[Nicolas06]

The problem I see from current Q line is if I take an Olympus Pen with a 14-42 kit lens I get very similar size/weight. If I put a 14-42 kit lens even the small one I am guarenteed to get as sharp of better image and as good or better low light performance than the Q primes...

If I take an LX10, I get a bundled zoom of f/1.4-2.8 equivalent in QS1 sensor to f/0.8-1.7... The Q doesn't have zooms like that...

Starting from that, the Q system can only be a toy camera for fun applications, not really anything serious. Sure people spend a lot for fun, nothing wrong with that. But I don't see how the Q line could look premium this way. There no much opportunity for subject isolation or not perfect light shooting.

[rrstuff]

I think it q series could be a premium niche product. Its a kind of camera I could buy as a gift to my sister who has only moderate interest in photography, but could use a camera as a fashion accessory.

[jadedrakerider]

Starting from that, the Q system can only be a toy camera for fun applications, not really anything serious. Sure people spend a lot for fun, nothing wrong with that. But I don't see how the Q line could look premium this way. There no much opportunity for subject isolation or not perfect light shooting.

I don't know why you say that, really. Although I have not been able to use the Q personally. We live in a world where a feature film was filmed on an iPhone. Why can't a Pentax Q be used for a serious applications?

My problem with the Q isn't that it can't be used seriously, it's that it's so hard to find a decent wide angle lens.

[Kunzite]

I believe it could reasonably be a "premium" product in its category, if they would provide
* EVF
* stronger processor
* additional, KAF4-like lenses

What do you mean by KAF4-like? The Q mount was fully electric from the beginning.

[reh321]

What do you mean by KAF4-like? The Q mount was fully electric from the beginning.

Yes, the 01, 02, 06, and 08 lenses are KAF4-like.
I believe the line needs to be filled out by a few more lenses of the same quality.

The promised macro lens, a 55-300mm lens, and a prime wide angle lens priced more like the 01 than like the 08 all come to mind.

---------- Post added 09-27-16 at 05:51 PM ----------

The 08 wide zoom is perfectly fine.
A good wide-angle prime would need to be so telecentric
that it would be as large as the zoom.

Unfortunately, many Q enthusiasts were too cheap to embrace the 08.
With its molded aspheric, it's at a higher level than hybrid aspherics like the FA*24..

I guess I fit your definition of "cheap".

My Q-7 is my secondary camera.

I'd had it for six months when my Canon Rebel died, and it had proven itself by then, so I was perfectly comfortable using it regularly for a couple of months while I looked for a good deal on a K-30/50, but I would not want to use it permanently as my primary camera; even if it had an EVF, I'm not sure I would want it as my primary camera. I have a Sigma 10-20mm for my K-30; I paid perhaps $250 on the PF Marketplace for that lens, which I may use a dozen times a year. I have never paid $500 for a lens, and I'm not willing for the first time I spend that much on a lens for it to be a lens that is an important part of my kit, but is not that heavily used {even if I had the 08, it would add very little utility beyond what I already get from the 01, which is currently my most heavily used lens on that camera}.

[Uluru]

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.

Of course you may disagree. I also like the Q, but I can see where it finally ends and I feel no regrets about it.

Q was wickedly different back then, and that is why it was amusing. But take a closer look at that system: it cannot grow in any direction. Camera body can't be enlarged to fit better batteries and more sophisticated tech because then it becomes as big as small m4/3, which is by far better and more mature system.

Q was designed to reap on initial hype and that's about it. It will end the same way as the Pentax Auto 110. No attention was given to Q in the last several years, which rather confirms rep claims that Q, as it is, is dead. Or we can give it a benefit of doubt and surmise it will be resurrected in a different form altogether. More mature Q, that has graduated pre-school and primary school and now thinks about further education.

---------- Post added 09-28-2016 at 09:29 AM ----------

The problem I see from current Q line is if I take an Olympus Pen with a 14-42 kit lens I get very similar size/weight. If I put a 14-42 kit lens even the small one I am guarenteed to get as sharp of better image and as good or better low light performance than the Q primes...
If I take an LX10, I get a bundled zoom of f/1.4-2.8 equivalent in QS1 sensor to f/0.8-1.7... The Q doesn't have zooms like that...
Starting from that, the Q system can only be a toy camera for fun applications, not really anything serious. Sure people spend a lot for fun, nothing wrong with that. But I don't see how the Q line could look premium this way. There no much opportunity for subject isolation or not perfect light shooting.

