Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2011, 09:41 AM   #46
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by juu Quote




Pentax Q + kit prime: 200g + 37g = 237g
GF3 + kit prime: 319g

Pentax Q + kit zoom: 200g + 96g = 296g
GF3 + kit zoom: 475g

Pentax Q sensor size: 28.5 mm^2
GF3 sensor size: 225 mm^2

Would be interesting to see how much the Olympus EPM-1 with the new 14-42mm kit zoom weights; I expect somewhat less than GF3's 475g.
With lens, the GF series is bulky to say the least:





The displayed Q zoom lens has got to be half that size, and certainly the lens mount diameter is a good 2% less:



The Q's diminutive sensor (and all the negative IQ implications) allows for a hotshoe and obviously much smaller lenses, as well as a shorter profile, not to mention full DSLR controls using real dials, tactile feedback, in-body SR, and the legendary Green Button! (and in-lens shutters on the better optics...hmmmmm...).

One interesting design point: the Q flash looks like the best design feature over many DSLR/M43's.. Well away from the lens, nicely out of the way when down, a single arm rather than easily bendable scissor system. Clever.

The Q's fate will be determined by high-ISO/low-light performance at its street price point. It's either going to be a superior compact with excellent control design and multiple lenses, or its going to be over-priced for its IQ despite its DSLR control system.

No matter what you crop from this sensor you'll see watercolours, which, to say the least, is what a majority of photos taken in the world today are. Penatx is just wrapping a mini-DSLR around an incrementally better small sensor.

Pentax can call it an entry-level DSLR-like camera until they are blue, but the market will not perceive it as such, not at this price point where people buy on specs like sensor size. The Q is a G12/LX-5 with changeable lenses and DSLR control system.

Price. IQ. Features. = Value. Gotta get all 3. Not sure about that right now.

06-27-2011, 09:46 AM - 1 Like   #47
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Turn your brain ON. And learn to analyze.
I can analyze (I am a buyer for a living), and spent 27 years in CE retail, i'm more than capable of understanding what they are saying, perhaps you need to be more open rather than being one of the most negative people on the forum, spouting a lot with nothing to back it up
06-27-2011, 09:50 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
Once again we are all spending a lot of time slagging a product that hasn't even come to market or had pictures and reviews come out. everything is speculation based on our own biases
once there is some valid data then opinions will count
06-27-2011, 10:00 AM   #49
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I can analyze (I am a buyer for a living), and spent 27 years in CE retail, i'm more than capable of understanding what they are saying, perhaps you need to be more open rather than being one of the most negative people on the forum, spouting a lot with nothing to back it up
Ha-ha...Retail...I spent many years in secret service

06-27-2011, 10:02 AM - 1 Like   #50
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Once again we are all spending a lot of time slagging a product that hasn't even come to market or had pictures and reviews come out. everything is speculation based on our own biases
once there is some valid data then opinions will count
sensor 1/2.3" is the judgement already.



you can see here that camera is hard to control in big hands.


but camera has some charm...
06-27-2011, 10:06 AM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
sensor 1/2.3" is the judgement already.


YouTube - ‪PENTAX Q‬‏

you can see here that camera is hard to control in big hands.
A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors

yep it's not an aps-c camera. who cares, it wasn't designed to be a replacement for that
06-27-2011, 10:07 AM - 1 Like   #52
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
With lens, the GF series is bulky to say the least
Or isn't, depends on the lens:





The Panasonic 14-42mm lens is somewhat bulky indeed. But compared to the Olympus 14-42mm lens which is 62x43mm the Q kit zoom is only somewhat smaller - 48.5x48mm.

Likewise, 45.5x23mm for the Q kit prime vs. 55.5x20.5mm the GF3 kit prime.

Which means one of three things:
a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed
b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind
c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it
06-27-2011, 10:20 AM   #53
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors
You hope that Pentax could to deceive physics and can work miracles ???

DNG + no AA filter are good. I think that users can get something not bad for P&S level at lowest ISO.


Last edited by ogl; 06-27-2011 at 10:29 AM.
06-27-2011, 10:26 AM   #54
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by juu Quote
Which means one of three things:
a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed
b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind
c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it
Flange focal lenght is only 9.2 mm.

Yes. Q lenses are designed with larger sensor because of SR. But...it's larger sensor for P&S cameras.
06-27-2011, 10:33 AM   #55
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
the difference in sizes are enough to be pocket-able versus not being pocket-able when you look at the body prime combos
I seem to remember reading part of the larger circle for the lens was to accommodate SR which may have been part of the limit (also moving to in lens shutter has to have added some size - but the very high speed flash benefit.... not all bad then)

I have to admit the new Pana looks very pretty and there are a couple of nice lenses, but for me it's either be pocket-able or I may as well just carry my K7 with a small prime, the weight difference for that is acceptable to me
just like I'd be more inclined to buy the s95 for the size than the G12 (the lx 5 falling in the middle, and the Nikon being a non starter IMO)
I've got an Oly 4/3 already but never really liked the viewfinders

unfortunately what i really want is a Digital Bessa R4 at under 2 grand with a FF sensor with a nice 15/35/50 mm kit all f 2 or faster lol (i'm not holding my breath for that)
06-27-2011, 10:38 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
You hope that Pentax could to deceive physics and can work miracles ???

