2012 Japan sales of mirrorless & SLRs

IchabodCrane · 05-10-2013, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Uluru

See the comparison, Q and V1:

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Until the Q comes with an EVF, the correct size comparison is to the J1, J2, J3. Plug those into the size comparison tool and you'll see the J is barely larger than the Q.

thibs · 05-10-2013, 04:49 AM

Maybe, but not the lenses

IchabodCrane · 05-10-2013, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by thibs

Maybe, but not the lenses

But I don't think the Q lenses are all that small compared to the sensor size. If Pentax was trying to make a truly small camera by using the smallest available sensor, then why didn't they also use the smallest lenses which are collapsible (like on the MX-1 and several other cameras)? Now that would have made it small.

jogiba · 05-10-2013, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Until the Q comes with an EVF, the correct size comparison is to the J1, J2, J3. Plug those into the size comparison tool and you'll see the J is barely larger than the Q.

And the APS-C Sony NEX-5R is barely larger than the J1.
Compare camera dimensions side by side

thibs · 05-10-2013, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

But I don't think the Q lenses are all that small compared to the sensor size. If Pentax was trying to make a truly small camera by using the smallest available sensor, then why didn't they also use the smallest lenses which are collapsible (like on the MX-1 and several other cameras)? Now that would have made it small.

I agree but it is a fact that compared to Nikon 1 lenses, they are quite small, if not very small and they (the real lenses, not the toy ones) include shutter.

thibs · 05-10-2013, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

And the APS-C Sony NEX-5R is barely larger than the J1.
Compare camera dimensions side by side

True but again, once you put a lens on a NEX, it gets ridiculous.

**boriscleto** · 05-10-2013, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by thibs

True but again, once you put a lens on a NEX, it gets ridiculous.

Compact Camera Meter

'Nuff said...

Name: Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 8.57.08 AM.png
Views: 468
Size: 167.5 KB

Name: Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 8.59.26 AM.png
Views: 510
Size: 163.6 KB

Name: Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 9.00.47 AM.png
Views: 465
Size: 152.8 KB

Not quite as bad when you compare the Standard Zoom...

Name: Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 9.04.25 AM.png
Views: 660
Size: 261.3 KB

Last edited by boriscleto; 05-10-2013 at 06:05 AM.

IchabodCrane · 05-10-2013, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by thibs

I agree but it is a fact that compared to Nikon 1 lenses, they are quite small, if not very small and they (the real lenses, not the toy ones) include shutter.

Q 02 lens (27.5 - 83mm equiv.): 48 mm x 48 mm, 96 grams
1 Nikkor (30 - 74mm equiv.): 57.5 mm dia. x 31 mm length, 80 grams

The Nikon zoom is shorter and weighs less but with a little less reach. That's rather compelling when married to a sensor that's four times as large. Pentax, please make a camera like this!

gazonk · 05-10-2013, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

The Nikon zoom is shorter and weighs less but with a little less reach. That's rather compelling when married to a sensor that's four times as large. Pentax, please make a camera like this!

Hmm, the Nikon 1 system is starting to look better than at the time of its launch - of the few lenses launched with it was the crazy big "1 NIKKOR VR 10-100 mm f/4.5-5.6 PD-ZOOM" - a super zoom so bulky that even the Sony E-series 18-200mm is lighter and with a smaller filter thread!

kenafein · 05-10-2013, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by thibs

True but again, once you put a lens on a NEX, it gets ridiculous.

Compact Camera Meter

The nex is big or small depending on your needs. They need a few more pancakes, but they have a pancake standard zoom, the 16 and the 20. The camera also has an excellent grip so it can handle bigger lenses. Even with the 55-210 it is very compact and easy to handle.

jogiba · 05-10-2013, 09:05 AM

The Sony NEX-5R with 16-50mm is not that big. With APS-C sensors you will always need a larger lens than a small sensor.

**Aristophanes** · 05-10-2013, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by thibs

Maybe, but not the lenses

Almost. Close enough.

There's only so small a lens can go to retain tactile functionality.

Q = great concept, wrong sensor. Every reviewer says the exact same thing.

And looking at the lens opening, the Q can/should be able to handle 1" sensor.

**Aristophanes** · 05-10-2013, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Compact Camera Meter

'Nuff said...

Not quite as bad when you compare the Standard Zoom...

Attachment 171494

That's where the Q loses. 1" vs 1/2.3 sensor is no contest.

jogiba · 05-10-2013, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by kenafein

Compact Camera Meter

The nex is big or small depending on your needs. They need a few more pancakes, but they have a pancake standard zoom, the 17 and the 20. The camera also has an excellent grip so it can handle bigger lenses. Even with the 55-210 it is very compact and easy to handle.

