It seems rather futile, how can anyone vote for the best lens of 2014 when the best lens of 2014 isn't even on the ballot?
This isn't a complete report, is it?
Nukunukoo: Novelty, unless they started with a 2/3" from the start.
I considered my Q to be a novelty too, but it was highly addictive, And there are consequences to addiction... See my post below.
Anyhow people tend to me very dismissive without much rationality. That little sensor has produced a very impressive body of work which is posted on another website... dpr doesn't like competition they won't allow any mention of the name, much less a direct link.
Jimmy jang Boo: I had the original Q ...and it was a blast! Of all the cameras I have ever owned, it gave me the most pleasure. So much pleasure that all of my more serious cameras with much bigger sensors took a back seat to the Q. Consequently I sold it to spend more time having less fun with more serious cameras. I'm not a professional, but due to popular opinion, I felt obligated to keep up with the status quo. Seems rather strange since photography is one of my hobbies; I thought a hobby was suppose to be fun?
Oh well, at least I am in compliance with the mindless drones.
I enjoyed my Q immensely. But having several thousand dollars tied up in bigger and better camera systems which were not being used on account of my Q addiction, made no sense to me. Use it or lose it. Anyhow I ultimately I sold that other gear too... two DSLRs with numerous lenses and two NEX bodies with their corresponding lenses. However I kept the N1 system and have supplemented it with a Ricoh GR.
The Ricoh like the Q is very small and built like a tank but has a much bigger sensor, much like a DSLR - only it fits in a small pocket. I haven't warmed up to the GR like I did to the Q, so consequently I don't carry it everywhere like I did with the Q.
I had the original Q ...and it was a blast! Of all the cameras I have ever owned, it gave me the most pleasure. So much pleasure that all of my more serious cameras with much bigger sensors took a back seat to the Q. Consequently I sold it to spend more time having less fun with more serious cameras. I'm not a professional, but due to popular opinion, I felt obligated to keep up with the status quo. Seems rather strange since photography is one of my hobbies; I thought a hobby was suppose to be fun?
NoRules: I did this with my Q7. I think it's good enough.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3672812
That is one amazing image - regardless of the camera! Outstanding, just outstanding!
viking79: The Q is fine, and the sensor is actually pretty good, but still missing a model with a viewfinder and flip screen... Using the camera in bright light is a chore. This class of camera should also have good sharing options, WiFi, NFC, etc. The NX Mini is more appealing to me, but the Q does have a nicer selection of lenses available.
*Using the camera in bright light is a chore.*
Sorry, I cannot agree. Try turning up the brightness on the LCD. Worked for me and many others. Unlike many screens, the colors stay true with excellent contrast even in direct sun at high noon!
mcshan: I don't mind the concept but there is no way I would take Q over the Panasonic GM1 which has a much larger sensor and some terrific lenses available.The GM1 is also very small.
I looked at the GM1 too and it is worse than horrible. That is why people who buy the GM1 are statistically more likely to sell it shortly thereafter, whereas those who buy a Q are far more likely to keep it for the long haul because it is FUN to use and it handles extremely well.
Interesting comparison. What's next, Pentax Q vs Phase One?
The V3 doesn't seem to appeal so much to gear-heads and blockheads as those who are more interested in making images with their gear.
NEWS FLASH... Most N1 owners have 'other cameras' with bigger and better sensors... and yet they still recognize and appreciate the unique strengths of the N1.
When I choose a camera, equivalence is the last thing on my mind. Many folks have never handled or shot with a FF, so that point of reference is hardly axiom.
Fygaren: If only they could make a multi-format equiva-lens...Ok, way past my bedtime!
At $400 less than the RX10 with twice the reach and 4K video, this looks like serious competition for Sony.
arieswar: 20fps. holy cow
20 fps with AFC60 fps with AFS
This is indeed a statement product. This is how it is done. This is leadership.
mrdancer: Look at that RX-10! It gives a whole new meaning to "F8 and be there..."!
mosc: The RX10 is clearly in the wrong category. Except for the fact that it's kit lens can't be removed, it lines up much more closely with the K3, the 70D, and the D7100. It's every bit as expensive and the dimmensions aren't that dissimilar. It's "fixed" kit lens compares very similarly to the 18-135/140 lenses that those cameras have. A little slower at wide, a little faster at tele, very similar range. And the price of all the cameras I mentioned here was within $100 unlike this hodgepodge category it got lumped into.
R Butler writes... "It's not a camera that fits terribly well into any of the categories."
How about the bridge camera category?
China concerned about quality? Since when?
"The X-E2 isn't a great all-rounder... Not so good for sports or action photography."
No wonder MILCs can't gain any traction against DSLRs. Even the latest greatest are handicapped.
Retzius: What the Nikon 1 should have been...
Because of the *stupid* interface, lousy AF, the size and quality of E-mount lenses, I replaced my NEX gear with the Nikon 1 system. Image quality isn't on the same level, but it is still very good. The defining difference between any two cameras consist of a whole lot more than sheer IQ. If that were not the case, we'd all be shooting with Foveon sensors.