[Anton Magus]

I had no problem paying "extra" as I got just what I wanted.

Absolutely right! If the Q, or any other camera, exactly meets your specific need then the price definitely becomes a secondary aspect and you will be prepared to pay a premium price. In fact the smaller the choice you have, the higher the premium you will be prepared to pay. Taking this to its conclusion, if you absolutely must have a very small camera with very small and easy to carry interchangeable lenses, great macro facility and excellent engineering (maybe even over-engineered?) then the Pentax Q should definitely be a camera to consider, even at its price.

However, sensible prospective buyers will also consider the alternative cameras which will also be small and easy to carry. Eliminate those which don't meet your specific technical need and you may still be left with two or three to choose from. At that point you can consider the price, the image quality, versatility, product support, appearance, ease-of-use and any additional factors you want to list. Ultimately you will choose one that you like best and reject the rest.

I think what is being argued by myself and many others on this forum is that for most people the size of the camera is not so critical that they can't go to an alternative which is marginally larger in dimensions or weight, specially if that trade-off in size was for a more versatile camera with the promise of better image quality from a bigger sensor, or if it was for the same potential image quality but a significantly lower price tag.

Clearly the Q will appeal to many but my feeling is that the price is such that it will ultimately only be bought by a few who absolutely need it and can find no suitable alternative. The big question then is whether it will generate enough revenue for Pentax to continue its development and widen the lens range for it, or whether it will be dropped in favor of something else with a broader market appeal and the promise of bigger sales volumes. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

---

Last edited by Anton Magus; 08-03-2011 at 12:26 AM.

[Anton Magus]

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.

Admittedly I had not thought of that, but yes. You are absolutely right. A certain website which allows any two cameras to be compared regularly penalizes Pentax in its ratings against Canikon because they are less popular even though the Pentax is superior in every aspect. Somehow the brand badge makes common sense fly out the window!

[kadajawi]

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.

I have never ever seen a GXR in the wild. Never. Though I find it much more appealing than the Q.

@Anton Magus: Amen! Is size really _that_ important to most? And when it is, why wouldn't they go for another camera? There's IMHO nothing the Pentax lenses offer so far that you can't get with a compact camera, which costs 1/2 at max. C mount and CS mount lenses may change that, but only for very few.

Maybe the Q is a bit like the Aston Martin Cygnet (in some ways). Yes, it's very posh on the inside, and you get all sorts of stuff. But at the end of the day it is still just a Toyota iQ, for 3 times the price.

Obviously the Leica badge can turn anything into gold. But Nikon? We will see, as Nikon seems to announce such a camera soon (I expect them to be smarter though and use a 1/1.63" sensor. At least after all that negative feedback the received).

[johnmflores]

I have never ever seen a GXR in the wild. Never.

That may be true, but it may also be an oversimplification to attribute that solely to price, as Ricoh in the US at least has very limited distribution (just 2 or 3 stores IIRC) and practically no marketing.

The entry-level GXR - with a small sensor 5x zoom - is not that far off in price from a Canon G12, Nikon P7000, and their ilk, but what consumers know that?

170543 Ricoh GXR Interchangeable Unit Body with Ricoh Lens S10 24-72mm f/2.5-4.4 VC Camera Unit, 10 Megapixel

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Taking this to its conclusion, if you absolutely must have a very small camera with very small and easy to carry interchangeable lenses, great macro facility and excellent engineering (maybe even over-engineered?) then the Pentax Q should definitely be a camera to consider, even at its price.

It's not a question of "must have" but a question of "want to have" and "can afford to buy". There are very few instances were people must have the things they wanted to have and afforded to buy.

I think what is being argued by myself and many others on this forum is that for most people the size of the camera is not so critical that they can't go to an alternative which is marginally larger in dimensions or weight, specially if that trade-off in size was for a more versatile camera with the promise of better image quality from a bigger sensor, or if it was for the same potential image quality but a significantly lower price tag.

This is where you're missing a market segment.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

If we could just poll our collective resources and do that...

[zxaar]

If Sony bundles NEX7 with zeiss then things for me would be complicated. I wanted to buy Q for my wife but can instead end up buying NEX 7 and a k mount adapter so that me and my wife both can use same camera.
She could use it as point and shoot and I could use it with my k mount lenses.
In that situation I would end up gifting my k-x to my bro, rather than buying one for him as I am thinking of. (and put that money into buying nex 7).

Camera market has so many choices now that it is very confusing.

