Reading mode: Light Dark

The Pentax Q coulda/shoulda been a Ricoh....

Go to last post
Tom Caldwell said:
I am no so despondent that a small sensor must always condemn a camera to the wilderness. Why are small sensor cameras not well regarded? Simply because they are usually built down to a price. Give then a great lens and easy to use controls to trim the image capture, give them high quality firmware and raw capture capability then the sensor is still small but it has a great support network to close the gap.
Click to expand...
I am not despondent either - I just won a 7th out of 194 entries in the "Kit Lenses" dpreview challenge with a photo taken with my FZ50, and took a 15th a few weeks ago. I know that a smaller sensor can do well. I know just as well what they can't do, and I hope those who lay out $800+ for the Q realize that not all $800 cameras are created equal. Hopefully it will do what they want it to.

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is a gnat.
 
Tom Caldwell said:
If Ricoh does ever "do it" then usung a Q mount might make sense.
Click to expand...
Tom the Q is a DOA even before the first one hits the shops.

Yes I'm afraid the sensor size does matter Pentax are amazingly touting this as an alternative to an entry DSLR...yet it won't even begin to grovel at the feet of an APS-C sensor.

I don't actually think they had to use a comparatively big sensor. But they had to at least use one that was on a par if not a tad bigger than the S95, Lx-5 type sensors.

And the price is all wrong I just can't see this taking off outside some loyal fans who think it's cute or maybe it might appeal to some in the Japanese market it's going to flop badly in the EU that's for sure.

I don't see the point why not just get a premium compact with a better sensor and fast lens? Quite a lot cheaper too. This is a hard/impossible sell at the best of times.
 
I have always thought the GXR made a lot of sense but was too expensive. The Pentax-Q makes no sense to me and is way more expensive than a GXR with a P10 module.

One can only wonder what market research made Pentax commit to such a system. I am scratching my head wondering who needs such a system instead of a GXR/P10 ($500) or a compact with a larger sensor and a very good zoom lens ($400 to $500), or a fixed FL compact with a very high quality lens and an even larger sensor ($500 to $1000).
Go figure!
--
Andrew
Panasonic LX3, Ricoh GXR w/ A12 28&50mm user
 
I had my Oly LPL1 with me in class today, and the female students all said 'dekaiii!' (it is so big!). And then of course they all wanted to have their pictures taken.

And that is maybe what Pentax is counting on, a smaller camera that is still 'kawaii' (cute).
--
Rube
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71881102@N00/
 
Midwest said:
Tom Caldwell said:
I am no so despondent that a small sensor must always condemn a camera to the wilderness. Why are small sensor cameras not well regarded? Simply because they are usually built down to a price. Give then a great lens and easy to use controls to trim the image capture, give them high quality firmware and raw capture capability then the sensor is still small but it has a great support network to close the gap.
Click to expand...
I am not despondent either - I just won a 7th out of 194 entries in the "Kit Lenses" dpreview challenge with a photo taken with my FZ50, and took a 15th a few weeks ago. I know that a smaller sensor can do well. I know just as well what they can't do, and I hope those who lay out $800+ for the Q realize that not all $800 cameras are created equal. Hopefully it will do what they want it to.

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is a gnat.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on your finishing position. From what you have posted on this forum the reward is not misplaced.

The "Q" seems to be a very well screwed together camera after the style that Ricoh has almost made it's own. Notably the lcd is not nearly as high a resolution as the Ricoh lcd of present days.

As the original poster noted it might not be too hard to half shut your eyes and think it a Ricoh product.

So if the small sensor does not provide a log to high to jump over then the camera itself might reek enough quality to get just a few in.

Seems that there is a lot of wanting a great but tiny camera with a big sensor and cheaper than ever before. Seems a normal emotion I guess.

So the general opinion seems to be: sensor too small, must be no good, but if it were really cheap I might buy it despite the sensor. But because it is so expensive the sensor would never have any attraction.

Myself I guess I will just wait and see. Probably too busy gushing over my M mount module ... but by the look of things all I am going to see are happy clickers waving their Q mounts about and me just tapping the table in slow frustration ....

