A little Q love

napawino · 06-23-2011, 05:37 PM

He was great.

jct us101 · 06-23-2011, 05:53 PM

Heh. Heh.

juu · 06-23-2011, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I just carried 2 DSLRs more than 10 miles over 11 days, for about 50 shots, one or two of which will be printable.. Cameras are by far the heaviest things in my pack.. my DA*60-250 out weighs my tent. This looks like something sent from heaven. If it has the same IQ as my K20D, my APS-C bodies are toast. The only way it's not worth the $800 to me, is if the IQ isn't up to scratch. I just spent $300 on a lighter tent, people in my position are willing to pay big bucks to save a few ounces. So, while I respect the opinions above... there could be other opinions.

Actually, if the Q were weather resistant, I could see the point of using Pentax Q as a hiking camera and might even buy one.

And indeed in this endeavour $800 to save 300g is pretty standard (I've just built a big spreadsheet for my next trip, including weighting every item carefully with kitchen weights).

However, I think the weight advantage of Q over my current setup (700g / 25 oz to cover 18-36mm equiv and 80-300mm equiv, at IQ same as K20D) will probably not outweigh the IQ loss.

I hope Pentax makes their larger EVIL system a WR one.

**Fontan** · 06-24-2011, 07:20 AM - **1 Like**

The rat race just got intensified. I wish this company luck. The enthusiast market seems to be of secondary concern for Pentax, and nothing is wrong with that.

B Grace · 06-25-2011, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by napawino

He was great.

All knowing. All seeing. Q.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-25-2011, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

Sorry, it costs too much.

The can-do attitude would be to say you'll work extra time to get one.

dugrant153 · 06-25-2011, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by napawino

He was great.

I was just thinking that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)

Perhaps Pentax consulted with Q before making the Q?

dugrant153 · 06-25-2011, 11:36 PM

On a more serious note, I think Pentax is smart here by being different. Very Different.

This makes it so they avoid getting into a head-on battle with the heavyweights already established in various segments of the camera industry and start their own.

It's a gamble in some sense, but if it works they will be market leaders instead of followers.

I think the Q is going to turn out to be very specific camera for very specific uses.

intjonmiller · 06-26-2011, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by dugrant153

On a more serious note, I think Pentax is smart here by being different. Very Different.

This makes it so they avoid getting into a head-on battle with the heavyweights already established in various segments of the camera industry and start their own.

It's a gamble in some sense, but if it works they will be market leaders instead of followers.

I think the Q is going to turn out to be very specific camera for very specific uses.

Seriously! I think this may have been a deliberate PR effort. Not what Pentax is known for, I realize, but what if they deliberately put the price out there to shock people into talking about this a lot, then surprising everyone AFTER all of the negativity we're seeing everywhere by showing incredible image quality from such a small sensor.

Or maybe it's a misguided effort to be Leica-esque...

Clicker · 06-26-2011, 08:39 AM

Thay had their X proto type in 2006? same concept but didn't come to life most likely due to their financial issues?

Anton Magus · 06-27-2011, 12:49 AM - **1 Like**

Maybe I'm just stupid, but...

I don't see the Q having any advantages over the X90. It has the same sized sensor as the X90 and really either a prime 47mm lens and a 27.5 - 80mm zoom lens against the X90's fixed 26 - 676mm zoom.
The Q apparently costs $800 against the X90 cost of $290 from Amazon.
Just on price comparison, you can buy a lot of very good cameras for $800, most of which are a much better buy then the Pentax Q
It only has an "add-on" optical viewfinder for the 47mm prime lens.

I don't think I will be rushing to buy a Q anytime soon. Its a fail in my book

Anton Magus

Unsinkable II · 06-28-2011, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Anton Magus

Maybe I'm just stupid, but...

I don't see the Q having any advantages over the X90. It has the same sized sensor as the X90 and really either a prime 47mm lens and a 27.5 - 80mm zoom lens against the X90's fixed 26 - 676mm zoom.
The Q apparently costs $800 against the X90 cost of $290 from Amazon.
Just on price comparison, you can buy a lot of very good cameras for $800, most of which are a much better buy then the Pentax Q
It only has an "add-on" optical viewfinder for the 47mm prime lens.

