will move up the range.

So actually, I don't think we have seen their "mirrorless strategy" yet. I think they will make a new mount supporting full frame, which is designed to be an eventual successor to K-mount. It would have an IQ advantage over existing mirrorless systems and a size advantage over full frame DSLRs. It makes sense to me and there have been hints about it (for example, the interview with Kitazawa-san last December).

True, I don't think we've seen their strategy yet. It's hinted that they'll continue in native PK for mirrorless, but that really has little advantages.
What Canon does seems like a good idea to me.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Hmm, now that you look at it, it does seem like a dead end for the Q line. Unless something ultra-revolutionary comes in sensors that small... I don't know. For some reason it could have been the most pocketable ILC out there - it should've sold a lot for what they wanted it to, but people kept on buying PENs and Lumixes and NEXs instead. Where did Pentax go wrong?

They went wrong the moment they though they could just repeat the Auto 110. They created a niche system that is very small, but no one cares.

[philbaum]

They went wrong the moment they though they could just repeat the Auto 110. They created a niche system that is very small, but no one cares.

I agree. The trend of phone cams eating into the PS market has been widely reported. What part of that didn't Pentax understand? However these decisions are being made needs to be reexamined - the decision process seems to be faulty. Again with the K01 - why did they think a designer sig. on the body was important, and a shutter cable connection was not important . What's done is done - but if this is the decision quality we can expect from Pentax, then its not good.

Thankfully, the K30 was dead on with its outfitting, and i'm still delighted with the K5. More good decisions like these last 2, please.

[Medium FormatPro]

I agree. The trend of phone cams eating into the PS market has been widely reported. What part of that didn't Pentax understand? However these decisions are being made needs to be reexamined - the decision process seems to be faulty. Again with the K01 - why did they think a designer sig. on the body was important, and a shutter cable connection was not important . What's done is done - but if this is the decision quality we can expect from Pentax, then its not good.

Thankfully, the K30 was dead on with its outfitting, and i'm still delighted with the K5. More good decisions like these last 2, please.

Regardless of how many megapixels one can cram into any device such as a mobile phone or iPad; it's still about the size of the sensor. Most pics of people don't look good at above 8"x10" taken with any of the mobile phones on the market.

Even a two hundred dollar p&s has considerably better optics and also a sensor that no mobile phone could ever touch; and can make a portrait at least two to three sizes larger than an 8x10

[asw66]

Regardless of how many megapixels one can cram into any device such as a mobile phone or iPad; it's still about the size of the sensor. Most pics of people don't look good at above 8"x10" taken with any of the mobile phones on the market.

Even a two hundred dollar p&s has considerably better optics and also a sensor that no mobile phone could ever touch; and can make a portrait at least two to three sizes larger than an 8x10

I assume you're not including the Nokia Pureview 808 in this generalisation!

Nokia call it "the game changer" on their site ... I'm not sure if it will save the company from sliding into irrelevance, but it may indeed change the way that compact cameras and mobile phones are designed. I think it's almost certainly the case that Pentax/Ricoh engineers are exploring similar approaches right now, which should result in some great products in the ultra-compact sector in the not-too-distant future.

[Raffwal]

Regardless of how many megapixels one can cram into any device such as a mobile phone or iPad; it's still about the size of the sensor. Most pics of people don't look good at above 8"x10" taken with any of the mobile phones on the market.

Yes and the sensor in the Q is only slightly bigger than that of an iPhone 4S and much smaller than the one in a Nokia 808.

Sensor Size Comparison