Previous news story    Next news story

Pentax announces Q7 with larger 12MP BSI CMOS sensor

By dpreview staff on Jun 12, 2013 at 22:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $374.82

Pentax Ricoh has announced the Q7 - its latest Q-mount camera and the first to feature a larger, 1/1.7" type sensor. The 7.44 x 5.58mm, 12MP BSI CMOS sensor is the same size as the one used in many enthusiast compacts, with the company claiming a 60% improvement in S/N ratio over the existing Q10. This improvement also allows the camera to focus faster in low light. The Q7 will cost around $500 with the '02' 5-15mm zoom lens and can be custom-ordered in any of 120 color combinations. The company has also introduced a body-cap 'Mount Shield' lens for the Q system - the 11.5mm F9 lens will cost around $80.

The move to a 1/1.7" type sensor changes the 'crop factor' of the Q7, and its effect on the equivalent focal lengths of the existing Q lenses is interesting:

 01 Standard Prime02 Standard Zoom03 Telephoto Zoom
Focal length / aperture range 8.5mm
F1.9
5 – 15mm
F2.8 – 4.5
15 – 45mm
F2.8
Equivalent focal length on Q/Q10 47mm 27.5 – 83mm 83 – 249mm
Equivalent focal length on Q7 39mm 23 – 69mm 69 – 207mm

Noticeably, the Standard Prime lens suddenly gives a 'normal' 39mm equivalent focal length, while the Standard Zoom and Telephoto zooms give very similar field-of-view ranges to traditional 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses. This, and the fact that all of them offer an image circle large enough to illuminate the larger sensor, strongly supports the theory that the Q system was always designed for this sensor format - a move that makes it much more directly comparable with existing enthusiast compacts.

This move, combined with the more realistic recommended sales price, could make the Q system considerably more interesting than it has seemed, up until now.

Jump to:


Press Release:

PENTAX RICOH IMAGING Expands Commitment to Q-mount Camera System

Available in 120 color combinations, the Q7 ensures there is a camera for every taste and style along with features and settings to match

Denver, CO (June 12, 2013) —PENTAX RICOH IMAGING AMERICAS CORPORATION today announced the fun and highly capable Q7 compact system camera. Available for order in 120 eye-catching color combinations through PENTAX’s Color To Order™ system, the Q7 gives creative control to the consumer with a complete system of interchangeable lenses, filters, viewfinders, and fun smart effects and digital filters enable truly limitless creativity.

Setting a new standard in the imaging industry, the Q7 incorporates a growing trend among consumer products: customization. With an expertly architected supply chain management system designed around Color To Order, consumers are empowered to integrate individual style, personality and taste into their camera sparking the creative process even as their order is placed. Joining the already successful Q10, the Q7 features an upgraded 1/1.7 inch, back-illuminated CMOS image sensor, high sensitivity shooting up to ISO 12800 and enhanced Q ENGINE with faster response time during start-up and shooting time, the creativity continues as beautiful, sharp images are captured.

“Don’t be fooled by the Q7’s small size and 120 color combinations,” said Jim Malcolm, executive vice president, PENTAX RICOH IMAGING. “As the smallest and lightest compact system camera in the world, this tiny gem is packed with serious specs and capabilities including a number of digital filters and smart effects.”

Weighing in a just 7 ounces, the Q7’s compact body enables easily poket-able portability while the fun filters and assorted lens variety inspire the casual photographer to elevate their creativity. With 19 smart effects and filters and seven lenses, a retro look and feel can easily be applied in-camera with the ability to layer different effects for greater expression and better image quality than cell phones ever dreamt of. Additionally, with the Q7’s enhanced Eye Fi SD card compatibility and built-in menus, users can now edit, re-size and share photos instantly.

