I handled the Q today...
There were some non-functioning demos at Bic Camera. While I'd seen the pictures before I had not had one in my hands before.
Ok guys, you need to know one thing:
Tiny. Minute. Minuscule.
I can't think of a camera on the market today that comes close. The closest camera that comes to mind is the Rollei 35, but that comparison won't help most of you I guess.
The LX-5 looks like a giant next to it. Even the S95 is considerably bigger (though the Q is thicker) GF3? G12? Both huge in comparison.
While Pentax clearly aimed to stake out uncharted territory for itself with this camera, handling it convinced me once and for all that the Q is destined to be a failure. One of the ideas that might have seemed cool when it was pitched, but ends up as a historical curiosity that never caught on.
It's too small. The buttons and arrow pad are smaller than any camera I have yet laid eyes on. The body is proportioned like some sort of spy camera: You have to grip it like you would a toy, with the fingertips.
Yet, since the lenses all protrude from the body, and the body is anyway as chubby as it is tiny, it is not a pocketable camera.
As cameras get smaller, the convenience at first increases, as the camera becomes lighter and easier to handle, then it starts to decrease, as it starts to get too small to comfortably use.
In my opinion the Pentax Q has pushed the smallness factor in order to stand out, its so small that the camera is less easy to use than m43 alternatives, with no meaningful benefit in return.
|_MG_5100 by tim and jan|
from Welcome to the Saloon!
|The Grimm 11 year old by Ryan Gardner|
from Trick or Treat
|Heron with fish by APenza|
from A Big Year - birds