New system

This looks interesting

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

<p>Despite ctein's fair point in the TOP post, I can't see many people (outside Japan, of course) investing serious money on a system with such a tiny sensor. Unless its performance really is a leap ahead of what I expect, or Pentax tell us that the lenses somehow have an image circle large enough to be compatible with a larger sensor model to be released in the future (which is highly unlikely).</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxQ/</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1106/11062310pentaxqlenses.asp</p>

It's funny, I always regreted not getting the 110 System, I used to look at them constantly back in the late 70's and

early 80's, the reviews always criticized the film flatness of the 110 cassettes though. I like my Canon G10 but would

happily trade it for a slight image improvement, better lenses and smaller size.

<p>I had been following the rumors of this and it looks very interesting to me...maybe my next camera though I'll have a few months until US fall release to see what else comes up, how it reviews, etc.</p>

<p>I like my LX-5 but have been hoping Pentax would make something I could sink my teeth into.</p>

<p>Niggling complaints about specs and design which mostly sound very good:</p>

<ul>

<li>Would like to have seen 920K LCD rather than 460K.</li>

<li>No orientation sensor? Pentax has excluded this from many of their Optio compacts, something I find annoying.</li>

<li>Would like more info on the flash & remote capabilties, what I've seen so far doesn't make it clear whether its built-in flash functions as a P-TTL wireless commander or if HSS is supported (though it does mention P-TTL).</li>

</ul>

<p>For now I remain optimistic & enthusiastic about this Q-mount system. I hope it does well enough to earn a couple more lenses like a tele and ultra-wide.</p>

<p>Tried to look at Pentax's site, and got this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>We're sorry, PentaxImaging.com is currently very busy and can't respond to all requests. Please try again later. Thank you.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll bet that doesn't happen very often.</p>

<p>Cannot see them selling a lot of these, just a step too far in my opinion. I generally really like Pentax equipment too FWIW.</p>

<p>although I didn't expect the sensor size to be that small, I'm optimistic about this bizarre look queen. it's specatcular I think..</p>

It seems like we are in the midst of a post-DSLR era. We see lots of new camera designs that borrow one or more of

the compelling features of a DSLR.. I like the Q because the remix has enough familiarity (Auto 110) to be authentic.

In my mind the competition here are camera phones as much as anything.

 

Assuming that the build and image quality will be good enough, I'm impressed with this release. It shows that Pentax is

trying. Sort of a parabola to the 645D.

 

It also tells me that Hoya/Pentax resources are not going into pro-level non-645 products like fast lenses or long

lenses. So, enjoy what you got.

 

ME

<p>If Pentax executes, this will be the best system on the market for photographers who primarily shoot for web display rather than prints. It has a relatively sophisticated flash, a tripod mount, a bulb setting for shutter speed and IR remote receiver, a magnesium body. It shoots DNGs and it's tiny. Really the only thing it can't do is use the lens to control depth of field. We'll have to see how Pentax's electronic system does at that. But -- BLASPHEMY ALERT!! TRUE BELIEVERS AVERT YOUR EYES!! The importance of DOF is greatly exaggerated on Internet photo sites.</p>

<p>The only major limitations are those imposed by the tiny sensor, but for web display they won't usually be significant. I predict a lot of web designers and graphic designers will buy this -- and a lot of pro and well-heeled amateur photographers will be buying it for situations where they know they don't need big prints or very low light capability. So will some artsy types who aren't really photo geeks -- the people who are buying Dianas now. Assuming it works as expected, I think this will be a very successful product for Pentax. I'm sort of surprised at how little interest this topic has attracted.</p>

<p>I think the system is great and there's a lot of potential for fun here. It's just a shame the price is so high. </p>

<p>With a sticker price of USD 800 will this be a serious competitor to the micro 4/3rds? I don't think so.</p>

<p>The street price will probably be lower, and as we've seen with almost every other Pentax new product release, the street price will go down further after a period of time. It may be possible to get one of these for $500 after the initial hype wears off, and that seems like a fair price to me.</p>

<p>I still think they should have gone with a 1/1.7 or 1/1.6 sensor, if for no other reason because that's what you'll find in the other high-end compacts currently on the market and at least Pentax could then give the appearance of being in the same league (in terms of sensor quality), and I'm sure they could have made the camera and lenses just as small. Like it or not, many of the folks who are likely to spend more than $400 on a compact camera are the folks who actually pay attention to specs such as sensor sizes, and I'm sure more than a few of them are going to think twice about paying a hefty premium to get a smaller sensor. Maybe the lenses will be of amazing optical quality and will make up for that, but I don't know... there are lots of people who spend two or three grand for a full-frame DSLR, and then slap crappy lenses on it, when they could get better image quality by using an APS-C body with top-notch lenses. Some people are just size queens when it comes to sensors.</p>