Also introduced today is the 07 Mount Shield lens. As the seventh member of the Q-family lens mount, the 07 lens produces a truly unique and timeless visual effect, comparable to the original pin-hole camera—with a fixed aperture of F9 and a focal length of 11.5 mm (or 53mm in 35mm format), for an extra-ordinary image with distinctively velvety edges. Featuring a focusing range of approximately 0.7-2m, still life shots and macro photography are given a beautiful dream-like look and feel. Weighing a mere 8 grams, the 07 Mount Shield lens is extremely small, resembling a tiny Q series body cap  making it an ideal lens for pocket-able fun, and travel photography.

Pricing and Availability

The Q7 kit with 02 zoom lens is available to order today in a choice of 120 color combinations at pentaximaging.com and retail outlets nationwide in August 2013 with a suggested retail price of $499.95. The 07 Mount Shield lens will be available for purchase online and at retail outlets nationwide in July 2013with a suggested retail price of $79.95.

Pentax Q7 specifications

Price
MSRP$499 inc 02 5-15mm lens
Body type
Body typeRangefinder-style mirrorless
Sensor
Max resolution4000 x 3000
Other resolutions4000 x 2664, 4000 x 2248, 3072 x 2304, 3072 x 2048, 3072 x 1728, 2992 x 2992, 2304 x 2304, 1920 x 1440, 1920 x 1280, 1920 x 1080, 1440 x 1440
Image ratio w:h1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
Effective pixels12 megapixels
Sensor photo detectors13 megapixels
Sensor size1/1.7" (7.44 x 5.58 mm)
Sensor typeBSI-CMOS
Image
White balance presets9
Custom white balanceYes
Image stabilizationSensor-shift
Uncompressed formatRAW
JPEG quality levelsGood, Better, Best
File format
  • RAW (12bit): DNG, JPEG
Optics & Focus
Autofocus
  • Contrast Detect (sensor)
  • Selective single-point
  • Tracking
  • Single
  • Face Detection
  • Live View
Lens mountPentax Q
Focal length multiplier4.7×
Screen / viewfinder
Articulated LCDFixed
Screen size3
Screen dots460,000
Touch screenNo
Screen typeTFT color LCD monitor, wide angle viewing, AR coating
Live viewYes
Viewfinder typeOptical (optional)
Photography features
Minimum shutter speed30 sec
Maximum shutter speed1/2000 sec
Exposure modes
  • Program Auto Exposure, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, Manual Exposure, Bulb, Blur Control (JPEG only) Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Macro, Night Scene Portrait, Night Scene, Blue Sky, Forest
Scene modes
  • Auto Modes: Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Macro, Night Scene Portrait, Night Scene, Blue Sky, Forest
  • Scene Modes: Portrait, Landscape, Macro, Moving Object, Night Scene Portrait, Sunset, Blue Sky, Forest, Night Scene, Night Scene HDR, Night Snap, HDR*, Quick Macro, Food, Pet, Kids, Surf&Snow, Backlight Silhouette, Candlelight, Stage Lighting, Museum
  • Custom Image: Bright, Natural, Portrait, Landscape, Vibrant, Radiant, Muted, Bleach Bypass, Reversal Film, Monochrome, Cross Processing, Digital Filter (capture): Toy Camera, High Contrast, Shading, Slim, HDR, Invert Color, Extract Color, Color, Water Color, Posterization, Fish-eye, HDR Capture: Auto, HDR 1, HDR 2
  • Smart Effect: Brilliant Color, Unicolor Bold, Vintage Color, Cross Processing, Warm Fade, Tone Expansion, Bold Monochrome, Water Color, Vibrant Color Enhance, USER 1 to 3
Built-in flashYes (Built-in retractable P-TTL flash)
Flash range4.90 m (ISO100/m)
External flashYes
Flash modesP-TTL, Red-eye Reduction, Slow-speed Sync, Trailing Curtain Sync
Flash X sync speed1/2000 sec
Drive modes
  • Single frame, Continuous (Hi, Lo), Self-timer (12s, 2s), Remote Control (0 sec., 3 sec., continuous), Exposure Bracketing (3 frames, remote control), Multi-exposure (0 sec., Self-time, remote control), Interval Shooting
Continuous drive5 fps
Self-timerYes (12 sec, 2 sec)
Metering modes
  • Multi
  • Center-weighted
  • Spot
Exposure compensation±3 (at 1/3 EV steps)
AE Bracketing (3 frames at 1/3 EV steps)
Videography features
ResolutionsFullHD(1920x1080, 30fps/25fps/24fps), HD(1280x720,16:9,30fps/25fps/24fps), VGA(640x480,4:3,30fps/25fps/24fps)
FormatMPEG-4, H.264
Videography notesMOV MPEG–4 AVC/H.264 (.mov)
MicrophoneMono
SpeakerMono
Storage
Storage typesSD, SDHC, SDXC and Eye-Fi Card
Connectivity
USB USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)
HDMIYes (HDMI output terminal (Type D))
WirelessEye-Fi Connected
Remote controlYes (Remote Control O-RC1, Remote F)
Physical
BatteryBattery Pack
Battery descriptionRechargeable Lithium-ion Battery D-LI68
Battery Life (CIPA)250
Weight (inc. batteries)200 g (0.44 lb / 7.05 oz)
Dimensions102 x 58 x 34 mm (4.02 x 2.28 x 1.34)
Other features
Timelapse recordingYes (3 sec. to 24 hr., Start Interval setting: immediately from the set time. Number of shots: up to 999 images)
GPSNone

