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
gftphoto
By gftphoto (9 months ago)

Love the idea of the tiny interchangeable lens camera system.
Hate no built in viewfinder.

0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (9 months ago)

I don't think its helpful they changed the size of the sensor. If you buy a lens because it's a 28-85 you don't want it it to be a 24-70.

I suppose some people may prefer it or might not mind but every lens I ever bought was because of its f.o.v on the sensor of my camera.

0 upvotes
WASBA
By WASBA (10 months ago)

Please take 'SR' Logo off :D. Small 1.7 sensor is brilliant idea but Pentax should make it much smaller than this. If not. please use bigger sensor. I like Ricoh GR series and Pentax K-5 Series but not sure about this Q series so far. Idea itself is not bad but I still felt something missing... :(

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Make much smaller? Have you tried one?

0 upvotes
afterswish1
By afterswish1 (9 months ago)

SR stands for Shake Reduction I believe.

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (10 months ago)

I have been thinking and trying to understand why Pentax went small sensor. I think I have an answer. The compact camera may be extinct soon the way things are going. Interchangeable lenses are the only way to stay relevant and compete with cell phones. How do you compete with ANYTHING? By offering something that said product does not have. What do you think of my theory? I may be all wet, but on the other hand look at what Sony had to do to stay relevant. The Olympus compacts are already on the way out. I don't know. Just trying to figure out Pentax's logic for going small sensor on an interchangeable lens camera.

1 upvote
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (10 months ago)

Then again . . . maybe there doesn't need to be logic to having fun . . . <grin>

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

To make the camera small. To make the smallest interchangeable lens camera system in the world. There are advantages to that. If you don't see them, then the Q as a tool is simply not for you. And you know, that's ok. Not all cameras are a match for every single person out there.

1 upvote
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (10 months ago)

Now it's YOUR time to buy that long time dream 70 to 200 mm constant TWO point EIGHT aperture lens. Awesome, isn't it?

30 years ago, we were delighted to have mini-slr type cameras with a framing area of 13 x 17mm. Nowadays, people get delighted with a mini-slr with a sensor size FIVE TIMES smaller! Ha!

It really sounds insane to me seeing Pentax doing this (although it's attractive). Nikon 1 sensor size seems to be the best compromise between minimum size and versatility. Smaller than that, only for phones.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Its so good that we all like different things and there are different options. You buy the nikon1, ill but the Q ;-)

3 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (10 months ago)

I like Nikon 1 System's sensor size, not exactly the cameras to the point of buying any of them (for now).

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Well my point is simply, to you smaller than that only for phones. But other people certainly think differently. It's good to have the options.

0 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (10 months ago)

Too bad the Nikon 1 10-100mm is more heavier than the new Panasonic 14-140mm.. I thought smaller sensor means less size and weight?

2 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (10 months ago)

Forget this opinion thing, ok?, that I have mine and you yours. Of course when you comment you generally comment on your own behalf, so no need to keep saying that people have different opinions. I know that but I don't care and I will speak on my behalf because I know some people agree with me, maybe the minority, but some do, and I will not waste time on my own comment making it clear to other people that I know other people have their own opinion. Think a little. If opinions were the same and people were not interested to know each other opinions, there would be no use for forums and comment spaces, right? Does it make sense to you? I just respect other opinions. If you had said you don't agree with me and that thing of "You buy the nikon1, I'll buy the Q", I would be fine, but you mentioned that people have different opinions twice and yet, "well, my point is simply, blahblahblah".

Okay okay, Sir! Sure, Sir!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Point taken and you are right. Sorry for that.

What I should have said is that "smaller than that only for phones" seems kind of silly considering the bigger sensor and most
Importantly controls- yet you can get the smaller size

I think its fair game for me to say its kinda silly to say that as a categorical statement like that. You didn't just say it for yourself on that end but making it as a statement if fact for everyone without considering ther are other people with other needs and wants. So fair game.

0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (9 months ago)

Sensors have evolved so fast that I keep thinking this little machine produces images of radically better quality (and much larger too) than a dslr from 10 years ago. So why should anyone think it's not worth taking "serious" photos with?

1 upvote
fakuryu
By fakuryu (10 months ago)

I own the first Q plus the 01 prime and also an LX7 but only have one room for a portable compact. Guess what I gave to my mom? Hint, it has an aperture ring.

