[rparmar]

Tell me rparmar, when the Fiat 500 came out 2 years ago, was it needed? It's small, expensive and retro - there are small compacts our there with larger engines, better fuel economy and more modern looking.

I have no clue. Care to open a thread on cars in the off-topic section?

[rparmar]

Phones have even smaller sensors than compacts like Q, so you've just contradicted your previous conclusion that phones are sufficient.

Please explain how this is a contradiction. Nowhere did I say phones were better than the Q. All I said was if that is your standard for image quality (small shots on the web) then both will do and the Q is a waste of money.

Hmmm... I wonder if all the fans would be out in such force defending an inferior sensor if this was a Canon or Sony camera?

[geekette]

I nearly bought a micro 4/3 recently to keep company to my K-r. But then decided to go with a beautiful premium compact, as it did not want two cameras with a bulk of lenses (I have 5 for my K-r), and I would probably use the DSLR less and less. Then I thought - and if departed from my DSLR and had all cameras smaller? Gave up the idea, as I love my K-r. Last week, bought the compact and my boyfriend said - "who knows, Pentax might release something within the mirrorless market". Here we go. After weeks of anxiety about deciding on a new camera, the rollercoaster starts again... I am definetely very curious about these cameras performance and - don't they look stunning?

They look pretty good--especially the white one.. but I think they could of looked even better

[geekette]

If I was in charge of those designers at Pentax (or is it Hoya) here is the mirrorless camera I'd have them make:

* retro style, all metal body with really nice dials
* viewfinder built in which is a high resolution digital screen
* 900k+ pixel screen
* aps-c sensor with IQ as good as Pentax K-X or K-R.
* adapters for virtually all lenses (m42, nikon, canon eos & fd, pentax, leica, contax, yashica, etc..) to work on the camera
* hot shoe & both 1/8" and pc sync jacks
* super high shutter speeds with ability to sync flashes at very short flash durations.
* comes with a very flat pancake fixed focal length lens with superb image quality & f1.4 or so.
* tethering capable with aperture, lightroom etc..
* shoot raw
* non-ttl wireless flash trigger built in (with receivers similar to the cactus 5 for manual flash strobe work)
* built in ethernet wifi for transfering of files, tethering and full camera control (both as client and server). (Imagine using your Android or iPhone 4 phone to fully control your camera.. timed bulb exposures, etc..)
* built in sensor SR / image stabilization

and much more

UPDATE: and I'd have it do videos better than the canon dslr's.. that way it's be an awesome video camera that can utilize any glass.

---

Last edited by geekette; 06-26-2011 at 06:10 PM.

[Metalwizards]

If I was in charge of those designers at Pentax (or is it Hoya) here is the mirrorless camera I'd have them make:

* retro style, all metal body with really nice dials
* viewfinder built in which is a high resolution digital screen
* 900k+ pixel screen
* aps-c sensor with IQ as good as Pentax K-X or K-R.
* adapters for virtually all lenses (m42, nikon, canon eos & fd, pentax, leica, contax, yashica, etc..) to work on the camera
* hot shoe & both 1/8" and pc sync jacks
* super high shutter speeds with ability to sync flashes at very short flash durations.
* comes with a very flat pancake fixed focal length lens with superb image quality & f1.4 or so.
* tethering capable with aperture, lightroom etc..
* shoot raw
* non-ttl wireless flash trigger built in (with receivers similar to the cactus 5 for manual flash strobe work)
* built in ethernet wifi for transfering of files, tethering and full camera control (both as client and server). (Imagine using your Android or iPhone 4 phone to fully control your camera.. timed bulb exposures, etc..)
* built in sensor SR / image stabilization

and much more

This, or at least just aps-c sensor and k mount. Jeez.

[geekette]

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.

Ignorant peers.. the Pentax K-X has better IQ and Dynamic Range than that popular $2500 camera. Of course canon can tether, probably does high speed flash sync better, can mount more lenses (nikon, etc..) & more and has better video.

[geekette]

Regarding photograph with the camera on a keychain.. yeah i get the point of it.. to show how compact it is.. but really NO one will put that on a keychain will they? lol.. SCRATCH!

