Even to Pentax users and fans, sometimes it seems the Pentax is run by Monty Python. Like all The Pythons in their way, Pentax is incredibly talented and capable engineering bunch, but they just want to have a fun with it.And you never know, even in moments when they don't seemingly fool around, whether they're serious, or having fun with you again.
cheddargav: Back in 2004/05 when I was 100% novice (now only 70% novice), I went to Jessops and tried the then all powering Nikon D70. It was great, I was set to buy, but then I saw a Pentax: the *ist DS. It was smaller, I liked that. It sat nicely in the hands, I liked that. So, despite the AF being a bit crappy by comparison, I bought the Pentax. And thus started a 6 year love affair that only ended when I decided to take wedding photography seriously, and moved to the Canon full frames.So here's the thing: Pentax were the leaders a few years back in beautiful small primes, everyone in the forums were desperate for a FF camera to put the 3 legends on (the 31, 43 and 77) but it never happened. Then small, mirrorless cameras came along, led by Olympus: surely a market perfect for Pentax? But again, it didn't happen, until... the K-01. I just can't understand how Pentax failed so badly.I'm praying that Ricoh help them design a great small camera
"... I'm praying that Ricoh help them design a great small camera".
You mean, the Q? :)
The most unnerving thing for many here is the fact that the production of the K-01 camera was indeed ceased, but again resurrected at least for a while because of the popular demand. Which is almost unheard of in digital camera business.It very much nullifies all the nonsense about the camera told in these forums, but folks have a hard time swallowing the reality pill. Therefore rant — many are caught with their pants down :)
A detail often overlooked in reviews of Q cameras is that Q lenses have a 40.5mm filter thread. Which means, you can use CPL filter and all other creative filters in that size. Adding a CPL on 01 lens, for example, would make many of sample shots in this gallery quite amazing and so DSLR like.
Updated the Q with this firmware. One obvious notice is that camera is blazingly fast focusing, and focus peaking seems to work even nicer.A support for a model long discontinued and which already has 2 successors — thank you Pentax!
When I read most of the comments below, it's like going back to Antiquity and Dark-ages — invaluable and hilarious! It's something like reading commentaries on philosophy and humanities by Genserics and Odoacers.
Zvonimir Tosic: You will read Pentax Q users often repeat one word to describe the Q: fun. In many researches about what ignites creativity in humans, noted were several factors: playfulness, humour, having enough time to play, experimentation, enough space, sense of freedom, risk taking, openness to final conclusions (challenging norms and common conclusions). In photographic terms, a camera that allows you more of all of these, will be enticing for developing photographic creativity.
As the smallest and still capable system camera, the Q is an antithesis of norms. It defies the solemnity big, serious camera comes with. When you hold a Q, you understand it was designed to challenge norms, to be playful, to humour photographer and models, to be carried around with ease, thus giving much more time spent with it — more than other system camera. Being a system camera, with a variety of lenses, it is also more versatile than a P&S compact (say RX100), which means, it gives more space for experimentation.Etc. I hope you get the point.
You will read Pentax Q users often repeat one word to describe the Q: fun. In many researches about what ignites creativity in humans, noted were several factors: playfulness, humour, having enough time to play, experimentation, enough space, sense of freedom, risk taking, openness to final conclusions (challenging norms and common conclusions). In photographic terms, a camera that allows you more of all of these, will be enticing for developing photographic creativity.
Marty4650: Pentax was smart to increase the sensor size for the Q7.
They made it large enough to create a much better alternative to any fixed lens 1/1.7" compact, while keeping it small enough to make all the original lenses still work perfectly. And the net result is you end up with a very nice camera that is capable of really good results.
But if you think this camera can compete with and EPM2, then you are being delusional. You cannot repeal the laws of physics just because you like a camera. A 4/3 sensor is still five times larger, and that is just a simple fact.
