Originally posted by monochrome We're exhibiting static thinking again. We don't know where PRI will take the Q in coming years other than the limits of the mount being a ceiling. I don't think the quality of a current Q image indoors at a dimly lit bar is nearly as noisy as a phonecam and the Q flash is dramatically better. The people I talk to (voice talk, on the telephone) who use Q extensively also use other image capture devices when necessary, hope the Q improvement curve accelerates to reduce the number of necessary situations and are quite happy with what they have now (aside from their recommendations to PRI).
So sure, we can complain about 1st Gen output and 2nd Gen unserious (we think) colored bodies, but are we going to come back and EDIT our posts when FW Updates and generational transitions remove these issues?
but I have to say, most Q pictures that I have seen are rather "meh" even just in web size
I suspect some of that is User input issues. I for one can't yet do things that come naturally with a film camera or dSLr (because I've done them for years, and because I am just not very good). There is a learning curve. About a dozen members are working really hard to push the camera and learn and compensate for its quirks and compromises, and are beginning to post much better images.
No. Pentax is the one demonstrating static thinking.
Instead of hoping that quirks and compromises and user input issues will solve the Q's problem, the real issue is that, to differentiate between cameraphones and dedicated cameras, sensor size is emerging as THE dominant criteria. By far. Canon, Nikon, Sony are all making it the issue. Even m43 is making it a factor by stating they have ALWAYS had a bigger "small" sensor.
In the same way the market standardized on APS-C for DSLR with little cousin m43 and Big Brother FF, we are now seeing the vast gaps between compacts and DSLR's being met by intermediate sensor sizes, both for high-end compacts and system cameras. 1" is looking like the minimum for a serious compact (low light, noise control being the major criteria) and small system.
Of all this market thrust the Q has by far the smallest sensor. We no longer have a megapixel race so much as we have a sensor size race and Pentax is riding a donkey.
Pentax gambled with the Q that the smaller sensor would be OK because people wanted a system camera and toy lenses and a good looking unit more than they wanted a larger sensor for the same price. The Q10 is about the same price as a lower-end m43 system right now. Sorry, it's actually more now that I look. On what terms is that competitive? It's not. the Pentax response? The Q10 comes in a staggering variety of colours. Every review knocks the camera for its poor sensor comparison to other brands of the same price in the same market space.
The combined Q10 2-lens zoom kit in a blazing array of colours is C$699 right now. The Nikon D3200 in a 2-lens kits C$769 or the same with only the 18-105VR.
The Sony RX100 is $699.
This does not compute. The size and "toy lens" premium (and that nice Q $249 external VF) is not moving the market.
Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-15-2013 at 12:15 PM.