View Full Version : Pentax Q.... hmmmm...
imajypsee
06-23-2011, 08:06
ttp://www.pentaxforums.com/Pentax-Q-Interchangeable-Lens-System
I'm going to have a closer look at this.. interesting offering.. good to see Pentax still thinking outside the proverbial box:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxQ/
Dave
shadowfox
06-23-2011, 08:38
" This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras"
My, my, they haven't been paying attention to what people think about smaller sensor even *without* trying it out.
looks like p&s with changeable lenses.
" This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras"
My, my, they haven't been paying attention to what people think about smaller sensor even *without* trying it out.
Maybe the smaller sensor "could" work if they just reduced it from 12.4 to 6MP :)
Anyway, looks interesting but that's about it for me :)
Dave
jsrockit
06-23-2011, 08:57
looks like p&s with changeable lenses.
From the few small images I've seen at 6400, it appears not to have much noise. It also doesn't have an anti-aliasing filter.
While I'm not big on small sensors, if a camera that uses one can make sharp and relatively noiseless image at high ISO while maintaining a decent amount of detail...while allowing you to pick out lenses matched to that sensor, I could care less that the sensor is small.
This is an intriguing camera to me because I love small digital devices and it would not be my only camera. Looks like it could come in handy at times. But I just can't do it at $800.
Stravinsky
06-23-2011, 09:14
I am with Tom (http://bythom.com/) about this Pentax... I don't see a point in having a P&S sensor in a 800$ camera... design?
jsrockit
06-23-2011, 09:25
I am with Tom (http://bythom.com/) about this Pentax... I don't see a point in having a P&S sensor in a 800$ camera... design?
The Leica D-Lux 5 sells for $800 as well...though it has a slightly larger sensor.
Too small for prints (of the size I would want to print anyway) but perhaps the video will be OK.
It looks like a fun camera, but I agree that it's ill conceived, especially in light of recent trends. I think the Dpreview.com comparison to the Auto 110 SLR is right on. The Auto 110 looked like a lot of fun, too, but it didn't appeal to me back when it was released for the exact same reasons this one isn't appealing to me. You would have thought that Pentax would have learned something from that venture. It doesn't take a genius to see the 110 film and small sensor analogy. Maybe they are trying to mimic Olympus' efforts.
/
CK Dexter Haven
06-23-2011, 10:37
Looks like the marketing department was driven to create the "Worlds Something-est Something," and they went for 'smallest with interchangeable lenses.' I'd rather they aimed for "World's Best Something Practical."
I can't see a huge audience for this. The kinds of people who would most value interchangeable lenses in a micro-compact camera are also the ones who know most about how a larger sensor enables more variety and control over imagemaking. I've tried the Canon S90 and the Panny LX3, and sold each quite quickly because i don't like OneSizeFitsAll DOF. They were both great cameras, for what they do. I suppose if i went to a lot of parties and needed to 'preserve' those types of memories, a little snapshooter would be more useful. But, again - why the lens mount?
What does interest me is the 'bokeh filter.' I can't believe it will actually be something i'd want to use, but i'm curious to know how it's designed and implemented. I'm imagining the effect will be something like vaseline smeared on an optical filter. A clear center spot and then maybe some gradual blurring out to the edges? Maybe as cute as a Holga effect. But, then, it only works in JPEG mode, so...another miss.
Someone said it on TheOnlinePhotographer: Why isn't someone designing a full-frame camera the size of an Olympus OM or Nikon FE2? With an equally impressive optical viewfinder? I'm shocked, with Leica's M8/9 demonstrating that there's a market for a pro-build, very small but still completely capable camera, that Nikon and Canon haven't done it. An "EOS 2" — same sensor and specs as a 5DMkII, maybe.... That's the useful sort of 'miniaturization.' Not smallness just for the sake of smallness. Okay, Pentax. You own the market on this thing. Nice.
jsrockit
06-23-2011, 10:40
It doesn't take a genius to see the 110 film and small sensor analogy.
IMO, small sensors outperform 110 film big time generally speaking. However, it could just be that I've never used 110 on a camera with manual controls or a nice lens.
jsrockit
06-23-2011, 10:43
I suppose if i went to a lot of parties and needed to 'preserve' those types of memories, a little snapshooter would be more useful. But, again - why the lens mount?
