Previous news story    Next news story

Pentax announces X-5 DSLR-like 26x zoom 16MP CMOS superzoom

By dpreview staff on Aug 22, 2012 at 22:00 GMT

Pentax has announced the X-5, a 26x superzoom built around a 16MP backlit CMOS sensor. The X-5 is designed to closely resemble the company's K-5 DSLR, despite being based around a 1/2.3"-type sensor. The lens offers a 22.3-580mm equivalent range, backed up with sensor-shift image stabilization. It can capture 1080p30 movies and features a selection of the multi-shot and image processing modes that have become common on CMOS-based cameras. It features a tilting 460k dot rear LCD and 230k dot electronic viewfinder. It is powered by AA batteries, giving around 500 shots per charge when used with NiMh rechargeable cells.

Jump to:


Press Release:

PENTAX Introduces New X-5 Digital Camera

Versatile 16 megapixel BSI CMOS point-and-shoot digital camera features a powerful 26X super-telephoto zoom lens as well as convenient tiltable LCD monitor

Denver, CO (August 22, 2012) – PENTAX RICOH IMAGING AMERICAS CORPORATION today announced the introduction of its PENTAX X-5 digital camera, an ideal choice for photographers who want to easily capture beautiful, high-quality images of a wide variety of subjects and scenes. Featuring a powerful high-magnification optical 26X super-telephoto zoom lens, the new PENTAX X-5 provides photographers with a focal length of 4mm-104mm (22.3mm ultra-wide angle to 580mm super telephoto 35mm equivalent). Coupled with the camera’s Macro mode, which allows photographers to capture dramatic close-up images of subjects as near to the lens as 0.4 inches, the X-5 delivers an extensive range of creative photographic possibilities.

“The new X-5 features classic PENTAX styling. It is the ideal compact travel companion for photo enthusiasts who want a digital camera with them wherever they go that’s capable of taking every type of image from gorgeous portraits, to scenic landscapes to extreme close-ups and more,” said John Carlson, Sr. Manager of Sales and Marketing, PENTAX.

And for effortless image composition and image playback, the PENTAX X-5 also features a large tiltable 3.0-inch, high-definition LCD screen that offers sharp image viewing, even in bright sunlight, while allowing users to shoot from high and low angles to keep the subject neatly framed in the image area. By combining a state-of-the-art image processing engine and back-illuminated CMOS image sensor with low-noise, even up to ISO 6400, and approximately 16.0 effective megapixels, the PENTAX X-5 provides users with very high-resolution images.

Additional features include:

State-of-the-art imaging engine, supported by Super Resolution technology
Supported by the latest Super Resolution technology, the X-5’s imaging engine offers outstanding image-processing performance to produce clear, high-quality images with well-defined details. In addition, the camera’s Handheld Night Scene shooting mode helps the photographer capture blur-free nighttime images by taking multiple images at once and blending them into a single composite picture.

Triple shake-reduction technology for sharp, blur-free images and video
The X-5’s triple shake-reduction system couples the PENTAX-developed mechanical sensor-shift-type SR (Shake Reduction) mechanism with a digital SR mode for stills or movie SR mode for video to more effectively compensate for camera shake. This hybrid system assures the photographer of sharp, blur-free images and video even under demanding, camera-shake-prone shooting conditions, such as when using a telephoto lens, shooting with incident light in poorly lit locations, or photographing sunset scenes.

Electronic viewfinder
The X-5 features an electronic viewfinder with diopter adjustment for a clear view of the subject even under bright sunshine. This comes in handy when shooting a subject in harsh backlight or when the photographer needs a more solid hold of the camera. Its diopter adjustment mechanism assures the user of the clearest view of both subject and viewfinder display, while minimizing eye fatigue during extended shooting sessions.

Full HD-standard movie recording for extended recording of high-quality movies
The X-5 features a Full HD movie recording function employing the h.264 recording format. The user can capture high quality, extended movie clips (1920 x 1080 pixels at a 16:9 aspect ratio) at a frame rate of 30 frames per second. The camera also offers creative movie playback features, such as High-speed Movie mode for slow-motion playback and Time-lapse Movie mode for fast-forward playback, and features a micro-HDMI terminal (Type D) for the output of recorded movies and sound to external devices.

User-friendly Auto Picture mode for hands-off selection of the best shooting mode
The X-5 features the PENTAX-original Auto Picture mode, which automatically assesses the subject’s conditions and selects the most appropriate shooting mode from 16 distinctive shooting options, including Landscape, Portrait, Candlelight and Pet. It even comes with an Auto Macro function, which automatically switches the focus mode to Macro when it detects the subject is close to the lens.

Quick-set mode dial for delay-free selection of a desired shooting mode
The X-5 lets the user quickly and effortlessly select the desired shooting mode — from a total of 10 modes including the hands-off Auto Picture, Scene, Program, Manual, Landscape, and Handheld Night Snap — with a single turn of the mode dial, without having to access the on-screen menu.

Additional features of the PENTAX X-5 include:

  • Powered by easy-to-obtain AA batteries
  • Remote control operation using a PENTAX optional remote controller
  • High-speed burst shooting of up to 10 images per second, for a maximum of 30 images in a single sequence
  • 12 digital filters including Miniature and Toy Camera to add creative touches to captured images
  • A range of creative image processing tools including Stretch filter, Small Face filter and Collage function
  • A choice of three aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9 and 1:1) to accommodate specific applications
  • Image viewing, editing and filing software included: MediaImpression 3.5 for PENTAX (Windows version compatible with Windows 7) and MediaImpression 2.1 for PENTAX (Macintosh version compatible with Mac OS X 10.7)
  • Compatibility with Eye-Fi wireless LAN SD memory cards

Pricing and Availability
The new PENTAX X-5 will be available at retail outlets nationwide and online in September 2012 with a suggested retail price of $279.95

Pentax X-5 specifications

Body type
Body typeSLR-like (bridge)
Sensor
Max resolution4608 x 3456
Other resolutions4608 x 2592, 3456 x 3456, 3072 x 2304, 3072 x 1728, 2592 x 1944, 2592 x 1464, 2048 x 1536, 1920 x 1080, 1024 x 768, 640 x 480
Image ratio w:h1:1, 4:3, 16:9
Effective pixels16 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors16 megapixels
Sensor size1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm)
Sensor typeBSI-CMOS
Image
ISOAuto, 100, 200, 400,800, 1600, 3200, 6400
White balance presets8
Custom white balanceYes
Image stabilizationSensor-shift
Uncompressed formatNo
JPEG quality levelsBest, Better, Good
File format
  • JPG (EXIF 2.2)
  • DCF 2.0, DPOF
Optics & Focus
Focal length (equiv.)22–580 mm
Optical zoom26×
Maximum apertureF3.1 - F5.9
Autofocus
  • Contrast Detect (sensor)
  • Multi-area
  • Tracking
  • Single
  • Face Detection
  • Live View
Digital zoomYes (7.2x)
Manual focusYes
Normal focus range40 cm (15.75)
Macro focus range1 cm (0.39)
Number of focus points9
Screen / viewfinder
Articulated LCDTilting
Screen size3
Screen dots460,000
Touch screenNo
Live viewYes
Viewfinder typeElectronic
Viewfinder resolution230,000
Photography features
Minimum shutter speed4 sec
Maximum shutter speed1/1500 sec
Exposure modes
  • Program
  • Aperture Priority
  • Shutter Priority
  • Manual
  • Movie
  • Scene
  • Custom
Scene modes
  • Flower
  • Blue Sky
  • Sunset
  • Night Scene
  • Night Scene Portrait
  • Fireworks
  • HDR
  • Surf & Snow
  • Baby
  • Kids
  • Pet
  • Food
  • Digital SR
  • Stage Lighting
  • Text
  • Museum
  • Digital Wide
  • Digital Panorama
  • Frame Composite
Built-in flashYes (Pop-up)
Flash range9.10 m
External flashNo
Drive modes
  • One shot
  • Continuous Shooting
  • Burst Shooting (L/H)
  • Self-timer
  • Remote Control
  • Auto Bracketing
Continuous drive10 fps
Self-timerYes (2 or 10 sec)
Metering modes
  • Multi
  • Center-weighted
  • Spot
Exposure compensation±2 (at 1/3 EV steps)
Videography features
Resolutions1920 x 1080 (30 fps), 1280 x 720 (60, 30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps)
FormatMotion JPEG
MicrophoneMono
SpeakerMono
Storage
Storage typesSD/SDHC/SDXC
Storage included75. 3 MB Internal
Connectivity
USB USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)
HDMIYes (Type D)
WirelessEye-Fi Connected
Remote controlYes (Optional Remote O-RC1)
Physical
Environmentally sealedNo
BatteryBattery Pack
Battery description4 x AA batteries (Alkaline, Lithium, Nickel and Rechargeable Ni-MH)
Battery Life (CIPA)330
Weight (inc. batteries)595 g (1.31 lb / 20.99 oz)
Dimensions119 x 86 x 107 mm (4.69 x 3.39 x 4.21)
Other features
GPSNone

Additional images

8
I own it
4
I want it
0
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 408
123
Axel Vercauteren
By Axel Vercauteren (Sep 10, 2012)

According to imaging-resource.com the X-5 does not support Aperture- or Shutter priority. What a waste.

