[reh321]

The Q has a sensor smaller than that of any current smartphone, so the system does not have any chance of surviving today. It would be throwing money in the dumpster to develop it, unfortunately.

How large do you think most smart phone sensors are?
Larger than the 1/1.7" sensor that the Q-7 and Q-S1 have??
Then they are squeezed in close to a tiny lens???

---

Last edited by reh321; 02-05-2021 at 12:11 PM.

[Serkevan]

How large do you think most smart phone sensors are?
Larger than the 1/1.7" sensor that the Q-7 and Q-S1 have?

A "main camera" with a 1/1.5" or 1/1.3" sensor is fairly typical these days. The Xiaomi Redmis have the former sensor (108MP quad-bayer) on 250€ phones. I don't think many 2020 smartphone over 200€ have a main sensor smaller than 1/2".

[ThorSanchez]

How large do you think most smart phone sensors are?
Larger than the 1/1.7" sensor that the Q-7 and Q-S1 have??
Then they are squeezed in close to a tiny lens???

The Q used a 9.7mm sensor, most phones today appear to have something fairly similar, in the 7-10mm range, and as Serkevan said some in the 15mm+ range. But all with all those computational, multi-frame, pixel-shifty combining features that can give results like a much larger sensor.

[reh321]

The Q used a 9.7mm sensor, most phones today appear to have something fairly similar, in the 7-10mm range, and as Serkevan said some in the 15mm+ range. But all with all those computational, multi-frame, pixel-shifty combining features that can give results like a much larger sensor.

and nothing {except money} prevents Pentax from putting real computing power in a “Q” - and then taking advantage of being an ILC, I would much rather have a choice of lenses than be stuck with whatever Apple or Samsung chose for me.

[ThorSanchez]

and nothing {except money} prevents Pentax from putting real computing power in a “Q” - and then taking advantage of being an ILC, I would much rather have a choice of lenses than be stuck with whatever Apple or Samsung chose for me.

Sure. But when you have a normal, a telephoto and a wide on your phone the niche for a hypothetical advanced Q gets pretty small.

[reh321]

Sure. But when you have a normal, a telephoto and a wide on your phone the niche for a hypothetical advanced Q gets pretty small.

I gave up on prime lenses over twenty years ago. Why take a photo of a squirrel's stomach at 420mm, when I can zoom back and photograph the entire scene at 200mm or miss it while changing lenses?
The "telephoto" lenses actually use tiny sensors on most smart phones, so they are not nearly as good as might seem to be the case.
But you can think whatever you want to - I will not discuss this point further.
Pentax gave up on the "Q" when they refused to explore the power of EVFs.
I didn't even consider medium format back in the Age-of-Film when they had real advantages and were used mostly by real professionals, so this whole discussion in purely theoretical to me.
Nothing Pentax does will affect me, other than possibly taking resources away from a {potential} camera I might actually purchase.
They can act, and I will continue to sit {literally} on my money.

[ThorSanchez]

I gave up on prime lenses over twenty years ago. Why take a photo of a squirrel's stomach at 420mm, when I can zoom back and photograph the entire scene at 200mm or miss it while changing lenses?
The "telephoto" lenses actually use tiny sensors on most smart phones, so they are not nearly as good as might seem to be the case.
But you can think whatever you want to - I will not discuss this point further.
Pentax gave up on the "Q" when they refused to explore the power of EVFs.
I didn't even consider medium format back in the Age-of-Film when they had real advantages and were used mostly by real professionals, so this whole discussion in purely theoretical to me.
Nothing Pentax does will affect me, other than possibly taking resources away from a {potential} camera I might actually purchase.
They can act, and I will continue to sit {literally} on my money.

I thought we had a nice, civil conversation going, and I was happy to continue. But I guess not.

[Broadside]

I would like to think there could be a niche for a Q with a modern smartphone sensor, modern smartphone processing, modern smartphone interconnectivity, and interchangeable lenses. But with multi-lens smartphones a new Q would be a somewhat more flexible smartphone without the phone. That still probably costs $500-1000 body-only. So, probably not.

Declare the Q-mount to be universal for smartphones and let the makers build it into the handsets, then just sell the lenses.