I don't think I will be rushing to buy a Q anytime soon. Its a fail in my book

Anton Magus

Ideally, the Q will be far more responsive than a bridge or PnS camera.

I see it as something that will hopefully be a great deal of fun to use. I also think the IQ will be visibly superior to anything else with a 1/2.33 sensor.

Having spent some time looking at the XZ-1 100% crops, it's not all its cracked up to be. Who knows if by the time detailed comparative reviews have been made by the press and the public, the Q actually starts to get some real credit....

Certainly needs it if it wants to maintain anything close to the RRP.

juu · 06-28-2011, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Clicker

Thay had their X proto type in 2006? same concept but didn't come to life most likely due to their financial issues?

Yep - and they've been working on it ever since.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-28-2011, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

Having spent some time looking at the XZ-1 100% crops, it's not all its cracked up to be. Who knows if by the time detailed comparative reviews have been made by the press and the public, the Q actually starts to get some real credit....

I'm not even sure why the XZ-1 is so talked about. dxomark scores the S95 higher than the XZ-1 on all aspects. And the ISO 3200 IQ samples shown for the Q compare favorably to the S95 (see last image link in that post). I know it's just bits of information and it doesn't mean the Q is necessarily better at lower ISOs or even as good as depicted in these samples, but so far the bits of information fall in promising places.

Nass · 06-28-2011, 12:27 PM

Couple of interesting movies here made with what's thought to be the same sensor. The quality doesn't strike me as terrible?

06-27-2011, 12:49 AM - 1 Like	#26
Anton Magus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 410	Maybe I'm stupid... Maybe I'm just stupid, but... I don't see the Q having any advantages over the X90. It has the same sized sensor as the X90 and really either a prime 47mm lens and a 27.5 - 80mm zoom lens against the X90's fixed 26 - 676mm zoom. The Q apparently costs $800 against the X90 cost of $290 from Amazon. Just on price comparison, you can buy a lot of very good cameras for $800, most of which are a much better buy then the Pentax Q It only has an "add-on" optical viewfinder for the 47mm prime lens. I don't think I will be rushing to buy a Q anytime soon. Its a fail in my book Anton Magus

06-28-2011, 08:55 AM	#27
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352 Original Poster	Originally posted by Anton Magus Maybe I'm just stupid, but... I don't see the Q having any advantages over the X90. It has the same sized sensor as the X90 and really either a prime 47mm lens and a 27.5 - 80mm zoom lens against the X90's fixed 26 - 676mm zoom. The Q apparently costs $800 against the X90 cost of $290 from Amazon. Just on price comparison, you can buy a lot of very good cameras for $800, most of which are a much better buy then the Pentax Q It only has an "add-on" optical viewfinder for the 47mm prime lens. I don't think I will be rushing to buy a Q anytime soon. Its a fail in my book Anton Magus Ideally, the Q will be far more responsive than a bridge or PnS camera. I see it as something that will hopefully be a great deal of fun to use. I also think the IQ will be visibly superior to anything else with a 1/2.33 sensor. Having spent some time looking at the XZ-1 100% crops, it's not all its cracked up to be. Who knows if by the time detailed comparative reviews have been made by the press and the public, the Q actually starts to get some real credit.... Certainly needs it if it wants to maintain anything close to the RRP.

06-28-2011, 12:27 PM	#30
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Couple of interesting movies here made with what's thought to be the same sensor. The quality doesn't strike me as terrible? Vimeo Vimeo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
At Last My Love Has Come Along!	Rupert	Post Your Photos!	10	03-08-2010 10:47 AM
Streets Really this in love?	K-9	Post Your Photos!	11	10-18-2009 05:39 AM
Love my K7:)	dandog	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	09-03-2009 04:19 PM
Would LOVE some help.....	lightchaser	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	08-19-2009 09:13 AM
K7 and why I love it	celetron	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	08-04-2009 09:10 AM

06-23-2011, 05:37 PM	#16
napawino Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 151	He was great.

