Pentax Q7 added to our studio comparison database

The correct term is 1/1.7"-type and there's some variance within each 'type.' For instance, not all 1/2.3"-type sensors are the same size.

Jul 16, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

>>...Otherwise, Nikon 1 and even m43 are just as small, light and
>>cheap while being incomparably better.

That's right and I'm considering Nikon 1 J3. Also, Pentax's management really lost sense of reality when it comes to MSRPs. Here are examples:

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GF3 with 14-42mm lens - $299 CAD
Nikon 1 V1 with 10mm Lens - 349 CAD
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GX1 Body only - 349 CAD
Nikon 1 J2 with 10-30mm Lens - 359 CAD
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G3 with 14-42mm lens - $399 CAD
...
and so on
...

Web-site to check is: http://www.memoryexpress.com/Category/DigitalCameras?FilterID=1c16eed2-12b5-9ba2-2fbb-3b814f01e8c7

Jul 15, 2013permalink

Those are all discontinued cameras.

Jul 15, 2013permalink

Cane

They are also way bigger. Have you actually seen how small this camera is?

Jul 15, 2013permalink

odjazdy

Hello,
The photo is in my opinion bad due to lens defect.
Look at the center of photo. The chroma aberration would be in the center minimal and the character would be radial. On the photo the chroma aberration in the centre is linear so it is probably effect of bad justified inside lenses.
I have had similar defect in 02 lens and I have returned it to seller.

Jul 14, 2013permalink

LarryLatchkey

I really worry about the lack of fine detail (hair, fur), but actually it has pretty exactly the same IQ as Samsung's EX2F, which was rated a pretty good camera here. Despite the soft jpegs. Are we all pixel peeping too much again?

But it's really not much better than a good 2.3" at low ISO... I can't deny I'm disappointed.

Jul 13, 2013permalink

peevee1

The only way this system would make any sense if it had native macro and native extra long tele (maybe both in something like 30x+ zoom and fast - f/2 or faster - long tele zoom). Otherwise, Nikon 1 and even m43 are just as small, light and cheap while being incomparably better.

Jul 13, 2013permalink

yabokkie

if we define fast as we use for 35mm format lenses,
that is f/2.0 primes, then it's physically impossible
to have fast lenses for 1/1.7" sensors because that will be
f-number = 2.0 / 4.6 = f/0.44

the advantage of 1" sensor is that it's easier to make superzoom for videos but we'll have to wait for a new mount because Nikon 1 is not good.

Jul 13, 2013*permalink

LarryLatchkey

The images are not merely a little soft but there's a several lack of detail... strange.
In the test by photozone.de ( http://photozone.de/pentaxq ) the lens was judged to be rather sharp, but they mentioned a decrease in IQ at close focusing distance.

Jul 13, 2013*permalink

LarryLatchkey

meant to say *severe...

Jul 13, 2013permalink

If this is a lens issue it's hard to let Pentax/Ricoh off the hook. The lens costs $300 which is not a whole lot less than an MX-1 which delivers better test results (much better!) despite having a lens with a bigger zoom range. They CAN do better and should.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

There's a big difference between a lens being good and a lens being good at producing the best-possible results at full zoom and close focus distances.

Very few zooms are consistently good across their entire range and fewer still are up to this level of critical scrutiny - especially when shot at close focus distances.

I've not shot it, but it may well be fine in real world use.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

peevee1

Lens in MX-1 was first seen in Olympus XZ-2 last year, I bet Pentax did not develop that. The same thing with lenses in WG-3 (TG-1), and WG-1/2 before that. And DA*50-135, only what was that, Tokina?
Pentax probably doesn't even have optical department anymore.

Jul 13, 2013permalink

We are hearing about the "new" studio scene for an year. Seriously, it takes this long to shoot new studio scene? I have seen skyscrapers built faster than that.

Jul 13, 2013permalink

radissimo

Audi Q7 is much better

Jul 12, 2013permalink

http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/q7/ex/index.html

For better judgement — real life Q7 shots with 01, 02 and 06 lenses:

Jul 12, 2013permalink

Results from the 01 and 02 lenses on the Pentax page are consistent with my experience with these lenses where sharpness is concerned.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

sfa1966

Ouch. I am a loyal Pentaxian, but I have to say that is very poor. The left side of the image looks like mush. The centre is unimpressive. Soft, soft, soft. And in the comments below, Richard Butler tells us that the much-heralded-by-the-fanboys 01 Prime was tested and it came out "considerably worse"!