Those were my thoughts too. Q is surpassed by constant and serious advancement in the m4/3 field, and is now outclassed by a huge margin.
There is no comparison between the two. Even low-end m4/3 body is light years ahead of Q7.
Also Q is no premium product by any stretch of imagination. It was experimental. If Ricoh abandoned experimental range of cameras, then we may with great certainly imagine Q as we knew it is gone, or will stay as an inert and well amortised asset that grabs some attention from time to time.

---------- Post added 09-28-2016 at 09:36 AM ----------

I don't know why you say that, really. Although I have not been able to use the Q personally. We live in a world where a feature film was filmed on an iPhone. Why can't a Pentax Q be used for a serious applications?
My problem with the Q isn't that it can't be used seriously, it's that it's so hard to find a decent wide angle lens.

There is one, 08 zoom, but it costs $500.
That's a price for a good m4/3 lens too, and there are plenty of nice m4/3 primes and zooms for well below $500.
The whole idea of 'Q is fun' disappears in a puff then.

---------- Post added 09-28-2016 at 09:40 AM ----------

I think it q series could be a premium niche product. Its a kind of camera I could buy as a gift to my sister who has only moderate interest in photography, but could use a camera as a fashion accessory.

I think small m4/3 is the new Q.
Small m4/3 is small, fun, also seriously good in tech and has tons of lenses for it. While Ricoh was dormant with Q, m4/3 world just exploded in all directions and made itself a mirrorless standard that comes in many colours and tastes so to speak. What Q tried to do with colours, Panasonic and Olympus did with real camera tech development.

[reh321]

Of course you may disagree. I also like the Q, but I can see where it finally ends and I feel no regrets about it.

Q was wickedly different back then, and that is why it was amusing. But take a closer look at that system: it cannot grow in any direction. Camera body can't be enlarged to fit better batteries and more sophisticated tech because then it becomes as big as small m4/3, which is by far better and more mature system.

Q was designed to reap on initial hype and that's about it. It will end the same way as the Pentax Auto 110. No attention was given to Q in the last several years, which rather confirms rep claims that Q, as it is, is dead. Or we can give it a benefit of doubt and surmise it will be resurrected in a different form altogether. More mature Q, that has graduated pre-school and primary school and now thinks about further education

Several hours before you posted this, asahi man posted that we will be seeing new developments for the "Q".

Those were my thoughts too. Q is surpassed by constant and serious advancement in the m4/3 field, and is now outclassed by a huge margin.
There is no comparison between the two. Even low-end m4/3 body is light years ahead of Q7.
Also Q is no premium product by any stretch of imagination. It was experimental. If Ricoh abandoned experimental range of cameras, then we may with great certainly imagine Q as we knew it is gone, or will stay as an inert and well amortized asset that grabs some attention from time to time

Again, see comments already made by asahi man. I Totally disagree with your comments You keep viewing "Q" as competing with MFT; I believe other small sensor cameras, such as the Nikon P-900 and the Canon SX-50 are more properly seen as being in the same niche as the "Q". The next iteration will reveal Pentax's vision. I

There is one, 08 zoom, but it costs $500.
That's a price for a good m4/3 lens too, and there are plenty of nice m4/3 primes and zooms for well below $500.
The whole idea of 'Q is fun' disappears in a puff then

The 08 appeals to those thinking as you do, with the "Q" competing with MFT. The "fun" lenses are much less expensive.

I think small m4/3 is the new Q.
Small m4/3 is small, fun, also seriously good in tech and has tons of lenses for it. While Ricoh was dormant with Q, m4/3 world just exploded in all directions and made itself a mirrorless standard that comes in many colours and tastes so to speak. What Q tried to do with colours, Panasonic and Olympus did with real camera tech development.

