Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Pentax Q7 Real-world Samples Gallery

By dpreview staff on Jul 3, 2013 at 19:06 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $376.95

Just posted: Our real-world samples gallery shot with the Pentax Q7. We've spent a couple of weeks with the Q7 in some of Seattle's excellent summer weather, primarily using the 01 Standard Prime 8.5mm F1.9 and 02 Standard Zoom 5-15mm F2.8-4.5. The Q7 is of course the latest miniature interchangeable lens camera in Pentax's Q line, and the first to use a larger 12MP 1/1.7 inch BSI CMOS sensor. Despite a larger sensor than its predecessors, the Q7 is fully compatible with all seven of Pentax's existing Q-mount lenses. Click the links below to view the gallery.

Pentax Q7 Real-world Samples Gallery

There are 30 images in the Pentax Q7 samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Pentax Q7 real-world samples: Published July 3rd 2013
16
I own it
15
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 136
LaFonte
By LaFonte (9 months ago)

I definitely like the form of the Q, cute like a button, but the sample images looks to me pretty much like any other half-priced PS which makes me question why to even bother with different lenses or pay so much for the Q. I have sort of feeling it is a bit of pretend-play. But I definitely agree with the fun factor. Just maybe too expensive fun factor.

1 upvote
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (9 months ago)

Nicer background blur than I expected... Now it would be cool if Pentax came out with a high quality prime pancake for Q-mount. Something in the line of the smc DA 40mm F2.8 Limited...
40mm equivalent would be nice :)))

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (9 months ago)

01 standard prime is not good? It's 39mm on Q7.

2 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

if with the aperture, the 01 prime is closer to the FA43 1.9 Limited, actually :)

0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (9 months ago)

1.7" is too small? For what? when?
Go to the Pentax MX-1 studio scene comparison widget, higher iso, select to compare it with EOS 50D, Canon's S 90 (wich used to lead all enthusiast compacts best lists when it came out), and the Nikon D3000.

Today's 1.7"-sensors are on par with a APSC-DSLR from 5 years ago!
Am I wrong? At raw base iso the detail is amazing, up until 1600 iso (how often do you use higher?) noise is perfectly low.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1 upvote
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (9 months ago)

Actually some images fail to impress me. The Nectarines look a little plasticky, the lawn looks dead... should be better with some postprocessing. If all this is default NR I'm curious to see RAW or low NR setting JPEGs. The cat pic looks pretty awful, but RAW and b/w could still deliver good results at this sensitivity. Anyway I think it's impressive in that ISO4000 with some M4/3 from only 3 years ago would be no better.

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

Larry, cat aweful: yes. Pretty good for iso4000? I will let you answer.

0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (9 months ago)

Nathebeach: okay, I for my part would rather have a severely underexposed, blurred 1600-iso-shot than that blotchy iso 4000 ;) Still I find the speed of evolution in sensors impressive. I see this shot as an extreme that helps to judge the camera's limitations. Almost all cameras on the market (except maybe the APS-C GXR modules) seem to allow to use higher ISO than what makes sense.

1 upvote
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

I generally agree. My only gripe is, there is more to low light shooting than high iso. Even at iso 200, my digital camera along with many others has noise and artifacts. There should be two low light tests for all cameras.
A. Low light high iso.
B. Low light low iso (obviously with a tripod)
C. I like your idea and did not think of that one: Medium iso but under exposed. I am going to experiment with that one.
THANKS!

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

Larry
Sometimes high iso can be desirable. I remember standing in Costco looking at a photography book years ago. One photo was of some boats in a harbor, shot with iso1600 film (do they even make 1600? maybe it was 1000) and pushed to 3200. I remember staring at the photo marveling at the beautiful impressionistic feel of the photo. It was amazing and I absolutely loved it. In digital, I sometimes like the high iso look, but RARELY. It is just not the same as film. Maybe the next generation of digital cameras will address that. Hey there is always Photoshop but that can sometimes be plastic looking, but not always.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
NotSteve
By NotSteve (9 months ago)

Some people might know the old Volkswagen ad campaign that talked about "Fahrvergnügen," which translates as "driving enjoyment." I'm not a car person, however, I'd say the Q system brings out the same quality, "enjoyment of photography" -- Fotovergnügen. Or as others have eloquently said below, it is a really fun camera, while also having a very full and competent set of features. If you're used to big heavy cameras and lenses, it might be hard to appreciate the Q until you pick one up and spend time with it.

6 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

A detail often overlooked in reviews of Q cameras is that Q lenses have a 40.5mm filter thread. Which means, you can use CPL filter and all other creative filters in that size.
Adding a CPL on 01 lens, for example, would make many of sample shots in this gallery quite amazing and so DSLR like.

2 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (9 months ago)

another pathetic product from Pentax. Even my phone can take better picutres.

1 upvote
Don Kiyoti
By Don Kiyoti (9 months ago)

IZO100, see my post below in response to Nathebeach. That last paragraph applies directly to you.

6 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

Does your phone have a spell checker?
Seriously though, how are you contributing anything to the discussion? Why not try to offer something constructive? Also please send us some of these photos of yours. I just got back from a day of shooting, but I think we would all rather see your iphone photos.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Actually, no your phone can't. Nor can a phone take other lenses. But if a camera phone is satisfactory for your photography, you don't need anything else.

Most enthusiasts however won't be satisfied with the quality, ergonomics, and exposure controls of a camera phone.

4 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

I'm surprised to see a person with a phone that can take pictures.

IZO100, are you from another planet? Last time I checked, Earth-made cameras don't do photography by themselves, let alone phones. That's some really "smart" phone you have!

On a serious note, pics are made by people, not really cameras, these tools don't see a thing without our eyes behind them. Or on top, for some.

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

I am fascinated by the criticisms of those who have not even seen let alone used the camera. I am going to stand up for Pentax for trying something new (again).

Why buy this camera? I see a few prime reasons.

A. DOF
B. Great telephoto ability without lugging heavy eq.

Those seem to me to the big ones. Can actual users comment on ones I may have overlooked? While I am NOT an actual user, I have lots of experience with FF and the M43 system so I can relate somewhat to the differences offered by this system, and I must say that I am intrigued.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

Probably best ergonomics in not only its size but several cameras above it.

5 upvotes
Don Kiyoti
By Don Kiyoti (9 months ago)

C. Fun.

Many commenters seem to have lost sight of the fact that most people do photography for, you know: Enjoyment. I have an original Q with the 01 Prime and 02 Zoom. It is just so enjoyable to pick it up, fool around with it, try out the digital filters (many of which are pretty cool), and take lots of pictures. It has had a major effect on how I think about taking photos. When I'm out and around with it, people who see it are always struck by it: what a neat little camera that is! When I pop up the flash: wow! that is so cool! Happens a lot.

More than any other photography related site I read, people on dpreview are the most narrow-minded, brand-centric, gearheaded bunch around. And they are way more willing to post nonsense and let their idiot-flag fly.

20 upvotes
aceofspades
By aceofspades (9 months ago)

A friend of mine bought an original Q one month ago. Despite the fact that I and my girlfriend use a K-r on a daily basis, we were just like "Wow ! Look at this ! The pictures are amazing for its size !!!" and just went on playing with functions and having fun for the WHOLE night. We just had so much more fun than we ever had taking pictures with more professional range devices - including Canons, Nikons, etc.

So, no, it's not useless, it's just that you're too much into the professional side of things to feel the overwhelming fun to be found in this great camera, which, indeed, won't take pictures which quality will overcome that of you mid-range DSLR, but if you still have got interest in just having a good time, this is definitely worth the money.

And as a side note, not everybody needs a DSLR, just like I don't need a full frame.

5 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

If I'm going to look at photos from a Facebook perspective most of the time (which I bet MANY people do), every good photo will have a "DSLR" look to it; many are just have a wrong connotation of good photos being taken with a big, bulky DSLR.

I have two DSLRs which I use for events coverages and hauling them around isn't really something I'd do for an "everyday kind of photowalk." I find the Q the perfect fit for it - smaller than a Pana or an Oly Pen, with great image quality too.

1 upvote
audiobomber
By audiobomber (9 months ago)

Some people still don't understand the system, but it's good to see that this comment section is a huge improvement over the Q's debut.

I have a Q with 01 normal prime, 03 fisheye and 06 telephoto zoom. I have an inexpensive Petri OVF designed for 45mm equivalent, which works beautifully with the 01 prime and will still be fine when I upgrade the body to a 1/1.7" sensor (not in a hurry). I have an inexpensive K-mount adapter that I use with an A 135mm f2.8 and DA*300mm f4 for mind-boggling tele reach. I'm interested in the wide angle prime shown in the lens roadmap. If you think I would trade this system for an RX100 or any other advanced amateur compact, you are seriously mistaken.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
bzanchet
By bzanchet (9 months ago)

Very nice! This is probably the best 1/1.7"camera available.

Too bad that everytime, the same gang enters the comment section to complaint about sensor size, the specs and so on... there are a lot of cameras to diferent tastes, for me this is perfect, if it is not for you, go nag in somewhere else...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
18 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (9 months ago)

i also have NEX F3, but ergonomically Q wins over it.. Q is faster to use, more direct control and the new firmware really speed up the AF capability...

4 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (9 months ago)

the first time i saw the Q specs, i also got 'meh', small sensor, no bokeh, bad high ISO... but i finally gave it a chance...
and i change my mind after I use it..
Yes it doesn't have ultra high ISO, it can't blur the background, but it is fun and produce good results especially the 01 prime.. i don't really like the 02 zoom.. too slow for me, 90% of the time I just use 01 prime.. it's not bokeh machine, but it produce good results, i love the rendering of the lens... unbelieveable for a lens that small & light...
i have just sold it, because these days i'm quite busy and doesn't have the chance to play with it.. but surely i will miss it, and maybe i'll buy the Q7 if they package it with 01 and tele zoom.. or maybe bought it again in the future, but just with the 01 kit lens..

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

You will read Pentax Q users often repeat one word to describe the Q: fun. In many researches about what ignites creativity in humans, noted were several factors: playfulness, humour, having enough time to play, experimentation, enough space, sense of freedom, risk taking, openness to final conclusions (challenging norms and common conclusions).
In photographic terms, a camera that allows you more of all of these, will be enticing for developing photographic creativity.

16 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

As the smallest and still capable system camera, the Q is an antithesis of norms. It defies the solemnity big, serious camera comes with. When you hold a Q, you understand it was designed to challenge norms, to be playful, to humour photographer and models, to be carried around with ease, thus giving much more time spent with it — more than other system camera. Being a system camera, with a variety of lenses, it is also more versatile than a P&S compact (say RX100), which means, it gives more space for experimentation.
Etc. I hope you get the point.

13 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (9 months ago)

Very well put.