C'mon Ricoh, kill this Quirky Quackers waste of your resources!

Jul 11, 2013permalink

You are apparently loyal to a brand, but not loyal to common sense. Did you kill yourself after the first failed driving test?
There are simply too many unknowns in this test to say anything definitely about the entire Q line. And that you and others want it eradicated tells more about you and those who are scared to think rationally.
To investigate, DPR could use:
a) another Q7 body,
b) a Q10,
c) original Q,
d) another 02 lens.

Etc. That's how a serious person conducts tests and draws conclusions.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

sfa1966

I'll ignore the personal stuff, but oh yes: when it's the Q7, DPR should indeed take the time to conduct a thorough Sherlockian investigation of different combinations of other Q equipment. They are sure to come to a different conclusion. Perhaps that's because there's so many variables (highly variable variables, if this test shot is anything to go by) which might go wrong in a line which has self-professed 'toy lenses'.

Meanwhile - gosh! - all the other brands' cameras in the comparisons look fine! DPR must have gotten a lucky good copy of those then!

Jul 12, 2013permalink

Tosic is talking objectivity. You're talking attitude. There is no rational reason why having "toy lenses" in a camera's line of accessories would affect the quality or capabilities of the camera or of other lenses and accessories for the camera. Your attempt to stigmatize the whole Q line because Pentax made the (unfortunate, in my opinion) decision to name two of the lenses for it "toy" says plenty about your attitude and little about the actual quality and worthiness of the cameras and lenses.

If you dislike the Q and its lenses, why not just ignore them? Your attitude and sarcasm are neither helpful nor appreciated.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

I should have made myself clearer. The prime is considerably worse /in this particular situation/.

Using a 39mm equiv lens to shoot a scene where we usually use something in the 75-85mm equiv range means we're working /really/ close to the scene, which means you get dreadful corners (but better centre sharpness). But it's unusual to shoot at close distances and closely assess the corner detail.

We had similar difficulties with the Sony RX100 (its lens performance at close distances isn't representative of its real-world performance), which is why we're hoping to introduce our new test scene as soon as possible.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/02/ms-optical-japan/

However, a reminder to Ricoh Imaging: re-issue the damn 01 and 02 lens, as told by so many Q users over the last 2 years! That statement is embedded in every other post in Pentax Compact camera forum.

Q thrives on fast apertures. For example, this incredible old man, Miyazaki San, has made MS Sonnetar 25mm/f1.1 for the Q. An independent optical engineer says the same message as the users. That's how you do it, and that what makes the Q system really shine.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

Would anyone judge the D800's possible IQ with a test shot done with cheapest kit lens? On DPR, system cameras are tested with their 50mm equivalent good primes, or best ones that DPR has for the mount.

In the case of Q7, although it is a system camera, it was tested with the Q's so called kit lens. And the results also show focusing issues. The camera has an all new sensor, same as the MX-1, the results simply cannot be that bad and don't show what a Q7 can really do.

If the new test environment is going to be made, let's wait.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

However, commenters have a full right to rant; this isn't what we'd we expect in any case. Ricoh Imaging, it's your call now — read the comment above about the 01 and 02 lenses.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Najinsky

Another comment, just to add my voice to the choir. Those samples are seriously very poor. Certainly wouldn't encourage a prospective buyer, in fact quite the opposite, it's really put me off it. They just can't be right with it's new sensor, must be a bad lens (but bad model or just a bad copy?).

On the plus side, it's a timely reminder just how good a job Nikon did with that P7700, at least on the IQ side. I remember being impressed with the real world samples you made with it and the studio samples bare that out. I'll have to check if it got a firmware update to iron out the quirks.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

I hope Pentax-Ricoh engineers and managers will read it. The camera is full of inconsistencies and that is why I didn't buy it during my last visit to a local camera-store.