This difference is even greater than the difference between a 4/3 sensor and a FF sensor, and you don't see anyone saying that an EPM2 can do "nearly as well" as a Nikon D800. Those sort of wild claims are the mark of fanboyism.
However, it still is worth noting that this Pentax Q7 is still a lot more desirable than any Panasonic LX7, Canon S110, or Olympus XZ-2, simply for the feature set and the ability to swap lenses.
Marty and Et2, we are talking about ability to always be able to take quality images, not always take highest image quality. In that regard, Q system is better than any other system. Simple laws of physics (smallest system size).
KL Matt: Pentax may finally have a true successor to the 110.
You confuse monetary success (obtained through sheer marketing power and market's conformism) with the ability to be bold and bring amazing new ideas. By that logic Einstein, Tesla or Tim Berners Lee would be trillionaires. Success and innovation don't exclude each other though, but it takes a special effort Pentax brand must still master.
Raist3d: FYI for those interested in the system - Pentax 01 Q mount lens *is not* discontinued. I do not know where people got the idea, but here you can buy it from Pentax:
Gosh, look at these 01 lenses available in Japan — they come in all new colours:http://shop.pentax.jp/c/c15/
Hi Marcus. I think operations and distribution is a notion Ricoh must work on harder. The new GR is on backorder too almost everywhere.
Zvonimir Tosic: If the review for the Q7 is coming, that's a true novelty.
However, since the Q7 is a system camera, one of three made already, and practically peerless, it has no direct competitors. All compact cameras with same sensor size must take a different working philosophy because they are not system cameras like Q, and are thus very different from the Q.
So I don't really know how DPR will score their verdict, and based on what expectations exactly? Will DPR judge the camera alone, or the entire Q system? Because Q7's function is dependant on its lenses.
Well, it all becomes absurd very quickly. Say let's measure sharpness and performance at 40mm. Or at 16mm. At 210mm. Etc. Q can do all those, and other compacts lose in all respects.
But then, should we solely judge by 02 lens performance, which was deliberately done as an entry level, inexpensive lens to be sold in kits?Etc.
A good lesson: Never judge Pentax by what Nikon cannot do.
If the review for the Q7 is coming, that's a true novelty.
One good option to get the 01 lens is to get the original Q+01 prime lens package. It sells ridiculously cheap and for the price of a new 01 lens or even less, one can get an extra Q body with it.
When I first heard "Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company" (P.R.I.C.), a subsidiary name for a newly formed entity under Ricoh, I thought guys at Ricoh went crazy. Did they consult a brand specialist, who could check what the pronunciations means in English? Car manufacturers do that all the time, check new product names against numerous dictionaries.
With more frequent appearances in pubic press releases and in corporate life, they'd be a butt of a joke — not taken seriously at all. But a new decision is a good sign, obviously. I hope we may expect more frequent and more serious announcements from August 1st 2013.
Kevin Purcell: "The MX-1 shares a lens (and probably sensor) with the Olympus XZ-2: a 28-112mm equivalent zoom with a relatively bright F1.8-2.5 aperture across the zoom range."
Do you have this infromation from Pentax that they share the same lens design?
Who did the lens design?
Olympus and Pentax add value through other elements of product design, and put more efforts in projects that demand more serious innovation. But lets face it: both XZ-2 and MX-1 are such good compacts with very refined and evolved third party design that one must try really hard to make a horrible shot with them. Choosing between them is more a matter of personal taste and style than a matter of function or image quality. Style — and that is becoming more and more the only real distinction between products today, which all do their job well.
This tech begs for some new mirrorless camera. New EOS-M coming soon? If they did this with an APS-C sized sensor for a 'mere' DSLR, maybe we can expect some 135 format sensor with this tech inside an RX-1 type mirrorless camera too.
A third party developer. Both Olympus and Pentax used same source to procure parts they used in assembly of the XZ-2 and MX-1. They also felt feee to tweak certain parts for their distinctive use.