Well, the intended target is most likely the toy camera types (but too expensive for them) or the type that likes small / cute electronic gadgets. Honestly, I'm sure this will be capable of very good photo quality for what it is...
IMO, small sensors outperform 110 film big time generally speaking. However, it could just be that I've never used 110 on a camera with manual controls or a nice lens.
The comparison isn't 110 film to 1/2.3 sensors. That's a given: the sensor wins out. I was thinking more like:
110 film is to 35mm film as 1/2.3" sensor is to APS-C or MFT sensors.
/
matthewm
06-23-2011, 10:55
Ugly little thing, isn't it? Almost cute...
I just can't see the benefit of such a tiny camera when you could get something just slightly larger and have far better image quality (m4/3, NEX, etc.). And as someone else pointed out, there's always the option of the LX-5, DLUX-5.
Judging from the photo of the person holding the camera, it looks incredibly uncomfortable and cramped. Why wouldn't Pentax create something with the sensor from their K-X that is comparable in size to the NEX or GF series?
This is definitely interesting, but I'm guessing it will flop...
jsrockit
06-23-2011, 11:16
The comparison isn't 110 film to 1/2.3 sensors. That's a given: the sensor wins out. I was thinking more like:
110 film is to 35mm film as 1/2.3" sensor is to APS-C or MFT sensors.
/
I understand, but to me a 1/2.3" sensor is closer IQ wise to a APS-C / m4/3 sensor than 110 film was to 35mm ... in every day use. 110 was just a mess. Even a cell phone is more capable.
jsrockit
06-23-2011, 11:19
Sorry, but I couldn't help laughing at the ridiculous sensor in this thing. Seriously?
The photo of the body without the lens shouldn't have been released... :D
They should have just shown this:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/pentaxq_1a_400.jpg :eek:
douglasf13
06-23-2011, 11:26
The photo of the body without the lens shouldn't have been released... :D
They should have just shown this:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/pentaxq_1a_400.jpg :eek:
What a riot! That thing is tiny. I'd love one of those little guys...for a couple of hundred bucks.
Well, the intended target is most likely the toy camera types (but too expensive for them) or the type that likes small / cute electronic gadgets. Honestly, I'm sure this will be capable of very good photo quality for what it is...
That's what I was thinking. Basically, for the most part, if you participate in a photo forum like this one, the Q is not for you.
Wes Medlin
06-23-2011, 13:23
Hmm. If there's a K-mount adapter it could be fun. Let's see, normal lens is 8.5mm, and I have a 500mm K-mount mirror lens somewhere. Perfect match.
What I want to know is how they came up with the $800 price for this thing? Yes it's an interesting looking little camera, yes I'd love to have a play with one, yes it's so ugly it's almost cute, and yes it's tiny.
BUT,
- The sensor is seriously tiny - around 50% smaller than the sensor in the current canon g12/s95 and olympuz zx1. I'd love to know how that 50mm f1.9 equiv lens will shoot - will it have any DOF control at all?
- The price is $800. You can pre-order it right now at adorama for that. When I can buy an e-pl1 with 14-42mm kit lens AND a 20mm f1.7 pancake for the same price as that pentax, why on earth would I even consider it?
My understanding is that backlit sensors have all the area for photocells because all the circuitry is on the opposite side. This leaves a lot of area for the light collectors.
Leigh Youdale
06-23-2011, 18:50
This camera is not designed for you guys.
It is designed for the young, hip, Japanese market where such an item is a desirable fashion accessory and the price and technical spec is secondary.
$800 is the MSRP, actual street prices will be somewhat lower. Didn't the Ricoh GXR have a $900 price for just the body module alone. That camera now sells with a lens for $600.
Lugging around a full dslr combo on a hiking trip is no fun at all. Lets see the image quality from the cam before we pass judgement on it.
$800 is the MSRP, actual street prices will be somewhat lower. Didn't the Ricoh GXR have a $900 price for just the body module alone. That camera now sells with a lens for $600.
Lugging around a full dslr combo on a hiking trip is no fun at all. Lets see the image quality from the cam before we pass judgement on it.
Pre-orders are currently at 800
Pentax isn't dumb--they might just have something here. Will somebody (not me) here have the orbs to buy one and report back?
FrozenInTime
06-23-2011, 20:44
It's intriguing :
Something the size of a Ricoh GRD III, but with a 50mm e. lens.
