[Zarkon]

johnmflores - that is a brilliant comparison! Thanks for the keychain pictures. Really hammers home the point of what Pentax is trying to accomplish.

[MRRiley]

I sure won't pay $800 for it but let it get down to $300-400 (with a couple of lenses) and I'm in. Frankly, they should sell this like the old Auto 110s... standalone or a complete package...

Mike

[Art Vandelay II]

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.

It seems as though you view the world in B&W rather then in the full color spectrum. Yes, m4/3's is smaller than APS-C, but the difference is so close the vast majority of users won't care. This is no longer 2006 when there was a pretty big gap in 4/3's and APS-C image quality. The latest 4/3's sensors are more than good enough for most people. Will history repeat itself? Maybe, but my bet is it won't.

However, as far as the Q goes...the IQ gap between 1/2.3 and 4/3's sensors is indeed huge. Unlike APS-C vs m4/3's, that is enough for a normal user to care about. As an anecdotal example; my uncle is currently looking for a "more serious" camera. He subscribes to the gadget blogs. He saw the Q and sent me an email asking me why the sensor is so tiny in it. He has already ruled it out without ever touching it. He's not "camera guy", but he understands basic things like a sensor smaller than your pinky nail = bad. Side note: I've seen those very same gadget blogs refer to 4/3's sensors as "huge".

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 stated earlier; there is no guarantee Canikon will be using APS-C in their mirrorless systems. In-fact the rumors state they won't be, with Canon using a 2x and Nikon using a 2.5x crop. Sure their DSLR's will still be using them, but there are a good number of us that think DSLR's will be taking a back seat to CSC's in the very near future (2015 is my estimate).

[eddie1960]

I sure won't pay $800 for it but let it get down to $300-400 (with a couple of lenses) and I'm in. Frankly, they should sell this like the old Auto 110s... standalone or a complete package...

Mike

Packaged with a beautiful little metal carrying case of course like the old auto 110 packages

[Aristophanes]

It seems as though you view the world in B&W rather then in the full color spectrum. Yes, m4/3's is smaller than APS-C, but the difference is so close the vast majority of users won't care. This is no longer 2006 when there was a pretty big gap in 4/3's and APS-C image quality. The latest 4/3's sensors are more than good enough for most people. Will history repeat itself? Maybe, but my bet is it won't.

However, as far as the Q goes...the IQ gap between 1/2.3 and 4/3's sensors is indeed huge. Unlike APS-C vs m4/3's, that is enough for a normal user to care about. As an anecdotal example; my uncle is currently looking for a "more serious" camera. He subscribes to the gadget blogs. He saw the Q and sent me an email asking me why the sensor is so tiny in it. He has already ruled it out without ever touching it. He's not "camera guy", but he understands basic things like a sensor smaller than your pinky nail = bad. Side note: I've seen those very same gadget blogs refer to 4/3's sensors as "huge".

As stated earlier; there is no guarantee Canikon will be using APS-C in their mirrorless systems. In-fact the rumors state they won't be, with Canon using a 2x and Nikon using a 2.5x crop. Sure their DSLR's will still be using them, but there are a good number of us that think DSLR's will be taking a back seat to CSC's in the very near future (2015 is my estimate).

Users do care. It's an endless debate, and not on the margins but at the core, like on this forum, where the big $$$ are spent. And it made a HUGE difference between 43 and APS-C.

I always find it bizarre when someone says people "don't care". Think about your statement as it applies to a $600 purchase. Pause from your navel-gazing about M43 being "good enough" for you and think about what "don't care" really means in economic terms and the broader market.

I suspect Canikon will do both APS-C and further crops for mirrorless. The Q may not be alone. In fact, I stated so a long time back with Canikon bracketing M43 on both sensor size and price. I also said that the G series may migrate to a MILC while the shared sensor S95 series will stay compact.

The compelling threat in mirrorless opportunity costs for Canikon and APS-C is not M43; it is Samsung and Sony. M43 will eventually be the little brother who cannot get on the swingset because just enough people do care about a larger, superior sensor, to taker M43's margins away. When things go towards commodity manufacture and sale, those differences kill brands. Ask Contax, Rollei, Yashica, Konica, etc. from the SLR days. That is *precisely* the history of the camera sector.