Maybe I can adapt LTM on to Q mount .... grin. now if we can get some freaky combinations on NEX - how about real Q-ships? The mind boggles.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Tom Caldwell said:
If Ricoh does ever "do it" then usung a Q mount might make sense.
Click to expand...
Tom the Q is a DOA even before the first one hits the shops.

Yes I'm afraid the sensor size does matter Pentax are amazingly touting this as an alternative to an entry DSLR...yet it won't even begin to grovel at the feet of an APS-C sensor.

I don't actually think they had to use a comparatively big sensor. But they had to at least use one that was on a par if not a tad bigger than the S95, Lx-5 type sensors.

And the price is all wrong I just can't see this taking off outside some loyal fans who think it's cute or maybe it might appeal to some in the Japanese market it's going to flop badly in the EU that's for sure.

I don't see the point why not just get a premium compact with a better sensor and fast lens? Quite a lot cheaper too. This is a hard/impossible sell at the best of times.
Click to expand...
Yes Barry, if it is any consolation I don't want one either. But if I was camera bereft I would like to look at one and try it out before I wrote it off. Then I would write it off with a silly grin.

I think it will sell but it might be a niche product. Cameras don't have to sell by the container load to make money for their manufacturers and you should be able to get one heck of a lot of "Q's" in one container.

Main benefit of the Q is that people will notice Pentax once again and maybe buy one of their other products - the cute little Q must be worth a squillion in promotion dollars even if it only sells to oddballs and soccer mums.

Sensible people like us of course would not touch it in a pink fit.

Imagine the journo pack at the tennis championships all with their white lenses, and the odd Nikon too, and some poor sucker waving a Q in the corner with a long lens as big as a coke bottle. Funny he seems to go all day and not be the least tired looking. Not from National Geographic I would guess.

Someone actually buying the images? There surely is a sucker born every minute.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Midwest said:
Part of the satisfaction of the Q will come from people who pay big money for it and are SURE it gets better photos than a $400 camera with a larger sensor (i.e. LX5) or even better than brother in law's DSLR, because it cost more than said DSLR.

Often, user satisfaction is based on 'how much I paid tells me how great it must be'.
Click to expand...
I find that quite cynical and a little depressing! I'm sure some people just enjoy photography!
Midwest said:
I don't doubt it might take some nice pictures and has some positive aspects, but really, for that kind of money to be limited to what a small sensor can do...
Click to expand...
We've seen the large sensor approach and the large lenses that perturb the concept. This seems more an all out war on size, and it appears that the sensor is a singular compromise. I like this photo from imaging resource. It really helps emphasise the point:



Everything else seems geared to restoring the creative and fun aspects of hobby photography, that have been mostly absent from small digital cameras, like shooting with primes. GRD stands alone in that field and look how much people enjoy that, not to mention its premium build and matching price. Just about the only improvement you see suggested here, is the ability to change lenses. Q doesn't give that yet, with only a single fast prime announced, but the inclusion of a lens mount makes it possible, even likely.

So what about that sensor compromise? Is it a complete disaster? Perhaps for some who demand the absolute best IQ. But there is also the notion of sufficient IQ, for applications that are less demanding like hobby/leisure photography.

A recent camera with a very similar sounding sensor is the Nikon P3000. Here are some images from DPR's review:





ISO 1600:



And for comparison, some from a couple of years ago from the LX3:





ISO 1600:



It seems clear that todays 1/2.3" sensors are competing well with yesterdays 1/1.6" sensors, especially at higher ISOs.

And as the Q will be equipped with a prime, and makes the raw available via DNG, I expect the IQ to be up a notch or two from the Nikon. Up to todays 1/1.6"? Who knows, but probably close, and very probably sufficient for hobbyists.

As for the price. It's very difficult to comment. It's new and has a USP that makes it hard to compare. At $799 RRP it will certainly be too expensive for some to justify, in the same way the GXR or the GRD are. But these are value calls we can only make for ourselves. But if it gets a street price of $600 by Christmas, it might just make the annual 'what do I get him this year' question a little easier for the S.O.

