[Laurentiu Cristofor]

@Laurentio: Huh?

Now you see how I feel about the Q comments

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.

It's a half compromise on all fronts: not small enough, not large enough, not well built enough, not stylish enough.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

@Laurentio: Huh?

Now you see how I feel about the Q comments

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.

Cameras are not small enough and sensor is not large enough - it's a botched compromise. Q gets the camera size right and NEX/NX have the sensor size right - this leaves m4/3 somewhere in the middle. Lens adaptability isn't a big selling point - few people will use anything other than system lenses. Also, I don't see any effort to put out better built, more stylish, more ergonomic m4/3 cameras. And the manufacturers supporting the standard are Panasonic, Olympus and Cosina - Cosina gets my attention with their 25/0.95, but until someone that knows how to build nicer cameras comes along, I see no appeal in them.

[kadajawi]

Well, that's how I feel about the Q. Too much of a compromise. There's only 2 goals. Style and size (seems to be too small even). But for me a camera that is just small, with no regards to IQ is simply not worth so much money. If I want small, I'll get a Sony T something. Even smaller than the Q, and the image quality will be somewhat similar (not as good, but you get a smaller camera). It's also very attractive, the lens is good enough (range and performance). And you pay 1/4th to 1/8th of the price of a Q.

To me the DSLR is a commercial vehicle, something like the Mercedes sprinter. Though built like a tank. The Q is something like a smart or even a Peel P50. Tiny, but that's all. A NEX is perhaps like a SUV, while the mFT cameras are like regular saloons... 5 series BMW, Ford Mondeo, C or E class Merc, ... The smart and Peel are tiny and cute, but as a car... not so good. It won't do a lot. Alternatively you could say the Q is like a racing car. Lotus T125. Rubbish at transporting stuff, but really hot.

Yes, the mFT cameras are a compromise, but the Q is rubbish as a camera, compared to the mFT and NEX. Not compared to the similarly sized cameras, but you pay a huge price for the small increase in image quality.

[snostorm]

Well, that's how I feel about the Q. Too much of a compromise. There's only 2 goals. Style and size (seems to be too small even).


But for me a camera that is just small, with no regards to IQ is simply not worth so much money. If I want small, I'll get a Sony T something. Even smaller than the Q, and the image quality will be somewhat similar (not as good, but you get a smaller camera). It's also very attractive, the lens is good enough (range and performance). And you pay 1/4th to 1/8th of the price of a Q.

Yes, the mFT cameras are a compromise, but the Q is rubbish as a camera, compared to the mFT and NEX. Not compared to the similarly sized cameras, but you pay a huge price for the small increase in image quality.

On the first point -- only two goals? The point of any ILC system is versatility. With interchangeable lenses, specialty uses can be accommodated with high quality glass solutions. Ultra tele, macro, low light,etc. Specialty photography is not served well by cameras with fixed lenses that have to appeal to a wider market. The ability to pick and use lenses that suit the type of photography that you want to do is a significant feature..

It's a bit strange that on one hand you don't want to compromise, yet you're all too willing to compromise quality for price and size.

You seem to be alright with MILC APS-C and µ4/3 bodies, but I find them too much of a compromise with little positive to offer. They only offer a slightly smaller body than a DSLR, but in exchange one needs to give up the real-time OVF, focusing speed, AF and AE on the great majority of lenses that already exist and can be adapted to the bodies, and there is virtually no advantage in size for lenses, so the carrying qualities of a MILC system only give a few cubic centimeters and ounces advantage overall compared to a DSLR system.

Because of the 5.5x "crop factor", the Q system has the potential to offer very compact ultra tele FOV lenses at a fraction of the cost compared to larger formats, so might be a winner for those that want to shoot long on a budget. You can argue that one can get more reach from a Super Zoom, but it comes at the possible cost of speed and optical quality. If you make this comparison, are you willing to suggest that a 20-30x zoom will equal a high quality prime of the same FL? We really haven't seen what truly great glass can do on small sensors because there haven't really been specialty lenses built for them before because they would not be marketable on fixed lens cameras.

