Marcin Mo111347cicki: I'm torn between my love for Pentax and hate for Ricoh for what it did. Reduce Pentax to the level of Lumix or Cybershot? Really? I guess I'm not the only one...
Ricoh did not buy Pentax to save it. Ricoh recongnised Pentax as a great brand, and the price was right.
kai liu: many times, lens is way more important than body. I used to use pentax for 2 years. then I switched to canon 7d. Canon just have so much more lens choice. Pentax lens selection is really limited. And their lens quality are behind canon lens. When I see k-3, it sure looking amazing, but then I think about those pentax lens I have used, I lost interest. I think pentax's priority is to update their lens. They have not announce some high quality lens for many years.(except that 560mm) but look at canon they keep making new lens and update old lens with better optical.
Which lens that you really need that Pentax or a 3rd party lens maker don't have?
Musicjohn: The G serie powershots have always been way too overpriced rubbish, are still way overpriced rubbish and always will be way overpriced rubbish. There are many other (even cheaper) cams of this format which make just as good a picture, if not better.
I am a professional photographer with 1D-mkIV and 5D-mkII and I have always had the need for a 'pocket sized' little cam which I can have with me all of the time. I have had several G-series from Canon, but always sold them again within a few weeks because I was disappointed with the image quality. About 4 years ago I even preferred a Casio Exilim to the G11.
The reason why people would buy a pocket sized cam is the need to get any picture as fast as possible onto a blog or a newspaper or news website. Considering the resolution size in which the final picture will appear (usually no larger than 600 pixels max.) one could argue that ANY compact camera would fulfill that job, even the lowest price compact cam available today.
Why thx1138? Was that your favorite movie or something?
forpetessake: "Low-light performance is bolstered by a blazing fast f/2.0-4.0 glass lens" -- an advanced advertising method known as bold lies. Who would ever call f/9.3-f/18.6 FF zoom blazing fast? Blazing slow is a better description.
It's a DOF equivlent of f/9.3-f/18.6 FF and not in exposure value. Otherwise you would have to use a flash most of the time. F2.0 EV should be all the same.
mpgxsvcd: They say that Image Stabilization is ideal for "zoom photos of children playing or competing in sporting events."
That is an out right lie. Image stabilization does nothing for moving subjects. It only helps if the camera is shaking and the subject is stationary.
Companies have misled consumers for too long. It is time that it stopped. I hope that Dpreview will call them out on this one day.
In low light situations without using flash, image stabilization is helpful whether the subject is moving or not.
Beautiful scene. I was wondering if you use artificial lighting, the rocks and the grass in the foreground are nicely exposed.
Marty4650: Pentax was smart to increase the sensor size for the Q7.
They made it large enough to create a much better alternative to any fixed lens 1/1.7" compact, while keeping it small enough to make all the original lenses still work perfectly. And the net result is you end up with a very nice camera that is capable of really good results.
But if you think this camera can compete with and EPM2, then you are being delusional. You cannot repeal the laws of physics just because you like a camera. A 4/3 sensor is still five times larger, and that is just a simple fact.
This difference is even greater than the difference between a 4/3 sensor and a FF sensor, and you don't see anyone saying that an EPM2 can do "nearly as well" as a Nikon D800. Those sort of wild claims are the mark of fanboyism.
However, it still is worth noting that this Pentax Q7 is still a lot more desirable than any Panasonic LX7, Canon S110, or Olympus XZ-2, simply for the feature set and the ability to swap lenses.
Is bigger sensor ALWAYS better? Well, size does matter but sometimes it's not only the size of the sensor. It's the QUALITY of the sensor, with great processing engine, and fine optics.All that enclosed in a compact body with great ergonomics, and the right controls under your fingertips.
rb59020: Ordered mine in black from B&H this afternoon as it is @ $399.00
From the artical:■Excellent image quality in JPEG and Raw■Fast autofocus■10fps full-res burst mode■1cm Macro mode allows extreme closeups■Raw files contain a lot of extra detail in both highlights and shadows■Dedicated Movie record button■Built-in sensor-shift and pixel-track shake reduction
But still just a "74"?
Must of been the missing hot shoe. :-(
With a bright F1.8-2.5 lens and great hi ISO quality you probably don't need a hot shoe. On this type of a camera how often will be used? I never used external flash on compacts. For me, natural light is best. But there is a built in flash, if need be, it can be used as trigger for external remote flash.
Beat Traveller: Brace yourself... the 'equivalent aperture' posts are coming.
