Just Posted: Pentax Q samples gallery

@Francis- again not as small as the Q, which is part of the point of getting a Q in the first place. Not with its ergonomics and particular feature set.

Oh and the Prime lens of the Q (the "01") is not a "poor quality stock lens," sorry. I do agree choice is not bad, but that is not a bad lens.

@ Rqaist3d: Stock lenses packaged with these IL digital cameras are usually not the best quality optics one can purchase. If they were, it's likely that nobody would ever buy any of the other, pricier lenses out there.

@Francis- yes, you are correct, stock lenses *usually* are not very good. But in the case of the Q, *it is* a good lens. This partially explains the price. Even Simon in this thread mentioned the Prime seems a good lens.

Some of the reviews out there already noted this as well.

@ Raist3d: Agree. Perhaps a little know fact in the lens racket.... err, "business," is that the smaller the image circle that the lens has to throw rearward, the cheaper it is to make a lens, all things kept constant. Which is probably why they had 10x and 12x zoom lenses on Super 8 film cameras with constant f/1.7, f/1.4, and in at least one case even at f/1.2 apertures.

For those who are happy with a camera sporting a 1/2.3-inch, 6.1 x 4.6mm sensor (harking right back to the good ole' Super 8 movie-cam era), the Pentax Q is probably the best option out there in the digital domain.

Also, in my view ALL single-focus prime lenses should be amazingly perfect. There is no reason to deliver a crappy, sub-par prime lens, in other words, except to save on R&D money and manufacturing costs. But with variofocals and zooms, it's another matter entirely. There will always be a compromise with size, brightness, and price there.

Not all are perfect and not at this size. Obviously this means the Q is not for you. No lens is perfect actually, but the 01 Prime is pretty good anyway.

All other variable factors being held constant, the smaller the image circle is (in mm) that a lens has to throw, the less complicated its design should be, the the less expensive its manufacturing cost should be. In other words, a lens that only needs to cover the very small 1/2.3-inch sensors should be much better and also much less expensive to design and manufacture than for instance a lens that has to cover FF 35mm or medium format sensors.

@ tompabes2: You are so right, I did not look at the Q's "build quality," since I do not have the camera right here. Let me guess: it is built like a tank, and the body is made out of Cryptanite?

Whatever it is, you have a small sensor 1/2.3-inch camera here, my friend. You can only do so much DOF work with that, and you can only dial up ISO so far with such a small sensor before low-light performance goes to pots.

If Pentax got it right w. the 1/2.3-inch size -- then all the other camera manufactuers that still build digital cameras with 2/3", 1", APS-C, FF, and medium format sensors are idiots.

But go ahead, you can get a Q with the zoom lens for around $1,500, a pretty good deal for a 1/2.30-inch sensor little digicam, I'm (almost) sure.

@ Raist3d: Since I am not yet blind, I did look at the pictures posted by DP Review. Why wouldn't anyone?

Clearly, and without any argument out of me, the Pentax Q takes the most impressive quality photos out of any 1/2.3-inch sensor digital cameras out there, bar none. Especially since the other 1/2.3-inch sensor cameras are usually the readily pocketable, cheap, entry-level consumer D-cams costing a fraction of the Pentax Q with a Pentax Q lens costs.

At a Rolls Royce price, Pentax could not expect to be able to sell Smarts.

What's next for us, I wonder: an interchangeable lens camera with a 1/3.6-inch micro-mini sensor? Just how low can they go, OMG!? Suddenly, in shooting with a normal APS-C sensor camera, one might think one is on an IMAX set.

@Francis- well you hardly made any mention of that and went on the sensor without any qualification.

Your argument of a micro sensor is silly. You already said the X10 sensor size is fine and it's still a small sensor, but somehow that doesn't bother you. Obviously different people have different needs and wants. The Q can do high qualify pictures, has the size and ergonomics many want. That's all that matters. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean it's useless.

"At a Rolls Royce price, Pentax could not expect to be able to sell Smarts."

Find me a perfect condition Rolls for $799 and I'll try my best to be your friend.
;-)

@ Raist3d: I am pretty sure you know this already, but when you are shooting your pictures using a 6.1mm by 4.6mm sensor, first thing you will likely have to give up is artistry, such as the easy ability to record shallow depth of field images. But if you want everything always in focus, this particular sensor size can deliver it, surely.

