[Pål Jensen]

Mirrorless is lost in the middle ground of not having pro-level IQ and AF, but having near sameness in cost. The premium for compact size is not as huge a draw as many expected. To make a break from the "good enough" smartphone, sensors have to be large enough (sorry Q) and the optics have to be great. A great # of buyers are not sold on EVF over $500..

You're wrong about the Q though. You are stucked in the film mindset translating into sensor size issues. Small sensor size in in fact an added value for the Q, apart from the size of the cameras and lenses. This is true as long as the output is good enough for the buyer. It doesn't matter that camera phones can give images equally good (debatable) as no one buy a Q as a cell phone substitute; it is a system camera. The Q can do things practically impossible with larger sensored cameras. Besides, the spacing between the Q, APS and MF diital is perfect so that each system provide large enough differences to not directly compete with each other (FF will mess thing up in this regard in the Pentax system). As the downloded files from the Q (JPEG's) compare favorable with scans (Nikon 9000ED) of 35mm slides shot on Velvia 50 ISO I have, I will argue that the Q is serious tool in its own right. Just imagine where the Q system is ten years from now....

[monochrome]

You're wrong about the Q though. You are stucked in the film mindset translating into sensor size issues. Small sensor size in in fact an added value for the Q, apart from the size of the cameras and lenses. This is true as long as the output is good enough for the buyer. It doesn't matter that camera phones can give images equally good (debatable) as no one buy a Q as a cell phone substitute; it is a system camera. The Q can do things practically impossible with larger sensored cameras. Besides, the spacing between the Q, APS and MF diital is perfect so that each system provide large enough differences to not directly compete with each other (FF will mess thing up in this regard in the Pentax system). As the downloded files from the Q (JPEG's) compare favorable with scans (Nikon 9000ED) of 35mm slides shot on Velvia 50 ISO I have, I will argue that the Q is serious tool in its own right. Just imagine where the Q system is ten years from now....

Pal (I don't have the umlaut character), you've hit the nail squarely - first post I've yet read that understands Q. I am actually giving serious thought to selling all but one film body and a 4-lens MF kit and concentrating everything on Q format.

[boriscleto]

Pal (I don't have the umlaut character)

It should be Alt U. Then type the character you want the umlaut over. At least thats how you do it on a Mac...

The character Pål uses is actually just Alt A. Again, on a Mac.

On Window$ you have to hold down the Alt key and type 0229 å

[ElJamoquio]

The Q can do things practically impossible with larger sensored cameras.

Like what?

[monochrome]

Stick your hand through the fence.

[normhead]

Take a picture from inside a 3 inch pipe?

[ElJamoquio]

Stick your hand through the fence.

Anything else? How many holes are there that the Q can fit through and the NIkon 1 cannot?

Compare camera dimensions side by side

[Rondec]

Like what?

Large depth of field with a good exposure in a situation requiring an aperture of f2?

[ElJamoquio]

Large depth of field with a good exposure in a situation requiring an aperture of f2?

How much disadvantage would there be if, instead, you used a full-frame camera at F/11 and 47mm, compared to the Q at 8.5 and F/2?

[Aristophanes]

I have no doubt that DSLR sales are plateauing. Those that were into SLR's in film have largely moved to digital, hence the growth.

I also seriously doubt that CSC are going to continue to grow as they have, based on the Japanese experience. If they do they need to drive value by dropping prices.I see that coming, but they will not replace DSLR's, rather take up the bridge/compact space on the bottom and some DSLR space at the top, but it's very hard to compete with the $349 DSLR kit.

[Rondec]

How much disadvantage would there be if, instead, you used a full-frame camera at F/11 and 47mm, compared to the Q at 8.5 and F/2?

Assuming you are at iso 100 on the Q, your dynamic range would be 11 stops. At iso 3200 on a 5D MK III or D600, you will only have 10 stops of dynamic range.

[ElJamoquio]

I have no doubt that DSLR sales are plateauing. Those that were into SLR's in film have largely moved to digital, hence the growth.

I also seriously doubt that CSC are going to continue to grow as they have, based on the Japanese experience. If they do they need to drive value by dropping prices.I see that coming, but they will not replace DSLR's, rather take up the bridge/compact space on the bottom and some DSLR space at the top, but it's very hard to compete with the $349 DSLR kit.

They don't compete on value, though... they primarily compete on size. They're selling to customers who don't know what sensor size is and don't care, don't know what a good viewfinder is and don't want one anyway.

[Aristophanes]

You're wrong about the Q though. You are stucked in the film mindset translating into sensor size issues. Small sensor size in in fact an added value for the Q, apart from the size of the cameras and lenses. This is true as long as the output is good enough for the buyer. It doesn't matter that camera phones can give images equally good (debatable) as no one buy a Q as a cell phone substitute; it is a system camera. The Q can do things practically impossible with larger sensored cameras. Besides, the spacing between the Q, APS and MF diital is perfect so that each system provide large enough differences to not directly compete with each other (FF will mess thing up in this regard in the Pentax system). As the downloded files from the Q (JPEG's) compare favorable with scans (Nikon 9000ED) of 35mm slides shot on Velvia 50 ISO I have, I will argue that the Q is serious tool in its own right. Just imagine where the Q system is ten years from now....

The Q is a design camera. Small sensors add value in the same way the Pentax Auto 110 added value. How'd that work out? APS film = smaller cameras. How'd that go?

Low light small sensor performance sucks. Noisy. Looks obvious in most web-based sharing photos. 1" sensors and above make big headway at ISO 800 to 1600. Smaller sensors....still see it. That is the Achilles' Heel of the Q and all small sensors. To differentiate sensors for dedicated system cameras will need to be 1"+.

The Q has telecentricity. That's a no-brainer. It does well (as do most smaller sensors) in daylight (50 ISO), so comparing to Velvia is a canard so long as you keep the size small, don't crop, and don't care about resolution. Many do care, especially when plunking down $1,000 for the "system".

[ElJamoquio]

That's a no-brainer. It does well (as do most smaller sensors) in daylight (50 ISO)

Minimum ISO for the Q is 125.

[gazonk]

I will argue that the Q is serious tool in its own right. Just imagine where the Q system is ten years from now....

Even just a couple of years from now... but I have to say, most Q pictures that I have seen are rather "meh" even just in web size, the IQ hasn't convinced me so far.