[m8o]

...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. ...

I won't argue anything else you said, but I do object to you thinking the FA50 isn't an excellent piece of glass... I think you're off the rails thinking the lenses you'll be buying for this Q will be 'all that much better', if better at all.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

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

But it should still be judged as a compact, which isn't what is being done. People are judging it for what it isn't, not for what it is and that is saying more about what they wanted than about what the Q is offering.

(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.

And maybe that model should be such that it doesn't have any direct competition. If there is still a hole left in the current ILC market, it will be plugged in soon - what does it matter if it is done by Pentax or by someone else? The entire point of compact ILCs is to be somewhat smaller than DSLRs, to have better IQ than compacts, and to have smaller lenses than DSLRs - this can be accomplished optimally by introducing a new mount, so the current investment in one camera brand shouldn't matter.

Basically, we've got one more option now:

DSLRs => size *, IQ ***, controls ***
APS ILCs => size **, IQ ***, controls **
m4/3 ILCs => size **, IQ **, controls **
Q => size ***, IQ *, controls **

It will be interesting to see how the Q will fare against the S95 in the dxomark testing. If it is comparable, it's going to be a winner.

[geekette]

I think the camera is cute and I'd pay like $300 for it.. not $800

[jstevewhite]

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.

I read your post with mixed feelings. Technically, of course, you're right about a 50mm lens *as you state it*, but it's still absolutely true that an 8.5mm lens will have greater DOF at the same focus distance and aperture as a 50mm lens; therefore the small sensor with a "normal" lens will have greater DOF than a large sensor with a "normal" lens. That's why they make those ridiculous adaptors to use 35mm lenses projected on a screen with the video cams with tiny sensors. It makes perfect sense to talk about it either way; you just have to define your context.

But it is also absolutely true that *within the same sensor technology*, as pixel density increases, noise limits the dynamic range of the system. So there is a reason that the smaller sensor *might* not produce the IQ that people would like to see.

I'm still firmly in the camp that says "Show me the pix", though; I'm not going to be berating it until I see what it looks like.

[snogglethorpe]

I read your post with mixed feelings. Technically, of course, you're right about a 50mm lens *as you state it*, but it's still absolutely true that an 8.5mm lens will have greater DOF at the same focus distance and aperture as a 50mm lens; therefore the small sensor with a "normal" lens will have greater DOF than a large sensor with a "normal" lens. That's why they make those ridiculous adaptors to use 35mm lenses projected on a screen with the video cams with tiny sensors. It makes perfect sense to talk about it either way; you just have to define your context.

And note that it's much easier to make a good-quality lens cheaper/smaller at a given focal-length if you can just ignore everything except the center... so a lens make for a small-sensor camera should always be smaller than a lens of the same focal length made for a larger-sensor camera.

[snogglethorpe]

But it should still be judged as a compact, which isn't what is being done. People are judging it for what it isn't, not for what it is and that is saying more about what they wanted than about what the Q is offering.

Basically, we've got one more option now:

DSLRs => size *, IQ ***, controls ***
APS ILCs => size **, IQ ***, controls **
m4/3 ILCs => size **, IQ **, controls **
Q => size ***, IQ *, controls **

It will be interesting to see how the Q will fare against the S95 in the dxomark testing. If it is comparable, it's going to be a winner.

I'd be very interested to see how small lenses for the Sony NEX series can go -- as it's got a body as small as the Q, if it were paired with a good pancake lens, it would be a great APS-C sensor alternative for the Q, at basically the same size.

[kh1234567890]

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

While I fully agree that the image will be that from a 8.5mm lens with the edges chopped off, the fact that the smaller sensor will have a smaller circle of confusion, leading to a greater apparent depth of field does not help.

I have here an ancient Sony DSC-H1 (1/2.4" sensor, 6-72mm f2.8-3.7 lens) and at 8.5mm the depth of field is quite huge. The Q standard lens is only a stop or so brighter.

