Luke Kaven: I have to put aside 'herd spirit' here. With so much good or just plain enjoyable work out in the world, I'm at a total loss to understand why the editors picked this series. It's neither very creative, nor very funny. It isn't even good 'lite' fare.
With all the audience strength you have, you could be an editorial powerhouse. Consider the possibility of being one, seriously.
Consider a laxative, Luke.
Consumer grade camera, consumer grade lens, consumer grade photos - then why bother with a professional grade review? As pointed out by Richard Butler below, most folks who buy this camera will never buy another lens. My guess is they'll walk out of Best Buy with it after hearing "Nikons are good."
Given how glacially slow DPReview is at reviewing cameras, and given that there are other cameras waiting for a review that actually merit such a detailed review <cough-K-3-cough> I just don't understand spending so much time and effort on this kind of camera.
(Not that there's anything wrong with consumer grade by the way.)
BrianSA: This was pretty awful. I stood about half a minute of the rubbish presentation. The video is disjointed, stopping after about 5 seconds and waiting for the download to catch up. This happened every 5 seconds, so made it almost impossible to watch. Pausing it, unlike professionally run video sites, did not allow the whole video to down load in order that I could watch it seamlessly.
Completely pointless. Even the little I was able to see seemed to be aimed at 9 year olds.
Brian, invest in a better internet connection, and maybe some laxatives too.
kadardr: I buy second hand...
Sucks to be you.
I see the grumpy, frowning DPreview regulars who know as little about design as they do photography (and don't want to know) are once again out in force. Take some laxative, you people!
Al Valentino: It looks more like a toy than a tool, which is what a camera is. I need a functional eyepiece, to see, not a clever iViewfinder that some might think looks cool to the college crowd.
All the good intentions aside, would I want this? Personally, no. I prefer the aesthetics of my Fuji mirrorless and also the regular Leica M design far better than this iCamera.
Now get off my lawn!
The Photo Ninja: I can buy a heck of a lot of canon L lenses for that. It might be really great, but out of my price range. Also, how come no autofocus? Zeiss has AF on sony.
Didn't you read the article?
"The smooth focus operation with the large angle of rotation allows for the finest variations when focusing — qualities that are only possible in a metal barrel. Its design as a manual focus lens allowed the engineers to work with much smaller tolerances during the construction."
Besides the talent of the photographers, this gallery shows how important good photo editors are to the whole process.
Sooo funny, all the comments by people who cannot possibly imagine why someone else might want to make or have a brass Petzval lens! "But it looks wierd!" "But the bokeh is bad!" "But it's for hipsters!" Good grief, people - at least TRY to have an open mind. If you can't do that, I guess go back to shooting your beach sunsets, flowers, bugs, and empty park benches.
happypoppeye: yip ...and here come the SLR guys defending their purchases ...I hear them running behind me now.
"SLR guys?" That's the sort of unnecessary camera-partisan remark that makes dpreview such a negative place. Why should anybody feel like they need to defend their choice in cameras? Having both a Pentax K-5 and a Pentax Q, I can say I like them both and use them both. Which one I bring with me just depends on my mood. I never go anywhere without on of 'em.
So funny (and sad) reading the comments by dpreview readers who are hopelessly ignorant about photography unless it involves endless arguments over sensor size, high ISO noise, or corner sharpness.
Red5TX: Pentax needs to update the kit zoom for the Q. The 02 has never quite been up to snuff and this result further illustrates that unfortunate fact. The 01 and 06 are pretty great, but every ILC needs a good standard zoom. C'mon, Pentax.
@zos xavius-I find the 01 Prime to be sharper in general that the 02 Zoom, as long as you don't stop down past 3.2 or so. Refraction comes on quick with the original Q sensor, and that's partly why the 02 Zoom suffers at the long end. It's much better at the wide end.
Don Kiyoti: Why didn't you use the 01 Prime for this test?
Thanks Richard, that makes sense. I look forward to seeing your new scene.
Why didn't you use the 01 Prime for this test?
IZO100: another pathetic product from Pentax. Even my phone can take better picutres.
IZO100, see my post below in response to Nathebeach. That last paragraph applies directly to you.
Nathebeach: I am fascinated by the criticisms of those who have not even seen let alone used the camera. I am going to stand up for Pentax for trying something new (again).
Why buy this camera? I see a few prime reasons.
A. DOFB. Great telephoto ability without lugging heavy eq.
Those seem to me to the big ones. Can actual users comment on ones I may have overlooked? While I am NOT an actual user, I have lots of experience with FF and the M43 system so I can relate somewhat to the differences offered by this system, and I must say that I am intrigued.
Many commenters seem to have lost sight of the fact that most people do photography for, you know: Enjoyment. I have an original Q with the 01 Prime and 02 Zoom. It is just so enjoyable to pick it up, fool around with it, try out the digital filters (many of which are pretty cool), and take lots of pictures. It has had a major effect on how I think about taking photos. When I'm out and around with it, people who see it are always struck by it: what a neat little camera that is! When I pop up the flash: wow! that is so cool! Happens a lot.
More than any other photography related site I read, people on dpreview are the most narrow-minded, brand-centric, gearheaded bunch around. And they are way more willing to post nonsense and let their idiot-flag fly.
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:
@Zvonimir - Ooh I want the white one!
marike6: Colors look similar to the original Q, but it looks like per-pixel sharpness is a bit better. This is going to be one of the more fun small cameras around.
Unfortunately their best and brightest lens, the 8.5 f/1.9 seems to have been discontinued, and the Q system without that lens is not as interesting. That means, no bright prime, and no OVF (which was designed for use with that lens).
Adorama seems to have it (says in stock when added to cart) http://www.adorama.com/IPXQSZ1.htmlBut they don't have the Q7 body bundled with it.
Amazon.ca has it in stock. Amazon USA has it via Adorama and another seller.
This was on Petapixel four days ago, dpreview. Pick up the pace and stay relevant!
I won't be renewing my Pro account. It's possible I might stay on for free, assuming my ad-blocker will work on their new advertising scheme. Doubling my subscription fee and reducing it's value just doesn't do it for me. The new interface is more slick, but it's not very good for browsing photos, especially if you want to know about one (caption) without clicking on it. We've seen this before: to some designers, LESS information is better.