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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very well put.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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

@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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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

@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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

@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!

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.

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

@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.

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.

@ 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.