Want to shoot 450mm EQ at f2.8 with an APS-C? You'll need a 300mm f2.8 to do it, and that means 5-7 lbs, 107mm front element (that means it'll be close to 5" in diameter), and will cost between $3000 and $6000. Withe the Q, a 100mm f2.8 (550mm EQ f2.8) lens will do it, so it only needs a 36mm front element, won't need to be much larger in diameter than the existing Q Quality line lenses, will weigh about 13 oz, and will probably cost @ $600.

Macro is even better. 3.85x magnification advantage over APS-C relative to the image frame. Increased DOF at wider apertures, so available light shooting is more practical. Leaf shutter, so fill flash with high shutter speeds allows lighting possibilities not available with DSLRs. Ability to use TTL external flash. Much lighter camera weight for handholding or balancing an tripod at bizarre angles.

How about street shooting or people shooting in general? If the focus ring on the lens is repeatable, you can mark zones of focus and use MF, using the increased DOF to fudge focus accuracy. Framing with an OVF, and letting the camera control the exposure, you'd have a very fast street shooter where you can more effectively capture the moment you want than with an EVF/LCD. The toy-like tininess of the camera helps because people tend to tune small camera users out. At the very least, it'll be a lot less conspicuous because of the size and quietness. For events, including family get togethers, fill flash is available at any shutter speed for outdoor shooting and the size thing will still apply.

I can understand feeling that the Q is not well placed price wise, but considering that a fast normal lens, especially with a leaf shutter, would probably be priced in the $250- 300 range (remember that fast 50s are relatively easy to design and build -- that's why 50mm became the "normal" lens rather than 42mm so comparing the prices of 50mm lenses to the standard Q prime is not really a fair comparison), then that makes the body @ $500-550. The RRP of the LX5 and G12 are around $500, and though they include a lens, they don't allow interchangeable lenses. . .

With the Magnesium body and "real camera" handling features, is this really "way too" expensive? Remember that in '03, when the G3 was announced, the RRP was $899, but that was before the sub $1000 DSLR, and all digital cameras were pretty expensive compared to now. . .

Scott

[elho_cid]

To me the DSLR is a commercial vehicle, something like the Mercedes sprinter. Though built like a tank. The Q is something like a smart or even a Peel P50. Tiny, but that's all. A NEX is perhaps like a SUV, while the mFT cameras are like regular saloons... 5 series BMW, Ford Mondeo, C or E class Merc, ... The smart and Peel are tiny and cute, but as a car... not so good. It won't do a lot. Alternatively you could say the Q is like a racing car. Lotus T125. Rubbish at transporting stuff, but really hot.

Yes, the mFT cameras are a compromise, but the Q is rubbish as a camera, compared to the mFT and NEX. Not compared to the similarly sized cameras, but you pay a huge price for the small increase in image quality.

The car analogy is plain stupid. To me the NEX is rubbish, as the handling is too bad. On top of it while the body is small, E-lenses are bigger than in case of a usual DSLR.
And of course there is a lot more to image quality than noise level on high ISO.

[rawr]

To me the NEX is rubbish, as the handling is too bad.

I bought a cheap NEX-5 a while ago, and I sadly have to agree with this.

Sony's concept and implementation has a lot of problems: the NEX is just physically too big, especially with any lens other than the 16mm pancake, the back LCD is a washout in direct sun, and the software controls are an ergonomic nightmare (eg auto-ISO only ranges to 1600, after that you can only select fixed ISO's; the display of camera settings on the back LCD is fixed at an unreadable 4pt font, and so on).

I will more often still pick up my Finepix F200 point and shoot before I will pick up my NEX, simply because it works better at being compact and pocketable whilst having reasonably good IQ. I also appreciate the massive DOF that the small sensor Fuji has, which can be very handy for quick walkabout grab shots or macros, and which the NEX can't match due to it's APS-C sized sensor.

So I think the Q certainly has potential. The NEX's advantages over the Q only look good on paper.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Well, that's how I feel about the Q. Too much of a compromise.

Yes, and that is fine. You just have to realize that different people prefer different compromises. Just because you are not in the camp that would warm up to the compromise solution provided by the Q is no argument against the Q.

Yes, the mFT cameras are a compromise, but the Q is rubbish as a camera, compared to the mFT and NEX.

