Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Blue · 10-07-2012, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Aw geez! Not you too?

I am just trying to fold the Q, K-01 and ff all into one.

top-quark · 10-07-2012, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

Hmmm...what do you think the point is?

The point of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is to give you the image quality of a high-end camera without having to go to the faff of actually lugging one around! The Q failed by not being competitive with a good smartphone. The K-01 failed by not being compact. It's like two different teams only got half the point each.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 10-07-2012, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

Funny, the argument against the Q is the opposite. Looks great and serious to use, but what's inside is what's holding it back..

This is what is produced when one tries too hard to be different - extremes.

Paul Ewins · 10-07-2012, 04:43 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by top-quark

The point of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is to give you the image quality of a high-end camera without having to go to the faff of actually lugging one around! The Q failed by not being competitive with a good smartphone. The K-01 failed by not being compact. It's like two different teams only got half the point each.

Umm, no. The MILCs - generally - don't provide the image quality of a high-end camera, or even a mid range camera. The best image quality from a MILC is on a par with the K5, not a D800/5D/A99 etc. The idea is to be of better quality than a P&S or phone cam while being smaller than a DSLR. It is up to the user to decide what "better quality" amounts to.

The Q is streets ahead of the smartphones, simply by its ability to change lenses. And change the exposure parameters from the body (not in menus). And shoot in manual mode. And shoot RAW.

The question is not "is the IQ from the Q as good as the other MILCs" but "is it good enough for what I want to do?". For casual photography, including most travel, the Q will be good enough for the web or photo album. In that situation having the smallest possible system is a bonus. For serious photography I will use the K5 and nothing less will be acceptable (and, yes, if the D800E came in a k-mount version I would buy that). If Pentax had used a larger sensor then it's camera would have competed directly with the m4/3 crowd and would have had to beat all of them to stand a chance. The Q now owns the "smallest MILC" niche, there is no competition. Best of all for Pentax, the Q system is an obvious complement to their existing DSLRs, not an alternative.

The K-01 on the other hand simply proves that DSLR lenses make your MILC unacceptably large.

**Fontan** · 10-07-2012, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Paul Ewins

Umm, no. The MILCs - generally - don't provide the image quality of a high-end camera, or even a mid range camera. The best image quality from a MILC is on a par with the K5, not a D800/5D/A99 etc. The idea is to be of better quality than a P&S or phone cam while being smaller than a DSLR. It is up to the user to decide what "better quality" amounts to.

The Q is streets ahead of the smartphones, simply by its ability to change lenses. And change the exposure parameters from the body (not in menus). And shoot in manual mode. And shoot RAW.

The question is not "is the IQ from the Q as good as the other MILCs" but "is it good enough for what I want to do?". For casual photography, including most travel, the Q will be good enough for the web or photo album. In that situation having the smallest possible system is a bonus. For serious photography I will use the K5 and nothing less will be acceptable (and, yes, if the D800E came in a k-mount version I would buy that). If Pentax had used a larger sensor then it's camera would have competed directly with the m4/3 crowd and would have had to beat all of them to stand a chance. The Q now owns the "smallest MILC" niche, there is no competition. Best of all for Pentax, the Q system is an obvious complement to their existing DSLRs, not an alternative.

The K-01 on the other hand simply proves that DSLR lenses make your MILC unacceptably large.

When you say "image quality," what are you referring to? IQ on prints, large prints, on uncalibrated monitors, iPad? Quite frankly, when viewing small prints, I am not sure how much better FF cameras can be compared to K-5/ltd lenses. On somewhat larger prints at corresponding distances, maybe a novice can tell a difference to a certain extent, but probably not reliably in my opinion. If posting blog pictures on the net, iPhone cam is adequate, Q is almost an overkill.

It seems like to me that Pentax got sucked into mirrorless fab, and with Q, they were able to differentiate themselves (that may or may not have translated to sales depending on who u ask and where u look), but with K-01 they seem to have missed the mark in a very goofy ways that are very hard to define. That camera, while I love the design a lot, is neither here nor there; I am still not sure what it was all about, really.

Alizarine · 10-07-2012, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Paul Ewins

The Q is streets ahead of the smartphones, simply by its ability to change lenses. And change the exposure parameters from the body (not in menus). And shoot in manual mode. And shoot RAW.

