[monochrome]

Not different enough to make me upgrade like the Q7 did from the Q, but a nice camera if you don't have one already. Seems to split the difference between mag alloy Q and polycarb Q7. I think overall a cleaner design but the 'knob' isn't appealing at all. Grip on the Q7 doesn't do anything for me versus the Q, so the knob has no utility for that. If it really is a dial to select the Effects that will save some menu diving. I think younger photographers like the effects overlays in Instagram - couple this camera with an Eye-Fi card link to a device and you have a better iCam.

Though I actually use my Q's more than anything else I don't think this one was made to appeal to us. They'll probably sell a lot of them.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 08-05-2014 at 07:34 AM.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

ISO 12800 is undesirable on a D800. let alone a 1/1.7" sensor. But we shall see.

[RobA_Oz]

ISO 12800 is undesirable on a D800. let alone a 1/1.7" sensor. But we shall see.

Having used an original Q at maximum ISO setting in low light (it doesn't run to ISO 12800) I have to say that, for small scale images, the Q's JPEG image processor does a pretty creditable job of noise reduction from such a tiny sensor. The bigger photo-sites on the Q7's sensor would presumably do a similar job at higher ISO settings, so, if you're not planning on printing at A1 size, the Q-S1's high-ISO efforts could well be good enough (or perhaps even better) for those times when you simply don't have an option.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Having used an original Q at maximum ISO setting in low light (it doesn't run to ISO 12800) I have to say that, for small scale images, the Q's JPEG image processor does a pretty creditable job of noise reduction from such a tiny sensor. The bigger photo-sites on the Q7's sensor would presumably do a similar job at higher ISO settings, so, if you're not planning on printing at A1 size, the Q-S1's high-ISO efforts could well be good enough (or perhaps even better) for those times when you simply don't have an option.

Agreed. I was, of course, stating things from my point of view. I don't like pushing the sensor, but I understand that some folks do a lot of low light work, where a tripod and long exposures are not an option. I used a D800 at ISO 6400 in some show caves a few days ago, and I didn't care for the JPEGs one bit. The RAW files weren't too bad though, with a bit of PP noise reduction.

[teignmouthpentaxguy]

If pentax want to attract a hip crowd to the q, why didn't they get a 'name' designer like they did with the K-01. on a personal note, i have the orriginal q and all the primes and use a few 8mm cine lenses, I love the camera and format and size but I need an EVF for composing, its natural for me to have a camera to my eye and also its imposible to fine focus maunal lenses in bright light on the LCD screen. I think if pentax made the Q serious compact system, maybe even with a mini LX/auto 110 form factor with small high quality wide and portrait primes they would expand their market. I have a K5 and K5iis but a tiny system, camera and 3 lenses that fits in jean pocket would be a major advantage over micro 43 etc as a back up or second camera set up.

[monochrome]

I think if pentax made the Q serious compact system, maybe even with a mini LX/auto 110 form factor with small high quality wide and portrait primes they would expand their market. I have a K5 and K5iis but a tiny system, camera and 3 lenses that fits in jean pocket would be a major advantage over micro 43 etc as a back up or second camera set up.

I wonder what people would be willing to pay for a camera like that. IIRC the original Q was hammered for its high price.

[RonHendriks1966]

If pentax want to attract a hip crowd to the q, why didn't they get a 'name' designer like they did with the K-01. on a personal note, i have the orriginal q and all the primes and use a few 8mm cine lenses, I love the camera and format and size but I need an EVF for composing, its natural for me to have a camera to my eye and also its imposible to fine focus maunal lenses in bright light on the LCD screen. I think if pentax made the Q serious compact system, maybe even with a mini LX/auto 110 form factor with small high quality wide and portrait primes they would expand their market. I have a K5 and K5iis but a tiny system, camera and 3 lenses that fits in jean pocket would be a major advantage over micro 43 etc as a back up or second camera set up.

Well that auto 110D would be great as a camera with fixed lens and large sensor. You do realize that the auto 110 is a plastic thing?

[teignmouthpentaxguy]

I would pay mid range SLR money for a higher spec Q with decent EVF and the build quality of the original, but I may be in the small minority. I noticed in the press release for the Q-S1 it said, and I paraphrase, the Q has two markets, women interested in style aged 25 - 35 and men aged 40 - 50, two me that suggests two different product lines. I know that's a bit of a leap but the Q-S1 seems to be aimed at the hip instagram crowd not the photo bloke over 40, so maybe there is another Q in the works with a different spec.

---------- Post added 08-05-14 at 10:04 AM ----------

Well that auto 110D would be great as a camera with fixed lens and large sensor. You do realize that the auto 110 is a plastic thing?

I've never used the auto 110, but it was well built with good lenses from what I have read. funny how 110 film is very similar to micro 43 today. But yes, a quality auto 110d with a viewfinder and fixed prime would be fantastic. I'd order one the day it was announced.

[barondla]

I wonder what people would be willing to pay for a camera like that. IIRC the original Q was hammered for its high price.

Many people are willing to pay $800 for a camera. Most felt that price for the original Q was crazy. If it would have had a viewfinder option, at that price, people would have been happier. The Q did better at that price than the viewfinderless K-01. Pentax learns slowly at times.
Still ready for Photokina.
thanks
barondla