[icywindow]

What do you all think about the 1/2000 second flash sync speed?
For close work and when you want subtle shadows it could be useful.

[Designosophy]

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.

I think they were trying to compete in a different way. Rather than get into a field with a number of strong players already (like they did with their APS-C bodies), they decided to carve out a different niche and be first there. Yeah, it's risky. They stand to lose big if the Q flops. But there is a lot more potential gain being first in a new category than being fourth (there are 3 MFT manufacturers, right?) in an existing category. Bigger bet, bigger potential payout.

As for the tiny sensor, let's see some photos, then we can say it sucks. Or rocks, as the case may be.

I'm rooting for them! I'm no Pentax fanboy, but I am a Pentax fan.

[jogiba]

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.

Right, make a Pentax clone of a Panasonic or Olympus MFT that no consumer would buy. With the Q they have zero competition and would get picked up for shelf space at BestBuy etc faster than any other Pentax camera.

[LFLee]

From these photos.... Seem like a silver 'limited' edition body is lining up half year down the line, and sell at $1000

[einstrigger]

I'm still astounded by the price at $800. If the K-5 ($1599 MSRP with $1349 average price) is a good indication, can we estimate a price about $200 below MSRP? That still leaves the Q about $600. And sorry, places like Best Buy frequently have higher prices then other retailers. Look at their current K-r prices compared to Amazon/B&H/Adorama. So the new Q might occupy some shelf space, but it will be sitting there for a long time.

[jct us101]

This is stupid. If they would have priced it around $300 or even $400, I would even buy one. No way in hell I'm buying one for the price that they're trying to sell them at, that's just way too much.

[rt22306]

..but I'm still getting used to my Oly PEN! And scratching up the change up for a K-5!

I'd like to see how this model works out, and some images. It is a bit different than anything else, and hopefully it will deliver the goods. If so, could be a good selling item for Pentax (but not at the list price, which should drop quickly around the holiday season as more make it to the shelves).

[rparmar]

Right, make a Pentax clone of a Panasonic or Olympus MFT that no consumer would buy.

Please read before spouting. I said lenses.

But now that you mention it, I have confidence Pentax could produce a better body than the two MFT manufacturers. It wouldn't be that difficult since both lack a "pro" model and many users clamour for one.

To be consistent you'd also have to chastise Pentax for entering the APS-C market when there were already two big players.

[snogglethorpe]

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.

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.

Body-wise, they're very similar:

Pentax Q:
Dimensions: Approx. 98.0mm x 57.5mm x 31.0mm (excluding the operation parts and protrusion)
Weight: Approx. 200g (loaded and ready with the dedicated battery and SD Memory Card)

Sony NEX-C3:
Dimensions: 110 x 60 x 33mm
Weight: Approx. 225g (7.9 oz, with batt and card)

The NEX-C3 body is basically the same size as the Q body, so any difference will have to be in lenses. The Q's much smaller sensor makes smaller lenses easier, and the lenses in the linked article look decently small (though not crazy-small). On the other hand, as we've seen with Pentax's SLR pancakes, it's quite possible to make very small lenses for an APS-C camera. In practice, I don't know; I haven't spent too much time looking at the Sony NEX line in stores, though there seem to be two lenses one commonly sees, one pretty big, the other smaller, though not as small as the Pentax SLR pancakes.

Another pieces of evidence that large-sensor lenses need not be big is Leica 35mm cameras -- their lenses are often like little jewels, despite targetting a full-frame 35mm format. From what I hear, some of this is due to the lack of the mirror box (I don't know why this helps make lenses smaller, but that's what I've heard).

The look of the Q is great, and they've got the retro vibe down pretty well (the Sony NEX cameras are much less appealing on that front).

I guess my main gripe is that it seems to me Pentax could have done something really cool with this: with their experience at making small and svelte large-sensor lenses, I think they were capable of producing a cool, small, retro-look camera that also be world-class in terms of image quality, and would appeal to both picky photographers and those who want an extremely small and portable (and cute) camera.

Instead, well... I guess we'll see. But I'm not very optimistic... sensor-size isn't the only factor in image quality, but it's an awfully important one...

Links:
Pentax Q Camera Reviews - Pentax Camera Reviews - DSLR and Film SLR Database
Sony NEX-C3 Preview: 2. Specifications: Digital Photography Review

[marosari00]

After seeing the photo of the Q in relation to the keys, I'll wait for the reviews and tests before passing judgement.

[auspentax]

Just needs a phone and it can do battle with Nokia

[snogglethorpe]

Just needs a phone and it can do battle with Nokia

Given that Nokia seems to be in its death-throes, I'm not sure that's who they want to be compared with...

[prima]

Why Pentax Q use small sensor?...sensor is very small (1/2.33) for camera interchangeable lens

[redpigeons]

this is a camera for street shooters , but with out a wide prime they missed that crowd. Fuji x100 knew to choose the right lens . every rangefinder lover (suckers like me that usually spend big money on mirrorless) would want a 35mm lens . normal is very limiting . that's my only rant Bc I actually here in NY knows a lot of people that would buy this kind of camera if it had the right kit lens. I am still waiting for IQ samples

[Pixley]

I just hope that they are not going the way of Olympus who are not focussing on their Dslr range anymore - just their mirrorless system. Another one who although is not passing judgement on this system - would have prefered a FF.