Given 2..3 years sensor advancement between the two, perhaps the image quality ( dynamic range and sensitivity ) is comparable.
On the other hand are the 'toy lenses' there to set appropriate expectations - in which case it's a well made, expensive toy.
It's intriguing :
Something the size of a Ricoh GRD III, but with a 50mm e. lens.
It's probably important to note that the sensor in this camera is actually smaller than the grd III sensor.
Hey Gavin....where are you seeing pre-orders? Nothing on Amazon yet.
Pre-orders are currently at 800
damien.murphy
06-23-2011, 23:20
Should be about as successful as the Sigma dslr range. Whoever thought up this idea should get several slaps with a rolled up newspaper :)
More seriously though, I have no intention of ever buying into a minority, unproven interchangeable lens system.
Hey Gavin....where are you seeing pre-orders? Nothing on Amazon yet.
http://www.adorama.com/IPXQBK.html?utm_source=rflaid64498&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_term=Other
jsrockit
06-24-2011, 04:01
- The price is $800. You can pre-order it right now at adorama for that. When I can buy an e-pl1 with 14-42mm kit lens AND a 20mm f1.7 pancake for the same price as that pentax, why on earth would I even consider it?
Well, that's the thing... you wouldn't consider it as a first camera or even a backup camera, but as just something different to play around with.
Honestly, based on my other cameras, I'd take the Q over the Olympus.
Nobody bought the Pentax 110 SLR as their only camera... but then again, I'm not sure how many people bought it.
jsrockit
06-24-2011, 04:03
http://blog.megapixel.net/blog/2008/11/26/112608_sensor_sizes.jpg
freeranger
06-24-2011, 04:14
This camera is not designed for you guys.
It is designed for the young, hip, Japanese market where such an item is a desirable fashion accessory and the price and technical spec is secondary.
Exactly! So Kawaii!!!
Pixelsmithy
08-18-2012, 17:24
I thought I would resurrect this thread, because I wanted to note that my reaction to the Q was much like many of yours. I couldn't get past both the small sensor and the "cute factor" to take this camera very seriously. So I didn't. And then I tripped across a post on Pentax Forums (http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/194622-k5-replacement-4.html#post2052306) that made me totally re-examine my preconceptions and learn a little bit about both the sensor in the Q and the amazing capabilities built into that little wonder. I now believe that the Q is the best camera (read: most impressive achievement) coupled with the WORST marketing in the history of the universe. (Look! It's TINY!) now that it's price is coming down I think it deserves another round of discussion and consideration, especially as the ultimate "accessory" for "serious" photographers ( of any brand). I did more investigation, read more OWNER reviews and saw the words "fun" and "joy" more than I've ever seen in any camera reviews before.
I believe that the Q is an absolute no-brainer at less than $400. For "serious" DSLR shooters it should be viewed as a camera that can actually EXTEND your capabilities:
1) the best camera is the one you have with you. There is no excuse to be without the Q on your person at all times. That alone can mean capturing a lot of images where you think "I wish I had my camera for that."
2) the excellent Exmor-R sensor ( and what Pentax engineers can do with the data it produces) makes this more than just a small P&S sensor. Dismissing it for it's size and not recognizing the advantages of the backlit Exmor-R is missing a huge part of what makes the Q extraordinary.
3) this little wonder can be used by people who know nothing about photography BUT it offers *all sorts of control* you are used to seeing only on big DSLRs if you want to use them (starting with RAW files, if you want them. It's in-camera processing is also extremely customizable and almost like having Photoshop built-in to the camera. If you prefer post-processing then you have the option of shooting RAW (or RAW+)
4) the small sensor's deep DOF works *for you* very well for macros and super telephoto. Put a 100mm macro on this camera and you can get the entire bug in focus, not just a thin slice like you would on an APS-C camera (or even worse a FF camera). That same lens gives you a fast 550mm equiv. (which you might want to compare in price to the lenses you would need to achieve the equiv. FOV on other systems.) Yes, you'll have to manually focus but you can do it.
I just popped for a used Q kit with the 8.5mm f1.9, an extra battery, a C-Mount Adapter, a C to K-mount adapter and a metal hood/cap for the 8.5mm, all for $395 shipped. I then also ordered a Pentax 6x7 to K adapter ($38 from China), as I'm interested in experimenting with a 165mm f2.8 lens on both the Q and my K-5. The Q will be waiting for me at work on Monday, and I'm stoked to try it.
