Join the Q: In-depth Pentax Q7 review

@chj And there's your problem: "I've never used a Q7." You have to use the camera to see what it can do; going "hurr durr sensor size small, no good!" is simply ignorant. The Q7 can go to ISO 12800 and I have taken photos with the original Pentax Q (1/2.3") at ISO 3200 that were quite acceptable for making prints. There are full-frame DSLRs from 2003 that maxed out at ISO 1600 and had way WAY worse noise performance than the Pentax Q or Q7; sensor technology matters, and the sensors in the Q series might be small, but they're also based on the latest Sony Exmor sensor improvements around the time of manufacture which makes a huge difference. Simply having a BSI CMOS sensor represents a huge bump in quality. In fact, the DPR review of the GM1 stacks it against the Q7 and while the MFT sensor is much bigger, the GM1 didn't have a BSI CMOS sensor like the Q7, nor does it have in-body stabilization: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gm1

2 weeks agopermalink

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/diefdiec.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp9630.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/readingcollage.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/crossingsilouhette.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp8896.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/intheshadows.jpg
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/veryamerican.jpg

To whoever is reading this and is curious about the Q7- don't go by the mindless fauxtographers that are reading paper specs and have not even tried the camera. The Q7 gives you DSLR class alike pro controls in an impossible small size. A very rich feature set for a camera you can pretty much "wear" along with you.

For the street photographer this camera brings quite a bit to the table. Do yourself a favor and see one in person and check it out if you are really interested.

Some of my latest shots with it:

Oct 5, 2013permalink

Dan Bahrami

I've one question
can I use FX mounth Nikon or Sigma lenses at Q7?
and if yes de focal length of the lenses will bi extended?
and if focal length of the lenses will bi extended how is Auto focus of the Q7 Camera? I mean the Auto Focus of Q7 will be work without problem with Nikkor FX lenses?

Nov 26, 2015permalink

No, you can't use FX mount (afaik) with auto focus. But using an FX lens on this camera imho, defeats the point of having one.

Jun 18, 2017permalink

@Raist3d I just want to thank you for sharing those images. They are beautiful and I enjoyed them. These Pentax Q cameras are amazing. It really is a tragedy that the system has been end-of-lifed.

2 weeks agopermalink

wow. Thats quite a blast to get that message so long ago. I am not tegularly using the q7 today but i can tell you after seeing i am addicted and trying to detox from buying, tge Q is the camera i have enjoyed using the most in the last 6 years. I dod so mich with it and the constraints that for me wpuld be in low lightnade me focus on what matters. I also love the portability. hell i may have to take it for a spin this week.

2 weeks agopermalink

@Jody- before inforget thanks for looking.

2 weeks agopermalink

A Beer Dry On

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!

Sep 10, 2013permalink

TMSecrets

Case leather is luxurious, fashionable colors, for the young :)

Sep 9, 2013permalink

SulfurousBeast

Nice, cute, way too small sensor. Waiting for Lumix to launch their next iteration of FZ200 with 1/1.7 size sensor with 24x zoom and 2.8 aperture.

Sep 8, 2013permalink

DenWil

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.

Sep 2, 2013permalink

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp9630.jpg

Here's the photographs I am getting with the so called by you useless toy.

(ISO 1600)
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/readingcollage.jpg

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

Of course, many people go by a paper spec rather than understanding what this camera really brings to the table, at least for the street photographer.

Oct 5, 2013permalink

austere

the high ISO ones have a lot of noise. Sorry but it just can't compete with much better options, like the NEX-6 which is a good compromise between size and IQ.

Apr 3, 2014*permalink

It depends what you are doing. I am exhibiting a 12''x16'' print at ISO 6400 with the *original* Q which does a tad worse than Q7.

Jun 18, 2017permalink

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.

Aug 28, 2013permalink

The 02 lens on a Q7 is a 24-75mm f/2.8-4.5 (35mm equivalent) lens; go buy a brand new APS-C Canon Rebel DSLR in 2018 for more money than a Pentax Q7 cost when new and they STILL come with a 28-88mm f/3.5-5.6 (35mm equivalent) lens. The MX-1 is not an ILC and is a pretty chunky camera beside the Q7. The MX-1 lens isn't really much shorter when extended either. I don't feel like the standard zoom for the Q series could be much better than it is without being pretty big; it's already a big lens compared to the Q bodies and other Q lenses.

2 weeks agopermalink

I think the reviewer has done potential Q-system shooters a disservice by not putting more emphasis on the 03 Fisheye and 06 tele zoom, as these better differentiate the system -- no advanced compact has a f/2.8 telezoom or fisheye available, and these lenses for larger interchangeable systems are considerably larger/heavier and/or more expensive.

Aug 28, 2013permalink

"The Q7's helpful auto magnification function (available when manual focusing the 01 and 02 Standard lenses) is not available with these toy lenses. "

Not sure if reviewer is aware that magnification is still available when manually focusing by simply clicking the 'OK' button. The only thing that doesn't work is that camera doesn't detect that you're trying to use the manual focus ring.

Aug 28, 2013permalink

domina

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..

Aug 23, 2013permalink

FSI is better than BSI? That's a big hearty laugh.

2 weeks agopermalink

Matt1645f4

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.

Aug 22, 2013permalink

It´s the only way to keep Canon stuffs over 70points "photographic" gear rating, curious ah?.

Aug 26, 2013permalink

micahmedia

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.

Aug 17, 2013permalink

The GX7 is very cool but much larger and more expensive. I agree that Pentax's reluctance to embrace the EVF (even as an option) is unfortunate. I find myself hoping that Pentax will release a slightly upscaled Q-body with built-in (retractable?) EVF and enough room for another button or two. Should also increase the LCD resolution to at least 920K. Not sure about tilt LCD (a feature Pentax has also been reluctant to include in most of their models) but an argument could be made for that as well.

Aug 28, 2013permalink

john m flores

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

Loosen up peeps. Have some fun.

Aug 12, 2013permalink

PON307G

John,
Agree with your "fun" factor comment, and will be testing one when they are available locally.

Aug 19, 2013permalink

NotSteve

oops, double post...

Aug 12, 2013*permalink

BeaniePic

Oh dear and they actually think this is a good idea for a high quality imaging capture product. Well some one will fall for it I'm sure...

Aug 11, 2013permalink

sfracerdaniel

Never used one for more then a few minutes at best, huh?

Aug 11, 2013permalink

NotSteve

Oh c'mon BeanieBaby, I mean if that's the best trolling you can muster why even bother, especially if you're this late to the party? Honestly, a spambot could do better.

At least your buddy downthread, PetPeeve/PeevishPete or whatever he's called, gets marks for effort.

Maybe quote something from the review out of context, make an outrageous comment, brag about your full frame rig, or your phone or whatever. Give people something to work with.

Aug 12, 2013*permalink

CyberAngel

the troll filter keeps on missing in the dpreview

Aug 14, 2013permalink

ambercool

Just ordered one to try it out.

Apr 6, 2014*permalink

peterpainter

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!

Aug 11, 2013*permalink

pinholecam01

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

Aug 11, 2013*permalink

Camerabrain

Excellent link. Thanks.

Aug 12, 2013permalink

micahmedia

Huh? In the real world, these are the options that the camera is compared to. And it's not all that much smaller than my GX1. That's my opinion having handled the original Q and owning two GX1s. There's actually a smaller zoom option of m43, and there aren't any ultra wide angle options for the Q series. (I know, I tried some CCTV lenses, but it turns out they have odd apertures and none wider than 5mm are rectilinear.)

Aug 17, 2013*permalink

@micahmedia The Pentax Q series is way more enjoyable to use than all of my other ILCs combined, and WAY more pocketable. The entire Pentax Q 01-08 lens set fits easily into a combined set of pants and jacket pockets. Also, the Pentax 08 lens is plenty wide (17.5mm equivalent on Q7/Q-S1) and about as wide as you get without falling into fisheye territory, so what do you mean "there aren't any ultra wide angle options?" Do you mean fisheye?

2 weeks agopermalink

Tom Caldwell

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.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

LarryLatchkey

Btw., since when do you use this hand model with long finger nails wearing bright red varnish? ;) Is that to say sth about the camera?

Aug 10, 2013permalink

Front focused picture on the comparison page. See the text below on the test shot.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

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.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

ChristophBarthold

peevee1, perhaps you approach this camera in the wrong spirit. That tiny sensor is not a bug, it's a feature! And thus the larger sensor introduced on the Q7 is actually a step back from the original Q and the Q10. Most users have other - usually bigger - cameras if they want all that good stuff like stellar iq, low noise, high dr, narrow dof, wide assortment of lenses, flash system etc. etc.
But when you want to carry (and I mean carry) the fov-equivalent of a 300mm f/1.4, where are you going to turn to find it?
Just think of the Q as a digital back that gives you a lot of new possibilities with the lenses you already have. Slap on an adapter, go out and have fun!

Aug 10, 2013permalink

Said like someone who hasn't used those cameras or a Q. Handling of a Q completely crushes handling of the first Nikon 1 system. Particularly that J1. And of course, there is complete ignorance of the 06 telephoto lens in this comparison which for size and range completely beats the other options you mentioned.

But it's a lost case.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

Total bullsh!t! Q is the highest end compact ILC as you can get, and much more fun than any Nikon, Oly/Pana or NEX.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

ntsan

Slap on the 06 lens, and you will see the advantage (3X lighter, 2X smaller and 4X cheaper than Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8).

Aug 10, 2013*permalink

sfracerdaniel

Flipping the bozo bit...

Aug 11, 2013permalink

Most impressive effect Q has is that it can be a real DSLR serial killer. Mine is boring on the desk while my Q is almost always with me, ready to give great IQ and excelent exposure, with sometimes faster AF than my DSLR.
So peevee1, you are just spreading ignorance here.

Aug 11, 2013permalink

miles green

And since we're at it, the Q 02 zoom completely crushes the IQ of the Nikon 1 kit zoom...

Aug 14, 2013permalink

zodiacfml

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.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

fakuryu

I have both the 1st Q and the LX7, I can honestly assure you in real world shooting, my Q with the 01 prime is sharper than my LX7. I bought the 2 for kicks and now I just the LX7 to my mom and loves it.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

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!

Aug 10, 2013permalink

The camera is not even nearly "customizable much more" than Oly m43s which have available OVF (useful one) and 3 (THREE!) EVFs, a lot of flashes, replaceable grips, replaceable skins, many more lenses, bluetooth adapter, macro, fish-eye and WA convertors for kit lens, external microphone, some even battery grips. Of course Q toy lenses are not even cheap compared to m43 and Nikon 1 toy lenses made out of C-mount lenses - dime a dozen. Size and weight of Oly E-PM+14-42 II, Pana GF 3/5 +14-42PZ, Nikon 1 S1+11-27.5, even NEX-3n with 16-50 are about as small or smaller as this Q7 and previous Q10.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

I meant customizable firmware. Regarding the flashes, all Pentax flashes are compatible. There is a fisheye lens, which costs $97. As well as you can adapt almost any lens and converter available. The same C-mount lenses can be mounted as well. The weight of Q lenses is less than any Oly or Nex lens. The whole system with all 7 lenses weights just 499 gramm!

Aug 10, 2013permalink

@peeve A lot of the cameras you mention don't even flash sync to 1/250, let alone 1/2000 which the entire Q line can do. The ergonomics in a lot of the models you cite are sub par- Use them before you write this stuff.

Aug 10, 2013*permalink

Fingel

D-mount lenses can be used as well. To my knowledge this is the only camera system that I can mount my old Bolex 8mm lenses to and cover the frame.

Aug 12, 2013permalink

daveinla

I have the original Q and 02 lens (got it on the fire sale for around $200). In that configuration, it's competent (and yes, the kit zoom is the tiniest bit faster than the kit I have with my Oly E PL-1).

I also have a ton of old legacy primes, and 3rd-party adapters for both the Q and the Oly, and that's where this review doesn't quite get the Q: this camera/system is a true joy to shoot with old lenses if you like telephoto. In raw, the image quality is still good, and you simply gain access to zoom capability you otherwise could only dream of. Note- the K mount adapter is "official"; but you can get any available mount at around $30 max. I use Minolta MC/MD with Rokkor lenses, and they work great.

Aug 21, 2013permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

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.

Aug 9, 2013*permalink

pedroboe100

I want one. I don't know why.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

fakuryu

Don't try one, you might buy one. Same thing happened to me.

Aug 10, 2013*permalink

sfracerdaniel

The Q system is fantastic. Other cameras have higher IQ, but they are so damn boring in comparison.

Disclaimer: I bought a Q for 300 bucks, and have a Q7 on order.

Aug 11, 2013permalink

white shadow

If I can only only carry one camera body with one lens with me, I would still carry my Canon 5D MkII with a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 or a 50mm f2.0 macro but when I have some spare cash, I would still buy this baby.

It has character no other camera has.

Pentax has a way to make our life more interesting.

Aug 11, 2013*permalink

LarryLatchkey

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 :))

Aug 9, 2013permalink

OK, I know why you did the review while so many more interesting cameras await theirs. You have to fill your quote of reviews which don't give any awards. :) Very refreshing sight. :)

Aug 9, 2013permalink

RFC1925

"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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Allison Johnson

Thanks for spotting re the toy lenses - thought we'd made that correction to 3 at some point but obviously not! We did also mention the 06 telezoom on the design and handling page.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

Allison- the 06 telephoto lens is one of *THE* lenses that show the potential of the system. IN all your size comparisons, that lens compared to any of the other cameras longer range zoom lenses would have beaten them by a mile.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

The 08 wide zoom that came out after this review is a game-changer for the system. It is expensive but the image quality from it is obscenely good.

2 weeks agopermalink

ThePhilips

Page 1 has totally ruined the review reading session.

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

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Allison wrote: "The 02 Standard Kit zoom is comparable in weight to Micro Four Thirds kit zooms, but the Q lens has a slight edge in terms of overall compactness. "

You obviously haven't seen Panasonic 14-42 X PZ - it is smaller than Q 02 and even a little liter despite including powerzoom motor and mechanics.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

You forgot to mention that it's about 2/3 stop slower, and the price of that lens. You also forgot to mention something comparable in size and weight to Q 06 telephoto zoom. How much comparable Pana lens costs and weights?

Aug 10, 2013permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

Danger, Will Robinson!

Aug 9, 2013permalink

marike6

Note to DPR, you should if possible have your programmers turn off HTML Entities as all HTML tags are showing in the comments.

Anyway, glad to see a new review that I'm going to dig into this evening. Thanks.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Richard Butler

I think that's a side-effect of something that's being worked on. It's not visible to admins, so we didn't spot it. Should be fixed soon - thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

CyberAngel

Always have an older PC (Mac/Linux) logged in as a "user"?

Aug 14, 2013permalink

toomanycanons

Little point and shoot with no viewfinder. Next!

Aug 9, 2013permalink

You need a viewfinder to take good photos? That's cute.

2 weeks agopermalink

white shadow

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

zeyno44

You are right white shadow. I've been trying to tell this to all my friends. An expensive camera does not make you a better photographer. Nor certain equipment does not take "better" pictures. People do!!!

Aug 28, 2013permalink

Q7 is short for IQ<70.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Jim in Hudson

That's one of the hidden beauties of this little camera. You can do all of those things with the K to Q adapter and that ultimately makes it more versatile than anything else out there it competes with.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

No autofocus, no aperture control, lenses made for much less pixel density (i.e. not enough sharpness in the center) while being unncecessary huge... fail, try again.

Aug 9, 2013*permalink

Jim in Hudson

peevee1, sounds like you're mostly describing the long end of most of those 50X or whatever superzoom P&S's.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Not really, a dedicated up to 1200mm 2x-3x zoom for Q could be faster and better than f/6.3 long ends in Canon SX50 etc, actually useable.
Macro could have longer working distance.
And superzoom lens could match the one in FZ200 when you need only one zoom.

These are all very real potential advantages of a smaller sensor, but neither Pentax nor Nikon took them when designing lenses for their mirrorless systems, and as such both systems have only disadvantages left compared to, say, m43.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

It's "only all disadvantages to m43rds" because you selectively ommit things that stand out for the Q. The Q has better ergonomics that several m43rds models and the 06 telephoto zoom is a pretty unique lens. The Q as a system is still much smaller. You also get things like 1/250th and 1/2000 flash sync which m43rds doesnt have.

You keep pointing out to the "man y lens options of m43rds" ignoring that many of those are revs and copies of each other and the fact that a photographer does not necessarily need that many options at all. It's like you are going by just numbers and saying "ok this has more therefore much better" - that all depends. Someone may not even care one bit about it since the lenses they need are covered.

Aug 10, 2013permalink

SeeRoy

The fat mode dial is nice.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

rossdoyle

Is the DPR studio scene front focused? It looks like the fine print on the papers at the bottom of the scene are significantly sharper than anything else in the scene.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Infared

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

Aug 9, 2013permalink

fakuryu

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Revenant

I have no idea if it's true, but I've been told that most small-sensor cameras lack an AA filter, because diffraction blur makes it unnecessary to blur the image even more. Maybe there are some sensor experts here, who could enlighten us?

