Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-07-2012, 10:06 AM   #106
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Aw geez! Not you too?









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

10-07-2012, 10:18 AM   #107
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
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
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 218
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,327
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul Ewins Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul Ewins Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 218
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul Ewins Quote
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
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
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
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,195
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote

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
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,124
Yes, a nice migration path from Pentax to Sony is exactly what Pentax should provide
10-08-2012, 10:30 AM   #120
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
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.
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!
pentax, pentax k-01, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:13 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