So are we happy with 'Q' instead of Full Frame?

AngryCorgi · Jun 23, 2011

moving_comfort said:
.

Could Hoya have allocated their resources more wisely?

I think the better question is "How could Hoya have allocated their resources more foolishly?"

Much tougher question. Is the Sigma SD-1 or the Pentax Q going to win the award for "Biggest flop of 2011". Gonna be a tight race!

--
-AC-

Roland Karlsson · Jun 23, 2011

AngryCorgi said:
Much tougher question. Is the Sigma SD-1 or the Pentax Q going to win the award for "Biggest flop of 2011". Gonna be a tight race!

Not necessarily. We will see. The Q is something you can afford at least.

If they release a good macro lens it could be a killer macro camera.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Roland Karlsson · Jun 23, 2011

Roland Karlsson said:
Personally I find the Q system cute but redundant.

Or maybe not.

It can be a killer macro camera if they release a really good macro lens.

With some adapters it could also be a rather nice camera for using with spotting scopes for wild life.

Or why not a planetary camera for your astronomic telescope.

For general photography it still feels redundant to me. There a usual compact cameras seems to be a better choice.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

richardplondon · Jun 23, 2011

Roland Karlsson said:
If they release a good macro lens it could be a killer macro camera.

I was thinking: if they or 3rd parties can add some extra purpose-made adaptors into the Q mount system - so you can directly and accurately attach an endoscope, microscope, monocular scope, extension rings, slide copier.... it may be a very nice technical or scientific camera system. Or on a birding scope, say.

The success of that'll depend on the camera's usability and configurability, as well as on the physical format, of course.

RP

Raphael Mabo · Jun 23, 2011

The Q-system is likely co-developed with Kenko. The sensor and the basic internals should be the same, but Pentax uses their own lens mount and Kenko uses the CCTV lens mount.

Kenko produces the Hoya filters.

Tokina is part of the Kenko group, and many Pentax lenses has been co-developed with Tokina.
So there is a history of connection here...

Now, co-developing keeps cost low. I believe that the Pentax Q-mount lens designs will be released for the Kenko camera too.

It is a fun system and I believe it has great potential for the low end market.

I actually would want one myself for situations where my K-x is too big. Image quality is good enough.

Pentax has another, more serious, mirrorless in the works. Developments made for the Q-system will benefit this more serious product. It is interesting that the lenses for the Q-system has the shutter in them.

There is room in the market for different systems.
But I think a Pentax 24x36 is unlikely, a killer APS-C is more likely.

--
Take care
Raphael
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo/

AngryCorgi · Jun 23, 2011

Roland Karlsson said:
Roland Karlsson said:

Personally I find the Q system cute but redundant.

Click to expand...

Or maybe not.

It can be a killer macro camera if they release a really good macro lens.

With some adapters it could also be a rather nice camera for using with spotting scopes for wild life.

Or why not a planetary camera for your astronomic telescope.

For general photography it still feels redundant to me. There a usual compact cameras seems to be a better choice.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Well, if you are going to argue with yourself...lol

This system is far too expensive to be successful. If I want a nice macro camera, I can find a ton of better options that don't cost $1100-1200 ($800 + $300-400) for the macro lens. Heck, the Ricoh GXR system with APS-C sensor and Macro lens is $915.

--
-AC-

DDoram · Jun 23, 2011

While I would like a FF camera, the Q could be fun to use for lots of the market. As sensor technology improves over time, it could turn out to be a great system. IQ now will be mediocre, but wait 5-7 years.

I hope for Hoya and us that it is a success.

Dale
--
http://www.pbase.com/abundant108

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=272176&subSubSection=1787360&language=EN

PeterLeyssens · Jun 23, 2011

Hi,

superakuma said:
These sub $100 lens are "Toy lens". The standard zoom lens is $300. Many people buy prime lens for the speed and the IQ. I don't know the speed or IQ of the two sub $100 lens, but I can't image them to be really high quality or fast.