-Najinsky
 
Well that sparked an interesting discourse on the Q, IQ and sensor sizes...

I'm now wondering if the Q, with its Dslr like options and controls, might influence what Ricoh could do with a future CX camera?

A new CX could certainly do with some of the features like PASM which are on the TZ20 and SX220is...

For what its worth, I think the Q looks a cute little camera, which could be fun to use...if the price is right (lower!). The latest 2/3in sensors are perfectly capable of very high quality results, from a very small and convenient camera.

A
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajh400
http://www.blipfoto.com/ah2010
 
Andrew Higgins said:
Well that sparked an interesting discourse on the Q, IQ and sensor sizes...

I'm now wondering if the Q, with its Dslr like options and controls, might influence what Ricoh could do with a future CX camera?

A new CX could certainly do with some of the features like PASM which are on the TZ20 and SX220is...

For what its worth, I think the Q looks a cute little camera, which could be fun to use...if the price is right (lower!). The latest 2/3in sensors are perfectly capable of very high quality results, from a very small and convenient camera.
Click to expand...
I fell for that one as well Andrew, Imperial fractions! I used to waltz through them at school and the sooner as everyone goes decimal the better! The sensor is 1/2.3" and a far cry from 2/3". At 2/3" Pentax would have to beat the crowd off with a stick. Even at 1/2.3" I guess they will sell quite a few even at US$800. If they were to market them at $400 then every household would have one and Pentax could not supply demand. Then they would get brickbats as "a failure" as there would be none visible in the shops.

I think that they can always bring the price down to balance supply to demand but they could not put it up.

For those who think "make it cheap, sell a million, make a million" - the world of commerce does not work that way and unless you want a long treatise on accounting theory I guess you will have to take my word for it. Sufficient that a new type of product leaves the executive decision makers with a big problem on how to price the product given they need to balance revenue, supply and profit to make a return on investment. In this case early adopters might pay a good price and pay a fair proportion of the start up costs before they have to reach the market price those presently crying foul will agree to. It is easy to say "lousy sensor as it is priced too high". Does a cheaper camera make the sensor somehow work better?

Yes I think it "cute" I think it will produce images worthy of a 1/2.3" sensor but that it will get grudging acceptance from the purists and those who want a cute little camera quite powerful for it's size will lap it up in quantity. Going to be "oh so chic". Yes, and it is right into CX territory and what next from Ricoh? A modularised CX? Maybe Ricoh acknowledges that they cannot make new modules for the GXR fast enough and the M Mount module can allow GXR owners to find their own lenses for a while whilst they concentrate on their smaller cameras' future?

After all it has been the small format cameras that have shepherded Ricoh through the digital camera age. The Qute is about to leave a great big dirty footprint on Ricoh's turf.

Just when they fended off Panasonic LX series by abandoning the GX along comes Pentax and gives the CX "hurry up".
Andrew Higgins said:
A
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajh400
http://www.blipfoto.com/ah2010
Click to expand...
--
Tom Caldwell
 
rube39 said:
Tom Caldwell said:
Pentax have always been high in my camera maker's regard stakes and I would have to think very hard to think of a bad camera they ever made.
Click to expand...
Tom, I am sure that is true for their larger cameras, but the P&S and superzooms are well behind the compition (I have had 2 of them). Since the Q is a small sensor camera, I wonder how their JPEG engine will work out. If they put the time and effort into it, it might be fine, and then hopefully filter down to their other small senor cameras. . .or not.
Time will tell.
--
Click to expand...
Rube, I have not seen a decent superzoom yet by any maker. Sort of putting a V8 in a mini-minor, doesn't work. But we have had a couple of compact point and shoots from Pentax in the family. Well they are point and shoots so I did not expect the world and they were ok. Also a couple of the K100D's the bare bedrock of the dslr breed with 6mp sensors (gasp) but I would sooner them than an entry model Canon of the same vintage.