0 upvotes
RobBobW
By RobBobW (Aug 27, 2012)

Looks a lot like the old Olympus C-8080 WZ from 2004.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 28, 2012)

With all due respect Rob, I beg to differ! I was just using my trusty old 8080, (my main camera now heheh) and while some general characteristics such as those of the overall shape and some of the outlines/locations of controls are roughly shared (as they seem to be on the majority of superzooms, bridge cams (or 'prosumers' as they were known in that era) and small dslr's), I don't think that they are really TOO similar. But, everyone's eyes are different that way and it is subjective I realize, so perhaps it is a bit like a Roscharch inkblot test lol!

0 upvotes
RobBobW
By RobBobW (Aug 28, 2012)

I actually meant the comparison as a compliment as I really loved my C-8080. The form factor is very close but of course the X-5 is tarted up with the latest technology making it a much nicer camera. I'm sure it will be well loved too.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 28, 2012)

Indeed, I assumed (though I try not to assume) that it was complimentary! (being a huge fan of the 8080, for me, any comparison to it is a compliment in my mind (except perhaps compaisons to its operating speed lol)) I also am optimistic about this Pentax. We shall what the reviews, user reports, and the images have in store for us ... no one can say that these aren't great times to be in the market for a camera!

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Aug 25, 2012)

I find it rather amazing, that the announcement of this Pentax superzoom has generated more comments than the Nikon Android compact, and more than ten times as many comments as the simultaneously announced Olympus superzoom. We've seen so many of this kind of camera, from Fujifilm, Panasonic, Canon and others. What is it about this one that got people talking?

4 upvotes
Heie2
By Heie2 (Aug 25, 2012)

"Pentax"

15 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 26, 2012)

If you ask me, probably the form factor, the ergonomics, the AA batteries, and the fact it's Pentax re-entering this segment at the price it is. All combined.

6 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Aug 26, 2012)

Yes, because it's Pentax — a company common users don't understand immediately, yet it is the company that produces a more lasting effect. Pentax has thoroughly defined the shape and function and magic of modern day cameras, and their lenses too.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
11 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Aug 26, 2012)

I was about to post about the sheer number of comments on this item, but Revenant got there before me hahah nice observation there buddy.

1 upvote
Essai
By Essai (Aug 26, 2012)

easy to understand:

Below average/boring camera = negative comments = tons of Pentax fanboys replying to each negative comments = lots of posts

2 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Aug 26, 2012)

easy to understand too:

Below average/boring camera (from Canikon) = negative comments from Canikon fanboys = Pentax fanboys agree the same = just a few posts

so probably, when Canikon makes a below average/boring camera... well, it IS one. Not worth that much talk. lol! :))

3 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Aug 27, 2012)

Sadly, Pentax kinda reminds me of the now defunct Kodak. It is headed down the same road IMO. A giant that has now fallen and never to return to its previous glory.

0 upvotes
Heie2
By Heie2 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ummm....did you miss the K10D, K20D, K-x, K-r, K-7, K-5, and the K-30?

Pentax may not produce the volume the big two do, nor the variety, but you can rest assured that Pentax has, is, and will continue to produce class-leading products at a class-leading price. The only reason right now the other two should be enticing to anyone is FF availability. I would agree that Pentax's marketing and availability is severely limited. However for purely APS-C shooters, Pentax is the best bang for your buck today and has been for the last few years - and by far too when you consider, ultimate IQ, Dynamic Range, weather sealing and durability, compactness (bodies and lenses), innovation, and total price across the entire system. The only two serious holes in this field is super telephoto and tilt-shift (not needed by 90% of APS-C shooters). This is not about fanboyism, but pure logical and analytical cost-benefit analysis. I challenge you to do so objectively - surprise will not be unique to you.

5 upvotes
The Jacal
By The Jacal (Aug 28, 2012)

I have never owned a Pentax camera but I completely agree with you.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 25, 2012)

I have an articulated screen on my Canon G2. I never really liked it. I agree with ET2. Its really not where you want it to be. You can use it to take self portraits though :)

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 25, 2012)

I wonder if it is a typo from DPReview, but the size of the X-5 (with lens) is exactly (on the mm) the same size as K-5 (without lens).

If it is true, then thats too good to be a coincident - it must have been made by choice by Pentax.

Or maybe its a typo? The guy holding it in the image we have seen must be a giant in that case.

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Aug 24, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (Aug 25, 2012)

Not everyone likes GH1 type articulating screen. The problem with those LCDs is that they stick to the side. The screen is not inline with the lens. I find them awkward to use. You have to look at the side. Another problem with them is that they aren't that good with waist level shooting Rollex style.

I find tiltable LCDs, like on Nex and A500, much better.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
JacobSR
By JacobSR (Aug 25, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Aug 24, 2012)

I wonder if the X-5 has the same sensor as the Pentax Q. The Q has outstanding IQ relative to it's sensor size, so a camera with such a long zoom might be interesting. I wouldn't buy this because there is no raw, but I'm curious for future Pentax cameras.

Speaking of the Q, I still cannot believe that DPR has no intention of reviewing the Pentax Q. All the generic cameras they review, yet the first ILC to feature a BSI 1/2.3" sensor, a camera loaded with features and a first rate build quality and because of some assumptions about sensor size and the Q was essentially ignored by DPR. Talk about dissing both readers and Pentax. Oh well, at least we've been consistently updated on what's happening at Instagram or with the latest Samsung P&S.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 24, 2012)

Dpreview has indicated I the past they organize review cameras for reviews by expected readership interest. So, I imagine, they believe (maybe correctly) there's not enough interest in the Q. Looking at the sensor size comments of many one may have to agree.

But also that was then and when the Q was also much higher priced. Price has come way down, I think makes for a more interesting propitiation. And there's some more people I see popping up now with one.

Maybe dpreview can review one. I honestly don't expect much to get past the small sensor mentality but over the years I have seen dpreview give more priority to the whole as a tool and not just focus on the particular sensor. Which is kind of weird That in the end anyway the Q sensor performs rather well, in its class

1 upvote
Maxfield_photo
By Maxfield_photo (Aug 25, 2012)

I'm still waiting for the 645D review that was promised almost a year ago.

Quote:
"We wanted to see how practical it was to use the 645D 'in the field' as a replacement for a smaller sensor SLR, and - aside from an aching shoulder after a day of lugging it around - we were pretty impressed with what we saw. Until we get the 645D back into the studio to complete our testing, check out our quick 24-shot gallery after the link"

Guess that camera wasn't important enough.

4 upvotes
Kawika Nui
By Kawika Nui (Aug 25, 2012)

"I wonder if the X-5 has the same sensor as the Pentax Q."
Wonder no more.
The Q is 12.4mp, the X-5 is 16mp.
Clearly not the same sensor. And very probably much lower IQ.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 25, 2012)

I dont think the Q has a magic sensor. That would be highly unlikely. The small sensors today are simply rather good, I would guess. So, if Q takes better images than other small sensor cameras, then its probably lens quality and focussing quality. And maybe its the horrible noise reductions they add to most compact cameras.

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 26, 2012)

The Q doesn't have a magic sensor but it does indeed has a very good sensor in it class. It's not just the lens and focusing quality- check the DXo results. As an LX5 owner I can say the Q does a notch better sensor wise than the slightly bigger LX5.