But I guess due to personal size and weight limitations, many folks out there cannot go with anything larger and heavier than a 1/2.3-inch Pentax Q pocket-cam.

@Francis- your stupid attempt at a personal attack of personal size and weight shows you really have nothing intelligent to say. You don't give up artistry- a lot of shots out there on street photography are done with long DOF. It all depends what a particular photographer is looking for.

I recommend you read a bit on street photography because it's rather obvious you don't seem to know what you are talking about or why would a street photographer want a small camera.

@ Raist3d: Yes indeed, I haven't a clue what "street photography" is, or how it would be comparable to for example "avenue photography," "alley photography, "circle photography," etc.

However, I was walking in Midtown Manhattan (USA) just the other day, and so a huge Panasonic movie camera that looked like with all accessories could have easily weighted-in at over 100 lbs or 55 kgs, and it was being used right on a busy street.

@Raist
Nothing personal, but if you filter out all irrelevant arguments, Francis do have a valid point - the camera with a 1/2.3" sensor can deliver the image quality of a 1/2.3" sensor camera, and therefore it should be priced similarly to other 1/2.3" cameras, unless it has some other significant advantages over 1/2.3" cameras.

Anyway, arguing that Q should be more expensive than medium format DLSRs because Q is smaller will probably get you laughed at. Using the same argument with Q and 3/4" or ASP-C sensor cameras may cause a similar reaction as well :)

@Francis - just mentioning slightly different adjectives doesn't mean you know if that's your point.

The Panasonic camera you talk about was being used for filming video and the way that interacts and modifies the subjects and the type of work you are doing with it is very very different than street photography stills. Why do you think Henri Cartier Bresson used a small camera and even covered it? Again, you need to read about this, or better yet- do it for yourself.

Pick a big DSLR and walk around and then pick a small P&S and walk around. This isn't new. *YOU* need to read and do.

@il_alexk - Not sure what you are talking about, medium format DSLR's start at around $9,000+ MSRP.

The point you continue to miss (and him) is that you are just reading a spec on a sensor size and going like that in knee jerk reaction fashion. It turns out the Q 1/2.3'' does the best of all of them (so being the best usually carries a premium no?), and you can't isolate the sensor from the camera system, because it's in the end the camera system as a whole what gets you the workflow, usability, features and what you want/need to do with it.

So keep laughing if you want, but honestly what it shows is that the people who do this in knee jerk reaction probably don't know much photography. *shrugs*

@Raist3d
> - Not sure what you are talking about, medium format DSLR's start at around $9,000+ MSRP.

If Q can't be more expensive then medium format DSLRs simply because of its small size, why the hell should Q's size justify the price higher than of better performing mirror-less cameras?

> It turns out the Q 1/2.3'' does the best of all of them

The problem is that it does not do the best of all of them. There are cheaper cameras with a better IQ, and there are cheaper cameras with the same or even better IQ and they are equally pocketable

> but honestly what it shows is that the people who do this in knee jerk reaction probably don't know much photography

Claiming that "Q does the best of all them" hardly indicates a knowledge of photography either

@Catalin - like which one? I can tell you right now, the LX5 is great, but it doesn't do the street night life I can do with the Q. I don't agree "any decent P&S" is on the same level, and you can't change lenses on the others.

Raist3d You can't change the lenses but you can zoom and with LX5, XZ1 and X10 you have pretty bright lenses and they cost 2x less (not X10)

A camera being too tiny means it is in toy-cam category. The sensor is tiny, too, at 6.1 x 4.6mm. Boy, oh boy, that is small. At least you don't have to bother with focusing much -- most everything will be in focus, most of the time.

A "solid magnesium" camera? Oh, really, is that all? Mine is made out of solid platinum!

@Art - the LX5 lens is not as bight as the Q, nor is the X10's. I am not saying it could drop a bit- after all Jessops was selling it including VAT for 549 euros in dual kit form I believe.