This brings us full circle to the question of mission / vision for the "Q"; you used many words in several different areas to address this issue, but I'm not going to waste time addressing an issue we've already talked about.

[lytrytyr]

Starting from that, the Q system can only be a toy camera for fun applications, not really anything serious. Sure people spend a lot for fun, nothing wrong with that. But I don't see how the Q line could look premium this way.

Your fundamental mistake here is to concentrate on the mid range, as covered by the 02 zoom.
That is not where the Q excels.

There no much opportunity for subject isolation or not perfect light shooting.

You clearly have little practical experience in how to use the Q system.

---------- Post added 09-27-16 at 10:08 PM ----------

But take a closer look at that system: it cannot grow in any direction.

Of course it can. Pixel shift, for example.

Camera body can't be enlarged to fit better batteries and more sophisticated tech because then it becomes as big as small m4/3

The body, yes, but bodies alone don't make photographs.
Compare the Panny 35-100mm f/2.8 (10cm long) with the 06 zoom on the Q!

[Nicolas06]

I don't know why you say that, really. Although I have not been able to use the Q personally. We live in a world where a feature film was filmed on an iPhone. Why can't a Pentax Q be used for a serious applications?

My problem with the Q isn't that it can't be used seriously, it's that it's so hard to find a decent wide angle lens.

I say that because I think it, same for you hopefully, thanks . The problem with example like feature film with iphone is to compare... How much pro work is done with Q on one side, whatever the work and how much pro work is done with many other system... If you draw statistics, you'll find out that the Q is one of the least used. Simple as that. If there to be any proof by example as you argument was, failing to even reference a Q example (you had to look for iphones) and something that people speak of basically because it almost never happen is not an argument. if anything it is a statement on how uncommon and unpractical it is.

First example. I gone to a safari recently. I got K3 + 55-300 + 17-70... I got many shots in the 400-800 iso range, some iso 1600 and of course many 300mm APSC (450mm FF equiv). You notice we speak entry level telezoom lens and I think K30 would have managed just as well. But I had fast reactive AF too. The lenses for that don't exist in the Q and with adapter you loose AF and still get not so nice quality when you need to push the isos.

Second example, I want to isolate the subject. lylrytyr say I don't understand. So I'll give a picture, and ask him for a similar picture wit similar framing. Let's see what subject isolation the Q will provide with its native lenses in comparison.

FA77, f/1.8, iso100, 1/40s



Third example: Rondec like to make landscapes. Many are with lot of dynamic range. His K1 helped him on that with lot of dynamic range. QS1 dynamic range is low and will require HDR shoots when a simple APSC or FF body would achieve the result in one shot.

Now let's imagine I get an Olympus Pen instead. Like even the Pen EPL6. I get very similar size/weight. It is cheaper. But the sensor is much bigger. If I want a long tele zoom, with AF I can buy it. If I want a fast prime that will give me comparable result to the photo posted above. I can get it. If I go more advance bodies. I get very reactive AF, 4K support, potentially an alternate implementation of pixel shift...

Sure I can do fun stuff with the Q no denying that. But the Q isn't the tool of choice of professionals and doesn't fit many practices. It is nice for fun applications or casual photos. But even then overall it is expensive for the picture quality it offer.

Pentax could have improved the Q a lot if they wanted. Pixel shift, 14bit raw, iso 25 or iso 50 support, AF that work to -3IL, really fast prime f/0.95 prime and f/1.7 zooms, have a full lens line up with a fish, a long tele, and few other specialty lenses. They could have added 4K support, nice video features, they could have ensured you could use it like a go pro... Kind of providing the cool looking interchangeable action/sturdy action cam... There lot of possibility but the latest change that occured long time ago already was a cosmetic change...

How honestly can you expect people to believe and invest into such system?

[reh321]

I say that because I think it, same for you hopefully, thanks . The problem with example like feature film with iphone is to compare... How much pro work is done with Q on one side, whatever the work and how much pro work is done with many other system... If you draw statistics, you'll find out that the Q is one of the least used. Simple as that. If there to be any proof by example as you argument was, failing to even reference a Q example (you had to look for iphones) and something that people speak of basically because it almost never happen is not an argument. if anything it is a statement on how uncommon and unpractical it is.