0 upvotes
Dale108
By Dale108 (10 months ago)

Looks like a good upgrade. I have enjoyed the original Q and the IQ was great in spite of small sensor. If they have the same level of processing in Q7, IQ could be better than you would expect. I hope that the buffer is larger for continuous shooting and they find a way to deal with low battery life. If they made a Q to K adapter that allowed AF, this would be a great system for wildlife photography!

Dale

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

This system could be interesting specialist system for extreme macro and extreme tele, but this is EXACTLY the lenses Pentax does not provide for some reason. You can adopt some, but will lose EXIF, AF, electronic aperture, size advantage etc, so it is not very good way. Besides, the lenses would be FF or APS-C optimized, meaning they unnecessary (for the price and size and weight disadvantages) cover the much (up to 40x) larger image circles while not having enough center sharpness for the tiny pixels of Q.

1 upvote
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (10 months ago)

On the other hand, look at the Sigma 19mm and 30mm F2.8. Designed for the Sony but they work VERY well on the micro four thirds because they are larger. It makes the edges sharper. Do you think the same may apply using larger Pentax APS-C lenses via adapter on this camera? I don't know. That is why I am asking.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

APS-C and m43 is almost the same, you cut the sides and a tiny little bit off the top and bottom off 24 mpix APS-C sensor and you get 16 mpix 4/3 sensor, same pixel size and everything, but without corner problems.
APS-C lens made for 24mm x 16mm sensor is WAY too much for 6 x 4 mm sensor, and the pixels are about 4 times smaller in each linear direction - the lenses just do not have 4 times higher resolution than APS-C sensors demand. It is the whole different world. The lenses for the tiny sensor has to be extremely sharp over that small area, and do not need the other 94% of the sensor area APS-C lenses care so much about. And they have to have fast apertures to avoid heavy effects of diffraction on the tiny pixels and high ISO, something like f/2. It is possible, look at 24x lens in FZ200, 3x f/2 tele for Q does not even need to be THAT big (although the lens in FZ200 is pretty small).

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@peeve1 - the telephoto prime changed in the roadmap to a macro and *IT IS* in the roadmap. The 06 telephoto has quite a bit of telephoto. The basic bases are all in the roadmap, more are coming out and it's covered.

2 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

peevee1: would this work (with an adaptor)
Nikkor 1 10-100mm F4-5.6 VR

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

DPR, there is a mistake in your article (in the lens comparison table) - 15-42 zoom is not 03, it is 06. 03 is fisheye.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

I wonder why they didn't use a 1/1.7" sensor to begin with.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Sony was charging higher price for that, and Pentax wanted higher margins.

0 upvotes
Ryutan
By Ryutan (10 months ago)

There weren't any BSI 1/1.7" sensor available at that time.
PENTAX says 1/2.3" BSI was better than traditional 1/1.7" sensor at that time.

2 upvotes
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (10 months ago)

Hmmm. to Pentax, 1/1.7" is a "larger" sensor...
Now, I understand why Samsung "kicked out" Pentax some years ago. It's simply hopeless...

0 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (10 months ago)

Have you shot with an LX5/LX7, XZ1/XZ2, or other 1/1.7 compact ?
Yes, in the grand scheme of things these are "small sensors" but they kick butt on any P&S with the standard small 1/2.3".

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"Have you shot with an LX5/LX7"

LX7 has f/1.4 at the wide end of their zoom, not f/2.8. Both ISO/shutter speed and diffraction consequences are hard to ignore.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Wow that comment of yours is so insightful and makes tons of sense. You must be pretty darn smart. Samsung loves you.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (10 months ago)

It IS a larger sensor (than 1/2.3"). "Larger" doesn't necessarily mean "large".

0 upvotes
iAPX
By iAPX (10 months ago)

I understand why Samsung "kicked out" Pentax: samsung will sell smartphone that do photos, Pentax want to sell cameras, this is a clear divergence of interests!

And I had some Pentax SLR, and pocket Pentax camera (including Leica rebranded, was a gift!). Pentax understand ergonomy, Pentax understand what photographer is looking for, sadly they don't have enough market share to build the lens we all waiting for, for their SLR.

But their compact cameras are really greats!