Additional images

16
I own it
15
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 232
12
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (10 months ago)

So admittedly, pentax knowningly screwed up Q and Q10 buyers...
But now the Q seems like a sensible product

2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (10 months ago)

Not really. They actually provided the best option at the time, especially for video. The aging CCD 1/1.7" sensors at the time couldn't even do HD video which would have been a death-knell spec on a consumer camera like the Q.

4 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

How exactly Pentax "admittedly" screwed up Q and Q10 buyers. Please don't tell me you are still going by a paper spec and can't fathom technology moving forward?

3 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (10 months ago)

Not true, anthony mazzeri. Canon S95 with CCD 1/1.7" shot 720p HD video and was one the best selling camera.

Trust me, using that sensor back then would have generated a lot less criticism about the sensor size.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (10 months ago)

Full-HD, I mean. The P7100 could also do 720 which was as max as those sensors could go, while the original Q could do the expected 1080.

The sensor size would have seen far less criticism than the Q would have gotten if it couldn't even do 1080 video. Imagine any of these newer mobile phones with bigger sensor or more megapixel cameras coming out now - if they could only do VGA or 720 video, they would fail.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (10 months ago)

The ur-Q's BSI CMOS 1/2.33" sensor was very competitive with its 1/1.7" contemporaries like LX5, S95, etc. It also helped that most of these were equipped with zooms slower than the 01 Prime. Seems that we now have a next generation of 1/1.7" sensors now that are a bit better. I am not expecting a massive improvement but just a little more DoF control and delaying diffraction just a little more will be welcome, maybe a tad better dynamic range. Glad to see the asking price becoming more reasonable.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (10 months ago)

720P would have just fine back in 2011. In fact vast majority of entry-level mirrorless cameras did 720p, including Nex C3 that was launched in 2011 summer.

Besides, Q is primarily a still camera. Using the CCD 1/1.7" would have been much smarter back then. That would have put it in direct competition against Panasonic LX series, Canon S series and Samsung's high end p&s cameras. These were very well sellers in 2011.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@ET2 - the Q with its 1/2.3'' sensor was performing better that virtually almost all competitors that used 1/1.7'' back then. Don't go by sensor size along- technology and tweaks matter.

The Q with a 1/2.3'' already outperformed the LX5 with its bigger sensor. Notice Panasonic put a smaller yet better performing sensor in their LX7 vs the LX5.

You can't just go by sensor size alone. Do you do any photography at all? Last time we talked this on the Pentax forum you pretty much admitted you don't, so perhaps this is where the problem starts. Lack of real world experience.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

Why didn't they do this from the start? Not that I would buy one, but it at least stacks up better against advanced compacts and the focal lengths of the lenses make sense. Make a tiny mirrorless system then cripple it needlessly. Stupid.

