[gazonk]

By the way, Pentax Q body is 200g (with card+battery). Panasonic GF3 is 264g and the E-PM1 may be even less. NEX-C3 is 225g.

We'll see how much lighter the Q lenses are, but the almost non-existent difference is not encouraging.

It's a metal body. I can already imagine how solid this little camera will feel

[eddie1960]

Dusty sensor will help to kill this system too...

yeah because dusty sensors have killed so many systems. sheesh, wait until there is actual facts and images before you get a hate on. it's not aimed at enthusiasts that is plain

[Aristophanes]

Wasting optical goodness? I have no idea what that means. You mean like Pentax "wasted" the FA43 adapting it to Leica? You mean like when I "waste" the FA77 using it on MFT with an adapter? The results sure don't seem like much is "wasted" to me!

Had the Limiteds been available for MFT native mount a year ago they would have sold so fast your head would spin. The format still has only one fast AF prime, though finally two more are on the way.

Why over-design a lens for 135 when your market is not there anymore. That's why the DA Limited exist.

There is no market, economic, nor technical reason why someone would re-engineer a full frame FA Limited lens (or even an APS-C DA Limited) for the inferior sensors and much smaller image circle of M43. Not when Pentax is currently structured around APS-C and has kept only 3 lenses from the FA series in play as jewels in the crown, so to speak. They are not going to sell lenses for other systems, and the Leica mod was the exception proving the rule, given how few of these hand-crafted items were actually made.

The basic premise of lens design for M43 is arranged around digital correction of optics. Pentaxor is entirely correct about the death of "old school photography" in that even the optics are now "interpreted" by a CPU to "correct" them.

Putting an FA77 on M43 is like stuffing a Porsche 911 engine in a Toyota Prius. Go right ahead. Make a cable TV show out of it.

[ogl]

yeah because dusty sensors have killed so many systems. sheesh, wait until there is actual facts and images before you get a hate on. it's not aimed at enthusiasts that is plain

You don't understand psychology of P&S users?

[jeztastic]

I think this is very nicely placed in the market, especially when you consider that there is also a rumoured mirrorles APS-C K-Mount in the pipeline. (OK, it's only a rumour, but all the rumours are coming from exactly the same places that were talking about the Q, and they got that spot on). These two products side by side will bracket the market - one larger and ultra high quality for the pros and fanboys, and one fun, tiny, arty and grungy. I think this is a stroke of genius by Pentax. All the trendies currently fondling X100s will have one of each by 2012, I bet any money.

X posted from pentaxuser forum.

[Art Vandelay II]

The basic premise of lens design for M43 is arranged around digital correction of optics. Pentaxor is entirely correct about the death of "old school photography" in that even the optics are now "interpreted" by a CPU to "correct" them.

That's not entirely true. The higher end Panny-Leica primes are quite good on their own merit. I imagine the new Olympus 12mm f/2 will be as well. That said, I have no problem with designing a lens with digital correction in mind if doing so can make a lens smaller and cheaper. If I can't see a difference in the results, and I can't, then I don't care. The Panasonic 14-45mm is the best "kit" lens I've ever owned, digital correction and all.

As far as the superiority complex of APS-C over 4/3's. The difference in the two is so close it doesn't matter to me in real world use. More importantly, going forward in the future as sensors keep getting better and better 4/3's has a big advantage over APC-S in the lens size department. A GF3 + 14mm pancake is about the exact same size as the new Pentax Q, but *should* thrash it in the IQ department. The PEN Mini will be even better. In a few more years I can easily imagine a m4/3's body the size of the GF3 with pretty clean ISO3200 (the sensor in the GH2 isn't too shabby as is). For me, m4/3's IQ is already crossed the magical "good enough" threshold. After a few more years of development it should cross that threshold for all but the most demanding of photographers.

My only concern with m4/3's was DOF control, but that fear proved to be unfounded. I have all the DOF control I need, especially in the portrait focal lengths, which is were I most often need shallow DOF.

[eddie1960]

You don't understand psychology of P&S users?

