Pentax Q mirrorless: Specifications and lens details posted!

FullertonImages · 06-23-2011, 10:35 AM

I'm excited that they have 1080p/30. Hopefully we'll see that show up in a FW update for the K-5...

**pntxjack** · 06-23-2011, 10:37 AM

Is the tradition of adaptors to fit larger format lenses to smaller format bodies going to continue? I am hopeful, even though Pentax did not provide for larger format lenses to connect to the 110. Can't wait. (There would be the missing "extreme" telephoto", say your 100mm or 200mm lens?)

snogglethorpe · 06-23-2011, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Designosophy

They're targeting people who want a small, light, interchangeable-lens camera. If the image quality is good, then they've probably hit their mark.

Note, on the other hand, that Sony's NEX-C3 is about the same size, weight, and feature set as the Q -- but the NEX-C3 has a much bigger (APS-C) sensor. Sony's no slouch at sensors (the NEX-C3 uses an "exmor" sensor), so it seems pretty unlikely Pentax has come up with some sort of magic that offsets that huge size difference.

Oh, also the current NEX-3 has a lower price than the Q too... (not sure about the differences between the 3 and the C3, they seem roughly the same)

The only hope I can see for the Q is if Pentax can make super-duper dinky lenses or something, that lets them slip into the "pocket camera" niche (the lenses I've seen on the Sonys seem to nudge it a bit over that size).

kh1234567890 · 06-23-2011, 11:14 AM

$800 for a 'toy' camera ?

Maybe in Japan, but unlikely anywhere else. There are much better and cheaper alternatives around.

dmc · 06-23-2011, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by rlatjsrud

...
It's too expensive.
Other mirror less camera are cheaper and have bigger size censor.
That censor is too small...
I hate that...
Pentax have to fix it or don't let them sell it.

Do you mean it needs a bigger sensor? If so, I think it best to wait and see some test results before we judge. As for the price, remember what the first G1 or GF1 cost? They are considerably less expensive now. Perhaps a little patience is in order before we jump to conclusions. Now, about that censor . . .

m8o · 06-23-2011, 11:44 AM

How much respect will I garner among my peers if I walk around w/a camera that has 'Toy' boldly emblazon on its lens?

With that said, I could see myself owning one. Moreso if it took our crippled K mount and maintained AF, but I can understand the reason as to why not. But there are cases where this would do for me over a D-SLR and larger lenses.

dmc · 06-23-2011, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by snogglethorpe

Note, on the other hand, that Sony's NEX-C3 is about the same size, weight, and feature set as the Q -- but the NEX-C3 has a much bigger (APS-C) sensor. Sony's no slouch at sensors (the NEX-C3 uses an "exmor" sensor), so it seems pretty unlikely Pentax has come up with some sort of magic that offsets that huge size difference.

Oh, also the current NEX-3 has a lower price than the Q too... (not sure about the differences between the 3 and the C3, they seem roughly the same)

The only hope I can see for the Q is if Pentax can make super-duper dinky lenses or something, that lets them slip into the "pocket camera" niche (the lenses I've seen on the Sonys seem to nudge it a bit over that size).

Sorry, are you sure about the size? The Q appears to be considerably smaller than any other Mirrorless System Camera. I don't think Pentax used the small sensor to be different, I think this camera is truly smaller. Let's get our hands on one first before we judge.

dmc · 06-23-2011, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by m8o

How much respect will I garner among my peers if I walk around w/a camera that has 'Toy' boldly emblazon on its lens?

With that said, I could see myself owning one. Moreso if it took our crippled K mount and maintained AF, but I can understand the reason as to why not. But there are cases where this would do for me over a D-SLR and larger lenses.

1. This is likely not a camera to impress your peers. Perhaps a Canon 5DMkII would be better for this.

2. Don't buy the toy lenses, buy the standard ones.

3. Don't worry about what others think. Be yourself.

Designosophy · 06-23-2011, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by snogglethorpe

Note, on the other hand, that Sony's NEX-C3 is about the same size, weight, and feature set as the Q

You could be right. But it doesn't look that way to me. The NEX looks larger without any lens attached, and much larger/heavier with a lens attached, unless it's their wide angle lens, in which case the NEX is still larger and heavier, but not quite as much so. I don't see the point of comparing the camera bodies without lenses, since there is no utility in a camera body without a lens. I have no idea about image quality, so I have no way of knowing how this will pan out. But I still see the Pentax Q as a winner in the size/weight category.

kh1234567890 · 06-23-2011, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by dmc

The Q appears to be considerably smaller than any other Mirrorless System Camera.

