Pentax Q System

[K10D]

Lots of "other" forum traffic on this new camera but I didn't see any here yet?

http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/news/pen...tem-camera-367

Also five new lenses announced.

Best regards

[Kym]

The Pentax Q is the smallest interchangeable lens camera on the market. And, just like the company's famously diminutive Auto 110 SLR from the late 70's, it achieves this by embracing a smaller format than its peers. Being built around a 1/2.33" sensor, the Q is a fraction of the size of even the smallest exisiting mirrorless cameras and is the first really pocketable model (though the protruding lens still means that'll have to be the pocket of your jacket, rather than your shirt or trousers).

To make clear what the rather opaque 1/2.33" figure actually means, it equates to a surface area of around 28mm2. This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras and 1/13th the size of the the APS-C format sensor in Sony's NEX. The advantage of this is that the lenses for the Q mount can be made a lot smaller than those for other systems, but the downside is that the image quality is more likely to resemble that of a compact camera than a DSLR.

You can glean a lot about Pentax's approach to the Q from the lenses it has announced: a 49mm equivalent F1.9 prime lens for the enthusiasts but accompanied with a healthy dose of fun in the form of two fixed focal length 'toy' lenses (a wide-angle and a telephoto version, both sub-$100). On the fun side of things there will also be a fisheye lens or, at the more serious end, a 28-83mm equivalent standard zoom with a built-in shutter, allowing flash sync at any shutter speed.

Coupled with the 49mm equiv. prime or the standard zoom the Q, with its sturdy Magnesium-alloy build, appears to be offering an alternative take on the photographers' compacts such as the Canon G12, Olympus XZ-1 and even the Ricoh GRD. However, ability to change lenses means that it readily converts into something much more carefree that should still offer a more satisfying shooting experience than a mobile phone and image processing app.

And the Q is no toy camera, despite its modest sensor size it boasts a magnesium alloy body with rubber front coating. a 460,000 dot LCD on the rear and raw output in the DNG format. Interestingly, Pentax buck the recent trend of trying to attract point-and-shoot users by removing those intimidating buttons with all those mysterious symbols on them, by including plenty of external controls.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxQ

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...Q/PENTAXQA.HTM (samples)

[Tannin]

It's a dressed up P&S. No two ways about it.

The sensor is smaller than lots of point and shoot cameras. In consequence, there is no possibility that it will ever deliver decent image quality. Even the Olympus cameras - which are notorious in the SLR world for being crippled by their too-small senors - have a sensor 10 times bigger.

[swifty]

Can't see the logic to be honest. And it costs too much.
On the one hand, if you forego IQ for convenience, there are more convenient and cheaper alternatives eg. XZ-1, S95, LX5, EX1 with similar IQ.
If you forgo convenience, basically every system out there will trump it in terms of IQ by virtue of the sensor size.
I think for size advantage whilst maintaining fairly good IQ, the 4/3 sized sensors or thereabouts are a good compromise. Some will argue APS-C is the sweet spot but although Sony's demonstrated the body can be made very small, the lenses (even their pancakes) are still quite large.
But 1/2.33" sensors I feel is just too small for a system camera.

[jwheat65]

Awwwww... It's cute!
I have an Auto 110 which is a wonderful little SLR with lowish image quailty. I like the idea that Pentax have brought out a modern camera with similar design ideas. I would consider one because of the size, quality and the cuteness factor.

[crf529]

Never seen so many people hate on a camera, and muse at it's poor image quality even before it's been reviewed...

[I @ M]

Never seen so many people hate on a camera, and muse at it's poor image quality even before it's been reviewed...

Where have you seen "so many" people hate on this new camera?

What is hate on anyway?

If you are referring to two posts in this thread that are making what I would consider to be educated and probably very valid assumptions about the capabilities of this new camera I feel that your idea of hated on is quite a long way off the mark.

[pixy]

Never seen so many people hate on a camera, and muse at it's poor image quality even before it's been reviewed...

I agree with your comment, Pentax are not going to release a camera that isn`t off a good standard for the targeted market,it may not be for every one,the cost and range of lenses will appeal to some.

Jack

[I @ M]

Pentax are not going to release a camera that isn`t off a good standard for the targeted market,

Jack, why wouldn't Pentax do that?

Plenty of other makers, if not all of them at one time or another have done exactly that. There have been a hell of a lot of non event cameras that simply didn't sell, didn't appeal to any market, niche or not or simply did not live up to current day expectations as a camera.

Some in fact could be classed more as a fashion accessory than a capable camera.

[Kym]

To be honest, I agree with Tony - its about physics! And a small sensor has big limitations.

But ... Will a P&S with more lens options sell? We will see.

There is a rumour for a larger sensor version to follow ? Again we will wait for that

[Tannin]

Never seen so many people hate on a camera, and muse at it's poor image quality even before it's been reviewed...

You mean ... er ... two?! That is how many people said negative things about it before your comment - and neither Swifty nor I "hate" the camera, we merely commented that given the poor image quality, the camera didn't seem to have much merit.

You don't need to read a "review" to know that the image quality will be fairly poor. All you need is a familiarity with the way that cameras work and a basic understanding of the laws of physics. It is not possible to make high-quality images with such a tiny sensor.

Jwheat says that he thinks it is an attractive and appealing toy. Don't take offense, JW! Toys are good! There is absolutely nothing wrong with toy cameras, so long as you have fun with them, you can afford the price, and you aren't looking for great images. In this role, I can see a reasonable possibility for market success. I wish Pentax well with it. Always nice to see a Pentax product succeed.