3 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

Question about the Q to the Q10. It seemed to me like they cheaped-out on the body in the transition, going from partially metal shell to all plastic. Is that the case? I can't find out for sure.
BTW, is the little quickfinder (for the hotshoe) still $300+? I know those things always cost a lot of money, Zeiss and Voigtlander models are $500 or so.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (10 months ago)

http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/pentax-q-system---in-detail-16807/images/pentax-q-magnesium-body.jpg

0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (10 months ago)

I love my original Q... it's a shame the Q10/Q7 has gone all-plastic. Bleh. The solid magnesium build of the Q was one of the things that made it feel so "special" to use.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Sandyramirez
By Sandyramirez (10 months ago)

Having actually held one I can tell you it still is a great metal body

4 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (10 months ago)

This is good to hear...I too prefer the look & shape of the ur-Q.

0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (10 months ago)

Nope. All of the spec sheets online say the Q10 and Q7 are "reinforced polycarbonate plastic".

0 upvotes
Sean Nelson
By Sean Nelson (10 months ago)

Still no 60p video, so not interested...

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (10 months ago)

Everyone knows you need at least an APSC size sensor to take pics of your cat ;)

9 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (10 months ago)

$500 at introduction?! SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

(although I'd pay double if it had a built in EVF a la Panasonic LF1)

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

You'd pay $1000 for a 1/1.7"? Why?

4 upvotes
Maxfield_photo
By Maxfield_photo (10 months ago)

Bruce Lee called, he wants his jumpsuit back.

17 upvotes
reverend5
By reverend5 (10 months ago)

Awesome "Game of Q"

0 upvotes
reverend5
By reverend5 (10 months ago)

Love my original Q with the prime.
It beats out my Ricoh GRD 4 by a hair, so I imagine the Q7 will be a nice upgrade.
It's so great to travel with and have all the lenses and accessories that are available.
Rock on Q!

7 upvotes
SphericalAberration
By SphericalAberration (10 months ago)

Why is it not available as a kit with the Q1 ( now 40mm ) lens ?
I have no interest in the zoom - they did the same with the Q10 grrhhh

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/Bildschirmfoto2013-06-12um144818_zps349742f9.png

1 upvote
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (10 months ago)

Oh, yeah.

Now that the sensor got bigger, the lenses got wider (so to speak).

The Q fisheye on the Q/Q10 was 160 degrees . . . what is it on the Q7?

1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (10 months ago)

Now the Q7 has the same sensor size than the MX-1, it would be nice if Pentax could design a 28-112mm equivalent F:1.8-2.4 collapsible zoom lens.
It is a shame however this Q7 does not feature an optional EVF and/or a tiltable LCD...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
neil holmes
By neil holmes (10 months ago)

Having had (and killed) the original Q, all I can say is YES PLEASE!
whats it for? A take anywhere camera that can be easily pocketed or sports and concerts from the bleachers. Stick a good lens on it and I am sure it will be very nice. Take on on safari with you with a FF camera...just in case.
Paparazzi may like to have one witha normal portratit lens (that becomes a super tele...should be the most fun camera going.

4 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (10 months ago)

Shutter speed needs to a bit faster at 1/3200, but otherwise this looks to be a pretty good upgrade.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (10 months ago)

I believe it still has a faster electronic shutter like previous versions? The physical shutters are in the lenses and also offer NDs built in as well (01, 02 & 06).

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

With electronic shutter it goes to 1/8000th. We just have no way of specifying this in our database.

9 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (10 months ago)

Why did they go with both? Is there a disadvantage to the electronic shutter? If not, maybe it should just be listed as 1/8000.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

"With electronic shutter it goes to 1/8000th. We just have no way of specifying this in our database."

the database is then *outdated*

1 upvote
audijam
By audijam (10 months ago)

i have to admit it looks pretty good in yello!