3 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

Wow, you pretty much nailed it to the wall, Zvonimir. Great insight! I also thought the Q was a failure until I realized how useful its smallness is... (after lugging around two DSLRs for a year, ugh)

0 upvotes
blank_
By blank_ (9 months ago)

nice camera with good enough image quality, but it just makes no sense for me with current lens lineup.

compacts with same sensor size have f1.4-2.8 zooms these days, so I believe pentax can do better than 2.8-4.5 for standard zoom and I don't think that primes should be slower than f1.4 except some wideangles and long telephoto.

4 upvotes
NotSteve
By NotSteve (9 months ago)

I've got different needs than you I expect, however I find the 03 fisheye lens on the Q to give it a real leg up on all the other CSCs smaller than m43. Plus the crop factor of 5.5 is also very exceptional when used with adapted SLR lenses. You also miss the fact that the 06 zoom is a f2.8 throughout the range. To me, these are three pretty compelling lens choices in favour of the Q.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

01, 02, 03 and 06 is already like a 40mm 1.9 prime, 24-70 2.8-4.5 zoom and 70-200 f2.8 on APS-C. For a system this young (the original Q and 01~03 lenses were born when? 2 years ago, 6 lenses already? (the 07 is still just a mount cap lol)

That's fast, I think.

0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (9 months ago)

I cannot understand... Nikon 1 gives much better quality with the same price and size... Why bother buying Pentax Q?

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

No, not the same size. That's one of the key advantages of the Q (size/weight). Look at the size of the Nikon lenses. Look at the ergonomics/controls. Both systems have their pros/cons.

6 upvotes
blank_
By blank_ (9 months ago)

thanks to very big flange distance, the nikon 1 lenses are not that small, as you would expect given the sensor size.

Nikon interface and controls are lame, but they have some nice lenses + it seems, there will be a macro and another fast prime in recent future, while pentax Q lens lineup is lacking in many areas and there are no signs of anything new for a long time now.

1 upvote
Paul Pasco
By Paul Pasco (9 months ago)

The N1 system, which I own and like a lot, is much larger than the Q system just as the N1 system lenses are smaller than mirrorless APS-C systems. All systems are compromises in some aspect and it comes down to what you need a system to do and what you are willing to accept with those compromises. For me if the Q had an EVF like the V1, I would jump ship for the little guy in a heartbeat, but I know adding that EVF would ruin the looks/size for many. Just my 2 cents.

1 upvote
ntsan
By ntsan (9 months ago)

Well they could do a Panasonic LF1 implantation of EVF and still keep the body small

0 upvotes
NotSteve
By NotSteve (9 months ago)

Well Paul, because not everyone is a pixel peeper. The Q is significantly smaller and handles like miniature DSLR. From what I understand, the Nikon 1 cameras tend to be much more automated, with manual settings harder to access. However, they are brilliantly fast and great for action, whereas the Q is a bit on the slow side. Point being, much as we all like to reduce cameras to a single linear score/percentage, everyone's needs/priorities vary as do the capabilities of cameras. I personally find the Q a great camera and an excellent solution for the type of photography I do.

0 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (9 months ago)

"while pentax Q lens lineup is lacking in many areas and there are no signs of anything new for a long time now."

I don't think I'd put the N1 mount in any sort of competition for comprehensiveness.

Pentax released the 06 f/2.8 telezoom late last year and the body cap lens this summer. They have a roadmap with a wide angle (zoom or prime?) and tele/macro prime that are likely to appear in 2013-14.

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

well, I could try putting a Nikon 1 with its thinnest lens to my shirt pocket and rip it off to expose my chest. Because as far as size goes, Q > N1

of course N1 > Q in IQ, but it has its use too :)

0 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (9 months ago)

I'm somewhat surprised at the better than expected image quality. Of course the ultra-high ISO's don't look that good, but it's amazing at 640-800. In fact its better (less noisy) than some of my (very) old APS-C cameras (D100 and D80) in other than good light. Optics seem rather good to me as well. Very useable as a all-round light travel camera, I would say. It's cute, too.

11 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (9 months ago)

I always find it hard to judge IQ from Jpegs when you don't have any data on what noise reduction level was applied, or sharpening, or contrast, etc. Raw files from the best raw converter really tell the story. So I'm holding back judgement till I do that.

The Jpegs look good for Jpegs though, I'll say that much. Bit heavy handed in the NR dept. though for my taste. Still, what is the NR setting?

C

0 upvotes
Allison Johnson
By Allison Johnson (9 months ago)

Noise reduction was set to 'auto' for these JPEGs, I'd agree that it looks a bit heavy handed at times, there are low and high settings apart from auto.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (9 months ago)

I know this is going to hurt a lot of Q-fans' feelings, but given the price, I fail to see the point of this, relative to the RX100 that is in a similar pricing ballpark.
Given the relative sensor sizes, even if many would like the rx100 to be brighter on the long end, with f4.9 on a 1" sensor it's still MUCH brighter with more DoF control than a f4.5 on a 1/1.7" sensor.

Here are the lenses DPR lists for the Q
http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/lenses#criterias=SpecsCoreParams&includeDiscontinued=No&sort=newestFirst&view=list&page=1&paramSpecsCoreParamsLensType=&paramSpecsCoreParamsLensMount=PentaxQ&paramSpecsCoreParamsSubcriteria=LensMount%2CLensType%2CAdditionalFeatures&paramSpecsCoreParamsSearchType=Simple

zoom lens: f2.8-f4.5

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

The Sony update sure looks very cool but ironically you have more DOF control on an 1/1.7'' at a focal of 200mm equivalent (06 telephoto zoom, F2.8 constant) than on the RX100 first or second. Or even the original Q (1/2.3'' sensor) with its 249mm equivalent (06 telephoto zoom, F2.8 constant). You don't need to use F4.5 on the Q line as there are different lens options.

