dylanbarnhart: The original Q with kit lens had $800 MSRP, now selling for $250. Imagine the anguish to those bought it at MSRP. Knowing that, who would buy the Q7 at $500 MSRP, only to see a huge price drop later?
Pentax has no idea how to price a camera. If they priced it at $250 originally, the system might've caught on. If $250 wasn't enough to turn a profit, then the Q isn't a viable product after all.
Here's a report on the Q sales:http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/pentax-q-sales-disappointing-1060295
@ET2 Those higher end models usually hold up better in value, though. Cameras like the GF3 dropped pretty fast, as well.
GeorgeZ: Yawn, every preview gets 3 news items now, IF it ever becomes a REview even a fourth one. There are articles on "review in progress". This is really ridiculous, what exactly has the amazon purchase done in terms of reviews? You even regularly mention the lack of review cameras when they are absolutely available from your parent company, what's up with that?
Photo sites should ban the word yawn. It seems to be the most frequently expressed sentiment, and, ironically, one of the most exhausting.
samhain: The 56mm isn't coming out till the end of the year!?! Wtf fuji.I'd like to know what marketing genius at Fuji said "hey- we're gonna make this awesome retro rangefinder style camera- but lets do the initial release with a slow 60mm macro and wait 3 years to put a proper portrait lens out, because this camera is much more suited to people shooting macro than portraiture & candid street shots ". That guy should be fired, but only after being kicked in groin repetedly. The initial 3 should've been:23mm 1.435mm 1.456mm 1.4 Macro/wide angle/zoom should've been secondary.
In general I found Fuji did pretty well launching this system with a fairly solid assortment of lenses. There's only so much they can do at one time. It's already a drastically more appealing lineup than the Nex system.
sanchil: i would think getting rid of the flapping mirror and creating an interchangeable lens camera was a far better innovation in fotography in the recent times ... oly and panny have really done a good job in creating a new category in cameras ...
Sure, but that didn't happen in 2012.
CG33: IMO, with mediocre cameras like this one, the Nikon P7700 and the Olympus SP-820UZ, we will end buying phones to take our pictures, better pictures...
Camera phones are getting better, but they will never approach this kind of versatility. I've never had a super-zoom but the recent pack have a lot to like about them. I don't mind lack of DOF for wide-angle, and the telephoto end would have plenty, anyway. Only big negative is in the normal to portrait range.
Course there are other negatives as well, but...
mpgxsvcd: Quite simply. Why?
Compactness. I doubt it takes a great deal of energy, I don't mind less than exciting lenses as long as they keep on putting cool ones out there.
One lens that could definitely use a revamp is the 14-42, although if they decided to pretend it never existed an bring back the 14-45, that'd be fine as well.
Jefftan: I have no idea why they think $500 is a reasonable price for small sensorall these product have always been below $400
Right now with increasing competition and game changer RX100 they actually think they could increase the price by 25% is totally silly in my opinion
Market will teach them a lesson. Even at $400 whether they can compete with Olympus XZ-1, Canon S100 and LX5 is uncertain
They really overestimate themselves by the success of Galaxy phone but this is camera which they have always been the underdog
All three of the cameras you mentioned started at $500. I agree about competition changing with the RX100, though I think the speedy lens on here makes up some of the ground.
Mssimo: For all "my camera can do it" comments. Your camera is not a Leica; it does not use M lenses (or you could not afford them), It does not have "clear" pixel filter (color filters cut light by at least 1/3) and your camera will be worth crap in 4 years, this camera will be worth much more money as they years fly by, this is a collectors item. You feel more like a photographer than a button pusher.You guys sound worse than a 10 year old kid, telling you that his iphone 4s pictures look as good as a full frame DSLR...only difference is that a 10 year old's ignorance is cute.
Leica makes nice cameras, but this is condescending, man. It's not necessary to criticize people for not being rich.
I do hope that a shorter lens mount is optional, as I agree that EF mount isn't really ideal for this sensor. One potential option: I wouldn't be surprised if Krasnogorsk M42 mount lenses would cover the sensor.
Absolutic: Tamron. I've gone through my share of Tamron lenses and I believe it will have typical Tamron's attributes:
1) Sharpness - almost as good as OEM (Canon or Nikon)2) VC - superior to both Nikon/Canon (although they don't have in that range)3) Contrast - always inferior to Nikon/Canon. Often yellow cast to photos. But can be dealt with in PP4) AF - this is a biggie. Tamron has placed Ring AF in their latest 2 lenses (finally) but it just does not work nearly as good as Nikon and Canon AF (and Sigma is faster too). For some - it does not mater, it is silent but it is noticeably slower than OEM.