5 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (10 months ago)

Even at a lower price, the only significant market for this camera is Japan, it's not likely to gain traction anywhere else. There is no market anymore for these $500 toys in the rest of the world. Pentax and fanboys can argue that the IQ is excellent, but in the end it's the size and the color combinations that matter for the Japanese market. For the rest of the world, this camera just doesn't cut it at this price level, as it has to compete with many other compact and mirrorless cameras with better IQ and better feature sets. A NEX-F3 will spank this Q7 in terms of IQ at any ISO for the same $500, whereas the LX7 for half the price will easily provide more flexibility and more features in a slightly larger package.
Conclusion: nice but FAIL.

8 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (10 months ago)

If you gave me the choice between an LX7, NEX-F3 or Q7 for $500 and I had to pick one I would pick the Q7 ...and I don't live in Japan. Huh, imagine that.

26 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (10 months ago)

I wouldn't argue the image quality is excellent, or more excellent than a NEX, or whatever.

I would argue that is is sufficient. You can have a lot of fun with the Q cameras, with or without the larger sensor.

Can you put a fisheye on the LX-7? Use C-mount lenses via adapter? No.

The Q is for people who don't take life quite as seriously as you do.

21 upvotes
rgarijo
By rgarijo (10 months ago)

Me too. Give me the Q toy anytime over the other "serious" cameras.

7 upvotes
Snapshot Atlantic
By Snapshot Atlantic (10 months ago)

I have to agree with Richard. Some things can't be broken down purely to numbers. People buy things, in part, because of how they make them feel. To some, the Q is the epitome of unprofessionalism and a black mark on the photography industry. To others, it is about looking at things a little more light-hearted and not sweating the small stuff... just having a bit of fun.

The Q may not beat those other cameras in any measerable way (though in fairness we haven't even seen what the new sensor can do) but it certainly can be a fun sidekick for those of us who can appreciate it.

7 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (10 months ago)

The LX7 can be had for under $300. If the Q7 actually becomes price competitive, it might be interesting, but I don't see people buying one of these and a bunch of lenses.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Markin- maybe then it's not for you. Someone who wants the lenses will see the value in Q7- and it will have better IQ anyway. The Q itself is quite competitive as it is.

3 upvotes
Greg Lovern
By Greg Lovern (10 months ago)

The Q line is for people who want a tiny interchangeable-lens camera. If that isn't what you want, then don't buy it. Hard as it is for some people to believe, not everyone has the same wants and needs. To each their own.

With the larger sensor, the Q7 will be a big improvement over the Q and Q10. I might consider a Q7 as a 2nd camera, where I would not have considered the Q or Q10 except as an interesting toy.

3 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (10 months ago)

The original Q with kit lens had $800 MSRP, now selling for $250. Imagine the anguish to those bought it at MSRP. Knowing that, who would buy the Q7 at $500 MSRP, only to see a huge price drop later?

Pentax has no idea how to price a camera. If they priced it at $250 originally, the system might've caught on. If $250 wasn't enough to turn a profit, then the Q isn't a viable product after all.

Here's a report on the Q sales:
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/pentax-q-sales-disappointing-1060295

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (10 months ago)

Q models have seen moderate but very steady sales in Japan. People like it: it gets very good user reviews.

All cameras have inflated MSRP, especially, for some reason, mirrorless models. All manufacturers play this game, and Pentax is one of the lesser offenders.

7 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

With everything you say, how come that mirrorless market (currently apart from large sensor compacts) is very much flat when it comes to profits?
In fact, all companies are losing money in that market segment because it is over saturated, and people are buying such cameras *at the end of their life-cycle*, when the price drops down significantly. J1 sold well after the J2 was announced, Pen 3 sells now when the Pen 5 is announced, Q sold well after the Q10 was announced, same goes for Nex models, etc.
We can say that out of them all, Pentax doesn't sell the most Qs, no, but in view of actual money loss and profits, Pentax loses least amount of dollars with their Q, and still captures attention. And to any economist, that is actually smart.

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (10 months ago)

Don't take Zvonimir and Richard Murdey seriously. They are making up stuff as they go along. It's very rare that you will see prices drop from 800 to 250 in just a few months. In the last 8 or 9 months, EM-5, Nex-6, Nex-7, GH3 only lost 20% or so in value from announced MSRP. That's certainly not similar to Pentax Q going down from 800 to 300 in just a few months.