OH, and forget about the "hurt a lot of Q-fans feelings" - it's good to talk the facts. I like what Sony did with the new camera, their controls were very lacking in the first one and they addressed that now it seems to a big extent (good).

I think both cameras have their places. What I would like Pentax (er. Ricoh) to do is re-release the 01 prime as an F1.0 or 1.2 lens.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

In case you are curious of what I mentioned:

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3782.jpg

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (9 months ago)

oh ok, you mean the 82mm-249mm equivalent they offer - so that would be a FF equivalent of f/13. I had to look it up on Pentax's site, as there is no mention of it on DPR. But, the applications for long zooms are not typically portraiture.
the RX100 stops at 100mm, with a relative aperture of f/13 also.

Since both are equal at 100mm, how could you say the Pentax is faster? it's not. and at the wide end, it is wayyyy outclassed by the Sony.

but I do get your point: if you want to shoot questionable quality images at 250mm, the Q can do it... then again, aren't there attachments now, for the new RX100ii, that would allow the same focal length equivalent, and still with a much much much larger sensor? (yup, that's 3 "much"es, as it's 3 times bigger) ;-)
ps: and before anyone freaks out over my statement "questionable quality images" at 249mm - anyone who has owned a superzoom camera knows what I'm talking about.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

I must say I really love how you say "everyone knows what I am talking about" with the questionable quality part without having any experience whatsoever in the camera you are judging, as a blanket statement to establish a fact by what "wry one obviously knows". Sorry, that trick don't work. I have owned a super zoom and the 06 lens is not a super zoom lens

Also, I didn't say the Q had a faster lens. What I said is that you can control DOF better. As for shooting portraiture with telephoto it may surprise you that, that's exactly what many pro protogs do due to the orthogonality and compression of the shot. Why you think olympus advertises or example the 150mm equiv micro four thirds as a portrait lens? You know that DOF also is dependent on te focal length right?

So what you can say is that at 100mm equivalent for both, the Sony should do better DOF but at 249mm equiv the Q will outclass the Sony at DOF control.

Instead of admitting just a set of pros and cons then you go ahead and limit it to 100mm and claim the Sony does better. Well, part of the point of the Q is precisely to be able to use different lenses. Stacking lenses on te Sony wont help you there since you start compromising the quality and most importantly you start losing f stops too. You know, tele converters take out light.

But this is all irrelevant no? You already made up your mind and the Q is just bad. No pros whatsoever. Not even the $200 usd price diff.

4 upvotes
NotSteve
By NotSteve (9 months ago)

Sadly obvious trolling Tim. Give it a rest.

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

Several months later, it will probably be around $100 or lower than this initial price.

0 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (9 months ago)

Raist3d. You seem to be on one of your attention cycles, a day after your humiliation on 43rumors you continue your crazed tirade.

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

Not sure what humiliation you talk about. I guess when you don't stick to the facts you have to make things up. Of course, that has nothing to do either way with this thread or conversation.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (9 months ago)

Forget higher ISO's, it's not this camera's forte. But what I would do if you are curious if the camera is any good is to print a shot at 200 ISO from it and then do one from m4/3 or APS at 16x20" and see if the difference is hugely dramatic. Likely, no.

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (9 months ago)

Beside the fun factor, what is the actual advantage of this over RX100?

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (9 months ago)

Being an interchangeable lens camera you can get a proper fast tele (portrait) lens for the Q, the RX100 is somewhat slow at the tele end.

6 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (9 months ago)

@Andy:
You seem to be forgetting the relative sensor sizes:
comparing a 1" sensor to a 1/1.7" sensor, once you convert their lens apertures to FF equivalents, you will see that the RX100, despite being criticized for being slow on the long end, is WAY brighter than the zoom lens of the Pentax.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

@Timmbits- I would agree that the Sony should hold light better, but the DOF control will still be ironically more on the Q side. Remember you are shooting at F2.8 and 200mm equivalent.

4 upvotes
Silvarum
By Silvarum (9 months ago)

Probably insane reach with K mount lenses. Personally, that is the reason I'll buy one (beside the fun factor).

1 upvote
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (9 months ago)

@Timmbits, it's been a while since I used the RX100, but I came away with the feeling that it was unfinished. No grip made it difficult to hold, the shutter button had no click to it, and the UI could be better. The 1" sensor is really great, but the rest of the camera was a let down.

What I'd really like to see is that 1" sensor in a better camera with a better lens -- something along the lines of the LX7.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

You couldn't possibly cram the RX100 sensor on an LX7 body with an identical lens tho (specs-wise), the body would have to be much larger to accommodate such a fast zoom lens in front of such a large sensor... At that point you're better off with a mirrorless camera, even if you take into account the fact that the RX100 is probably overpriced by a couple hundred dollars (simply because it has no direct competition amongst compacts, particularly those small enough for a pant's pocket).

0 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (9 months ago)

F2.8 at tele end give u higher chance of success with faster shutter speed, unless u are shooting trees

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (9 months ago)

Ugly mediocre quality typical of practically every camera today. Absolutely no improvement in image quality.