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

The 5-15 suddenly becomes usefully wide. :)

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

This is a cute, fun thing many of us would want, to display on our office table and TV rack at home which can also be used to take some reasonable photos. You can give one to your new girl friend instead of an expensive handbag. It reminds me of the Minox "spy" camera in the 60s.

Its not about pure image quality but with a 1/1.7 " sensor it should be quite good.

Perhaps, Leica should hire their Product Develpment Manager.

1 upvote
Mahmoud Mousef
By Mahmoud Mousef (10 months ago)

What strikes me is...
What an odd time to change sensor size. After the first 2 generations of cameras are using Q lenses on a new mount like this.

0 upvotes
ARB1
By ARB1 (10 months ago)

Does Pentax try to make butt ugly cameras?

2 upvotes
citrontokyo
By citrontokyo (10 months ago)

Why, did they make the one you're holding in your profile pic? :-)

18 upvotes
fisherman_lol
By fisherman_lol (10 months ago)

That was a good one Citrontokyo. :-)

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (10 months ago)

I'm reasonably happy with my Q with 02 and 06; it's better than any pocket camera I've ever had. Nice to know that there's a true upgrade path, not that I feel the need to actually fork over the money right now... I kind of wonder how far this can go - a 2/3 sensor like the one in the old Olympus C8080 could be awesome with today's technology.....

1 upvote
g7star
By g7star (10 months ago)

I found this..
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-large-sensor-that-pentax-could-put.html

0 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (10 months ago)

Flash synch at 1/2000sec, also with the popup, and you have a built-in ND filter too. It's great for those summer beach shots, it's all so easy!

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

There's a good analogy in the history of western art; within a body of work of any good artists, most abundant were sketchbooks, studies, exercises. Then, compared to it, way less large scale works. Artists like Turner had almost 100:1 ratio of studies vs big works. John Constable said that he'd always part with big pieces, but never with sketches. Take a look at Leonardo da Vinci, etc. You get the idea: it all starts there, in endless exercise and developing ideas quickly.
Likewise, consider the Q system as an ultimate sketching, exercising tool for photography. You can exercise in a small scale and feather-light weight whatever a big system can do, even similar handling, and then apply gathered knowledge in a bigger (DSLR) system for more important work when times come.
For some people, smaller scale work is all they love to do, and end up doing for pleasure, and that's okay too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

You can "exercise" just as well with Pana FZ200, without the hassle of changing lenses.

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

but...I thought that this whole exercise things WAS that hassle ;-)

1 upvote
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (10 months ago)

funny, how the focal lengths become more interesting by enlarging the sensor :)
I love the 23 – 69mm range as standard! cool they thought of it when developing the glass! wonder why they started with 1/2.3" at all.
would be interesting to know if zooming in a little to say 27 already helps with the strong barrel distortion (in raw)...

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (10 months ago)

I think Pentax thought if they tried to take on the four thirds market it would be tough competition. Maybe they are carving out their own nich, similar to what Nikon did with their micro cameras. It is easier to create a new market than comepete against an established and mature one that already is out their. Just an opinion on my part. Nothing more.

3 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (10 months ago)

yes, i agree. i didn't mean they should have made a m4/3 Q. i just think starting out with 1/1.7" would have been met with less sneer than what the original Q was greeted with...

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (10 months ago)

Yes, the 1/2.3 had lots of sneers in the beginning, however I looked at some reviews and samples of the original Q last night; not too shabby. I am very interested to see what develops, but I am more interested in finding out what lenses are developed for the 1/1.7.

0 upvotes
paul_smurf
By paul_smurf (10 months ago)

What a shame. I'd buy one if it had an EVF option. This would make a great replacement for my aging Ricoh GX.

0 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (10 months ago)

I use to think the same thing, but I just turn up the 'brightness' and I can see the screen fine--even in direct sun. And as for keeping the camera steady, the shake reduction system works very well.

1 upvote
Tedinvancouver
By Tedinvancouver (10 months ago)

I'm with Raist3d on this,i find it amasing that the Qbashing continues,
mostly by posters who have never handled or used the Q.
I got mine when it first came out and never looked back.
In fact my Panasonic DSLR sits unused in a Drawer since Dec.2011.

