New system

<p>By Greg Tarr -- TWICE, 6/24/2011 <a href="http://www.twice.com/article/470228-Pentax_Unveils_Q_Compact_System_Camera.php">(Read full article here)</a><br /><br />New York - Pentax launched this week its first compact interchangeable lens camera system, joining an ever-expanding field of players pursuing the new camera growth segment.<br /><br /></p>

<table border="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<p><img id="photo-258678" title="Pentax" src="http://www.twice.com/photo/258/258678-Pentax_s_John_Carlson_presents_the_new_Q_compact_interchangeable_system_camera_billed_as_the_one_of_the_world_s_smallest.jpg" alt="Pentax" hspace="0" width="276" height="288" /><br>

<q>Pentax's John Carlson presents the new Q compact interchangeable system camera billed as the one of the world's smallest interchangeable lens models.</q></p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The tiny Pentax Q, which ships this fall at an $800 suggested retail for a kit with an 8.5mm f1.9 lens (50mm equivalent), features a 12.4 megapixel 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor, similar in size to sensors used in many point-and-shoot models, but adding advanced camera features including 12-bit RAW file capture in Adobe's DNG format, in addition to standard JPEGs.<br /><br />The company said it felt comfortable using the smaller image sensor to keep the camera body as small as possible because <em><strong>its new advanced image processing system combined with the high quality of Pentax's optics will deliver superior images up against other compacts using APS-C or Micro Four-Thirds sized image sensors</strong></em>.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yvon wrote:<br /> <em><strong>its new advanced image processing system combined with the high quality of Pentax's optics will deliver superior images up against other compacts using APS-C or Micro Four-Thirds sized image sensors</strong></em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You gotta be kidding me! Unless there's been a quantum leap in sensor design during 2011, there is no way a 1/2.3" sensor is going to provide "superior images" to APS-C or 4/3 sensors (similar quality below ISO 400, sure, but not superior). Plus, the increase in DoF is HUGE, much more than going from Full-Frame to 4/3, for example.</p>

<p>I wish Pentax the best, I really do, but they hurt nobody but themselves when they make statements like the above.</p>

<p>This is starting to sound similar to the Sigma SD1 fiasco. Sigma's reasoning was: Because our camera has the same megapixels as a medium format camera, and because our colour rendition is so amazing it rivals that of medium format, we're going to price our APS-C camera just below MF cameras, because that's where we've decided to compete. The problem is, it's not the camera who decides where you compete, it's the consumers who do. The Sigma SD1 is competing against $1,000 APS-C cameras and the Pentax Q is competing against $400 advanced compacts with a slightly larger 1/1.7" sensor and faster zoom lenses.</p>

<p>Mis, people said the same about APS-C, and for a while they were right. But sensors have come a long way. I'm not holding my breathe for a miracle, but I'll at least wait to see some images and real reviews before passing final judgement.</p>

I didn't write, I only reported what I read. Am I believing it? I will not have an opinion until I get one in my hands. Stranger things

have happened before.

<blockquote>

<p>Yvon wrote:<br>

I didn't write, I only reported what I read.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, Yvon; I didn't mean to imply that it was coming from you.</p>

<p>I hope everyone here understood that it was PR hyperbole from Pentax, not Yvon.</p>

John Carlson's left hand is enormous! I'd think he'd have trouble with a few of the Q's controls, particularly the on-

lens controls. Good thing most of the Q's controls are right-handed.

 

 

If you write off the Q's optical DoF control which seems to be pretty close to a lost cause vs. anything with a larger

sensor and reasonably fast glass, it seems conceivable that the Q might be able to compete (technically, of course--

there's still a significant price penalty) with current-generation premium compacts. Even if the Q is diffraction-limited, I

believe the existing 1/1.6-1.7 competition's glass isn't so good yet to take advantage of that--so if good glass with

conservative (modest zoom range and max aperture) design is part of the Q-system's concept, this may help make up

for some of the small-sensor deficiencies.

 

Even current 4/3 sensors are not exactly superstars compared to the latest APS-C like in SLRs and latest Sony NEX

so that advantage may not be as huge as one might imagine, especially once you factor in some of the image

processing tricks they're using for digital distortion correction they're employing to allow relatively compact lenses to be

mounted so close to the sensor.

 

Do we all expect the Q's sensor is a close cousin of the one in Nikon's cut-rate S95-ish Coolpix P300? That camera

is crippled by lack of RAW, lens is relatively slow at the long end, and controls require a little more menu-diving than

you'd hope for an advanced compact.

 

Anyway, some of this is hopeful thinking that Pentax hasn't completely lost it; obviously the price remains an issue

even if the system exceeds expectations; and it will take a very special execution to do this. I wonder how much

Pentax had the Ricoh GXR's customers in mind with this concept.

<p>I am a devoted Pentax user. Would I fork out $800 or later, $500 for this camera? No. No. The Sony-Nex has larger sensor. I wouldn't buy that either. Cobbling on all your old lenses sounds like fun! Been there did that in the '60's when we all had to have "T-mounts". A waste of time.<br>

Sensor sizes mean one no longer thinks in terms of "format". 35mm,6x6,6x9,4x5 etc are no longer relevant with new designs. Its better to forget. We are all used to blown highlights meaning all light shades and colors.<br>

Super 8 was incredible! Everybody bought into that. The bad thing was 12~19 movies later, folks stopped using them! Check it out. The camera industry needs all these new things, models, improvements in order to feed a "need". Simply using what You have till it falls apart is not part of the plan.<br>

Pentax will add it. It will sell. The Leica Noctilux sells for $10,000 for out of focus photos. Well that's the way they look to me. There is a waiting list.<br>

I think the Fuji X100 will be the leader. The future models could truly affect Leica.<br>

Darn! That Pentax Q looks great!</p>

<p>Jason, I think I have some small idea of what you mean.</p>

<p>I can only paraphrase Norbert Weiner, inventor of cybernetics and much of our computer culture, when he bemoaned the elevation of "progress" to the status of a moral imperative -- a particularly "American" ideal at the time, but one which is now dispersed across many states.</p>

<p>Use what you have until it falls apart. Be wary of snake oil salespersons (e.g. Pentax marketing when they hype the Q). Destroy all communication. Fight entropy and Control. Be one with the machinic phylum.</p>

<p>Like everyone here, I wish Pentax well. But for me this system is a non-starter.</p>

<p><em>"I don't see the point of adding a viewfinder to the Q. I appreciate the availability of one, but I just don't see many people wanting it. Raising that thing to the eye would draw the attention of everyone."</em></p>

<p>That depends entirely on your technique.</p>

<p>Things get weirder... Now Nikon might be releasing a Q:</p>

<p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/surprise-the-nikon-q-is-not-a-joke/</p>