[Kym]

http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2011...stem-from.html

The forums are already buzzing with negative opinions as to how bad the image quality of this new small sensor will be. "Pentax made a big mistake", they say. And these remarks come from Pentax Forums., I just don't get it.

Now, how can anyone have an opinion of something they haven's tried themselves? It is a small sensor, but it's a new sensor with remarkable improvements and I won't judge the IQ before I can put my hands on one. DPReview will have a full review, I'm sure, and we'll see what they have to say. This little camera produces RAW files as well as the JPG files.

Pics in the link above

[crf529]

'Hate on' in this case is forming an extensively negative opinion based on assumptions without fact. Just saying the word physics a few times in a post is far from convincing, especially when you consider for centuries we thought the earth was the center of the universe or that space travel was impossible. Technology evolves, changes and improves. Yes there are some basic laws of physics, but anything is possible and there are many ways around many limitations. I'd like to think I'm not a member of the flat earth society and keep my mind open till I see the camera. I could be wrong, it could be plain awful. But I didn't develop the thing so im waiting for actual images..

And when I said 'so many', I was referring to the general negative 'buzz' on various enthusiast Internet forums such as this site, and not specifically the 2 comments preceding mine (but they are most definitely included). The Internet does extend it's borders beyond AP...

[I @ M]

CRF,
yep the 'net extends way way way beyond just AP and we are all aware of what happens when information or misinformation is grabbed and repeated, sometimes quoted accurately and sometimes embellished with a few half truths along the way.
As you said, technology evolves and products are refined at an alarming rate these days and we have seen some truly massive improvements in images produced from what may would have described as toy cameras a few years ago but based on present day products that are reviewed both positively and negatively we are still faced with a pretty comprehensive set of statistics that demonstrate that the smaller sensor sizes are still inferior ( in many cases, not all ) to larger ones.
Now maybe Pentax has acquired a revolutionary bit of technology in the way of a sensor and processor to shut all the doubters up and to blow every other compact out of the water with an IQ level that truly shines or maybe they are purely going down the "win sales because it is cute" road.
Time will tell, I am sure that that camera will be reviewed fairly soon.
Interesting thoughts though, who is making the sensor for this one?
I thought Samsung were behind most of the small form factor sensors in Pentax gear or are they sharing Sony sensors?

[Tannin]

Ignore physics at your peril, crf529, because while engineering determines what you can buy today, physics defines what is possible.

No-one in this thread has troubled to provide you with a short, comprehensive course in basic physics, nor do I propose to now. But that should certainly be your starting point.

To help understand why it is impossible to extract a noise-free image from a severely limited number of photons, you could usefully refer to a suitable textbook or on-line source. You will soon discover that it is not "difficult", nor is it "technically demanding", nor is it "beyond our current skill", it is just plain flat impossible. Wikipedia's "Image noise" entry is a useful starting point - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise

The key point: "The size of the image sensor, or effective light collection area per pixel sensor, is the largest determinant of signal levels that determine signal-to-noise ratio and hence apparent noise levels ..... for a constant f-number, the sensitivity of an imager scales roughly with the sensor area, so larger sensors typically create lower noise images than smaller sensors".

That's moderately technical, so you may prefer this one: http://www.practicalphotographytips....ixel-Myth.html In fact, read that one anyway, it's a very useful reminder of the basics, with an especially useful set of diagrams.

Given a basic understanding of the influence of sensor size on picture quality, we don't need to assume anything. We know that the Pentax Q has a miniscule 28.5mm2 sensor - 13 times smalller than the smallest sensor in a Pentax DSLR - and we [i]know that small sensors cannot produce the image quality that large sensors do. Again, this isn't manufacturing skill and know-how, it's physics.

Compare, to exact scale, the two sensors (Pentax Q and Pentax DSLR):



The little black square is the Q. Remember that the trend among serious photographers is towards bigger sensors again, not far off double the size of the blue rectangle.

(Note: there is no way that I can show you the exact size of the sensors over the web because I cannot know your screen size, software, or screen resolution. But I can provide you with exactly scaled images. If you care to shrink the blue rectangle above such that it is 23.65mm wide, the black rectangle will also be correct - and yes, we are talking tiny: just over 6mm wide by less than 5mm tall.

But no! Surely that is the size of sensor they use for mobile phones? Yep: you got it - it's about the same size as a good telephone sensor.

[Kym]

Tony - That's the small Pentax (blue) you need to show the 40MP 645D sensor

[pixy]

Jack, why wouldn't Pentax do that?

Plenty of other makers, if not all of them at one time or another have done exactly that. There have been a hell of a lot of non event cameras that simply didn't sell, didn't appeal to any market, niche or not or simply did not live up to current day expectations as a camera.

Some in fact could be classed more as a fashion accessory than a capable camera.

Pet rocks sold ! this could be the next big thing.,if you are printing 6x4 it would be OK, the croped sensors can prnt poster size.

Jack

[I @ M]

Pet rocks sold ! this could be the next big thing.

Don't get your rocks off sell your pet rocks yet over this one, it isn't going to be the next big thing, they are aiming for keyring compatible small.

[pixy]

Don't get your rocks off sell your pet rocks yet over this one, it isn't going to be the next big thing, they are aiming for keyring compatible small.



Jack

[Tannin]

Tony - That's the small Pentax ... you need to show the 40MP 645D sensor

Your wish is my command, sir!

Tan: Pentax 645
Red: Pentax APS-C
Black: Pentax Q