We really need to stop looking at the sensor size in isolation and realize different companies making sensors have moved forward at different speeds. Remember the Q sensor is Sony's. Sony is known for making some rather good sensors no? (K-5's, Olympus EM-5, K-01, Nikon D7000…)

6 upvotes
Eywadude
By Eywadude (Aug 24, 2012)

Things I like:

6400 ISO
22 mm wide angle lens
Manual focus
1 cm focus range in macro
3" tilting screen!
EVF viewfinder
8 white balance presets
Above average 9.1 m flash range
10 fps continuous drive!
Full 1080p (30 fps) video
Wireless EyeFi and optional remote
Up to 500 shots on NiMh AA batteries (also see negatives)

Things I don't like:

No RAW capture
"Only" zooms to 580 mm
F3.1 wide angle aperture - F2.8 would be nice
1/1500 sec max shutter speed
4 sec min. shutter speed
No external flash mount
Mono microphone
A battery pack might have given it more battery life

These negatives are mostly nit picks, and can be forgiven for the $279 asking price. The 1/1500 sec max shutter speed is inexcusable though, as 1/2000 sec should be bare minimum. On the whole, this camera has a lot to offer: the 22 mm lens, tilting 3" screen, 10 fps drive, and 1080p (30) video are all just about unheard of at this price. As a Pentax, it should have lower noise levels as well. We'll see the test results!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 24, 2012)

Good list. I am right there with you on the shutter speed, how hard is it really to provide a higher one (I am really curious, because I haven't the foggiest about such a technicality..)

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 24, 2012)

Browsing through the comment threads here proves to be rather amusing .. the gems to be found never disappoint. At the same time, it is also a rather somber (and sobering) experience. This perusal of the un-profound which abounds here helps to makes it easier to see just how far we have travelled to reach the state in which we are currently in, what with our grossly explosive overpopulation, and our shedding of blood over invisible, 'all-powerful' beings in the sky ... not to mention over imaginary dotted lines on the land. The conclusion I have reached here this time around is that feeble-mindedness will never be in short supply, as long as humans continue to walk this Earth.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Eywadude
By Eywadude (Aug 24, 2012)

I agree with just about everything you said, however, I believe you have chosen the wrong forum to express your views. Such said things may not be understood by the "un-profound" or the "feeble-minded." Or maybe they just don't care? But when they do, they spew vitriolic acid in every direction, yes. However, this is a forum for photographic discussion, not one for the commentary about the "all-powerful beings in the sky", or the people who got you riled in the first place. I would say to all: "Tolerance is King." I've said my piece. Peace friend. :)

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 25, 2012)

@ Camediadude: I guess when you have nothing whatsoever to say about a newsy announced digital camera, you are left with attacking those who do, hmmm?

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Aug 24, 2012)

If Canikon made this same camera for the same price, all the internet trolls would be dead silent. Oh, that's right, Canikon does make cameras just like this. See...

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 25, 2012)

Trollingly right, spot-on!

0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 24, 2012)

Didnt notice until now that the MSRP is 280 USD.

Some of the recent "affordable" super-zooms have ditched the EVF. Which is bad since a super-zoom really need an EVF.
Also the lens being F3.1-F5.9 instead of the typical F3.5-F6.3 is a small step in the right direction.
1080p@30 fps is allright if not exceptional.
Tilting 460k LCD is not bad at all.
Has an analog dial.
And does the ring around the lens control focus or zoom ?

All in all, the price a quite reasonable for what you get.

6 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 24, 2012)

You are right. Low price and the name will prompt buyers to give it a close look. The EVF will influence some buyers, too, even though the "need" tends to fade after one discovers, in practice, that what you see through it may not be very bright or clear.

2 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Aug 24, 2012)

I would take a dim evf over an impossible to see in daylight lcd any day of the week. Having used the fz-35s evf for a long time, I can say its def better than lcd.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 24, 2012)

Just use a so-called "LCD viewfinder" accessory, some of which can now be had starting at US$45 and up. It converts your LCD screen into an LCD EVF, and provides a point of stability when hand-holding the camera as well. An LCD screen outdoors without this is pretty much totally useless for anything, he-he-he.

0 upvotes
Carlos Henrique
By Carlos Henrique (Aug 24, 2012)

2009 Sont HX1 was f/2.8-5.6 and current Panasonic FZ200 is f/2.8 throughout the whole range. However, at this price point this camera is definitely a strong option among SZ cams.

2 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 25, 2012)

Just for a sanity check the Pana Fz200 w. constant F2.8 aperture costs 600 USD at Amazon.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 25, 2012)

Re. Panny Lumix DMC-FZ200, that is the list price.

As soon as the camera starts shipping on Monday, 27 August 2011, expect the street price to drop down dramatically. It will probably start at around $500 right away, and then go down somewhere to the $450 to $499 level by the end of September-early October.

I am getting one soon -- I definitely need the constant F2.8 max. aperture and the amazing focal length coverage for video apps.

0 upvotes
Danlo
By Danlo (Aug 24, 2012)

And of course its Aps-c?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 24, 2012)

Of course not.

"The X-5 is designed to closely resemble the company's K-5 DSLR, despite being based around a 1/2.3"-type sensor."

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Aug 24, 2012)

looking at the size and bulkiness of this, it's a pity there isn't a larger sensor. sure, it's priced and aimed at a certain market, that knows nothing of sensor sizes... but surely they could save even those from themselves, as it clearly portrays the illusion of higher end, and considering it's only a few bucks extra to put in, say, a 1/1.6 (at the very least - I dare not ask for a 1"). 1/2.3 are so cheap now, they get them for next to nothing... but I find it so disappointing. and this goes for all the other manufacturers too, not just pentax.
ps: love the aa batteries thing though. haven't seen that in a long time.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Roberts_J
By Roberts_J (Aug 24, 2012)

In reality this camera is not so bulky and big - http://www.pentax.ru/galleryimage/optio/X5/Stephane_2.jpg

5 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Aug 24, 2012)

We need an optics guy to comment. With superzoom the focal plane needs to stay ASAP (as small as possible) to have consistent IQ across the range. This puts a squeeze on small sensors to deliver.

1 upvote
leventhan
By leventhan (Aug 24, 2012)

wow its so small. kawaii

6 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 24, 2012)

@ Timmbits: Pentax X-5 is probably too bulky, too heavy, and too pricey for your own photographic needs. And it has a sensor that is too small. Not a good match, for sure.

0 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Aug 24, 2012)

The number of tools inhabiting these forums is nothing new but the nastiness is always a surprise. The main thing about haters, tools, fools and idiots though, is that they don't actually know that they are those things - not very redeeming. To deliberately judge a camera out of context and then laugh at it is a sign of immaturity, stupidity or perhaps just points to a lack of ethical substance on the part of those doing it. People like that also tend to be uneducated and revel in their stupidity like it's a virtue.

23 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 24, 2012)

Thank you, from a fellow camera nut that is sick of it. I was so tempted to say something similar, but held my tongue. More than once or twice here I have had some imbecile say something nasty to me when I did nothing to them, or to any other poster. All I do is comment and at times critique dpreview or the subject matter, but I really have been trying to remain respectful. Then you have some of the immature people here who want to drag this all down to the level of school yard bullies.
And, what I cannot comprehend, is that these are CAMERAS.. inanimate objects... and when one has never even handled it yet, how can the camera in question fill that person with so much rage, mockery, arrogance, and idiocy?

7 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Aug 24, 2012)

so much hate in your post, its hilarious. Are you also a Pentax fanboy who thinks he has to defend every pos made by them ?

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 24, 2012)

Thank you for demonstrating our point Essai ... Ok, you can come out of character now!

10 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 24, 2012)

Bossa and Camedia,

The view on the world differs widely, I can see. Yes, there are lots of people that don like the camera Pentax just announced, some even make fun of it and of Pentax. But .... just as you say. The camera is just an object and Pentax is a big company that can take care of itself.

I dont see the necessity to be so upset that you are. Just let it pass by if you dont agree.

Or simply disagree, and tell us why you like this camera. I have done so and I have get no nastiness back at all.

have fun!

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 24, 2012)

Well, Pentax sure got us talking, there is no denying that!