But point is, there are pros and cons to both. You can't change lenses on the others is a perfectly valid thing to point out. There's other things like flash sync speeds (the Q can do 1/250th with external, 1/2000th with built in) or shutter speeds (Q can go all the way up to 1/8000th, that's semi pro DSLR territory).

@Francis - oh boy oh boy. Man do you spew ignorant talk. You say that as if the crop factor of an LX5 was that far. Solid platinum? Which? You should check. Some cameras like the Pen 1 had plastic inside once you took out the metal shell...

@ Raist3d: Pentax Q is made out of Cryptanie. Thus the $500 surcharge for it. My bad. Why -- how many did you get so far?

I own Samsung EX1, too, and I must admit that image quality from smaller-sensored Pentax Q really surpasses EX1's output.

Raist3d: I do not challenge picture quality of the Q, I really like it. I just commented your opinion that the construction itself makes the Q so expensive. I had an EX1 in the past and I admit that it´s picture quality is not on par with the Q.

iudex: ok but you did throw in the EX1 has a bigger sensor. In that context what is that supposed to mean? In general I think there are a few things that people miss on the Q - like the flash sync speeds. What other compact has an external flash socket with 1/250th flash sync? Or what other compact has 1/8000th shutter speed? (with the prime and telephoto lens).

@ Raist3d:

"What other compact has an external flash socket with 1/250th flash sync?"

Right, and what other flash mount camera has a flash mount onto which you cannot even mount your own flash without a flash mount converter accessory?

Re. 1/8000th of a second exposure speed -- I agree, most of the sub-$200 digital cameras with similar sized sensor to the Pentax Q do not have that must-have feature.

@Francis - Sony Nex?

On the speed sync- don't be stupid. I was referring to the other compacts interchangeable cameras like the Nex and Micro four thirds. They don't have that shutter speed, nor the flash sync. Did you know that? Those are hardly sub-$200 cameras.

@ Raist3d: Let's everyone agree, finally. The Pentax Q is the WORLD'S BEST CAMERA. The BEST right now. The BEST that ever was. And of course, the BEST that ever will be.

I understand that YOU had bought one copy of the Pentax Q, correct? Would you happen to know who bought the second copy that they sold? :-))

@Francis- another stupid attempt at a stupid argument. I never said the Pentax Q is the best camera in the world. You are making that up. All cameras have their pros and cons and a camera may look better to a particular photographer than another also depending on what they are doing, want to do and so on.

What I am mentioning is features that may be important to some photographers that are overlooked. Apparently mentioning these facts bother you to the point that you rather resort to non sequitors or childish propositions.

Well, you can certainly believe in the validity of those if you want.

I share your opinion, the pics look surprisingly good for such tiny sensor, I guess I have not seen better pictures out of a 1/2,3" sensor camera. If only the price was not that crazy.

http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/

Fact is: it is a 1/2.3-inch mini-sensor camera for a $750 mega-cam price. What was Pentax's thinking on this -- money? What's next? A 1/3.6-inch camera made out of platinum and priced at $7,500?

Pictures look good -- at this resolution. We could use some video samples, too. Thanks for everything, DP Review!

@Francis- but it sure is the only interchangeable lens compact camera, in this size, with this build and these ergonomics. Sure, the price could probably be better, judging particularly by how much Jessops was selling it for (549 euros including VAT btw), which is not a bad price at all, but you are focusing only on the sensor size (which does better than expected anyway)....

@ Raist3d: Yes indeed, sensor, camera, etc. are amazing, but the fact remains, you can only do so much DOF and so much low-light shooting with such a small sensor camera.

Re. it having an interchangeable lens mount -- that's not an overly big shake in my book. How about a fixed-lens camera that has a 20mm to 600mm 30x focal range zoom lens with a constant f/1.8 aperture? If such a nifty thing existed, not a whole lot of folks would be lining up for interchangeable lens cameras, perhaps.

@Francis- You are quite wrong. A lens going 20mm to 600mm at F1.8 constant aperture would s*ck. All hyper zoom lenses have huge compromises in design.

DOF- some photography styles want more DOF, not less. And as for low light shooting you can do quite a bit at F1.9 with the new sensor, as evidenced by own experience (I have quite a bit of experience doing street night life, for the record, having done it for years on DSLR's).