[snostorm]

I think what is being argued by myself and many others on this forum is that for most people the size of the camera is not so critical that they can't go to an alternative which is marginally larger in dimensions or weight, specially if that trade-off in size was for a more versatile camera with the promise of better image quality from a bigger sensor, or if it was for the same potential image quality but a significantly lower price tag.

Clearly the Q will appeal to many but my feeling is that the price is such that it will ultimately only be bought by a few who absolutely need it and can find no suitable alternative. The big question then is whether it will generate enough revenue for Pentax to continue its development and widen the lens range for it, or whether it will be dropped in favor of something else with a broader market appeal and the promise of bigger sales volumes. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Hi Anton,

I think you seriously underestimate the size of the market.

I read somewhere that Pentax expects to make about 20,000 Q units per month, for a total of @ 240,000 for the year. The total number digital cameras shipped for the past few years has been @ 120 million per year, with fixed lens at @ 110 million, and ILCs at @ 10 million.

Of the fixed lens cameras, a great majority of these use a sensor smaller than 1/1.7" since there are, IIRC, less than 10 models with this sensor or a little larger, and over 400 models with smaller sensors.

If the fixed lens models sell at the same proportion to the number of models (and the probable bias is towards the smaller sensors), then there are over 100 million new camera purchasers each year that could see the Q as an upgrade from the fixed lens model that they have or are considering. 1/4 of 1 percent is not an unreachable goal for even a comparatively expensive model, and coming anywhere close to selling out the year's production would have be seen to be a resounding success.

Also, by choosing to go high-end with the body, the Q can also attract some DSLR users who want a higher level of control over their camera's functions than is offered by most compacts. Higher end DSLR users who assume over $1K for a new body and who have paid $1K + for single lens purchases will not balk at the price if IQ is acceptable.

IQ should not be as much of a problem as many make it out to be. Reading some of the blogs of those that provided the downsized pre production Flickr samples, it seems that Pentax actually designed the Q's image circle to allow for at least a 1/1.7" sensor, but finally chose to go with the 1/2.3" BSI CMOS after comparing it to the larger CCD sensor for a number of reasons, including availability, sensor development potential, and comparative IQ. I can't be sure of this, because the Google translations are pretty cryptic, but they seem to give a sense that there were significant advantages to the smaller sensor, at least at this time.

????????PENTAX Q????-2?Q?????????????n00bs?
??????PENTAX Q?????????????????????????: ??????

Remember that since Pentax is small and can't make its own sensors, they are dependent on other companies to supply the sensors and their corresponding technology. Also consider that Canon chose to back off on MPs going from the G10 to the G11 from 14 MP to 10 MP to get better IQ at higher ISO. This could indicate a lack of development potential for this sensor format considering the numbers sold.

I would also think that output speed and heat (since sensor based stabilization adds to the heat problem, in addition to the extra heat from LV and video use) were also technical considerations. None of the "enthusiast" compacts with 1/1.7" CCD sensors offer sensor based stabilization or higher video res than 760P, so heat dissipation might be a limiting issue with the CCD, especially in a very small body. AFAIK, no mfg currently offers a 1/1.7" or marginally larger CMOS or BSI CMOS for use in a compact still camera.

If a suitable larger sensor were to be offered, Pentax could choose to use it in a future Q model. Note that the lenses don't have a 35mm FL EQ number engraved -- this is supposedly because the "crop" factor could change with a sensor format change, and committing to a particular crop factor for this conversion at this could have been inconvenient for the future . . .

I really don't think that you'll be convinced of this camera's possible viability, but I thought it would be worthwhile to the thread to offer a different perspective and some additional facts and speculation.

Scott

[rparmar]

People will buy the Q because they want a new toy and have lots of disposable income. That's fine, as far as it goes, but please don't pretend it's for any photographic reasons. Those with $$ and photographic priorities will be buying Leica lenses, an adapter and a Panasonic G3 or something. Now they have an incredible tool with IQ a postage stamp sensor can never in all your dreams match.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are already excellent PnS cameras at a fraction of the price of the Q. A fixed zoom lens will give you all the same advantages -- plus you can stick on macro and other toy adapters if you like, and then show off the same degraded quality as the special Q lenses. There are also some funky apps for your iPhone that will never run on the Q. Instant Polaroid look! Etc. Perfect for fun web shots and at parties.

The Q is simply a way to drain disposable income from the pockets of gadget hounds. I thought this was a photography forum?

[zxaar]

here is a question.

Which P&S camera do you think can match or beat pentax Q on IQ and costs less than Q.

I would like to see at its images and see if it really good enough. There are many P&S so please point me to one of them.

