[Unsinkable II]

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.

The XZ-1 is so talked about because of its lens.

The S95 doesn't stay F2.0 for long once you zoom. The XZ-1 doesn't get slower than F2.5.

So, while the S95 SENSOR does a great job, the S95 lens forces it to ISO levels that the XZ-1 doesn't need to reach.

As a sensor/lens COMBINATION, the XZ-1 is perhaps the one to beat.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The XZ-1 is so talked about because of its lens.

The S95 doesn't stay F2.0 for long once you zoom. The XZ-1 doesn't get slower than F2.5.

So, while the S95 SENSOR does a great job, the S95 lens forces it to ISO levels that the XZ-1 doesn't need to reach.

As a sensor/lens COMBINATION, the XZ-1 is perhaps the one to beat.

Don't forget that the Samsung TL500/EX1 also has a fast 1.8-2.4 zoom and has a better rating than the Olympus XZ-1 too.

Anyway, in a comparison with the Q, only the sensor performance matters because its lens is not fixed, so there is no predefined aperture limit. And the S95 seems to lead in the area of compact sensor performance. If the Q is better or just as good, then it should provide very nice results with its 1.9 prime.

[Anton Magus]

So, you whack out $800 and buy yourself a Pentax Q with the standard 47mm F1.9 lens.
Why? Because its soooo small...

Before long you also want the 28-83mm zoom lens for another $299. You now have $1099 invested in this little marvel of engineering, which may (or may not) deliver good photographs. But with the zoom lens, its not quite as small any more either.

Now, lets get real. Sony's HX9v is only 0.08" wider, 0.08" taller and 0.08" thicker and 1/2 ounce heavier than the Q with a 24-384mm zoom lens as standard and the same sensor. And it only costs $350, not $1099. And for most people, looking at a screen-sized image on a PC, the photos will be perfect. Do you really think anyone will notice the 0.08" extra size or the 1/2 ounce extra weight when they are carrying it anyway? I know the lens isn't quite as fast, so you will end up in low light shooting at higher ISO. I also understand that DOF effects will be compromised.

Or go for a Canon S95 ($400) or a Panasonic LX5 ($420) with its F2 to F3.3 24-90mm zoom lens, both of which have larger sensors and the promise of better quality images at higher ISO, while not being physically much bigger cameras than the Q.

And if you want really good quality images, and feel you must spend $1099, then you can get a Canon EOS 60D with an 18-200mm lens FOR THE SAME PRICE. Yes, I know its much bigger, but arguably its a damn sight more camera than a Q for the same money.

All this Q hype is reminiscent of Apple's launch of the iPhone and iPad. Just a bunch of fanboys raving about hype with no real substance behind it - even though the Apple products are more useful than the Q.

Admittedly some Pentax cameras are very good and some are pretty awful. Compared to the opposition, the model range is quite small. Are we so starved for a new Pentax model that we rave about something like the Q?

There's a lot of very good quality camera competition out there from the likes of Nikon, Canon, Sony and others. Their top executives must be laughing their heads off right now. Maybe a few months ago they were worried that Pentax would really come out with something competitive that would eat into their market share. Well, now they can relax. Pentax got it spectacularly wrong - some may unkindly say "once again".

And for those who will quickly say "But what about the interchangeable lenses?", because that is the ONLY unique feature of the Q, I would reply "SO WHAT!" Once you have the zoom lens on it you are probably never going to change the lens again.

Will the Q appeal to anyone then? I suppose it will. There will always be a small number of suckers who will thrive on telling their friends they have the smallest and most expensive PnS camera in the world.

Finally, to set your minds right, I AM a Pentax fan. Bought my first Pentax back around 1970, so have a 40 year history with these great cameras. Along the way I have also owned Canon and Nikon cameras and discovered that they, too, delivered according to their specs and were fine cameras. I bought my latest camera this year - another Pentax - so I am certainly not biased against the brand. When I buy a camera I consider what I want to use it for and what kind of results I expect from it. That inevitably narrows the choice to a few brands and models which will all meet the need. That's when you need to look at the value for money each candidate offers to make the final choice.

