[cali92rs]

It is a handsome, solid, neat-feeling little body.

I agree with regards to the original Q...I held one and thought it was a cool little camera. I look at the Q10 and just think it lost all of its charm. I have never handled the Q10 but I have read that it is much more plastic than the original.

[thibs]

I agree with regards to the original Q...I held one and thought it was a cool little camera. I look at the Q10 and just think it lost all of its charm. I have never handled the Q10 but I have read that it is much more plastic than the original.

Some of you might also remember that the Q has sensor SR. Nikon has not.
It takes (IMO) about 5mm thickness which isn't a detail on such cam.

There's largely space for bigger sensor, without sensor if needs to be.

What's really missing is pancakes for Q mount or even fix focus pancakes (pinhole really is only for fun).

[NickLarsson]

The Q is not even tracked in Flickr. It has a single, small pool of users. The Nikon 1 series has over 2 million photos already. I count under 10,000 for the Pentax Q system.Someone else double check because I was surprised at NOT being able to find more Q.

BCN sales data from Japan show Pentax dead last in MILC's, far, far behind all other brands. Sony's NEX, m43, CX (very new), and Fuji blow it away. 5.8% going to 2% I suspect because a big chunk of that 2012 data was prior to 1" sensor launches.

Not specifically talking about the Q vs Nikon 1, but generally speaking, I think it's a bit specious to compare sales from a Canikon product vs a Pentax product and say "Look! Pentax product is bad because it sold less than Canikon!".

When you compare sales, sure you compare products but also brand awareness and popularity.

The K-01 (RIP) was a good camera with some flaws, it failed. The EOS-M is a worse camera in many ways, but it's a hit.

If you take a Canikon product and a Pentax product, and ask the average Joe (who 90% of the time has never heard of Pentax) to choose one, he will choose the Canikon regardless of the specs, just because he knows the brands and knows that pros are using them, so it must be good.

Here in France there have been (pretty convincing) adverts for the Nikon 1 during 3 months before Christmas on french TV and in movie theaters. No wonder why it sells well.

As long as Pentax is an invisible brand, they are condemned to low sales whatever they do.

[Kunzite]

BCN sales data from Japan show Pentax dead last in MILC's, far, far behind all other brands. Sony's NEX, m43, CX (very new), and Fuji blow it away. 5.8% going to 2% I suspect because a big chunk of that 2012 data was prior to 1" sensor launches.

Again, "facts". The 2012 BCN sales data from Japan included sales of Nikon 1 cameras (see the first post in this thread, you would be happy to know Nikon "won"). The Nikon 1 system was launched in 2011.

The Q is still available; when you are talking about the Q10, say so.
I'm willing to accept that Q10 has a larger volume, even if that's an extremely crude computation and doesn't account for the camera's shape; in contrast with the J3's slippery non-shape, the Q10's grip and round button can easily compensate for those "extra" 4.7mm (and it even has in-body stabilization)
Before that, though, I'll attach this picture taken directly from camerasize.com's site (the smaller camera is on the left):

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 05-18-2013 at 09:47 AM.

[ElJamoquio]

Not specifically talking about the Q vs Nikon 1, but generally speaking, I think it's a bit specious to compare sales from a Canikon product vs a Pentax product and say "Look! Pentax product is bad because it sold less than Canikon!".

I would agree with that statement, but that makes it seem like the Pentax sold 1/10th of the Nikon. Q users, though, have uploaded 1/200th of the Nikon photos, if you believe those stats.

[Kunzite]

I agree with regards to the original Q...I held one and thought it was a cool little camera. I look at the Q10 and just think it lost all of its charm. I have never handled the Q10 but I have read that it is much more plastic than the original.

It's quite good, actually, like a miniature "plastic" Pentax DSLR - far from feeling cheap.
I agree that the Q had a special charm; maybe it was just new? Cute and small? Not my kind of camera, but I was definitely impressed by it's diminutive size; and it still felt like a camera.

As long as Pentax is an invisible brand, they are condemned to low sales whatever they do.

Unfortunately.
And this, not the sensor size, explain why certain things are happening on e.g. Flickr.

[rawr]

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

Things don't work that way. That's like saying 'put the K-5 in green mode and it will perform the same' in a discussion of the narrow DOF of the 645D.

A standard point-and-shoot like my old Fuji F10 and F200 (and my wonderful old 3.23MP Caplio G4) gave me miles of DOF. I rarely had to worry about focus when composing a shot, even when shooting street with the camera hanging vertically off my wrist. The RX100 is certainly not as accommodating. And a APS-C or FF sensor would be even worse unless they had 8mm lenses mounted on them or something.