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 24, 2012)

bossa, promise everyone you'll actually buy the camera. If admiration is not strong enough to open the wallet, then there is scarcely any practical difference between your love and others "hate." Is there? "Deep in the heart" sentiments won't help Pentax anymore than ones that are "deep in the sigmoid colon." Pentax seeks, let all recall, a "kick" in sales.

1 upvote
bossa
By bossa (Aug 24, 2012)

My love? I never mentioned love of the camera and you are just proving the point that a line of logical argument around here is impossible. I have a K-5 & D800E with swags of lenses but I can still see how the camera in question might be just what someone is looking for. That's not for me to judge.

5 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Aug 24, 2012)

and the answer is.... YES, he is a Pentax fanboy on a mission !

1 upvote
bossa
By bossa (Aug 24, 2012)

You are an idiot

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 24, 2012)

@ bossa: Since you have obviously NOTHING to say about the Pentax X-5 camera whatsoever-- do us all a favor, and just zip it, huh? Who really wants to read various and sundry moanings and groanings, you think?

@ Camediadude: Too bad you had nothing whatsover to say about the camera one way or the other, either. Thanks for your post, though. Very informative!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Aug 24, 2012)

I see no pertinent content in your post, either, Francis. Just your usual irritability. Obviously there is a place for criticism, and some cameras are even risible, but most aren't, and companies usually have some idea what customers like.

This is not an enthusiast camera. It is a cheap superzoom with decent specs for the price. The styling is a little silly, but there may be buyers who think a superzoom styled like a dslr is perfect. It's not as if competing models are any more attractive.

5 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Aug 26, 2012)

Good point there by Essai, but every brand has its league of fanboys don't they? I'm sure Canikon has more... =))

1 upvote
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

I like to read through all these forums quite often but have never made a comment, until now that is. If there ever was a troll, Francis Carver, you are IT! Consider yourself honored that you brought me out of my silence. Pentax is a good brand and you spend your valuable? time bashing them for no apparent reason. Trust me people, look around these forums, he trolls anything with the word "Pentax" in the title. Dude, get a life!

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Ross the Fidller
By Ross the Fidller (Aug 23, 2012)

Oh No! Not another X camera! ;)

Actually, it looks like they're trying to attract people that couldn't afford the OM-D (silver model) with some identifiable similarities. Why not go with the 'look' if it helps sales. :)

2 upvotes
gillamoto
By gillamoto (Aug 24, 2012)

Pentax is actually continuing it's tradition with silver bodies. This X5 reminds me of the famous MZ series back in 90s. Take a alook at this image:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/expired-listings/66277d1279116664-sale-expired-pentax-mz-5n-zx-5n-film-body-worldwide-imgp7271.jpg

4 upvotes
unotisto
By unotisto (Aug 24, 2012)

I think the X-5 should remind you of the silver K-5 ;)

0 upvotes
Jack Simpson
By Jack Simpson (Aug 23, 2012)

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... finally an tele zoom for my Q :D, albeit sans TV and AV mode .... thanks Peter_Burian :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Aug 24, 2012)

The Q handles so nicely and with IBIS...the perfect OM-D replacement. :P

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 23, 2012)

Ultimately it will come down to "is it affordable? useable? are the images pleasing?" And so far, in theory, it looks like Pentax is ticking off those boxes.
Look at the shots in the link that bb42 mentioned just below, here it is again
http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/x-5/ex/
Yes, upon close inspection you will not mistake it for a DSLR ... but Pentax never made such a claim!
I think it looks pretty favorable compared to other compacts and superzooms. Look at the detail on the bug, look at the reflection of the photographers in the chipmunk/squirrel guy's eye. Not bad.
I think Dpreview is partly to blame for this hate, for trumping this up as "dslr-like" in the title and again in the descriptions. That stokes the insecurities of the haters, who are loathe to think that this single-lensed guy who comes in at a fraction of the price of their own gear could possibly rival them. Well fear not, as it was never meant to do that. Just accept it for what it is, and breathe, and relax!

7 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Aug 24, 2012)

that's just megapixels talking in bright sunlight.
but look more closely at the hues in the pink flowers... very noisy. I guess it is aimed at the casual photographer and tourists.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 24, 2012)

I looked again, it really does not look bad to me! To each their own.

5 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Aug 26, 2012)

@Timmbits

at this price point and sensor+lens combo, I somehow expected that. Probably would rage the world over if it was from a Canon G1X.

1 upvote
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Aug 23, 2012)

Not sure how to contact DPReview, but this camera does not have Aperture or Shutter Priority mode. Here's what Pentax told me:

The X-5 does not have Shutter or Aperture Priority Automatic.
It does have PROGRAM Automatic with program shift and MANUAL Exposure modes in addition to the PENTAX original AUTO PICTURE mode and scene modes.

You can also save as the USER setting the exposure mode, either PROGRAM or MANUAL, the aperture or shutter speed you prefer, record menu settings, drive mode, focus mode, among other settings for quick access.

I hope this answers your question.

All the best

3 upvotes
ThomasH_always
By ThomasH_always (Aug 23, 2012)

My take is very, very simple, and consistent:

No RAW, no interest, no buy.
No viewfinder, no interest, no buy.

Got that in Japan at last? You delivered a half of "must have" features,
its a no buy.

2 upvotes
tje1964
By tje1964 (Aug 23, 2012)

Hey RAW snob,

THIS CAMERA WAS NOT MADE FOR YOU. It was made for people who DON'T shoot RAW, which includes A LOT of people who don't comment at dpreview.

Got that at last?

23 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Aug 24, 2012)

I enjoyed and laughed at your comment!

A suggested retail price of $280 means it will be around $200 in a year or so. Cheaper than peanuts!
I would think they will not have a problem selling it to its intended shoppers.

The digital camera revolution has been amazing.
I remember my first digital camera back in 1996 (I believe). It was an Olympus, 1/2 megapixel (yes 1/2 megapixel, not a typo), with a fixed lens.
Flash cards for cameras did not exist then.
Nevertheless, I was the envy of everyone around me who saw it. It was well over $500, then.

Now we have become arrogant and snobs.
This was not intended to replace a Canon 7D, or to compete with it!!

While at it, I'll add another "Got that at last?"!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
gillamoto
By gillamoto (Aug 24, 2012)

This is typical comment of a beginner. I know many pro photogs who doesn't always shoot raw. No viewfinder? Meet the great Daido Moriyama!

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Aug 24, 2012)

this is really odd... you've overlooked that it is a TINY sensor... that eliminates it from contention for comparison with any more advanced features. why would you even talk about raw and a viewfinder when the base limits everything?
it's a mass market casual use and tourist camera!

2 upvotes
jeffcpix
By jeffcpix (Aug 24, 2012)

OK you don't want RAW -- but
it sure would have been great for those
of us who do.
I can live without an OVF in a P&S, but
RAW is a must for anyone who has gone beyond PS Elements

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Aug 24, 2012)

Folks, the "no viewfinder" (that is, "no eye-level viewfinder") complaint would be legitimate -- except that this camera does have one. It's not a "beginner" thing or a "snob" thing, it's an "accessibility" thing -- there are a whole lot of people who essentially can't hold a camera at arms' length steadily enough to shoot, and a whole lot more who can't really see the rear LCD at the expected distance. (I happen to fall into both camps myself, but I worked in accessibility before I developed either presbyopia or Parkinson's.)

2 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Aug 24, 2012)

It's a $250 amateur camera. NONE, I repeat, NONE of the people this camera is aimed at even know what raw it? It has a small sensor, why would you even want it if you are a raw snob? That's like asking why the cheapest econo cars don't have a leather seat option. What is wrong with people?

0 upvotes
jeffcpix
By jeffcpix (Aug 25, 2012)

When I want FF, I use a Sony a900.
When I want a P&S a small sensor is fine.
But when it's time for post=processing with either,
I want RAW.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue against
having a choice to shoot RAW rather than jpg only.

0 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

This DOES, in fact, have a viewfinder. The fact that a superzoom bridge camera that costs $250 or so has an EVF seems pretty amazing to me (even if it is a bit on the low-res side). I'll admit that I'm a RAW shooter as well but I don't think the target audience will mind at all, especially since the jpegs look pretty nice overall. If they offered a souped up version similar to the XS-1 specs (with RAW of course), I'd be all over it.

0 upvotes
bb42
By bb42 (Aug 23, 2012)

Here are samples from Pentax Japan:
http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/x-5/ex/
So, at least in good light the IQ is on a level with larger sensor cameras.

