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'.
I find that quite cynical and a little depressing! I'm sure some people just enjoy photography!
Yes, some people do just enjoy photography as you say. But notice how the MP race and the x-mega-zoom-range race heats up and really it's all about numbers, not how well the camera takes photos. The numbers on stickers affixed to the display cameras impress those who don't know how to do anything but compare numbers on stickers.
The same applies to the price. Someone who doesn't know the difference between cameras may assume that 'you get what you pay for' but as we all know, $800 will buy a lot of different kinds of cameras which are decidedly not equal.
In 1962 you could have bought a Nikon Photomic-F in black with an F1.4 Nikkor lens for about $435. But - some people paid $490 for this instead:
As a camera collector I've picked up one of these turkeys for a few bucks and looked inside it. There's a huge capacitor to power the electronic flash and motorized film wind. It can take 10 photos and then (per the owner's manual) must be charged for 18 hours. The film was available only from the camera manufacturer so you can imagine the range available. Settings as I recall consisted of 'indoor / outdoor' and 'near / far', selected by enormous plastic buttons that make a pathetic "clack" when pressed. The camera itself is enormous - it must be 10 inches wide at least - and most of the inside is just empty space.
More than one purchaser must have proudly got it out to show to his brother in law (the family camera geek with a Nikon F and f1.4) and said 'what do you think of this?'. Imagine learning that you had just bought a piece of junk for more than a truly excellent camera would cost. But, people PAID the equivalent of way over a months' pay for one of these things because they were sure that it was worth the price and would take wonderful photos. Why else?
You may think I'm being cynical, but actually I am a realist, and some people equate MP or zoom X or even price with 'how good is the camera'. My in-laws do that all the time, trust me. "Is that a new camera?" "Yes, we got it at Christmas." "How many megapixels is it?" "14!" "Wow, that is quite some camera!"
I am NOT equating the Pentax Q with the Fotron and yes, the Fotron is an extreme example. My whole point is that those who do not know better assume that X dollars gets you X level of camera, and it's not always so.
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is a gnat.
. Interesting days ahead! Let us combine and slay the troll army that will inevitably descend upon us 