2 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

You say the same for the Canon 1Dx and the Nikon D4, or D800E? OK, even the Phase One's and HB's and Leaf's? Impressive. "every camera today". wow.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (9 months ago)

Pentax was smart to increase the sensor size for the Q7.

They made it large enough to create a much better alternative to any fixed lens 1/1.7" compact, while keeping it small enough to make all the original lenses still work perfectly. And the net result is you end up with a very nice camera that is capable of really good results.

But if you think this camera can compete with and EPM2, then you are being delusional. You cannot repeal the laws of physics just because you like a camera. A 4/3 sensor is still five times larger, and that is just a simple fact.

This difference is even greater than the difference between a 4/3 sensor and a FF sensor, and you don't see anyone saying that an EPM2 can do "nearly as well" as a Nikon D800. Those sort of wild claims are the mark of fanboyism.

However, it still is worth noting that this Pentax Q7 is still a lot more desirable than any Panasonic LX7, Canon S110, or Olympus XZ-2, simply for the feature set and the ability to swap lenses.

7 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

Hmm I don't see many people saying this does as well as say an EPM2, though the Original Q when it came out did match some m4/3rds kits given the slow lenses they were packed in, while the Q was packed with a fast lens.

Also that said, the Original Q with a 1/2.3'' did and DOES better than many compact cameras with a bigger 1/1.7'' sensor- the law of physics have to be taken into account with everything else being equal - which it wasn't since the sensors had different technologies.

Many did and continue making the mistake that the original Q could not perform as well as the compacts around at that time and it actually did better than many of them. All because someone read "oh, 1/2.3'' so smaller sensor = worse" Wrong!

(not saying it matches the EPM2, but all of a sudden the "Q does well" simply for having a slightly bigger sensor while the original Q did better and does better than many compacts that have a bigger sensor).

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

OH, by the way, you can also add to the mark of fanboyism saying that the EM-5 sensor matches best APS-C (no, you don't have to go to FF to see a notable difference). That you can see a lot of.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (9 months ago)

Raist3d shows his fanboy side again. The sensor size difference between M4/3 and APSC is tiny (smaller than the difference between FF and APSC) but size difference between Q sensor and 4/3 was huge, but yet Pentax fanboys (even this comment section) constantly claimed that Q could match M4/3 sensor. There claims were all based on Dxomark where Sony sensors score high DR at base ISO and on top of that Q was overrated on dxomark due to RAW NR that starts at base ISO

There is no equivalence in comparing 4/3 and APSC and comparing tiny cellphone size Q sensor and 4/3

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

Marty and Et2, we are talking about ability to always be able to take quality images, not always take highest image quality.
In that regard, Q system is better than any other system.
Simple laws of physics (smallest system size).

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

ET2- The difference between m4/3rds and APSC (and depends which APSC you are talking about) can be 38% surface area. I am not saying that's "HUUUGE" but I wouldn't call it tiny- but that is besides the point. The point is I am not sure where are all the "Pentax fanboys that claimed it can match m4/3rds" I certainly haven't said that, and you call me a fanboy so something seems wrong with your logic.

That said, What I did point out before was your false claims before vs some of the other slightly bigger sensors, but then you never show any photographic work or photographs or experience, so it's understandable you only go by made up theories with no practice.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

ZVonimir - that really depends on the wants and needs of each photographer. I think what can be said is the Q system can be a compelling system for many photographers due to those characteristic, but best is all relative to individual wants and needs.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JacobSR
By JacobSR (9 months ago)

Is bigger sensor ALWAYS better? Well, size does matter but sometimes it's not only the size of the sensor. It's the QUALITY of the sensor, with great processing engine, and fine optics.
All that enclosed in a compact body with great ergonomics, and the right controls under your fingertips.

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

FYI again, for those interested in the Q system, the 01 prime lens can be found quite easily from the multiple amazon links, and it does not take several weeks to come here. You can have one ship in 2-6 business days from Japan with Amazon delivery warranties.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0071GT6CO/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new&qid=1372905829&sr=8-1

Marike - please next time just do a cursory search :-) Don't make me link you to "let me google that for you" :-)

0 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (9 months ago)

Same sensor as that "brick" the MX-1? Speaking of Pentax "bricks" which I own both the MX-1 and K-01, if I did it right here is a size comparison.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#285,404,464,ha,f

http://camerasize.com/compact/#285,404,464,ha,t

http://camerasize.com/compact/#285,404,464,ha,b

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

The MX-1 is almost the same thickness as the Olympus XZ-2 and much of that thickness comes from the tiltable LCD panel.

But the thinkness makes it pretty easy to handhold, since there is no actual grip.

Personally I hate slimline compacts with a passion. They are great for pocketability, terrible for shooting (think Canon S110).

But when Pentax's own users start in with the "brick" nonsense, it's not positive word of mouth becomes unlikely.

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (9 months ago)

Wow, HUGE sensor.

3 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

If the review for the Q7 is coming, that's a true novelty.

However, since the Q7 is a system camera, one of three made already, and practically peerless, it has no direct competitors. All compact cameras with same sensor size must take a different working philosophy because they are not system cameras like Q, and are thus very different from the Q.

So I don't really know how DPR will score their verdict, and based on what expectations exactly? Will DPR judge the camera alone, or the entire Q system? Because Q7's function is dependant on its lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

I would put it up against the other 1/1.7 sensor cameras and it should do very well, at or near the top of this class for functionality as early preview looks promising. However, being system camera makes it unique category for sensor size, and perhaps unfair advantage to other advanced compacts. An award based on its own category then?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

Well, it all becomes absurd very quickly. Say let's measure sharpness and performance at 40mm. Or at 16mm. At 210mm. Etc. Q can do all those, and other compacts lose in all respects.