- It is Very overpriced. I've spent less money for Sony NEX-5N compared to any Pentax Q MSRPs
- Price-to-Square-Pixel Ratio is the Highest among almost all cameras ( it is calculated as follows: MSRP divide by 7.44 divide 5.58, where 7.44 and 5.58 are sensor dimensions in mm )
- In Manual mode with a Non Pentax lens ISO is limited to 1600 in Bulb mode (*)
- In Manual mode with a Non Pentax lens in Bulb mode the longest exposure is 2 seconds (**)
- Would I worry about all these color combinations? No
- Pentax claims that it is very popular in Japan. N/A here in North America since we have different living standards ( houses, apartments, cars, etc bigger )
- Why somebody should buy that camera for $500 when a Smartphone costs less than $150 and IQ is Not worse?

Please fix (*) and (**) and I''ll buy Pentax Q7.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

zos xavius

This has better IQ than a cell phone. It is also much smaller than a nex-5n. Apples to oranges.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Yeah, of course, Japan people are small and skinny, they prefer small and cute camera. American are big and fat, they love big camera with huge lenses :) :) :) :)
I agree about the price, there is many camera around the Q7 price (nex3/5), previous m/43 generation.
I bought a Pentax Q with prime at 200euro, and it's far better than my phone.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

ManuH

Most of your complaining is about the price. Sorry for you but just like the Sony RX there's no equivalent at any price.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Don Kiyoti

Why didn't you use the 01 Prime for this test?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

We did shoot a test series with the 01 Prime. Because it's a much wider-angle lens than we usually use, we have to shoot it closer to the scene.

At the working distance of the 01 Prime, the centre is sharper but the performance then drops-off badly (probably as a result of curvature of field). The results look considerably worse than these.

This is one of the problems our forthcoming test scene is designed to resolve and the Q7 will be one of the first cameras to be included in the new scene, which we will publish as soon as the new interface is ready.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

ogl

the best apertures of 01 Prime are f1.9-2.8. which apertures did you use?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Don Kiyoti

Thanks Richard, that makes sense. I look forward to seeing your new scene.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

peevee1

You studio shot comparison does not work well with Firefox anymore, any minor change add a record to the history, making the history too long and back button useless. FF 22.0.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Red5TX

Pentax needs to update the kit zoom for the Q. The 02 has never quite been up to snuff and this result further illustrates that unfortunate fact. The 01 and 06 are pretty great, but every ILC needs a good standard zoom. C'mon, Pentax.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

zos xavius

From what I've seen the IQ is pretty similar between the 01 prime and the 02 zoom. Maybe they have a bad copy? I didn't pixel peep these FWIW.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Heinrich Lohmann

Here is one with the original Q and kit zoom, out of a moving truck through the windshield:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/heinrichlohmann#/carousel

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Don Kiyoti

@zos xavius-
I find the 01 Prime to be sharper in general that the 02 Zoom, as long as you don't stop down past 3.2 or so. Refraction comes on quick with the original Q sensor, and that's partly why the 02 Zoom suffers at the long end. It's much better at the wide end.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

D1N0

Entire scene looks out of focus, or has poor resolution. The difference with camera's with the same sensor zx-2 mx-1 is just too big. What lens was used? the 5-15 or the 8.5 prime?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Focal length is 14.70mm (68mm 35mm equivalent), so it must to be the kit zoom.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

D1N0

That would explain it because the zoom sucks at the long end

Jul 11, 2013permalink

If the zoom lens is poor, doesn't that question the whole value proposition behind the Q7?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

@Jim in Hudson wrote:
"doesn't that question the whole value proposition behind the Q7?"

If the 5-15 is not a stellar lens, it wouldn't be the first kit zoom to be a mediocre performer. That said, it looks like the copy DPR has may be de-centered so it's not clear that ALL 5-15 lenses will have the same issues at the edges of the frame.

But on most crop sensor mirrorless cameras like m43, NEX, Fuji X, it's really the large aperture primes that are the better performers. On my Nikon V1, I keep the 18.5 f/1.8 mounted 95% of the time. It's such a good lens, I hardly ever use the kit lens.

If I had the Q7, I'd keep the 8.5 f/1.9 mounted most of the time. Better IQ, better DOF control, and a smaller casing that balances better on the tiny Q7 body. So no, I don't think one mediocre kit lens means anything regarding the value proposition of the Q7 system. Besides, Pentax will surely release some more lenses.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Najinsky

@marike6 - The problem is that currently there is no alternative higher quality standard zoom. For other formats these are available or announced, so you're not stuck with the kit one.

I too would keep a better prime on it most of the time, but I read it's only been released as a kit with the zoom, and based on this I really wouldn't want to feel I'm spending any money on this zoom.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

D1N0

The zoom is pretty ok until about 10mm. After that it degrades. The long zoom 15-45 is excellent though. Pentax should really improve the 5-15.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

The prime performed very inconsistently when we tried using it (at the relatively close focus distances required for this test). We repeatedly re-shot the zoom to try to get the best performance out of it.

We will include the Q7 at the launch of our new test scene, which should allow us to use the prime.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

schaki

The lens is not a very good copy. The left side is sharper than the right, looking at the two chess-lika squares to the left and right side of the top and also the silver-watch in the right lower corner is not very sharp either.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews_data/pentax_q7/boxshot/imgp7101.jpg

Jul 11, 2013permalink

You might be right. I thought the weak borders were a result of the Q lenses not quite covering the larger image circle of the Q7, but the watch, Kodak Q-60 Color Target, checkerboard on the right are much softer than the left side (Martini bottle, checkerboard, etc).

The Q7 lens seems to be de-centered so DPR should probably test another copy or better yet, use the 8.5 f/1.9 for these tests.

DPR uses the better 50 f/1.4 lenses for most DSLR test shots, why not use the better 8.5 f/1.9 for the Q7 studio test shots?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Najinsky

@marike6 - I agree. I've gotten so used to DPR testing with excellent lenses I assumed it was standard practice and was surprised to see these poor results. I guess it could be a simple case that they don't have a better lens for Q7.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

The 8.5mm F1.9 01 Prime does not perform well at the working distances required for this test - it's sharper at the centre but terrible towards the edges (probably as a result of curvature of field).

As a result we had no option but to use the zoom, which gave us a softer but more consistent result.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

@R Butler

Maybe the Q lenses are poor at the edges, not only because of field curvature, but because they were designed to cover the 1/2.3" sensor of the original Q and not the Q7.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Something is blatantly wrong with these test shots. Do a comparison to the Pentax MX-1 (same sensor and processing engine) and the difference is night and day. In fact, the MX-1 shots look as good if not better than the P7700 shots.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Peiasdf

One have lens designed specifically for the sensor. The other is a toy camera the manufacture suddenly wants to drop a different sensor in.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

NaeL

If you want to compare it to a compact system camera, compare it to sony nex-3n; if you want to compare it to a 1/1.7" camera, compare it with LX7.
This Q7 camera looks to me like a FAIL.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Pixnat2

Nice camera, bad jpegs.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

To really check IQ, there is one missing think, where the focus is made and the distance between camera and scène. The Q with the prime do it's best at f2.8/f4. The AF is fast but sometime not very precise, you focus on one think, everything ok on live view, but when you take the picture and check the result, focus have change. When i want precise focus, i use the very handy focus peaking with 2x zoom.
Somes pics:
OOC Jpeg: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffroy65/9255327740/in/photostream/lightbox/
OOC Jpeg, focus on the left pistil: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffroy65/9255327606/in/photostream/lightbox/
800iso in a museum, behing a security glass and harsh light: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffroy65/9233184460/in/photostream/lightbox/

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Ginetto

I think DPR should place a sort of target in the studio scene where all the cameras tested need to focus.
This way will be no misunderstanding about front or rear focus and all the samples could be compared precisely.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

lol101

AF not precise enough with contrast AF and very large DoF?

That's concerning to say the least...

I have used different cameras with contrast AF and various sensor size (NX10 & 1000, Fuji X10) and I always had very precise AF albeit somewhat slower than phase-difference AF...