So if I had the need for a VERY small camera which was light and easy to carry, where I didn't need any more than a standard fixed focal-length lens and a small 1/2.3" sensor, then the Q would still lose out heavily in terms of value for money against the $350 Sony HX9v.

For me, sadly, its a "nice try Pentax, but no cigar". But I would welcome anyone telling me my logic is wrong, and why.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Are we so starved for a new Pentax model that we rave about something like the Q?

I think that pretty much sums up the attitude if we go by the formal definition of raving.

[intjonmiller]

And for those who will quickly say "But what about the interchangeable lenses?", because that is the ONLY unique feature of the Q, I would reply "SO WHAT!" Once you have the zoom lens on it you are probably never going to change the lens again.

Will the Q appeal to anyone then? I suppose it will. There will always be a small number of suckers who will thrive on telling their friends they have the smallest and most expensive PnS camera in the world.

........

For me, sadly, its a "nice try Pentax, but no cigar". But I would welcome anyone telling me my logic is wrong, and why.

Anton, I love your attitude. My facebook profile specifically talks about that. I'm right until you can tell me HOW I'm wrong. Otherwise you're just making noise.

In answer to your question, I think you are off the mark in assuming that people who buy this won't change the lens. Now I work at a camera store as a studio photographer and I help at the camera counter when it's busy. I see a LOT of people buying interchangeable lens cameras of all forms. I see them over time as they come back to order prints. I see as they pull their memory card out of their camera a year after buying it and it still has the kit lens mounted and the second lens they bought in the kit appears to have never been touched. So I'm quite familiar with that mentality and behavior.

But I think you are way off the mark by assuming that those are the people who would buy the Q. Those are the people who don't know what the controls the Q has and the NEX and others discarded even do.

So, yeah, your logic is off.

It's also off in the assumption that the only people who would want one are those who brag about the gear they own. Without question a significant portion of the sales of the Q will go to such people. But the jump from that to assuming the ONLY people who will buy one simply defies logic. I suspect you were hyperbolizing, but that doesn't mean I won't try to poke holes in the logic expressed.

Anyway, I want one (I believe it's safe to assume the IQ won't be any lower than any modern P&S) and I'm the kind of photographer who tapes over logos because I'd rather shoot than talk shop when I'm out with my camera. (But I'm happy to talk shop basically any other time.

Why I want one is another discussion altogether. But that discussion isn't necessary to respond to your invitation to question your logic.

[Anton Magus]

Anton, I love your attitude. My facebook profile specifically talks about that. I'm right until you can tell me HOW I'm wrong. Otherwise you're just making noise.

In answer to your question, I think you are off the mark in assuming that people who buy this won't change the lens. Now I work at a camera store as a studio photographer and I help at the camera counter when it's busy. I see a LOT of people buying interchangeable lens cameras of all forms. I see them over time as they come back to order prints. I see as they pull their memory card out of their camera a year after buying it and it still has the kit lens mounted and the second lens they bought in the kit appears to have never been touched. So I'm quite familiar with that mentality and behavior.

But I think you are way off the mark by assuming that those are the people who would buy the Q. Those are the people who don't know what the controls the Q has and the NEX and others discarded even do.

So, yeah, your logic is off.

It's also off in the assumption that the only people who would want one are those who brag about the gear they own. Without question a significant portion of the sales of the Q will go to such people. But the jump from that to assuming the ONLY people who will buy one simply defies logic. I suspect you were hyperbolizing, but that doesn't mean I won't try to poke holes in the logic expressed.

Anyway, I want one (I believe it's safe to assume the IQ won't be any lower than any modern P&S) and I'm the kind of photographer who tapes over logos because I'd rather shoot than talk shop when I'm out with my camera. (But I'm happy to talk shop basically any other time.

Why I want one is another discussion altogether. But that discussion isn't necessary to respond to your invitation to question your logic.

Thanks for your excellent response, intjonmiller.