I guess APS cameras are also rubbish compared to FF ones. If that is the case, I am happy with using rubbish cameras.

but you pay a huge price for the small increase in image quality.

I assume the huge price you mention is with respect to other compact cameras, because the Q is not much more expensive than m4/3 cameras to deserve the "huge" adjective. In that case you are ignoring the build quality, the controls, the interchangeable lens aspect, the manual focusing ability, the fast flash sync speed - those are very useful features that you also gain.

[zxaar]

Sony's concept and implementation has a lot of problems: the NEX is just physically too big,

It is not the problem with Sony alone, it is same with m43 too. Other than pancakes the portability is mostly lost. This is the reason for me to stay away from m43 and NEX so far.


One of the funny things to observe is that the people who buy these system, argue till death about how compact and pocketable their system is compared to a dSLR , show us pictures taken from legacy manual focus lenses designed for FFs.

PS: I do realise that some people buy mirrorless just for the reason that they could use any lense on them. But these people do not argue about virtues of putting camera in their pocket.

[elho_cid]

So I think the Q certainly has potential. The NEX's advantages over the Q only look good on paper.

Sadly too many people buy the camera only based on how it looks "on paper" - paying little attention to usability and controls. That's how I bought the FinePix S9100 - it looked good on paper.
Soon I realized the mistake and examined closely how is the menu system, buttons and control dials organized on different cameras - that's how I came to Pentax.

[kadajawi]

On the first point -- only two goals? The point of any ILC system is versatility. With interchangeable lenses, specialty uses can be accommodated with high quality glass solutions. Ultra tele, macro, low light,etc. Specialty photography is not served well by cameras with fixed lenses that have to appeal to a wider market. The ability to pick and use lenses that suit the type of photography that you want to do is a significant feature..
It's a bit strange that on one hand you don't want to compromise, yet you're all too willing to compromise quality for price and size.
You seem to be alright with MILC APS-C and µ4/3 bodies, but I find them too much of a compromise with little positive to offer. They only offer a slightly smaller body than a DSLR, but in exchange one needs to give up the real-time OVF, focusing speed, AF and AE on the great majority of lenses that already exist and can be adapted to the bodies, and there is virtually no advantage in size for lenses, so the carrying qualities of a MILC system only give a few cubic centimeters and ounces advantage overall compared to a DSLR system.
Because of the 5.5x "crop factor", the Q system has the potential to offer very compact ultra tele FOV lenses at a fraction of the cost compared to larger formats, so might be a winner for those that want to shoot long on a budget. You can argue that one can get more reach from a Super Zoom, but it comes at the possible cost of speed and optical quality. If you make this comparison, are you willing to suggest that a 20-30x zoom will equal a high quality prime of the same FL? We really haven't seen what truly great glass can do on small sensors because there haven't really been specialty lenses built for them before because they would not be marketable on fixed lens cameras.
Want to shoot 450mm EQ at f2.8 with an APS-C? You'll need a 300mm f2.8 to do it, and that means 5-7 lbs, 107mm front element (that means it'll be close to 5" in diameter), and will cost between $3000 and $6000. Withe the Q, a 100mm f2.8 (550mm EQ f2.8) lens will do it, so it only needs a 36mm front element, won't need to be much larger in diameter than the existing Q Quality line lenses, will weigh about 13 oz, and will probably cost @ $600.
Macro is even better. 3.85x magnification advantage over APS-C relative to the image frame. Increased DOF at wider apertures, so available light shooting is more practical. Leaf shutter, so fill flash with high shutter speeds allows lighting possibilities not available with DSLRs. Ability to use TTL external flash. Much lighter camera weight for handholding or balancing an tripod at bizarre angles.
How about street shooting or people shooting in general? If the focus ring on the lens is repeatable, you can mark zones of focus and use MF, using the increased DOF to fudge focus accuracy. Framing with an OVF, and letting the camera control the exposure, you'd have a very fast street shooter where you can more effectively capture the moment you want than with an EVF/LCD. The toy-like tininess of the camera helps because people tend to tune small camera users out. At the very least, it'll be a lot less conspicuous because of the size and quietness. For events, including family get togethers, fill flash is available at any shutter speed for outdoor shooting and the size thing will still apply.
I can understand feeling that the Q is not well placed price wise, but considering that a fast normal lens, especially with a leaf shutter, would probably be priced in the $250- 300 range (remember that fast 50s are relatively easy to design and build -- that's why 50mm became the "normal" lens rather than 42mm so comparing the prices of 50mm lenses to the standard Q prime is not really a fair comparison), then that makes the body @ $500-550. The RRP of the LX5 and G12 are around $500, and though they include a lens, they don't allow interchangeable lenses. . .
With the Magnesium body and "real camera" handling features, is this really "way too" expensive? Remember that in '03, when the G3 was announced, the RRP was $899, but that was before the sub $1000 DSLR, and all digital cameras were pretty expensive compared to now. . .
Scott