06-23-2011, 05:53 PM	#17
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Heh. Heh.

06-23-2011, 10:02 PM	#18
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	Originally posted by normhead I just carried 2 DSLRs more than 10 miles over 11 days, for about 50 shots, one or two of which will be printable.. Cameras are by far the heaviest things in my pack.. my DA*60-250 out weighs my tent. This looks like something sent from heaven. If it has the same IQ as my K20D, my APS-C bodies are toast. The only way it's not worth the $800 to me, is if the IQ isn't up to scratch. I just spent $300 on a lighter tent, people in my position are willing to pay big bucks to save a few ounces. So, while I respect the opinions above... there could be other opinions. Actually, if the Q were weather resistant, I could see the point of using Pentax Q as a hiking camera and might even buy one. And indeed in this endeavour $800 to save 300g is pretty standard (I've just built a big spreadsheet for my next trip, including weighting every item carefully with kitchen weights). However, I think the weight advantage of Q over my current setup (700g / 25 oz to cover 18-36mm equiv and 80-300mm equiv, at IQ same as K20D) will probably not outweigh the IQ loss. I hope Pentax makes their larger EVIL system a WR one.

06-24-2011, 07:20 AM - 1 Like	#19
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	The rat race just got intensified. I wish this company luck. The enthusiast market seems to be of secondary concern for Pentax, and nothing is wrong with that.

06-25-2011, 06:26 AM	#20
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	Originally posted by napawino He was great. All knowing. All seeing. Q.

06-25-2011, 11:04 PM	#21
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by jct us101 Sorry, it costs too much. The can-do attitude would be to say you'll work extra time to get one.

06-25-2011, 11:34 PM	#22
dugrant153 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,059	Originally posted by napawino He was great. I was just thinking that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek) Perhaps Pentax consulted with Q before making the Q?

06-25-2011, 11:36 PM	#23
dugrant153 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,059	On a more serious note, I think Pentax is smart here by being different. Very Different. This makes it so they avoid getting into a head-on battle with the heavyweights already established in various segments of the camera industry and start their own. It's a gamble in some sense, but if it works they will be market leaders instead of followers. I think the Q is going to turn out to be very specific camera for very specific uses.

06-26-2011, 08:38 AM	#24
intjonmiller Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Bountiful, Utah, USA Posts: 74	Originally posted by dugrant153 On a more serious note, I think Pentax is smart here by being different. Very Different. This makes it so they avoid getting into a head-on battle with the heavyweights already established in various segments of the camera industry and start their own. It's a gamble in some sense, but if it works they will be market leaders instead of followers. I think the Q is going to turn out to be very specific camera for very specific uses. Seriously! I think this may have been a deliberate PR effort. Not what Pentax is known for, I realize, but what if they deliberately put the price out there to shock people into talking about this a lot, then surprising everyone AFTER all of the negativity we're seeing everywhere by showing incredible image quality from such a small sensor. Or maybe it's a misguided effort to be Leica-esque...

06-26-2011, 08:39 AM	#25
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	Thay had their X proto type in 2006? same concept but didn't come to life most likely due to their financial issues?

06-28-2011, 09:07 AM	#28
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	Originally posted by Clicker Thay had their X proto type in 2006? same concept but didn't come to life most likely due to their financial issues? Yep - and they've been working on it ever since.

06-28-2011, 11:56 AM	#29
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Unsinkable II Having spent some time looking at the XZ-1 100% crops, it's not all its cracked up to be. Who knows if by the time detailed comparative reviews have been made by the press and the public, the Q actually starts to get some real credit.... I'm not even sure why the XZ-1 is so talked about. dxomark scores the S95 higher than the XZ-1 on all aspects. And the ISO 3200 IQ samples shown for the Q compare favorably to the S95 (see last image link in that post). I know it's just bits of information and it doesn't mean the Q is necessarily better at lower ISOs or even as good as depicted in these samples, but so far the bits of information fall in promising places.