I found somewhere that the wide is f7.1. It's also manual focus. I don't know if you understand the term "toy", because speed and IQ are not really part of that. I'm quite interested in the Q and should I get one, the wide toy lens will definitely be part of my initial purchase.

superakuma said:
The Pentax Q is not that much smaller then the Olympus Pen camera.

What nonsense. At 57% of the volume and 50% of the weight, the Q is way smaller than the E-P1. Check out the side-by-side comparison on this site, it's what I used to get my numbers.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be

klavrack · Jun 23, 2011

I just wish this had come out a month ago. I would have canceled my K-5 order and got a D7000. Having developed the best asp-c body out there, I was expecting to see the development of a full range of superior lenses at all focal ranges. This kind of product just makes Pentax look like a gimmick brand, doing a lot of things poorly. Makes me wonder what kind of price my K-5 would fetch on E-bay.

Barry Fitzgerald · Jun 23, 2011

Dale108 said:
While I would like a FF camera, the Q could be fun to use for lots of the market. As sensor technology improves over time, it could turn out to be a great system. IQ now will be mediocre, but wait 5-7 years.

I hope for Hoya and us that it is a success.

I think we both know it's not likely to be a success it's DOA already.

Who's going to spend $800 on "mediocre" IQ (your words)?
Why not just buy a Canon G12 for less and with a bigger sensor?

The entire interchangeable concept is lost on sensors this size.
People will spend $200 on a mediocre IQ compact..but this costs far far more

I can't actually believe somebody at Hoya spend time, money and resources on this. Pretty sad really.

So many better things the company could and should have looked at over this.

Go buy a Canon G series camera it's a lot more appealing than this!

photocat2007 · Jun 23, 2011

Zvonimir Tosic said:
Because you may never enjoy it.
As is kinda visible in the forum too.

Flickr statistics shows most popular camera out there is the iPhone, and that tells something about photography today. Photography is about fun, being quirky, uniquely creative.

We have too many serious big cameras on the market and we have them already. They're subjects of endless 'serious' debates and 'serious', bigger-than-life technobabble.

But this camera is meant to ignite some fun playing with, relieve us of stress. Three of the new lenses announced are just pure, unstoppable fun. The whole package is here to remind us that photography should be fun and entertaining activity, packed in a quality product too, and not endless whinging and whining.

Making it a system means fun should ever continue.

Good perspective! I think the main fail with Q is the small p&s sensor for that price range. At least give it a sensor the size of the Oly XZ-1 or Canon S95, etc. For that money and to be a "mini" dslr, you would expect better pics than a typical point and shoot. Of course I haven't seen actual samples yet so that all remains to be seen.

RBellavance · Jun 23, 2011

brecklundin said:
Could is just be in an effort to strip the cupboards bare before...well, I dunno but before something anyway...

What they bring out next should be a good indication of whether this is true or not.

Sometimes, the "be interesting" motto reminds me of the old so-called-chinese curse: "may you live in interesting times" :-/

Wallace Ross · Jun 23, 2011

People are pulling their hair out, selling their DSLR's clammering for full frame all because Pentax launched a small camera for a small market. It's a niche product that's what Pentax has told us they are going to do. They have also said they aren't doing full frame and there response was the 645D. They are actually doing the things they said they would do some people just don't like it. If you don't get it it's just not for you. Seriously it's pretty hard to differentiate cameras today, they all take great images. Do things differently make money on each unit, that's the reality for Pentax they arn't going to all of a sudden dominate the market. Personally I would rather have a larger sensor mirrorless, but the people who do buy this aren't the enemy of all mankind.

--
http://wkoopmans.ca/notebook/

davidhampshire · Jun 23, 2011

why they came out with this q thing instead of a full frame or to keep developing the k-5 more is beyond me; hopefully they can do both.

richardplondon · Jun 23, 2011

Wallace Ross said:
People are pulling their hair out, selling their DSLR's clammering for full frame all because Pentax launched a small camera for a small market.

"I was thinking about buying a complete very nice Nikon dSLR system, but ever since I recently found out that Nikon also sells consumer point and shoots which are apparently neither miraculous nor extremely cheap (and which BTW I personally wouldn't have bought anyway).... I have decided not to bother with their top-end range either. I feel so used ..."

