Q - What is it good for?

Started Jul 22, 2011 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Jaur Forum Member • Posts: 50
Q - What is it good for?

Perhaps it is a bit much for me as a new member to start a new thread with my very first post but as a longtime lurker I was getting irritated by so many aggressively flaming the camera. We can all easily say that this is not an alternative to the other mirrorless cameras on the market so please do not put it down here but try to honestly find out; what is it good for? Here is my take:

First, as it has a compact camera sensor it competes against other compact cameras, not dslr or mirrorless large sensor cameras.

Based on the previews I have seen here and elswere on the net there are a few things that standout:

It is a high quality compact and every preview agrees that to beat the buildquality you need to pay up for a K-5 or similar. It wipes the floor with any other compact on the market in build and there are those that are willing to pay for quality.

Second; User interface. This is a highly subjectiv matter but every reviewer claims that it is very good. Combine these two and you have a market, small? sure, but it is there.

This could easily be done in a fixed lens compact so why make it a system camera with interchangable lenses? Easy; the highend compact camera market has gotten crowded in recent years with cameras like G12, Lx5 and XZ-1. One more would have to be pretty spectacular to go up against those. The interchangable lenses give a differentiation. It makes the Q stand out as well as offers unique possibilities.

So; it offers the standard zoom that more or less equals the competitions fixed lenses with one bonus; it is not a collapsible lens making it bigger but faster to start up. This is one of the big selling points of the Q as it i now. Practically instant startuptime. Then there are the fast prime and the fisheye that makes the point; "hey lets see your xz-1 do this!" Add a few cheap "toy" lenses as a quick way to offer different lenses. They are not the point of the camera, they just adds some possibilities that probably cost very little to produce and judging from the "Artfilters" in my xz-1 there is a demand for it somewhere.

For a brand new system it is not a bad selection even if you ignore the toys. The price is a bit much for many considering what it does (me among others) but I am keeping an eye at it for the potential of the system.

What potential? The Q can potentially offer lenses that are unmatched. All it requires to jump to the top of my list is a K-adapter. It would put it in an unique category. It would no longer be even close to pocketable when you mount a K-lens but it would still be portable. Add a fast telephoto prime like the DA 200/2.8 and suddenly you got an 1100 mm fast supertelephoto system that would cost less than 2000 euro and weight about a kilo. Sure it would not have the thin depht of field like a DSLR with equivalent lens but it would still be able to use the fast shutterspeeds needed for sports photography or be usable in dimmer lights for wildlife compared to compact superzooms. And using only the center of a prime lens I would say that the corner sharpness would be very good...

A quick comparison say that a compact superzoom would be a lot cheaper but at 600 mm it would have f/5,2 while the Q would be at 550 mm f/2,8 (with the D-FA 100mm 2,8)

If you go for the DA 200 mentioned above the closest alternative would be an 800mm f/2,8 on an APS-c. A quick search tells me that lens does not exist but there are 800 f/5,6. That would cost more than 5000 euro (with camera but without the truck you need to mount it on...) and weight close to 6 kilos. Let´s not even talk about the size.

Well so far it is a dream. There has been no mention of a K-adapter or any supertele lenses for the Q but one can dream right?

Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow