Pentax Q small-sensor mirrorless camera announced and previewed

It is awesome. Very handy, i can carry it whereever i go without any hassle.

Hm, looks like a digital Diana. Only the Diana would never cost 800USD! Seriously, what’s the point of this camera? You don’t need interchangeable lenses for compact cameras! There are retractible lenses, collapsible lenses, that are small, good, and don’t cost an eye, because they are already included in the camera! Why would I buy this over, let’s say, a Panasonic LX?

Mad, Bonkers, Completely Off Their Trollies, no wonder Hoya dumped Pentax, if this is the kind of nonsense direction they are headded.

This is the same size sensor that Canon used in their Pro1 over 7 years ago, albeit a 5mp sensor, rather than Pentax's 12mp. Canon put a really great 7x "L" series lens in front of that sensor and it was a FAB camera. But the IQ was not FAB and neither will the IQ be FAB from this Pentax. It cant be anything other than mediocre and very very noisy.

Ok Form a que here for a really mediocre $800+ toy interchangable lens camera, that only a small boy, with small hands can hold, oh and it still wont go in your pocket.

Or form a que over here for what is possibly the best DSLR in recent history, bar none, for just $1200.

Any guesses where the que is going to be?

Pentax delivers a new class of camera. It has almost all of DSLR handling features at the size of a pocket camera. To me this is a winning concept. I already have a very small APSC DSLR (Pentax with Pancake lens). I am looking for a camera that is significantly smaller, yet handles like my DSLR. To me it seems only the Pentax Q fits the bill. And with significantly smaller I mean camera __and__ lens. This is why e.g. a Sony Nex does not fit the bill. The camera is small, but the lens is not. So if I can get the small camera with DSLR features only in case I sacrifice sensor size, so be it. You only can take pictures with a camera you have with you. A Sony Nex or Olympus Pen I would never carry with me at all times. A Pentax Q I might. I now carry with me a Fuji F 50. I am happy enough with the image quality, but when using creative control handling is too slow. I am expecting that the handling of the Q is excellent and fast. I am waiting for this camera since years.

Pentax could learn a thing or two from Olympus.

It's a shame this camera's sensor has a pixel density of over 650 pixels/mm. At $800.00, it surely has the highest pixel density of any camera in its cost range. That kind of pixel density normally accompanies cheap cameras. What's wrong with a pixel density of 650 pixels/mm? This means users will have to shoot at f-Numbers no larger than f/3.2 if they want to prevent diffraction from inhibiting a desired print resolution of 5 lp/mm in an unresampled 360 dpi print having dimensions of 8.33 x 11.11 inches. Why buy a 12MP camera with a sensor so small you can't enjoy the resolution it affords without shooting wide open all the time to avoid diffraction? Of course, we could pretend that diffraction doesn't exist, and shoot with any aperture available on the lens. Or we could make tiny prints. Or we could just throw up our hands and say we really don't care if fine details are degraded by diffraction. Surely Pentax is hoping this camera's market is ignorant of diffraction.

As much as I'd love to be enthusiastic about another entrant to the "high-end compact/mirrorless" market, I fear that this camera is all but dead on arrival. I cannot for the life of me figure-out where on Earth this camera fits-in. I just don't see why anyone would choose it over any of it's potential competitors. The issue is the sensor. If a truly compact camera were my goal, why would I choose this camera over a Canon S95 or Olympus XZ-1? Or, if I want a small "system" camera, why would I choose this over a 4/3 or APS-C sized camera such as the Olympus EPL series or Samsung NX? It just doesn't add-up. I think it is a huge gamble to build an entirely new lens system around a small-sensor camera like this. I honestly hope I'm wrong, and that this camera finds a niche. But on another note entirely, they haven't helped matters much by creating a... um... let's call it "awkward looking" camera body...

Thank you dpreview for this comments-box(!) Thus my first comment on this site:

Pentax may have a winner on their hands with this "Q-System". However: they should move their lens-speeds up a notch. f/1.9 maybe respectable for a real "normal"-49mm lens but is totally underwhelming thinking of the 1/2,3 inch sensor this system depends on. However - if usability really excells, I might consider buying one before investing into further DSLR-lenses...

...purely because I'm waiting for a Pentax " DA* 11..16/2,8 " to finally being released and because their dslr - lens prices need to adjust to more realistic values (in Germany that is).

I'm still in my early stages and to experiment with lenses in the field... ...first I have to be able to afford those lenses. Hopefully this camera will deliver more of a 'creative tool' than a compact P&S.

Usability and affordability. If the "Q-System" can deliver I might get one :D

Pentax must have had lost common sense (not that they ever had it in abundance): who on earth will go for a small-sensor camera the size of its APSC-sensor competition! That said, physically this Olympus E-series copycat doesn't look too bad.

I think one reason Pentax had to use such a small sensor is because of their shake reduction. They must have decided it was worth the smaller sensor size to keep the body as compact as possible and to also have the shake reduction feature.

