[Simen1]

Do you seriously believe nobody produces a 1/1,7" sensor anymore? There are tens of companies producing sensors and they have tens of sensor sizes, each with tens of different options like pixel count, RGB/BW, speeds, with/without on sensor PDAF and so forth. 1/1,7" is right in the middle of the most popular sizes.

And even if it was true, the simplest solution would be to take the next size upwards and crop it. But "multi aspect" would be an obvious cool feature to add if that was the case. Or even better, have an option to use the whole sensor and crop in post (in camera or PC). That said, I think 1/1,7" are the most likely. But I hope for 2/3" with the whole sensor option.

[adjutant]

pixel shift!

I really want a pixel shift Q

I agree with other users here highlighting the need for seamless connectivity. The faster and easier we can share our pictures, the better.

[D1N0]

There are still two 1/1.7" sensors in Sony's line up.

Products Line up for Camera Image Sensor for Camera | Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation

[ogl]

There are still two 1/1.7" sensors in Sony's line up.

Products Line up for Camera Image Sensor for Camera | Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation

where is 42 MP sensor ?

IMX144 is sensor of 2012 year. It's out-of-date.
IMX204 is sensor made for smartphone's cameras.
Exmor RS™ for mobile image sensor.
Many phones has such sensor.

I doubt that IMX144 is still in production and there is any sense to use in new camera specially developed for smart-phones sensor or sensor of 2012 year.

[D1N0]

where is 42 MP sensor ?

These are only the sensors they sell to third parties. Why couldn't a mobile phone sensor be in a Q? Which phones have a 1/1.7" sensor? What other manufacturers make 1/1.7" cmos sensors?

[surfar]

Why couldn't a mobile phone sensor be in a Q? Which phones have a 1/1.7" sensor

Samsung S7 has a sensor the same size as Q/Q10.....my phn the Samsung S4 Zoom has that size sensor as does the Samsung K Zoom.


I'm not aware of a phn with 1/1.7" sensor at this stage BUT the Panasonic CM1 has a 1" sensor

[ogl]

These are only the sensors they sell to third parties. Why couldn't a mobile phone sensor be in a Q? Which phones have a 1/1.7" sensor? What other manufacturers make 1/1.7" cmos sensors?

The market of serious compact cameras is the market of 1" sensor now.
It's rather odd to put 1/1.7" in new camera.

[Zygonyx]

You forget niche marketing... In which segment Q system has been from the start.
There is absolutely no short term interest for Ricoh to drop that Q line, because it doesn't need heavy R&D any more, just slight improvements/new products.

[D1N0]

The market of serious compact cameras is the market of 1" sensor now.
It's rather odd to put 1/1.7" in new camera.

But the Q was designed around the 1/1.7" sensor size (and it is not a new camera system). Are you trying to side track the discussion?

[ogl]

But the Q was designed around the 1/1.7" sensor size (and it is not a new camera system). Are you trying to side track the discussion?

It was mistake. Remember the history of this camera - camera were ready to be produced close to 2008, but 1/2.3" sensors were really bad to put into. That's why the production were postponed till 2011- when BSI 1/2.3" sensor appeared. Q was planned to be on sale only in Japan.

Pentax Q7 was announced on June, 2013. Q-S1 was just small update of Q7 on August, 2014.

It's October, 2016 now...Where is the place of Q at the market when there are a lot of m4/3 and APS-C mirrorless camera made by Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji and Sony?

If they would make first camera in 2008, it could be interesting.
But now - is there any niche for Q? I'm afraid the prospects are vague...

By the way, official dealer of Ricoh in Russia has only Q-S1 + 5-15 mm kit and two toy lenses in stock.


BHPhoto marks Pentax Q-S1 as Discontinued
They have only Q-S1 Body in Gunmetal colour in stock + fish-eye, mount shield lens and two toy lenses and nothing else.