Yeah I do (i spent a long time in retail) most people who buy this thing will likely never change the lens, just like a large percentage of oly buyers never do. it will be bought for the cool factor buy a lot of people. Pentax just needs to get it into the hands of some celebrities and have them appear with it and there will be clients who have to have it because some twat like Paris Hilton has one
I spent long enough in retail to know that those of us here are not the bulk of consumers. our opinion will not make or break the market for a camera when we aren't even the target. I'm still wait and see on this because we haven't seen full size production samples (but the half size shots really aren't anything to complain to heavily about) Yep Poor DOF, well given how many nOObs complain about the inability to get everything in focus on their new DSLR it's not a bad thing. and a 1.9 prime that can shoot wide open in low light and still have a large in focus area is not a bad thing at all for some applications (live music in clubs for instance)

[asw66]

I confidently asserted a few weeks ago that there is no way that Pentax would release a MILC with a 1/2.33" sensor. So you can imagine my reaction upon seeing this news today.

And yet ... I like it more than I expected to. I like the way that this system brings traditional Pentax ergonomics and build quality to a whole new segment, all with a certain insouciant charm. Moreover, this is a very forward looking system -- it will make more and more sense as sensor technologies improve.

But it is pricey. I see its direct competition as being cameras like the XZ-1, and a side-by-side comparison of still life images from Imaging Resource shows that the XZ-1 produces noticeably better images. The Q might be more versatile, but most potential buyers would, I think, correctly conclude that the XZ-1 plus Photoshop Elements can do everything the Q can, and more, for the same money or less.

[eddie1960]

Price is the one issue i think will be the downfall here. I'm guessing that $800 price won't last long, and in fact by the time it reaches North America I would not be surprised to see it at $6-650 which makes way more sense. Japanese early adopters and trend setters will pay the cost of getting it there.

the in lens shutter is a truly cool idea allowing flash sync at any speed.

[Aristophanes]

You don't understand psychology of P&S users?

And by that you assume they all think exactly the same.

[juu]

That's not entirely true. The higher end Panny-Leica primes are quite good on their own merit. I imagine the new Olympus 12mm f/2 will be as well. That said, I have no problem with designing a lens with digital correction in mind if doing so can make a lens smaller and cheaper. If I can't see a difference in the results, and I can't, then I don't care. The Panasonic 14-45mm is the best "kit" lens I've ever owned, digital correction and all.

As far as the superiority complex of APS-C over 4/3's. The difference in the two is so close it doesn't matter to me in real world use. More importantly, going forward in the future as sensors keep getting better and better 4/3's has a big advantage over APC-S in the lens size department. A GF3 + 14mm pancake is about the exact same size as the new Pentax Q, but *should* thrash it in the IQ department. The PEN Mini will be even better. In a few more years I can easily imagine a m4/3's body the size of the GF3 with pretty clean ISO3200 (the sensor in the GH2 isn't too shabby as is). For me, m4/3's IQ is already crossed the magical "good enough" threshold. After a few more years of development it should cross that threshold for all but the most demanding of photographers.

My only concern with m4/3's was DOF control, but that fear proved to be unfounded. I have all the DOF control I need, especially in the portrait focal lengths, which is were I most often need shallow DOF.

Very well written.

I think m43 is mostly missing a portrait prime, which is why the 50mm f/1.8 coming from Olympus will be right on time.

The digital lens distortion correction is a feature of a system, not a liability. After all, one can always design larger and more expensive lenses which doesn't use it, but adding digital corrections to a system which isn't designed for it is not straightforward.

And what matter are the results, and the resolution figures are excellent even after the correction.

In any case, I find it somewhat remarkable that there are people here who dismiss m43 because of the slightly smaller sensor, but are happy with the Pentax Q despite the many times smaller sensor.

With that said, I agree with Amateur Photographer blog that Pentax Q may sell well for a while in Japan, while it is a novelty. If that will be enough to sustain it is doubtful.

[Pentaxor]

That's not entirely true. The higher end Panny-Leica primes are quite good on their own merit. I imagine the new Olympus 12mm f/2 will be as well.

exactly how many Panny-Leica primes are made for the m4/3?

As far as the superiority complex of APS-C over 4/3's. The difference in the two is so close it doesn't matter to me in real world use.

what superiority complex do you mean? the present sensor used on the m4/3 are still inferior to what is offered on the APS-C. as to how would the m4/3 reach that equality is yet to be seen.