I am not saying the Q is the end all be all- no camera is, but you just go by paper specs and no experience with quite the categorical statements that don't even make all that much sense. Remember: just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it's useless.

@ Raist3d:

"A lens going 20mm to 600mm at F1.8 constant aperture would s*ck."

Well, whatever. But Canon and Fujinon makes plenty of these types of +/- 30x range f/1.8 or f1.9 zoom lenses with the B4 mount, check 'em out! S*ck or no s*ck. What do they know, I wonder? None available with the Pentax Q mount, however, at least AFAIK.

Anyhow, for low-light shooting, if you get an APS-C sensor camera with app. the same pixel count/photosites than what is on the Q, you can probably garner and record similar amounts of light with an f/2.8 or even f/3.5 lens on an APS-C sensor camera than you can with the Q using an f/1.9 lens at wide open.

@Francis- no, don't say whatever. The lens doesn't exist and if it existed it would be severely compromised. What I am saying is hardly rocket science. Even the bigger ultrazooms have this problem.

The B4 mont you talk about is film which has other requirements than a digital sensor, so it's actually easier. Oh and you know the Q might be able to maybe use them? It can use c mount lenses already.

I am talking about lenses in compact cameras that are ultra zooms which is this context. Those ultra zooms are optical compromises, and if you think otherwise I suggest you read some reviews or better yet grab one and see for yourself.

For lower light shooting the point is the Q with the F1.9 and the sensor it has can do some degree of low light shooting, something I haven't seen in many compacts at all. If you get an APS-C sensor cam, you already are way bigger than a Q. Small matters here.

@ Raist3d: I think you seriously need to look up on modern optics out there, circa late 1990s to the present time. You'd be surprised what all is out there and how bright they can be, yeah! Now... I'll be the first to admit that for matching the oddity of an IL Pentax Q, the choices are almost nonexistent. Maybe that'll change down the line?

Oh, BTW, "B4 mount" has got nothing to do with film, or with even motion pictures. In fact, I never heard of any motion picture film camera in any gauge that would take B4-mount lenses. Why, have you?

Re. "C-mount lenses," they are usually the lowest quality group of them all, best suited for machine vision and surveillance cameras. Some of the 40+ year old Super 8 cameras also could take C-mount lenses (like the Beaulieu).

Re. your "ultrabright" f/1.9 lens -- why is that such an amazingly good news, when we have new f/0.95 lenses out there now? In fact, Canon had an single focal f/0.95 SLR lens way back in the 1960s. f/1.9 in 2011? Nay....

@Francis - you are not reading. Yes, canon had those fast leneses back then for FILM. You have the issue that the lenses for digital sensors can't be made as small due to the issue of light hititng the sensor.

B4 mount- I made a mistake there but do note the sensors used in video are of a different nature in specs and resolution, not to mention price of the lenses. That certainly allows a leeway in design vs a digital still. I am talking about digital ultrazoom still cameras, obviously they haven't been done with anywhere near the specs you mention.

Different requirements, resolution, price, size, etc. all come into play. You make it seem that it's all the F number. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

@ Raist3d:

"You have the issue that the lenses for digital sensors can't be made as small due to the issue of light hitting the sensor."

Wow, that sounds like a serious issue indeed. Of course, the lens itself does not know whether it projects an image to a piece of paper, or to negative celluloid film stock, or to a CCD or CMOS digital sensor. Also we've had and have now fast prime lenses with faster than f/1.0 max. open apertures for both film cameras and digital cameras. But most of the time, shooting at below f2.0 will introduce some undesirable artifacts.

I fully agree re. the lenses, according to Fujifilm for example the 26x zoom on their X-S1 is based on one of their $14,000 video lens that is also covering the same exact 2/3-inch image sensor size. It's just that the $14,000 video lens is 20x zoom and has a servo motor inside, and the $900 X-S1 (camera with the lens) Fujinon is manual and has a whopping 26x zoom range.

@Francis - Yes, the lens itself does not, but if you just grab a film lens design and put it on front of the sensor blind, it may not produce the image quality you think it will.

