Calling out the bloke who rated the Q10 a "1"

**luftfluss** · 11-18-2014, 10:37 PM

Other than the Sony RX100 series, has there ever been a high-end compact that was pants-pocketable?

JinDesu · 11-18-2014, 11:23 PM - **1 Like**

My Q + 01 lens fits in my pants pockets.

Granted I buy a size or so larger just to have comfortable pants, but still.

reh321 · 11-19-2014, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

I'm quoting Ricoh. Not my words.
But surely no-one would argue that it isn't the most compact MILC? (aside from the Lumix GM1

)
No Compact System camera is promoted as pocketable. It's a clear distinction.

We shouldn't speak for 'most' people and how they interpret what 'compact' means.
The dictionary describes 'compact' as neatly packed, certainly there's nothing to infer that neatly packed means pocketable.

FYI: The Pentax MX-1 is marketted as high-end compact camera.

What I do know with absolute certainty is that on other sites, when people look at a Sony A6000 equipped with a pancake lens, they do use the word "pocketable".
Ditto for some other ILCM cameras, such as those made by Olympus and Lumix.
Even the Canon EOS-M has been described that way by those who notice that it exists.

My comment, which I believe reflects what the reviewer unartfully was trying to get at, was that Pentax is shooting themselves in the foot (or even someplace more vulnerable) by packaging the Q with an 02 lens, because people who saw it with an 01 lens would think "pocketable", just as they do with somewhat larger ILCM cameras, and thus Pentax is voluntarily disqualifying the Q from a natural market.

Antonio Marques · 11-20-2014, 08:14 PM - **1 Like**

I'll have to agree with the reviewer on two specific points:

- The point of having a small camera is that it is small. The Q is small but that is offset by the lack of comparatively small lenses. The point isn't about measuring pockets before buying a camera, but rather about market perception.

- The pint of having an interchangeable lens camera is that you can, well, change lenses. You can't very well change lenses if your only option to buy different ones from what came with your camera is to pay double their cost in shipping and customs, not to mention you have to wait forever, can't handle the item beforehand, and are helpless if some problem occurs. And the fact is that there's one single prime and No hints that another r one is coming! At least there's now 3 complementary zooms.

With all that, my complaint with the Q system is the lack of an optional EVF. I'd love to have that. If not now, in an year or so. The Q could be such a nice modular system if there were accessories like that!

**Mikesul** · 11-23-2014, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Antonio Marques

- The pint of having an interchangeable lens camera is that you can, well, change lenses. You can't very well change lenses if your only option to buy different ones from what came with your camera is to pay double their cost in shipping and customs, not to mention you have to wait forever, can't handle the item beforehand, and are helpless if some problem occurs. And the fact is that there's one single prime and No hints that another r one is coming! At least there's now 3 complementary zooms.

This is a strange complaint. It would be nice if the Q had more primes but the lenses we have now are, for the most part, excellent. The 01,06 and 08 regularly astound me with DSLR like performance under many circumstances. If you need a K3 get one. If you want a small, capable and relatively inexpensive camera. The Q7 hits the spot. When I need more I take the K3.

reh321 · 11-23-2014, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by luftfluss

Other than the Sony RX100 series, has there ever been a high-end compact that was pants-pocketable?

Many people view the A6000 and m43 cameras as being pants-pocketable when equipped with a pancake or similar lens.

**Mikesul** · 11-23-2014, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by reh321

Many people view the A6000 and m43 cameras as being pants-pocketable when equipped with a pancake or similar lens.

I had and loved the A6000 but it was not reasonably pants pocketable even with the very small SEL1650 lens. The Q and 01 is distinctly smaller but still not safely pocketable unless you mean a coat pocket.

reh321 · 11-23-2014, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Mikesul

I had and loved the A6000 but it was not reasonably pants pocketable even with the very small SEL1650 lens. The Q and 01 is distinctly smaller but still not safely pocketable unless you mean a coat pocket.

All I know is what others have said. Regardless of what fits where, if they view the A6000 as being pocketable, then they might view the Q+01 in the same way ... but that would happen only if a Q+01 kit were readily available.

Dangermouse · 11-28-2014, 06:55 AM

Regarding the size, I would like to see a lens with the same field of view as (and similar physical size to) the Toy Lens Wide, but with AF and mechanical shutter. That field of view works very well as a walkabout lens, which is why it turned up on so many decent film compacts. It'd (hopefully) be smaller than the 02 zoom.

**Mikesul** · 11-28-2014, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Dangermouse

Regarding the size, I would like to see a lens with the same field of view as (and similar physical size to) the Toy Lens Wide, but with AF and mechanical shutter. That field of view works very well as a walkabout lens, which is why it turned up on so many decent film compacts. It'd (hopefully) be smaller than the 02 zoom.

Doesn't the 08 cover that? It is an expensive but very good lens.

Parallax · 11-28-2014, 10:35 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by luftfluss

Yeah, I realize that I'll probably get an infraction for posting this,

Actually, I gave you a Like for it.

reh321 · 11-28-2014, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

Doesn't the 08 cover that? It is an expensive but very good lens.

The idea expressed above is to make a Q smaller and therefore more flexible in usage. For years I have had a camera that goes everywhere in my pocket for those times when an unexpected photo-op presents itself; for example, yesterday during my walk despite a small snow flurry, I took a picture of the small group gathered three hours early outside our local Target, wanting bargains more than turkey. Right now, my pocket camera is a Canon Elph. A Q could fit that role, but certainly not with an 08.

**Mikesul** · 11-28-2014, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by reh321

The idea expressed above is to make a Q smaller and therefore more flexible in usage. For years I have had a camera that goes everywhere in my pocket for those times when an unexpected photo-op presents itself; for example, yesterday during my walk despite a small snow flurry, I took a picture of the small group gathered three hours early outside our local Target, wanting bargains more than turkey. Right now, my pocket camera is a Canon Elph. A Q could fit that role, but certainly not with an 08.

Or even the 01. A real lens is just going to be too big. The lens cover lens they issued earlier this year is said to be terrible.

Dangermouse · 11-28-2014, 12:24 PM

I should be in a position to report on the Shield Mount Lens next week (have one on the way).

I watched Blunty's Youtube review of it and it looked worth a go as a fun lens. Compare it to the DA40 XS and you won't be impressed, but it looks as though it can produce decent images if you play to its abilities.

Nicolas06 · 12-06-2014, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

But the user reviews always consider more than just technical aspects. Like cost, fun factor, ease of use,.. So of course a $300 product with a rating of 9 isn't equivalent to a $1000 product with the same rating of 9.

This can also be a problem. What we currently have is an effective rating range from 7 to 10 with most lenses in the 8.5-9.5 range. And because user expectations, price and so on are mixed in, you can't really even be sure a better score mean the lens is really better.

And there no way to distinguis a $300 product with a rating of 9 than a $1000 product with the rating of 9. The worse is when it is the same product, just at different point it time. Does the 9 was more given from when it was worse $1000, meaning it must be very good? Or was the 9 more given when it was only $300, meaning it can be soso but still get a good score because there nothing better for $300 ?

Our system is not that perfect

Even through the different sub score do help !

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Breaking Out the "Crappy" Lenses (Take a Swing At Me - I can Take It)	OrangeKx	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	19	11-08-2014 06:09 AM
Lets Figure Out Who Made Those "Department Store"" Lenses (Sears, JC Penney, etc)	Sagitta	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	08-11-2014 10:50 AM
what happen if i shoot with the "back" of the film instead of the "front" ?	aurele	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	20	07-03-2013 08:21 AM
The Times: K-x rated as "best for beginners"	gazonk	Pentax News and Rumors	16	11-04-2009 08:26 AM
The "real" values for the FA 77mm f/1.8 Ltd. Just out of curiosity.	bc_the_path	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-02-2008 05:34 PM

11-18-2014, 10:37 PM	#31
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619 Original Poster	Other than the Sony RX100 series, has there ever been a high-end compact that was pants-pocketable?

11-18-2014, 11:23 PM - 1 Like	#32
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	My Q + 01 lens fits in my pants pockets. Granted I buy a size or so larger just to have comfortable pants, but still.

11-19-2014, 08:33 AM	#33
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger I'm quoting Ricoh. Not my words. But surely no-one would argue that it isn't the most compact MILC? (aside from the Lumix GM1 ) No Compact System camera is promoted as pocketable. It's a clear distinction. We shouldn't speak for 'most' people and how they interpret what 'compact' means. The dictionary describes 'compact' as neatly packed, certainly there's nothing to infer that neatly packed means pocketable. FYI: The Pentax MX-1 is marketted as high-end compact camera. What I do know with absolute certainty is that on other sites, when people look at a Sony A6000 equipped with a pancake lens, they do use the word "pocketable". Ditto for some other ILCM cameras, such as those made by Olympus and Lumix. Even the Canon EOS-M has been described that way by those who notice that it exists. My comment, which I believe reflects what the reviewer unartfully was trying to get at, was that Pentax is shooting themselves in the foot (or even someplace more vulnerable) by packaging the Q with an 02 lens, because people who saw it with an 01 lens would think "pocketable", just as they do with somewhat larger ILCM cameras, and thus Pentax is voluntarily disqualifying the Q from a natural market.

11-20-2014, 08:14 PM - 1 Like	#34
Antonio Marques Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 69	I'll have to agree with the reviewer on two specific points: - The point of having a small camera is that it is small. The Q is small but that is offset by the lack of comparatively small lenses. The point isn't about measuring pockets before buying a camera, but rather about market perception. - The pint of having an interchangeable lens camera is that you can, well, change lenses. You can't very well change lenses if your only option to buy different ones from what came with your camera is to pay double their cost in shipping and customs, not to mention you have to wait forever, can't handle the item beforehand, and are helpless if some problem occurs. And the fact is that there's one single prime and No hints that another r one is coming! At least there's now 3 complementary zooms. With all that, my complaint with the Q system is the lack of an optional EVF. I'd love to have that. If not now, in an year or so. The Q could be such a nice modular system if there were accessories like that!