This all just wishful thinking anyway, until you first figure out why the Sony QX1 and Olympus Air failed (and Motorola's Moto/Hasselblad thing). I guess the mass market doesn't care sufficiently about image quality, just that their phone can claim to do something - the universal clip-on adapters (wide, 10x & macro) seem to have mostly disappeared, the Chinese junk shovellers moving on to digibinning 30-60x monoculars.

(Why would the unthinking public buy interchangeable lenses if the phone-makers tell them their phone does it - they just assume that's how the images are supposed to look).

[Serkevan]

Declare the Q-mount to be universal for smartphones and let the makers build it into the handsets, then just sell the lenses.

This all just wishful thinking anyway, until you first figure out why the Sony QX1 and Olympus Air failed (and Motorola's Moto/Hasselblad thing). I guess the mass market doesn't care sufficiently about image quality, just that their phone can claim to do something - the universal clip-on adapters (wide, 10x & macro) seem to have mostly disappeared, the Chinese junk shovellers moving on to digibinning 30-60x monoculars.

(Why would the unthinking public buy interchangeable lenses if the phone-makers tell them their phone does it - they just assume that's how the images are supposed to look).

Because most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a phone screen between an image from a half decent phone and a camera that costs $1000 before you start thinking about lenses. Heck, a good number of people in this forum can't tell whether an image comes from between a cheapo 30 year old, film-era prime or a 1000€ modern glass monster without a side-by-side comparison.

And the phone doesn't need a bag.

[reh321]

I thought we had a nice, civil conversation going, and I was happy to continue. But I guess not.

I don't see any reason to continue a discussion which is an offshoot of a comment I made.
I have a "Q" and would purchase another one - but I doubt if Pentax will make one.
I believe Pentax has already lost the {small} medium format market to Fuji - if they want to continue, it is their money but I won't contribute any of mine.
If they really wanted to compete, they should have come up with something several years ago.
I don't see anything to discuss.

[ThorSanchez]

Because most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a phone screen between an image from a half decent phone and a camera that costs $1000 before you start thinking about lenses. Heck, a good number of people in this forum can't tell whether an image comes from between a cheapo 30 year old, film-era prime or a 1000€ modern glass monster without a side-by-side comparison.

And the phone doesn't need a bag.

The other day I posted (then took down because I wasn't sure it was allowed) two forum-sized images from the DPReview studio comparison tool. One from a Q7, with a decade old cell phone-sized sensor, the other from a medium format 645Z.


Without looking at the Exif I couldn't tell the difference, and at one point I was confused which was which.

For most people's viewing habits on small screens, and casual photography subjects, a $2000 advanced Q system would be an absolute waste of money.

[thibs]

We don't really need more... two lenses per year (ideally three, switching between 2 FF/1 APS-C and viceversa) and one camera per year is plenty, IMO. In 2021 we'll probably see the D FA 21 and the 16-50/2.8 PLM. Mayhaps another as a surprise. Next year, who knows.

A long zoom to complement the 28-105 should come soon IMO

[reh321]

The other day I posted (then took down because I wasn't sure it was allowed) two forum-sized images from the DPReview studio comparison tool. One from a Q7, with a decade old cell phone-sized sensor, the other from a medium format 645Z.
....................
For most people's viewing habits on small screens, and casual photography subjects, a $2000 advanced Q system would be an absolute waste of money.

So, even more so for the 645Z, which would cost several times more.

[Serkevan]

So, even more so for the 645Z, which would cost several times more.

The 645Z is aimed at a completely different customer who doesn't use forum-sized images.

[reh321]

The 645Z is aimed at a completely different customer who doesn't use forum-sized images.

That was a marketing decision by Pentax which I never agreed with.
I thought they should have produced an adapter that would have made K-mount lenses fully functional {based on price of the 01 lens, the adapter they did sell was seriously over-priced},
then gone for the market then dominated by "super -zoom" cameras such as Canon's SX-50 ..... but it is and was their company.

added: I got my Q-7 six months before I got my K-30, but in many senses the Q-7 is just "a little version" of the K-30.
The controls are very similar - I just had to keep the non-existence of a front e-dial in mind when I use it.
My iPhone is completely different - with no external controls and confusing menus.