As a long time loyal Pentax user, I've been waiting for the Mirrorless APS-C sensor camera. One that will work on the K-mount lenses. A camera that competes with the Nex (Sony) cameras, Fuji X-100 and Leica X-1 which I own and is beautifully designed.
As Pentax already has many great miniature Limited lenses, that is the camera they should have created. Who needs another mini sensor camera, their are hundreds already.
Pentax made a cute camera, but I'm not convinced this is the right direction for Pentax. APS-C is the way to go.

I think It's an excellent idea, except for the price and size (can smaller) . If it were ~$200 range, I would definitely get it for everyday camera. maybe, they'll come up with non magnesium body and maybe smaller version later.

Intresting, to many emotions can produce this little mistery.
I can only say for sure tha the Pentax Q will be a classic one, for good or bad.
I hope for good.

To succeed Pentax should put in there HSDPA, WI-FI and Triple-Band GSM.

I would prefer a 1/1.6 (or similar) sensor not a 1/2.3'' (1/1.X offers double surface). Still how successful can it be when it costs 800€ when an canon S95 (or larger XZ1, LX5) costs about 400€?

I not sure who will invest in such system. Maybe pentax knows better or it does that merely for marketing reasons.

It is what it is, and we shall see if it succeeds.

Still, I cannot recall much banter on Pentax forums requesting such a camera. I can, however, recall many, many folk yearning for a Pentax full-frame camera. Imagine if all of the research and development for this camera and its lenses had instead been used to develop a Pentax full-frame camera.

Now THAT would have created a positive stir!!

Worth around $250-$300. Not $800

based on sample images on imaging-resource (saved it before they remove them), this Pentax Q is more likely a very good 3MP camera at ISO 6400 (very soft but clean image). The ISO 1600 is very comparable with DSLR (by DSLR what I mean is Canon D30) ;-)

Personally I really like the look and concept of this camera and look forward to seeing how it performs. Most of the criticism is based on the size of the sensor – which is the same size as the sensor of my FZ38 which produces good quality images, I don't see any reason why this camera will not. The small sensor gives it the advantage that adding a lens does not destroy the small and light concept which seems to be the floor in the most over compact system cameras.

I hope they take advantage of the small sensor to provide some long range lenses that will make the system more versatile.

The price seems a bit steep at first bit should come down.

I think the Q has a lot of potential – but as many have said will have to see if it delivers

It's cute but pointless. It neither offers the convenience and compactness of other 1/2.3" systems, nor the low light and low depth of field capabilities of other interchangeable lens systems.

In short, it offers the worst of both worlds.

If the price were much lower, I could see the toy lenses capturing a niche market. However, as it stands I think the system will be a giant flop.

Why is everyone surprised? I see this as a digital Minox. Very niche. I wouldn't run out and buy it, but I applaud bringing back lots of knobs with direct access to important functions. Wish more manufacturers would get away from touch screens and menus and bring back the knurly knobs!

Cue hipster invasion of photosharing sites with the release of this cam. And lots of myspace voodoo pics, too.

Although Pentax does need to keep up in today's modern market where smaller is supposedly better, I don't agree with this new Q mount, and how Pentax have dubbed it a "toy lens". I've always been fond of Pentax for their traditionalist ways, and not playing to the unwitting, new buyers of DSLR (they've lost me now). Seem's like they've marketed this new Q mount towards people who are new to DSLR's and haven't really researched what a good camera is. This is in stark contrast to a company like Samsung, who are relatively new to producing DSLR's, but have done a brilliant job at their first camera's, where as Pentax have been in the game a relatively long time but have now let themselves down.

It is meaningless for dpreview to call this type of interchangeable lens compacts "mirrorless" . It is really awkard.

Now I remember why I haven't been back here in years - and am never coming back. So long, negative folk.

I am seeing a Corvette styling with a 4 cylinder engine

Just what I was waiting for.

Now I can use a manual focus 100mm macro lens on it with an future adapter and get a super duper telephoto lens !

Love the massive crop factor!

LOL....seems like I am the only one actually waiting all this time why aren't camera makers make excellent compact cameras with interchangable lenses? after nearly 10 years of wishing Pentax made it come true. HUrrah.

Wretched. Pointless and wretched...

Shockingly so.

This camera is stylish. And believe it or not: this will be a reason for many people to buy this camera.

I didn't like it. I was expecting to buy a new pentax but not this freak. Sensor size is also a disappointment. Why should I buy a new Pentax which I can not use my old pentax DSLR lenses? It is not ergonomic. And sorry but not innovative product. Waste of R&D time and budget.

I thought this looked great until I saw the sensor size, what's the point? to dupe compact buyers into thinking they are getting better results? Why would you have interchangeable lenses on a camera with a tiny sensor??

I guess everyone that criticise this new posibility or alternative camera, have tested Pentax Q in all condition, every setting and lenses and had compare it with competition (or more similar ones), so they can say that this is a bad choice and a waist of engineering.
I say lets see how this work first and then you can judge it properly.
On other hand, a ff Pentax cam are a wish of all of us, but you may not increase your market with equipment only for pros or semi-pros. Instead you allready have 645D as a top 1.