;-) - RP

RBellavance · Jun 23, 2011

Wallace Ross said:
People are pulling their hair out, selling their DSLR's clammering for full frame all because Pentax launched a small camera for a small market. It's a niche product that's what Pentax has told us they are going to do. They have also said they aren't doing full frame and there response was the 645D. They are actually doing the things they said they would do some people just don't like it. If you don't get it it's just not for you. Seriously it's pretty hard to differentiate cameras today, they all take great images. Do things differently make money on each unit, that's the reality for Pentax they arn't going to all of a sudden dominate the market. Personally I would rather have a larger sensor mirrorless, but the people who do buy this aren't the enemy of all mankind.

Wallace, you're making way too much sense for this forum.

PeterLeyssens · Jun 23, 2011

Hi Wallace,

Wallace Ross said:
People are pulling their hair out, selling their DSLR's clammering for full frame all because Pentax launched a small camera for a small market.

Exactly. I've had a hard time getting back on my chair after rolling off laughing at the responses here. So here's a small company that decides to differentiate instead of being an also-ran. And what is the reaction ? "No ! We DEMAND that you just make grey boxes like everybody else !"

Hilarious.

As for me, I'm fairly interested in the Q. I quite like it. IQ will be at least that of my LX3, so I could get rid of that and get a fun new system with a couple of toy lenses. On the other hand, looking at the Nikon and Leica mirrorless rumours, I think I'll just hold out a little while longer and see what the market looks like in a year or so.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be

SRT201 · Jun 23, 2011

As Pentax has not located a huge subterranean deposit of low noise sensor dust this is NOT going to be a DSLR quality camera.

That being the case I sincerely hope there are hordes of eager tiny-camera buyers just itching to get their hands on the Q and thus strengthening Pentax financially. That would be just fine with me.

No doubt the Japanese will LOVE this thing. I predict a Hello Kitty version isn't far off.

Kitty's or not I will not be a member of that tiny-camera buying horde.

YAWN......

I should add, I think a FF Pentax would be a STUPID idea. Huge development costs for body and new lenses and a VERY small buying audience. That would be no way to strengthen Pentax financially and I am glad they chose not to go that way. It remains to be seen though if the Q can attract buyers especially with that rather silly price point. IMO you would have to be a little nutty or naive to pay $1000 for a 1/2.33 camera (and viewfinder).

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.

Faintandfuzzy · Jun 23, 2011

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Dale108 said:

While I would like a FF camera, the Q could be fun to use for lots of the market. As sensor technology improves over time, it could turn out to be a great system. IQ now will be mediocre, but wait 5-7 years.

I hope for Hoya and us that it is a success.

Click to expand...

I think we both know it's not likely to be a success it's DOA already.

Who's going to spend $800 on "mediocre" IQ (your words)?
Why not just buy a Canon G12 for less and with a bigger sensor?

The entire interchangeable concept is lost on sensors this size.
People will spend $200 on a mediocre IQ compact..but this costs far far more

I can't actually believe somebody at Hoya spend time, money and resources on this. Pretty sad really.

So many better things the company could and should have looked at over this.

Go buy a Canon G series camera it's a lot more appealing than this!

I wanted to love this thing....but I just can't. It's actually too small. If it was about 20% bigger, with at least a 1/1.7 or 4/3 sensor, I'd be interested. But back lit or not, this is a bit of a stretch.

If it was a few hundred less, then maybe...but even still, I can't help but feel "Why bother."

This has me looking at siimply getting a Kr and a couple of pancakes for a small camera, or an Olympus ELP2 with the EVF.

Barry Fitzgerald · Jun 23, 2011

"The performance of an SLR"

Seriously now I mean this is skirting into lawsuit danger territory!

Just exactly how will this have the performance of an SLR?

I see they have a special digital filter that will "pseudo apply" a narrow DOF effect. Cmon just get a real sized sensor.

So are we happy with 'Q' instead of Full Frame?

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts