[jstevewhite]

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).

Wait... f1.9 is f1.9 as far as exposure is concerned. The "47mm f10.5" is *only* in ref to DOF; you still get the same low-light EV (notice your meter doesn't have a "focal length" setting). The 8.5mm f1.9 makes it a poor choice for thin DOF images of larger things, but the sensor is the limiting factor for low light, not the calculated f10.5 DOF.

[Nass]

I'd like to submit the opinion that maybe there's some overly binary analysis going around here There are more factors to the general public's purchase decision than just price or sensor size.

I'm not sure how realistic it is to focus in on sensor size. When was the last time a member of the general public walked into a shop and demanded a camera with XYZ sensor size. Camera purchase is about the pics, the sensor is a means to an end. Most people don't have a clue about the sensor size, I'd say let's see the pics before we slam it .

In terms of market perception, the reaction from many Pentax 35mm/DSLR people really isn't actually that surprising when you stop and think about it. Pentax 35mm/DSLR types like us like Pentax because historically it's been (relatively) a budget system, with emphasis on IQ and vast backwards compatibility including the mount. Along comes a luxury system, without primary emphasis on IQ (primary is surely size at IQ cost (sensor size)), and with absolutely zero backwards compatibility and in a new mount. Not huuuugely surprising that the traditional Pentax world isn't waxing lyrical about it, is it?

Aside thought, there are all sorts of markets opening up that dwarf the current traditional 35mm/DSLR segment. Those who claim Pentax should target just the traditional segment might like to think again. According to surveys by Ernst and Young, China is expected to surpass the United States to become the world's second largest consumer of luxury goods within a decade. Japan currently dominates the global market, with 41% of all luxury brand sales. It is predicted China will have a 29% share by 2015. By 2020 China will consume more luxury goods than the entire world does today. That's quite a story, some manufacturers are going to become awfully rich on the back of that if they play their cards right.

As for those resorting to petty name-calling and generalizing insults, the thinking man doesn't take people who do that seriously

[BAB]

.....especially since I have a real pocket camera, a high end model (Canon S90), with a 28 to 100 zoom. It only cost me $320, has a larger sensor, and really does fit in a shirt pocket. Or one of those audio player pockets on most packs.

I can't imagine to what market share this expensive toy is aimed, although I have read that Japan is currently flooded by highly miniature electronic devices, so this could be answer.

If you're looking for mirror-less camera, wait for a release of the supposed Pentax offering using an APS-C sensor. That might be worth even thinking about purchasing, especially if an adapter would be available for auto use of DA and Limited lenses.

Also, you missed the best 4/3 to date by six months, the GF-1, which currently is selling for twice what it did just before it was discontinued. And for which there is an adapter to use DA and Limited lenses.

If this was mentioned above, please excuse me, as I didn't take time to read all the posts.

BAB

[eddie1960]

All Good Points Nass
the Asian market loves luxury brands and product, and this is built like a tiny piece of camera jewelry from the looks of the specs etc
We are definitely not the market as a group on the forum. Not a bad thing at all widening the horizons and expanding to other markets can be good for a brand
Aside from the Asian market there are other markets this could sell well to if the marketing is done right. It sounds trite but I think the LGBT (aka gay) market is an excellent target. To late for this years Pride events, but booths at pride and people out demoing at the prarades/street parties combined with selective targeted marketing could sell a lot of these based on the littel response i've had from asking about with friends (by far the most enthusiastic have been my friends who are not photographers but are from the LGBT community. Middle America may not think of this as a market, but the Pink dollar is damn powerful . give it a push in San Fr4an/Miami/La/New York/Toronto/Vancouver/London/Paris/Milan etc and you likely will sell a ton of cameras for a smaller investment than trying than making it a discount device

[uccemebug]

I'd like to submit the opinion that maybe there's some overly binary analysis going around here There are more factors to the general public's purchase decision than just price or sensor size.
...
As for those resorting to petty name-calling and generalizing insults, the thinking man doesn't take people who do that seriously

Great post.

the Asian market loves luxury brands and product

The Asian market does indeed love luxury brands, but in Japan they have to be authentic. It's not enough to turn up with a brand and through it in the faces of the Japanese, things have to be done the Japanese way. And outside of the LX, nothing that Pentax produces or has produced has any sort of cache in Japan. When it comes to luxury it's the German manufacturers, especially the older film stuff.

As for China, the Chinese are (or were, when I was living in Tokyo) coming to the city to buy as many of certain status items as they could. Some of these were not things that you might associate with luxury per se: like Seiko and Citizen watches. But it had to be "MIJ". All of that started to change with the arrest of that Chinese fisherman toward the end of the last year, I can't tell you what's happened since, but I do know that it's what's caught the attention in China that matters not what's going on outside. Hoya will have to do a boatload of work to gain the traction they'd need. Not impossible, mind you.

[snogglethorpe]

Great post.
The Asian market does indeed love luxury brands, but in Japan they have to be authentic. It's not enough to turn up with a brand and through it in the faces of the Japanese, things have to be done the Japanese way. And outside of the LX, nothing that Pentax produces or has produced has any sort of cache in Japan.