The Qute is just that, cute, not that I think we will see to many dyed in the wool Ricoh people jumping ship but it might limit some new possible Ricoh converts.

Ricoh relies on creeping conversion to their brand rather than repeat sales to the same customers. Even though their fans tend to re-buy Ricoh products. The reason being that they last well and buying Ricoh is an investment rather than a fashion. Being well built and made to the level of the technology of the time means that even when your Ricoh moves from the shelf to the drawer it is not forgotten.

The Qute's clues are magnesium body and a not Ricoh unlike look. They have given a nod to popularity with some fun toy lenses and the lcd is not up to Ricoh resolution. But I guess that people will like the look and feel and that will be enough for most. In the shop the images will look good enough and I can hear the sales patter already ....

High quality Qute with some fun lenses thrown as a sales bonus?

Another point is that I cannot work out exactly how the lenses work - is the shutter in the lens? Sort of make it hard to adapt lenses on to it. Must check. If this is so it might be a bigger negative than the sensor size.
rube39 said:
Rube
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71881102@N00/
Click to expand...
--
Tom Caldwell
 
Not sure whether I would buy one yet, but I would not mind at all if one fell off a truck, i would use it.

I think that it might give the CX some angst. Being more expensive is obviously the first knee jerk but being high quality build, having exchangable lenses and pretty complete firmware should guarantee some great "sample images". This should gain it a lot of respect even though most will end up using it as a neat little point and shoot.

I guess it will be compared to a lot of existing cameras, except the Ricoh ones, for most the Ricoh camera company is just a funny little Japanese company that makes odd cameras that you rarely see in shops.

Right at the moment if I were in the market for a CX (which I am not) then I would probably have a good look at the Qute and most likely buy it in preference. Even if the GRDIV is compelling then I would have to get the scales out to judge on whether to keep my GRDIII in service and play with a Qute. If the GRDIV is just a makeover GRDIII then the the scales just tremble a little more. If the decision is M Mount module for the GXR or a Qute, no way. The Qute is cute but the GXR is a real camera.

I think Pentax will sell a million, or three ...

Not making a rational comparison between it and the CX but all the CX has left is cheaper and big (slowish) collapsible zoom (ie compact) and maybe a better interface, but we hardly know yet. The Qute has better build, fast prime, zoom, some funky lenses, deep firmware including dng raw (for those with deep enough pockets).

--
Tom Caldwell
 
rube39 said:
I just checked, and the Q is smaller than the CX, and even smaller than the Canon S90. And that interests me.
But with the 2 lens kit, it is also debuting at ¥80,700!!!!
--
Rube
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71881102@N00/
Click to expand...
Give them a chance Rube, I think we all had a sneaking suspicion that the Qute was a bit too Ricoh like and a bit too close to the CX for Ricoh's comfort. Maybe the collaboration was fairly close?

This leaves wherever Ricoh might go next in a wide open country. Wayyyyy back when Ricoh used to make slr cameras with PK mount, guess the guys at Ricoh and Pentax have shared a sake or three over the years.

Must wonder whether this forum can stand a merge with the Pentax crew - I am sure they are all decent people. (grin).

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Ricoh just bought Pentax Camera Division.
Andrew Higgins said:
I seem to remember some rumours some while back about a Ricoh/Pentax link. Could this have been the camera they were collaborating on?
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense to me. Ricoh and Hoya must have negotiated for long time and for a mirrolrless small camera the Ricoh GXR seems to me a much better idea.

Now I really don't understand the new Pentax Q.

Regards,
Luis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ViMa
Ode to the Ricoh GR
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
ViMa
ViMa
R
The Q as a travel camera in 2023
Replies
8
Views
3K
Rock and Rollei
R
K
Ricoh/Pentax and PetaPixel false headline
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
asahi man
A
Kobie M-C
Sent an email directly to RICOH-PENTAX
Replies
17
Views
847
KL Matt
K
S
  • User review User review
** LUMIX G9 Mk2 Review. First Impressions? Excellent! **
2 3
Replies
52
Views
38K
Stevie Boy Blue
S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top