7 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (10 months ago)

They're not called Drawer Single Lens Reflexes for nothing. :)

4 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Leica disappointed, Pentax suprised. Interesting development..

20 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (10 months ago)

Small is great, but not when it comes to sensors.
The new bigger sensor is a very good thing, and it's well established in other bodies and brands.

But, c'mon ... only 250 shot CIPA battery life ??
How about a BIGGER battery ?

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (10 months ago)

The thing really is tiny though. And all is fitted inside a full magnesium alloy body anyway.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Its possible to make them more juicy, but in same time usually bit heavy.

Bigger battery is what I would like to see in regular mirrorless, here it would defy point of making very small system.

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (10 months ago)

Back in the day, prior to your young whipper-snapping days when people shot film, nobody DREAMED the day would come when a camera could shoot a whopping 250 images without having to change film--which btw is a far more complicated task than simply changing a battery.

12 upvotes
Bootsy Frost
By Bootsy Frost (10 months ago)

I hear you about the battery life but luckily there are third party ones that are super cheap. And as far as the battery life goes with my classic Q I don't usually get through a whole battery during a day of shooting. If I do I just reach into my man-purse and pop in one of the spares I have ready :)

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

Jimmy Jang Boo is right. Digital photographers are a bunch of spoilt people. 21st century life is too good. In the film days, one can hardly shoot 10 rolls of film a day. Anything more would turn out to be very expensive. Film and processing was not cheap. Every shot counts.

So, if you only need to change "once" after 250 shots a day, it will be unbelievable.
Anyway, this is not a heavy duty camera like a Canon 5D MkIII when you can get about 1000 shots. It is more for having some fun.

Do you wan't to shoot a wedding, for example, with it?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (10 months ago)

wait wait wait, so the lenses covered the 1/1.7" sensor this whole time? This was planned from the beginning apparently? Please elaborate.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

It was planned to have a flexibility in sensor size as room for picking different sensors as needs over time

I can't remember if it can go all the way to 2/3" or the size the Q7 sensor is.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

These are made with the very original "small sensored so it's useless Q". Obviously the photographer ultimately matters, but the point is, how the Q is a good enough tool for some interesting work, for those whose Q characteristics are a match for what they want to do photographically.

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6472.jpg
(iso 6400)
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4768.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4981.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp5281.jpg
Real portrait bokeh with 06 lens (no bokeh control mode)
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp5372.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3782.jpg

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6122.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3458.jpg

Street night life
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3887.jpg

Cat shot of course
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6249.jpg

16 upvotes
deckhanddavy
By deckhanddavy (10 months ago)

Nice stuff there!

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

I still see a baffling number of not so well informed posts thinking Pentax is just twisting in the wind the Q mount. For those who may not know, the Q mount has become rather reasonably popular in Japan and profitable for the company.

This is why they are committing to the format. Outside of Japan some sales have picked up (don't know how good there), but one of the bigger markets is one where the Pentax Q mount is indeed making a profit for Pentax.

As for those who say "why this and not a Nex or etc." you need to pick up a Q in person to understand. Yes, there is a photographic benefit for a true pocketable camera that can change lenses. If you don't see the advantage or it doesn't work for your work it does not make it useless for a set of photographers. And you know, that can be ok- it may not work for you but work for someone else.

A lot of the people I see complaining about the sensor size don't even seem to do photography.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
20 upvotes
ccm
By ccm (10 months ago)

The Q in concept is pretty interesting. However, I don't think it does anything significantly better than other cameras with the same sensor size.

For walk around, cameras like the LX7, XZ-2, MX-1, G15 all sport fast lenses. I took one look at the Q with the 01 at $270 (down from a ridiculous 800) vs the LX7 at 300 and decided I'd rather have the built in versatility. Add the bulk of the 02 and Q is no longer so tiny. The LX7 absolutely trounced it in AF speed too.

Comparing to another camera like the MX-1/XZ-2 which presumably have the same Q7 BSI sensor and sharp lens assemblies...for the price and overall package I'd rather take them too. The Q system right now doesn't have anything attractive in the 24-90 range aside from the 01.

On the long end the 06 is interesting. I'd be very critical to see how it competed with the FZ200 however.

Most C mount and other legacy lenses on the Q look like crap with colour shifts and other aberrations.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Nothing interesting or significant? Can you put a fish eye to any of the cameras you mentioned? How about 1/8000th shutter speed or 1/250th *external* flash sync?

