Pentax Q

[Munky]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1106/11062311pentaxqpreview.asp

I get that mirrorless cameras are in the middle of the shrink wars, but IMO they really should have used a bigger sensor to be more competitive. Who are they kidding with the $800 price tag? Taking a page from of Sigma's playbook?

 

[Maximus96]

so the GF3 is no longer the world's smallest? i am disappoint

 

[ElFenix]

this has been fail since the day the rumors started. ok, great, pentax had the auto110 SLR back in the days, but that's 4/3's size. they may sell some to the handful of pentax die-hards out there but i predict a commercial failure

PENTAX 04 Toy Lens Wide and PENTAX 05 Toy Lens Telephoto
With optics designed specifically to retain various lens aberrations, these lenses produce subdued, nostalgic images like photos taken with a traditional toy camera. The Toy Lens Wide is a unifocal wide angle field of view with a focal length equivalent to 35mm in the 35mm format. The PENTAX 05 Toy Lens Telephoto is a unifocal medium telephoto lens with a focal length equivalent to 100mm in the 35mm format. The PENTAX 04 Toy Lens Wide price is $79.95 USD and the PENTAX 05 Toy Lens Telephoto is $79.95 USD.

Read more at: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...-adds-four-lenses-q-system.html#ixzz1Q6ydHjTT

that just cements that this whole thing is a gimmick.



edit:apparently this might be some sort of test run for a k-mount compatible APS-C "MILC" camera to launch later this year?!?

(EVIL is much neater than MILC)

 

[Gooberlx2]

Yeah, $800 is much too high. I dunno what Pentax was thinking....maybe being mindful that their prices always fall a fair amount after release.

The small sensor is disappointing. It looks like the Q is even (barely) smaller than a S95, but that's body only.

 

[finbarqs]

800 bucks for a 1/2.3" sensor? I know that leica cameras (D-Lux 4) commanded such the price, but I wouldn't expect this pentax... rather save a little more and get the APS-C sized x100...

 

[ElFenix]

imaging resource has a preview up. it's a lot nicer looking in black than white.

as we all know, here's the problem

Compared to a Micro Four Thirds camera, the Pentax Q's imager has just slightly less than 1/8th the light gathering area, while APS-C models have an advantage of closer to 13x.

that's 3 stops less light gathering ability than u4/3. an f/2 lens is going to be similar to an f/5.6 lens on u4/3. or f/11 on a 35 mm.

 

[finbarqs]

just super cropped.

 

[Cattykit]

It's the best or the worst joke I have witnessed in this market.
The camera is so damn ugly, price is way too high, sensor is way too small. Nothing makes sense for this camera.
People would be better off buying compact cameras that costs far cheaper while offering huge zoom ranges.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

 

[Gooberlx2]

I gotta be honest though...if they could make a slightly-wider-than-standard pancake prime for this, bundled at around $400, I could see myself biting. But I just like Pentax on principle.

That said, I wonder what Canon's S95 successor is going to look like. If they move to a backlit-cmos for their comparatively larger sensor size, it's really going to be hard to compete.

 

[ElFenix]

they must have consulted sigma when they came up with the pricing for this.

at $200 it's interesting. at $800 even the trust funders who want a digital holga will say wtf

 

[twistedlogic]

For $800 this thing better let me focus after I take the shot,

 

[996GT2]

$800 for a 1/2.3" Sensor?

 

[foghorn67]

they must have consulted sigma when they came up with the pricing for this.

at $200 it's interesting. at $800 even the trust funders who want a digital holga will say wtf

You stole my thoughts on this.

 

[finbarqs]

LOL