[rparmar]

How about the Panasonic DMC-LX5 / Leica D-Lux 5? It's got a larger sensor than the Q and fewer pixels so odds are the images will look better. The zoom is an amazing 24/2 to 90/3.3 equivalent. And it's got IBIS; shutter, aperture and zoom video controls; a responsive interface; good ergonomics; 3" LCD, etc. etc.

Under $400 / £300.

[zxaar]

How about the Panasonic DMC-LX5 / Leica D-Lux 5? It's got a larger sensor than the Q and fewer pixels so odds are the images will look better. The zoom is an amazing 24/2 to 90/3.3 equivalent. And it's got IBIS; shutter, aperture and zoom video controls; a responsive interface; good ergonomics; 3" LCD, etc. etc.

Under $400 / £300.

Thank you, I tried to look at dpr in their sample gallery. At base ISOs.

Here is 100% of LX5 from dpr galleries at iso 80.



Here is 100% from pentax Q sample on flickr (which were in turn 80% resolution file).




I do think Q has little edge, may be because little sharpening is applied to Q file.


LX5 is better or Q is better, whichever is case, pentax Q is best 1/2.3 sensor camera at the moment of speaking.


Edited to add:

I figured, pentax q file was resized and sharpening applied so it does not sound fair to LX5.
So i downloaded lx5 another sample (which was similar to Q photo), resized to 3200 (the same size i found q file) and applied little sharpening. Here is 100% of that for lx5 file now. It does look much better now:

[rparmar]

You can't compare photos taken under such different circumstances by different people etc. That first LX5 sample looks absolutely crappy.

Consider also the Canon S95, Samsung EX1, etc. at the same price point. I am not an expert on these; my point is only that you can buy two or three well-regarded PnS cameras with similar IQ for the price of the Q.

[zxaar]

Consider also the Canon S95, Samsung EX1, etc. at the same price point. I am not an expert on these; my point is only that you can buy two or three well-regarded PnS cameras with similar IQ for the price of the Q.

I have looked at S95 and i am really not impressed.

You can't compare photos taken under such different circumstances by different people etc. That first LX5 sample looks absolutely crappy.

The answer to what you said is both : No and Yes.

The answer really depends on what I am trying to compare. In this case I shall be able to compare them even when photos are taken in different circumstances. Here are the reasons for it:

1. I am trying to compare base isos, that is iso 80 on LX5 to iso 200 on pentax Q (or it was iso 100 whichever it was). At the base isos when there is plenty of light, a camera is supposed to perform its best.
2. The answer would be NO if i was comparing high isos. In low light case the main issue is how much light each camera is receiving. But this is not the situation here.
3. Cameras are used by different people and in different circumstances so it is not wrong to see if camera produces too bad results in some circumstances.

4. The last thing, I was interested in pixel level image quality. Almost all of point and shoot cameras have some sort of smudging going on in images they produce. In LX5 samples it is there. But in pentax Q shot , that thing is very negligible. Plus I expect much better results in RAW when all this I could control.

Point 4 means that at the base isos, I expect pentax Q to produce very good image quality. Off course Q is little bit more expensive too.

[Anton Magus]

I read somewhere that Pentax expects to make about 20,000 Q units per month, for a total of @ 240,000 for the year. The total number digital cameras shipped for the past few years has been @ 120 million per year, with fixed lens at @ 110 million, and ILCs at @ 10 million. Of the fixed lens cameras, a great majority of these use a sensor smaller than 1/1.7" since there are, IIRC, less than 10 models with this sensor or a little larger, and over 400 models with smaller sensors. If the fixed lens models sell at the same proportion to the number of models (and the probable bias is towards the smaller sensors), then there are over 100 million new camera purchasers each year that could see the Q as an upgrade from the fixed lens model that they have or are considering. 1/4 of 1 percent is not an unreachable goal for even a comparatively expensive model, and coming anywhere close to selling out the year's production would have be seen to be a resounding success.

Looking on the B&H website, it seems that they have around 350 different compact fixed lens cameras which I am sure make up the bulk of the 110 million shipped this past year, and those cameras range in price from roughly $50 to $350. They suit the bulk of the population who want an inexpensive almost fully automatic camera to take simple snapshots of their kids, family and friends. Do you really think those buyers want to mess with interchangeable lenses or care about magnesium body construction?