[eddie1960]

Pentax has long supported several formats

most of the time they were running 4-5 assorted systems (film ps, 110, 135,645,67 for instance, and later aps film)
in the last couple of years since the film medium format shut down it's been 3 categories only
digital ps
DSLR
645D medium format

Q is the logical move on the ps (like he 110 was to some degree)
ps really will comprise in future of the waterproof line, the superzoom and the q fits right in with a distinct idea

Still room here for the enthusiast APS-C Milc and no reason to believe they won't make one it's not like the company hasn't manage multiple formats before
APS-C DSLR will not go away, the form and function of an SLR is just preferable to many
Digital medium format will also continue (and wisely it is designed to move to FF sensors

[Pentaxor]

you'd be surprised by how many cameras the lomo stores sell at B&M, i've been a a couple of them now and they are busier than some of the true camera stores
lot's of people pay the stupid prices in store (personally i have 4 lomo's and never bought one they were all gifts from friends who saw them at lomo stores and thought of me because of the old film cameras I have. you underestimate the gullibility of the general public sir

We have to thank the customer assistance staff who desperately wanted to make the sale for that partially. I encountered a few of these kinds when I'm out window shopping. some give some ill-advise and some don't even know what they are talking about. it would had been better if those people would just say "sorry I can't help you" and refer you to another person or marketplace.

but anyway, I do agree that most consumers have no idea on what or where to buy. lack of interest, research, effort and laziness are the main cause of naiveness basically.

[eddie1960]

We have to thank the customer assistance staff who desperately wanted to make the sale for that partially. I encountered a few of these kinds when I'm out window shopping. some give some ill-advise and some don't even know what they are talking about. it would had been better if those people would just say "sorry I can't help you" and refer you to another person or marketplace.

but anyway, I do agree that most consumers have no idea on what or where to buy. lack of interest, research, effort and laziness are the main cause of naiveness basically.

Lomo stores wouldn't exist if the general public were chasing image quality
neither would the 10's of thousands of 126 and 110 cameras that sold
the photography marketplace has always been about much more than the niche all of us occupy, we're just the most important part (in our own minds anyway )

[Rondec]

I think you can argue back and forth all day long. The reality is that the "public" doesn't see image quality the way we do. How many people show up on this forum complaining that their kx (or kr or K7 or K5) doesn't take as good photos as their point and shoot camera did? People benefit a lot from increased depth of field and they like the over saturated (if not accurate) colors that P & S provide. If Pentax can make a camera that fits these people's needs and still give them interchangeable lenses, they will have a winner.

[Pentaxor]

I think you can argue back and forth all day long. The reality is that the "public" doesn't see image quality the way we do. How many people show up on this forum complaining that their kx (or kr or K7 or K5) doesn't take as good photos as their point and shoot camera did? People benefit a lot from increased depth of field and they like the over saturated (if not accurate) colors that P & S provide. If Pentax can make a camera that fits these people's needs and still give them interchangeable lenses, they will have a winner.

of course, no one can argue about consumerism in general.

[Christine Tham]

All this talk about sizes remind me of schoolyard comparisons.

Just remember guys, it's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it. :-)

[garyk]

Ahhhhh LOL... Good one Christine Tham.

[Ash]

Saw that one coming, Christine.
Took a lady to come out with it though.

Pretty obviously true, otherwise APS-C would even be insufficient for obsessed pixel-peeping dilettantes...

[junyo]

Just saying...

[Aristophanes]

I think you can argue back and forth all day long. The reality is that the "public" doesn't see image quality the way we do. How many people show up on this forum complaining that their kx (or kr or K7 or K5) doesn't take as good photos as their point and shoot camera did? People benefit a lot from increased depth of field and they like the over saturated (if not accurate) colors that P & S provide. If Pentax can make a camera that fits these people's needs and still give them interchangeable lenses, they will have a winner.

The "public" will buy D3100's from a pyramid at a big box store. To the industry this = gross revenues.

On this forum there will exist concurrently 20 threads and thousands of posts on the merits of the DA 70 vs. the FA 77 all about IQ at $500-$700 after-market sales. To the industry this = profits.

M43 has staked its claim in the middle ground where brands have gone to die. Even if you want a high-end M43, there is a major shortage of supply because Panasonic cannot commit.

Increased DOF helps autofocus a lot, no doubt. 3 of the new lenses are manual focus. Who is the market for the Q? Anyone who is willing to experiment with an MF lens is not the "don't care" "public" who wants a photo of a whale but is afraid of the complexity of a DSLR.