2012 Japan sales of mirrorless & SLRs

Kunzite · 05-20-2013, 01:13 PM

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.

I used the same lenses as in jogiba's image. Indeed, the Sony 16-50mm is very compact for a zoom, in its collapsed state.

jogiba · 05-20-2013, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

That image is misleading, arranged so that the Q will appear relatively larger.

A proper comparison image, or seeing the products live, side by side, will show how the Q is significantly smaller than the NEX. I'll simply link to camerasize.com:
Compare camera dimensions side by side
Compact Camera Meter

You are comparing the Q to the larger Sony NEX-F3 that was last years model. The new Sony NEX-3N is the newest, smallest and lightest NEX model.
my Sony NEX-3N with 16-50mm power zoom vs Pentax Q & standard 8.5mm side by side

Sony NEX-3N vs Sony NEX-F3 :
http://camerasize.com/compare/#442,325

Kunzite · 05-20-2013, 01:23 PM

My bad, of course it was the 3N - maybe I should call it a day and go to sleep, as my brain is halfway there.
Compare camera dimensions side by side
Still, while the NEX is incredibly compact, I doubt it can leave the same "amazingly small" feeling as the original Q. I will have to check that myself, before making that a definite statement.

I'll retract my words, though, your "not that much larger" is actually reasonable (and I admit I never knew Sony made a NEX so small). My apologies for mixing up cameras and thus the conclusion.

Uluru · 05-21-2013, 01:53 AM

Any fool can make a small camera. But the point is not to compromise usability and the essence of photographic experience. Thinking of that, actually the ideal size of an ideal all purpose camera is somewhere between the Ricoh GR and Oly E-P5; but they will blur the obvious and force the ridiculous; they will thin the body and then make lenses bigger and still fooling us with "camera is small."
Because interchangeable lens camera then becomes too big a package, and fixed focal length camera perceived as too limiting and not versatile. To keep the similar form and adding quality retracting zoom that isnt too big fully extended and still fast, you must go for smaller sensor size. Then you get .. an MX-1.
That camera is actually best of both worlds outcome. Not compromised at all — for those who look for a photographic tool, not a gadget.

Last edited by Uluru; 05-21-2013 at 02:08 AM.

jogiba · 05-21-2013, 04:31 AM

Quote:

they will thin the body and then make lenses bigger and still fooling us with "camera is small."

Show me a 3x APS-C zoom smaller than the Sony 16-50mm PZ OSS lens.

Pentax MX1 vs Sony RX100 :
http://camerasize.com/compare/#404,332

NEX-3N APS-C sensor vs MX-1 (1/1.7" ) & RX100 sensors

MX1 sensor vs RX100

DxOMark Sony NEX-3N vs Pentax MX-1 vs Sony RX100

kenafein · 05-21-2013, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

That image is misleading, arranged so that the Q will appear relatively larger.

A proper comparison image, or seeing the products live, side by side, will show how the Q is significantly smaller than the NEX. I'll simply link to camerasize.com:
Compare camera dimensions side by side
Compact Camera Meter

It is really misleading to compare against a different, and larger, camera model. He has a NEX 3n. Not an F3. The 3n is even smaller. The F3 was a notably larger camera, bigger than the 5n.

Kunzite · 05-21-2013, 07:12 AM

I was told that and apologized for my mistake (just few posts above).

Indeed, complaining about a misleading image and posting another...

kenafein · 05-21-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I was told that and apologized for my mistake (just few posts above).

Indeed, complaining about a misleading image and posting another...

I thought I was responding to the most recent page, was on my phone. Just so long as you know you're wrong wrong wrong

Kunzite · 05-21-2013, 09:01 AM

It's actually Sony's fault for launching more products than I can manage to follow

redrockcoulee · 05-21-2013, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

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 am surprised because for very large prints my wife shot with a D3 and a GX680 and all the images she used were from the Fuji and scanned on a Nikon CS9000. The GX680 is only slightly larger than the 67.

I do not think that looking at the price of a base level 35mm film camera really relfects anything especially when the K1000 often sells for much more than that and also sells for more than better equiped K models.

**Aristophanes** · 05-21-2013, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

I am surprised because for very large prints my wife shot with a D3 and a GX680 and all the images she used were from the Fuji and scanned on a Nikon CS9000. The GX680 is only slightly larger than the 67.

Depending on the scan a medium format negative should perform as well or better than any current FF sensor, but there are so many constrictions and variables with film, the time, the extra money, the skill of the scan...

I pine for a Mamiya 6 kit, but I' d need a $2,000 scanner to justify it. Makes me sad.

thibs · 05-21-2013, 10:48 PM

I'd do the opposite and get a way to "print" my raw files onto negatives so could get real silver prints.
To bad it is impossible to pay for..

That said, I wouldn't be against a good scanner

**Aristophanes** · 05-22-2013, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by thibs

I'd do the opposite and get a way to "print" my raw files onto negatives so could get real silver prints.
To bad it is impossible to pay for..

That said, I wouldn't be against a good scanner

This operation prints real silver prints from digital.

Digital Silver Imaging - Museum-quality black and white prints made from your digital files

thibs · 05-22-2013, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

This operation prints real silver prints from digital.

Digital Silver Imaging - Museum-quality black and white prints made from your digital files

Thank you. Too bad they're in the US.
I'll contact them and see if they can just ship the "digital negs", I'd rather darkroom print myself: not that I do it better, I just want. Love it

**Aristophanes** · 05-22-2013, 05:29 AM

Here is what kills the Q:

Compact Camera Meter

The Q10 kit at B&H is US$496.95:

Pentax Q10 Compact Digital Interchangeable Lens Camera 12161 B&H

The NEX3 is almost $50 less expensive on sale:

Sony Alpha NEX-3N Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-50mm

05-20-2013, 01:13 PM	#317
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Kunzite That image is misleading, arranged so that the Q will appear relatively larger. A proper comparison image, or seeing the products live, side by side, will show how the Q is significantly smaller than the NEX. I'll simply link to camerasize.com: Compare camera dimensions side by side Compact Camera Meter You are comparing the Q to the larger Sony NEX-F3 that was last years model. The new Sony NEX-3N is the newest, smallest and lightest NEX model. my Sony NEX-3N with 16-50mm power zoom vs Pentax Q & standard 8.5mm side by side Sony NEX-3N vs Sony NEX-F3 : http://camerasize.com/compare/#442,325 Last edited by jogiba; 05-20-2013 at 01:23 PM.

05-20-2013, 01:23 PM	#318
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	My bad, of course it was the 3N - maybe I should call it a day and go to sleep, as my brain is halfway there. Compare camera dimensions side by side Still, while the NEX is incredibly compact, I doubt it can leave the same "amazingly small" feeling as the original Q. I will have to check that myself, before making that a definite statement. I'll retract my words, though, your "not that much larger" is actually reasonable (and I admit I never knew Sony made a NEX so small). My apologies for mixing up cameras and thus the conclusion. Last edited by Kunzite; 05-20-2013 at 01:31 PM.

05-21-2013, 04:31 AM	#320
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Quote: they will thin the body and then make lenses bigger and still fooling us with "camera is small." Show me a 3x APS-C zoom smaller than the Sony 16-50mm PZ OSS lens. Pentax MX1 vs Sony RX100 : http://camerasize.com/compare/#404,332 NEX-3N APS-C sensor vs MX-1 (1/1.7" ) & RX100 sensors MX1 sensor vs RX100 DxOMark Sony NEX-3N vs Pentax MX-1 vs Sony RX100 Last edited by jogiba; 05-21-2013 at 09:13 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

05-20-2013, 01:13 PM	#316
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	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. I used the same lenses as in jogiba's image. Indeed, the Sony 16-50mm is very compact for a zoom, in its collapsed state.