Oh and you can do better shallow DOF or a portrait with the 06 telephoto which is constant f2.8 and 249mm equivalent on the Q. Tell me, what other cameras offers these options?

There's even a f1.2 prime designed for the Q that is also very small. There's a lot of unique once you an change the lenses and equally importantly the ergonomics.

I am not even adding things like built in intervalometer. Not saying the other cameras are bad but the Q sure offers several unique things. Oh and AF is vastly improved with the latest firmware - did you use one with it?

What kind Of photography you do? Sure the Q may not fit your photography but can fit others. But as I said I am always a bit skeptical when I don't see photos from those that want to call on the Q limitations as a photographic tool.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (10 months ago)

I think Pentax just robbed m43 of their biggest advantage - Size.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"Nothing interesting or significant? Can you put a fish eye to any of the cameras you mentioned? "

Yes, fisheye converters are quite cheap, and putting them on top of a lens does not expose sensor to dust.

"Oh and you can do better shallow DOF or a portrait with the 06 telephoto which is constant f2.8 and 249mm equivalent on the Q. Tell me, what other cameras offers these options?"

With equivalent apertures, every camera does better.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Fish eye converters don't give you the same experience not quality. The dust is a non issue given the anti dust mechanism of the Q- its also pretty fast swap (II) you still don't have the options of the lenses. (Iii) no, you don't get same portrait DOF control on the other small sensored cameras for a portrait. (IV). Ic you ignored both the flash sync and the f1.2 prime option.

The point here is not that other cameras are bad but that the Q does offer some very interesting options.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (10 months ago)

Firstly I'd just like to day that Pentax seems to be doing a very good job with its current crop of APSc DSLRs - they're well specified and good value for money.

As for the Q series it's a case of "this horse has ceased to be". It may have just moved, but that's just a sign they're flogging it.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

I like how people still think the Q is dead or not doing well when in fact the opposite is what has happened. It started bad and it's doing reasonably well in Japan, with some sales outside of it. This isn't theory, it's been reported the sales tracking in Japan.

3 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (10 months ago)

Rais3d , in 2012 in Japan Q sold more than OMD, this is how much dead duck was Q and more deader duck was OMD from sales point. :-D

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

True. Maye you should post that fact as a data point at the top.

0 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (10 months ago)

Actually, I am looking for a really small camera right now and this has caught my eye. (The EPL5 has caught my other one.)

0 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (10 months ago)

The larger sensor and more reasonable pricing should make this camera competitive with Canon and Nikon's enthusiasts P&S offerings. The only problem I see is that the market for those cameras is shrinking, not growing. So unless Pentax can grab a substantial share of that market, I don't see how this camera will help their bottom line. Still, I hope it does well.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

The Q is already doing well. This is not a theory. This is why Pentax has chosen to continue to support the mount.

Yes, the Q mount is already helping Pentax's bottom line.

4 upvotes
Tom Lusk
By Tom Lusk (10 months ago)

Raist - when you say "helping Pentax's bottom line", do you mean the Q sales are helping to reduce the losses that Pentax is generating for Ricoh?

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Don't know what you mean. At least one of the recent quarter reports Pentax as a division had a profit (albeit very small) for Ricoh. But that's way better than shedding red like many others?

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (10 months ago)

From a handling perspective, the Q has much more in common with a dslr than it does with a P&S. I have all 3 types of cameras, and the Q is a photographer's tool. I have not used a p&s that does not make me long for my dslr at the first hint of a "tricky" picture.

1 upvote
Simon97
By Simon97 (10 months ago)

The larger sensor makes the lens angle of view more desirable, imho. 23-69mm equivalent is great for a kit zoom. The prime is also more useful as a carry around every day shooter at 39mm (32mm would be ideal for me).

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

Well blow me down - Pentax is suddenly a 'cool' brand! It seems to be all coming together - new life for the Q mount, and two new well received dSLRs. Way to go...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
sadwitch
By sadwitch (10 months ago)

How about this?
http://www.pentax.jp/japan/news/2013/20130613_5.html

1 upvote
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (10 months ago)

This one makes more sense than a previous model but still too big for me...

