Pentax Q7 is really 1 cool and fun camera to use. In my trips to Italy/UK, I almost always used it instead of the other more capable camera (GR). 1 of the best compacts I ever used!

Too bad it isn't a FF 24MP rangefinder. 35, 75 and 150mm lenses all 2.8 to start with. Along the lines of a Mamiya 7. In that great yellow I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

This is a useless toy. Awful cute though. It would almost be worth picking one up as a joke or to use as a prop.

In a sense, Pentax has done themselves and Q-system shooters a disservice by not coming up with a better standard zoom -- the 02 is not terrible but it's not that small and its specs compare somewhat poorly against those built into advanced compacts (including their own MX-1). This said, much smaller wouldn't be very useable with manual zoom and focus rings -- so if the lens has to be as large as this, I would have liked at least to get a little more speed and range.

I do think Pentax deserves a bit more credit for this though -- having manual zoom and a proper manual focus ring (a pretty decent focus-by-wire) is pretty nice compared to most advanced compacts.

I'd never buy a camera with a BSI sensor... FSI is so much better. I don't care about megapixels as long as the resolution is at least 6-8mp..

DPR needs to stop going on about video you seem to mark products down heavily for poor video recording options?quality i for one never use my camera for this i use my phone or a compact. It should be scored as a photographic tool a video tool and a combined score.

If there were no GX7, this might have been interesting. The only way I'd lean back towards this is if they'd seen fit to build in an EVF.

Since they don't even offer one as an option (on any mirrorless camera they make in fact), it's a dead horse that they appear to continue beating.

DPR needs to add another scale to their chart - Fun. Pentax Q would rock that.

Loosen up peeps. Have some fun.

It would be nice if there were the original Q and Q10 studio samples to compare with - actually, it would be nice to know what differences if any, other than the sensor, exist between this and the earlier Qs but I'm sure that's available somewhere on the internet.
All in all, though, after reading it more carefully this time I have to say that it's a very interesting review (and a very interesting little camera)...thanks, folks!

The CATEGORY placement is wrong!

DPR -please rethink and revert.

While other cameras are allowed as a unique offering by itself, the Q is thrown to the sharks by placing it with entry level ILCs.
It should be in its own category or with high end pns.

The Q was not meant to compete with entry ILCs.
And doing so has given the Q7 a 70% wrt wrong competition.
Its as good as placing FZ200 and even GX15 with entry ILCs because they look like DSLRs or RF and have the focal length range of a complete system.

THIS is what the Q7 is able to cover in real life/ real world shooting :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/reviews/1292695-tokyo-story-pentax-q7-real-world-review-new-post.html

I have the original Q. Love the camera as a breath of fresh air among other choices which are just "cameras".
Two things have to be addressed - the cost of accessories; and for such a versatile manual lens capable camera the 460,000 lcd that is it's mainstay framing device does not have a high enough resolution to properly use the focus peaking assist that is the mainstay of Manual Focusing lenses. FPA works but they need to at least double the screen pixels for the resolution to be good enough.
As a few other brand have also noticed.

If DPR were not politically correct, the conclusion should have been clear:

It is a compact system camera, closest competitors in terms of price, handling, size and looks being Nikon J1/2/3 and S1, Oly E-PM1/2 and Panasonic GF3/5, and even NEX-3n. Of course all of those destroy any Q in any possible way, image quality, lens choice, autofocus, shooting speed, even size with a kit zoom given how small Nikon 1 11-27.5 and Panasonic 14-42 X PZ are (even NEX 16-50 is shorter than Q 5-15).
Q is only good if you want to buy the worst possible camera, with all the disadvantages of changing lenses and none of the advantages.

It is still a good effort from Pentax, and according to some comments, it doesn't have an AA filter which shows nice detail in the RAW files beating the LX7 slightly and the LX7 with probably slightly inferior 1/1.7 sensor.

The body and lenses are cute and with competent image quality is pretty much compelling. In contrast, their Ricoh GR is completely serious, purposeful compact. I would agree that Pentax Q has value for its uniqueness yet useful.

Allison doesn't understand the point of this camera. This camera is about fun, size, weight and price. The most useful lenses for the camera are 01, 03 and 06. Those lenses are extremely small, light and inexpensive. The camera is customizable much more than any compact camera, including Sony RX100, and is on par with DSLRs. None of the MILCs come even close in fun, size, weight and customization department. This is the most enthusiast MILC bar none!

Well, DPR cares about user's input and insights same as about yesteryear's snow. Even if evidence is showed, and common sense asked to testify.