[geekette]

This, or at least just aps-c sensor and k mount. Jeez.

Well it really does need to have some very flat lenses available for it right? so it can be compact.. a focal length that would be good for general photography, landscape & portraits etc..

[jsherman999]

Hmmm... I wonder if all the fans would be out in such force defending an inferior sensor if this was a Canon or Sony camera?

Methinks not.

.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

All I said was if that is your standard for image quality (small shots on the web) then both will do and the Q is a waste of money.

You actually said less than that:

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

There's quite a difference between these two statements. The original one is blatantly false, simply because I need such a camera - QED.

And even if I take your latest qualified statement, I would argue that phone camera IQ is still not that great even at web sizes. The few good shots I got from my phone are exactly that - a few. I could have got a lot more keepers from a compact camera.

Hmmm... I wonder if all the fans would be out in such force defending an inferior sensor if this was a Canon or Sony camera?

Hmm, a loaded question. I'm sorry that you have to resort to such rhetoric. And for what? You don't like the camera - fine, no one forces you to buy it. Just grow up and understand that the world doesn't revolve around what you want or what you think other people should want. It's a bit more complex than that and thankfully so.

[kadajawi]

If you're happy with what you can get for a smaller price, then why are you still unhappy? You should be happy. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy something you don't need.

Cause I'd be buying a Sony then, and not a Pentax, and I hope that Pentax survives. But that can only happen if anyone buys their cameras, and frankly I don't see that happening with the Q.

If I need something small I'll use my phone. Sometimes I even use it when I have my DSLR with me. It's less imposing and it can get closer to the object (1 cm or so?). Btw. there are phones out there which would simply kill this Pentax in terms of image quality. It wouldn't stand a chance.

The Fiat 500 thing is a good point though... basically you would get a Fiat Panda, but less practical, and it's more expensive. And people love it and it sells really well. But cameras are not cars...

And why are some Pentax fans so angry about this? Because Pentax should be investing their money into developing a camera that people will buy. I don't think Pentax is the most profitable company in the world, and who knows when Hoya kills it. What will we do then? So we need Pentax to survive, and by making a camera no one wants (especially at this price) they don't really help themselves. Also I'd rather have them working on at least and APS-C camera of this type, with optional K-mount adaptor. And on better video functions in their DSLRs (for video I carry a compact...ish Canon which does a great job and that and probably a similarly decent job for photos as this Q, with a more flexible lens and a 150 Euro price tag).

[rparmar]

You don't like the camera - fine, no one forces you to buy it. Just grow up and understand that the world doesn't revolve around what you want or what you think other people should want. It's a bit more complex than that and thankfully so.

Pot meet kettle.

[Aristophanes]

It's worthless to make any adapter for the Q as the shutter is in the lens. The body has no mechanical shutter.

[Class A]

I wish people (including the official forum pages but also reviewers and forum members) would stop referring to the Q-lenses with nonsensical specifications.

For instance, the standard lens is either a "8.5mm f/1.9" lens or a "47mm f/10.5" lens.

Converting the focal length into an 135-format equivalent focal length but not doing the same for the widest aperture f-ratio does not make sense!

BTW, the slow lenses make the camera a bad choice for thin DOF images and for low light, not the small sensor size (the two being of course not being completely unrelated).

[snogglethorpe]

BTW, the slow lenses make the camera a bad choice for thin DOF images and for low light, not the small sensor size (the two being of course not being completely unrelated).

Er, a small sensor size most definitely hurts in low-light -- that's the main reason people don't like small sensors...

A fast lens can help offset such a loss of course, and conversely, a small sensor with an unusually slow lens is even more horrible.

Another thing that helps a little for low-light is image stabilization (allowing the use of slower shutter speeds), though that seems pretty common on even cheap cameras these days anyway (my cell phone has it!), so it's not much of a differentiator.

It is interesting that Pentax has chosen to emphasize ISO 6400 performance in their press material, because it at least seems to indicate they think they've got the "small sensor in low-light problem" sussed in some acceptable way (advanced sensor tech, really good noise-reduction algorithms, etc); we'll need to wait for independent reviews to see if that's true, of course.