As for Pentax losing the least amount of money on Q than others with better selling MILC, again just an absurd claim that Zvonimir made up on the spot. There is no proof for that claim.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

Initial Q's price was a big mistake, which Pentax had admitted. But the mirrorless market works by the paradigm it has created itself: slow sales in the beginning of a product's life-cycle, and more and more sales as the price decreases rapidly. That equals in very low profits overall, and constant battle with loss. Manufacturers are caught in a loop. Oly can tell you all about it and that is why Thom Hogan tells that mirror-less market (and offer) simply has no inherent value.
It's not making up things as I go, it's just using basic economy knowledge. Winning mirrorless segment market share goes along the proverb: to win it all, some are ready to lose it all.

5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

I bought it at full MSPR and I have no anguish. I could have waited years and not take the photographs I have taken with it.

The Q sales you call disappointed is *OLD NEWS*, not the news that the Q later started to sell quite a bit.

Obviously if the Q was the catastrophe you suggest (which is verifiably false) the Q7 would not be out today.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (10 months ago)

@ET2 , yes only pentax was losing money on Q, rest of the companies like Oly , Pana, and your beloved Sony has been reporting huge profits in their imaging divisions year after year for last 4 years.

0 upvotes
pomoville
By pomoville (10 months ago)

@ET2 Those higher end models usually hold up better in value, though. Cameras like the GF3 dropped pretty fast, as well.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

It's probably the same sensor as in the MX-1, which is a great performer. My only wish is that they had found a way to upgrade the 460 K LCD. Viewfinder-less cameras absolutely should have the best LCD panels possible.

As far as the lenses, I'm wondering did they purposely design the Q lenses with a large enough image circle to cover a 1/1.7" sensor? If so, why didn't they just build the original Q with this sensor?

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (10 months ago)

I think at the time they design the Q, they only have 1/2.3" sensor available.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

At the time of Q's introduction in 2011, 1/1.7" sensors were not as good as their 1/2.3" counterparts. That is why Q has outperformed many 1/1.7" cameras at that time. Now the sensor tech has caught up and there's no reason to keep with the 1/2.3".
If I remember correctly, people from Pentax commented once that Q lenses are made to work well on 1/1.6" sensors as well.
And that may also be the reason Q lenses were numbered like 01, 02, 03 ... instead of assigning them equivalent 135 format values.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (10 months ago)

I don't think Sony made a BSI 1/1.7" when the Q launched.

Also the lenses aren't numbered in equivalence because equivalence is STOOPID - Not one manufacturer has ever made an ILC with 'equivalent' marked on their lenses.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@Zvonimir Tosic
Of course the 1/1.7" sensors were as good or better than almost every 1/2.3" sensor in existence. Better DOF control aside, and better per-pixel sharpness, the LX5 and P7100 / G12 type sensor were quite good. Pentax just happened to chose a very good Sony 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensor, that managed to test as well as some of the 1/1.7" like the Canon S100 on DxOMark. That doesn't mean the Q resolves as much detail as the larger sensor compacts and DOF control was still not quite as good with the Q and Q10.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Fuzzfuzz
By Fuzzfuzz (10 months ago)

abortabort: Just look closer at some olympus m4/3 and you will see the equivalence focal lenght

0 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (10 months ago)

If I remeber it correctly the 1/2.3"-sensor of the Q was the first backlit sensor and was better than most 1/1.7". Making baklit sensors was difficult then and they did not managed it to make a 1/7" baklit sensor.

@Fuzzfuzz: Wich lenses are these? I think I don't own one.

1 upvote
Antzutd
By Antzutd (10 months ago)

I like it! looks good and as i already had the Q before. this one with bigger sensor is going to (hopefully) have better IQ.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

Imagine if Pentax used this size sensor the first time, ok whatever, its here now and a huge improvement. Now the Q gets the attention it really should have got in the first place. Solid announcement from Pentax, bravo.