It seems there is no way DPR could think of a possibility that, perhaps, by some chance, their boundaries are too rigid and dated, and that in fact, as such, they are an impediment for better quality reviews in the future.

But what future will bring — especially in tough economic times like nowadays — is even more borderline cameras like the Q, cameras that challenge old norms and struggle to preserve the idea of fun and quality of a true photographic experience in the smartphone dominated and saturated market. Yet they'll be wrongly assessed and misunderstood.

In a way, DPR is helping cameras die sooner than they deserve.

I want one. I don't know why.

Pentax I love you for making things others don't, and for making them available in metal green with pink hand grips and yellow lense :))

"Pentax offers two 'toy lenses' for the Q-mount - the 04 Toy Lens Wide and the 05 Toy Lens Telephoto."

How about the Fisheye Toy Lens?

Also the 06 zoom is practically ommitted in the Lenses and Accessories page.

For me those two are the most interesting lenses in the lineup with the standard prime.

Page 1 has totally ruined the review reading session.

Can't get past the size comparison to E-PM2...

Danger, Will Robinson!

Little point and shoot with no viewfinder. Next!

That's call "LOVE" and love don't have to be logical or quantifiable.

In photography, one needs a lot of PASSION too otherwise one won't get the shots. Standing for hours at an air show to shoot your favourite planes flying or waking up at 4am to climb a hill for some sunrise photos.

Few have it but many don't.

This system would have had some sense with a macro, a superzoom (for example 24x f/2.8 a-la FZ200) and some superteles (up to maybe 2000mm equivalent). Incidentally, none of those are available, so the system does not make any sense whatsoever.

The fat mode dial is nice.

Gearheads are so pretentious.

Did I misplace my Lego again??????

I guess only a few knows that the Q7 does not have an AA filter, like the old Q. That's why even with a small sensor then paired with 01 or 06 lenses makes sharp photos.

These comments astonish me at times. If this were not a camera calling it a compact would be analogous to racism? Seriously?

I imagine that for the vast majority of people the principal determinent of a compact camera is that it's compact. If that isn't too simplistic.

This system may have its attractions, but when overall sizes are similar to m4/3 camera systems it seems pretty logical to me to make direct comparisons between the two. That being the case, personally the Q doesn't make a lot of sense. But note the 'personally' - I don't mind in the least if you want to spend your money on it. In fact although I don't own one I think Pentax make some very good cameras and wouldn't want the company to fail, so I hope they do find a market.

Why do people have to get so defensive about these things? You'd think their mothers had been insulted.

I bought the original Q. Loved everything about it except the image quality and the lack of a viewfinder. Sold it because of the things I didn't like. This review seems on target to me. The Q is great if you want a very small system camera with prosumer controls and excellent ergonomics, and if P&S-level image quality is good enough for your purposes.

There's no denying the fun factor of shooting with the Q. I've had the original Q since March and I've taken some of my best shots with it. The feature set is broader even than my X-Pro1 and offers tons of customization.

Interesting review of the original Q:
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f90/pentax-q-real-world-user-review-11773/

Great Review. I really didn't even know this camera existed until I saw the review. I love the fact that the camera and lenses are small and both really are not that expensive.

Then I compared the image quality to the LX7. When you factor in how fast the LX7's lens is and the fact that it can be had for less than $300 it isn't even a contest.

That is without even considering the Sony RX100 II. The Pentax is an awesome camera and great design. However, it just simply can't compete when Panasonic has been practically giving the LX7 away.

Thanks for the review,
but...
IMHO wrongly clasificated, then wrongly evaluated.
At least you should had evaluate it and compare it to the first Q and Q10.

Not so much negativity?
Perhaps it's the third version and no company would continue if it wasn't doing ok, especially in Japan,its small, colorful, matching with handbags, scarfs and Japanese painted dolls.

I love the general tone of the review:

Most people in the office Love it but
It doesn't fit into any kind of category we want to put it in
It takes pretty good photo's But
its not a compact zoom or a rangefinder or a M43 or a
it takes video
but it's not quite like a canon or panny or..
this is the third one: but
Not sure who wants one
Its got a few lenses;
but we forgot that people can buy the whole kit and putting adapters and using all sorts of lenses and having heaps of fun.

we're confused, we have to put it into a category and because we're gear heads, we've forgotten that most of the public just like having fun and taking photos and its colorful and fits easily into a pocket or bag.

Sorry, still Love you DPR, just remember life doesn't always fit into a box.

The camera is an interesting gadget, a must have joke in some way. Only problem is the price, that's not a joke.