Say hello to the Pentax Q system

InternautInternaut Registered Users Posts: 347 Major grins
edited June 26, 2011 in Cameras
Preview and lots of debate over at dpreview. The Q is not for me but whatever guys over at Pentax are smokin' may well be.....

Comments

  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited June 23, 2011
    Oh gawd, I am gonna just shoot myself now.

    Pentax, always making questionable decisions.
    Reminds me of this video!
    http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom#p/u/9/54Pq5Url2Nk
  • GrainbeltGrainbelt Registered Users Posts: 478 Major grins
    edited June 23, 2011
    That is just weird. The release about the available lenses 'Toy wide' and 'Toy telephoto' make me hope it is just an elaborate ruse.
  • InternautInternaut Registered Users Posts: 347 Major grins
    edited June 23, 2011
    It looks like they are deadly serious with this. As I've already said elsewhere: I don't see the point. Panasonic (GF), Olympus, Sony and Samsung already offer large sensor alternatives that offer a fine balance of size, features, flexibility and image quality.

    Yes, the Q is smaller but when Pen/GF/NEX + pancake is already small enough to always be with you, why bother with something smaller that delivers inferior results?
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited June 23, 2011
    From Thom Hogan's article "Mirrorless Summer 3" currently on the front page:
    dpreview called the Pentax Q "ever-so-slightly eccentric." No, it's not slightly anything. It's over-the-top bizarre. Bizarre enough that Pentax will sell a few to people who are more interested in being able to pull a mini-mini-SLR out of their pocket to impress others ("Name's Bond. Thom Bond"). Meanwhile, the rest of us will be taking better pictures with an Olympus XZ-1 for half the price.
  • GrainbeltGrainbelt Registered Users Posts: 478 Major grins
    edited June 23, 2011
    Internaut wrote: »
    Yes, the Q is smaller but when Pen/GF/NEX + pancake is already small enough to always be with you, why bother with something smaller that delivers inferior results?

    I guess we'll see if the backlit sensor is really impressive, or a gimmick.

    The available lenses read like a bad joke.

    I have to think they know that their SLR consumers (me included) that are typically not professionals, would consider switching to a mirrorless and just abandoning DSLRs. They already have the smallest DSLR and some really nice compact primes, so I understand them wanting to do something 'different'.

    In this case I wish they would trade on their reputation for the W series indestructible compacts and make a water/shockproof small DSLR or mirrorless camera. But that is either too obvious or cost prohibitive or both, I would guess.
  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited June 23, 2011
    I think that the online photographer blog has a pretty good analysis of this: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
  • Need2SkiNeed2Ski Registered Users Posts: 27 Big grins
    edited June 26, 2011
    Internaut wrote: »
    Preview and lots of debate over at dpreview. The Q is not for me but whatever guys over at Pentax are smokin' may well be.....

    I don't understand the target audience for this either. The sensor is smaller than an S95, G12, LX5, etc. It'll probably be a real quality small sensor camera and I suppose the ability to change lenses is a potential advantage. But if I really want small and portable the S95 or LX5 work well at much less cost. And if small size is not crucial the m4/3 / NEX cameras would seem to offer considerable advantage. I'll hold an open mind but on paper, it has no real appeal to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.