Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-06-2017, 08:11 PM   #166
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,993
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
IIRC, all the camera companies get them from Epson.
Pentax is convinced they aren't good enough. I should have written 'sourcing a satisfactory (to them) EVF'.

08-06-2017, 08:18 PM   #167
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,397
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Pentax is convinced they aren't good enough. I should have written 'sourcing a satisfactory (to them) EVF'.
Well, yes, some people are really put off by the experience.

Sony's A9 looks to have the most consideration into getting a less-laggy EVF but they charge thousands for the privilege.


The claim that if you take the mirror out of a camera this eill automatically make it simpler and cheaper is bogus.

Last edited by clackers; 08-06-2017 at 08:32 PM.
08-06-2017, 08:31 PM   #168
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,534
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Q taught them quite a lot about mirrorless manufacturing techniques, and that they can completely outsource high quality electronic lens electronic (to Cosina). The MILC hangup is sourcing an EVF.
Is the IQ with the Q really that much better compared to a current smartphone camera?
08-06-2017, 08:49 PM   #169
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 501
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Is the IQ with the Q really that much better compared to a current smartphone camera?
Technically, probably yes. But it does not seem to matter to average Joe/Jane consumer who might have bought a small camera. they are already spending $700-$800 on a new smartphone as it is, might as well use all of its features....


08-06-2017, 09:03 PM   #170
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,996
QuoteOriginally posted by goldenarrow Quote
,,,The 645 system still has a chance to evolve but Q seems dead unless they can morph it into a phone/radio/walkie-talkie/bottle-opener....
Most here would agree that the "Q'" is dead, but Pentax may not get around to telling us because they're more than happy to sell off their remaining inventory at current prices.

My personal view for some time has been that the Q's greatest strength was the size of its sensor - attach a K-mount telephoto and you end up with serious magnification - a thing to be appreciated by those of us who can't afford to spend $$$$ on 560mm-plus lenses. However, Pentax was never willing to support such a possibility, and not many were willing to "rough it" as I've been doing for the past 33 months.Today, it would actually be fairly simple to build a full function Q-to-KAF4 adapter, but apparently Pentax engineering didn't have time and/or resources to take on the task three years ago, when the task would have been more challenging {and the Q-family was still alive}


08-06-2017, 09:55 PM   #171
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,534
QuoteOriginally posted by goldenarrow Quote
Technically, probably yes. But it does not seem to matter to average Joe/Jane consumer who might have bought a small camera. they are already spending $700-$800 on a new smartphone as it is, might as well use all of its features....
Well the sensor size on the Q was tiny... I think the thing it really had going for it was interchangeable optics. But yes you are probably right.. besides that smartphone can slip into any pocket. Try that with a Q and lens.

Which is why I'd think it would be more well received if the Q got a sensor update... in terms of size.. maybe a 1" sensor if it fits the mount.

Otherwise I'd just say start over and get a 1" to m4/3rds sized sensor and an EVF in whatever succeeds the Q.


Beyond this.. changing topics.. I get the impression that the entire camera market is slowing down on innovation. Not that it isn't still innovating but again that it is slowing down. It does seem rather mature now. Which makes me wonder if Ricoh sees this and expects the K-1 to 'compete' well for awhile.. thus why they aren't so quick on lenses.

Or more so maybe the K-1 was just the introduction FF DSLR and the roadmapped lenses are really designed for a mark II.. which could be seen in a couple years from now. If they are really aiming to stay in the market longer term.. and want the optics to last comparably for a long term that is.

I read recently that Nikon was supposedly going to sell the D810 alongside the D850 for awhile. If true, the K-1 would not be seen as so dated.. 36 MP is still a high resolution and overkill for a number of photographer's applications. Even the 5d IV's 30MP is..
08-06-2017, 10:22 PM   #172
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
The claim that if you take the mirror out of a camera this eill automatically make it simpler and cheaper is bogus.
That's why Canon say they make a M5 and a M6, the EVF module itself is priced around $220.
08-06-2017, 11:01 PM   #173
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,800
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
maybe a 1" sensor if it fits the mount.
The lenses are suitable for the Q7/QS1 maximum.....1" is too big.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
the Q's greatest strength was the size of its sensor - attach a K-mount telephoto
And you have the worlds best teleconverter@12 mp!