[monochrome]

Two things:

First, I agree in concept with what Aristophanes writes here. I really like my (3) Q's. I have a NIB Q/02 in reserve, just in case, @ $215 and a free K-30 battery, delivered. But I can't see Pentax winning with a compact camera sensor inside no matter what magic their engineers wring out of it. I hope the stated commitment to the Q-mount (said to me directly, personally) means upgrading the sensor.

Second, my wife uses an Optio A40 that I gave her in 2008. It uses a 1/1.7 12Mp CCD sensor (larger than Q). In addition to the requisite Green Modes it has Program, Tv and an extensive Manual Mode (IIRC adjustable ISO), with a collapsing zoom lens, SR, is all metal and very handsome. It is a pre-Hoya design. It actually produces very nice jpeg's for her needs, much better than her iPhone will in every circumstance. She uses that camera when she wants a nice picture for printing or archiving. Her phone is for Instagram and a quick post on her blog. There is a low-information market for a larger sensor small camera - but Pentax needs to get with it.

P.S. - my wife refused my offer to give her the "reserve" Q. She can't see the need for an interchangeable zoom She changed her mind. She thought I meant the "big camera" (the K10D). She said, "Oh, I'll take that. Of course.I want one of those cool little cameras!!"

[ElJamoquio]

Things don't work that way. That's like saying 'put the K-5 in green mode and it will perform the same' in a discussion of the narrow DOF of the 645D.

We were discussing how, allegedly, newer users might 'want' large DOF. If someone believes that is true, they should lobby Pentax to force green mode towards large DOF.

[Aristophanes]

It's quite good, actually, like a miniature "plastic" Pentax DSLR - far from feeling cheap.
I agree that the Q had a special charm; maybe it was just new? Cute and small? Not my kind of camera, but I was definitely impressed by it's diminutive size; and it still felt like a camera.

Unfortunately.
And this, not the sensor size, explain why certain things are happening on e.g. Flickr.

They're invisible because of poor design, supply, and marketing choices vis-a-vis the competition. Retailers and product reviews push brands that score well. The Q gets lousy reviews mostly due to sensor size at that price point.

Kudos from trying with the K-01. The Q looks more like they got the camera system right but bet it all on a sensor too small when everyone else went larger. Pentax did not have their ear to the ground. They made assumptions about their competitors and were plainly wrong. They made assumptions about pricing strategies, and were plainly wrong.

The Q gives great results and is well made (not sure about the Q10 because I have yet to see one; the local retailer will no longer stock the Q because it sold not one unit). It just gives lesser results to similarly priced peers. That is how you lose a market. If you do not at least keep up on DP Review scores, you are out. Where is Casio now?

[Pål Jensen]

You just made my point. The Q sells at the same price as systems with larger sensors and very close to the same form factor. In fact, the Nikon J3 is smaller than the Q and has over 3x the sensor size. As a result the Q is not selling. It has almost no presence anywhere compared to the competition in reviews or feedback or on Flickr. It's been totally ignored or eclipsed. When Sony and Nikon really start moving the CX product their prices will drop.

You dismiss that a small sensor can be an added bonus in its own right depending on the preferences of the user. As I have said before 6% marketshare of the mirrorless market IS an achievement.

[Aristophanes]

You dismiss that a small sensor can be an added bonus in its own right depending on the preferences of the user. As I have said before 6% marketshare of the mirrorless market IS an achievement.

It's so tiny as to be endangered and that's only a 2012 survey. Pentax is dead last in MILC. A small sensor at tho price point is sales death.

[IchabodCrane]

You dismiss that a small sensor can be an added bonus in its own right depending on the preferences of the user. As I have said before 6% marketshare of the mirrorless market IS an achievement.

Is that 6% figure for Japan only or is it worldwide? Regarding sensor size, if smaller is better then why has Pentax never said so?

[Aristophanes]

Is that 6% figure for Japan only or is it worldwide? Regarding sensor size, if smaller is better then why has Pentax never said so?

It's 5.8% for 2012 for Japan only.

Pentax confirmed in 2012 that they were disappointed by the Q's sales.

No one says smaller sensors is better. Thy say smaller bodies are better with the largest sensor in class. Like cars with engines.

[Kunzite]

Again, you're refusing to show some links, anything to support your distorted "facts". Which Pentax said that?