[D1N0]

Back-panel displays do use a lot of power (although it seems that smartphones have no problems keeping their big displays lit for more than 8 hours on one charge). EVFs don't use much power at all because the panels are so tiny and the shielded eye piece means they don't have to out-shine the sun.

you are forgetting the always on sensor using power

[photoptimist]

you are forgetting the always on sensor using power

Good point!

I'd imagine the sensor power drain is especially high if the sensor is put into a high-frame-rate mode for EVF and CDAF operations. In general, CMOS circuits consume little power when energized in a fixed state (just some gate leakage) but more power when switched such as when reading and digitizing the pixels.

[totsmuyco]

I know it's an OT but just a query, does the Q have a bigger sensor than m4/3?

[aleonx3]

I know it's an OT but just a query, does the Q have a bigger sensor than m4/3?

As far as I remember, the original Q has the 1/2.3" sensor, which is the smallest and quite a bit smaller compared to the m4/3 sensor in most Olympus cameras. I think the Q7, Q10 and Q-S1 has a bigger sensor 1/1.7".

[totsmuyco]

As far as I remember, the original Q has the 1/2.3" sensor, which is the smallest and quite a bit smaller compared to the m4/3 sensor in most Olympus cameras. I think the Q7, Q10 and Q-S1 has a bigger sensor 1/1.7".

Thanks for the info.

[ogl]

Running EVF / LV with a LF camera is worse than FF itself worse than apsc. You need a huge battery to power the MF sensor when EVF is On, or a grip or can shoot a rather limited number of shots / run the camera only for 2 or 3 hours. Typically the K1 can stay On for 6 to 8 hours running on a single D-LI90 battery. This explains why, without OVF and mirror box , the GXF is still 900gr. , attributed to the battery size I guess.

The tester of Hasselblad X1D said about approx. 3 hours with 3200 mAh battery.

GXF with 1250 mAh + battery grip will be lower. Maybe just 2 hours.

---------- Post added 09-25-2016 at 10:51 AM ----------

The total energy of the GFX battery looks to be the same 14 WHr as the D-LI90 battery, so it's probably no heavier.

But 1250 mAh vs 1860 mAh.

GFX battery is 14 Whr 10.8 V

[reh321]

As far as I remember, the original Q has the 1/2.3" sensor, which is the smallest and quite a bit smaller compared to the m4/3 sensor in most Olympus cameras. I think the Q7, Q10 and Q-S1 has a bigger sensor
1/1.7".

Actually, Q-10 has same sensor as original Q.
Nikon P-900 and Canon SX-50 also have 1/2.3" sensor.

Q-7 and Q-S1 do have 1/1.7" sensor, which is why I've been saying competing with those bridge cameras, which would require 55-300mm native Q-mount lens, would be natural area to expand "Q" market..

[biz-engineer]

Moreover, it's easy to have an eye sensor on an EVF that instantly turns on and off the power-draining light any time the photographer move their eye to/from the eyepeice.

In LV mode, what suck power is the image sensor with ADC running at 400MHz, the consumption of the back LDC is secondary. It can be figured easily by either running only the back LDC display with a continuous photo show from SD card, or LV. With LV On , the battery discharges much faster. If the image sensor is larger, everything else being equal to other cameras, power requirement of a GFX50 is supposed to be higher than X-Pro and X-T apsc line. That's my assumption. Of course, photographer only look in the viewfinder when taking a photo, evf switches Off when not used, that's not the case of Live View.

[Uluru]

I don't think any mirrorless beat a D5 at AF man... In addition, mirrorless mount typically lack the necessary lenses anyway.

I had to prove that claim myself. I investigated latest m4/3 cameras and lenses, tried them for a while, and my conclusion was that m4/3 is a ready system. Top m4/3 cameras (latest Olympus was not there) are agile as any excellent crop DSLR. And more. The EVF in Panasonic GX8 is bigger than viewfinder in the K-3, in fact, it is bigger than viewfinder in many FF DSLRs. Touchscreen tech works great, and even in cheapest m4/3 bodies from Panasonic one gets fantastic video capability. Leica and Panasonic issued a list of quite impressive small lenses, Olympus too, and third party lens makers are issuing lenses for the m4/3.