For the few that do want to upgrade, their friends "who know about cameras" will tell them that the Q has the same sensor as their existing camera, so they are unlikely to get better results and the guy in their local camera shop will tell them to upgrade to a Canikon DSLR if they want the best results. And if their budget doesnt stretch that far they may settle on a $700 Olympus m4/3 with 28-84EQ zoom lens or even a Sony NEX-C3 with APS-C sensor and 27-85EQ lens for only $549 "because it looks and works pretty much just like the compact you are already used to..." Then there is a pretty wide range of super-zooms around the $400 price range that may also look pretty appealing to someone wanting to upgrade from compact. So the Q at $800 + $300 for the zoom lens starts looking like a non-starter in the compact camera upgrade market

I then have to think that the potential buyers of the Q system are people who already are serious enthusiast photographers. People who genuinely know their cameras and are perhaps seriously interested in the build quality, the size, the option to change lenses and the other advantages which the Q offers. But this firmly puts Q buyers in the 10 million sales category, not the 110 million category.

Of course, those people are also going to look at the alternatives and find other cameras which do much the same thing for less money, or better cameras for the same money. When you are spending up to $1100 (presuming you will want the zoom lens), the choice is huge.

There will be a small group who finds that the Q truly suits their needs (and wants) and are happy to pay the price. I think your estimate of 1/4 of 1% is probably about right - but its 1/4 of 1% of 10 million, not 110 million.

That of course translates to sales of 25000 Pentax Q's per annum or about 1/10th of your estimate of Pentax's expected Q sales...

Ironically the Pentax Q seems design-ready for a larger sensor and is priced for a larger sensor. If they had only launched it with a larger sensor then I believe it would have probably sold ten times better.

[kadajawi]

At base ISO all cameras will deliver at least decent image quality, though even low ISO photos will probably have noise filter kicked in.

The Q lacks some detail in the hair, looks like the noise cancellation to me. The same can be seen in other areas, + the photo is sharpened very agressively (no big deal though because you can shoot RAW). The LX5 material isn't very impressive too though... looks a bit filtered too, but at least it is not sharpened that much.

I would expect that manufacturers can somewhat easily scale the sensor size, but perhaps I'm wrong.

http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_nex_5/sample_images/sony_nex_5_11.jpg That's what a small increase in size (+ price drop) gets you. ISO 200, the NEX-5 won't go lower.

Likewise the NEX-C3. http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1173840.jpg?AWSAccess...pTcOI3xrHhM%3d
The focus doesn't sit spot on, or the lens isn't as sharp as possible, though you have to keep in mind that the sensor resolution is higher. Resize the photo to the size of the Q sample and sharpen it and I suppose it beats it (the difference is really small though) (if you look at an ISO 200 shot of the Q it might be different though, but the Q's lenses are a bit brighter IIRC, so this comparison is relatively fair).

There is also the new Olympus E-P3, which is I believe one of the smallest mFT cameras. Still huge compared to the Q, but probably a pretty comfortable size. Not too small.
http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_images/323/PEN00040.jpg
Looks really sharp to me (the skin!). Hair not so, though I suppose that's because of the shallow DoF (which looks good though...). There is noise though (ISO 200) in the background, but the camera does keep a lot of detail, and the noise looks pretty lovely (you might be able to get that when developing RAWs of the Q... I'd love to get my hands on the Qs RAW files).


Thing is: Do you really want to spend $800 on a camera that only performs well when the sun is shining?

Edit: I've checked my Canon SX130 IS (12 MP 1/2.3" CCD sensor from 2010 or so). The photos at ISO 80 look decent, though you can notice a bit of noise cancellation... I would say similar to the Q. High detail areas such as gras are problematic. The RAWs however are very detailed. You do see some noise (including colour noise... Lightroom easily fixes that). As it is already somewhat noisy at 80... that doesn't look too promising. I'd say it's a bit like ISO 400 or 800 on my *istDs. But yeah, ISO 80 photos look very good, especially in RAW. There is a huge drawback however, and the Q should fix it (though the premium you have to pay...): The lens. It's very versatile, still rather compact etc. (28-336mm), but there is a lot of correction going on in software. Especially in the corners there is some serious CA etc., you can see the edge of the lens in the corners and the image is really distorted, like a fish eye. At 28mm (it's probably more than that if the cropped image is 28mm). Correcting that in Lightroom seems pretty hard. No wonder Canon doesn't offer RAW...
(Of course this is a rather cheap camera (150 Euro) with a huge lens, decent UI (it can be extremely easy to use, but it can also offer pretty good access to most manual settings) and great video quality. Image stabilization works too, and the body feels at least like an entry level Canon DSLR... crappy for a DSLR, but for a reasonably priced superzoom that's good.