[Uluru]

History repeats. Learn from history:

Pentax Auto 110 only lasted for 6-7 years too. Auto 110 was introduced with a few lenses in late 1970s, then extra lenses were added later, and all was done and dusted soon after, by 1985, because there was no real need for such a camera. Let's face the reality: in 2011 there was no Sony RX100 yet, but Sony RX100 alone suffices against the Q most of the time, and is by an order of magnitude more capable, and all-in-one-camera. Although the Q, same as the original Auto 110, has its 'advantages', in 2017 it's technologically superfluous and irrelevant.

It would much, much better if Ricoh invested in a camera like RX100 before Sony did, and constantly improved it, but there you go. Now the RX100 is the camera that defines a whole category of the new low end of the multifunction, dedicated cameras.

And what's worst of it, they abandoned a quite well-received MX-1. That camera could grow, and become serious RX100 alternative, and it is the only digital camera I know of that its price after the discontinuation is higher than during the days of its sale. Quite remarkable; not even RX100 or Ricoh GR can boast of that.

[reh321]

History repeats. Learn from history:

Pentax Auto 110 only lasted for 6-7 years too. Auto 110 was introduced with a few lenses in late 1970s, then extra lenses were added later, and all was done and dusted soon after, by 1985, because there was no real need for such a camera. Let's face the reality: in 2011 there was no Sony RX100 yet, but Sony RX100 alone suffices against the Q most of the time, and is by an order of magnitude more capable, and all-in-one-camera. Although the Q, same as the original Auto 110, has its 'advantages', in 2017 it's technologically superfluous and irrelevant.

It would much, much better if Ricoh invested in a camera like RX100 before Sony did, and constantly improved it, but there you go. Now the RX100 is the camera that defines a whole category of the new low end of the multifunction, dedicated cameras.

You have lots of words and opinions here, but nothing else. I'm not sure how you can say the RX100 "defines a whole category of new low end ... camera", because I don't see $998 as being "low end", and the category of "multifunction cameras" has been around for a long time. Nine years ago I tried that category and found it wanting. When I first went digital, I got a Canon compact camera; I don't remember the focal length range of the lens, but it was at least the 24-70mm "35mm equiv" attributed to the RX100. In less than a year I gave it up as a bad compromise, because that one lens simply could not meet all my needs. No, 24-70mm would not suffice "most of the time"; in fact, it would fail the test of sufficing for my needs for at least one-third of the pictures I take. I did learn from history.

[Uluru]

You have lots of words and opinions here, but nothing else. I'm not sure how you can say the RX100 "defines a whole category of new low end ...

Check the price of Fuji X-Pro2, Sony A6500, RX100, etc. All steadily rise above preceding models.

As the camera manufacturers are abandoning 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors altogether, and as new cameras are being built to become quite more serious replacement for mobile phones, the price of dedicated multifunction cameras rise steadily and the new low-end is defined by the 1" sensor, appropriate optics and features set by industry leaders who created that new category. Those are Sony, Canon, Panasonic and Nikon.

So when you look at the Q, you look at the landscape of camera world of 6-8 years ago, and that is where Ricoh's mirrorless tech with Q still is, way back in time. But the rest of industry moved forward.

As it always was, Q is a toy, and is fun to use. But the time, and the rest of industry, ran over it. Like Auto 110, it was just an idle exercise. We appreciate it, but please move on.

Unfortunately, the camera that was well accepted and could be the contender in that new category, if enough attention was given to it, was the MX-1, and Ricoh killed it. Ricoh could not upgrade it, like they upgraded the GR from a tiny 1/1.7" sensor up to full APS-C? But I think Ricoh killed it deliberately because they did not want to produce their own more serious competition for the GR. When they killed a dedicated multifunction camera with a zoom lens, they also lost one important segment of the market.

However, if in those rumours about 'retro looking cameras' is any truth, we might see a couple of cameras that continue the MX-1 legacy, but more seriously. That would be welcome. Ricoh did a series of blunders: introduced a horrid K-01, disco K-S1, transgendered K-S2, killed the excellent MX-1, and I think they finally realised that was not what market ever wanted; they could do things slightly differently, and folks are not all together crazy about a GR as they would wish to — well, for starts, it lacks a zoom lens!

