Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

wanderography · 09-07-2012, 05:10 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by JPT

It also looks like it is more deliberately designed to look like the Auto 110 than the first Q.

Nope the first was obviously designed like a manual M camera, put next to a ME Super or MX it looks like a mini digital version and this one is obviously a take on the MZ-S... Why I instantly loved the look when I saw it...

EDIT: Now that I look at it more and look at my Q I do like the boxy shape a lot more, the Q is just a great looking camera I really wouldnt change it...

Last edited by wanderography; 09-07-2012 at 05:18 PM.

Paul Ewins · 09-07-2012, 05:27 PM

I bought a Q for my girlfriend last week when the local (Australian) price dropped to $400 for the Q + 01 prime. So far she loves it and secretly I want one of my own, but I really want at least one high quality wide prime to go with it. The 5 - 15 makes it too bulky, but a 24 or 28 equivalent would still be tiny and it would be easier to carry the camera and two lenses in a pocket. It would also make for a very unthreatening street shooting camera - people would just assume you area tourist if they even notice you at all.

The Q is really competing against compact cameras (it is replacing my GF's Optio W60, but not her K10D) but their wide angle options are usually limited and compromised. Either it is a crappy super zoom or it is a fixed wide. With more quality lens options (I think there are enough toy lenses) it becomes more realistic for it to become your "always with me" camera. Sure, the IQ will always be worse than cameras with large sensors but it is actually pretty good right now and will keep on improving, just as my K5 is a world away from my *ist-D.

sunny16 · 09-07-2012, 05:32 PM

If that price is correct, that's definitely big news. I think the Q (version 1) is selling better now that the price is more reasonable. I'm excited about the new lens and hoping for focus peaking. I agree with others that the first design is more my style, but I don't find the new look offensive. And I agree with Paul that I'd love to see a wide prime (I think every Q owner would agree.)

Lastly, I do not work for Pentax but I can promise that the sensor size will not change... ever. EVER. Photoshop can be used to show how something else might barely fit but it doesn't take into account the engineering for things like SR and so on. Furthermore, whether the current lenses could still be used on a larger sensor (pretty debatable) is even less of an issue than the fact that the standard lens would probably no longer be in the standard range and the FOV of the lenses would be off for what they were intended to cover. I can't think of a single case where a camera got a larger sensor in an existing body (though I don't claim to know or remember every digital cam released.)

Either accept the concept of the Q for what it is (a small & fun camera that takes pretty decent photos IMO) or move onto a different product that better matches your interests/needs.

Docrwm · 09-07-2012, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by sunny16

If that price is correct, that's definitely big news. I think the Q (version 1) is selling better now that the price is more reasonable. I'm excited about the new lens and hoping for focus peaking. I agree with others that the first design is more my style, but I don't find the new look offensive. And I agree with Paul that I'd love to see a wide prime (I think every Q owner would agree.)

Lastly, I do not work for Pentax but I can promise that the sensor size will not change... ever. EVER. Photoshop can be used to show how something else might barely fit but it doesn't take into account the engineering for things like SR and so on. Furthermore, whether the current lenses could still be used on a larger sensor (pretty debatable) is even less of an issue than the fact that the standard lens would probably no longer be in the standard range and the FOV of the lenses would be off for what they were intended to cover. I can't think of a single case where a camera got a larger sensor in an existing body (though I don't claim to know or remember every digital cam released.)

Either accept the concept of the Q for what it is (a small & fun camera that takes pretty decent photos IMO) or move onto a different product that better matches your interests/needs.

Groupons sold nearly 900 of them in a week at $349. I was tempted but then I had just pulled the trigger on the DA15 Limited......timing is everything.

rawr · 09-07-2012, 08:08 PM

I am laughing a bit in this thread about some of the responses to Q v2.

I recall how so many in this forum were positively RAGING about how ugly, how stupid etc the original Q was. Now it's all 'this new Q looks dumb, the original Q looks excellent, I love my Q' etc.

How time flies.

Docrwm · 09-07-2012, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I am laughing a bit in this thread about some of the responses to Q v2.

I recall how so many in this forum were positively RAGING about how ugly, how stupid etc the original Q was. Now it's all 'this new Q looks dumb, the original Q looks excellent, I love my Q' etc.

How time flies.

Sadly, the same can be said for nearly everything Pentax releases.

wanderography · 09-07-2012, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I am laughing a bit in this thread about some of the responses to Q v2.

I recall how so many in this forum were positively RAGING about how ugly, how stupid etc the original Q was. Now it's all 'this new Q looks dumb, the original Q looks excellent, I love my Q' etc.

How time flies.

I was an early adopter of the Q and have used it almost everyday since I got it, always loved the looks of it... never could figure why people thought it was ugly, I always thought the small sensor argument was valid enough to hate it...