To be honest, the 28-300mm or so of my small Canon P&S serves me well enough, there's nothing I'm missing. Yes, in low light situations it's awful, but the Q won't be much better. And I paid 150 Euro, and not 1000 or so. You also can't compare a 300/2.8 for APS-C with a 300/2.8 for the Q... as the Q is not very sensitive to light, you might as well shoot with a 300/5.6 or perhaps even 8 on the APS-C camera, and still get a better photo (I imagine...). I don't really care how sharp the lens is on these small sensors, unless you are shooting in bright sunlight the noise reduction will probably kick in, ruining any detail the lens has.
I agree that these cameras have an advantage for macro... it's ridiculous how close the Canon can get, and still have enough DoF.

The main advantage of a NEX e.g. is that it drops the mirror box, cause DSLRs are loud (especially my Pentax), and usually those viewfinders are rather useless for MF (at least to me, my eyes just don't have enough resolution with such small viewfinders. The *istDs (similar to the K-5 I believe) is the absolute minimum, below that manual focusing doesn't work).

To be honest a camera that is too light is problematic too... when shooting video I attach the Canon to a crappy tripod (-> not too light). It really helps a lot in stabilizing the video. Also, the weight of my DSLR helps a lot in avoiding shaking. The tiny ixus I have is nearly impossible to hold stable, the SX130 is somewhat ok (with shake reduction) and my Pentax DSLR is very easy, despite the lack of SR.

A mFT camera can use C mount lenses -> cheap, quality good enough, usually pretty bright (I've seen f0.75 and 0.85 primes which are somewhat affordable). Perhaps you can adapt a regular lens to the Q, but that would look a bit ridiculous and you'd turn any lens into a tele lens. -> Less choice.
And while I'd use the NEX or something like that for street stuff (yes, the UI should be better on that one) I agree, the Q should do a good job at street photography, if you shoot RAW. It's really small, so people will ignore you, the DoF helps too. With a DSLR you'd have to use a relatively small aperture, which is not necessary with the Q.

Interesting that you bring up the G12 and the LX5... those camera should have better image quality than the Q. If Pentax went for a 1/1.8" or 1/1.6" sensor (they seem to fit) that would make the Q much much much more interesting. That would somewhat justify the Q's price, and let it actually compete against the best the other brands have to offer in the P&S area. Really, I don't see what Pentax was thinking here, as the lens mount seems to be designed for such larger sensors. Did they have any problems with these sensors? Were they too expensive? Does Pentax already plan for people to upgrade to the Q2, thus limiting the initial Q (like Apple who made the iPad 1 thicker than necessary).
And comparing the difference between a 1/2.3" sensor to a APS-C sensor to the difference between APS-C and FF is unfair I think. APS-C in most cases is good enough. But I often hear friends complain that their photos are blurry. Usually it's because their cameras have sensors that are too small in low light situations. My only advice is to use a camera with a bigger sensor (or try to use higher ISO, if possible. Photos will look horrible then, though).

I'm not trying to persuade you not to buy the Q, I'm just trying to point out why I think it's a bad deal and a stupid idea by Pentax, and why I'd rather get another camera.

[rawr]

The main advantage of a NEX e.g. is that it drops the mirror box, cause DSLRs are loud

Just for the record, the NEX-5 is loud too. You lose the mirror slap noise but the shutter noise is still there, and the NEX-5 has a big horizontal SLR-style shutter that is almost as loud as the K-x's. That was something I did not expect, and once again it makes the NEX pretty poor for some types of shots (eg candids, quiet indoor places) compared to a point-and shoot.