[reh321]

Check the price of Fuji X-Pro2, Sony A6500, RX100, etc. All steadily rise above preceding models.

As the camera manufacturers are abandoning 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors altogether, and as new cameras are being built to become quite more serious replacement for mobile phones, the price of dedicated multifunction cameras rise steadily and the new low-end is defined by the 1" sensor, appropriate optics and features set by industry leaders who created that new category. Those are Sony, Canon, Panasonic and Nikon.

I fail to see how having each generation priced higher than the previous is a good sign for anyone other than the manufacturers who persuade customers to hand over more money. With all due apologies to JFK's speechwriters, all I ask is what the camera can do for me, not what I can do for the camera company; in that vein, your comments are meaningless. Why should I spend nearly $1000 for a camera that can never go beyond 24-70mm "35mm effective", when for under $700 I can buy one which right now can do 24-210mm "35mm effective", and has the potential of doing even better??!!

I'm not sure why you list Panasonic as an "industry leader", but ignore Olympus. And please stop talking about this "new category"; it has been around essentially as long as digital cameras have been around!

[JPT]

Check the price of Fuji X-Pro2, Sony A6500, RX100, etc. All steadily rise above preceding models.

As the camera manufacturers are abandoning 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors altogether, and as new cameras are being built to become quite more serious replacement for mobile phones, the price of dedicated multifunction cameras rise steadily and the new low-end is defined by the 1" sensor, appropriate optics and features set by industry leaders who created that new category. Those are Sony, Canon, Panasonic and Nikon.

So when you look at the Q, you look at the landscape of camera world of 6-8 years ago, and that is where Ricoh's mirrorless tech with Q still is, way back in time. But the rest of industry moved forward.

As it always was, Q is a toy, and is fun to use. But the time, and the rest of industry, ran over it. Like Auto 110, it was just an idle exercise. We appreciate it, but please move on.

Unfortunately, the camera that was well accepted and could be the contender in that new category, if enough attention was given to it, was the MX-1, and Ricoh killed it. Ricoh could not upgrade it, like they upgraded the GR from a tiny 1/1.7" sensor up to full APS-C? But I think Ricoh killed it deliberately because they did not want to produce their own more serious competition for the GR. When they killed a dedicated multifunction camera with a zoom lens, they also lost one important segment of the market.

However, if in those rumours about 'retro looking cameras' is any truth, we might see a couple of cameras that continue the MX-1 legacy, but more seriously. That would be welcome. Ricoh did a series of blunders: introduced a horrid K-01, disco K-S1, transgendered K-S2, killed the excellent MX-1, and I think they finally realised that was not what market ever wanted; they could do things slightly differently, and folks are not all together crazy about a GR as they would wish to — well, for starts, it lacks a zoom lens!

I think there main thing that stopped Ricoh from making an "MX-2" was that the company that made it for them didn't develop a platform for the successor. The lens-sensor unit was exactly the same as the Olympus XZ and the Casio EX-10, and neither of those has had a successor either.

Ricoh could start making this type camera on their own again, and I agree with you that they should, but it would mean doing the design in house. Perhaps if the Q is not to be continued, they will do that, but I personally hope it is more like the Ricoh GX-200 than the MX-1, which I always felt was a bit kitsch and lacking direct control for aperture, shutter and ISO.

The reason I'm so certain that Ricoh didn't make the MX-1 themselves is that it's made in Indonesia, where Ricoh doesn't have a camera factory. It's like the WG series, which seems to share a suspicious amount with the Olympus Tough cameras. It's a bit mysterious how much of those cameras is designed by the companies that brand them. I think it's quite possible that the maker approaches the camera companies with a base spec, and says something like, "Here's our spec for the next rugged camera. What do you think? Shall we make a WG-6 for you?", and the camera brand does little more than specify the styling and firmware.

I could be wrong, though.