These artifacts don't have to do with the aperture. I am talking about issues of lenses going from film to digital. Remember film gets hit by light and responds from many angles, this is not the case with digital sensors. I also did ask around why the lenses on the Q couldn't be as small as the Auto110's when the Auto 110's "sensor area" is pretty much a 4/3rds sensor. This was one of the reasons.

As for the Fuji- check out previous all in one Fuji zooms and see how they perform. I am hoping that Fuji finally putting effort on their lenses (as evidenced in the X10), they can make something decent there. But even if you look at the X-S1 samples, I am not seeing the same level of lens quality you see on the X10.

Q's sensor size is 6.1 x 4.6mm, X10's sensor size is 8.8 x 6.6mm. Not a huge difference, admittedly, but still.... 1/2.3-inch vs. 2/3rd-inch.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

@Francis- going by sensor size exclusively is a bit like going by mere Mhz con computers- just by size alone is not an ultimate determinant of performance. The Q sensor for example does better than the LX5/XZ-1 sensor which is bigger.

Fuji has a good sensor, it also has over blooming and orbs of light in specular highlights...

@ Raist3d: Agreed. But for me, a sensor's physical dimensions is one of the primary criterion. So, for instance, I do not have to waste my time looking at digital cameras with sensors that are smaller than the image size that my old 1960s era 8mm film camera could record. If the sensor is too small, I chuck the camera. Presently, I am sort of at the 2/3rd-inch sensor size (8.8 x 6.6mm) as the lower limit (Fujifilm X10 & X-S10).

The ability to change the lens (Pentax Q) is definitely not a primary criteria for me, so yes, you can change the lens on the Pentax Q, and yes, the sensor is still going to be small, with all the drawbacks of such a smallish sensor size.

Other factors would be the number of pixels housed on the sensor, RAW & JPEG performance, ISO sensitivity range and low-light performance, and for video shooting, the type of codec captured and the capture bitrate. That would sort of do the numbers and specs, thereafter it's time for the camera test/shoot-out.

Interesting you mentioning the white orbs/specular highlights issue w. the Fujifilm X10, as I just talked to Fuji's Tech Support today. They say that "they are aware of the issue" and "working on a fix," but the chap also insisted that it affects only certain cameras, not all.

@Francis- what I find interesting is how you conveniently draw the line at 2/3'' sensors to talk cr*p about the Q without even considering (since you are being oh so picky) the X10 sensor has blooming issues. Oh and it seems it's every X10 so far- read the dpreview Fuji response to this. The fix they are working will minimize, not solve. This is a hardware design thing on the sensor.

Oh and btw, nothing too wrong there, I think the X10 is great, orbs and all. I just find amusing how much you attack the Q but dont' seem to have issues there with the X10. That alone says you are quite biased.

Again, a 2/3rd sensor is still a small sensor but you draw the line there, conveniently so. You would never get F1.9 at the focal length the Q can do, etc. It's not that the X10 is bad, but I find you picking on the Q so aggressively rather hypocritical given you seem ok with the X10- another small sensor camera.

@Francis- what you really need to understand is just because it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean it won't work for someone else. The Q is still smaller with most of its lenses, has other features the X10 doesn't have (and vice versa), and has other photographic options the X10 doesn't (fish eye, other lenses).

If you are going to bang on the Q for the sensor size, and not on the X10, that smells of hypocrisy.

@ Raist3d: There is nothing "convenient" about my "drawing the line" at a 2/3-inch sensor size for a digital camera, see? It's just the way it is -- until my legally appointed guardian advises me otherwise, that is. Anyhow, I did not cook-up these various sensor sizes on my own -- the camera mfrs did that themselves, see?

Fuji's white disc/orb flaring issue with some of their X10s -- what does that have to do with Pentax or Fujifilm sensor sizes exactly?

"The fix they are working will minimize, not solve."

Wow, it's official now: you must clearly know more about this issue than Fujifilm of Japan does, wow!!

"This is a hardware design thing on the sensor."

Yes, they must have done that design on purpose to then read some of the comments posted here and laugh to their pretty hearts' content. Those funny Fuji folks, fricking fantastic!

BTW, Raist3d, did you know that the Pentax Q only has a 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor, whereas the Fujifilm X10 and X-S1 have the larger 2/3-inch sensors?