If there was anything wrong with the tests shots, I'd bet on sub-par kit lens or pre-release bug in firmware but please, don't tell me that this kind of AF errors is something normal on the Q.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

AF miss-focus is not common, from my experience, i encountered it in close focus, like the flower above. Even the smallest AF zone is big in those conditions. There is also not a very large DoF. In the first shot, the brown thing in the middle is about 5mm and DOF around 2cm.
AF do it's job perflectly well with the belt, fast, precise and silent through the glass.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Those test results are too blatantly soft. They're wildly at odds with my experience using two original Q bodies and the 02 zoom as well as an 01 prime. I wonder if Dpreview got hold of a pre-production Q7 or 02 zoom with a defect, or maybe failed to turn IS off before making tripod-mounted shots. Maybe there's a bug in the processing engine.

I don't know what the problem is, but it's clear to me something's not right with the Q7 and/or lens tested, or with the way the test shots were made. I don't see Pentax knowingly bringing a $500 to $700 camera to market with such a pronounced and obvious lack of sharpness.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Go here and compare original Q and vs Canon G15

What do you see? G15 is much sharper. That's different camera but same result

Jul 11, 2013permalink

What I see in the ISO 200 new image of mannequin scene is comparable sharpness in the Q and G15 images.

What I also see is both those cameras delivering excellent sharpness, while the Q7 in Dpreview's test delivered unacceeptably poor sharpness. By the way, I noticed no such lack of sharpness in the sample photo series published a few days ago here on Dpreview.

Like I said, something's not right with the test Q7, its lens, processing engine or the way the test was executed.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

"mannequin scene" is not there to check for detail.

Scroll down and check "Still-life" shots. That's the standard that IR uses for detail.

If anything original Q is far worse than Q7 shots in DPR

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Try again...
The Q7' RAW files are less noisy at 1600 iso :
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=pentax_q7&masterSample=imgp7113.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=pentax_q7&slot0Sample=imgp7113.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_cpp7700&slot1Sample=dscn0876.acr&slot2Camera=canon_g15&slot2Sample=img_0038.acr&slot3Camera=sony_dscrx100&slot3Sample=dsc00489.acr&x=0.30345864661654126&y=-0.7277160063974307&extraCameraCount=0

OK, I went back and compared the still lifes. The G15 is noticeably sharper at the edge than the Q when viewed at maximum online enlargement. At the center, I find the G15 very slightly sharper, but the difference is negligible. And that is at maximum online enlargement.

Jul 12, 2013permalink

Peiasdf

RX100 clubbed it to death at base ISO. At ISO 1600 it looks like a 2006 compact camera. Just buy a RX100.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Couscousdelight

Jul 11, 2013permalink

But RX100 20 MP files have far more detail, unlike everything being smeared on Q7, due to RAW noise reduction, as usual

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Anyone claiming the Q7 sensor performs better than the 1" sensor cameras has major confirmation bias.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Q is a system camera, which can instantly switch its modus operandi and take all new perspectives on photography depending on lenses and converters used. In fact it is unique and incomparable. To say it looks like the G15, P7700 or XZ-something, is true to the same degree as to say that you look like Albert Einstein.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

lol101

So we should not be comparing its IQ to other compacts with similar sensors? What's your point?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Revenant

Personally, I regard the Q as an enthusiast compact with a unique bonus feature: interchangeable lenses.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

An enthusiast compact that isn't very compact because it's an ILC.....

Jul 11, 2013permalink

ManuH

Yes, people compare the Q to the other compact all the time. You can do it of course, just like you can compare the RX100 and the D800, for fun. But they are completely different tools.

A G15 or MX-1 maybe all that someone needs but the Q is more versatile and is more DSLR-like in its handling (manual zoom, yeah!). My hope is a true rectilinear UWA (12-24mm) that would make the Q truly unmatched by other compacts.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

vodanh1982

The G15 is f/4.5 1/60s ISO 100 but the Q7 is f/4.5 1/25s ISO 100. How come?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Ah, more bottles and cards shots … using which lens for the Q? 01 lens? 02? 06?
What aperture? Was focus peaking used? Image stabilisation used or switched off?

