SW Anderson: Back to the future with a much better and more appropriate classic retro look -- one of the original Q's enjoyable features. For me, the Q-S1 isn't a matter of whether, but when, I'll get one.
For the Q's sniping detractors, photography for many of us isn't all about big, slick-magazine covers and two-page spreads. We'll never do billboards and might never indulge in exhibition-size prints. We can enjoy on-screen and small-print images, along with using a good-looking, well-made camera that provides an amazingly feature-rich, flexible shooting experience with easy portability. Some of our best images are more about a memory captured or scene preserved than impressive resolution and amazing sharpness seen via pixel peeping.
My Q is fun and useful in many picture-taking situations where my big, bulky but technically superior DSLR would be as out of place as a semi-truck at a gymkhana. Some folks seem to enjoy the Q as a target for put-downs. I see that as their loss, not mine.
But then again . . . there are many iPhone apps that sport a Holga-ish or Lomo-ish filter. . . . Why?
@SW Anderson . . .
RE: Toy Lenses.
The other potential reason for those lenses is to mimic the toy lenses like the Lomo or Holga lenses from those plasticky cheap cameras. So that might be a reference . . .
Raist3d: As a long time Q photographer, I must say I like this design. But I feel they should have included the built in wi-fi and would have been a nicer announcement if they had come out with the telephoto macro *and* a very fast prime (I keep asking Pentax/Ricoh for this, it's the only reason I am using a J4 at the moment).
The Q is indeed a very fun system with a very rich photographer centric feature set. For all the barking and bickering of some, it would be nice if those at least had a nice portfolio, but most if not all don't.
Wallace Ross: Not sure why I bother, the Q doesn't need me to defend it but it's the most fun digital camera I own and if some people don't get it then what ever.
@Richard . . .
Yeah. On paper, the Q shouldn't be this much fun.
But I just spend way too much time using the Q.
Just doesn't make logical sense . . . LOL
I actually came across a book on his photography at our local book store and scanned through it . . . and I remember thinking to myself back then . . . man, this guy had the eye!
Thanks DPR for reminding me I want that book!
The more I think about this . . . the more I want one!
I'm thinking it would be cool to be able to 3D pan (like a 3D Ken Burns effect) of a photo and output as a video segment to incorporate into a slide show.
If video . . . being able to play with focus field during playback. Adding that story telling element after the fact.
And just for simple things like taking a group shot with people near & far from the camera in low light no flash allowed and being able to focus stack to get everyone's face in "focus" after the fact?
Who wouldn't want to add these creative bag of tricks to their toy box?
Do Lytro cameras do video?
Was this shot on film or digital?
Can you program the change in focus / cropping and output it as a video file to incorporate into a video / slide show? Sort of like a 3D Ken Burns effect?
That would be cool!
breth: It's about time one of the camera manufacturers puts out an environmentally sealed serious pocket-able compact with large sensor. For backpackers, rainy day streetshooters, and people working in tough conditions that want great IQ.The more smartphones get better as cameras, and the more people tire of lugging their dslrs, this market should start to develop.
If we're tossing out hints . . . what about a Q-WR. ;)
Marty4650: It might have been interesting to see how well the Nikon 1 AW1 performed against these cameras. Compared to the four cameras reviewed, the Nikon 1 has a "huge sensor."
@Jeff Keller . . . no disrespect meant. I remember the AW1 write-up.
I like the cameras and round-up idea. I thought the "Other Cameras to Consider" I great idea too.
IMHO this is a great resource.
'just thought that for potential customers that are not aware of the different options, it might be useful to show the less expensive models available as well as more expensive models as options.
Marty4650: Serious underwater photography was always done with DSLRs tightly sealed in very expensive waterproof enclosures. But for underwater snapshots, these cameras are great.
This whole category ("underwater snapshot cameras") might disappear if the iPhone 6 is waterproof.
I suppose a waterproof tablet could be next?
@Marty4650 . . . IMHO you're absolutely right with the Kid thing. When my daughters want to grab a camera, I usually let them use the waterproof camera. Doesn't matter if we are at the beach, or in a canoe, or if there is chance of rain. No worries! :)
@BorisK1 . . . "Which camera would you rather have in a bar brawl? A DSLR in an Ikeliete housing or a TG-3?"
Well . . . if in a bar brawl . . . and I wanted to use the camera as a weapon . . . I'd probably pick the DSLR in the case . . . LOL. ;)
RE: Waterproof cellphone . . . for slight splashing, or very limited underwater use, yeah . . . ok, but for completely immersing the camera, I personally would prefer to risk a ~$200 camera vs. a ~$600 cell phone.
And for the time being . . . the ~$200 waterproof camera would probably take a better picture.
@Tobias . . . sure . . . these cameras are not going to give dSLR performance . . . but they are a lot more convenient and lets you get the shot from unique perspectives, without risking thousands$ of dollars worth of equipment. I'm not going to take one of my dSLR cameras into the water with me while I'm splashing around with my kids . . . but I'll toss a waterproof camera in my pocket, just in case. :)
Or at least add it to the "Other Cameras to Consider" page, along with the WiFi enabled Fuji XP70. :)
TacticDesigns: It is marketess talk.
The statement . . .
"we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor" . . .
does not exclude the use of software, but simply states that they try to make their lenses to project the best possible image onto the sensor. If software correction is applied to it afterwards, that's a separate issue.
So if that statement is marketess . . . then it really is a moot point from what I see.
If a company takes the time to take a holistic approach to camera design which integrates the lens, sensor and software to help the user get what they are after . . . we are to look down upon that?
But I look at my Pentax Q, which I completely assumed was going to have some sort of correction available, and it does. And I'm completely happy with it.
If that's what it takes to have a small camera that I take around with me more, and not worry about PP afterwards, then I'm glad its available.
With my Q . . . I turn off highlight correction and shadow correction, but leave distortion correction on.
It is marketess talk.
Under The Sun: This is the kind of camera that does poorly on paper but works wonderfully in practice. Just borrowed a unit from a friend and was impressed with all the fun stuff you could do with it.
Got my Q + 01 lens over my shoulder right now, about to go for a stroll. :)
TacticDesigns: Looks cool! The camera almost looks like a cell phone . . . imagine this lens mount on a phone? LOL.
Yeah . . . I guess I should have put a . . . ;) at the end of that comment . . . ;)