In conclusion, I can't tell that in mirrorless world lenses are missing. I was reassured in quite the opposite. Some lenses are true gems (I tried Leica 12/1.4). Cameras are amazing too, and very easy to use. (I mean Panasonic cameras have very nice UI). Now the GH5 is coming, I think, and based on that new camera Panasonic will release next generation of the still-oriented GX9 or whatever else.

However, GX8 is already so good; it is weather resistant, large enough for man's hands, sturdy, it is blazing fast. Panasonic and Leica both issued a list of fantastic WR lenses too. So it is an all weather camera. I think GX8 is far better value than Fujifilm's crop cameras, and m4/3 offers more lenses. I won't compare it to Leica SL, which is, I think, best quality modern mirrorless camera ever made by man, but in terms of consumer photography, current top m4/3 from Panasonic are fantastic cameras and lenses and can comfortably replace crop DSLRs. Now, whether you will make that step or not depends solely on your individual style, ideas about photography, and whether you still prefer DSLR. But the alternative is there.

The partnership of Panasonic and Leica is one of best in today's imaging industry, and its results are unexpected, pure gems. I am quite surprised how well it works, and I think the result are the bidextrous cameras, more pleasurable and easier to use than, say, Olympus cameras. If you don't believe me, I suggest you visit some good gear shop, and try yourself.

[bobmaxja]

The Q is not made to take 100 of photos each times, these are for less than 100 at a times.
If I bought the Q, I will be very happy

[Uluru]

The Q is not made to take 100 of photos each times, these are for less than 100 at a times.
If I bought the Q, I will be very happy

Does anybody recall 2011, and what more experienced photographers and columnists said about it? Especially on 'toy lenses'? They loved the joke!

Mike Johnston wrote that was a tongue in cheek by Pentax, a deserving answer to the crazy mirrorless hype. He wrote something similar about the MX-1, which had a — brass top plate! A deliberate joke aimed to those who can get it. Q was made to be ultra-cheap, to be obsolete in a few years. But it kept the name Pentax on the mirrorless shelves. It was a training ground for times when mirrorless tech matures up enough, so that a new, more serious system can be delivered.

Samsung was not so smart; they burned money to deliver serious mirrorless system when the tech was not ready for it and when they faced fierce competition. Samsung gave up to put it on enough shelves. Nikon with System 1, too, enormous money gone. The did not break it even. But Pentax made some good money out of a joke.

Give Pentax engineers some slack, this was one of the finest jokes imaging industry has seen.

[jadedrakerider]

Oh, wishlist time.

Lately I have been looking into getting into cinematography, and I have been looking into different options. Mirrorless? That is the way to go. I was looking at the Nikon 1 because the 1" sensor is pretty close to the 16mm film format and there are a ton of C-Mount lenses (used by many amateur and low budget filmmakers) to tap into. So if they don't use a C-Mount, it would be great if the flange distance would be compatible with that ecosystem. I adore the Pentax K system, if I could use my Pentax K lenses (complete with autofocus and TTL exposure) I'd be quite excited.

Barring that, a Pentax Q with a 6", 16:9, tiltable screen and an extreme fisheye lens would be fabulous. Something like an 8mm equivalent on full frame (which is what? something like a 2 or 3 mm?) would be great, too.

[Zygonyx]

Does anybody recall 2011, and what more experienced photographers and columnists said about it? Especially on 'toy lenses'? They loved the joke!

..... Q was made to be ultra-cheap, to be obsolete in a few years.....

Give Pentax engineers some slack, this was one of the finest jokes imaging industry has seen.

I strongly desagree with that,

1/ as far as bodies are concerned : the original Q was outrageously expensive at the start, but also stays solid as a rock about 5 years later with his strong magnesium alloy body. Mine survived to a 5 feet fall on concrete, with only half an inch scratch on the rear screen. The following models are much cheaper made, though still quite solid too

2/ as for "toylenses", i don't have any problem either with them, despite their plastic materials, if not crashed or damaged, their durability is pretty good...

So all in all, a joke for a unique thinking crowd can effectively be a quite usefull and durable tool for those who actually get real fun with it.

[BigMackCam]

Give Pentax engineers some slack, this was one of the finest jokes imaging industry has seen.

There are three possibilities, here...

(1) This is just more of your inflammatory rhetoric
(2) You really do believe that a company would put serious funds into developing a joke product
(3) Both of the above

My money's on (1)...

[bxf]

@Uluru I'd be curious to know the actual size of your big empty glass...