12 upvotes
deckhanddavy
By deckhanddavy (10 months ago)

Exactly. I'm hopeful for this new Q model. Looks great, bigger sensor and best of all, it looks to retain the tiny little form factor...would love to test this out when I'm traveling.

0 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (10 months ago)

Because the smaller sensor was better when the original Q launched! Shock! Horror! What blaspheme is this that a SMALLER sensor could have been better?!

Yeah, deal with it.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (10 months ago)

No, smaller sensor was not better. Dxomark rated it high, but I think the rating were inflated due to RAW NR that stars with base ISO on Q. Canon S95 had better image quality. Go compare the images on imaging-resources studio shots.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

This sensor will be better than the 1 2/3" sensor in the original Q, I'll bet my bank account on it.

Dealt with it.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (10 months ago)

Yes this sensor will be better than sensor in Original Q, but probably you were the only person who had this sensor. Pentax did not have it back then.

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@ET2- you are making stuff up. The Q sensor did indeed beat several 1/1.7''. We had this discussion already on the Pentax forum but of course, you rather comment from theory (and bad theory at that) and not experience.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

@ Zxaar- HUH?

Raist- Ignore ET2, his career is attempting to annoy others, I'm totally convinced of that.

1 upvote
BozillaNZ
By BozillaNZ (10 months ago)

Still ugly as heck! Also with the teeny tiny pea shooter sensor I don't see a need for this at all.

2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (10 months ago)

Good for you, I'm sure you aren't compensating at all ;)

7 upvotes
Michael de Ruijter
By Michael de Ruijter (10 months ago)

[Starting gun goes off]

Let the bashing begin!

0 upvotes
falconeyes
By falconeyes (10 months ago)

It's an ideal little ILC now with a sensor size more matching body size. At street prices soon becoming a few 100 bucks (I guess).

However, the Q10 still is a better value as tele enlarger being the ILC with the smallest pixel pitch. I wished the Q7 had more pixels (~16MP) to retain this unique selling point.

3 upvotes
TheProv
By TheProv (10 months ago)

A no sense buy. G15 canon, panasonic lx7, Olympus xz-2, nikon p7700 all has faster lenses, same or better range or both them.
On the same sensor. With smaller body.

Until pentax make ultra wide angle or extreme telephoto.... Dou you believe in it?

2 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (10 months ago)

Superzoom lenses cannot beat individual prime in IQ.

5 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (10 months ago)

"Superzoom lenses cannot beat individual prime in IQ." is a mantra you can repeat over and over, that it kind of hides the fact that it's false, under many circumstances. Put this Q7 against an LX7 and compare the output at various focal lengths, you may be surprised. And of course the LX7 costs half as much and you don't have to carry many lenses...

3 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (10 months ago)

If superzoom is as good as you said, they should have 18-125(200)(250)mm X100s, GR, Coolpix A, RX1

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (10 months ago)

I have the G15 and I think it's the best fixed lens compact in the last 10 years. But not everyone wants a G15. The Q represents more options optically at least with focal length, and the menu system and unique Pentax features also give it a nod. I'm much more interested in it now with the bigger sensor and how the lenses have more "standard" focal length equivalents.

1 upvote
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (10 months ago)

None of the cameras you mention offer a fast f2.8 tele zoom or a fisheye. I will concede that the max aperture of the 02 zoom is slower than I'd like at the long end. The Q is also smaller than any of these.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (10 months ago)

For telepho, you can use the Q to K adapter, so even a short 50mm became a 200mm :)

1 upvote
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (10 months ago)

Do you realy know how small this camera really is? It is not thin but very small.

0 upvotes
Cailean Gallimore
By Cailean Gallimore (10 months ago)

Looks nice. What's it used for?

3 upvotes
Mike Hiran
By Mike Hiran (10 months ago)

I bought the original Q around 6 months ago when the fire sale started. I'm surprised at how much I use this camera now. But it's so portable and very capable that there's no excuse not to have this system with me when I'm not carrying my DSLR.

And I'm able to get into concerts with the Q where my DSLR would not be allowed.

