• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pentax Q

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
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
InhandTd.jpg


inhand1.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top