But then, should we solely judge by 02 lens performance, which was deliberately done as an entry level, inexpensive lens to be sold in kits?
Etc.

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (9 months ago)

Props for Pentax for increasing the sensor size by 50%.
(And also keeping it compatible with previous lenses.)

10 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (9 months ago)

I can't believe what I read... a full review of a Q-mount camera is in the making? Better late than never...

4 upvotes
Rosember
By Rosember (9 months ago)

This lets hope for a full review of the Q7. I am looking forward to it. :-)
Compared to the original Q the sensor of the Q7 should be better, especially at high ISO. Not by a large margin, though. I just took a shot of my dog at the same settings as the cat shot in the sample gallery, and although the Q7 looks a little bit better, my Q is not much behind.
Please note: This is not criticizing the Q7 but praising the original Q that still holds its place. A great little gem. :-)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

FYI for those interested in the system - Pentax 01 Q mount lens *is not* discontinued. I do not know where people got the idea, but here you can buy it from Pentax:

http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/product/40104#back

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

That's good to know, but as I said below it's a special order item with a 4 to 6 weeks. Which is fine, but it cannot be purchased at any camera store I know of. It shows up occasionally on Ebay for about $200-250 used price.

I guess Pentax stopped kitting it because profit margins were lower. Since almost all of the above samples were made with the 8.5 f/1.9 01 Standard Prime, people should know that there is no Q7 / 01 kit.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

One good option to get the 01 lens is to get the original Q+01 prime lens package. It sells ridiculously cheap and for the price of a new 01 lens or even less, one can get an extra Q body with it.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

@Zvonimir Tosic

There are very few Q+01 kits available, I've been trying to find one on Ebay (or anywhere) for weeks, at least not for the same low price as the zoom kit. Lots of new, old stock Q+02 zoom kits for $239, but 01 Prime kit are getting scarce.

But $199 and 4-6 weeks wait is not too bad. It's just weird that B&H has all the toy lenses, but no 01 Standard lens. Maybe if the Q7 does well, they'll put it back on the shelves.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

Hi Marcus. I think operations and distribution is a notion Ricoh must work on harder. The new GR is on backorder too almost everywhere.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

Gosh, look at these 01 lenses available in Japan — they come in all new colours:
http://shop.pentax.jp/c/c15/

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

@Marike06- I think the point is the lens is not discontinued. This was the original claim which is false. It's in the roadmap and Pentax (I mean Ricoh :-) ) is behind this mount.

0 upvotes
Don Kiyoti
By Don Kiyoti (9 months ago)

@Zvonimir - Ooh I want the white one!

0 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (9 months ago)

Pentax may finally have a true successor to the 110.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Why wasn't the original Q a successor to the 110? The Q is essentially the same camera with a slightly smaller sensor, but with IQ performance that was competitive with most of the 1/1.7" sensor cameras but DSLR like controls like a command dial, PASM mode dial, Pentax's excellent Info menu, a hot shoe, etc.

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

I never really like the 1/2 inch sensor on the Nikon compacts I have tried. The 1/1.7 inch is so much better for image quality.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

A good lesson: Never judge Pentax by what Nikon cannot do.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

@Zvonimir Tosic

What can't Nikon do: make nice cameras that nobody buys?

Or perhaps Nikon should learn how to go from being one of the big four to a niche player.

Don't even know what you are talking about, but my point was the original Q is the successor to the 110. The slightly larger sensor will give it modest IQ gains, that's all.

Anyway, the Q is a better camera than the 110 ever was.

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

I bought a Nikon s8100 for someone with 1/2 inch sensor that was not good at 400 iso, but considering the low cost around $250 I should have known better. Nikon only shows their best samples online for any size camera. Bought the Panasonic LX5 shortly after and was very pleased. I would admit, other features such as great lenses like on Q (or Leica lens on LX5), make a big difference for any sensor size in compacts or CSC.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

@Adrian Van
The Nikon s8100 uses a 1/2.3" sensor camera just like the Q and Q10. The only compact AFAIK that use 1/2" sensors are the Fujifilm F series. But the S8100 is popular for it's large zoom range and for snapshots in Green mode. There are no direct controls over exposure, and it only shoots JPEG. The Q is a better enthusiast camera period, but it had excellent IQ with the 1/2.3" sensor. The new sensor will give it a bit better IQ, and a bit more shallow DOF up close.

But going to 1/1.7" doesn't suddenly put the Q on the map, IMHO. It already was an extremely competitive camera for IQ, features and fun factor.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

Thanks for clarity. Also bought one of the Fuji F series 1/2 inch compacts for my mother in law. Actually great in bright light with EXR. However noisy in low light at 400 iso or smearing applied. I will take your word for it, that the 1/2.3 inch in a Q first version is far superior plus all the great control features and better lenses. The photos here in Q7 look great to 1000 iso (samples shown) and possibly higher. 4000 iso sample of cat was soft but good for a small sensor.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

You confuse monetary success (obtained through sheer marketing power and market's conformism) with the ability to be bold and bring amazing new ideas. By that logic Einstein, Tesla or Tim Berners Lee would be trillionaires. Success and innovation don't exclude each other though, but it takes a special effort Pentax brand must still master.

