[Designosophy]

All this proves is that no-one needs the Q -- they can just use their phone.

That's the next model. An interchangeable-lens cell phone.

[clearlight]

Sensor size is hugely important. Sony is smarter than Pentax. If Pentax was serious (it isn't) it'd have introduced several real lenses, not toy lenses. Sony will be in 3rd generation shortly, light years ahead of Pentax.

Surely some Pentaxians care about image quality?

[m8o]

You know ... I somehow forgot until just now that I bought a Sony TX-5 for my wife last holiday season, which uses a 1/2.4" CMOS sensor. While it's not one of the TX's with the backlit sensor, it still takes very good photos, and works well enough sans flash indoors. Add a few years of sensor advancements, the backlit CMOS, decent Pentax lens, and I suspect this camera will do quite acceptably; in the P&S category yes, but might even be at the top of it.

[jsherman999]

So I don't have to repeat myself I've blogged my impressions. Not that different from many others; I think the consensus is in from us "photo enthusiasts."



All this proves is that no-one needs the Q -- they can just use their phone. For anyone wanting better, a larger sensor is a necessity. Also your DOF argument is flawed. A small sensor forces you to use diffraction-limited larger apertures. With a larger sensor you actually have a choice -- stop down or not.

Good images by the way. As opposed to all this geek gadget talk it is good to remember than any camera at all is good enough for teensy shots on the web.

So save your $800.

.


Well summarized.


.

[sunny16]

Sensor size is hugely important. Sony is smarter than Pentax. If Pentax was serious (it isn't) it'd have introduced several real lenses, not toy lenses. Sony will be in 3rd generation shortly, light years ahead of Pentax.

Surely some Pentaxians care about image quality?

Define Image Quality?

There are people who shoot with full-frame camera's and put a lensbaby on the front. What about Polaroids? (I've seen entire shows made up of just them.) I guess no person who shot on 35mm film instead of medium format ever got a photo with good image quality?

I love gear talk as much as anybody else on here, but at the end of the day a great photo can come from any one of a variety of "cameras." At least that is the view I take.

If Sony provides the "Image Quality" that works for you, then be happy that you've found this out. I don't know why you would need to put down another product to justify your choice.

[snogglethorpe]

You know ... I somehow forgot until just now that I bought a Sony TX-5 for my wife last holiday season, which uses a 1/2.4" CMOS sensor. While it's not one of the TX's with the backlit sensor, it still takes very good photos, and works well enough sans flash indoors. Add a few years of sensor advancements, the backlit CMOS, decent Pentax lens, and I suspect this camera will do quite acceptably; in the P&S category yes, but might even be at the top of it.

Even many current cell phones take quite good pics, at least in decent lighting. The point where a "real" camera often beats them though, is in more challenging situations -- e.g. low lighting, where sensor size helps hugely (or situations where fast focusing [something mirror-free cameras aren't so great at], a real viewfinder, good lenses, and other quality-of-implementation issues help).

The thing is complicates all this though, is price. Though my cell phone takes very decent pics in reasonable lighting (though it has image stabilization to help with low-lighting situations), it was more or less free... If I'm going to pay a substantial fraction of a grand for a camera, I'm a lot more picky; "good in decent lighting" isn't gonna do it then, nor is a cool retro look. Good lenses will help, but only to the extent they aren't hamstrung by the sensor.

[I love the look and feel of the Fuji X100, but the price is way up there, the implementation is a bit flaky, and lens has gotten a lot of criticism wide-open -- and really "wide-open" is important. If the price were a lot less, I might forgive these shortcomings, but it's very hard at the price they're charging...]

[unfocused]

Somebody said "bizarre", and that's about right. Can't see the point - the Q is ugly and has a sensor even smaller than the LX5 and G12. If they'd brought out a slimline APS-C job that fitted the 'Limited' pancake lenses (15, 21, 35 macro, 40, 43, 70mm) and introduced a few new optics like a pocket-size zoom (20~60?), it would have made far better sense.

Frankly I despair of Pentax's Compact Camera Division - they shame the name and have nothing worth looking at. And that's from someone who has been loyal to Pentax for more years than I care to admit - from the S3 through to the K-7.

[mathan]

Like lot of you mentioned this camera needs a good price tag!
I work for samsung cameras all over west germany and we also have mirror less cams like the nx 11. It is mostly aimed at buyers who want better image quality in a compact size.
There is a lot of action going in the mirror less sector, like nex 5, new panasonic g3 etc. It is quite difficult to sell such cams above 600 € regardsless of their feature.
Well thats my opinion!

[uccemebug]

Like lot of you mentioned this camera needs a good price tag!
I work for samsung cameras all over west germany and we also have mirror less cams like the nx 11. It is mostly aimed at buyers who want better image quality in a compact size.
There is a lot of action going in the mirror less sector, like nex 5, new panasonic g3 etc. It is quite difficult to sell such cams above 600 € regardsless of their feature.
Well thats my opinion!

mathan, my friend .. care to share any previous of Samsung's forthcoming models? 8^J

[Uluru]

Many years ago, my Minolta A1 had a pathetically old 2/3" sensor, I could shoot up to ISO 800 with acceptable results (oftentimes ISO 100-400 to keep it safe), and many photographs I've taken with it are my favourite of all time. They stand proudly, face to face with best modern DSLR shots. Is it because of the "big" A1 sensor?

No. It's because that camera had superb glass, anti-shake, and many features that enabled me enjoy and explore digital photography effortlessly.

Now 7 years afterwards, a smaller, much better camera in all respects with a sensor that is somewhat smaller, but outflanks 7 years old A1's sensor by miles, is on the market. And I'm getting a whole Q system with all the lenses for less money than I've paid A1 for.

I sometimes believe something's really wrong with people's brains and they cannot put anything into perspective. Perhaps because they have none. It's like they reset it every Xmas or something. All they know is to turn the 'lament channel on'.

For the first time after 7 years I got REALLY excited about a camera again, which almost instantly reminds me of Minolta A1, and the best times of my life spent with my family. But this is even better, because it's so much smaller.

With such a camera I know EXACTLY what I'm buying and getting, and that's a lot of immediate promises. When buying a DSLR, people also pay for lots of misses, and they are paying for the learning curve to use DSLRs potentially well one day. They are also paying for every time they've left camera at home because it was too heavy or big for another lug around. But with Pentax Q, people only pay for those keepers they'll get straight out of the box that day, and every other day, and for tons of fun with all these crazy lenses.

I don't know about you, but for me that's a bargain.

[Uluru]

The size of the Pentax Q and the larger 4/3 sensor comparison.
I'm not sure if the photographs found on the Internet are true to nature, but if they are, then I've done this quick mockup to see how large is the Pentax Q mount. I've layered Pentax Q over the Panasonic camera with 4/3 sensor, so on the picture on the right what you see is the 4/3 sensor inside Pentax Q mount.
Whether Pentax Q mount has enough "girth" to cover larger than 1/2.3" area, or better to say, whether Q lenses can be made to create different size image circles, I'll leave up to you to conclude ...

[Clicker]

[jellyfish26]

source: RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: How is the IQ of the Q?

Pictures of iso 6400 shown at the Japan press conference. Looks pretty good but loss of detail at 6400. Products D and E are unknown

[Yakim]

While I applause (sp.?) Pentax for making such a bold move out of the mainstream (similar to Ricoh GRX system) and while I think it's the cutest cam I've seen in years I think that the price is just too high WRT sensor size.

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[kh1234567890]

I love the way all the Pentax fanboys are wetting themselves with excitement even before anyone had actually seen any images from this toy ...