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

All this info is available, as it always is, in DPR studio shots. Click on the icon right to "Download: JPEG"

Jul 11, 2013permalink

All front focused theories aside, it does seem the Q7 is doing a tad noisier at high ISO than the other two options discussed. A bit surprised given how well both Q and K-5 do with the Sony sensors.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

supeyugin1

Yes, it looks like it's front focused.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

mgatov

You can pick up a new Pentax Q with an 01 lens on ebay for around $225. At that price, it makes a very fun camera. If you are willing to do some PP, the results are very pleasing.

I must admit that the images from the Q7 are somewhat disappointing. I have a lot of fun using the older Q. If I don't pixel-peep, I'm happy with the results.... far happier than I was with the smearing on the newer Sony compacts.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Yep, it's still a 1/1.7" sensor.

Looks about like a G15, only the G15 is cheaper and comes with a faster lens and a viewfinder.

People like to point out the nice 47mm f1.9 prime for the Q system, but the G15 is still f2 at 47mm equivalent (maybe f2.2, but I think it drops to that at 50mm equivalent) so there is really no advantage there.

If you were interested in more zoom, the P7700 has 200mm reach, which is about what the Q telephoto would have with this larger sensor Q. It's still got f2.5-ish aperture at 50mm, too.

Still having a rough time figuring out why someone would want to spend $1000 for a Q and a lens kit when you could spend $450 on a G15 or a P7700 and get more in a smaller body for half price.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Snapshot Atlantic

Not sure where you're getting $1000 dollars from... I would be wondering why someone would spend that much as well seeing as the camera + zoom is $499.

That said, Pentax's own MX-1 has a excellent fast lens on it and for $399, might be a better option for certain people and is definitely better than the Canon and Nikon cameras mentioned (at least in my experience.)

Jul 11, 2013permalink

$1000
Q7 + kit zoom = $500
telephoto = $300
Standard prime = $200-ish

You'd need at least two out of the three to match the capability of the G15 or P7700. Probably all 3.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Except that the 06 telephoto of the Q is constant F2.8, that I see you conveniently ignore. This means less ISO at the long tele photo and better DOF control than the P7700.

You say there's no advantage vs the G15, but you do mention right there that the Q lens is faster anyway, so there seems to be an advantage after all.

Of course, you also have other options like a very cheap fish eye which none of the other cameras give you, custom F1.2 prime for the Q mount which none of the other options give you, or ability to use other lenses which none of the other options give you.

And still smaller than those other two you mention.

So when you say "You'd need at least two out of the three to match the capability of the G15 or P7700. Probably all 3." you are really telling a half truth, as the other cameras cannot match either what the Q is giving you in that set.

It's pros and cons. Oh, you also forgot the current Q auto focuses *much* faster than either of the other two options.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

fakuryu

Lol! $1000? Get a Q7 w/ the 01 prime and it is better anyday vs the G15 and the P7700, get a cheap Fotodiox K to Q adapter and a SMC-A 50mm f2 and you have a 250mm f2 equivalent for far far less

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Q is a system camera, you know. There's nothing that compares to it right now, nor will (most likely) ever be.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

how is the q7 with the 01 prime better than the G15? f1.9 vs f2 at 47mm is better? And you give up all your zoom range for that tiny 1/6 of a stop?

Nothing compares to the Q because nothing wants to. When you can give the capabilities of the whole system in a fixed zoom, why bother?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

"how is the q7 with the 01 prime better than the G15? f1.9 vs f2 at 47mm is better? And you give up all your zoom range for that tiny 1/6 of a stop?"
Er. you are saying right up there it's a faster lens on the Q, and you are not even sure if the Canon is F2.2 anyway. You brought that up, not me.

You then, again, conveniently ignore some characteristics and facts- like what I pointed out to you on the zoom 06 lens which is a constant F2.8. Of course the G15 can't even do that.
Did I say the Q7 was unequivocally better? No. I said pros and cons. Hardly the "slam dunk Q7 loses to both" you made it out to be.

As for flexibility, again- pros and cons and depends what photography you do. It's far easier to zoom in on a Q lens than on the other options (it's manual). You don't get the DOF control of the 06 in neither G15 nor P7700, which can make for good portraits, but you ignore that. It's not as simple as you say at all.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Of course, if you don't do much photography, then all these differences may get lost on you (note: I am not saying the Q7 is unequivocally better or even better- just pros and cons and a good camera in its own right). Which camera is the best match depends on your needs and wants as a photographer (if you at least try to do photography that is), and we are all different.