Those of you who thought it had merit but was too expensive, should look again because it is approaching half price land. Those of you, who like me, were prejudiced at the way it was marketed or the simply by its small sensor had better look again! You may not know what you are really missing. :)
Footnote: I plan on getting a 3x HoodLoupe for it, which will probably get a fair amount of use, but I think they would be a good idea for most cameras that lack a viewfinder.
...
I just popped for a used Q kit with the 8.5mm f1.9, an extra battery, a C-Mount Adapter, a C to K-mount adapter and a metal hood/cap for the 8.5mm, all for $395 shipped. I then also ordered a Pentax 6x7 to K adapter ($38 from China), as I'm interested in experimenting with a 165mm f2.8 lens on both the Q and my K-5. The Q will be waiting for me at work on Monday, and I'm stoked to try it.
... You may not know what you are really missing. :)
...
Sounds like fun! I'll be looking forward to your report.
Love mine. Shot it with an old 200mm Nikkor, making it over 1000mm. Quite fun.
IQ is superb in normal usage, a terrific little jewel of a camera.
You know, if there had been on-line forums when the original Leica 1st hit the bricks I can imagine the posts to sound just like many of your own.
I am absolutely amazed by this camera and I am shopping for one right now. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Q is a reincarnation of Leica. I think it may be even better. It certainly fits Barnack's design objectives. High quality, small form factor, easy to use, highly portable, "good enough" image quality and price be damned.
I think Pentax has the same potential success story on their hands with the Q if they will stick with it. However I am afraid that the short product cycles of today will work against it. But I am going to take that chance and give the little guy a try.
I doubt I'd buy a Q, but it's a ballsy product to release by Pentax, and looks like a nice little thing. Pentax brings out some strange stuff, some works, some doesn't but at least it's not the same-old, same-old like you tend to get from Canon or Nikon.
imajypsee
10-30-2012, 13:03
I started this thread and decided not to buy the Q at the release price. Now that the price is where it should be for this tiny wonder, I finally laid out the dough. It's a great little camera. With the "standard prime" it's small enough to go in my purse or fanny pack. (I also bought a Nikon 1j1 and wish I'd bought the 1v1; still might). Anyhow, the Q is a Pentax which means I can use my legacy lenses (lots of M42) with a $14.95 adapter. Nikon wants a fortune and I'd have to buy some NiKon glass (though the Nikon 1 lenses are superb in themselves).
If the Q had a real viewfinder it would be perfect (you can buy a composing VF).
Q and Takumar 35/3.5
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8136393107_247d6554c5.jpg
Standard prime
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8467/8139353738_3e729e1ab0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stonelakephotography/8139353738/)
made lemonade (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stonelakephotography/8139353738/) by imajypsee (http://www.flickr.com/people/stonelakephotography/), on Flickr
Yep I bought a Q as well. The standard lens kit for 390 something. It was this writeup that convinced me.
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f90/pentax-q-real-world-user-review-11773/
Bought a m adapter as well. Nice camera. but checkout the pictures in the thread from serious compacts...
Gary
I attended a local camera show/sale today, and after talking with a Pentax sales rep, and having a good play with a 'Q', was able to buy one, with the 8.5 prime, for $289.00 Cdn.! I'll be trying it out over the weekend, and will try to post some results next week. I have a old Voigtlander Kontur 50mm finder which fits, and looks good on the body, so I will see how it works in practice.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/48596/U48596I1353724129.SEQ.0.jpg
Using the Macro mode.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/48596/U48596I1353724131.SEQ.0.jpg
Scenic. Note the mist/spray in the centre of the picture over the rapids.
These are unadjusted, but the horse is cropped. I'm impressed with the quality from this small package.
