No Sigma DP(x)M? Or do they not fall into this category?
sfa1966: Ouch. I am a loyal Pentaxian, but I have to say that is very poor. The left side of the image looks like mush. The centre is unimpressive. Soft, soft, soft. And in the comments below, Richard Butler tells us that the much-heralded-by-the-fanboys 01 Prime was tested and it came out "considerably worse"!
C'mon Ricoh, kill this Quirky Quackers waste of your resources!
I'll ignore the personal stuff, but oh yes: when it's the Q7, DPR should indeed take the time to conduct a thorough Sherlockian investigation of different combinations of other Q equipment. They are sure to come to a different conclusion. Perhaps that's because there's so many variables (highly variable variables, if this test shot is anything to go by) which might go wrong in a line which has self-professed 'toy lenses'.
Meanwhile - gosh! - all the other brands' cameras in the comparisons look fine! DPR must have gotten a lucky good copy of those then!
Ouch. I am a loyal Pentaxian, but I have to say that is very poor. The left side of the image looks like mush. The centre is unimpressive. Soft, soft, soft. And in the comments below, Richard Butler tells us that the much-heralded-by-the-fanboys 01 Prime was tested and it came out "considerably worse"!
Tape5: What is Q?
I have only seen one Q and that was in Star Trek.
I think perhaps you need to get out a bit more ...
@ RogerLittle:That's Pentax cameras for you. Simply ahead of their time. ;-)
Mescalamba: Hm, in what exactly is that 18-55 new? Previous one on K-5 and so is WR too.. And its not particulary good lens.
What's new is that this is a WR version of the DA-L (plastic mount) kit lens. Previously, WR was only for the metal mount.
Very impressive. Sigma, make a Pentax K-mount version please.
Maybe the sunshine, the blue skies and some nicer-than-usual compositions are playing their part, but these are the best samples from a compact I've seen on this site in a good while.
windmillgolfer: First, all the images are very good, at least, and the waterfall image is superb.
Marriage saving, yes, fully recognise/understand. Carrying even just a pocketable LX5 sometimes causes 'issues'. I can see that an iPhone (probably the 4S) might kill several birds with one stone :)
A very telling comment from a working pro photographer. What is the future even of high-end P+S cameras if phone cameras continue their strides forward?
And, oh yes, the images are truly excellent!
Mike Griffin: I see some overblown highlights. will be interesting to discover if that is a camera characteristic when used at default settings.
Which picture(s) Mike? Can't see any on my monitor (well, arguably only the first one (night shot of theatre), but that is an OOC JPEG of a high contrast scene at ISO3200, so I am not too concerned ...)
Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but what is the minimum focus distance for macro usage?
No change as at 5 March. So, is this story a spoof?
Very nice indeed. My beloved DP1 is beginning to show its age at 30,000 shots, and the DP1M will be a logical replacement.
A few more are here if you are interested:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16509382
Zvonimir Tosic: Ricoh, thanks for the Q.Announced a week before the major acquisition, it only means that a long shelved project by Pentax was in fact resurrected and pushed forward by a new buyer, who wants a head start of advantages for itself, and capitalise as much as possible on its investment.Q release date outside Japan is late September/October, just in time when the deal between Hoya and Ricoh will be finalised.Negotiations in purchases like this last for months, and no new major camera *system* is released without buyer knowing exactly what they get with it.Ricoh is Q's fairy godmother. They wanted it.Q would probably never see the daylight under Hoya. If Pentax Q is a sign of new ideas and visions coming from Ricoh, then I applaud their dedication, to gather as much innovation and new products under the brand name of Pentax.
Hope there'll be more shelved projects, ideas and products now resurrected.
No contradictions at all, ZT. Hoya invested 5 years, and thus lots of engineering hours into the Q. Far from having "nothing at all to do with this", as you state, that massive gestation time would impact on the price Ricoh have had to pay to acquire Pentax's IP (Hoya will surely have negotiated some return on their 5-year investment), which price in turn needs to be explained to Ricoh shareholders.
But what if Ricoh requested Hoya never release the Q, as part of their negotiation? That would have killed Q in the womb. We (Joe Public) would never have heard of it. But that leaves Ricoh as having paid for 5 years of engineering for nothing, and to explain that to their shareholders. Embarrassing: particularly as the Q *is* a novel concept and *might* be successful (at least initially).
So, having paid big bucks for the idea anyway, maybe Ricoh thought the best course was get Q to market during Hoya's tenure, where (if it fails) it does so with least possible downside.
Lots of speculation dressed up as cold fact. Pentax have been working on the Q-mount for 5 years, they say, and resurrected work due to the backlit sensor tech becoming available and reliable. I doubt that any of this is "new vision" on the part of Ricoh.
Sure, every M&A deal has a long period of due diligence. And, yes, as a result of that, Ricoh would have known of the Q months ago. And maybe Ricoh did stipulate as part of the negotiation that the Q had to be released prior to the acquisition.
But what if they did that so that it was clear to the world that they (Ricoh) had had nothing to do with the Q. That gives Ricoh the option of killing the project with a clear conscience ("it wasn't our idea, shareholders!") should it prove to be the abject failure that many (perhaps including Ricoh themselves) predict it will be.
Q for 'Questionable', I imagine ...
Anyway I won't 'join the Q' to buy one of these (not that there'll be any queues in any event!)
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review