Previous news story    Next news story

Pentax Ricoh updates firmware for Q and lenses

By dpreview staff on Nov 2, 2011 at 13:09 GMT

Pentax Ricoh has released firmware updates for the Q mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and two of its lenses. Firmware v1.01 for the Q improves operational stability and increases resolution at the 'Fine' sharpness setting. Meanwhile Firmware v1.01 for the 01 Standard Prime lens and the 02 Standard Zoom also improves operation stability. All three can be downloaded now from the company's website.


Click here for more details and to download Pentax Q Firmware v1.01

Click here for more details and to download Firmware v1.01 for the Pentax Q lenses

Comments

Total comments: 20
freiherrfoto
By freiherrfoto (Nov 6, 2011)

Sensor size relates to dynamic range handling and low light noise handling, so in broad daylight, the Q can match any DSLR. But it's true that smartphones like the iPhone 4S can match the Q in image quality.

I would not mind getting the Q if it was cheaper though.

0 upvotes
TheOriginalSinnerman
By TheOriginalSinnerman (Nov 4, 2011)

I always laugh when I see people commenting on the Q, especially the specs nerds who are after sensor size and have nothing better to do but pixel peep. This camera is for lovers of photography, it's form factor is great, size is even better and it produces more than adequate images in fact the lenses are extremely sharp wide open. Please, go and buy a micro fourthirds camera or even a full frame if your main concern is sensor size and not photography.

7 upvotes
Faisalee
By Faisalee (Nov 4, 2011)

Echo...

100% agree with you :)

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Nov 5, 2011)

S95 is at least as good as the Q and it is pocketable, at a fraction of price.

I DO NOT see the point of the Q. Maybe it's something like LOMO?

In fact, an iPhone can "produces more than adequate images" as well

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jleoni
By jleoni (Nov 6, 2011)

I totally agree. I have the Q with both standard lenses and the fisheye. The focusing and "shutter lag" were unacceptable prior to the firmware update, now I can say it is pretty quick. I have a K-7 and carry it around with the 16-50. It gets to be a heavy load even with just the one lens. There are times I need the extra resolution. But for daily walking around, the Q fits the bill, I don't even know it's in my bag it's so light. I think adding a prime superwide lens to the line up would do the trick.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MonkRX
By MonkRX (Nov 3, 2011)

There is too much emphasis on the size of the sensor of the Q. The fact is, as technology progresses, the difference in quality between small sensors and larger sensors will be irrelevant.

We're already seeing the Q performing at the level of the Rebel XT/XTi already. That was an excellent sensor/camera then, and still is now. The Q has more than adequate performance for most people.

And if you believe the performance is lacking, then give it a generation or two. The performance of the body can only go up. It WILL eventually perform at the level of current generation APC-S cameras. The question is - would your standards have gone up by then? If so - why?

Its a matter of people not desiring the bleeding edge, and giving up performance for size.

The main issues with the Q are this:
Price. Hopefully lower end bodies come out support this mount.
Size. Not exactly portable. Hopefully smaller primes help make this camera fit in a pocket.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Nov 5, 2011)

if in the future sensor size does not matter we should all be using our PHONES

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MonkRX
By MonkRX (Nov 7, 2011)

It does matter. I didn't say it didn't. But your statement is worded as if phone cameras will never become acceptable in performance. Which is extremely far from the truth.

Its funny, I can almost make an analogy between DSLRs to Pentax Q compared to the future: Pentax Q to Phone Cameras.

Many people who used to shoot with big and clunky DSLRs have now transitioned down to m4/3rds or even cameras like the S95/Canon G-Series/Panasonic LX.

Why? Because the performance has gotten to the point where it was acceptable for them.

A better example is the entire general public switched from buying dedicated P&S cameras and switching to their trusty Cell Phone camera that instantly uploads to Facebook.

