Pentax Q or point & shoots only?

[petrochemist]

I assume this area is intended to cover point & shoot models from Pentax like the Optio range. Is it also the place for the Pentax Q range? (Tiny mirrorless models)

 

[PentUp]

Well yes, and the X range (such as the XG-1 I guess)

 

[Wallace Ross]

Well if it’s not the Q and not the MX-1 its going to be a very quiet forum.

 

[dirk]

I assume this area is intended to cover point & shoot models from Pentax like the Optio range. Is it also the place for the Pentax Q range? (Tiny mirrorless models)

All cameras, which have a sensor size smaller than APS-C.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I assume this area is intended to cover point & shoot models from Pentax like the Optio range. Is it also the place for the Pentax Q range? (Tiny mirrorless models)

The Pentax Q is a sort of odd man out. Very small senor - yes. Systems camera with exchangeable lenses - yes.

But (lack of) long term support makes this a hard one. I quite like my Q but the 'made for Q mount' lenses were few and quite expensive really. The Toy Lens series was just that - hopeless Toys and hardly cheap toys. I liked the kit lens - despite its seeming cheaper-end construction it made good images. I suspect that the other oem Q Mount lenses may have been quite good as well. But their relative cost left me just adapting some D-Mount lenses.

It is really a niche camera that may have had some traction but the GM series was just so much better and had an immediate access to the established line of oem M4/3 lenses probably sealed he fate of the Q.

In the end Neither the Nikon 1 nor the GM series could last the distance either. Tiny systems camera bodies did not have enough charisma to make these types must have enough to sell the quantities that mass marketing demanded.

The Pentax Q has been gone for quite a long time now. I did like the charming little things but I really doubt that there will be a lot of chat generated by 'us' Q owners.

I might guess that Dirk could be prevailed upon to add new specialised forums in the, even a Q-Forum, if there is enough traffic to warrant a seperate one.

 

[dirk]

Correct. If there are hundreds of Q-users with high traffic, we can change this immediately. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Correct. If there are hundreds of Q-users with high traffic, we can change this immediately. Nothing is set in stone.

Sadly, Q users unite! .... and you might get "10", not quite enough really, but they may become trendy - for example some young folk have been obtaining old film slr bodies just for the pleasure of not seeing that picture you just caught pop up on the lcd immediately. Q-revival? Maybe not - I would wonder if their batteries might be getting hard to find.

 

[CCYM]

I like the Q bcoz of its form factor. Sadly Pentax didn't improve it further. With the latest sensor technology, Q can become a powerful and compact lens interchange system. I still use it frequently, and have 2 bodies, original Q and QS1 and 01, 02, 06, and fish eye lenses.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I like the Q bcoz of its form factor. Sadly Pentax didn't improve it further. With the latest sensor technology, Q can become a powerful and compact lens interchange system. I still use it frequently, and have 2 bodies, original Q and QS1 and 01, 02, 06, and fish eye lenses.

The Q had a low resolution lcd and this was the only means of framing images and checking focus. It had focus peaking added by a firmware update but it was best at 2x magnification although 4x was possible it was so snowy because of the low resolution focus peaking at that magnification was only good for emergencies.

The button and wheel layout was cramped on such a small camera body.

There was only a small selection of oem lenses and the Toy-Style ones were just toys and more expensive than adapted CCTV lenses which were much better performers.

The firmware was ok but could have been slicker. Adapting lenses with such a small sensor led to a 5.4x crop factor if my memory serves me correct. They went from a sensible body form to one which was less so but had a slightly larger sensor and then back to something with similar bid to the original but the camera was baiscally the same. Then it simply faded away.

Nevertheless I liked my Pentax Q and the fact that it turned any D-Mount lens (if you could find one with an aperture control) into huge telephotos. A real Q-Ship with an innocuous tiny lens. I could say that I was a devoted fan at the time.

But the Panasonic GM1 blew it away - larger sensor - only a 2x crop factor - access to the complete existing range of of M4/3 lenses and you could buy from a good variety of second hand ones if you could not afford new. The lcd was high resolution - could get to 10x magnification and sharp as a tack - even with 10x and focus peaking. The touch screen interface was very well worked out and resulted in the controls not having to be as cramped as on the Q - the firmware was very arguably more sophisticated and better laid out - the touch interface allowed much quicker access to the menu. All this and much the same physical size to the Q.

Then the GM5 arrived with a very useable evf that had similar variety and capabilities to the GM lcd. The underdeveloped Q 'was toast'.

It was hardly surprising that the Q was quietly dropped. I am not even sure if the demise of the Pentax Q was ever announced by Ricoh - although they did announce the end of their GXR line (eventually).