0 upvotes
iAPX
By iAPX (10 months ago)

The funny thing is that these pocketable camera seems to be much more interesting than the new "red dot" camera, despite it's little sensor, an interesting offer for travelers!

Maybe my future compact pocketable camera if Pentax offers us a 24mm or 28mm-equivalent f/2.0 prime that is flat enough to stay pocketable :p

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Stan LS
By Stan LS (10 months ago)

I don't understand the appeal of a system built around a 1/1.7 sensor. As was pointed out by others, one can buy a Sony Nex-3n for the same $.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

Why would you make more than one type of car? Variety is good. There are reasons to buy this, it is much smaller than a NEX 3N, and a lot easier to control. The 3N has a lot more flexible sensor.

3 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (10 months ago)

The Q is a real pocket camera, it's really tiny.
It makes a big difference with the Nex system.

3 upvotes
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (10 months ago)

I got my Q so that when I get fed up of carrying one of my dSLRs around, I can really get away. It's just so small. But besides size or specs or anything measurable . . . its just plain grass roots fun. Can't really explain why. It just is. For me at least . . .

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (10 months ago)

I have a Q and a few different NEX cameras...
Oddly enough I take my Q everywhere
and my NEX cameras hardly anywhere.
Whereas the Q is FUN,
the NEX is FRUSTRATING.

2 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (10 months ago)

The NEX-5n is slow to start up and a pain to operate. But the images still blow me away... But I would still like a small camera like the Q.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

Q is fun like....?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=KNWQE2uy5_4&NR=1
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAk70_WkIVo

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

They don't have a color I like...

(If black is not a color)

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

On the Pentax.jp website, there are a few photographs of the whole current Q system. Here is one: http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/q7/images/main_img_04.jpg

I just calculated the overall weight of the entire system:
Pentax Q7 = 200g
01 = 37 g
02 = 96 g
06 = 90 g
03 = 29g
04 = 21g
05 = 18g
07 = 8g
----------
Total: 499 grams

The entire Q system — a Q7 body and 7 lenses — weights less than an entry level DSLR body!

18 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (10 months ago)

That 06 lens has a constant f2.8 aperture with the equivalent FOV of at 70-200mm lens on a FF.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (10 months ago)

=:-O

1 upvote
MrTritium
By MrTritium (10 months ago)

I find the Q10 handling excellent. It has much better physical controls and grip than the Nex-3n, GF5, E-PM2 & J3 despite being smaller. I'm glad they kept the same body :)

6 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (10 months ago)

I saw you make this comment elsewhere - Have you actually used any of the other cameras you list or do you just like the Q? Not bashing the Q, I am quite find of them, but I don't think this statement is terribly accurate either and sounds more like a fan comment than a reasoned one.

The Q handles poorly, but is superbly made and handles very well for its size. It is not significantly advanced over the other models you list, far from it. The buttons are hard and difficult to press, they are very very cramped and you cannot press a button and move the jog dial at the same time - which being an SLR interface is how it is 'supposed' to operate, rather than redesigning it from scratch they have simply 'shunk' a DLR layout down and hoped for the best. It's pretty poor to be honest and I think there are way better layouts and interfaces on small bodies designed from the ground up.

3 upvotes
lecoupdejarnac
By lecoupdejarnac (10 months ago)

I own a NEX5n, an original Pentax Q, my wife has a Nikon J1, and I also have an Olympus XZ-1 and a Canon 5DmkII.

With the exception of the much larger Canon 5D, I find the Pentax to be second-best in the handling and interface departments. Pentax really knows how to make cameras that work for photographers. I just wish the front quick-dial were programmable; it's not very useful to RAW shooters.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
deckhanddavy
By deckhanddavy (10 months ago)

I agree. I returned my Pentax K-7 a while back because I was disappointed with the IQ at higher ISO. The one thing I always regret about that return was the satisfaction of holding it in my hand. For me, it had the absolute BEST ergonomics and solid constructed feel of any DSLR that I've owned. The Nikon D300 is the only other DSLR that felt almost as good...it was a bit too bulky and heavy for me in that regard. I would buy the K-5 but I'm too heavily invested in Nikon lenses, strobes and other equipment... :(

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

I second the comment. That's part of what's amazing about the q You get DSLR class controls (it even does 1/250th external flash sync!), and best ergonomics I have ever used on any of the small or even some bigger bodies.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (10 months ago)

I'm not sure if it has the colour that i want though:
http://photo1.ganref.jp/impression/0/469/pentax_12_l.jpg

:O

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

You'll have to wait for the next Korejanai Robo / Evengelion tie-in then...