05-21-2013, 01:53 AM	#319
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Any fool can make a small camera. But the point is not to compromise usability and the essence of photographic experience. Thinking of that, actually the ideal size of an ideal all purpose camera is somewhere between the Ricoh GR and Oly E-P5; but they will blur the obvious and force the ridiculous; they will thin the body and then make lenses bigger and still fooling us with "camera is small." Because interchangeable lens camera then becomes too big a package, and fixed focal length camera perceived as too limiting and not versatile. To keep the similar form and adding quality retracting zoom that isnt too big fully extended and still fast, you must go for smaller sensor size. Then you get .. an MX-1. That camera is actually best of both worlds outcome. Not compromised at all — for those who look for a photographic tool, not a gadget. Last edited by Uluru; 05-21-2013 at 02:08 AM.

05-21-2013, 06:51 AM	#321
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by Kunzite That image is misleading, arranged so that the Q will appear relatively larger. A proper comparison image, or seeing the products live, side by side, will show how the Q is significantly smaller than the NEX. I'll simply link to camerasize.com: Compare camera dimensions side by side Compact Camera Meter It is really misleading to compare against a different, and larger, camera model. He has a NEX 3n. Not an F3. The 3n is even smaller. The F3 was a notably larger camera, bigger than the 5n.

05-21-2013, 07:12 AM	#322
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I was told that and apologized for my mistake (just few posts above). Indeed, complaining about a misleading image and posting another...

05-21-2013, 08:41 AM	#323
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by Kunzite I was told that and apologized for my mistake (just few posts above). Indeed, complaining about a misleading image and posting another... I thought I was responding to the most recent page, was on my phone. Just so long as you know you're wrong wrong wrong

05-21-2013, 09:01 AM	#324
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	It's actually Sony's fault for launching more products than I can manage to follow

05-21-2013, 09:33 AM	#325
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by jogiba 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 am surprised because for very large prints my wife shot with a D3 and a GX680 and all the images she used were from the Fuji and scanned on a Nikon CS9000. The GX680 is only slightly larger than the 67. I do not think that looking at the price of a base level 35mm film camera really relfects anything especially when the K1000 often sells for much more than that and also sells for more than better equiped K models.

05-21-2013, 11:24 AM	#326
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by redrockcoulee I am surprised because for very large prints my wife shot with a D3 and a GX680 and all the images she used were from the Fuji and scanned on a Nikon CS9000. The GX680 is only slightly larger than the 67. Depending on the scan a medium format negative should perform as well or better than any current FF sensor, but there are so many constrictions and variables with film, the time, the extra money, the skill of the scan... I pine for a Mamiya 6 kit, but I' d need a $2,000 scanner to justify it. Makes me sad.

05-21-2013, 10:48 PM	#327
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	I'd do the opposite and get a way to "print" my raw files onto negatives so could get real silver prints. To bad it is impossible to pay for.. That said, I wouldn't be against a good scanner

05-22-2013, 05:02 AM	#328
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by thibs I'd do the opposite and get a way to "print" my raw files onto negatives so could get real silver prints. To bad it is impossible to pay for.. That said, I wouldn't be against a good scanner This operation prints real silver prints from digital. Digital Silver Imaging - Museum-quality black and white prints made from your digital files

05-22-2013, 05:11 AM	#329
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Aristophanes This operation prints real silver prints from digital. Digital Silver Imaging - Museum-quality black and white prints made from your digital files Thank you. Too bad they're in the US. I'll contact them and see if they can just ship the "digital negs", I'd rather darkroom print myself: not that I do it better, I just want. Love it

05-22-2013, 05:29 AM	#330
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Here is what kills the Q: Compact Camera Meter The Q10 kit at B&H is US$496.95: Pentax Q10 Compact Digital Interchangeable Lens Camera 12161 B&H The NEX3 is almost $50 less expensive on sale: Sony Alpha NEX-3N Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-50mm