Good point. It's still a dedicated camera, even if its sensor is smaller than the Nokia 808's. If the Q were made by Canon and Nikon, and still launched with the same proposition (world's smallest ILC), I'd bet it will sell in larger numbers. The Q has a lot of potential; it was just introduced with the wrong price, targeted at too small a market (as if Pentax has a good idea of markets so far... only the DSLRs make sense in that aspect)

illdefined · 10-07-2012, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Alizarine

Good point. It's still a dedicated camera, even if its sensor is smaller than the Nokia 808's. If the Q were made by Canon and Nikon, and still launched with the same proposition (world's smallest ILC), I'd bet it will sell in larger numbers. The Q has a lot of potential; it was just introduced with the wrong price, targeted at too small a market (as if Pentax has a good idea of markets so far... only the DSLRs make sense in that aspect)

I don't think so, most of the world thinks the Nikon 1 is the smallest ILC (thanks to real marketing) and it still hasn't made much of an impact.

Paul Ewins · 10-07-2012, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Fontan

When you say "image quality," what are you referring to? IQ on prints, large prints, on uncalibrated monitors, iPad? Quite frankly, when viewing small prints, I am not sure how much better FF cameras can be compared to K-5/ltd lenses.

When we travel I'll have an SLR (*ist-D, then K7, and currently a K5) and my girlfriend will have a compact (was an Optio WP, now a Q). For a lot of the stuff we shot her 5mp Optio WP produced 4x6 and 5x7 prints that were just as good as the prints from the ist-D and K7. 5x7 is about the same resolution as the new iPad and more than most displays. Very few prints would be made larger than that. So while a bigger sensor is better than a smaller sensor, a lot of the time we don't reach the limits of the smaller sensor so the difference is irrelevant.

illdefined · 10-07-2012, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Paul Ewins

Very few prints would be made larger than that. So while a bigger sensor is better than a smaller sensor, a lot of the time we don't reach the limits of the smaller sensor so the difference is irrelevant.

Absolutely but if the camera industry stopped at "good enough" we'd all still have 5mp DSLRs. What % of D800 buyers really need 36mp? Likely very few.

The market is the market unfortunately, and as a company/brand Pentax has to participate if it wants to continue to exist. (see Leica)

gazonk · 10-08-2012, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I am just trying to fold the Q, K-01 and ff all into one. :Hysterical:

You forgot the 645D there!

TaoMaas · 10-08-2012, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by top-quark

The point of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is to give you the image quality of a high-end camera without having to go to the faff of actually lugging one around! The Q failed by not being competitive with a good smartphone. The K-01 failed by not being compact. It's like two different teams only got half the point each.

Fair enough...but when you add in the GXR, you end up with a wider selection of offerings than any other manufacturer. They've got the range from smartphone to DSLR pretty well covered.

ElJamoquio · 10-08-2012, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

It's honestly too late to enter mirrorless with a new mount

Huh? Didn't Nikon and Canon both enter a new mount within the last six months, as you're aware?

They don't think it's too late, but you think it's too late for Pentax...? (I agree that it's a bad idea, but I don't think it's 'too late')

ihasa · 10-08-2012, 08:12 AM

They should use E mount and provide a really good adapter with everything bar screw drive. And make some choice E mount lenses.

Kunzite · 10-08-2012, 08:28 AM

Yes, a nice migration path from Pentax to Sony is exactly what Pentax should provide

illdefined · 10-08-2012, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Huh? Didn't Nikon and Canon both enter a new mount within the last six months, as you're aware?

They don't think it's too late, but you think it's too late for Pentax...? (I agree that it's a bad idea, but I don't think it's 'too late')

Pentax isn't Canon or Nikon. If those two wanted to bust out a pro-mirrorless and complete new lens line-up for it in a span of two years they could. They're being slow on mirrorless on purpose, and they can afford to wait.

As it currently stands, Pentax is in last place re: mirrorless (and DSLRs) of all the camera manufacturers, who knows what they can afford.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	18	09-13-2012 07:14 AM
green line and red line on lens	dh4412	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	03-28-2011 11:39 AM
Special Pentax Moment	Voytech	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	10-24-2010 02:39 AM
K-7 announces the end of the K line of cameras	janneman	Pentax News and Rumors	30	05-07-2009 03:35 PM
special time with a special lens (larger images)	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	30	11-01-2008 09:38 AM

10-07-2012, 10:06 AM	#106
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Parallax Aw geez! Not you too? I am just trying to fold the Q, K-01 and ff all into one.