<p>Interesting, but I'm still hoping for a K mount MILC/EVIL to put my limiteds on!</p>

<p><strong>Yawn</strong>....<br>

It doesn't look much bigger than a credit card. How are you supposed to hold it? Keep it on your keychain?<br>

I could have seen Pentax going 4/3, but 85/86?</p>

<p>Oh boy, now we're gonna hear from the "I have big hands and I can't hold such a small camera!" crowd. :P</p>

<p>I wonder how these people feed themselves. Do they use ladles instead of spoons? ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>Oh boy, now we're gonna hear from the "I have big hands and I can't hold such a small camera!" crowd. :P<br>

I wonder how these people feed themselves. Do they use ladles instead of spoons? ;-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Guessing you use something like this? :)<br>

<img src="http://www.heals.co.uk/content/ebiz/heals/invt/966623/966623_m.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="270" /></p>

<p>Here is my concern: Pentax will announce their APS-C mirrorless system around September. Given the price of the Q, how will they price their upcoming system? An APS-C mirrorless camera body should come it at no more than $700, or $800 with an 18-55mm kit lens. But how can they price it at that level when the Q costs $800? They'll have to price it higher by at least $200.</p>

<p>So, a Pentax APS-C mirrorless system with a $900 body will have to compete with the upcoming Samsung NX20 (the NX10 was introduced at $700 with kit lens), Panny G3 ($600 body only), or the upcoming Sony NEX-7 (probably $700 with kit lens). The only way out is for the Q to cost no more than $600 with kit lens, and even that is pushing it. If it is in fact released at $800 in the US, I wish them luck, because they'll need it.</p>

"The smallest..." has been Pentax's niche for years. I kinda like it. Ever try to bring a full size SLR into a rock

concert? No can do, but little "purse cams" are just fine.

 

I've often found myself not wanting to haul out an SLR, but p-n-s cams drive me nuts! This sounds like a nice

alternative...

<p>Wayne: Yes, apparently it makes a lovely keychain:<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/PENTAXQ-productshots.html</p>

<p>And here's another preview:<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/PENTAXQA.HTM</p>

<p>I found it interesting to read that this has been under development for five years, and Pentax was waiting for the sensor technology to reach the point where they thought it was viable.</p>

<p>You'd think Pentax could do better than an over-priced point and shoot with toy lenses. How does this compete on the one hand with instant cameras and on the other with MFT? Pure bling -- should come in gold.</p>

<p>Anirban, no other system combines size, features, and controls the way the Q does. R.T., no doubt there are lots of people who won't get a Q (almost certainly including me). I just think there will be enough who will get it.</p>

<p>Matthew, if smallest has been Pentax's niche, surely they at least shared it with Olympus for a long time -- right?</p>

<p>Miserere, what makes you so sure Pentax will come out with an APS-C mirrorless? Your argument sounds like the arguments that Pentax shouldn't have come out with the 645D because it will interfere with their "full frame" program. I see absolutely no reason to think that Pentax has any intention of producing a 135-format DSLR. What makes you think they intend to produce an APS-C mirrorless? If you really do have a good reason to believe that I really am interested in hearing it. I'm suspicious of arguments that they just have to. Also, I think Michael makes a good point about the finitude of Pentax's resources.</p>

<p>I'd just like to state for the record that I really want one. :-) I'm not saying I'll buy one... heck, even if the price comes down I still won't be able to afford one... but if money wasn't an issue, I'd almost certainly get one. I think it's adorable. An interchangeable lens camera that fits comfortably in a shirt pocket! That really is a first (at least since the days of the Auto 110).</p>

<p>I have reconsidered my earlier opinion. I now think this Pentax is an oversized beast compared to what I really want to purchase....</p>

<p><img src="http://www.adorama.com/alc/files/4fb178e7cd6d6152bf895aeaeda8de2a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>No way...</p>

<p>This is the biggest gimmick system ever. It makes Pentax 110 system look like genius.</p>

<p>The problem is, this is neither a novelty nor a real tool. It's too expensive to be a novelty and (an assumption based on current sensor technology) too low quality to be a real tool.</p>

<p>I'm willing to be this thing barely competes with current high end compacts. Considering cameras like the LX-5 and Samsung TL500 rival M4/3s camera. Is it smaller? You bet. But if it cost 2-3 times as much, I'm wondering where the market is.</p>

<p> </p>