5 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 23, 2012)

Those are impressive...

8 upvotes
JoeR
By JoeR (Aug 24, 2012)

I think my Sony tablet takes better pictures.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm actually impressed. They are amazingly clean and detailed. Peole talk about the panny fz cameras, and I have the fz35 and I think this blows it away in terms of iq. The panny cameras are watercolor machines. The jpeg engine here looks impressive.

6 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Aug 24, 2012)

This totally blows away the x90 too. I can't tell if these pics are full res, but they are impressive. Well done pentax!

6 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Aug 24, 2012)

you have detail when contrast and saturation is high... but what about the hues? look at the bug photo, the horrible noise in the hues of the pink flowers.

1 upvote
bb42
By bb42 (Aug 24, 2012)

Funny sometimes the same people who ask "who needs so many megapixels?" are the ones to inspect the pixel-level so carefully...

2 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Aug 26, 2012)

all those will look awesome over Facebook, which a lot of its targeted customers will probably post in.

1 upvote
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

Those samples look pretty damn good considering how many megapixels they're cramming on that sensor. Hardly a hint of noise from what I can see. It seems like Pentax has really upped their game in regards to jpeg processing in camera. I'm actually impressed.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Aug 23, 2012)

From the comments it seems nobody anticipated a superzoom cam with an electronic viewfinder for under $300.

I think that's great and if you complain about Pentax x-5, my guess is you spent a lot more for a cam and your regrets are showing.

10 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

It would be a gross exaggeration to state that this Pentax job has an EVF.

Although it is not even being mentioned in the Pentax press release or in the listed specs, DP Review claims the VF is a 230K resolution job. What is that good for -- you cannot even compose an image with something that putrid, let alone check focus.

An EVF today should have a pixel resolution of 1.44MP or better, not 230K. This is no longer the year 2002, after all. Of course, for a list price of $280, anything is good enough.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Aug 24, 2012)

Why don't you ask Leica, they just put a 230k screen on a $2500 X2. This camera is $275! Jebus people, did you not grasp the price point?

6 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 25, 2012)

@ Cane: You either claim a price for the X-5 that is too high. Or one that is too low. Never the right one.

0 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

The X2 is around $2k or, in other words, 8 times the cost of this camera. Most if not all camera makers leave out the EVF for cameras in this price range or even up to twice the cost but Pentax included it. Bravo Pentax. A low res viewfinder is better than none at all. Leica, honestly, is out of their minds. Yes, they produce a picture that is marginally better (at low ISO) than the competition due to their glass but at what cost? $2k for the X2? Sorry, I'd rather use that money for the Ricoh GXR with M-mount lensor! Anyway, the point is, there was no EVFs in 2002 Francis and while 230k is not so hot, it still worked well for the Sony R1 which was a enthusiast to professional level camera. Like I said before, any EVF is better than none at all.

0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Aug 23, 2012)

Pentax Q , then the K01 and now this !

Wtg Pentax !

2 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh the humanity, a $275 camera that doesn't have every bell and whistle under the sun. What is Pentax thinking? Actually, what are you thinking?

3 upvotes
trekkeruss
By trekkeruss (Aug 23, 2012)

I don't know what all the commotion is about. OK, I do. Geeks want a better camera than this one. But it's cameras like this one that, at least in theory, that make companies like Pentax money so they can build and sell the more enthusiast cameras.

So...does this camera actually have the ability to be manually zoomed, or is the rubber-looking grip around the lens barrel just for aesthetics? I'm betting the latter, but if it can be manually zoomed (or even focused), that would be pretty cool for an inexpensive superzoom, and certainly a differentiating selling point. I'd expect that from Pentax.

EDIT: examining the product photos closer, it appears the grip is just for show. All bling and no zing. Too bad.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bb42
By bb42 (Aug 23, 2012)

It seems you're right, considering the W and T marks on the grip switch.
The fake zoom ring is really stupid .. so we're left with Fuji, which is not a real problem, only the 22 mm would've been nice.

1 upvote
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (Aug 23, 2012)

"So...does this camera actually have the ability to be manually zoomed, or is the rubber-looking grip around the lens barrel just for aesthetics? I'm betting the latter, but if it can be manually zoomed (or even focused) . . ."

The specifications list above clearly statess, "Manual focus | Yes."

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Aug 23, 2012)

Manual focus is entriely different than manual zoom. The P510 for example has manual focus... but it's not manual zoom.

0 upvotes
trekkeruss
By trekkeruss (Aug 24, 2012)

I know it has a W/T zoom toggle switch; I was just wondering if it had manual zoom as a option.

The lens barrel could also have been a manual focus ring. But since it appears stationary, I'm sure manual focus is achieved using a button and the rear dial.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Aug 23, 2012)

Oh no someone made a camera that isn't exactly what I would buy, I will go cover myself in sackcloth and ashes and wallow in agony with the lepers!

12 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Aug 23, 2012)

You can do that. I'm going to go post pointless rants on the internet!

8 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

Me too, Andy! Let's beat up on little Pentax, just for the heck of it!

0 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Aug 23, 2012)

Buy a Fuji HS10/HS20 for less and call it a day.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
1 upvote
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Aug 23, 2012)

Not disputing which is actually the better purchase, but neither of those cost less. Pentax X-5 MSRP is $280, while Fujifilm HS cameras are over $315 at reputable retailers. The HS10/HS20 are also discontinued, no?

3 upvotes
bb42
By bb42 (Aug 23, 2012)

The Fuji lacks hi-speed burst, remote control option and most of all the 22 mm wideangle.

The Fuji S-1 has a larger sensor and likely better IQ, but weighs 300g more, is much larger - and has a 24 mm wideangle as well.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

@ bb42 -- only a 24mm wide-angle on the Fujifilm X-S1, huh? It's for the dogs, surely.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 23, 2012)

You have not even compared their images yet. Your bias is showing.

3 upvotes
gigabloke
By gigabloke (Aug 23, 2012)

My first digital camera was a superzoom, now I use dSLRs, but I still keep a superzoom. They can be very useful for certain situations.

My preference though would be for better IQ from a larger sensor -- 1 inch or even 4/3. Obviously zoom range would be reduced, but 12x would be plenty enough for me. That would not really be a super/mega zoom, but my sense is that it would sell because photogs always value good image quality above all else. Oh, and it should have a manual zoom too.

2 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Aug 23, 2012)

Too bad "photogs" are probably <1% of the market.

0 upvotes
amicus70
By amicus70 (Aug 23, 2012)

Why do we have to read so much crap in the postings? Many sentences with nothing concerning the camera...

Just some replies to the most unuseful postings:
A bridge-camera with a handle... because you could hold it a lot better then a common super-zoom. A bridge-camera with an electronic view-finder... because sometimes it's better than just a little monitor. A bridge-camera that looks like a dslr... why not? Perhaps there are people who like the appearance of a dslr, but don't want all the possibilities. I could continue endlessly.

I will not buy this camera, although I'm a Pentax-fan. But I would like a camera with much more possibilities (I hope a K-3 is coming). But some of you should be aware, that not your untechnical opinion on such a camera is decisive, but the opinion of the buyers.

1 upvote
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Aug 23, 2012)

Could not agree more.
Yes, I am a Pentax user (K-5) but also owner and user of many other cameras, from Fuji "bridge" to Bronicas and Rolleiflex's
This camera is not the end of Pentax, but a new beginning.
It is at the end of the day a rather nice small cheap bridge camera, that once people actually see the results, more than just another "bridge". My S5000 had only a 1/2.5" sensor, but what it could and can do is surprising. This will be the same.
My primary Digital will still be the K-5, with the K20D as backup for work (yes Pentax can do pro jobs too) with my Lumix LX-5 as my pocket camera. But I would consider this as a replacement to my S5000, and have fun using it.
Ahh fun, is that not what Photography is all about?

5 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Aug 23, 2012)

New beginning? I don't know, I think this may be overstating things. This appears to be a more attractive looking & aggressively priced successor to the (apparently) slow-selling X70 and X90. I fear that a large percentage of this sort of camera are sold in big box stores, where like any Pentax, this camera is unlikely to be stocked.

0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

@Andrew ng,

FYI, Pentax is changing to retail again and many reporting seeing them in stored again and precisely why this camera is here on the market.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

"Suggested retail price of $279.95."