With all this high tech Q design - do you get a lens cap ? There is none to be seen in the product photos and there does not appear to be any means of attaching one. Presumably some crap on the lens will add to the artistic 'holga-like' quality of your shots

[conradj]

i'm firmly in the camp that says, Let's wait and see how much pixie dust Pentax manages to get into that tiny little thing. i'm sure they got some in there, just dunno if it's enough to turn grownups into Lost Boys cavorting abt in Neverland.

Noone expects it to have SD1 type IQ, to name another innovative and overpriced camera, but that pixie dust, it's abt something that's more than plain IQ.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I'd be very interested to see how small lenses for the Sony NEX series can go -- as it's got a body as small as the Q, if it were paired with a good pancake lens, it would be a great APS-C sensor alternative for the Q, at basically the same size.

The NEX body is larger - see the side by side images. The NEX is taller and wider. They're comparable in thickness only.

The NEX seems to be the best system right now in terms of sensor performance, but their kit lens was uninspired - it's huge. I like that the Q is paired with a prime instead of a zoom. If the NEX would have kept partnering with Zeiss for their NEX lens line, it would have been a very tempting combo. Lack of in-body IS is a miss too - their lenses will only get bulkier and at that point they cancel the miniaturization of the body. Maybe Zeiss doesn't care much about in-lens IS designs and that's why we don't see lenses from them for the NEX.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

With all this high tech Q design - do you get a lens cap ? There is none to be seen in the product photos and there does not appear to be any means of attaching one. Presumably some crap on the lens will add to the artistic 'holga-like' quality of your shots

There is a hood similar to that of the DA40, which should do a great job of protecting the front element from hits, if not from dust. It's shown here. Let me also plug a link to a collection of Q related links and comments that I collected here.

[kadajawi]

Someone on Engadget posted sample photos at different ISOs. Compared to other 1/2.3" cameras it was pretty impressive. Compared to other $800 (or even $300) cameras it was bloody awful.

This is a bit of a Microsoft KIN. They started developing this a long time ago, investing a billion dollar. By the time it reached the market it was already superceeded by better devices, and Microsoft/Verizon refused to bring down the price in order to make it competitive. And we all know how well that worked out for them (if you don't, they pulled it like a month after release).

And no right to be mad? This might kill Pentax. Which is bad for us because we have already invested in Pentax. It is also a reason not to buy a Pentax DSLR, as the future of the company is uncertain.

@calsan: No. While bad lens performance does hurt these small cameras, it is the sensor that really kills it. The Canon SX130 IS I own takes great photos at ISO80. Sharp and everything (yes, the processor does a lot though, the RAWs at 28mm are really distorted, almost like a fish eye. The JPEGs look fine). At ISO1600 it is bloody awful. More like a painting rather than a photo.

This camera will likely beat cameras such as my SX130, but S95? Nokia P7000? Panasonic LX-5? No, I don't think so. I'd expect them to beat the Pentax. The only advantage it will have is the flexibility of different lenses, but at that price...?

Btw., the NEX is available with a pancake too, a 16/2.8. http://www.photoxels.com/images/Sony/nex3/sony-nex3-16mm-800.jpg And for me at least the better image quality and lower price (half!) is easily more important than the size.

[snogglethorpe]

The NEX body is larger - see the side by side images. The NEX is taller and wider. They're comparable in thickness only.

Very odd, as the dimensions are very similar; from my previous comment:

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)

[Sony dimensions from the dpreview preview; Q dimensions from the article linked to in this thread.]

Is somebody fudging...?

[conradj]

Someone on Engadget posted sample photos at different ISOs. Compared to other 1/2.3" cameras it was pretty impressive. Compared to other $800 (or even $300) cameras it was bloody awful.

Where? i missed that one.

[kh1234567890]

Where? i missed that one.

This one maybe ?

[Digitalis]

eh.

From a marketing perspective they should have taken that key ring shot with a Ferrari or Lamborghini key on it...not a Toyota- or has the "toy-ota" got something to to with those "toy" lenses?