@ Raist3d:

"a 2/3rd sensor is still a small sensor."

Maybe. But compared to the Pentax Q's sensor, it's probably colossal in size.

"You would never get F1.9 at the focal length the Q can do."

Why the heck not? There are plenty of constant f/1.8 and constant f/1.9 zooms and "superzooms" covering the exact same 2/3-rd inch sensors perfectly. Just ask Canon and Fujinon if you still don't believe me.

Again, the Pentax Q has a considerably SMALLER SENOR (!!!) than what the Fuji X10 has, so why are you still saying that they are the same?

Lastly, it is extremely easy to shoot fisheye with the Fuji X10, my friend. (HINT: FISHEYE ADAPTER or ULTRA WIDE ANGLE ADAPTER.) Twist in and shoot, oh yeah!

And, oh yeah.... an interchangeable lens camera usually (but not always) has more lens choices than a fixed, a.k.a. non-removable lens camera has. Which I suppose makes the Pentax Q an "ABSOLUTE MUST BUY" at any price, right?

Ho-ho-ho!!!

@Francis - it is convenient because you could totally say the same thing about the X10 yet you decided to "stop there." You don't take into account that the Q does have a fast lens in its repertoire or tha the 1/2.3'' sensor is more capable than people thought.

You don't need legal guardians or the like- you are just drawing an arbitrary line based on your own mental convenience and saying the blanket statement "everything else s*cks" without taking other things at all into consideration- or the fact others have different needs.

Fuji's white orbs so far happens *with all X10's*. Sorry if Fuji told you that on the phone but every single X10 right now has this issue. It has to do with the sensor- did you bother reading Fuji's explanation to dpreview?

What does it have to do with sensor size? Exactly- you go by theory on sensor size without practice. That the Q sensor does better and that the bigger Fuji sensor is not better.

@ Francis - And no I don't know more than Fuji Japan. Fuji is the one that talked to dpreview and mentioned this, not me!

This is what they said right here on this site "However, after receiving a number of comments from users, we can understand their concern and plan a firmware upgrade to lessen the effects of blooming. We will announce in due course when the upgrade will be available.'"

Lessen is not fix.

Obviously between your claim of what Fuji said, and dpreview's claim of what Fuji said, pardon me if I believe dpreview and not you.

As for "you will never get F1.9 at the focal length the Q has with the prime" I stand by that unless you mean an uncertain future. What compact (like the Q) digital camera right now has F1.9 at the 47mm equivalent? Care to name one?

You repeat like a parrot the Q has a smaller sensor but again the sensor performs better than expected so it's a moot point. It's like again, a MHZ discussion of different cpu's.

@Francis- the X10 can shoot Fish Eye- again if you mean by putting a second lens over the one it has this compromises optical quality. Also Fuji does not make such adapter anyhow.

The Q- *not in theory but in practice* can use a myriad other lenses too. I already agreed the price could come down a little but has nothing to do with the other points, which you continue to get consistently wrong.

@ Raist3d: Lot to digest here, thanks for "making" my Boxer Day.

Re. the 1/2.3-inch sensor being "more capable than people have thought" -- well, that's the first time I hear about that now. It is?

Re. the "fast" f/1.9 lens, it is not all that fast as that. Compared to an f/5.6, f.6.3, or f/8 lens, it is fast. But compared to an f/0.95, f/1.2, f/1.4, or f/1.6 lens, it is not that fast. That's all I'm really saying, I guess. I would not get into any 1/2.3-inch size sensor camera just because an f/1.9 lens is available for it. Big bloody deal.

I don't know what Fujifilm and/or Fujinon had ever done to you, but obviously you dislike them with a clear vengeance. Personally, since I do not own every single copy of every single X10 camera ever made by Fujifilm in Japan, I cannot say for sure how deep the white orb trouble is. Obviously you can, so therefore you must be a "Fujifilm insider." No big shake for me, actually, as I am not a Fuji lobbyist in Congress, or anything like that.

@ Raist3d: Back to Fuji, I guess according to you their high crime and misdemeanor is that they are now talking about a possible problem issue with one of their new cameras, correct? How dare they, right?