Particularly I was impressed by your job and that even with your knowledge and experience you still want a Q. Yes I was hyperbolizing. Clearly there will be a base of buyers who have good reason to buy the Q which has nothing to do with bragging rights and only concerns the Q's specific characteristics.

My real concern is that the Q has the small 1/2.33 sensor. I agree with your assumption that the IQ won't be any lower than any modern P&S, but I have a real concern that it won't be any better either. That sensor is a real deal-breaker on a camera which costs as much as the Q, when MOST buyers can get the same IQ on the same images with a camera costing half as much or even less.

Right now I do most of my shots with a Pentax X90 which also has the tiny sensor, but has a 26-676mm (equiv) zoom lens which seems pretty good to me, at least up to around 500mm. Yes it has limitations (which I am happy to live with) but has the benefit of being easy and light to carry. I now get pics of things I never did before, only because I have the camera with me. Previously it was just too much hassle to carry my Nikon DSLR around. The big difference is that the X90 was less than $400 when bought in South Africa. For $400 I can accept a few limitations. For $800 (or $1099 with the zoom lens) I would be looking for a significant improvement in IQ.

Lets suppose that Pentax had made the Q a little bigger and a little heavier, but fitted it with, say, a 4/3 sensor and really revolutionary firmware allowing fast continuous shooting, nice high ISO's without significant noise, a wider range of fast lenses and a bunch of useful accessories. Would you not then see a line of people Q'ing (pun intended) to buy such a camera?

[kadajawi]

I don't get the 1/2.3" sensor. 1/1.63" would give the best IQ in the P&S world and still not be a lot bigger (actually, didn't someone notice that the mount was meant to support a sensor of that size? Would the camera be bigger with such a sensor?

Btw., Nikons new EVIL camera seems to be similar...

There may be a market for this, and the price point is perfect then. It's Paris Hilton. People who have more than enough money, want something cute and good looking, something expensive.

At $800... Ricoh GXR. The 24-72mm module sounds reasonable, and if I want to I can get the M mount module and add a few small primes. Should still be a small package. Or simply the NEX, which I really like.

[zxaar]

Thanks for your excellent response, intjonmiller.

Particularly I was impressed by your job and that even with your knowledge and experience you still want a Q. Yes I was hyperbolizing. Clearly there will be a base of buyers who have good reason to buy the Q which has nothing to do with bragging rights and only concerns the Q's specific characteristics.

My real concern is that the Q has the small 1/2.33 sensor. I agree with your assumption that the IQ won't be any lower than any modern P&S, but I have a real concern that it won't be any better either. That sensor is a real deal-breaker on a camera which costs as much as the Q, when MOST buyers can get the same IQ on the same images with a camera costing half as much or even less.

Right now I do most of my shots with a Pentax X90 which also has the tiny sensor, but has a 26-676mm (equiv) zoom lens which seems pretty good to me, at least up to around 500mm. Yes it has limitations (which I am happy to live with) but has the benefit of being easy and light to carry. I now get pics of things I never did before, only because I have the camera with me. Previously it was just too much hassle to carry my Nikon DSLR around. The big difference is that the X90 was less than $400 when bought in South Africa. For $400 I can accept a few limitations. For $800 (or $1099 with the zoom lens) I would be looking for a significant improvement in IQ.

Lets suppose that Pentax had made the Q a little bigger and a little heavier, but fitted it with, say, a 4/3 sensor and really revolutionary firmware allowing fast continuous shooting, nice high ISO's without significant noise, a wider range of fast lenses and a bunch of useful accessories. Would you not then see a line of people Q'ing (pun intended) to buy such a camera?

The problem with whole argument that compares Q with fixed lense compact is that they think users of Q will buy things exactly as compact user would buy. To make this statement clear, in future, when next gen Q bodies are out you will be only buying bodies and not lenses. But with your compact you are going paying for lenses and bodies both.

Second thing is IQ of Q might not be that good, but down the line 5 years the IQ would be very good, then the only problem would be DOF control. (Which is permanent problem).

so may be buying now into Q system is expensive but once you have lenses most probably you would be changing bodies much cheaper in future.

