Originally posted by mklives I had the Pentax Q and standard prime for a few months. I loved the cuteness factor, the appearance, and the controls. But the image quality just wasn't there. Resolution, colour, detail, and low-light ability were all horrendous. In my opinion, now that some micro 4/3 cameras are around the same size as the Q and have a plethora of affordable AF lenses to choose from, the Pentax Q only has credibility as an astronomical tool with telescopes, etc.
I sold the Pentax Q and bought the Panasonic LX100. It's not much bigger than the Q, and neither are pocketable. I was able to get the following photo with the LX100. I can guarantee you I wouldn't have been able to get a photo anywhere close to this quality with the Q. I don't think Pentax will continue with the Q system.
http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57352751/9b34e4e9bdce4a4e845484a67d6cdd85 this is the OP. what you quoted was after the OP was already under attack, and i use that word after careful consideration.
people use a huge variety of different cameras for a huge variety of reasons. every one of them are valid. photography, like most art, is extremely subjective. having said that, there are some things that are objectively true. i have a fuji x10. it has a tiny sensor, but i love the results. i choose to use it at times over much 'better' cameras in my arsenal. but i know the cameras i'm leaving behind
are indeed better, better in terms of IQ as that is commonly understood. i would have no problem if OP had substituted my loved x10 for the Q in his original post. why? because m4/3 has objectively better IQ than my 1" sensored x10. the fact that i love it, the fact that i make lovely images with it, are entirely irrelevent to that objective reality.
look, i'm new here. but i felt compelled to post because i saw OP being beaten up for stating what is as close to an objective reality as we have in a subjective art: a tiny sensor does not have the same IQ as a much bigger one. he did not deserve the lambasting he received and i personally dont enjoy seeing people bullied and ganged up on.
at the end of the day, the question i posed remains, and i'd love to understand Q lovers thoughts on when along the sensor format curve does the Q IQ falter in comparison? i, and OP, think its with m4/3. what do you think? if you are not arguing there is an IQ difference between the Q and m4/3, why not clarify at what point it cannot compete? why insist OP is wrong to say there are situations where the Q cannot keep up with an m4/3 sensor? sure seems the general statements and tone is exactly what you say it isnt.