11-23-2014, 05:59 PM	#35
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by Antonio Marques - The pint of having an interchangeable lens camera is that you can, well, change lenses. You can't very well change lenses if your only option to buy different ones from what came with your camera is to pay double their cost in shipping and customs, not to mention you have to wait forever, can't handle the item beforehand, and are helpless if some problem occurs. And the fact is that there's one single prime and No hints that another r one is coming! At least there's now 3 complementary zooms. This is a strange complaint. It would be nice if the Q had more primes but the lenses we have now are, for the most part, excellent. The 01,06 and 08 regularly astound me with DSLR like performance under many circumstances. If you need a K3 get one. If you want a small, capable and relatively inexpensive camera. The Q7 hits the spot. When I need more I take the K3.

11-23-2014, 06:41 PM	#36
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by luftfluss Other than the Sony RX100 series, has there ever been a high-end compact that was pants-pocketable? Many people view the A6000 and m43 cameras as being pants-pocketable when equipped with a pancake or similar lens.

11-23-2014, 07:23 PM	#37
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by reh321 Many people view the A6000 and m43 cameras as being pants-pocketable when equipped with a pancake or similar lens. I had and loved the A6000 but it was not reasonably pants pocketable even with the very small SEL1650 lens. The Q and 01 is distinctly smaller but still not safely pocketable unless you mean a coat pocket.

11-23-2014, 08:29 PM	#38
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Mikesul I had and loved the A6000 but it was not reasonably pants pocketable even with the very small SEL1650 lens. The Q and 01 is distinctly smaller but still not safely pocketable unless you mean a coat pocket. All I know is what others have said. Regardless of what fits where, if they view the A6000 as being pocketable, then they might view the Q+01 in the same way ... but that would happen only if a Q+01 kit were readily available.

11-28-2014, 06:55 AM	#39
Dangermouse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 283	Regarding the size, I would like to see a lens with the same field of view as (and similar physical size to) the Toy Lens Wide, but with AF and mechanical shutter. That field of view works very well as a walkabout lens, which is why it turned up on so many decent film compacts. It'd (hopefully) be smaller than the 02 zoom.

11-28-2014, 10:07 AM	#40
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by Dangermouse Regarding the size, I would like to see a lens with the same field of view as (and similar physical size to) the Toy Lens Wide, but with AF and mechanical shutter. That field of view works very well as a walkabout lens, which is why it turned up on so many decent film compacts. It'd (hopefully) be smaller than the 02 zoom. Doesn't the 08 cover that? It is an expensive but very good lens.

11-28-2014, 10:35 AM - 1 Like	#41
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by luftfluss Yeah, I realize that I'll probably get an infraction for posting this, Actually, I gave you a Like for it.

11-28-2014, 10:41 AM	#42
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Mikesul Doesn't the 08 cover that? It is an expensive but very good lens. The idea expressed above is to make a Q smaller and therefore more flexible in usage. For years I have had a camera that goes everywhere in my pocket for those times when an unexpected photo-op presents itself; for example, yesterday during my walk despite a small snow flurry, I took a picture of the small group gathered three hours early outside our local Target, wanting bargains more than turkey. Right now, my pocket camera is a Canon Elph. A Q could fit that role, but certainly not with an 08.

11-28-2014, 11:08 AM	#43
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by reh321 The idea expressed above is to make a Q smaller and therefore more flexible in usage. For years I have had a camera that goes everywhere in my pocket for those times when an unexpected photo-op presents itself; for example, yesterday during my walk despite a small snow flurry, I took a picture of the small group gathered three hours early outside our local Target, wanting bargains more than turkey. Right now, my pocket camera is a Canon Elph. A Q could fit that role, but certainly not with an 08. Or even the 01. A real lens is just going to be too big. The lens cover lens they issued earlier this year is said to be terrible.

11-28-2014, 12:24 PM	#44
Dangermouse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 283	I should be in a position to report on the Shield Mount Lens next week (have one on the way). I watched Blunty's Youtube review of it and it looked worth a go as a fun lens. Compare it to the DA40 XS and you won't be impressed, but it looks as though it can produce decent images if you play to its abilities.

12-06-2014, 01:34 PM	#45
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Na Horuk But the user reviews always consider more than just technical aspects. Like cost, fun factor, ease of use,.. So of course a $300 product with a rating of 9 isn't equivalent to a $1000 product with the same rating of 9. This can also be a problem. What we currently have is an effective rating range from 7 to 10 with most lenses in the 8.5-9.5 range. And because user expectations, price and so on are mixed in, you can't really even be sure a better score mean the lens is really better. And there no way to distinguis a $300 product with a rating of 9 than a $1000 product with the rating of 9. The worse is when it is the same product, just at different point it time. Does the 9 was more given from when it was worse $1000, meaning it must be very good? Or was the 9 more given when it was only $300, meaning it can be soso but still get a good score because there nothing better for $300 ? Our system is not that perfect Even through the different sub score do help !