Pentax Q review

<p>The Pentax Q received a nice "hands-on from a real photographer" review at SteveHuffPhoto.com:</p>

<p>http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/</p>

<p>It's an interesting camera and seems like it would be a lot of fun to use. But for me, that price is far too much to stomach. For a few bucks more, I could get 2 E-PL2's for the price of one Q.</p>

 

<p>True. One could also buy two desktop computers for the price of one comparably-spec'd laptop, or three netbooks for the price of one iPad.</p>

<p>I think the Q will appeal to people who want an interchangeable lens camera that fits comfortably in a pocket -- <em>with </em>the lens attached. Right now there's nothing else on the market that meets that description.</p>

<p>I certainly wouldn't complain if they lowered the price, though. ;) My guess is that the price will eventually come down, just as it has with every other Pentax camera.</p>

<p>[[<em>with </em>the lens attached. Right now there's nothing else on the market that meets that description.]]</p>

<p>The Q, according to the review, cannot fit into a pants pocket with the lens attached. If you're resigned to carrying it in a jacket pocket, how much of an advantage is there in a much smaller sensor for 2x the price?</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I love seeing the competition in this market segment. I just wish Pentax wanted to attract someone like me. :)</p>

 

<p>I suppose it depends on the pocket. :) I refuse to ever wear "skinny jeans" no matter how popular they become. ;) Based on the pictures and the measurements, I think the camera with the prime 01 lens attached would be able to fit in most of my pants pockets. But I'll concede that such things vary from person to person.</p>

<p>Wow, it looks like a pretty nifty camera, though a bit small. I'd have to hold one first before buying, and frankly it's not anywhere on my radar right now (poor K-7 barely gets enough use already as it is ;-). However, what really inspired me to comment was the fantastic photos that the reviewer took. I suspect that given any camera he'd be able to take some some well-composed, interesting photos.</p>

<p>I'm with Rob on this.</p>

<p>However, if someone would seal one of these cameras and the lenses, I would buy one much sooner.</p>

<p>I'm good with the IQ being plenty for situations when I would need a camera this small. That is situations I already leave my DSLR in favor of my Samsung TL500. Which, btw, I can pocket the TL500 if I really wanted to.</p>

<p>I totally agree though that the price is just too high. I understand RT's point. However, sometimes it's not about perceived quality but real quality.</p>

<p>In his netbook example, I'd buy the 3 netbooks. Why? As much as an iPad can do, there is far more it cannot do. While the netbook does everything the iPad does and far more.</p>

<p>If the Pen does more than the Q and neither is pocketable, I'd have to look long and hard at the Pen. The only thing that would change that? Price!!!</p>

<p>Amazon just came out with a woefully underspec'd tablet that is making waves in the tech world. Why? Price!!! It's cheap, it will run media and it's tied to Amazon's cloud services, which are robust. Pentax needs to make the Q appeal to a wider audience and price is the best way to do that!</p>

<p>It reminds me in some ways of my Pentax Auto 110 equipment. If you loaded Ektar 100 into a 110 cartridge and then printed the negatives optically with the best equipment you would get high quality and interesting results. With today's news about Kodak I don't know how much longer Ektar 100 will be available in any format. Tinkerers have had fun adapting older lenses to other milcs. With a small sensor this kind of adapting might only be good for bird photography. This same situation will exist with Nikon's new milcs. I don't know how many serious amateurs will be interested in cameras this small and expensive just because of the novelty of the small size and interchangeble lens features. </p>

<p>This is an out-of-the box thought, but if there were a Q to K adapter I *might* consider it. If this were to be a backup camera it would sure beat bringing two SLRs on long trips. Sort of the tail waggin' the dog though.<br>

I would personally rather see a mirrorless K mount body; I would be pretty surprised if Pentax doesn't have one out in a year though (with understandable Tsunami delays).<br>

Cute as a button, but I'm not into cute save my old 40mm f2.8 M Pancake.</p>

<p>I think the real challenger to the Q and the new Nikon mirrorless models are the point and shoots with fast and/or constant aperture zoom lenses like the Panasonic LX series and the new Fuji X10. Fuji X10 looks very interesting with its built-in viewfinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Panasonic LX series</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or the Samsung EX1/TL500!! And I agree. Having a camera like that for half the price and not having to deal with yet another set of lenses is something that shouldn't be dismissed.</p>

<p>Also, smart phones are getting better and better cameras. Though few are in the US, I've seen several Nokia's with larger sensors. Even without the bigger sensor, a lot of these phones are more than enough for the bulk of the population.</p>

<p>Oh, most of us always have a smart phone in our pockets. So that answers the pocketable issue!</p>

<p>I'd really like a camera the size of the Q with a weather sealed body, a large sensor, a fixed lens from 18-200, HD video and excellent ISO from 100 to 6400 priced at around $600 to $700 US. (my fantasy camera) Until then I'll have to continue to hike and cycle carrying my K7. </p>

<p>Looks nice, but is physicaly to small for *me*. I have a LX-5 and like it but it is a bit small for me and I have small hands. The Fuji X10 is on my radar. :-)</p>