Originally posted by johnmflores I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I don't think IQ is the determining factor, particularly those moving up from a P&S. Like many of us here I bet, I get a lot of questions about people stepping up from a Point & Shoot. The kinds of things that I've heard include:
"I can't take photos of my kids playing soccer with my point & shoot."
"I was on this cruise and this guy next to me got some great shots of the whales. Mine look like tiny dots."
"I'm intimidated by dSLRs. I don't have time to learn how to use them."
"I'm looking for higher quality."
Well then the Q is perfect.
Pentax has a designed a tiny mirrorless for the P&S mindset for a world where sensor size is not an issue but the quality sought through lens interchangeability is desired. That's classic M43 logic. So, is sensor size a consideration or not?
That's the exact same logic BTW that sunk 43 compared to APS-C.
So what are people looking for in a camera? What I know is that DSLR's still sell at relative volumes approaching or exceeding SLR sales from the early 1980's halcyon days of photography. Canon has TV and internet ads constantly running with 3 entry to mid models all compared together: the T1i, T2i, and T3i and they top sales charts. I can get a D3000 (not a great camera, but leaps and bounds superior to any P&S) for $269 with 18-55 kit lens. That's astounding photographic value. The consumer has never had such a plethora of affordable, technically excellent cameras and lenses.
DSLR's are approaching commodity prices and, frankly, a market does not do that if there is not substantial demand, so I take issue with the "intimidation" factor for DSLR's cited above. The market says the opposite. These DSLR's have auto functions for a reason and the market is responding by selling them in bucketloads in 1 and 2 kits lens systems, with inexpensive 1.8 primes displayed right alongside. I was in a big box store where they had both T2i's and D3100's stacked in pyramids for Father's Day. You do not chew up that much retail space and staff outlay without serious sales expectations. I have never seen any hint of such a display for Olympus or Panansonic.
Meanwhile, try and source a GH2 (as of June 24, 2011:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Digital Camera W/14-42mm DMC-GH2KK B&H)
In the long run, when mirrorless systems also approach commodity pricing, the APS-C offerings will trounce M43 because they will have a bigger engine, superior production economies-of-scale, and a far larger installed base offered by Canon, Nikon, Samsung, Sony, Pentax, with sidebar markets via Fuji, and Leica, and maybe even Ricoh and Sigma. If I was going to make a long-term mirrorless system lens investment, it would be APS-C, not M43.
As for Q, it probably has a very good sensor because Sony's been on a tear, but the initial price point seems designed to intimidate sales and flatter the competition. Technically, the critical aspect for any advanced system is it ability to handle at least 2 of the the trifecta of low-light, higher ISO, and action focus. I suspect for all the advances in small sensor design the Q's sensor will simply not have enough area to suck up enough light to make the grade on 2 of those three necessities. As I have said earlier, we'll have to see what the image circle on the lenses says about future, larger sensors. The Q we've seen is, after all, only a V.1 design.