[Aristophanes]

The Q-line is often laughed upon in the west, even though it's a nice performer at what it does. The Japanese seems to generally like it though.
I'm surprised that multiple Pentax DSLR's actually competes with the dirt cheap D3200 and the old but still very acclaimed and sought after 5D Mark II.

Fuji got to have huge margins on their sales or else it looks very very bleak. Absence of Samsung is no surprise since they're Korean.

If it had the 1" sensor as seen in the Sony RX100, it would be a substantially better seller.

INstead, Pentax drank the Kool-Aid and, int he face of cameraphone competition, turned the Q into an accessory camera with too small a sensor to generate enthusiast IQ in modest to low light. Then they vastly overpriced it as part of the general mirrorless trend to deliver less value.

It's a system camera that needs a better engine. I seriously hope Pentax is re-engineering with a larger sensor in mind. The RX100 has set the bar that a 1" sensor is where the true compact priced about $400 is going to be.

[lytrytyr]

Are you implying the K10D and K20D are bad cameras?

No, just that Pentax linking up with Samsung again
would be like them remarrying their ex.

[IchabodCrane]

If it had the 1" sensor as seen in the Sony RX100, it would be a substantially better seller.

INstead, Pentax drank the Kool-Aid and, int he face of cameraphone competition, turned the Q into an accessory camera with too small a sensor to generate enthusiast IQ in modest to low light. Then they vastly overpriced it as part of the general mirrorless trend to deliver less value.

It's a system camera that needs a better engine. I seriously hope Pentax is re-engineering with a larger sensor in mind. The RX100 has set the bar that a 1" sensor is where the true compact priced about $400 is going to be.

Maybe Pentax doesn't have access to 1" sensors but that's difficult to believe. Regardless, this thing called the camera business is not all that complicated so it's a bit mystifying when you see some of the decisions being made by the manufacturers.

If the goal is to create a smaller camera than a DSLR, then why use the same sensor? Sticking with an APS-C sensor demands you use the same lenses (for practical purposes) and so very little size reduction is achieved. This is where Nikon got it right. They combined the size advantage of the 1" sensor with the marginal size advantage of MILC and came up with a camera line that really is smaller than a DSLR and definitely better than the P&S concept. No wonder the J and V are doing so well.

[RonHendriks1966]

Maybe Pentax doesn't have access to 1" sensors but that's difficult to believe. Regardless, this thing called the camera business is not all that complicated so it's a bit mystifying when you see some of the decisions being made by the manufacturers.

If the goal is to create a smaller camera than a DSLR, then why use the same sensor? Sticking with an APS-C sensor demands you use the same lenses (for practical purposes) and so very little size reduction is achieved. This is where Nikon got it right. They combined the size advantage of the 1" sensor with the marginal size advantage of MILC and came up with a camera line that really is smaller than a DSLR and definitely better than the P&S concept. No wonder the J and V are doing so well.

Yes, but only the J1 sales are good. The V1 is simply to expensive. Even when Japan is buying the V1, overhere there are only small numbers leaving the shops.

[IchabodCrane]

Yes, but only the J1 sales are good. The V1 is simply to expensive. Even when Japan is buying the V1, overhere there are only small numbers leaving the shops.

True, but I think that's Nikon's pricing and not the desirability of the camera. If they priced the V as just an upgrade over the J, it would be doing very well, IMHO. Instead, they put a big premium on the V and priced it well above all of their entry-level DSLRs. They didn't do a very good job on the V2 aesthetics, either.

[Aristophanes]

Maybe Pentax doesn't have access to 1" sensors but that's difficult to believe. Regardless, this thing called the camera business is not all that complicated so it's a bit mystifying when you see some of the decisions being made by the manufacturers

Pentax better get one...fast.

Anything smaller is going head to head with cameraphones. That's a place you do not want to be unless you make smart phones.

I like the Nikon V/J series except the price. The flash is awesome and the focus is nice. They need to tweak a few things related to IQ (next gen sensor), but as a small system camera goes, it's all there. Nikon needs to learn from the Sony X100 as well.

Thom Hogan gets it right in this article about the lack of value both real and perceived in mirrorless:

What Constitutes Value? | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

[kenafein]

Pentax better get one...fast.

Anything smaller is going head to head with cameraphones. That's a place you do not want to be unless you make smart phones.

I like the Nikon V/J series except the price. The flash is awesome and the focus is nice. They need to tweak a few things related to IQ (next gen sensor), but as a small system camera goes, it's all there. Nikon needs to learn from the Sony X100 as well.

