[ElJamoquio]

Surely you are joking....

Nope. The native-q lenses are great, don't get me wrong. When I put on the 300mm or so I have better luck cropping.

I've only done a tiny amount of macro stuff.

[monochrome]

The examples above is more than good enough for A3+ prints.
If you click on the images they'll get significantly larger than A3 on your monitor. You can hang these on your wall with no problems. Pity they don't have more DOF though...

But - see - that doesn't matter - because, like, the 1" sensor image is EVEN BETTER than good-enough-to-hang-on-your-wall - and, like, that's all people care about, and like, DOF!!.

Pentax is doomed.

Again.

Damn.

[IchabodCrane]

The Q have about the same share of the mirrorless market as the total share of FF (Nikon + Canon and Sony) have of the DSLR market. That should put things into perspective.

Have 6% share of the market with one model is nothing short of remarkable...

Here's some more perspective.... it's been claimed on this forum that the DSLR market is four to five times the size of the MILC market.

[Aristophanes]

More than adequate for web (and small prints). I guess 90% of all the photos taken are printed A3+ or larger...

Does that matter?

People buy the most spec for the price. Q is under-spec by a significant amount compared to the competition. CX sensors in the same form factor will beat it into the ground. It's not even analogous to m43 vs APS, either. The Q sensor is that much smaller than what the competition is doing. And the reviews.....mostly suck, with the small sensor being the small point. It's like a minivan that only seats 4; or a truck that cannot tow due to too small an engine. It's a sensor that cannot do what the competition can in low light, which is a far more important criteria than a little more telecentricity.

The Q original has ben on a fire sale, which is NOT a good sign. Amazon's user reviews for the Q series in total is almost nil, as in 20 feedback buyers. The newer Q10 has zero reviews. Nikon's J series has hundreds and the Sony RX100 ell over 300 reviews. Again, a later release than the Q system. A quick survey of Canadian retailers show that only about half the main players carry the line.

I don't see sales, not from North American outlets. It's almost invisible.

Flickr doesn't even track the Q in Camera Finder because it has no statistical volume. The Nikon 1 Series already has 2 million uploads and is a year younger than the Q (the D90 tops out at 104 million uploads for comparison).

And you think the competition is going to stand still? They're going to drop their CX prices (the J1 is already selling more units a a lower price than the Q).

A very basic, retail level market analysis says the Q is not a player in the consumer mindset. 5.8% in Japan's flaky MILC market and I bet 0.1% in North America's equivalent. I give the system maybe 2 years. Regardless, Pentax will have no choice but to offer a larger sensor compact either MILC or compact before then.

[RonHendriks1966]

Have 6% share of the market with one model is nothing short of remarkable...

I think that no matter how someone feels about the Q, this is a good achievement. It would be great if Pentax also had a dslr camera model that would get this same marketshare in the dslr-section. People buy for their own reasons. I wouldn't buy a Q, but we don't all have the same goals with taking images.

Pentax:
- Q, small form MILC with good marketperformance in Japan (or east)
- K-mount, not too good in MILC (still on the list as #20)
- K-mount, some performance for K-5 (IIs) in the list for aps-c, but it needs a cheaper entry-level camera.
- K-mount, no presence in the FF-section, that is around 7 % off the total dslr-market.
- 645D, making a good impression in a niche.

So there is still a lot off work to do, but that can all be done working with the three mounts that Pentax currently supports. Growing to a total marketshare off 10 % and making a profit is not something that would be impossible to achieve over the coming years.

[RonHendriks1966]

Amazon's user reviews for the Q series in total is almost nil, as in 20 feedback buyers. The newer Q10 has zero reviews. Nikon's J series has hundreds and the Sony RX100 ell over 300 reviews.

Don't be fooled by this. Overhere company's are paying people to write user reviews on internetsites to get a good market presence and creating a sence off market acceptance with satisfied customers.

[rawr]

Q is under-spec by a significant amount compared to the competition.

It actually does almost the same on DxOMark even compared to similarly sized high-end compacts like the Powershot S110 or the Fujifilm X10, even though it has the smallest sensor of the three.

Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly.

Attached Images

 

[Aristophanes]

It actually does almost the same on DxOMark even compared to similarly sized high-end compacts like the Powershot S110 or the Fujifilm X10, even though it has the smallest sensor of the three.

Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly.

But the CX Nikon's and the RX100 have price parity and are no larger in form factor. They bring way more IQ to the party. 4x bigger sensor, similar price point, almost identical form factor. And the Nikon 1 series has scorching AF. You're making my case.

[monochrome]

People buy the most spec for the price.

That sounds logical, but do we really know it is true? All people? Some people? Smart people? Hipster people?

Which people do that - people who read Forums and camera websites? People who are low-information buyers? People at Target? People who buy at FS camera stores? Brand-buyers? Show us some real information, not just your quasi-pedantic, official-sounding statements.

I still haven't heard whether Pentax can re-engineer the Q-mount and make new lenses for a 1" sensor.

[rawr]

They bring way more IQ to the party. 4x bigger sensor, similar price point, almost identical form factor.

You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain.

My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

[monochrome]

You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain.

My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

He's made up his mind. And he has opinions to prove it.

[audiobomber]

But the CX Nikon's and the RX100 have price parity and are no larger in form factor.

I bought a Q kit and K-01 kit for the same price as an RX-100.

[IchabodCrane]

I bought a Q kit and K-01 kit for the same price as an RX-100.

Those Pentax cameras aren't current. I'm sure you can find some fire sale price on a discontinued J1, too.

[ElJamoquio]

Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly.

Comparing two cameras with similar costs and similar sizes is silly?

[ElJamoquio]

You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain.

My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

So force it to small apertures in the 'green' mode...