Not much of a system, with one 3:1 zoom, a mediocre prime and a range of plastic lenses so bad that they have to be labeled 'toy' lenses.

Metalwizards · 06-23-2011, 12:05 PM

I think this is all wrong. Should been a little bigger, K mount and with aps-c sensor. Ohh well.

**rparmar** · 06-23-2011, 12:21 PM

A truly bizarre initiative when all Pentax had to do was join the MFT Consortium and start rolling out pancake primes based on their tried and true formulas.... an instant money machine with minimal investment.

Instead we get a bling camera for rich Japanese kids, or at least those who don't care about the tiny sensor. Knock a zero off the price and it might shift a few units.

m8o · 06-23-2011, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by dmc

3. Don't worry about what others think. Be yourself.

I own a few Pentaxes and full compliment of lenses in the mount so I already must. I'd say even in the [ahem] 'old days' [just a few years ago] it was even a requirement!

**Ash** · 06-23-2011, 01:03 PM

While the price of this system seems steep, bear in mind that it is the RRP and is sure to plummet soon after release (and Pentax have got some hard-earned money out of the development). It may yet surprise us in more ways than one in what it can do...

**Ash** · 06-23-2011, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Metalwizards

Should been a little bigger

...which would have gone against the concept Pentax was destined to fulfill in their camera and lens designs... to maintain good image and build quality yet still be the smallest camera with interchangeable lens system in the market *is* a good selling point and something for the more advanced P&S audience to sink their teeth into.

Originally posted by kh1234567890

a mediocre prime and a range of plastic lenses so bad that they have to be labeled 'toy' lenses

The label has no bearing on the quality of the lens, but sad that someone might think of the lens system as such. Clearly it's not made for you.

06-23-2011, 10:45 AM	#33
snogglethorpe Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 71	Originally posted by Designosophy They're targeting people who want a small, light, interchangeable-lens camera. If the image quality is good, then they've probably hit their mark. Note, on the other hand, that Sony's NEX-C3 is about the same size, weight, and feature set as the Q -- but the NEX-C3 has a much bigger (APS-C) sensor. Sony's no slouch at sensors (the NEX-C3 uses an "exmor" sensor), so it seems pretty unlikely Pentax has come up with some sort of magic that offsets that huge size difference. Oh, also the current NEX-3 has a lower price than the Q too... (not sure about the differences between the 3 and the C3, they seem roughly the same) The only hope I can see for the Q is if Pentax can make super-duper dinky lenses or something, that lets them slip into the "pocket camera" niche (the lenses I've seen on the Sonys seem to nudge it a bit over that size). Last edited by snogglethorpe; 06-23-2011 at 10:53 AM.

06-23-2011, 12:38 PM	#43
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by dmc 3. Don't worry about what others think. Be yourself. I own a few Pentaxes and full compliment of lenses in the mount so I already must. I'd say even in the [ahem] 'old days' [just a few years ago] it was even a requirement! Last edited by m8o; 06-23-2011 at 12:45 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Suggestion How about adding Focus Throw to lens details in the Lens database?	brecklundin	Site Suggestions and Help	4	08-16-2020 02:45 PM
Come up with a mirrorless lens kit	kevinschoenmakers	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	06-27-2011 03:22 PM
Pentax Japan full K-5 Specifications	jogiba	Pentax News and Rumors	2	09-21-2010 08:08 PM
Pentax K-5 and KR Specifications	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	52	09-14-2010 04:46 PM
Looking for vintage Pentax lens Specifications	pentaxographer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	08-26-2008 06:07 AM

06-23-2011, 10:35 AM	#31
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	I'm excited that they have 1080p/30. Hopefully we'll see that show up in a FW update for the K-5...

06-23-2011, 10:37 AM	#32
pntxjack Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: placerville, ca Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 171	Is the tradition of adaptors to fit larger format lenses to smaller format bodies going to continue? I am hopeful, even though Pentax did not provide for larger format lenses to connect to the 110. Can't wait. (There would be the missing "extreme" telephoto", say your 100mm or 200mm lens?)

06-23-2011, 11:14 AM	#34
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	$800 for a 'toy' camera ? Maybe in Japan, but unlikely anywhere else. There are much better and cheaper alternatives around.