1 upvote
NetMage
By NetMage (9 months ago)

I think the Q isn't a proper successor since it has no VF. I also regret the fact that the 110 film has m4/3 area instead of the much smaller Q area, but sensor improvements may have made up that difference. How about a Q designed with OM-D styling/features?

0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (9 months ago)

What is the POINT of having a camera with interchangeable lenses that is worse than SEVERAL compact camera's with non nterchangeable lenses? This is basicly a TOY mirrorless rather than a REAL high quality mirrorless like the gx1, om-d, epl-5 e-pm1 e-pm2 & such.

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (9 months ago)

What is the point of your clueless ranting blather?

22 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (9 months ago)

To take photos maybe...???...

4 upvotes
DrugaRunda
By DrugaRunda (9 months ago)

How is it worse? Q10 with previous gen smaller sensor was about part with E-PM1 that you mention above on DXO (3pts difference), Q7 will score better, as sensor is often put as some sort of an issue, when it clearly is the best small sensor implementation in the industry, where a 1/2.3 sensor can perform as well as some M4/3rd ones. If you were happy with IQ from e-pm1 I am sure you would be happy with IQ from the Q.

On other points, such as size and erognomics Q wins easily, so what is it exactly that makes this camera worse?

2 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

Like which? The original Q was actually *better* than several of those cameras, and the Q7 will be better even.

6 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (9 months ago)

I looked up 'fanboy' on Google and Anepo's name came up. Then I looked up 'small yellow bus', and it came up again.

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

Anepo, maybe the point(s) is/are:
A. To have fun
B. To shoot pictures (instead of trolling)
C. To offer constructive criticisim (OK that is just me ranting against trolls)
D. To be able to use some really nice glass on a compact system
E. To get great DOF on macros using the above mentioned Glass.
F. To shoot low light W.A. shots (try getting significant DOF at f1.8 using an APS-C sensor, or even an M43 sensor. Not possible.
G. and finally, examine the images. I did and they are not bad AT ALL. I was blown away by the original Q.
H. One more: Having used my Canon SSC glass on my M43 camera, I can tell you that you can really do some great things on a small sensor.
I. You can take your 100mm SLR lens to a soccer game and security does not stop you because they don't know that in reality it is a 200mm on my M43 and a 300mm+ on a 1.7 sensor (happened to me TWICE at a Galaxy game with my big lenses, not so with the small ones)

Can I stop ranting?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (9 months ago)

Just to have fun. Small primes, special lenses. Etc.

2 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (9 months ago)

@sdribetahi that is utterly false, accusing someone of fanboyism is just a way to try to slander theyre credability, i have owned several slrs and dslrs made by pentax so dont even try this bs!

1 upvote
Anepo
By Anepo (9 months ago)

@jimmy jang boo my point is an overpriced under performng product that delivers less image quality than some premium compacts.

0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (9 months ago)

@drugarunda the ep-m1 has a far superior low light ability and stating it was better is pure false, also you claim the q7 will be better than several m43 cameras shows your false claims as it is not out yet and thus you are saying something is a fact while having no evidence to back such a claim.s

0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (9 months ago)

@nathebeach it is an overpriced compact camera with interchangeable lenses delivering worse iq than some premium compacts. And your claim about dof on m43s and dslrs is an outright and outrageus lie. And you can stop ranting whenever you like, nobody is forcing you...

0 upvotes
DrugaRunda
By DrugaRunda (9 months ago)

@ Annepo - Well the evidence is DXO - which is what is generally used for sensor comparisons, and is popular when you get a very good sensor in as with OM-D :-D.

Thus whe whole range of M4/3 cameras one of which is EP-M1 - are very similar to Pentax Q, better in low light for about a stop, but worse DR and color accuracy, so actually at low ISO Q with its tiny sensor is better! Go and check for yourself, and that is the "proof".

Last point is that in principle neither Q or EP-M1 are good low light cameras, better than having nothing, or a smartphone, but not "great" - however to dismiss Q as worse, and qualify such M4/3 cameras as "high quality", or "far superior" is just plain inaccurate.

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

Annepo, I will go toe to toe with anybody about M43 as I am as qualified as anybody to discuss it competently. Please SHOW ME EXAMPLES of APS-C or M43 sensors at F2.0 or lower at ANY focal length that have in focus depth of field from the front of the picture to the back. You can't, can you? The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to bring the entire photo into focus. By default, the better for low light because now you don't have to stop down to bring photo into focus. But go ahead and respond. I am enjoying your contributions.

Even the "not much smaller" Nikon 1" sensor has a BIG DOF improvement at fast F stops over the M43 sensor. I though the diff. would be subtle since the M43 is not that much bigger. No way. Anyway I look forward to your reply.

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

Annepo, I think you are taking all of our comments wrong. We were offering positives on the camera. If you dis like, go elsewhere. I am sorry for lashing out, but your comments about my "outright lies" are unsubstantiated at best.

Simple Fact: smaller sensor = greater DOF. Why would you call that an outright lie? I am sorry for my sarcastic comments earlier, especially since one of my comments was that we should offer constructive comments, and I was a bit of a hypocrite on that count. Anyway, I was/am commenting on the positives of the system, and one positive that I came up with based on my experience with full frame and M43 is that a HUGE benefit of the 1.7 is the ability to have insane depth of field. Somehow a positive got turned around into an attack so please take the comments for what they are.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

@Anepo

You say you've owned several Pentax dSLRs. Ever tried hauling two at once? Not a very comfortable thing to do don't you think?