I have the 16-50 and 55-210 combo that is very light and compact.

northcoastgreg · 05-10-2013, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

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

Hogan gets a lot of things right, but I think he overstates the role of marketing. The main problems with mirrorless is that companies like Olympus and Sony are poorly run; they produce way too many cameras (which forces them to sell below cost); and way too many MILCs lack viewfinders (which means they pose no real threat to DSLRs).

Originally posted by Aristophanes

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

The threat of smartphones to compacts, although real, tends to be exaggerated. The compact market is shrinking, not merely because competition from camera phones, but because most people who want a compact phone already own one and, since the technology has matured, we're not likely to see compelling upgrades any time soon. But even though the market is shrinking, it's not going to disappear. There are still millions of compacts sold every year. The problem is too many cameras are being produced by too many companies; the supply and the competition is driving prices below cost.

There's still a market for compacts, it's just smaller than it was before. But there are still plenty of people who don't have camera phones (or who don't know how to use the camera in their phone). And there are still plenty of ways to differentiate between camera and phone camera other than larger sensor (e.g., waterproofing, better lens, more zoom range, easier for non-tech people to use, etc.).

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Olympus cannot overcome the smallish m43 and they have probably the worst price to AF rail (made that up).

Fuji is much worse when it comes to AF to price ratio. The EM-5 really isn't that bad (no worse in speed than the K-5, yet focuses more accurately). Nor is the smallish m43 sensor a problem. The issue with m43 was that, until the EM-5, all the 4/3rd sensors under performed. Now that they use the same technology used in Nikon, Pentax, and Sony APS-C cameras, they perform nearly as well as sensors used in APS-C DSLRs and the Sony NEX cameras. The 4/3rd sensor is only about 2 and half milimeters smaller, in vertical height, than APS-C sensors; yet the 4:3 aspect ratio allows for smaller lenses; and isn't small size the whole point of compact MILC?

05-10-2013, 05:57 AM	#52
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by thibs True but again, once you put a lens on a NEX, it gets ridiculous. Compact Camera Meter 'Nuff said... Not quite as bad when you compare the Standard Zoom... Last edited by boriscleto; 05-10-2013 at 06:05 AM.

05-10-2013, 07:57 AM	#55
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by thibs True but again, once you put a lens on a NEX, it gets ridiculous. Compact Camera Meter The nex is big or small depending on your needs. They need a few more pancakes, but they have a pancake standard zoom, the 16 and the 20. The camera also has an excellent grip so it can handle bigger lenses. Even with the 55-210 it is very compact and easy to handle. Last edited by kenafein; 05-10-2013 at 09:56 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BCN Mirrorless camera sales ranking for 2012	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	01-04-2013 12:05 AM
2012 Camera Sales in Japan	JPT	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	01-01-2013 06:14 AM
Pentax Q sales in Japan	Paul Ewins	Pentax Q	11	11-03-2012 05:34 AM
Quotes from a Sales Rep of Pentax (Japan)	leonsroar	Pentax News and Rumors	45	05-26-2012 04:04 AM
Sales of the K-x in Japan pushed back 17 days	creampuff	Pentax News and Rumors	13	10-11-2009 04:20 PM

05-10-2013, 04:17 AM	#46
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Uluru See the comparison, Q and V1: Compare camera dimensions side by side Until the Q comes with an EVF, the correct size comparison is to the J1, J2, J3. Plug those into the size comparison tool and you'll see the J is barely larger than the Q.

05-10-2013, 04:49 AM	#47
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Maybe, but not the lenses

05-10-2013, 05:35 AM	#48
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by thibs Maybe, but not the lenses But I don't think the Q lenses are all that small compared to the sensor size. If Pentax was trying to make a truly small camera by using the smallest available sensor, then why didn't they also use the smallest lenses which are collapsible (like on the MX-1 and several other cameras)? Now that would have made it small.

05-10-2013, 05:37 AM	#49
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Until the Q comes with an EVF, the correct size comparison is to the J1, J2, J3. Plug those into the size comparison tool and you'll see the J is barely larger than the Q. And the APS-C Sony NEX-5R is barely larger than the J1. Compare camera dimensions side by side

05-10-2013, 05:37 AM	#50
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by IchabodCrane But I don't think the Q lenses are all that small compared to the sensor size. If Pentax was trying to make a truly small camera by using the smallest available sensor, then why didn't they also use the smallest lenses which are collapsible (like on the MX-1 and several other cameras)? Now that would have made it small. I agree but it is a fact that compared to Nikon 1 lenses, they are quite small, if not very small and they (the real lenses, not the toy ones) include shutter.