08-07-2017, 06:06 AM - 1 Like   #174
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,264
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Is the IQ with the Q really that much better compared to a current smartphone camera?
Yes. I have a Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge which is recognized as one of the best smartphone cameras. It's essentially the same camera module in the new S8. It is very good, F1.7, optical image stabilization, etc... But the JPGs suffer from compression artifacts. The aperture is fixed at F1.7. The focal length is fixed at 27mm. The RAW files are good but the only time you really capture fine detail is in closeups.

The Q is way more versatile with interchangeable lenses.


Ontario_RoadRUNNER_Jun14.pdf
by John Flores, on Flickr

But there are two places where the S7 Edge kills the Q.

1. Video. S7 Edge shoots 4k. Q is terrible.
2. Connectivity. Sometimes I choose the S7 Edge for the grab shot over the Q simply for the convenience.

Within the context of this discussion, the Q won't break through until it fixes those two points but by then it be too late. Motorola already is selling modular a modular phone attachment for its phones. It's crap right now but just the first iteration. And RED is moving in the same direction. The smartphone is the hub for peoples' digital lives these days and the Q needs to do a better job of recognizing that.
08-07-2017, 12:24 PM   #175
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Specialty stores (low volume, high markup) can survive or even thrive when supermarket chains (high volume, low profit) run themselves out of business in a price war chasing the lowest common denominator.

The problem for Nikon, Canon and Sony is that their intrinsic setups were high volume, and all three have plunged since 2012.
True but overall in our today world, hypermarket make money Hey a single hypermarket in a single city is make more money per year than the whole Pentax brand.
08-07-2017, 12:28 PM   #176
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Most here would agree that the "Q'" is dead, but Pentax may not get around to telling us because they're more than happy to sell off their remaining inventory at current prices.

My personal view for some time has been that the Q's greatest strength was the size of its sensor - attach a K-mount telephoto and you end up with serious magnification - a thing to be appreciated by those of us who can't afford to spend $$$$ on 560mm-plus lenses. However, Pentax was never willing to support such a possibility, and not many were willing to "rough it" as I've been doing for the past 33 months.Today, it would actually be fairly simple to build a full function Q-to-KAF4 adapter, but apparently Pentax engineering didn't have time and/or resources to take on the task three years ago, when the task would have been more challenging {and the Q-family was still alive}

There simply not enough people who care of that very specific setup. The big market for tiny sensor on dedicated camera are super zooms that achieve the same but with AF and a single lens.

People that care about quality decided that the min acceptable size is about 1", better if it is m4/3, APSC or FF.

The thing is in term of cost/size and all, if you stick to common focal lengths a m4/3 or 1" camera + lens can still be quite small, there no much reason to go smaller. It still a dedicated camera, so much more annoying than a phone in all cases. To justify the buy it has to be much better.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-07-2017 at 12:36 PM.
08-07-2017, 12:32 PM   #177
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Hey a single hypermarket in a single city is make more money per year than the whole Pentax brand.
and the WW pizza market is as large the WW market for semiconductor wafers :-)
The K1 could be used as a hammer, but it doesn't yet make coffee.
08-07-2017, 01:02 PM - 1 Like   #178
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
and the WW pizza market is as large the WW market for semiconductor wafers :-)
The K1 could be used as a hammer, but it doesn't yet make coffee.
The margin is higher, there no much R&D and the market is growing...
08-07-2017, 05:48 PM   #179
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,968
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
People that care about quality decided that the min acceptable size is about 1", better if it is m4/3, APSC or FF.
People that "cared about quality" used to think that 35mm was not acceptable.
08-07-2017, 06:36 PM   #180
Pentaxian
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 774
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
People that "cared about quality" used to think that 35mm was not acceptable.
Yep, in the early 1900's when 35mm film came out people's thoughts where usually "If it's not Large Format film, it's shit" or "If it's not Medium Format film, it's shit." which even now people think that (even in the Digifal world), even though Dslr cameras have been improved in quality the last few years.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
3d, business, businesses, camera, cameras, company, components, devices, environment, equipment, f2.8, figures, i.e, images, lenses, money, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, period, photography, products, profit, q1, ricoh, semiconductor, vision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon's Year (Financial Results) - an analysis interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 05-13-2017 05:49 AM
Ricoh Financial results - FY2017/03 Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 373 04-28-2017 06:10 AM
Sony financial results - A7 etc. camera collapse with interesting insights beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 29 12-10-2016 01:55 AM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016) Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 69 10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Pentax Financial results Q1 FY14 Zav Pentax News and Rumors 38 08-20-2013 05:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top