10-07-2012, 10:18 AM	#107
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	Originally posted by TaoMaas Hmmm...what do you think the point is? The point of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is to give you the image quality of a high-end camera without having to go to the faff of actually lugging one around! The Q failed by not being competitive with a good smartphone. The K-01 failed by not being compact. It's like two different teams only got half the point each.

10-07-2012, 10:23 AM	#108
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by illdefined Funny, the argument against the Q is the opposite. Looks great and serious to use, but what's inside is what's holding it back.. This is what is produced when one tries too hard to be different - extremes.

10-07-2012, 04:43 PM - 2 Likes	#109
Paul Ewins Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 274	Originally posted by top-quark The point of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is to give you the image quality of a high-end camera without having to go to the faff of actually lugging one around! The Q failed by not being competitive with a good smartphone. The K-01 failed by not being compact. It's like two different teams only got half the point each. Umm, no. The MILCs - generally - don't provide the image quality of a high-end camera, or even a mid range camera. The best image quality from a MILC is on a par with the K5, not a D800/5D/A99 etc. The idea is to be of better quality than a P&S or phone cam while being smaller than a DSLR. It is up to the user to decide what "better quality" amounts to. The Q is streets ahead of the smartphones, simply by its ability to change lenses. And change the exposure parameters from the body (not in menus). And shoot in manual mode. And shoot RAW. The question is not "is the IQ from the Q as good as the other MILCs" but "is it good enough for what I want to do?". For casual photography, including most travel, the Q will be good enough for the web or photo album. In that situation having the smallest possible system is a bonus. For serious photography I will use the K5 and nothing less will be acceptable (and, yes, if the D800E came in a k-mount version I would buy that). If Pentax had used a larger sensor then it's camera would have competed directly with the m4/3 crowd and would have had to beat all of them to stand a chance. The Q now owns the "smallest MILC" niche, there is no competition. Best of all for Pentax, the Q system is an obvious complement to their existing DSLRs, not an alternative. The K-01 on the other hand simply proves that DSLR lenses make your MILC unacceptably large.

10-07-2012, 06:02 PM	#110
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by Paul Ewins Umm, no. The MILCs - generally - don't provide the image quality of a high-end camera, or even a mid range camera. The best image quality from a MILC is on a par with the K5, not a D800/5D/A99 etc. The idea is to be of better quality than a P&S or phone cam while being smaller than a DSLR. It is up to the user to decide what "better quality" amounts to. The Q is streets ahead of the smartphones, simply by its ability to change lenses. And change the exposure parameters from the body (not in menus). And shoot in manual mode. And shoot RAW. The question is not "is the IQ from the Q as good as the other MILCs" but "is it good enough for what I want to do?". For casual photography, including most travel, the Q will be good enough for the web or photo album. In that situation having the smallest possible system is a bonus. For serious photography I will use the K5 and nothing less will be acceptable (and, yes, if the D800E came in a k-mount version I would buy that). If Pentax had used a larger sensor then it's camera would have competed directly with the m4/3 crowd and would have had to beat all of them to stand a chance. The Q now owns the "smallest MILC" niche, there is no competition. Best of all for Pentax, the Q system is an obvious complement to their existing DSLRs, not an alternative. The K-01 on the other hand simply proves that DSLR lenses make your MILC unacceptably large. When you say "image quality," what are you referring to? IQ on prints, large prints, on uncalibrated monitors, iPad? Quite frankly, when viewing small prints, I am not sure how much better FF cameras can be compared to K-5/ltd lenses. On somewhat larger prints at corresponding distances, maybe a novice can tell a difference to a certain extent, but probably not reliably in my opinion. If posting blog pictures on the net, iPhone cam is adequate, Q is almost an overkill. It seems like to me that Pentax got sucked into mirrorless fab, and with Q, they were able to differentiate themselves (that may or may not have translated to sales depending on who u ask and where u look), but with K-01 they seem to have missed the mark in a very goofy ways that are very hard to define. That camera, while I love the design a lot, is neither here nor there; I am still not sure what it was all about, really.