Vylen · 09-07-2012, 09:59 PM

Another Pentax Q-10 mirrorless camera? | Photo Rumors

Maybe those images are fake? A video of physical devices certainly trumps dodgy looking photos...

fireemblem · 09-07-2012, 10:38 PM

interesting, wonder if the q to k adapter will enable autofocus

sunny16 · 09-07-2012, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Vylen

Another Pentax Q-10 mirrorless camera? | Photo Rumors

Maybe those images are fake? A video of physical devices certainly trumps dodgy looking photos...

That is definitely a 03 fish-eye lens on that camera (with an adapter... which means a different mount.) I admit video does seem harder to fake in this case. I don't know... I don't think I'd believe it if it was just a photo but I'm not sure.

I mean, it is certainly auto 110 looking (I'm not sure how I feel about the looks.) Very compelling.

wanderography · 09-07-2012, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by sunny16

WOW. That is definitely a 03 fish-eye lens on that camera (with an adapter... which means a different mount.) I admit video does seem harder to fake in this case.

I mean, it is certainly auto 110 looking (I'm not sure how I feel about the looks.) Very compelling.

EDIT: Ok figured it out, it you read the comments on the page you can see Rice High posted this as a hack by a pentax fan, it's a Q in a different camera body...

sunny16 · 09-08-2012, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by bmonki

EDIT: Ok figured it out, it you read the comments on the page you can see Rice High posted this as a hack by a pentax fan, it's a Q in a different camera body...

Good call. Makes sense now.

I know some would like to see an electronic viewfinder on the Q, but it is meant to be a small camera so it would have to strike that balance. I would personally rather see an articulating screen be incorporated in the Q as that could be done with little added bulk (but add versatility.)

Mistral75 · 09-08-2012, 03:02 AM

Digicam published to new pictures of Q10 this morning (this afternoon for them):

??????K-5 II ?K-5 IIs?Q10??????????? - ????info

pinholecam · 09-08-2012, 03:43 AM

Can't you guys please not keep posting RH links?

Its giving him a lot of undeserved 'credibility' by raking up the site hits.

RonHendriks1966 · 09-08-2012, 05:58 AM

This is already old, but could this be a new model?

You Tube

09-07-2012, 10:51 PM	#56
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by sunny16 WOW. That is definitely a 03 fish-eye lens on that camera (with an adapter... which means a different mount.) I admit video does seem harder to fake in this case. I mean, it is certainly auto 110 looking (I'm not sure how I feel about the looks.) Very compelling. EDIT: Ok figured it out, it you read the comments on the page you can see Rice High posted this as a hack by a pentax fan, it's a Q in a different camera body... Last edited by Blue; 10-10-2012 at 07:42 PM.

09-08-2012, 02:32 AM	#57
sunny16 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Maryland, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 309	Originally posted by bmonki EDIT: Ok figured it out, it you read the comments on the page you can see Rice High posted this as a hack by a pentax fan, it's a Q in a different camera body... Good call. Makes sense now. I know some would like to see an electronic viewfinder on the Q, but it is meant to be a small camera so it would have to strike that balance. I would personally rather see an articulating screen be incorporated in the Q as that could be done with little added bulk (but add versatility.) Last edited by Blue; 10-10-2012 at 07:42 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Picture of the Week POTW #221 24 June 2012 - 8 July 2012	sergiu	Weekly Photo Challenges	30	07-12-2012 05:04 AM
Picture of the Week POTW #220 17 June 2012 - 1 July 2012	sergiu	Weekly Photo Challenges	15	06-30-2012 06:34 PM
Picture of the Week #217 May 27th, 2012 - June 10th, 2012	Xandr	Weekly Photo Challenges	20	06-10-2012 08:29 AM
Picture of the Week Picture of the Week #207 18 March 2012 - 01 April 2012	cif	Weekly Photo Challenges	24	03-31-2012 08:39 PM
Weekly Challenge Picture of the Week #204 26 February 2012 - 11 March 2012	noelcmn	Weekly Photo Challenges	38	03-11-2012 03:09 AM

09-07-2012, 05:10 PM - 1 Like	#46
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by JPT It also looks like it is more deliberately designed to look like the Auto 110 than the first Q. Nope the first was obviously designed like a manual M camera, put next to a ME Super or MX it looks like a mini digital version and this one is obviously a take on the MZ-S... Why I instantly loved the look when I saw it... EDIT: Now that I look at it more and look at my Q I do like the boxy shape a lot more, the Q is just a great looking camera I really wouldnt change it... Last edited by wanderography; 09-07-2012 at 05:18 PM.

09-07-2012, 05:27 PM	#47
Paul Ewins Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 274	I bought a Q for my girlfriend last week when the local (Australian) price dropped to $400 for the Q + 01 prime. So far she loves it and secretly I want one of my own, but I really want at least one high quality wide prime to go with it. The 5 - 15 makes it too bulky, but a 24 or 28 equivalent would still be tiny and it would be easier to carry the camera and two lenses in a pocket. It would also make for a very unthreatening street shooting camera - people would just assume you area tourist if they even notice you at all. The Q is really competing against compact cameras (it is replacing my GF's Optio W60, but not her K10D) but their wide angle options are usually limited and compromised. Either it is a crappy super zoom or it is a fixed wide. With more quality lens options (I think there are enough toy lenses) it becomes more realistic for it to become your "always with me" camera. Sure, the IQ will always be worse than cameras with large sensors but it is actually pretty good right now and will keep on improving, just as my K5 is a world away from my *ist-D.