First example. I gone to a safari recently. I got K3 + 55-300 + 17-70... I got many shots in the 400-800 iso range, some iso 1600 and of course many 300mm APSC (450mm FF equiv). You notice we speak entry level telezoom lens and I think K30 would have managed just as well. But I had fast reactive AF too. The lenses for that don't exist in the Q and with adapter you loose AF and still get not so nice quality when you need to push the isos.

Second example, I want to isolate the subject. lylrytyr say I don't understand. So I'll give a picture, and ask him for a similar picture wit similar framing. Let's see what subject isolation the Q will provide with its native lenses in comparison.

Third example: Rondec like to make landscapes. Many are with lot of dynamic range. His K1 helped him on that with lot of dynamic range. QS1 dynamic range is low and will require HDR shoots when a simple APSC or FF body would achieve the result in one shot.

Now let's imagine I get an Olympus Pen instead. Like even the Pen EPL6. I get very similar size/weight. It is cheaper. But the sensor is much bigger. If I want a long tele zoom, with AF I can buy it. If I want a fast prime that will give me comparable result to the photo posted above. I can get it. If I go more advance bodies. I get very reactive AF, 4K support, potentially an alternate implementation of pixel shift...

Sure I can do fun stuff with the Q no denying that. But the Q isn't the tool of choice of professionals and doesn't fit many practices. It is nice for fun applications or casual photos. But even then overall it is expensive for the picture quality it offer.

Pentax could have improved the Q a lot if they wanted. Pixel shift, 14bit raw, iso 25 or iso 50 support, AF that work to -3IL, really fast prime f/0.95 prime and f/1.7 zooms, have a full lens line up with a fish, a long tele, and few other specialty lenses. They could have added 4K support, nice video features, they could have ensured you could use it like a go pro... Kind of providing the cool looking interchangeable action/sturdy action cam... There lot of possibility but the latest change that occured long time ago already was a cosmetic change...

How honestly can you expect people to believe and invest into such system?

What part of "fun" is giving you problems??

Nobody claims that the "Q" is professional grade. I'm willing to stipulate that the MFT is closer to professional grade than the "Q" is, but I'm guessing that not many professionals use MFT for their work either - certainly not nearly as many as use APS-C - certainly not nearly as many as use FF.


Let's look at more realistic examples of "fun", from my use of the "Q" beginning when I got my Q-7 in December 2014:


(1) In April 2015, my wife and I visited our daughter in San Diego CA. I had an old Canon Rebel and the Q-7 with me. Our first day there, I discovered that the Q-7 + 01 did much better indoors than my elderly Rebel did, so for the remainder of the trip, I took all my indoors pictures {mostly libraries, old missions, etc, where no sane person would want subject isolation} using the Q-7 + 01.


(2) In May 2015, our second daughter received her Master's Degree. A few weeks before, my Canon Rebel unexpectedly died. This was actually my second Rebel to unexpectedly die on me - when that happened the first time, I was totally unprepared to replace it, so I just automatically bought a second one. This time, even with our daughter's commencement coming up, I announced that I would take my time and look into several possibilities, even with our last Commencement as parents looming, because the Q-7 had proven itself. I took the Q-7 + 06 to the Commencement, and we were all quite satisfied with the pictures I took.


(3) In December 2014, my wife and I had gone to the Madrigal Dinner at the college where she is an administrator. I had taken my Canon Elph because I didn't want to take my large, heavy and noisy DSLR; partway through the dinner, my wife leaned over and said "Those pictures aren't right" - further whispering revealed that the WB correction in the Elph was eliminating the staging color. The next year, December 2015, I took my Q-7 + 06, and shot RAW + SCN(candlelight). After the dinner, I was talking with the woman who had sat directly in front of me {I'd been shooting around her all night}; when I asked her why she'd been using flash, which was guaranteed to wash out the mood lighting, she explained that her five-year-old Nikon wasn't up to the task of taking natural light pictures there. She was very excited when I showed her one of mine - purely by chance, it was of her daughter's solo - so I sent some to her.