Jul 11, 2013*permalink

mcshan

It may be a system camera and fun to shoot but maybe a small sensor system camera isn't a great idea. Switching lenses to give me less of what the G15, LX7 and especially RX100 doesn't seem like it is worth it. The original Q with an even smaller sensor may have been fun to play with but it was toy like.

I'd feel silly changing a lens on a Canon S110. May as well move up to the next class camera.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

@mcshan - apaprently like the other poster, it got lost on you the other things the system gives you that the other cameras are not. You say "switching lenses to give me less of what the G15/LX7... " - no, it doesn't give you less, it can give you more. Much more. You have a 200mm equivalent lens that is F2.8. How fast is that Canon at telephoto and is it 200mm? Which of the two cameras will give you shallower DOF for a portrait?

Why are you missing this?

Jul 13, 2013permalink

micahmedia

Two things: there appears to be a bit of front focus to the Q7 shots. And the raw file links are broken.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

dpLarry

The truth is they are all very close, with the P310 slightly below par. They are all much better than 1/2.3" sensored cams and much below apsc.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

I was wondering how the Q lenses would do on the Q7. The kit zoom DPR used doesn't stack up well against the P7700 and G15. The borders and corners (and the center really) are just not as crisp as the Nikon and Canon in the RAW files.

High ISO looks great (exactly like the MX-1), but images are a bit softer than the other 1/1.7" cameras.

The 8.5 f/1.9 should do considerably better. I'm just wondering if it's the Q lenses designed for a smaller image circle or if the kit zoom is just not such a good lens.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

DDWD10

Agreed, the zoom isn't pulling its weight here. I purchased my Q as a kit with the 02 zoom and recently acquired the 01 prime and the difference is unmistakable.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Snapshot Atlantic

I own Q lenses 1-6 and I've always been a bit disappointed with the standard zoom. The standard prime and the telephoto zoom are much better, in my experience. I was hoping they might have made a mark II version... maybe with constant f2.8 like the telephoto... but at least one with slightly improved optics.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

garyknrd

Looking at that the G15 ls really an awesome camera indeed.As is the Pentax.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Tapper123

Another small sensor compact. But with interchangeable lenses...? Seriously?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Hmm this is not new. The Q mount has been going on for a while now. Why the surprise.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Many of us are surprised Pentax is still chasing this dead end.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

Revenant

If an ILC with a 1/1.7" sensor is a dead end, aren't the less versatile fixed-lens compacts with the same sensor size also dead ends? And yet they seem to be quite popular.

The problem is that people think of the Q cameras as competitors to the mirrorless ILCs with larger sensors, rather than as enthusiast compacts with the added bonus of interchangeable lenses.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

@tkblsc- as said in the announcement, the Q system is actually indeed- a best seller no less, in Japan. How is that exactly a dead end? Just because the camera is of no use to you doesn't mean it's bad.

@Revenant- I think the real problem is that people who are so obfuscated by sensor size and other limitations without seeing the pros just aren't photographers. I see a lot of advantages to the Q system for street life.

Jul 13, 2013*permalink

RichRMA

"Out of fashion?" Oh dear! What will my fashionista friends think??!!

Jul 11, 2013permalink

mgatov

If you are worried about your fashionista friends, get a Hasselblad Lunar or the Leica G-Star Raw... they will help you contact your inner fop.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

CameraLabTester

Pentax should really hire a good industrial designer.

Their cameras are good and perform well.

But they appear just freakishly ugly and out of fashion.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

dsm6

I disagree. I find the Q7 to be quite an attractive camera.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

A camera is not a fashion item, but there is nothing ugly about the Q7, MX-1, K30 and one of the nicest looking DSLRs ever made, the K5.

But aesthetics are subjective.

The great thing about Pentax is they are not afraid to take risks design wise. As someone who hates conservative designs, the same thing over and over again, I really respect that.

Jul 11, 2013permalink

four under

So just which cameras do you consider good looking and fashionable?

Jul 11, 2013permalink

raven900sx

just wondering how a CDAF system can front focus?

Jul 11, 2013permalink