More importantly, going forward in the future as sensors keep getting better and better 4/3's has a big advantage over APC-S in the lens size department. A GF3 + 14mm pancake is about the exact same size as the new Pentax Q, but *should* thrash it in the IQ department.

the DA40 is still considerably smaller than the present pancake that m4/3 currently offers and the upcoming Samsung primes are significantly smaller and more compact than their Pentax DA LTD counterparts. and I have yet to see an m4/3 lens that is way much and considerably smaller than those APS-C lens line-up. so I dunno what big advantage you are referring regarding lens size on an specific sensor. besides, the larger sensor MILC that Sony and Samsung offer are as compact or even a bit more smaller than the current m4/3. we could even add into the size discussion the 3rd party Ricoh and fixed lens Sigmas if you like.

The PEN Mini will be even better. In a few more years I can easily imagine a m4/3's body the size of the GF3 with pretty clean ISO3200 (the sensor in the GH2 isn't too shabby as is). For me, m4/3's IQ is already crossed the magical "good enough" threshold. After a few more years of development it should cross that threshold for all but the most demanding of photographers.

although I like the idea of having an enthusiast compact system with great IQ, I wouldn't want one to the extent that it is already ridiculously small that ergonomics and functionality suffers. I would hate to use a pretty clogged miniature size buttons on a camera. spacing is still necessary for convenience, ease of use and accidental pressing.

I find anything smaller than the GF3 to be of no real sense nor value to me except for cosmetic purpose and a different target market. in fact, the GF3 for me personally is already a bit small for my liking and I don't think that it is already too compact if they make something smaller. I mean how much weight and size does one really find convenient and useful for not just candid work?

[Pentaxor]

Yeah I do (i spent a long time in retail) most people who buy this thing will likely never change the lens, just like a large percentage of oly buyers never do. it will be bought for the cool factor buy a lot of people. Pentax just needs to get it into the hands of some celebrities and have them appear with it and there will be clients who have to have it because some twat like Paris Hilton has one
I spent long enough in retail to know that those of us here are not the bulk of consumers. our opinion will not make or break the market for a camera when we aren't even the target. I'm still wait and see on this because we haven't seen full size production samples (but the half size shots really aren't anything to complain to heavily about) Yep Poor DOF, well given how many nOObs complain about the inability to get everything in focus on their new DSLR it's not a bad thing. and a 1.9 prime that can shoot wide open in low light and still have a large in focus area is not a bad thing at all for some applications (live music in clubs for instance)

Pentax still lacks some exposure in North America. you just can't believe how ignorant people are of the brand. I agree with you that they need a well-known celebrity to endorse the brand. even Ashton Kutcher's lowly camera tv commercial made an impact on me on getting my attention. if I were Pentax, I would make a fun commercial that would identify it apart from Canon and Nikon.

[juu]

exactly how many Panny-Leica primes are made for the m4/3?

Not sure about how many are branded Leica, but a lot of the lens line-up is very nice.

what superiority complex do you mean?

I think the one where people here dismiss m43 because of a slightly smaller sensor (while thinking that FF is unnecessary and that Pentax Q is a good idea for some reason - puzzling).

the present sensor used on the m4/3 are still inferior to what is offered on the APS-C. as to how would the m4/3 reach that equality is yet to be seen.

The GH2 and G3 sensor is roughly at current APSC competition level until ISO3200. I posted some comparison dpreview tool screenshots in this thread if you scroll up 30 pages or so.

And it doesn't need equality. It needs to be good enough. Which it is, by far.

the DA40 is still considerably smaller than the present pancake that m4/3 currently offers

It's 90g vs. the 55g of the 14mm f/2.5.

I have yet to see an m4/3 lens that is way much and considerably smaller than those APS-C lens line-up.

I cannot be bothered to measure size, but weight wise: Olympus 9-18mm (155g vs. ~450g for most APS-C counterparts), 14-42mm (150g vs. ~220g) and 40-150mm (200g vs. ~300g), Panasonic 14mm (55g vs. ~200g (?)), 20mm (100g vs. ~200g).

[Pentaxor]

Price is the one issue i think will be the downfall here. I'm guessing that $800 price won't last long, and in fact by the time it reaches North America I would not be surprised to see it at $6-650 which makes way more sense. Japanese early adopters and trend setters will pay the cost of getting it there.

the in lens shutter is a truly cool idea allowing flash sync at any speed.

for that price, I might as well get 2 NX11/NX100 or a GH2.

the flash sync at any speed is interesting though but not something that can't be achieved by others or using an external HSS flash. as of the moment, I could say it is of convenience to those who are using a built-in flash for fill-flash and freezing high-speed motion and also for radio triggers as long as they could reach atleast 1/500 but preferably 1/1000, that would be more than enough for general and enthusiast use.