I also take the Q with lens adapters when shooting w/ my DSLR - if I need some telephoto options, I can use the Q (with it's 5.5 crop on the original Q and now 4.5 on the Q7) and it hardly takes any space.

It's portability, great ergonomics, and lens options make it a great camera system. And I would never have said that a year ago before I had the Q.

2 upvotes
Michael de Ruijter
By Michael de Ruijter (10 months ago)

Go Pentax!!!

4 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (10 months ago)

Wow, I'm waiting for the Q69 which should have a FF sensor at this rate of increase in sensor size.

More seriously, it's a shame we've waited until it's almost too late to release ILC in this segment. 4 years ago I would have been all over this for a small companion camera for my DSLR. But now these tiny sensors have less than zero interest for me. I'd consider the 1" Sony sensor the minimum nowadays. Heck the 1/1.7" sensor should be the sensor used in the entry level P&S and dithc the pathetic 1/2.3" sensors, which should be what phones should be targetting and moving away from 1/3.2-1/3" sensors.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (10 months ago)

Isn't it interesting that 4 years ago, a small sensor was enough for you, but now that sensors continue to improve, you want something bigger? Sony really changed the game with the rx100- the marketing guys have us right where they want us.

It's probably a good time for hobbyists, as far as cameras go. Now that casual snappers are using their phones and manufacturers are stampeding away from cheap point and shoots, things like megapixels and zoom that used to drive marketing and sales will be more thoroughly displaced by bigger sensors, fast apertures, better manual controls, and better viewfinders- a paradigm shift that I imagine many people on these forums will be happy with.

1 upvote
Gary Martin
By Gary Martin (10 months ago)

Offer a wide prime and I'm interested.

5 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

The 04 lens, which was 35mm equivalent on the original Q, now becomes 28mm. But it's marketed as a Toy Lens with fixed aperture.
I agree with you that a fast prime lens, in 21-25 mm range for this new Q would be more than welcome.

4 upvotes
brelip
By brelip (10 months ago)

If they do, it would have to be much wider than 28mm. Because Ricoh already offers 2 compacts w/ 28mm. Ricoh also offers an adapter that will give you 21mm.

I seriously doubt they will offer any add'l lenses for Q anytime soon.

0 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (10 months ago)

There's a wide prime shown in the Q lens roadmap.

1 upvote
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (10 months ago)

And a macro?

0 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (10 months ago)

Yes, the latest roadmap shows a telephoto macro prime.
http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/Q10-4797/highres/pentax-q-lens-roadmap-photokina-2012_1348211462.jpg

0 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (10 months ago)

They allready have an fisheye. They need a rectilinear lens. Somewhere around 4 to 5 mm.

0 upvotes
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (10 months ago)

Nice! I like! :)

2 upvotes
Halogram One
By Halogram One (10 months ago)

After the announcement of the Sony RX100, all these 1/1.6", 1/1.7", or 2/3" sensors should be the new mid-range.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (10 months ago)

After the announcement of the Ricoh GR, the Sony RX-100 should be the new mid-range.

2 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (10 months ago)

After the announcement of the Leica X Vario, the Ricoh GR should be the new mid-range.

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

The Leica X Vario : The price tag is a hefty $2850/£2250.
- - -
Ricoh GR : MSRP $799 / £599
2012 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 : Amazon $629.95
Pentax Q7 : $499.95

1 upvote
Nexguy
By Nexguy (10 months ago)

>120 eye-catching color combinations
When this selling point tops the list on a press release, it makes one wonder...

4 upvotes
Snapshot Atlantic
By Snapshot Atlantic (10 months ago)

I'll never understand why choices in color (mostly aimed at the Japanese market) is such an affront to some people. It's not like there isn't an all-black version if that is what floats your boat. I guess for some creative personality only extends as far as the worry of how one might be perceived by others.

10 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (10 months ago)

I'm actually kind of excited that non-Japanese markets are starting to get the chance to get the custom-colored gear early enough that they're not having to make the choice between paying MSRP for custom order vs steeply discounted models long after initial introduction.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 232
12