Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - > Other CSC Cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools 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: 265
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: 48
Posts: 4,622
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
Personal Photography
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is online now
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,292
" 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: 1,939
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: 48
Posts: 4,622
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: 40
Posts: 13,974
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: 43
Posts: 186
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: 40
Posts: 13,974
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: 974
Too small for prints (of the size I would want to print anyway) but perhaps the video will be OK.
__________________
-----------------------

Segedi.com

Flickr
  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: 4,580
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: 1,081
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: 40
Posts: 13,974
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: 40
Posts: 13,974
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: 4,580
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: 336
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...
__________________
Ultimately, Photography is subversive, not when it frightens, repels, or even stigmatizes, but when it is pensive, when it thinks. --from Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes

---
Websites: Flickr | Blog
Cameras: Canon 5D2/5Dc | Ricoh GRD IV | Panasonic G3
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #16
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 40
Posts: 13,974
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: 40
Posts: 13,974
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: 510
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: 783
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: 50
Posts: 21
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: 4,755
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?
  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: 252
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: 1,631
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: 4,755
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
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
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 12:52.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.