Thom Hogan gets it right in this article about the lack of value both real and perceived in mirrorless:

What Constitutes Value? | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

I have to agree with you, and that article, on perceived value. The V1, much like the K-01 and Q, became compelling after the fire sales. Sony's NEX series has done a little better in providing value(camera bodies only). The 3N, in particular, is quite a deal and they aren't really misleading in their marketing. They don't make the claim at being 'the best' at anything. Their lenses are a bit overpriced and over featured. There was no need to put OSS in the 35 or the 50 to increase the prices.

Size was a big factor for me. I am happy with my NEX-6. I have the quality and the performance of the K-r in a smaller package. I'm sure it lags behind the K-5ii(s) in AF, but it actually is a bit ahead of the K-5 in one key aspect. My K-5 couldn't handle objects approaching the camera, and the NEX is a big improvement. I'd love to have V1 AF performance, but Sony isn't there yet. Now if they'd just release a DA55-300 quality telephoto, I'd be content.

[Mistral75]

Are you implying the K10D and K20D are bad cameras? Pentax ended the contract with Samsung because the agreement was complete. They helped Samsung get a foot in the door, Samsung helped provide low cost sensors and shared sales channels(To an extent). I wouldn't bet the farm that Toshiba or Sony couldn't put out a better FF sensor as it stands, but for a low end DSLR, Samsung would be my best bet. Considering most of the market for DSLRs is still in the entry level, a cheaper, 19MP DSLR with outstanding DR and acceptable noise levels and perhaps light weather sealing would result in a bit of a comeback for Pentax. It wouldn't be overnight, but it would be a step in the right direction. Let's also not forget that Samsung has some lens production capabilities, combined with Pentax's lens dep't, I think both companies could benefit from it.
(...))

The K10D had a 10 Mpix CCD sensor manufactured by Sony.

[JPT]

These are the same figures that were published at the end of December, and I think they only cover 40% of retailers. However, they are still quite interesting. There were a few things that stood out to me.

- Cameras that were released at the beginning of that year have an advantage, so the K-01 would enjoy that advantage. Even so, it wasn't a successful camera in Japan, mainly because it was too heavy and Pentax decided to promote the K-30 instead.

- Systems with fewer cameras available have their sales concentrated, so Nikon J-1 sales look good because that was the only attractive camera they had on sale (V-1 was expensive). The Pentax Q placing also benefits from this. On the other hand, Olympus has the greatest mirrorless market share but it is split between many models. When you add in Panansonic, M43 is the best selling mirrorless system by some margin.

- Most of Fuji's successful cameras are fixed lens, the X-Pro 1 was too expensive and the X-E1 was released too late in the year to make an impact. They will have more chance of showing up in the 2013 list.

- In terms of DSLRs, the top sellers were old models on discount for much of the year. It's only really fair to compare equivalent cameras released around the same time, such as the K-30, Nikon D3200 and Canon X6i. These cameras were all released around spring and at a similar price. The K-30 did very well and much better than Pentax cameras in previous years.

I was in a shop the other day that carries all brands. They had the Nikon J-3 and V-2 but they also had the J-2, J-1 and V-1 still on the shelves. So Nikon has not cleared out their stock of any of the 1 series cameras. They were also still displaying the D3100, D5100 and D7000 next to their current equivalents. Nikon has serious inventory problems and it was mentioned in their annual report. Olympus seems to have a similar problem. In that same shop, they sold out of K-01s weeks ago. People seemed to see the "fire sale" on the K-01 as a sign of desperation, but at least it worked. Pentax is smaller, but in some ways smarter in my opinion.

Another interesting point is that TV advertising works, at least in Japan. The cameras that were heavily advertised sold well.

[philbaum]

I like the Nikon V/J series except the price. The flash is awesome and the focus is nice. They need to tweak a few things related to IQ (next gen sensor), but as a small system camera goes, it's all there. Nikon needs to learn from the Sony X100 as well.

Thom Hogan gets it right in this article about the lack of value both real and perceived in mirrorless:

What Constitutes Value? | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

I don't think Hogan intends to be anti-MILC, but i see his discussion as being a series of complaints about these mirrorless cameras not being as good as they could and should be. I think its a kick in the ass that several manufacturers need. With some of the mfr, they are clearly protecting their DSLR profits, by minimizing the features available in these smaller cameras. Other design decisions appear to be "design by committee" sorts of stupidities.