05-10-2013, 05:38 AM	#51
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by jogiba And the APS-C Sony NEX-5R is barely larger than the J1. Compare camera dimensions side by side True but again, once you put a lens on a NEX, it gets ridiculous.

05-10-2013, 06:07 AM	#53
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by thibs I agree but it is a fact that compared to Nikon 1 lenses, they are quite small, if not very small and they (the real lenses, not the toy ones) include shutter. Q 02 lens (27.5 - 83mm equiv.): 48 mm x 48 mm, 96 grams 1 Nikkor (30 - 74mm equiv.): 57.5 mm dia. x 31 mm length, 80 grams The Nikon zoom is shorter and weighs less but with a little less reach. That's rather compelling when married to a sensor that's four times as large. Pentax, please make a camera like this!

05-10-2013, 07:18 AM	#54
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by IchabodCrane The Nikon zoom is shorter and weighs less but with a little less reach. That's rather compelling when married to a sensor that's four times as large. Pentax, please make a camera like this! Hmm, the Nikon 1 system is starting to look better than at the time of its launch - of the few lenses launched with it was the crazy big "1 NIKKOR VR 10-100 mm f/4.5-5.6 PD-ZOOM" - a super zoom so bulky that even the Sony E-series 18-200mm is lighter and with a smaller filter thread!

05-10-2013, 09:05 AM	#56
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	The Sony NEX-5R with 16-50mm is not that big. With APS-C sensors you will always need a larger lens than a small sensor.

05-10-2013, 09:06 AM	#57
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by thibs Maybe, but not the lenses Almost. Close enough. There's only so small a lens can go to retain tactile functionality. Q = great concept, wrong sensor. Every reviewer says the exact same thing. And looking at the lens opening, the Q can/should be able to handle 1" sensor.

05-10-2013, 09:08 AM	#58
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by boriscleto Compact Camera Meter 'Nuff said... Not quite as bad when you compare the Standard Zoom... Attachment 171494 That's where the Q loses. 1" vs 1/2.3 sensor is no contest.

05-10-2013, 09:15 AM	#59
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by kenafein Compact Camera Meter The nex is big or small depending on your needs. They need a few more pancakes, but they have a pancake standard zoom, the 17 and the 20. The camera also has an excellent grip so it can handle bigger lenses. Even with the 55-210 it is very compact and easy to handle. I have the 16-50 and 55-210 combo that is very light and compact.

05-10-2013, 01:35 PM	#60
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by Aristophanes Thom Hogan gets it right in this article about the lack of value both real and perceived in mirrorless Hogan gets a lot of things right, but I think he overstates the role of marketing. The main problems with mirrorless is that companies like Olympus and Sony are poorly run; they produce way too many cameras (which forces them to sell below cost); and way too many MILCs lack viewfinders (which means they pose no real threat to DSLRs). Originally posted by Aristophanes 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 The threat of smartphones to compacts, although real, tends to be exaggerated. The compact market is shrinking, not merely because competition from camera phones, but because most people who want a compact phone already own one and, since the technology has matured, we're not likely to see compelling upgrades any time soon. But even though the market is shrinking, it's not going to disappear. There are still millions of compacts sold every year. The problem is too many cameras are being produced by too many companies; the supply and the competition is driving prices below cost. There's still a market for compacts, it's just smaller than it was before. But there are still plenty of people who don't have camera phones (or who don't know how to use the camera in their phone). And there are still plenty of ways to differentiate between camera and phone camera other than larger sensor (e.g., waterproofing, better lens, more zoom range, easier for non-tech people to use, etc.). Originally posted by Aristophanes Olympus cannot overcome the smallish m43 and they have probably the worst price to AF rail (made that up). Fuji is much worse when it comes to AF to price ratio. The EM-5 really isn't that bad (no worse in speed than the K-5, yet focuses more accurately). Nor is the smallish m43 sensor a problem. The issue with m43 was that, until the EM-5, all the 4/3rd sensors under performed. Now that they use the same technology used in Nikon, Pentax, and Sony APS-C cameras, they perform nearly as well as sensors used in APS-C DSLRs and the Sony NEX cameras. The 4/3rd sensor is only about 2 and half milimeters smaller, in vertical height, than APS-C sensors; yet the 4:3 aspect ratio allows for smaller lenses; and isn't small size the whole point of compact MILC?