You certainly get what you pay for here, for sure. Well, maybe a little less.

0 upvotes
The Jacal
By The Jacal (Aug 23, 2012)

Troll-tastic.

5 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

How, exactly, are you getting less for the cost Francis Carver? Name one, just one, camera at this price that has the same features. You know, I don't even know why I'm even started replying to you. YOU ARE THE TROLL OF TROLLS!

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 23, 2012)

Aha. I missed there's no raw. Thats a bummer

Anyway for those interested Pentax Japan has some samples up. The image quality seems ok for the price. If you ate postin for the web it's fine. If you ate going to pixel peep, expect not much more than the usual, but the price seems fair.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 23, 2012)

Lets see. A quarter of a thousand postings here already. Must be interesting news.

Its a super zoom. All super zooms have small sensors.

It imitates a "real" camera. So what? Thats fashion right now.

It has a reasonable price. Dont really know what to do regarding this. Is that a minus?

I cant personally see in what way this release disturbs me. Surprises - yes - but disturbs - no.

Hmmm ... if I owned one I would probably use it.

5 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Aug 23, 2012)

The nastiest things in life hardly ever disturb us.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 23, 2012)

This is one of the nasties things in life?

1 upvote
Michal59
By Michal59 (Aug 23, 2012)

Really don't understand guys who design and sell this crap. But - as Hank Moody says - s**t happens.

1 upvote
Tape5
By Tape5 (Aug 23, 2012)

Please tell me,

Did somebody ask for this camera to be manufactured?

These are the people who make the 645D. But products like these remind you how slowly things change. Affordable photography technology is falling way below Moore's Law for affordable computing. I genuinely thought by Photokina 2012 we would have ten M9 competitors at quarter the price. Instead cameras like this get churned out.

And I get the affordability issue but taken to a certain level, it means 'don't worry about quality because you are not paying for it'. And that's always a bit illogical, I don't care how little people pay for it.

Spock out.

2 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

All the leading brands sell these kind of cams. It's a sizeable market.
I guess Pentax wants to be part of it. Sales and profit are what they are.
Quality, well, do we know how poorly or well made and what sort of quality images it produces.
Go to a tourist place and see those Panasonic's n Fujis everywhere.

3 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

It's only fair that Pentax tries to get a piece of the pie, even a little one. Yes, it's 2012 and it would be a dream to have 10 M9-like cameras but that is a niche market anyway and DSLRs still rule the land. Bare in mind that camera makers still haven't figured out how to defy the laws of physics so bridge cameras will still continue to have small sensors. Small sensors are definitely improving substantially though, there's no denying that, and there will always be a place for megazoom cameras in the market (unless camera makers can figure out a way to create lossless digital zooms for pocket-sized P&S...not very likely). Maybe not many asked for this product but it'll sell, especially at the dirt-cheap retail price.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 23, 2012)

Didn't Pentax get the memo-quota of cameras with "X" in the model name has been exceeded for the next decade.

1 upvote
JohnnyD625
By JohnnyD625 (Aug 23, 2012)

It's half as good as my X10!

2 upvotes
Azfar
By Azfar (Aug 23, 2012)

I can not, for the life of me, fathom this 'slr-like' class of cameras. Whats the point, really. They all have the small P&S sensors for crying out loud. Whats 'SLR-Like' about them...the body? then where does the 'bridge camera' gimmick come in? seriously. If anything, a large body must be required to house that zoom lenses but for all intent and purposes they should 'only' be called super zooms and nothing more.

5 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Aug 23, 2012)

If I ever find myself on a bridge holding a bridge camera I know exactly what to do with it.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Aug 23, 2012)

Seriously. Who buys these cameras anymore??

1 upvote
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Azfar,
You and I Know that, but that's marketing.....

People who know no better think they look important and others who do know better, accept the benefits for what they are.

0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Azfar,
You and I Know that, but that's marketing.....

People who know no better think they look important and others who do know better, accept the benefits or inefficiency for what they are.
Bridge camera was as far as I know because they bridged the gap between compacts and dslr.
Superzoom is now given to the compact style cams with say 10 - 15 x zooms.
Confused:....

0 upvotes
Michael Barkowski
By Michael Barkowski (Aug 23, 2012)

Well, lots of people can use a 22-560mm range and would like it in a small package.
Lots of people know what an SLR looks like and what to do with the eyepiece without knowing what SLR stands for. SLR-like tells people the expected way to use the object.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

Most disappointing is the fact that DP REVIEW itself leads off the article by stating that this little superzoom is "DSLR-like." How very disappointing.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Aug 23, 2012)

The comments on this are bordering on a comedy routine. It's a cheap $350 bridge camera, with specs like every other camera just like it, and you all act as if it's somehow a giant flop! Where you expecting a FF waterproof touchscreen camera with a constant F1.4 from 15mm to 600mm? This place is like a clown car.

26 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Aug 23, 2012)

let me guess, you shoot Pentax ?

5 upvotes
David Sanders
By David Sanders (Aug 23, 2012)

I agree Cane. Clown car is putting it mildly. It's as bad as people arguing politics!

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

Cane, before you say anything, why don't you at least READ FIRST (!!!!) what you are commenting about?

YOU SAID: "$350 bridge camera."

BUT THE ARTICLE SAYS: "Suggested retail price of $279.95."

Sorry, Cane, but $280 is NOT $350, you know.

Now, what was it that you were complaining about?

0 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Aug 23, 2012)

Francis, do you even read Cane's post? His only 'complaint' was about all the whiny posts by people with unrealistic expectations.

Agree though, seems there are several posters here who seem to miss the budget-friendly MSRP in the article.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

@ Andy of the Big Apple: Cane went on the attack, lambasting everyone else commenting here. Then, he misstated the price of the camera he was commenting on by 30 percent. That sort of negates any value of what he might have been complaining about, right?

0 upvotes
The Jacal
By The Jacal (Aug 23, 2012)

Francis Carper said- "That sort of negates any value of what he might have been complaining about, right?".

Not particularly, no.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 24, 2012)

@ Cane: since when is an MSRP $280 camera a "$350 camera," eh? What else did you get wrong about it, I wonder?

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 24, 2012)

Francis, doesn't it remotely occur to you that by correcting him on the price- which is lower than what he said at first, you are if anything, making a stronger case for his point? Can't you see this?

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 25, 2012)

@ Raist3d: No, I do not. And you do?

Anyhow, Cane now claims (see one of his newer postings above) that the camera (Pentax X-5) is a $275 camera. Yesterday he said it was a $350 camera.

There must be various editions of the Pentax X-5 at different prices, maybe that's what it is.

Raist3d: Cane had a "point?? What was it, do you know?

0 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

LMFAO, Raist3d, that was great and 100 percent accurate. @ Francis, Cane's point was that many of you are making such a big deal about a small-sensored bridge camera that isn't significantly different that any other small-sensored bridge camera. What's the big deal, why all the hate when it's probably not relevant to you in the least? Oh wait, I can answer that: "Because it's Pentax". I think a lot of the Canikon fanboys on here have "little d*ck syndrome".

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Aug 23, 2012)

If X-5 mantain the tradition of great image quality as K-01 and Q does, and at US279, this could be the best *entry level* super zoom available!

5 upvotes
z9z9z9z9
By z9z9z9z9 (Aug 23, 2012)

Looking at the mode dial, it looks like this camera does NOT have AP or SP, just program, manual, and a bunch of scene modes.

0 upvotes
grafli
By grafli (Aug 23, 2012)

Well what do you want with a 1/2,33" Sensor? F8, F16? Its going to be soft as hell.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 23, 2012)

Thats actually a good reply. I cannot for my life imagine what I shall do with an A mode. At max focal length its going to be 5.9 all that time, and at minimum focal length 4 or 5.6. P is good enough.

0 upvotes
z9z9z9z9
By z9z9z9z9 (Aug 24, 2012)

> Well what do you want with a 1/2,33" Sensor?

I didn't say I wanted AP, I said it doesn't seem to have it as indicated in the specifications. I hope jumping to conclusions isn't the only exercise you get.

0 upvotes
loadofcobblers
By loadofcobblers (Aug 23, 2012)

Pentax made a mistake in the name. Should be 'Fireball XL5'.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 23, 2012)

X-5 ?? Forgive me for thinking it was a replacement for K-5.