Just like shutter speeds are the same speed on FF or on APSc cameras. So are all the shutter speeds on all formats.Aperture readings are also the same in FF or APSC or all the other formats. This is standard, Every lens or camera manufacture have to ubide by these rules. So f1.8 (FF lens) on FF sensor is the same f1.8 (APSc lens) on APSc sensor. Yes the f1.8 FF lens aperture pupil has to be bigger to cover the the larger format but the exposure should read the same. The only difference is the field of view. Depth of field might look like f2.8 on FF. ISO (wich is also is standard) and the light propertys is another matter due to sensor technology, processor technology, SNR, size of format, size of pixels, numbers of pixels, density of pixels and the rest of the process. It varies from camera to camera.
mmitch: Pentax needs to catch up to the rest of the Camera Companies and release a Full Frame body! I really got tired of waiting and switched to Nikon. I owned a K5 it's a great camera, but it's limited lens selection and lack of interest by Pentax to further the company along I can no longer support.
MMitch:On your 2nd comment many would disagree with you. Here is a professional photographer who claim there is no difference in image quality between K5IIs and 5D Mark III when printed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH3WevFWbzw&list=UUnGQjVXHOC7lGSr3R9wxuaw&index=3
Pete: I agree with previous posts re: FF/BF issues. In certain situations, the K-5 struggles. Even, in some cases, in the same light, but if one person is more tan than another. I see some this in stage-lighting situations. If the II series addresses that, in all honesty, that would be a phenomenal camera. That occasional issue is my main gripe with the K-5.
On the K5 some claim that if you turn the shake reduction off you get much improved AF speed. Use SR only when needed.
Plastek: Brilliant camera. Puts the point of mirrorless existence in doubt now. Especially when it comes out that APS-C compact with excellent lens is smaller than m4/3 or 1" mirrorless with a lens.
We know all compacts don't have a mirror, why should they? But we don't call them mirrorless. The term mirrorless came when the G1 came out with interchangable lenses without a prism or mirror box so we called them mirrorless to distinguish them from DSLR 's. This camera is designed as a compact.
Looks very much like the Pentax Optio X, from something like 2005?
Marty4650: Setting aside the merits or liabilities of the Q system.... is this an actual upgrade of the Q, or just a repackaging of the Q with a few very minor improvements added? (higher top shutter speed, optional viewfinder, optional remote control, AF assist lamp, etc.)
When you compare the specs of the two cameras it doesn't look like there is very much new here. I assume that the new lens and the new adapter will work with either camera, so why buy the new Q10 when the Q is selling for half it's price?
How about new improved sensor and upgraded processor for better image quality.Iis that not enough? how about better video performance with manual control during video...upgraded shutter to prevent rolling, redesign body for better ergonomics and deeper grip. Well if it's not for current Q owners, then its for others.
qwertyasdf: When P&S and camera phones are moving on to larger sensorsSomeday, the Q might have the smallest sensor not just amongst other CSCs, but all photo-taking gadgets....Way to go.
@zapatista There is no point for cell phones to move to a larger sensor. As I understand there have been a huge imvestment and R&D done on this sensor, givin it great Image quality. But it's not only the sensor that count. You have to have high quality optics and a great image processor to go with it, in a nice compact body like...the Q ;)
Plastek: Woh, it looks like this will be one of very few cameras you can recommend someone while being sure he will make best possible purchase from the market right now. IMO the K30 is what Sony should release as A65 - lower MPx, watersealed with WR lens (I wouldn't mind even 18-55 re-made to WR), higher buffer and mirror flip-up mode (this goes for A77 too obviously).Well... they didn't... so it looks like I'll be recommending other brand for this price-point than.(ps. it's funny how poorly Canon and Nikon equivalents look comparing to K30 or A65 in terms of bang for the buck.)
It's made by Sony but Developed by Pentax. Both have done a great Job.
alexeyga: Hey Pentax boys, why don't you enlighten the public what's the point in WR if all the best Pentax lenses (like 31LTD, 43LTD, 77LTD) are not WR-ed?
And why would anybody want to invest into Pentax DA* lenses that are actually WR-ed, but come with the SDM AF mechanism that is prone to failure?
@alexeyga I believe The lenses you mention are full frame and were originaly made for Pentax 35mm film cameras.
I need another camera like I need a hole in the head. But I realy want this one.
jj74e: ahh dang whichever company started making tilt screens popular (i think it was sony).
tilt screens seem kind of like a really bad middle ground. most, if not all, don't tilt enough to be particularly useful, but they're still thicker than regular screens. especially on a non-pocketable camera like this, what difference does a few mm make to accommodate a fully articulating screen that actually offers some more usability. it's not like it's going to be the difference between it fitting in your jeans or not.
I agree that a fully articulating screen is nice, but I think the tilt screen is still flexible. one thing it would allow me to operate the camera from waist level. Which it's much more convenient and comfortable than arms length. There is more balance and stabilization, especialy with the long zoom.
derfla1949: A DSLR-like superzoom with a 1/2.33" sensor.'nuff said.
Nobody is saying that, but if you are observant enough you can see that most all camera makers, make and sell more cameras by far with this type of sensor (or similar size) than any other. It's the bigest market, it's what keeps the doors open, and give support to the other format sizes. Some of the people here have such a superiority complex, they can sit with their computers and say: We are too good for this kind of stuff, they think the world revolve around DPreview.