DNG + no AA filter are good. I think that users can get something not bad for P&S level at lowest ISO.
not miracles but i'm betting on the performance likely being far better than previous sensors in this size, and would be surprised if it's not. (I'm glad they didn't buy this small a sensor in even higher megapixels like the 16MP one. pixel density is an even bigger issue for iq and diffraction related softness - in reality 12MP is more than sufficient for what i imagine this will ned up used for which will me mostly web-shots and maybe some 4x6 prints with the odd 8x10 - for this type of work it should be reasonable)
06-27-2011, 10:50 AM   #57
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by juu Quote
Likewise, 45.5x23mm for the Q kit prime vs. 55.5x20.5mm the GF3 kit prime.

Which means one of three things:
a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed
b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind
c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it
It means that there is an in-lens shutter AND can probably reach to a marginally larger sensor (1.1.7" would be my guess). Some of the Q lenses are manual focus, so you need something to grip. That keeps costs down, especially for toy lenses.

Having the capacity to have both mechanical in-lens shutter and electronic P&S shutter allows for a $129.95 Fisheye lens :

Mirrorless Camera Lenses

One thing to note is initial lens prices. If they drop due to street pricing, they'll be fairly inexpensive. We'll have to see what the premium small sensor purchasers will pay for such lens diversity. I think this is an area where the Q concept makes its case and starts to create a cost advantage. A macro lens with built-in LED's might be interesting.

And if anyone questions where the channel will place the Q, B&H has it under mirrorless:

Page 2: Mirrorless System Cameras

...and for the lenses:

Page 2: Mirrorless Camera Lenses

And Pentax has it under their DSLR line:

PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras

The channel has spoken. Pentax marketing can blah blah blah about "new category", but it's being lumped in already. It requires a much more attractive street price.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 06-27-2011 at 10:56 AM.
06-27-2011, 11:06 AM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It means that there is an in-lens shutter AND can probably reach to a marginally larger sensor (1.1.7" would be my guess). Some of the Q lenses are manual focus, so you need something to grip. That keeps costs down, especially for toy lenses.

Having the capacity to have both mechanical in-lens shutter and electronic P&S shutter allows for a $129.99 Fisheye lens :

Mirrorless Camera Lenses

One thing to net is initial lens prices. If they drop due to street pricing, they'll be fairly inexpensive. We'll have to see what the premium small sensor purchasers will pay for such lens diversity. I think this is an area where the Q concept makes its case and starts to create a cost advantage. A macro lens with built-in LED's might be interesting.

And if anyone questions where the channel will place the Q, B&H has it under mirrorless:

Page 2: Mirrorless System Cameras

...and for the lenses:

Page 2: Mirrorless Camera Lenses

And Pentax has it under their DSLR line:

PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras

The channel has spoken. Pentax marketing can blah blah blah about "new category", but it's being lumped in already. It requires a much more attractive street price.
And that's the main issue. Price is high. compared to a G12/LX5 etc the build quality seems to be in a whole other dimension though and there is something to be said for picking up a small well machined product (ever used a leica or one of the old Rollie 35 cameras which were beautiful build (if somewhat quirky to use) and sold about 2 million units by the end of the line lifecycle. mind you the original Rollei was not cheap by any standard at just under 500 DM which was in real terms probably not far off the price the Q is launching at (about $300 usd then which would have been about a week and a half salary for the average joe. )
06-27-2011, 12:59 PM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I have to admit the new Pana looks very pretty and there are a couple of nice lenses, but for me it's either be pocket-able or I may as well just carry my K7 with a small prime, the weight difference for that is acceptable to me just like I'd be more inclined to buy the s95 for the size than the G12 (the lx 5 falling in the middle, and the Nikon being a non starter IMO)
I used to make that same argument myself until I carried both a NEX-3 and a K-7 with me on a trip to NYC last year. I always carry a small messenger bag with me when walking around for snacks, water, camera, etc.

I carried my NEX-3 around the first day in my bag, and I decided to carry my K-7 the second day. I didn't even realize the NEX-3 was in the bag the entire day, but I returned to the hotel before lunch on that second day to switch my K-7 out for the NEX-3. There is just something about the bulbous shape of a DSLR pounding against my spine all day that drives me nuts. That can be remedied by carrying a full blown camera backpack, however I hate those. Your back ends up being covered with sweat and they're bulky.

When I see people say lenses like the Panasonic 14-45mm aren't pocketable my reaction always is so what? Just use primes if that's what you want; then use zooms for times when size doesn't matter so much. Although I admit some lenses such as the Sony 18-200mm make no sense any time.

I guess it depends on what kind of clothes you're wearing, but the GF3 + pancake should fit into most any pocket of mine...but then again, thankfully I'm old enough to have missed out on the whole skinny jeans trend.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 06-27-2011 at 01:06 PM.
06-27-2011, 01:14 PM   #60
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors

yep it's not an aps-c camera. who cares, it wasn't designed to be a replacement for that
Actually it's not a new sensor, it's the Sony Exmor R

I have the same in my Sony TX-5. Slightly less pixels, but pixel pitch is the same.

You are correct in the image processing is new though.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, body, fixed-lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The forthcoming Pentax Mirrorless Camera falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 553 11-11-2011 02:55 PM
Pentax Q mirrorless, I might get my wife one... JohnBee Pentax Compact Cameras 22 09-23-2011 07:05 AM
Pentax on mirrorless: 'we never rule anything out' Art Vandelay II Pentax News and Rumors 21 01-11-2011 05:29 PM
Question about Pentax Mirrorless Winder Photographic Technique 5 11-19-2010 03:32 PM
New Pentax: K-5, K-r and Mirrorless models coming JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 32 08-08-2010 01:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top