(4) December 2015, our entire family began our Christmas celebration by attending a performance here by Straight No Chaser, a professional singing group. Our older daughter, who is a fan of theirs, told us that they had begun as a student group at Indiana University, which has a well-known music school, but had moved to professional success after fans had posted video on U-Tube; thus, they encourage amateur photography, assuming you can get your stuff past the guards at the door. I didn't want to take my bulky K-30, so I took the Q-7 + 06 again {most fans had cell phones}. We had front-row second balcony seats, so I had a good view, but I had to go to high ISO. At first I thought I had a lot of noise in my images, but then I realized most of what I was seeing was a result of the smoke they use to make their lighting work.



(5) February 2016 my wife was part of a group that was "dedicated" during a worship service at our church. Not wanting the clatter-clatter of my K-30 to be an issue, I took my Q-7 + 06 again. With the whisper-quiet leaf lens, no one was even aware I had taken any pictures, but the lady who does publicity was thrilled, because she had thought they didn't have anything from the event.


(6) July 2016 our vacation was in Quebec Province. On our last day in Montreal, I went off on a walk by myself while my wife read, relaxed, and prepared to leave. Since I'd be going over ground we'd already covered several times, I didn't want to take my heavy K-30 kit, but simply slung the small case with my light Q-7 kit over my shoulder. It turned out that I did take several pictures on that adventure, images I wouldn't have had if I'd gone with nothing.


Yes, I know that I could have taken an MFT camera to any of these events, but I have the Q-7 and it did the job. The events listed above are just a fraction of times when I've used the Q-7. The main reason I chose that particular camera is my wife's hobby, bird watching. Most of the pictures I've taken have been in our backyard or otherwise around town, but I also take it on our nature walks together. And this is where an MFT camera could not keep pace with my Q-7, which gives me the equivalent of a 1000mm+ lens at a total kit cost of less than $1000, and it gives much better IQ than I would get with a Canon SX-50 or Nikon P-900 with its 1/2.3" sensor.

[lytrytyr]

Second example, I want to isolate the subject. lylrytyr say I don't understand.

The comment about "subject isolation" sounded like that's the be-all and end-all of photography.
But it is the increased depth of field offered by the Q system that is one of its strengths.

So I'll give a picture, and ask him for a similar picture wit similar framing. Let's see what subject isolation the Q will provide with its native lenses in comparison.

OK, nevertheless, since you ask:

[Nicolas06]

OK, nevertheless, since you ask:

Well that far less separation at same background distance but I'am curious to get the exif of this one...

I mean even PentaxForum here isn't convinced, even if this is on the smaller initial Q: Pentax Q Review - Depth of Field and Blur Control | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[Nicolas06]

Most of the pictures I've taken have been in our backyard or otherwise around town, but I also take it on our nature walks together. And this is where an MFT camera could not keep pace with my Q-7, which gives me the equivalent of a 1000mm+ lens at a total kit cost of less than $1000, and it gives much better IQ than I would get with a Canon SX-50 or Nikon P-900 with its 1/2.3" sensor.

Yeah that the part of the fun. Fully Agree

Still that doesn't mean other can't play with MFT or APSC to get 1000mm and up. Even for small money...

With the Samyang 800mm f/8 Catadioptric lens on APSC you could get 1200mm, you get something like that: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/63656-rokinon-800mm-s...s-10-pics.html

On a MFT that would be 1600mm... or if you add an old 1.4 or 2X TC on your APSC that would be respectivelly 1680 or 2400mm... Arguably at least the APSC K-mount body is bigger... But put that on an Olympus pen, some being same size as Q, I don't know if this is very different.

[BigMackCam]

But put that on an Olympus pen, some being same size as Q, I don't know if this is very different.

I dont know of an Olympus Pen as small as the Q7 or Q-S1, and certainly nowhere near as small as the original Q... even the Olympus Pen Mini E-PM1 is noticeably bigger than a Q7...

[RonHendriks1966]

I dont know of an Olympus Pen as small as the Q7 or Q-S1, and certainly nowhere near as small as the original Q... even the Olympus Pen Mini E-PM1 is noticeably bigger than a Q7...

Panasonic gm5

http://camerasize.com/compare/#570,561