Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Digital Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras -

CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - This new category of digital Compact System Cameras with interchangeable lenses was mislabeled for a time as "Mirrorless Cameras" by those forgetting about "Mirrorless" Rangefinder cameras.  Such confusion is easily understandable, since interchangeable rangefinder cameras were only recently introduced in 1932.  hmm.    CSC or Compact System Camera is probably the best category description to date, although I am fond of the old RFF desigation of  CEVIL  indicating Compact Electronic Viewfidner Interchangeable Lens.   This forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of.  All  offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats.   This group continues to grow in popularity and new camera models! 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Pentax Q.... hmmmm...
Old 06-23-2011   #1
imajypsee
no expiration date
 
imajypsee's Avatar
 
imajypsee is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 266
Pentax Q.... hmmmm...

ttp://www.pentaxforums.com/Pentax-Q-...le-Lens-System
__________________
__________________________________________________
...we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute,
surrounded by stars whose distances we don't altogether know,
filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with
physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand.
Bill Bryson; A Short History of Nearly Everything

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #2
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 4,707
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
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #3
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,824
" 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.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #4
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,221
looks like p&s with changeable lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #5
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 4,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
" 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
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #6
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
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.

Last edited by jsrockit : 06-23-2011 at 09:26.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #7
Stravinsky
Leitz Fellowship
 
Stravinsky's Avatar
 
Stravinsky is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tarvisium
Age: 45
Posts: 184
I am with Tom about this Pentax... I don't see a point in having a P&S sensor in a 800$ camera... design?
__________________

----------------------------
RFFGALLERY - flickr - twitter
----------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #8
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stravinsky View Post
I am with Tom 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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #9
segedi
RFicianado
 
segedi's Avatar
 
segedi is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,235
Too small for prints (of the size I would want to print anyway) but perhaps the video will be OK.
__________________
-----------------------

Segedi.com

Flickr

Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #10
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,579
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.





/
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #11
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,400
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #12
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayPA View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
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...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #14
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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.



/
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #15
matthewm
Registered User
 
matthewm's Avatar
 
matthewm is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 343
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...
__________________
Flickr | Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #16
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayPA View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #17
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Negative View Post
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...

They should have just shown this:

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #18
douglasf13
Registered User
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
douglasf13 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
The photo of the body without the lens shouldn't have been released...

They should have just shown this:

What a riot! That thing is tiny. I'd love one of those little guys...for a couple of hundred bucks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #19
Paddy C
Unused film collector
 
Paddy C is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Too far north for my liking
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #20
Wes Medlin
Registered User
 
Wes Medlin's Avatar
 
Wes Medlin is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #21
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,856
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?
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Photocell size.
Old 06-23-2011   #22
ully
ully
 
ully's Avatar
 
ully is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sammamish, Wa. USA
Posts: 250
Photocell size.

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.
__________________
Richard Ullakko
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #23
Leigh Youdale
Registered User
 
Leigh Youdale is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,630
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.
__________________

Fuji X10
Leica M6
Bessa R4A
Rolleiflex (3): E3 Planar 2.8, WA & Tele
Nikkormat FTn (2)
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #24
Zarkon
Registered User
 
Zarkon is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas, Texas.
Posts: 8
$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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #25
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarkon View Post
$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
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #26
Bill58
Native Texan
 
Bill58's Avatar
 
Bill58 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: So. Korea
Posts: 2,981
Pentax isn't dumb--they might just have something here. Will somebody (not me) here have the orbs to buy one and report back?
__________________
My images of a strange land-So. Korea:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #27
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,532
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #28
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenInTime View Post
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.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #29
kdemas
ʎlʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝS
 
kdemas's Avatar
 
kdemas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Hey Gavin....where are you seeing pre-orders? Nothing on Amazon yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
Pre-orders are currently at 800
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Iris. Life, Captured.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #30
damien.murphy
Damien
 
damien.murphy is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Waterford, Ireland
Age: 37
Posts: 503
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.
__________________
Damien
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2011   #31
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdemas View Post
Hey Gavin....where are you seeing pre-orders? Nothing on Amazon yet.
http://www.adorama.com/IPXQBK.html?u...utm_term=Other
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2011   #32
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
- 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.

Last edited by jsrockit : 06-24-2011 at 04:04.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2011   #33
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,138
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2011   #34
freeranger
Registered User
 
freeranger's Avatar
 
freeranger is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bratislava
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh Youdale View Post
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!!!
__________________
Faith - making a virtue of not thinking
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2012   #35
Pixelsmithy
Registered User
 
Pixelsmithy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
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 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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2012   #36
ChrisN
Striving
 
ChrisN's Avatar
 
ChrisN is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelsmithy View Post
...

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.
__________________
Chris


"The mission of photography is to explain man to man and each to himself. And that is the most complicated thing on earth."
Edward Steichen

RFF Gallery

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2012   #37
kdemas
ʎlʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝS
 
kdemas's Avatar
 
kdemas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
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.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Iris. Life, Captured.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2012   #38
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 62
Posts: 2,531
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2012   #39
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,826
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.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2012   #40
imajypsee
no expiration date
 
imajypsee's Avatar
 
imajypsee is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 266
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



Standard prime


made lemonade by imajypsee, on Flickr
__________________
__________________________________________________
...we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute,
surrounded by stars whose distances we don't altogether know,
filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with
physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand.
Bill Bryson; A Short History of Nearly Everything


Last edited by imajypsee : 10-30-2012 at 13:14. Reason: Adding photo
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.