Why? Besides being convenient, the Cell Phone cameras have reached the minimum bar for that target audience. You can actually make out people's faces in cell phone pictures now ;)

Perhaps you thought your response was witty, but it may actually turn out to be the future.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 3, 2011)

Pentax has made some excellent cameras. Unfortunately, I've read no glowing reviews of the Q. The justification for the product is unclear, unless the Q will be made in limited quantities simply to meet a well-defined niche of wealthy folks, accustomed to toy poodles or ponies, or premium wines, who may also be anxious for a tiny system camera.

The thing sure is feature rich! But a 1/2.3" sensor leaves it in the IQ ranks of a $300 P&S. If it had the 1/1" sensor of the V1, it might indeed be a marvel.

This is the sort of camera for Google to manufacture: meaning, a project for a company with more cash than it can use and that can throw millions at wild ideas, against the outside chance that one will come up a winner. Pentax would not seem to enjoy that luxury. Or maybe the Pentax people were so anxious to have a new owner that they devised the Q to convince Hoya that the camera unit was beyond hope.

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Nov 2, 2011)

This camera won't last.

They should give it up before they get too deep into it and switch to a real mirrorless system. Maybe give Samsung a legitimate sensor and just use its mount

1 upvote
Chelmersteve
By Chelmersteve (Nov 2, 2011)

Plenty in the shops in UK and there's already a £100 cashback promotion. That's on a price of £600 for the single lens kit or £730 for the twin lens kit.
To me it feels very (=too) small and i also wonder about the plastic lenses at this price point

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 2, 2011)

Plastic lenses are cheap, designated as Toy Lenses. Prime Lens 01 and Standard Zoom 02 are not Toy Lenses, but hight quality lenses, with optical glass specially made to deliver exceptional picture quality and resolution.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Nov 5, 2011)

Pentax should use their "Limited Edition Lens" tricks again..

0 upvotes
gillamoto
By gillamoto (Nov 2, 2011)

I attended the launching ceremony and pers conference this afternoon in Jakarta. I had a chance to try one, and surprised by the quality of the small sensor. The kit lens is very sharp. The noise level is surprisingly low up to ISO 3200. And also the bokeh control filter is quite usable. I see it well distributed among major camera stores here in Jakarta. My only concern is about the price. It surely would be more appealing if the price could be lower.

3 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 3, 2011)

Would a luxury car dealer sell more cars by introducing an economy car in the showroom? Or would that be precisely the model that the luxury customers would not buy?

Luxury products with high production costs usually require high prices. High prices also appeal to people with the means and the penchant for luxury goods. The budget buyer, on the other hand, would compare a cheaper Q to an ordinary DSLR with a larger sensor and likely pick the latter.

1 upvote
tonywong
By tonywong (Nov 2, 2011)

Saw a preproduction and a claimed production model at a trade show last week. Very small lenses but I think the price point is too high.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Nov 2, 2011)

It's not the price that matters, but your assigned value to the results of use of some product. If you measure only initial cost, then nothing makes sense.

The proper way is to value output. An average price per usable and achievable photograph is low in case of the Q because of its high quality built, durability, inconspicuousness and DSLR-like operation. But when buying an average plastic P&S you pay more per usable photograph because P&Ses are not as nearly as sophisticated as the Q.

When buying a bigger camera you lose the value of inconspicuousness and the ability to make a photo because of the weight and the size of the system — you lose your focus even before you grab the camera.
That's better way to think about your investments than analysing up-front cost. Likewise, Shell's V-Power fuel is more expensive when you look at the price per litre, but cheaper when looking at the price per kilometre. But it's Shell's fault for not re-thinking of their advertising approach.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Nov 2, 2011)

Was just about to say: Has ANYONE seen this camera in stock or held a bought sample?
:-)

0 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Nov 2, 2011)

oddly enough i saw it first at a warren Miller ski show in salt lake. They had it at a pentax booth for show and tell. They let me mess around with it all i wanted. Felt well built and had nice sounds and response but it still felt like a fancy p&s. I wish i had an sd card on me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
goblin
By goblin (Nov 2, 2011)

Yet another conspiracy to persuade us that this camera actually exists :D :D :D

1 upvote
Total comments: 20