That is why I think, Tamron needs to price this thing much less, like $700 to make it work.
It's important if the situation makes it important. It's definitely a helpful feature to have.
NZ Scott: Oly is overstating ISO - that's one reason why the results look so impressive.
The German website digitalkamera (dot) de tested the M5's ISO capabilities and concluded that it does not shoot at ISO 200-25,600, but actually at ISO 120-14,200. In other words, Oly is exaggerating by 2/3 of a stop.
What that means is that if you want to compare an M5 image shot at 3200 with an image from another camera, it is fairer to compare it with a 1600 image, assuming that the manufacturer of the other camera hasn't also told a big fib.
The Germans did find that the M5 has very good dynamic range - around 11 stops at ISO 1600, dropping to 8 stops at 25,600. Presumably the dynamic range is even better at lower ISOs.
Where'd you hear that? Everything I've seen indicates that the camera has the most advanced IS system out there.
Peiasdf: Why is the reviewer named Amadou Diallo, the guy that was shot by NYPD on February 4, 1999?
Now, back to topic. The camera is just a simple G3 repack. Not much improvement to speak of. I hope E-M5 have made bigger improvement with the same 16mp sensor. The spec of E-M5 is a lot better than GX1 for sure.
I guess it's because that's his name.
pomoville: Why in God's name could they not give us 24p on here? In almost every other way it's more appealing than the GH2, but that omission alone makes it totally unappealing to videographers & filmmakers.
@Edmond: In the last few years, video has become a very significant feature on still cameras, one which some companies spend significant energy developing. The fact is that cameras like the Gh2 or the Nex7 are viable tools for serious filmmakers/videographers, both independent and otherwise.
You aren't really saying anything here. I'm aware that the new crop of large-sensor video cameras perform significantly better in many ways than these cameras. It doesn't negate their value as worthwhile tools, particularly for those with limited budgets.
Considering the power zoom kit lens, Olympus clearly take the video feature in this camera seriously. If you're going to go to the trouble of implementing video, wouldn't you say that it's worthwhile to get it right? It's a feature that can sell extra cameras, I assure you.
It's peculiar to me, as they seem to have put a lot of effort elsewhere to improve the cam's video functionality (particularly getting the IBIS to work for video.) Not to mention the video-optimized kit lens w/ power zoom.
Sure -- I don't begrudge it as a still camera, it's really awesome.
That said, giving the option of 24p is an easy addition, and one which means a great deal to video users -- obviously not the majority of m43 users, but a substantial chunk of the market, nonetheless.
@Mike -- I'm not really terribly nostalgic for the 24p "look", but it is important to the film/video community. Not sure what difference the triplicate thing makes, as you'd still need to shoot 24 fps to properly print at 72 fps. Interesting factoid, though.
Why in God's name could they not give us 24p on here? In almost every other way it's more appealing than the GH2, but that omission alone makes it totally unappealing to videographers & filmmakers.
ngollan: 825g for a standard zoom is a wee bit nuts. The unstabilised 28-75mm/2.8 weighs well under 600g and is already a clunker to lug around. Especially on an APS-C sensor, I'd really think twice about it.
Evidently, the new Canon 24-70 II weighs more, even without IS.
snake_b: Wonder how this stacks up against Canon's f2.8 24-70 on full frame cams.
@audijam Yes, it makes little sense to compare a lens with IS to one without it, as the IS lens has a clear advantage. That said, it'll probably not be as sharp as the Canon.
jj74e: Man, all the specs look excellent. I even like the quirkyness of the design. For me, the biggest disappointment is the size. Sure, it's great to have access to Pentax's great range of lenses and pancakes. And sure, the amazing thinness of some of their pancakes somewhat makes up for the thicker body. But there's no point in it being mirrorless if it's going to be this big.
The great video, great lenses, presumably great sensor and solid AF performance based on the K-5 would all be so appealing to me, plus it's a bonus that Pentax/Ricoh is less a mainstream brand (for me anyway, I always like the "underdog brands" :P). But the size....oh THE FREAKING SIZE. it's like they said, "oh look, all these companies are taking the cholesterol out of their butter. Let's take the cholesterol out of OUR better, BUT THEN INJECT IT WITH 50 GRAMS OF SATURATED FAT"
elsewhere on the net, someone noted that they can build future lenses that have the rear element inside the body, making them shorter up front. i think I prefer that over Nex's "tiny body" solution. neither really bothers me too much, though. other than lack of evf, this looks fairly good for me.
Bill3R: No EVF??? Ugh! What a shame.
I'm not sure it's possible unless the hotshoe is special, as there's no port for one. perhaps there'll be a higher level model down the road. unfortunate, as this'd be kind of appealing otherwise.