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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 06-23-2011   #26
Bill58
Native Texan
 
Bill58's Avatar
 
Bill58 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: So. Korea
Posts: 2,976
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 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,179
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: 4,764
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-23-2011   #29
kdemas
ʎlʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝS
 
kdemas's Avatar
 
kdemas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,629
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: 35
Posts: 505
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: 4,764
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2011   #32
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,060
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: 41
Posts: 14,060
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-24-2011   #34
freeranger
Registered User
 
freeranger's Avatar
 
freeranger is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bratislava
Posts: 422
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: 4,402
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: 3,629
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: 60
Posts: 1,296
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: 34
Posts: 3,678
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: 265
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

Old 11-01-2012   #41
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,024
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/p...-review-11773/

Bought a m adapter as well. Nice camera. but checkout the pictures in the thread from serious compacts...

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-16-2012   #42
Alfasud
Old Toys
 
Alfasud's Avatar
 
Alfasud is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 210
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.
__________________
Contax IIIa, Konica III, Vitessa L Ultron, Hasselblad 500c, Minox B, ZI Nettar 510/2, Pentax Q, HP Photosmart 945

Last edited by Alfasud : 11-23-2012 at 16:35. Reason: spelling
  Reply With Quote

Samples from my new 'Q'
Old 11-23-2012   #43
Alfasud
Old Toys
 
Alfasud's Avatar
 
Alfasud is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 210
Samples from my new 'Q'



Using the Macro mode.



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.
__________________
Contax IIIa, Konica III, Vitessa L Ultron, Hasselblad 500c, Minox B, ZI Nettar 510/2, Pentax Q, HP Photosmart 945
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2012   #44
sisser
Registered User
 
sisser is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Holland
Age: 66
Posts: 159
Q with zoom.





  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2012   #45
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,546
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.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #46
giellaleafapmu
Registered User
 
giellaleafapmu is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 808
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
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1808'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #47
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 4,811
A digital 110.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #48
jpfisher
Registered User
 
jpfisher is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Glen Ridge, NJ
Posts: 236
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #49
giellaleafapmu
Registered User
 
giellaleafapmu is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbg32 View Post
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/p...er-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/7275/7...43859eb3_c.jpg

If the marketing department had showed this picture:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...XQ-VERT400.JPG

instead of this one:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/...unt-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
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1808'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2012   #50
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 31
Posts: 488
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
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  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 07:41.


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.