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

4th up, far right is Australia.

3rd up, 4th from left is Argentina, or Man City. Directly ahead is Juve or Newcastle Utd.

3rd up, 2nd from left is Arsenal, just behind is Man Utd. No red grip option means Liverpool supporters will have to make do with the Man Utd version, or accept a pink grip. ;)

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (10 months ago)

So cool, now it basically has a 24-70/2.8-4.5 :)

3 upvotes
WACONimages
By WACONimages (10 months ago)

Actually I really like the looks of this camera! Maybe if they bring out some bright aperture high end lenses? An K-adapter with autofocus would be a nice move as well.

This week I find out Nikon had new firmware for the 1-series, also included the FT1 adapter, which has now continuous autofocus with af-s lenses!

2 upvotes
Justin Francis
By Justin Francis (10 months ago)

Pentax really can't afford to waste resources to come out with such a flawed concept. They really should have canned the Q series and started again.

1 upvote
2PK
By 2PK (10 months ago)

Please tell me you're not a doctor as you don't know your a___e from your elbow and have clearly never picked up Q to make such a comment.

9 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (10 months ago)

Several companies have decided lately to ditch their low-end products because of increasing competition from smartphones. If that trend spreads (and I believe it will), we'll be left with small sensor, fixed lens cameras (standard or zoom) that cost a lot. In that context, Pentax is right now building a system that will actually be far ahead of the competition in the years to come. I think this is a very good example of forward thinking. Not to mention that the Q system is one hell of a product by itself. As I see it, they are not 'wasting' resources, rather investing in the future.

11 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

If it is so flawed, why have they released 3 versions of the camera? I would suggest using one before bashing it.

4 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

In all seriousness, you need to stop acting like you know what sells in Asia. I have no more idea than you do why Japanese want to spend $$$ on interchangeable lens cameras that can clip to a smartphone. They just do. Roll with it.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

That said, the Pentax K-01 really was a dumb idea. Leaving a bunch of empty space in the body to keep compatibility with SLR lenses was a lazy move that eliminated the main reason to buy it. So yeah, they do screw up sometimes. I have a similar skeptical eye on Canon and their mirrorless. However, and for reasons that I cannot possibly explain, the Q does not lose money.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

You are saying it's flawed yet the Q mount is selling and is profitable. Hmm... I guess Pentax knows what they are doing and you don't.

I am going to take a quick guess and by the comments conclude you probably don't do much photography? I could be wrong of course.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (10 months ago)

What a daredevil company Pentax is! I truly admire the guts of these guys! And I mean I do, no sarcasm here.

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

They built the Auto 110 end of the 70th. That was very similar. SLR with interchangeble Lenses for 110 film. Unfortunatly it was fully automatic.

1 upvote
dormcat
By dormcat (10 months ago)

Am I the only one feeling the yellow/black color scheme very similar to Bumblebee?

With Q10 having Evangelion colors, I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax chose to cooperate with Transformers this time.

2 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (10 months ago)

...it's like the full frame of small frame! :-D

14 upvotes
BG_CX3_DPREVIEW
By BG_CX3_DPREVIEW (10 months ago)

suddenly the taoy Q camera of a few years ago becomes very interesting,
when the Q came out, i could not stop laughing, but now, it all seem to make sence what they did back than.

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

I'm still laughing at the price.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (10 months ago)

Why is it that a slight sensor bump and suddenly everyone is going 'oh wow, great job... Camera looks awesome' etc? Seriously it is a Q10 with a slightly bigger sensor. All other specs remain the same and suddenly people are on board with the idea...

So here is an idea for you - It was a cool concept from the start, but the spexperts could never understand that with their sensor compensation dials turned all the way up to 36x24 ;)

2 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (10 months ago)

So, three questions:
1. Sensor anti-shake?
2. Does it fully support using adapted manual lenses?
3. Anybody making a focal reducer for it? Imagine a Speed Booster-like adapter that buys you several stops while restoring a FF view angle with an adapted lens.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No, but who cares? The kit lens alone goes wider than the average DSLR kit lens. If you want speed, you can buy a c-mount high-end CCTV lens from Schneider, 25mm f/0.95. Find that for an APS camera. Besides, focal reducers kill optical quality.