[elho_cid]

One mystery - why didn't Pentax adapt this lens for the Q system:
Pentax C60607KP 1/2" C Mount 6mm F1.2 Manual C60607KP B&H

If the Q would be anounced to ship with lens like this, they would save themselves a lot of criticism.

[Anton Magus]

...in future, when next gen Q bodies are out you will be only buying bodies and not lenses. But with your compact you are going paying for lenses and bodies both. Second thing is IQ of Q might not be that good, but down the line 5 years the IQ would be very good...

@zxaar
I fully agree with your comment, but it also reinforces my point. Right now I think many people who are interested in the Q concept will decide to wait for the next gen Q body, in the hope that it will have a bigger/better sensor and better IQ.

The problem with that is that it will reduce sales of the present Q to a point where Pentax/Ricoh may decide to drop the whole Q idea in favor of the Ricoh GXR. Then the few who bought in to the Q are maybe left with what is effectively a very expensive point and shoot - unless Ricoh decide to adapt the GXR to take Q lenses.

Either way, it introduces an unacceptable risk into the purchase at a price point where there are many good cameras to choose from where there is virtually no risk.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

@zxaar
I fully agree with your comment, but it also reinforces my point. Right now I think many people who are interested in the Q concept will decide to wait for the next gen Q body, in the hope that it will have a bigger/better sensor and better IQ.

The problem with that is that it will reduce sales of the present Q to a point where Pentax/Ricoh may decide to drop the whole Q idea in favor of the Ricoh GXR. Then the few who bought in to the Q are maybe left with what is effectively a very expensive point and shoot - unless Ricoh decide to adapt the GXR to take Q lenses.

Either way, it introduces an unacceptable risk into the purchase at a price point where there are many good cameras to choose from where there is virtually no risk.

Funny, but this is exactly the thinking that has kept me from buying an m4/3 camera - though it doesn't seem to hold back Olympus and Panasonic - fools!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Second thing is IQ of Q might not be that good, but down the line 5 years the IQ would be very good, then the only problem would be DOF control. (Which is permanent problem).

The IQ of the Q promises to be excellent already - it will improve over the years, but I don't think it will hold back anyone that has used a compact camera.

Also, the Q has style. It doesn't look like a stupid compact. That will also be a selling point. One may say that style doesn't make images better, but there are things under that style that definitely make the experience of using the camera better, and that always translates into better results, i.e, better images.

It's going to be really fun to hear from the Q detractors a year from now.

[johnmflores]

With the nearly wholesale bashing of the Q, it's no wonder the camera industry is very conservative. Introduce something that doesn't fit existing boxes and people will come to summary (negative) conclusions even before it hits the shelves.

Remember, 10 years ago, people were saying that digital SLRs, with their small APS-c sensors, would never match 35mm film. My have times changed.

Kudos to Pentax for having the guts to be different!

[Anton Magus]

Remember, 10 years ago, people were saying that digital SLRs, with their small APS-c sensors, would never match 35mm film. My have times changed.

Yep. And they were right. APS-c sensors still don't match 35mm film. And there is still interest in FF cameras but at a realistic price point.

[kadajawi]

@Laurentio: Huh? mFT is supported by two big manufacturers, wholeheartedly. There are tons of cameras supporting it, many lenses too. The sensor is not huge, but it is big enough for very good IQ. The Q is on the same level as 50 Euro cameras and some phones. mFT is more affordable, there are more accessories. Oh, and the Pen series looks pretty good to me, you can use C mount lenses, ...

Now I agree that the Q seems to deliver excellent IQ for a sensor that small, BUT the next generation of point and shoots and perhaps even phones (Nokias N8 should already be on par) will be just as good. For 1/8th the price.

I really don't think Pentax is going after the folks at Pentaxforums, they are more interested in spoilt rich kids such as Paris Hilton, who only care about fashion. That might be a smart move, yes, but for me it is totally uninteresting. Give me the GXR instead.