Also, if you do not like streaks, blooming, etc. in your pictures, have you ever considered using a FILM camera instead one of these newfangled digital jobs? The sensor in those never blooms, at least I was so led to believe.

Re. the $750 Pentax Q camera body "performing better" than a $100 point-and-shoot D-camera using the same size sensor -- you are probably right. Pentax must give you something for that $650 surcharge after all, right?

Re. a single-focus lens being particularly "bright" at f/1.9 -- like I said before, I don't really think so. Now, an f/0.95 in comparison -- well, that is bright.

Re. fisheye lenses -- pls provide us with a direct URL link to the Pentax 180-degree POV fisheye lens that can be mounted directly on the Q body, thanks! How much is it, anyhow?

@Francis - "the 1/2.3 sensor more capable than people thought" - maybe the first time *you hear it* but if you look at some photographer centric reviews, they have mentioned this before. You can try Sandy Ramirez photoshoot of the model runaway at Adorama or Steve Huff Photo, for a start. DXo scores too btw.

The F1.9 is a fast lens by all reasonable standards of digital still camera. Is it "really fast/super fast" - relative to an F1.4 or F0.95, no it isn't. But it is still considered fast.

The "big bloody deal" you seem to miss is that the combination of focal length, sensor doing better than expected and this lens speed allows certain photography styles in lower light than normal in this kind of camera. Whether that goes with your photography or not is a different point. Again different people may have different needs.

As for Fuji- no, I actually love Fuji! LOL. I even say the X10 orbs issue is overblown in the Fuji forum. LOL.

IMO... small size does not tend to equate to being more ergonomic.

@PicOne - no, small size does not tend to equate to being more ergonomic. That's part of the miracle of the Q- being *so small* Pentax managed one of the most photographer centric camera I have put my hands on.

The Q is just too tiny to be ergonomic, especially with its huge and odd-looking 10x zoom lens mounted on it.

@Francis- more things made up. The Zoom is not 10x, and its hardly huge. Obviously you have not used it because you are talking complete nonsense in saying that.

2 Raist3d: Well, for any camera today, it is hardly worth getting a so-called "zoom" lens unless it is -- at the very least -- a 10x focal range lens. Fortunately, we've got them all over the place these days for these digital jobs, anyhow. Anywhere from 10x through 26x and in fact up to 36x zoom ranges.

It is shocking to me when a lens makers proudly calls a 2x or 3x focal range lens a "zoom." Might as well just get a couple of fast & sharp primes instead and be done with it, right?

For the Q, Pentax appqrently has a "fisheye effect" lens (whatever that is), couple of "toy lenses," the stock single-focal lens, and a 3x zoom that is amazingly dark, considering how small the image circle it needs to cover really is.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses

Also, according to the manufacturer itself, the Q has a 1/2000th shutter speed, which is not quite 1/8000, correct?

http://www.pentaximaging.com/hybrid/Q_Black

@Simon- I found from raw you can get a notable improvement in terms of highlight recovery (vs default jpeg) and more detail, but it depends on the shot. What I good of the Q is how well it holds colors as the ISO goes up.

Exactly. If the price was some 250-400 eur, OK. But when Pentax sells a good DSLR (the K-r) for lower price, I can stop wondering who will buy the Q.

@Ashely - on price- while I agree the price could go down a bit, I think 195 sterling pounds is a low price. How much are the others like LX5 and the like? The Q is better built and it's smaller.

Here in the USA Pentax has priced the Q at $750. And the K-R DSLR at $700.

http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/category/pentaxq
http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/category/digitalslr

Now, the "loaded" Q weighs only 7-ounces, the "loaded" K-R 21-ounces. So, for folks who cannot handle a 21-ounce camera, the Q at only 50 bucks more is a natural alternative. Smaller sensor, lighter weight -- you have to pay a little premium for that, folks!

Blown highlights? Man, I don't know how your brain perceived that, you should check your physician, really. Or I should check mine if you give me a single example of blown highlights in these pictures. There must be some kind of tests to go through before someone can post a comment. Technical and common sense tests.

Try $750, that is what the USD $ price is on the Pentax USA web site. Heck, at least they did not just rounded it up to an even thousand, huh?