[elho_cid]

A mFT camera can use C mount lenses -> cheap, quality good enough, usually pretty bright (I've seen f0.75 and 0.85 primes which are somewhat affordable). Perhaps you can adapt a regular lens to the Q, but that would look a bit ridiculous and you'd turn any lens into a tele lens. -> Less choice.

Most C-mount lenses do have image circle too small to work well with m4/3. They are designed for 2/3" or 1/2" sensors. Ideal for Q. Not to speak about CS-mount with even shorter register distance. These can only be used with Q of all the interchangable lenses still cameras.

[Anton Magus]

To be honest, the 28-300mm or so of my small Canon P&S serves me well enough, there's nothing I'm missing. Yes, in low light situations it's awful, but the Q won't be much better. And I paid 150 Euro, and not 1000 or so.

@kadajawi
I think you have got it right. $800 for the body + prime lens and then $300 for the 28-83 zoom. That seems a lot of money for a very little camera to me too.

Yes, yes. We know its got a magnesium alloy body and leaf shutter built into the lens and a nifty retro look, and its so small and cute, and macro will be great and that flash is a great design, and... and...

The point though is that it still has that tiny sensor and thus all the disadvantages (and advantages) related to all small sensor cameras; huge depth of field, small lenses, poor low light performance, noisy at high ISO. Point & Shoot camera owners (me included) put up with the disadvantages because we appreciate the advantages - one of which is normally a low purchase price.

If the Q had a 1/1.6 sensor, a wider range of proper (not "toy") lenses and was made out of plastic and sold at under $400 then I think it would have good market success. Do you really need a magnesium alloy body on such a small camera? A camera is just a tool to create accurate photographic images, and the Q should perform this function within its own limits. If those limits suit your need then you will be interested in it - but arguably there are other cameras which will also perform under those same circumstances and which cost far less money.

I just think that if the Q had been announced by any other manufacturer, then most people on this forum would be saying it is way over-priced. Plonk a Pentax label on it and they think its second only to sliced bread.

[rawr]

I just think that if the Q had been announced by any other manufacturer, then most people on this forum would be saying it is way over-priced. Plonk a Pentax label on it and they think its second only to sliced bread.

I think you have it the wrong way around.

Plonk a Leica or Nikon label on it and lots of people (even on this forum) will think it's amazing and queue up to buy it, no matter how it is priced.
Plonk a Pentax label on it and a lot of people (even on this forum) will think it is over-priced junk, no matter how it is priced or how well it actually may perform.

[johnmflores]

@kadajawi
I think you have got it right. $800 for the body + prime lens and then $300 for the 28-83 zoom. That seems a lot of money for a very little camera to me too.

Yes, yes. We know its got a magnesium alloy body and leaf shutter built into the lens and a nifty retro look, and its so small and cute, and macro will be great and that flash is a great design, and... and...

The point though is that it still has that tiny sensor and thus all the disadvantages (and advantages) related to all small sensor cameras; huge depth of field, small lenses, poor low light performance, noisy at high ISO. Point & Shoot camera owners (me included) put up with the disadvantages because we appreciate the advantages - one of which is normally a low purchase price.

If the Q had a 1/1.6 sensor, a wider range of proper (not "toy") lenses and was made out of plastic and sold at under $400 then I think it would have good market success. Do you really need a magnesium alloy body on such a small camera? A camera is just a tool to create accurate photographic images, and the Q should perform this function within its own limits. If those limits suit your need then you will be interested in it - but arguably there are other cameras which will also perform under those same circumstances and which cost far less money.

I just think that if the Q had been announced by any other manufacturer, then most people on this forum would be saying it is way over-priced. Plonk a Pentax label on it and they think its second only to sliced bread.

From a pricing perspective the Q is no different than the Ricoh GR, GX, and GXR series - premium products with corresponding prices. Back in '08 I bought a GX100 instead of the Canon G series or a host of others. It was more expensive but had the things I was looking for - a wide (19mm) lens option, an intervalometer, and great UI. I had no problem paying "extra" as I got just what I wanted.