Size was a big factor for me. I am happy with my NEX-6. I have the quality and the performance of the K-r in a smaller package. I'm sure it lags behind the K-5ii(s) in AF, but it actually is a bit ahead of the K-5 in one key aspect. My K-5 couldn't handle objects approaching the camera, and the NEX is a big improvement. I'd love to have V1 AF performance, but Sony isn't there yet. Now if they'd just release a DA55-300 quality telephoto, I'd be content.

I have a K5 for work which needs to be done right with fast zooms, then i have the Nex 5n for casual walk around fun. Today, a friend loaned me his Nex 6 while we were in a cafe. I was impressed with the Nex 6, sony has made a lot of progress from 5n. I'm confident that competition will eventually force mfrs to make them right. I'm not interested in the small sensor cameras when they often cost as much as an aps size sensor MILC.

[Aristophanes]

I don't think Hogan intends to be anti-MILC, but i see his discussion as being a series of complaints about these mirrorless cameras not being as good as they could and should be. I think its a kick in the ass that several manufacturers need. With some of the mfr, they are clearly protecting their DSLR profits, by minimizing the features available in these smaller cameras. Other design decisions appear to be "design by committee" sorts of stupidities.

His point is value. They charge a premium for compact size but ignore the fact that IQ and AF are also substantially lessened. The Pentax Q and Q10 are a case in point.

Sony, perhaps more grounded in the North American market, sort of gets it more that larger sensor is the only way to compete against cameraphones. So we get the RX100 and RX1, and the NEX's. Nikon vastly overprices. Canon cripples their AF. Fuji sort of gets it. Olympus cannot overcome the smallish m43 and they have probably the worst price to AF rail (made that up).

Ricoh with the nicely priced GR compared to Nikon and Fuji is on the right track. If it had better video...but at least it's a step in the right direction. When it comes to mirrorless systems Pentax bet far too much on the Q's small sensor.

[frank]

One big advantage of the Zeiss lenses is their excellent pure MF implementation,
like the old Takumars, and far superior to the compromised MF on AF lenses.
Their flare control is at least as good as that on the Limited lenses.
Color rendition is a subjective choice:
but much as I like the rendition of my Limited lenses,
I do prefer the Zeiss look myself.

The two Zeiss lenses are all AF ones I think. To me I feel they should have released something different 'cause Fujifilm already got an excellent 35/1.4, and there is a 23/1.4 coming soon. I'd rather they release something like a 55/1.4 or 75/1.8.

[lytrytyr]

The two Zeiss lenses are all AF ones I think.

In X and E mounts, yes.

@Eulogy's comment, to which I was responding,
was comparing Pentax Limited lenses with the Zeiss ZK line.

[frank]

In X and E mounts, yes.

@Eulogy's comment, to which I was responding,
was comparing Pentax Limited lenses with the Zeiss ZK line.

Okay. Those manual Zeiss lenses are really nice indeed. Great to hold and play, and they take excellent photos too. Glad to see them making some AF lenses for Fuji X mount

[Uluru]

Sony, perhaps more grounded in the North American market, sort of gets it more that larger sensor is the only way to compete against cameraphones. So we get the RX100 and RX1, and the NEX's. Nikon vastly overprices.... When it comes to mirrorless systems Pentax bet far too much on the Q's small sensor.

I see your point. But I still think you underestimate the total vision, the whole picture.

I think you put too much money on the sensor size, when in reality it's the overall product that matters, overall fun and possibilities.

Smartphones and their photo capabilities are nothing compared to Q, because it's the overall imaging quality, from lens, to sensor to processing, that counts. I have the iPhone, and have the Q, and iPhone is pure poo-poo compared to Q's image quality, which comes from its lens, better handling as a camera. better controls, better everything that matters in image capture. It seems that all photography condenses to a sensor size nowadays. But it isn't — it's a heavily oversimplified conclusion that matters little in real life.

In optimal situations, iPhone delivers good image quality. But Q delivers amazing image quality compared to it, even in less than optimal situations.

Attach a Q lens to an iPhone, and it becomes .. what? A real camera! But without it, it's just a snappy happy convenient phone with a flat piece of glass pretending to be a lens — a tool apparently good for everything but excellent only in one thing. And that single thing is not photography, but phoning and messaging, scheduling, alarming ...

The real strength of the Q is its versatility and diminutive size as a quality photographic tool. The whole system with 6 lenses is still at least 40% smaller that similar J1/V1 system. And that is a big difference. Nikon system 1 lenses are bigger, heavier. V1/J1 system sits more towards the small DSLR system size, than towards truly compact size. And the size of the overall system does matter when it comes to fun factor.

See the comparison, Q and V1:

Compare camera dimensions side by side