[audiobomber]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

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

But then I'd have to start collecting a whole new system. I shoot Pentax, I have no interest in Nikon. I chose Pentax years ago and have never regretted it.

I've had enough of this thread. Carry on.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 05-17-2013 at 08:02 PM.

[Aristophanes]

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

Pentax is losing money on those fire sale K-01's and original Q's. Let's not kid ourselves. They are bleeding on those.

[Aristophanes]

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.

Give me a break!

We had FF compacts for decades....

....... on F I L M !!!

I've got a Canon Snappy somewhere (cost about $29 back in the day) starting at about f/4 which in Q-land would be about f/0.0006

I bet the Canon Snappy outsold the Q. Still might.

Sometimes we forget.

[mecrox]

Pentax is losing money on those fire sale K-01's and original Q's. Let's not kid ourselves. They are bleeding on those.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know how their R&D and early hardware costs, before production began, were accounted for in the sale of the company. Ricoh may have been able to negotiate nearly a free ride on both (and/or on the other cameras), paying for little more than the cost of assembling the parts. If Ricoh were clever and got Hoya to pay for (i..e, write off) most of the costs, then they've been able to use the K-01 and Q as a nearly free ride to keep Pentax in the public eye while they revamp the company and refill an empty pipeline. The same thing could have been done with the K30 for all we know. Hoya were relieved of a problem acquisition and saved some face, Ricoh got a stop-gap or two to keep the wheels turning. Just a speculation.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 05-17-2013 at 11:21 PM.

[Kunzite]

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...

I was conservative, as those were taken in good conditions.

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.

Actually that's according to CIPA, so pretty much a fact (unless Leica, Samsung and "Kodak" can dramatically change those figures). About 4 times in units, and about 5 times in value.

Does that matter?

Doh!

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.

People are using lousy smartphones cameras to snap pics and put them on Facebook. But even ignoring smartphones, the camera market is still mostly compacts.

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.

The original Q was vastly overpriced (Hoya's "margins before anything" plan?); your "fire sale" actually means the price was adjusted to a normal level. The Q and Q10 are selling more or less for the same price as entry-level large sensor MILCs.

[jogiba]

Give me a break!

We had FF compacts for decades....

....... on F I L M !!!

I've got a Canon Snappy somewhere (cost about $29 back in the day) starting at about f/4 which in Q-land would be about f/0.0006

I bet the Canon Snappy outsold the Q. Still might.

Sometimes we forget.

If film was better Pentax SLRs with 50mm SMC A lenses would be selling for more than $36.99 with free shipping . The 6x7 Pentax that I have can't match an 11 year old Canon 1Ds even with a drum scan.
Pentax K1000 SLR Camera with 50mm Lens and Strap | eBay


Shootout

[Aristophanes]

If film was better Pentax SLRs with 50mm SMC A lenses would be selling for more than $36.99 with free shipping . The 6x7 Pentax that I have can't match an 11 year old Canon 1Ds even with a drum scan.
Pentax K1000 SLR Camera with 50mm Lens and Strap | eBay


Shootout

I was referring to DOF where the unwashed masses in all their ignorant glory laboured along with FF not knowing the heavenly virtues a small sensor DOF could bring.

[Aristophanes]

The original Q was vastly overpriced (Hoya's "margins before anything" plan?); your "fire sale" actually means the price was adjusted to a normal level. The Q and Q10 are selling more or less for the same price as entry-level large sensor MILCs.

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.

[Kunzite]

I'm definitely not making your point. Your point at that time, let me remind you, was that Q is having a fire sale - while it's selling for the same price as large sensor MILCs. That didn't made sense.
Now you're again singling out the sensor&camera size and price, as the factors influencing the sales. Flickr is somehow relevant and sales data from Japan are not, while Sony and Nikon has some sort of ace on their sleeve because of which Pentax is doomed. That doesn't make sense, either.
Your "facts" are extremely dubious, also: Compare camera dimensions side by side

[monochrome]

I'm definitely not making your point. Your point at that time, let me remind you, was that Q is having a fire sale - while it's selling for the same price as large sensor MILCs. That didn't made sense.
Now you're again singling out the sensor&camera size and price, as the factors influencing the sales. Flickr is somehow relevant and sales data from Japan are not, while Sony and Nikon has some sort of ace on their sleeve because of which Pentax is doomed. That doesn't make sense, either.
Your "facts" are extremely dubious, also: Compare camera dimensions side by side

I've asked several times for some sort of Linky Linky to real facts to support these bold assertions - but - no reply, no Linky - not even an acknowledgement of my Post. I'm not necessarily disputing his claims. I'm just an ignorant amateur in the Midwest USA and I need enlightenment. Show me data, please.

I think I'm on his Ignore list.