09-07-2012, 05:32 PM	#48
sunny16 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Maryland, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 309	If that price is correct, that's definitely big news. I think the Q (version 1) is selling better now that the price is more reasonable. I'm excited about the new lens and hoping for focus peaking. I agree with others that the first design is more my style, but I don't find the new look offensive. And I agree with Paul that I'd love to see a wide prime (I think every Q owner would agree.) Lastly, I do not work for Pentax but I can promise that the sensor size will not change... ever. EVER. Photoshop can be used to show how something else might barely fit but it doesn't take into account the engineering for things like SR and so on. Furthermore, whether the current lenses could still be used on a larger sensor (pretty debatable) is even less of an issue than the fact that the standard lens would probably no longer be in the standard range and the FOV of the lenses would be off for what they were intended to cover. I can't think of a single case where a camera got a larger sensor in an existing body (though I don't claim to know or remember every digital cam released.) Either accept the concept of the Q for what it is (a small & fun camera that takes pretty decent photos IMO) or move onto a different product that better matches your interests/needs.

09-07-2012, 08:01 PM	#49
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by sunny16 If that price is correct, that's definitely big news. I think the Q (version 1) is selling better now that the price is more reasonable. I'm excited about the new lens and hoping for focus peaking. I agree with others that the first design is more my style, but I don't find the new look offensive. And I agree with Paul that I'd love to see a wide prime (I think every Q owner would agree.) Lastly, I do not work for Pentax but I can promise that the sensor size will not change... ever. EVER. Photoshop can be used to show how something else might barely fit but it doesn't take into account the engineering for things like SR and so on. Furthermore, whether the current lenses could still be used on a larger sensor (pretty debatable) is even less of an issue than the fact that the standard lens would probably no longer be in the standard range and the FOV of the lenses would be off for what they were intended to cover. I can't think of a single case where a camera got a larger sensor in an existing body (though I don't claim to know or remember every digital cam released.) Either accept the concept of the Q for what it is (a small & fun camera that takes pretty decent photos IMO) or move onto a different product that better matches your interests/needs. Groupons sold nearly 900 of them in a week at $349. I was tempted but then I had just pulled the trigger on the DA15 Limited......timing is everything.

09-07-2012, 08:08 PM	#50
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	I am laughing a bit in this thread about some of the responses to Q v2. I recall how so many in this forum were positively *RAGING* about how ugly, how stupid etc the original Q was. Now it's all 'this new Q looks dumb, the original Q looks excellent, I love my Q' etc. How time flies.

09-07-2012, 08:12 PM	#51
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by rawr I am laughing a bit in this thread about some of the responses to Q v2. I recall how so many in this forum were positively *RAGING* about how ugly, how stupid etc the original Q was. Now it's all 'this new Q looks dumb, the original Q looks excellent, I love my Q' etc. How time flies. Sadly, the same can be said for nearly everything Pentax releases.

09-07-2012, 08:27 PM	#52
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by rawr I am laughing a bit in this thread about some of the responses to Q v2. I recall how so many in this forum were positively *RAGING* about how ugly, how stupid etc the original Q was. Now it's all 'this new Q looks dumb, the original Q looks excellent, I love my Q' etc. How time flies. I was an early adopter of the Q and have used it almost everyday since I got it, always loved the looks of it... never could figure why people thought it was ugly, I always thought the small sensor argument was valid enough to hate it...

09-07-2012, 09:59 PM	#53
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Another Pentax Q-10 mirrorless camera? \| Photo Rumors Maybe those images are fake? A video of physical devices certainly trumps dodgy looking photos...

09-07-2012, 10:38 PM	#54
fireemblem New Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3	interesting, wonder if the q to k adapter will enable autofocus

09-07-2012, 10:49 PM	#55
sunny16 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Maryland, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 309	Originally posted by Vylen Another Pentax Q-10 mirrorless camera? \| Photo Rumors Maybe those images are fake? A video of physical devices certainly trumps dodgy looking photos... That is definitely a 03 fish-eye lens on that camera (with an adapter... which means a different mount.) I admit video does seem harder to fake in this case. I don't know... I don't think I'd believe it if it was just a photo but I'm not sure. I mean, it is certainly auto 110 looking (I'm not sure how I feel about the looks.) Very compelling.

09-08-2012, 03:02 AM	#58
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Digicam published to new pictures of Q10 this morning (this afternoon for them): ??????K-5 II ?K-5 IIs?Q10??????????? - ????info

09-08-2012, 03:43 AM	#59
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,710	Can't you guys please not keep posting RH links? Its giving him a lot of undeserved 'credibility' by raking up the site hits.

The new Pentax Q (2012)

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!