I don't think that's true -- the older classic Pentax stuff seems well thought-of in Japan (e.g., the 6x7; I've seen way more people with 6x7s in Japan than in any other country).

They also seem to be doing pretty well with their latest DSLRs; obviously still a minor player compared to everybody-and-their-dog-has-one Canikon systems, but the Kr and K-5 etc, seem to have found some legs, and have accordingly managed to retain a fairly good chunk of retail space in Japanese camera stores compared to other minor players (e.g., Olympus DSLRs have pretty much been crowded out, despite their Pen cameras being super trendy).

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

What I find most amusing is that this thread is taking place in the compact camera section of these forums. Where were all these theoretical discussions around diffraction and lens equivalence when Pentax was producing other compact cameras?

[snogglethorpe]

What I find most amusing is that this thread is taking place in the compact camera section of these forums. Where were all these theoretical discussions around diffraction and lens equivalence when Pentax was producing other compact cameras?

I think there's two things:

(1) The Q is seemingly much more expensive, and so naturally gets more scrutiny than a cheap-n-cheerful compact.

(2) I think there's an impression that because interchangeable-lens cameras are more of a niche product than cheap-n-cheerful compacts, there might be only enough "room" in the Pentax lineup for one such model. Moreover, once a camera becomes part of a "system" (as opposed to a completely standalone product like traditional compacts), it's much harder to just change details (like sensor size etc), in future products, because compatibility becomes a significant concern. So those who actually want a nice high-quality compact interchangeable-lens camera from Pentax are naturally somewhat concerned that it be done right.

[uccemebug]

I don't think that's true -- the older classic Pentax stuff seems well thought-of in Japan (e.g., the 6x7; I've seen way more people with 6x7s in Japan than in any other country).

You have a point, but that's camera people more than any kind of luxury item per se. When you see a ¥400,000 LX (Leica territory) next to anything else from Pentax at ¥12,000–¥25,000 you see the distinction. The brand doesn't carry the regard that the model does.

So those who actually want a nice high-quality compact interchangeable-lens camera from Pentax are naturally somewhat concerned that it be done right.

Agreed. I don't think too many of us expected to be having this conversation in terms of a point & shoot.

[twitch]

What I find most amusing is that this thread is taking place in the compact camera section of these forums. Where were all these theoretical discussions around diffraction and lens equivalence when Pentax was producing other compact cameras?

How much R&D goes into a new P&S, compared to how much R&D went into the Q with it's new mount and range of lenses? That's what people are mad about, finite R&D resources were spent on this product.

[adr1an]

That's what people are mad about, finite R&D resources were spent on this product.

Amortized over the past 5 years tho... so its not like they dropped the entire R&D budget this quarter. The year-on-year cost was probably minimal, and mostly offset via R&D Tax Credits.... (perhaps part of the reason they turned a 'profit' last year). I don't see it has having a detrimental impact spread over that time period... Had it been all spent and all developed in this past 12 mths, then that would probably be a fair position to hold....

[zxaar]

How much R&D goes into a new P&S, compared to how much R&D went into the Q with it's new mount and range of lenses? That's what people are mad about, finite R&D resources were spent on this product.

People have no right to be mad about anything. It is NOT people's money and resources Pentax spent on them if they did.

As a buyer you can always chose not to buy anything a company is offering, but still where any company spends its resources is its personal matter.

[uccemebug]

As a buyer you can always chose not to buy anything a company is offering, but still where any company spends its resources is its personal matter.

Many of us look at the not inexpensive camera gear that we buy as an investment to last decades. The momentum at Pentax seems to be away from the DSLR gear. They already command a tiny market share and now they've produced an ILC system that supposedly took five years to produce for a clientèle that's hard to identify.

I don't know about "mad" but you're right, "chose not to buy anything" is looking wise.

[twitch]

I don't know about "mad" but you're right, "chose not to buy anything" is looking wise.

Oh I don't know, there's at least 1 person on this forum who is hopping mad (no, it's not me, I'm just "disappointed")

[calsan]

Small sensor size does not equal large depth of field. Can we get this right please?

Think about it: if you mount your FA50 1.4 on a 35mm camera it will have the same depth of field when mounted on a cropped format camera. All you are doing when using a cropped format sensor is chopping the edges off your photo.

The factors affecting depth of field are:
Focal length of the lens.
Aperture of the lens.
Distance from the subject in focus.

Sensor size is only the "crop." The reason this camera will APPEAR to have greater depth of field is that the standard lens is 8.5mm focal length.

If you mount a 50mm f1.4 on it as a 'super telephoto' then it will produce photos that look exactly like the center part of a photo taken on a 35mm camera, only with a much higher resolution.

That also tells you why it's 'expensive' and required a long development time. The lenses have to be significantly higher quality as the sensor becomes smaller. Your good old FA50 wouldn't cut the mustard here. The reason typical P&S cameras produce bad photos is not that their sensors are small, it's because their lenses are typically low quality optical glass and can't refract the light sharply enough to produce a good, sharp image on the smaller sensor.

Therefore, if Pentax is producing high quality lenses for this camera and using ED or similar elements, there's absolutely no reason why it should not be a high quality system.