10-07-2012, 07:18 PM	#111
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Paul Ewins The Q is streets ahead of the smartphones, simply by its ability to change lenses. And change the exposure parameters from the body (not in menus). And shoot in manual mode. And shoot RAW. Good point. It's still a dedicated camera, even if its sensor is smaller than the Nokia 808's. If the Q were made by Canon and Nikon, and still launched with the same proposition (world's smallest ILC), I'd bet it will sell in larger numbers. The Q has a lot of potential; it was just introduced with the wrong price, targeted at too small a market (as if Pentax has a good idea of markets so far... only the DSLRs make sense in that aspect)

10-07-2012, 08:13 PM	#112
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by Alizarine Good point. It's still a dedicated camera, even if its sensor is smaller than the Nokia 808's. If the Q were made by Canon and Nikon, and still launched with the same proposition (world's smallest ILC), I'd bet it will sell in larger numbers. The Q has a lot of potential; it was just introduced with the wrong price, targeted at too small a market (as if Pentax has a good idea of markets so far... only the DSLRs make sense in that aspect) I don't think so, most of the world thinks the Nikon 1 is the smallest ILC (thanks to real marketing) and it still hasn't made much of an impact.

10-07-2012, 08:24 PM	#113
Paul Ewins Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 274	Originally posted by Fontan When you say "image quality," what are you referring to? IQ on prints, large prints, on uncalibrated monitors, iPad? Quite frankly, when viewing small prints, I am not sure how much better FF cameras can be compared to K-5/ltd lenses. When we travel I'll have an SLR (*ist-D, then K7, and currently a K5) and my girlfriend will have a compact (was an Optio WP, now a Q). For a lot of the stuff we shot her 5mp Optio WP produced 4x6 and 5x7 prints that were just as good as the prints from the ist-D and K7. 5x7 is about the same resolution as the new iPad and more than most displays. Very few prints would be made larger than that. So while a bigger sensor is better than a smaller sensor, a lot of the time we don't reach the limits of the smaller sensor so the difference is irrelevant.

10-07-2012, 09:00 PM	#114
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by Paul Ewins Very few prints would be made larger than that. So while a bigger sensor is better than a smaller sensor, a lot of the time we don't reach the limits of the smaller sensor so the difference is irrelevant. Absolutely but if the camera industry stopped at "good enough" we'd all still have 5mp DSLRs. What % of D800 buyers really need 36mp? Likely very few. The market is the market unfortunately, and as a company/brand Pentax has to participate if it wants to continue to exist. (see Leica)

10-08-2012, 04:37 AM	#115
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Blue I am just trying to fold the Q, K-01 and ff all into one. :Hysterical: You forgot the 645D there!

10-08-2012, 04:39 AM	#116
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by top-quark The point of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is to give you the image quality of a high-end camera without having to go to the faff of actually lugging one around! The Q failed by not being competitive with a good smartphone. The K-01 failed by not being compact. It's like two different teams only got half the point each. Fair enough...but when you add in the GXR, you end up with a wider selection of offerings than any other manufacturer. They've got the range from smartphone to DSLR pretty well covered.

10-08-2012, 07:52 AM	#117
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by illdefined It's honestly too late to enter mirrorless with a new mount Huh? Didn't Nikon and Canon both enter a new mount within the last six months, as you're aware? They don't think it's too late, but you think it's too late for Pentax...? (I agree that it's a bad idea, but I don't think it's 'too late')

10-08-2012, 08:12 AM	#118
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	They should use E mount and provide a really good adapter with everything bar screw drive. And make some choice E mount lenses.

10-08-2012, 08:28 AM	#119
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Yes, a nice migration path from Pentax to Sony is exactly what Pentax should provide

10-08-2012, 10:30 AM	#120
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Huh? Didn't Nikon and Canon both enter a new mount within the last six months, as you're aware? They don't think it's too late, but you think it's too late for Pentax...? (I agree that it's a bad idea, but I don't think it's 'too late') Pentax isn't Canon or Nikon. If those two wanted to bust out a pro-mirrorless and complete new lens line-up for it in a span of two years they could. They're being slow on mirrorless on purpose, and they can afford to wait. As it currently stands, Pentax is in last place re: mirrorless (and DSLRs) of all the camera manufacturers, who knows what they can afford.

The Pentax K-01 is a special model, not a new line of cameras

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!