[boriscleto]

I think I'm on his Ignore list.

He's been on mine for a while. Makes these conversations something like a Bob Newhart routine.

[jcdoss]

In fact, the Nikon J3 is smaller than the Q and has over 3x the sensor size.

I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like you to address the 3000 pound gorilla in the room. Lens size. Please discuss and compare equivalent focal lengths in terms of camera + lens size and utility. I'm already comfortable with the image quality arguments.

[Aristophanes]

I'm definitely not making your point. Your point at that time, let me remind you, was that Q is having a fire sale - while it's selling for the same price as large sensor MILCs. That didn't made sense.
Now you're again singling out the sensor&camera size and price, as the factors influencing the sales. Flickr is somehow relevant and sales data from Japan are not, while Sony and Nikon has some sort of ace on their sleeve because of which Pentax is doomed. That doesn't make sense, either.
Your "facts" are extremely dubious, also: Compare camera dimensions side by side

You compared the new Nikon with the old Pentax. Try again:

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Nikon 1 J3 is 1% (1 mm) narrower and 4% (2.5 mm) taller than Pentax Q10.
Nikon 1 J3 is 14% (4.7 mm) thinner than Pentax Q10.
Nikon 1 J3 [246 g] weights 23% (46 grams) more than Pentax Q10 [200 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Nikon 1 J3 dimensions: 101x60.5x28.8 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Pentax Q10 dimensions: 102x58x33.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Please note the dramatic size difference of the sensors.

Pentax Q10 basic 1-lens kit is $500 from B&H
Nikon 1 J3 is $550
The J2 is $460

Right off the bat the Q is bracketed by superior sensors (and AF) at the same price point in a nearly identical form factor (body size).

The original Q's fore sale is the same price as some much more capable MILC':

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 16 MP Micro 4/3 Compact System Camera with 3-Inch LCD Touch Screen Body Only (Black): Camera & Photo

No lens but what? 6.5x the sensor size? No doubt about about a 15% larger camera (Compare camera dimensions side by side) and lens, but on price/IQ ratio smokes the Q. Even on a fire sale the Q's value is hard to see.

Flickr is the world's single largest repository of photos and their database of cameras use is indicative of the overall market. It's how we see the iPhone ads telling us the iPhone is the world's #1 camera now. That comes from Flickr stats.

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.

Sure, blame Hoya. The Q is positioned (look at the colours) as a purse camera where the lenses are like jewels and people can do fisheye and toy things without using a software interface a la the smartphone. A Hoya Executive decided this would be good for his teeny bopper and he saw a cheap, small sensor as the profit margin. He figured the competition thought like his teenage accessorizing daughter and they, too, would go cheap on the small sensor so they can continue golfing at $600/game. Within a year the competition all upped the sensor size dramatically for about the same price in only slightly larger packages, Nikon does colours too, and they both out-market and outsell the Q in bucketloads. Once they've mastered the first few runs, the CX sensor items will start to drop in price (that's how Sony Industrial works) and churn out sub-APS-C system and compact cams driving any sensor size smaller into phones or very cheap, dedicated digicams. The Q's margins will die because it probably costs almost as much to assemble and manufacture as a CX camera, same to distribute and market, and it has no extra gears to move the product. The Q does not compare well online or on store shelves. Any smaller in size (Q to Q10 got larger as it got cheaper) and it would be almost unusable. Every review praises the design but slams the sensor as the weak point, especially compared to the competition. It has almost no reviews on B&H compared to the competition (Nikon 1 series has about 200 total, the entire Q range has 4). I would cautiously estimate that the Pentax MILC market share in North America is well below 1%. Pentax has no presence at many big box stores, but the Nikon/m43/Canon MILC's all do.

The Q stands no chance. It was a costly, costly mistake. It's redeemable if they re-tool to a 1"+ sensor. We know this is possible in that form factor generally, and we know that Pentax engineering can get traditional styling and controls right, as the current Q does elegantly. Hoya/Pentax put the wrong engine in this camera but the overall concept is sound. Hopefully Ricoh can make it right.

[ElJamoquio]

Your "facts" are extremely dubious, also: Compare camera dimensions side by side

According to those specs, the J3 is 0.7% bigger than the Q. The J3 is also 11.2% smaller than the Q10, as Aristophanes mentions.

[jsherman999]

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. .

I agree, and said this when the Q appeared. If it doesn't compete on IQ or AF performance, it had better undercut the price - and it didn't.

There just isn't much reason for folks comparing online or standing at a shop counter talking to a salesperson to consider it over the larger-sensored, same-size body, similar-priced competition.

If a larger sensor can be shoe-horned in there, and some new (good) lenses appear that cover it, then we might be seeing some lift to the product. It is a handsome, solid, neat-feeling little body.

.