Originally posted by reh321 These comments are as irrelevant as ever - the natural comparison for the "Q" family are the Nikon and Canon bridge cameras.
Q key factors for me are the diminutive size of the interchangeable lens systems. That's what define Q for me. Bridge cameras are often big and always fixed lens. This doesn't target at all the same type of users for me.
Direct competitors that provide both small bodies and interchangeable lenses are:
- m4/3 with for example Olympus Pen serie when used with some compact lenses (like the pancake collapsible zooms and primes)
- Nikon 1 serie (for example Nikon 1J5 is a tiny bit higher, a tiny bit shorter and also narrower than the Q, The 1v3 is a slightly bigger, but not much).
- Sony E serie when used with some compact lenses (like the pancake collapsible zooms and primes)
Among the alternatives, Q has the smallest lenses, but not smaller body than Nikon 1. In term of picture quality, the sensor limit the Q performance. In term of echosytem m4/3 provide both smallish lenses to compete with the Q as well as larger high quality lenses meaning you get the best of both worlds.
Before to compare them to bridge cameras, I would factor in compact cameras serie like RX100 that do provide same typical smallish size.
To me a bridge camera often try to provide reach and telephoto capabilities and are quite big. The more direct comparison for me would be a quite low end reflex (usuably bridge aren't that advanced) with a super zoom like a 16-300 or 18-300. K30 + 18-135 or 18-270 qualify. My father has both a bridge and the K30 + 18-135 and found overall that the effective reach (by cropping) is as good on the K30 + 18-135 but that also, the quality and handling is much better while the AF and reactivity are also in favor of the DSLR. But I guess that's each to its own.
But like it or not people do compare camera that are different and they don't limit themselve to a specific comparison. For you a Q compare to bridge and that's legitimate. For me their compare to other small interchangeable mirrorless to some other they would compare to small compact camera... Why ? Because you first come from your own need and then check what match.
The 2 persons I know that were in the market for a compact camera system still providing some quality pictures gone for some APSC Sony E mount (without EVF) on one side, and an m4/3 on the other side. None ever considered Q. The reflex were considered (for the quality part) but seen very fast in both case as too big and annoying.
So to me this is really were Q compete and among objective limitations like sensor size that could limit its possibilities to be seen as able to provide quality picture by some, the biggest problem is most people are not even aware it exist.