06-23-2011, 11:40 AM	#35
dmc Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Calgary, AB Canada Posts: 76	Originally posted by rlatjsrud ... It's too expensive. Other mirror less camera are cheaper and have bigger size censor. That censor is too small... I hate that... Pentax have to fix it or don't let them sell it. Do you mean it needs a bigger sensor? If so, I think it best to wait and see some test results before we judge. As for the price, remember what the first G1 or GF1 cost? They are considerably less expensive now. Perhaps a little patience is in order before we jump to conclusions. Now, about that censor . . .

06-23-2011, 11:44 AM	#36
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	How much respect will I garner among my peers if I walk around w/a camera that has 'Toy' boldly emblazon on its lens? With that said, I could see myself owning one. Moreso if it took our crippled K mount and maintained AF, but I can understand the reason as to why not. But there are cases where this would do for me over a D-SLR and larger lenses.

06-23-2011, 11:46 AM	#37
dmc Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Calgary, AB Canada Posts: 76	Originally posted by snogglethorpe Note, on the other hand, that Sony's NEX-C3 is about the same size, weight, and feature set as the Q -- but the NEX-C3 has a much bigger (APS-C) sensor. Sony's no slouch at sensors (the NEX-C3 uses an "exmor" sensor), so it seems pretty unlikely Pentax has come up with some sort of magic that offsets that huge size difference. Oh, also the current NEX-3 has a lower price than the Q too... (not sure about the differences between the 3 and the C3, they seem roughly the same) The only hope I can see for the Q is if Pentax can make super-duper dinky lenses or something, that lets them slip into the "pocket camera" niche (the lenses I've seen on the Sonys seem to nudge it a bit over that size). Sorry, are you sure about the size? The Q appears to be considerably smaller than any other Mirrorless System Camera. I don't think Pentax used the small sensor to be different, I think this camera is truly smaller. Let's get our hands on one first before we judge.

06-23-2011, 11:52 AM	#38
dmc Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Calgary, AB Canada Posts: 76	Originally posted by m8o How much respect will I garner among my peers if I walk around w/a camera that has 'Toy' boldly emblazon on its lens? With that said, I could see myself owning one. Moreso if it took our crippled K mount and maintained AF, but I can understand the reason as to why not. But there are cases where this would do for me over a D-SLR and larger lenses. 1. This is likely not a camera to impress your peers. Perhaps a Canon 5DMkII would be better for this. 2. Don't buy the toy lenses, buy the standard ones. 3. Don't worry about what others think. Be yourself.

06-23-2011, 11:56 AM	#39
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Originally posted by snogglethorpe Note, on the other hand, that Sony's NEX-C3 is about the same size, weight, and feature set as the Q You could be right. But it doesn't look that way to me. The NEX looks larger without any lens attached, and much larger/heavier with a lens attached, unless it's their wide angle lens, in which case the NEX is still larger and heavier, but not quite as much so. I don't see the point of comparing the camera bodies without lenses, since there is no utility in a camera body without a lens. I have no idea about image quality, so I have no way of knowing how this will pan out. But I still see the Pentax Q as a winner in the size/weight category.

06-23-2011, 11:56 AM	#40
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by dmc The Q appears to be considerably smaller than any other Mirrorless System Camera. Not much of a system, with one 3:1 zoom, a mediocre prime and a range of plastic lenses so bad that they have to be labeled 'toy' lenses.

06-23-2011, 12:05 PM	#41
Metalwizards Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Santa Cruz Photos: Albums Posts: 124	I think this is all wrong. Should been a little bigger, K mount and with aps-c sensor. Ohh well.

06-23-2011, 12:21 PM	#42
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	A truly bizarre initiative when all Pentax had to do was join the MFT Consortium and start rolling out pancake primes based on their tried and true formulas.... an instant money machine with minimal investment. Instead we get a bling camera for rich Japanese kids, or at least those who don't care about the tiny sensor. Knock a zero off the price and it might shift a few units.

06-23-2011, 01:03 PM	#44
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	While the price of this system seems steep, bear in mind that it is the RRP and is sure to plummet soon after release (and Pentax have got some hard-earned money out of the development). It may yet surprise us in more ways than one in what it can do...

06-23-2011, 01:09 PM	#45
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Metalwizards Should been a little bigger ...which would have gone against the concept Pentax was destined to fulfill in their camera and lens designs... to maintain good image and build quality yet still be the smallest camera with interchangeable lens system in the market is a good selling point and something for the more advanced P&S audience to sink their teeth into. Originally posted by kh1234567890 a mediocre prime and a range of plastic lenses so bad that they have to be labeled 'toy' lenses The label has no bearing on the quality of the lens, but sad that someone might think of the lens system as such. Clearly it's not made for you.