I think that naming it X-5 is a stab at all the "X"-named cameras from the other camera brands.

Nothing wrong with this camera per se. It is not for me, but for everyone in the market for an ultra-zoom with a viewfinder, why not ?

1 upvote
Professor999
By Professor999 (Aug 23, 2012)

the X is used as the previous bridge cameras were the X70 in 2009 and X90 in 2010 pre-dating the current use of X.

3 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Aug 23, 2012)

Gross

Not only is it an ugly superzoom its also the most under-spec'd superzoom for a late 2012 model.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Aug 23, 2012)

It looks to me like a serious camera, intead of it limitations, not trying to be a fancy spaceship toy like others super-zooms.

4 upvotes
MDwebpro
By MDwebpro (Aug 23, 2012)

No RAW capture?
f3.1 - F5.9 lens?
No Hi-Res, articulated LCD?
No hot shoe?
No stereo video sound?

Really? Seriously? Are we still living in 2010?

Big Failure!

4 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Aug 23, 2012)

+1
You forgot crappy EVF and AA batteries !

3 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

At that price !
Hope the drugs your on are worth it.
Take a look at the price point of all the various Fuji models and what they offer. Have Pentax announced that this is a class leading high tech blow away the competition model ? No.
It's their sole entry into the market with several new areas that Pentax haven't been in before.
It will sell in low to average numbers enough to turn a profit or be a good test bed for multi burst low noise or fold out screens.
I hope you don't buy it as it appears you will be terribly disappointed. A reasonable number of tourist, holiday maker, newbies will, especially if Pentax continue with its new policy of selling in high volume retail shops.

11 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Sure AA batteries not everyone's cup of tea, but Sanyo eneloop are excellent performers and AA is available everywhere and all countries, so when your ni cad goes bad, what r you going to do ?
It's saved a number of people n allowed them to get going again.

8 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 23, 2012)

Nothing wrong with AA batteries. You just have to buy the low leak current ones - like Ready2go or whatever fancy name they have got. Thats a marketing failure if anything! Make a good invention and hide it behind dozens of silly names. A good computer controlled charger is also a must. But if you do those two things, its a very good choice. But .... if you buy el cheapo batteries and an el cheapo charger - it sux.

2 upvotes
karlitoz
By karlitoz (Aug 23, 2012)

guess ricoh really did kill pentax, shame cause the k-r was one of the best dslr i have ever used, and still think that it takes better pics than my 60d

1 upvote
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (Aug 23, 2012)

Just curious. How would you rate the K-30 against the K-r?

1 upvote
Cane
By Cane (Aug 23, 2012)

What are you talking about? Ricoh Pentax has released now two cameras, this and the k-30, and the K-30 blows away your K-r. So the serious question has to be asked, are you high right now?

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 23, 2012)

So Pentax comes out with the K-30 which is way better than the K-r… and Ricoh killed Pentax again, how?

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Aug 23, 2012)

K-30 is a very good camera. It lacks some serious stuff - but it is not meant to compete with K-5.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 23, 2012)

Well Roland teah but nobody mentioned the k-5 but the k-r

0 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

"guess ricoh really did kill pentax" Yeah, they released a high spec weatherproof DSLR for under $1k...what were they thinking?

0 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Aug 23, 2012)

Looks a good camera, it has a bit more wide that the other brands, but to me the best choices for bridge cameras are the Panasonic Lumix FZ 200, with a great f2,8 lens all across the range and good built and features, and the Fuji X S1 for the bigger sensor and a manual zoom ring, it is well built and with good features too.

It will be good that they make at least the top bridge cameras with weather sealing.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

Agreed, Aleo, I am looking for a new camera and these are my own 2 top choices as well.

PANNY Lumix DMC-FZ200: Quite pricey for a 0./43-inch sensor superzoom, but like you said, it has a constant F2.8 optic. Also, it has an external 3.5mm microphone input jack, so you can record good quality audio with it. Basic and Advanced user's Manuals are now available on the Panny web site.

FUJFILM X-S1: Sensor size is 0.67-inch, same exact size as what the $40,000 shoulder-mountable pro video camcorders employ. No servo zoom, only manual. Unfortunately, the sensor is hardware faulty (blooming orbs), and the zoom lens can sag up to 5mm downward when fully extended to tele mode. With the X-S1, I can't help thinking that the one to get will be the X-S2 instead. Hopefully, that'll happen soon.

0 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Aug 23, 2012)

Everything is wrong with this camera !

another DOA from Pentax, amazing...

1 upvote
JustDavid
By JustDavid (Aug 23, 2012)

Man, not sure if it is the camera that has everything wrong...
I guess people will still buy Windows PC though Apple addicts will always say that everything's wrong about them...
Wait... maybe you're not alone on the planet! :)

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Another ignorant and pointless comment IZO100.
Is it born of hate of Pentax ?
It's not bringing any real new tech to the market but some to Pentax.
Will it outsell Fuji or Panny or anyone else ? no but,does that mean its dead in the water ?
So long as it sells enough to turn a profit and increase Pentax profile among non forum nit picking geeks, then its done a job hasn't it.
Market strategy is more than what most of us consider in the ultimate camera.
Maybe you wish to provide a decent argument or spread your ignorance elsewhere.

7 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Aug 23, 2012)

I have a stalker, great. BTW I use to shoot Pentax.

Seriously, get a life and stop thinking Pentax is great. It's just a company, wake up.

0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Lol, sounds like you love the Banter !
Yes I shoot a Pentax, but I am not using rose tinted glasses or wearing Pentax underwear !
I think Most all other cameras serve a purpose and are introduced for a purpose well beyond the average forum geeks personal interest.
It's just another camera but that doesn't mean its apiece of junk or the death Nell of the company.
So long as cameras sell at the right price and take photos is what the mass market wants, which is what this aimed at.

1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Aug 23, 2012)

@IZO100 , nobody said pentax is great. Its the thing that you are smoking making you believe that people are saying of that sort. Second, do you go out and buy every camera?? Its clear that this is not a camera for you. You can waste your time on other things after its just a camera and you do not need to die trying to tell it how much you hate it. No-one cares. (I cared enough to post this, but after this post you can go to hell, i won't give rat's A about it). Pentax won't go bankrupt if you did not buy this camera. Pentax also does not care about you.

3 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

BTW, I used to shoot Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Praktika.
So long as it suits my needs. All good brands n products out there, I just don't go trolling n trying to antagonize people.

1 upvote
Cane
By Cane (Aug 23, 2012)

IZO100's wife ran away with a Pentax employee and he has never gotten over it. Sorry for telling everyone, but I thought this should be made public.

4 upvotes
mpeman
By mpeman (Aug 23, 2012)

Robbo d...I think you need to look in the mirror to see a troll. People are free to comment on a camera without someone asking what drugs they are on, or that their comments are stupid. Get a clue. Blind defense of a camera (maker or model) makes you look the fool...not them.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

@mpeman.

Think yr getting your definition of trolls a wee bit mixed up .......

1 upvote
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

The camera is what it is......not saying its the best or even great. If you read the original comments, people are presuming and expressing their own ignorance. Random uneducated and inflammatory comments deserve shooting down.
Read my comments in context and tell me I am blindly defending it. Not so, it could be a piece of junk, but chances are its a capable modern superzoom, not class leading, but then at 280 dollars its not expecting to be. It s most likely just plain good value.

2 upvotes
mpeman
By mpeman (Aug 23, 2012)

Nah. Part of the definition of a troll is someone who expects everyone's opinion to match theirs, and that anyone who doesn't is "stupid" or "using drugs". For some folks this camera doesn't make sense. Some like it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...not yours.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

The original comment was this:

"Everything is wrong with this camera ! another DOA from Pentax."

That is certainly not the case, at least not be most of the folks commenting on it.

0 upvotes
mpeman
By mpeman (Aug 24, 2012)

Not DOA...but certainly not what most posters here want. And it is teir right to say so and not be belittled. The fact is that this market is extremely small, no matter how you slice it.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 24, 2012)

@ mpemam sez: "The fact is that this market is extremely small."

Well, considering that this particular camera is in the very segment that is by far the largest in the field of all digital cameras, you sure as heck do not seem to know what you are even talking about, hmmm?