This little boy can match the K-r's IQ at even ISO800. For a camera that's more than twice smaller, I think that's a cool feat. So no, those compacts ARE NOT as compact (and therefore flexible in use) as the Q/Q10/Q7

0 upvotes
Acemetric
By Acemetric (9 months ago)

With the flash extended, I think this camera looks like Johnny 5.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Colors look similar to the original Q, but it looks like per-pixel sharpness is a bit better. This is going to be one of the more fun small cameras around.

Unfortunately their best and brightest lens, the 8.5 f/1.9 seems to have been discontinued, and the Q system without that lens is not as interesting. That means, no bright prime, and no OVF (which was designed for use with that lens).

5 upvotes
Harold66
By Harold66 (9 months ago)

I agree completely with the above

3 upvotes
DonThomaso
By DonThomaso (9 months ago)

The 01 prime was never supposed to be sold separately, but only with bodies. The ones that has been listed are usually "split boxes". The OVF is for sale separately at the larger stores.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

Since when was the 01 discontinued? It's right there for sale at the Pentax USA online store.

http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/product/40104#back

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

@Raist3d

Special order item 4-6 weeks. At B&H and Adorama the 01 lens is not listed. And now that all the old stock original Q / 01 Standard Prime kits are long gone, it's a difficult lens to find.

@DonThomaso

What is the logic of not selling their best lens separately? And the OVF only works with the 01, and I'm guessing the crop lines are for 49mm, not 39mm, so the OVF is history. It's something I hope Pentax figures out, or I have no interest in the Q7.

3 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (9 months ago)

marike- a special order item is not the same as discontinued! That was the claim and it's false. The lens is clearly on the Pentax Q roadmap, so definitively not discontinued.

2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (9 months ago)

@ marike6

No vendor would want to stock a lens that came in 20 different colors. It only makes sense that this would be a special order item.

Special Order DOES NOT mean discontinued.

1 upvote
Don Kiyoti
By Don Kiyoti (9 months ago)

Adorama seems to have it (says in stock when added to cart) http://www.adorama.com/IPXQSZ1.html
But they don't have the Q7 body bundled with it.

Amazon.ca has it in stock. Amazon USA has it via Adorama and another seller.

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

As dpreview is showing photo samples with 01 standard prime, stands to reason it would be offered for Q7 as separately or with maybe a kit in future.

0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (9 months ago)

One of the niches of the Qs is shooting with a K adapter and telephotos (they get humongus equivalent focal lengths with that, and amazing clarity).
You lose a little reach with the larger sensor of the Q7, but high ISO performance looks so good it might allow quite a faster shutter speed.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 45 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (9 months ago)

The dedicated adapter by Pentax (with its internal leaf shutter) also gives you flash sync of up to 1/250s off-hand and manual external flashes, and 1/2000s with the built-in or a PTTL external flash :D (and use the built-in flash to trigger an external flash up to-yes-1/2000s!), using K-mount lenses!!

I wish that could be done with current APS-C bodies :( (especially the last feature I mentioned)

0 upvotes
bakhtyar kurdi
By bakhtyar kurdi (9 months ago)

If it is so good at ISO 4000 on cats, that is a camera for me, I am a (professional low light cat shooter) just kidding.
But as expected it is a little bit better than other 1/1.7 inch point and shoot camera due to better lenses.

1 upvote
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

Check out the cat picture shot at iso 4000. VERY good. Definitely you can see the image is soft and personally I would have gone something like iso 2000 or 1600 since the subject is sitting still. Even considering that, I think it is amazing CONSIDERING it is such a small sensor.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (9 months ago)

They posted DNGs?

Just saying "soft" is only a conclusion one can draw about jpegs now.

Also, of course, the cat pic doesn't have a lot of shadow, it's much easier to do high ISO shooting in brighter situations.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

How, that actually was a pretty well lit cat, even if it was mostly backlighting. My point was that it was pretty good for iso 4K for such a small sensor. Would that be good for an APS-C sensor? Definitely not, but for a 1.7 sized sensor it is pretty good. That is all I am saying.
Also the picture is definitely soft; I don't know how you could say otherwise. I have seen (and taken) plenty of sharp jpgs. Unlike some others, I do not just troll other people's comments. I actually take pictures so I can tell you with confidence, it is not the best low light (really it was moderate light) jpg, but it was certainly not the worst. I was trying to complement the camera. Sheeze.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

Looks like it was shot with an LX7 or G15, as expected. Not bad.

8 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

Nice to see the Pentax Q7 with bit larger sensor with image quality similar to LX7/G15 I think (maybe touch better with good lenses). Who would buy this type of camera? Was there interest in Asia for the last one? In North America, it is mostly smartphones, compacts, or dslr and assorted mirrorless. Who is the target audience expected? Or is it worldwide. Prices for Q7 single lens or two lenses combo with body, perhaps okay and in line at 499 or 699, compared to regular new advanced compact starting at $500 in my area at retail (non ILC).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (9 months ago)

To answer my own question, after reviewing the images again, the standard zoom with body at $499 should compete well with other new advanced compacts as image quality is very good. The prime lens images look good as well. The cat at 4000 iso looks soft (camera shake or noise reduction?) but for this sensor size that 4000 iso is hard to achieve. The rest of the images including up to iso 800 and iso 1000 look great!

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (9 months ago)

I get all the lens talk. There is no substitute for a bigger and better sensor. That said images from the RX100 are much better than these samples. Two different class cameras. There is one fanboy on this thread who should try decaf.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 136