5 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (10 months ago)

Just a thought, since the crop factor is ~5X
If you pop in a F1.2 lens and reduce it to FF equiv., wouldn't it burn a hole in the sensor LOL
That's ~F0.2

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (10 months ago)

The biggest issue is finding high enough resolution lenses for the original Q, with its 1/2.3" sensor it has something like 330 lp/mm, and most great lenses are only good for around 100 or 150 depending on what contrast you are looking at, etc, so most of the old C mount lenses are crap on it.

You have to get the industrial high MP machine vision lenses, etc, which are not that small and designed for larger sensors (2/3" usually). This new Q has a larger 1/1.7" sensor which should reduce lp/mm of the sensor to about 270, a slight improvement anyway.

Also, with manual lenses, you do lose some flash functionality as the Q only has electronic rolling shutter for manual lenses (leaf shutter for system lenses). You can get high shutter speed with manual lenses, but you get jello-vision since it takes about 1/13 second to expose the entire image (shutter speed is still like 1/8000 or something).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (10 months ago)

The guys from metabones did not managed to build a reducer with factor 0.5. They say that is to much. About 0.7 was all they could do.

0 upvotes
solarider
By solarider (10 months ago)

to qwertyasdf
"Just a thought, since the crop factor is ~5X"

5.5 was the CF for the original Q and Q10. The Q7 has 4.7 CF.

1 upvote
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (10 months ago)

My math says the original Q's sensor needs about 160 lppmm to hit Nyquist (although that number depends a bit on how the Bayer CFA is modeled), and I've never seen a lens test over 100 lppmm. High MP industrial lenses are usually designed for 5MP or less, often assuming a larger-than-Q sensor. In fact, you need a very fast lens to not be diffraction limited on Q. Basically, you'll be getting something more like a very clean 3-5MP equivalent out of a Q with most good lenses, which is better than pro DSLRs were delivering a decade ago.

Contrary to intuition, smaller format lenses generally do NOT resolve more lppmm in the center than larger format ones. C mount lenses are often quite poor compared to lenses for larger formats. Focal reducers can enhance resolution of larger format lenses, but higher reductions require getting closer to the sensor (9.2mm vs. 18mm for Q vs. NEX should help).

Rolling shutter with 1/13s sampling window? Really? FAIL!

1 upvote
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (10 months ago)

Eccentric me has no need for his every camera to be capable of ne plus ultra IQ, the better to produce billboard-size prints or to pixel-peep all my image captures. I admit it's a weakness, but likability, design personality and fun potential can count for a lot.

I like what I see in the Q7 so far. I'm anxious to see how it stacks up in reviews.

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

Very nice, though I would love they re-did the 01 prime as an F1.0/F1.2 or so.

1 upvote
Zamac
By Zamac (10 months ago)

Typo?: "11.5mm F9 lens" in introduction

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

It's a 'pinhole' lens.

3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (10 months ago)

Actually it's a bodycap lens like the one from Olympus.

This is a pinhole:
http://wanderlustcameras.com/

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (10 months ago)

WHere are the equivalency police ?
They will claim the 5-15mm is a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent...and worth $1500

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

On a new Q7, yes, it's in fact 70-210mm/2.8 lens. All those lens numbers have more sense with Q7's sensor size.
And the B&H Photo lists that 06 telephoto lens for $297.

1 upvote
iAPX
By iAPX (10 months ago)

70-200mm is interesting, but "f/2.8" as just a technical sense, because even compared to APS-C, f/2.8 won't give you same depth-of-field (nor bokeh), nor same ability to do low-light photography due to the 1/1.7inch sensor.

In fact it should approximately be considered a f/5.6 - f/11 lens for depth-of-field and low-light, but still it's interesting.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (10 months ago)

@iAPX - the F2.8 constant is important because it does give you the ability to do shallow DOF on a small sensor, not to mention the ability to use the zoom more through the iso range.

For low light the comparison is entirely valid vs cameras in its class.

1 upvote
Total comments: 232
12