0 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

mpeman, actually, "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Your partial definition is not correct. Going by your mis-information, you are actually the "troll". He only mentioned how pointless the comment was, and it truly was pointless

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Aug 23, 2012)

I almost bought an FZ150, but then couldn't because they were out of stock. It might have been blessing in disguise. This camera might be the one for me.

I rarely learn even 1/2 of the functions on any camera I own, nor do I "spec out" the cameras, wishing I had more of this or that--except for a fast aperture, that is a legitimate concern.

If you're that guy who has to have the Nikon D800 hanging from his neck on the beach, this might not be the camera for you. But I bet it will work for a lot of people.

5 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 23, 2012)

The good: 22mm equiv. wide angle, AA cells (no addiction to proprietary models)

Less good: f/3.1 aperture, mono mic, no time lapse (which Pentax DSLRs all have), MJPEG only video (must be a mistake).

It has an EVF, which uses space, but is probably not very usable in practice, since the limited resolution and small image make it hard to see details or control focus. I'd also fear that the mic pics up AF and zoom sound.

1 upvote
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Aug 23, 2012)

All the ultrazooms can benefit from an EVF.
Due to the long reach of the zoom, you need all the stabilising you can get.
Hence large grip for a firm hold, and OIS, and an EVF that aids keeping the camera still when you use your head as the "third arm".

Low res EVF simply comes with the teritory as a low price point is an important parameter in this segment.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

I'm with JesperMP on this, an EVF is a really nice feature to have and really all megazooms should have one, especially considering how easy it is to get a blurred photo at such an extreme focal length. I know that many of my pics would be blurred if it weren't for the viewfinder (IS is a help too).

0 upvotes
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Aug 23, 2012)

A DSLR-like superzoom with a 1/2.33" sensor.
'nuff said.

2 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Go have a look at Fuji, Panny, Canikon.....etc. They all do it. Is this news to you ?
Have you not realised that they all produce bridge cams that look similar to or same as dslr with the same sized sensor ?
It's marketing, its not the same size, it just looks like one. People who don't pixel peep over image sensor size, but r happy with IQ but want zoom range n a whole host of features.
Go n do your homework before posting stupid comments. It's a valid market with all the big players involved.

3 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Aug 23, 2012)

Where you expecting a FF superzoom for the same $350 price? I swear people in camera forums have a screw loose.

8 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

Who called this particular camera "DSLR-like" in the first place, that is what I would love to know!!!

Was it Pentax?

Or was it DP Review?

To my eyes, it does not even look like a DSLR.... not to mention that it is much smaller than a standard DSLR would be. Looks like another superzoom-cam, and not a particularly attractive one at that. If we are judging cameras by their looks only, that is.

0 upvotes
JacobSR
By JacobSR (Aug 23, 2012)

1/2.3 sensor is the most succefull and probably #1 selling sensor of all formats. There are more cameras sold with this sensor than any other. Much more R&D and $$$$$$ spend on 1/2.3 sensor than the others. As a result Image quality has come a long way and is been advancing and improving at a faster rate than any other sensor.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

In fact, we should eliminate all other cameras from seeing the light of day that do not also have this truly magical 1/2.3-inch = 0.43-inch sensor size.

0 upvotes
JacobSR
By JacobSR (Aug 24, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 24, 2012)

@ JacobSR: A few postings above thus, note what mpemam says: "The fact is that this market is extremely small."

I am trying to make sense of these comments -- is this a unique camera with nothing like it, or is this a camera in a large group of similar cameras, or what is it, really?

0 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

What a truly stupid reply Francis Carver! The guy was only saying that this particular size has sold more than any other sized sensor, not that it was sprinkled with pixie dust. In any case, I agree with him. Just look at the Pentax Q...amazing image quality out of the same sized sensor. If you don't agree, just look at Dxo's website, that sensor rated very well even against some MUCH larger sensors. Maybe not able to beat competing M4/3 and APS-C sensors but coming closer than ever thought possible out of such a "tiny" sensor.

0 upvotes
Carlos Henrique
By Carlos Henrique (Aug 23, 2012)

I used to have a superzoom camera and it is a very good traveler companion: light with a long reach and able of good 6" x 4" prints. Pentax has a name in the photography history but I think something is wrong because the camera specs are a bit outdated and not quite exciting - there are a lot of comeptition out there. But for sure it will attend a niche of the market due to the price. But I wonder if someone looking for a superzoom camera compares it to the Panasonic FZ200 for example, the price will be the only factor in favor to the Pentax model.

2 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Agreed, there are a couple of new things in there to Pentax which is good for market development. We haven't seen IQ results yet and Q is a very good performer, so any advance on that has to be good.
Yes, price n value for money is a winner here.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Aug 23, 2012)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=panasonic+lumix+dmc-fz200&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta

Panny FZ200 is not yet shipping, thus the full list price of $599 is the one show for it on B&H. Frankly, I would not spend 600 bucks on a superzoom camera, even if it has a constant F2.8 lens. I suspect the price will come down dramatically once the FZ200 ships, hopefully in the $400 to $450 range.

The Pentax X-5 is now more comparable to a couple of GE models in price and specs.

0 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (Aug 23, 2012)

Nothing against the concept, but in a period where a TV screen and camera manufacturer builds a camera as big as 2 matchboxes with a 20 mpix 1 inch sensor in it and that makes pictures as nice as a dslr, Pentax finds the way to make a box as big as 8 matchboxes with a ridiculous mini sensor in it. Probably it targets the buyers who have to make a huge present to some people they really don't like. Who really wants such a camera while some huge tools like the RX100 and real good mirrorless concepts exist.

I see no real progression at Pentax since a 2 years now, just dusting old hats, or making real expensive gadgets like the Q. I like the concept of the Q, I just await Sony to do something similar that with a correct sensor, an RX100 with interchangeable lenses. Pentax will probably never do it, this new dslr like camera does not points in that direction.

2 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Aug 23, 2012)

I think you never even touched the Q, because you talk nonsense about it. However, unlike tech geeks who shoot using specs only in their mind and behind their computer screens, all real world users only praise the Q. Photographers get it, geeks don't get it.

Nikon already did a system based around the RX100 sized sensor. It's called Nikon 1 — you know, the system camera geeks ridiculed last year because of its sensor size, only to celebrate that same sensor in the RX100 this year.

Quite irrational bunch, don't you think? Nah, I'm asking too much; the lamp will turn yellow next year.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

I can't believe the trash which comes out in such announcements. It's a bridge camera, which is a replacement for the x90. Most bridge cameras use the same size or similar size sensor.
Go have a look at all the other line ups from Canikon, Fuji, panny etc. They all have similar spec units for sale because those who dont want interchangeable lenses and great zoom.
Look at the price point ! It's plugging a gap in the present line up and well liked by people who don't want to shoot with phones cos they get a lot more photo control.
Never seen such dribble from supposedly knowledgeable people in all my life. If you want a compact matchbox sized WiFi compatable cappuccino making, cam that will beam you up to the starship enterprise, go find one, buy it and forget about stupid comments about a total different market n strategy by Pentax most likely designed to increase market share.

3 upvotes
Kochiso-macro
By Kochiso-macro (Sep 28, 2012)

FTW, the Sony RX is a great camera for what it is but please remind me again as to its zoom capability. If this thing has the IQ of the Q, or even remotely close to it, it will sell quite well. I do agree that if Sony made an interchangeable lens version of the RX 100, it would rock but that doesn't exist at this moment so it's not relevant.

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Aug 23, 2012)

I was hoping Ricoh would take Pentax into a more quality camera. Wait until the replacement for the k-5 comes out. But it does not look good. Ricoh is in financial trouble. I know that, but was hoping buying Pentax would help Pentax. I am not so sure now.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (Aug 23, 2012)

Yes and being able to have offerings in all markets can help your overall market awareness and profitability.
What about dad shooting a Pentax dslr n mum wants something a little less expensive but has to buy a Fuji or Panasonic. Now they have options and it goes vice versa. Kid gets this and gets hooked to photography, later buys a dslr.
Think outside the square people.

4 upvotes
solarider
By solarider (Aug 23, 2012)

Ricoh in financial trouble? Prove what you claim please. Sounds like an empty claim.

4 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Aug 23, 2012)

So basically the K-30 release is meaningless to you (you know about that camera, right?) and you make a claim about Ricoh that needs to be proven. OK.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 408
123