Q with zoom.
http://www.freebits.nl/images/2431.jpg (http://www.freebits.nl/view.php?filename=2431.jpg)
http://www.freebits.nl/images/1613.jpg (http://www.freebits.nl/view.php?filename=1613.jpg)
http://www.freebits.nl/images/2302.jpg (http://www.freebits.nl/view.php?filename=2302.jpg)
zuikologist
11-24-2012, 00:32
Nice photos. Convinced by this thread, I bought a black Q with zoom and prime for around $350. Really looking forward to it - should be fantastic for street photography with a fast prime and deep dof.
giellaleafapmu
12-06-2012, 07:08
I was going to start a new thread about the Q since I bought one recently, then I saw this and just post a reply. What can I say? At 800 US$ was ridiculously priced but at 300-something seems a perfect camera to me. I was considering something to bring with me everywhere and the Ricoh was the other contender. I went with the Pentax instead because I like normal lenses more than wide angles and because it was about half the price and now I cannot stop using it. Yep, the sensor is small, battery don't last much, whatever, but having a tiny camera with all the user interface of a DSLR (well, more or less) almost infinite DOF and a pretty decent IQ just made for me. Even the funny on camera flash works much better than I expected. As often happens I suspect that the marketing department is to blame more than the engineers for all the bad reviews when the camera was launched. I plan to order a Leica M to Pentax Q adapter to be able to bring a lens equivalent to a 500mm in my coat pocket.
GLF
jpfisher
12-06-2012, 07:38
The Q at $300 something is not a bad buy at all. I was one of those reviewers that was a little less than lukewarm to the camera at $800. The new Q10 is priced at $550 with a zoom. Probably still a little bit on the high side, but from what I'm told by Pentax it's essentially the Q with some processor and firmware tweaks--so if you can still find a Q at a bargain price, snatch one up.
giellaleafapmu
12-06-2012, 08:00
A digital 110.
Mmmmh, that's the easy comparison but I would say it is not. The 110 film was not kept flat by anything and that really deteriorated a lot the IQ, plus the body looked, felt and was plastic. The Q feels much sturdier (it is actually made of some aluminum alloy) and despite the small sensor the IQ is not bad at all in real life. I think it was already linked but this is one of the best review I saw of the camera and if you scroll a bit toward the macro pictures you can easily convince yourself that the IQ is far away and much better than that of the 110:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/194467-pentax-q-real-world-user-review.html
For example this picture is at the same level or better than a lot of pictures I saw of similarly tiny subjects:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7275/7650422770_f243859eb3_c.jpg
If the marketing department had showed this picture:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/ZURPENTAXQ-VERT400.JPG
instead of this one:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/39/q-mount-pentax.jpg
it would have been much better IMO.
Ah...just a footnote, of course I am not trying to sell anything, the Q is a small camera with a small sensor so don't expect miracles, still it is much better than what you might expect. The reason of this post was to counterbalance the zirillion negative reviews which appeared just after the Q reached the market and just to share the satisfaction feeling I got from the camera (I was myself not completely convinced when i pushed the "Buy it" button!). :)
GLF
unixrevolution
12-06-2012, 08:27
I was on both sides of the Q debate at one time or another, but then I saw this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8QdMmI7RyM
emraphoto
12-06-2012, 08:33
i have a pentax Q, the standard prime and the toy wide.
the little Q would currently be my most used camera. it is nothing to throw it in a pocket and head out the door. it also shoots 1080p at 30 frames a second with a total record time somewhere up around 25 mins.
if Pentax get's an external mic port in there somewhere... it would be damn near perfect!
giellaleafapmu
12-06-2012, 08:40
I was on both sides of the Q debate at one time or another, but then I saw this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8QdMmI7RyM
Funny video, didn't know it and, yep, that's exactly what happened to me when I got mine: just felt like playing with it and still having a lot of fun! Maybe I have been a victim of publicity... :D
GLF
kshapero
01-25-2013, 09:24
What the hell, I just ordered the q and the 47 FOV lens for $199.
bobbywise
02-03-2013, 08:27
I just picked up a Q with the 8.5 mm (47 equiv) for 149 euros.
A seriously great camera for its size.
User interface is logical.
Controls are ergonomic.
Reasonable AF speed.
At its original price I felt it was expensive (but then you pay for early adoption and the miniaturization). At current prices, the Q is well worth it !
kshapero
02-07-2013, 18:47
I find that the Q shooting at ISO 400 in B&W is strangely similar to Kodak Tri-X. not bad for $200 including the lens. Plus you know what they say: There is no photograph if there is no camera. (or something like that) The Q fits easily in my front pants pocket.
jsrockit
02-08-2013, 03:56
If I could get one with the prime for $200, I'd do it too.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.