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Some of the faster lenses on the Q are not diffraction-limited. I think the diffraction kicks in around f/4.5 or so, depending on which Q camera you have, but the point is that diffraction isn't really an issue at the wider apertures available on non-toy Q lenses.

2 weeks agopermalink

Chris2210

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

oeriies

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

oeriies

Doing what you suggest might solve the problems for you, but I shot raw, turned up the screen brightness to the highest possible level, and used the Q with an adapter and very sharp K-mount primes, along with the kit zoom. The images were okay but didn't come close to satisfying me. They were not, by comparison, as good as those from the Canon S100 I owned previously, much less the SONY RX100 that replaced my Q. Further, no matter how bright the LCD, it was still difficult to see in the glare from bright sunlight and it provided a miserable framing experience when I was using a heavier lens with the K-mount adapter -- under those circumstances it really helps to be able to brace a camera against your face while using the viewfinder.

To each his own.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

DDWD10

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Optimal Prime

Er... Isn't there a more recent Q10 announced almost a year ago...? Why is DPR only receiving the Q7 at this late stage? Strange...

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Simon Joinson

No, the Q7 is much more recent.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Patco

Er... no
Q - June 2011
Q10 - Sept. 2012
Q7 - June 2013

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Optimal Prime

Even stranger model numbering, then.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Najinsky

And even stranger still, that people love commenting on the internet with no idea what they're talking about. Makes it such a useful place for getting information.

Aug 11, 2013permalink

peterpainter

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

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Mike Hiran

this review was one of the main reasons I bought the Q - large DOF for candids, very fast AF after the firmware updates, and the option of using my existing glass as extreme telephotos or excellent for macros. Very glad I bought the Q - it's a fun camera that is small enough for me to carry all the time (except now since it's sitting on my desk at home waiting to have pics uploaded).

Aug 9, 2013permalink

FYI for anyone that finds this comment: the seriouscompacts.com site is gone, but that review lives on in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120817064106/http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f90/pentax-q-real-world-user-review-11773/

2 weeks agopermalink

mpgxsvcd

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

audiobomber

It seems that you're just comparing the Q7 with standard zoom vs. the LX7 and RX100. The Q system is far more versatile than any advanced compact camera. The 01 normal prime is fast and very sharp. The 06 zoom, 70-200mm equivalent is f2.8 constant aperture, longer than either compact and faster than the RX100, which eats up the larger sensor's noise advantage. More lenses are on the way.

I don't even have an 02 zoom. I use the 01 prime, 03 fisheye and 06 telezoom. I have a $25 Petri OVF that matches the 01 prime perfectly. I also use the Q with an adapter and 100mm f2.8 macro. For supertele, you can mount a 135mm 2.8 on a Q7 for 600mm equivalent FOV, and shoot handheld. Or go with a tripod and a 300mm f4 for 1380mm FOV.

The Q system costs more than a compact but is far more capable.

Aug 9, 2013*permalink

Erik Magnuson

The RX100 and LX7 have lenses that are just as fast or faster than the 01 prime. The 06 zoom takes the camera well out of the pocketable range. If you want a narrow FOV on a tripod, attach a camera to a spotting scope. The Q niche is smaller than the camera.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

The 06 doesn't take the camera out of pocketable believe it or not. And you get that very long zoom range that allows for portraiture with good bokeh control you won't get even on the rx100. I am not saying the Q system is perfect but this is short hanging it

I felt the review was very unfair comparing the camera sizes. They should also have compared with the 01 an the 06. With the 06 there is simply nothing like it- log zoom and constant f2.8.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

robbo d

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.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Shamael

I love this little camera, it's a gadget, a joke, but one that does real good shots. For the size and the toy it is, I did not await that good shots. But, as I said, it is a joke that has a high price too. In a 3 lens kit at 500$ i would say yes, but that price with one lens, specially of you compare to a latest NEX3 cameras, it's fairly overpriced. But as allways, you want that toy, pay the price.

Aug 9, 2013permalink

Andy Crowe

It scored 70%, which is more than 5 of the 22 cameras in the "Entry Level Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR" category.

Aug 9, 2013permalink