[joachim]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1308826002' post='9441']



And for just 100EUR the fisheye is a no-brainer.

[/quote]



Makes me wondering what quality to expect. If they can do a fisheye for about €100 why can other companies not do it? Can't imagine a fisheye for mFT or NEX to be more complicated than a fisheye for 1/2.3". J.

[popo]

I take back my earlier comment on it not being small enough. I have just got a ruler out and compared it to my HX9V - they're near enough the same size! Of course the Q will have the disadvantage of whatever lens is attached but it is still seriously small.



My concern on the price remains though.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1308829120' post='9443']

Makes me wondering what quality to expect. If they can do a fisheye for about €100 why can other companies not do it? Can't imagine a fisheye for mFT or NEX to be more complicated than a fisheye for 1/2.3". J.

[/quote]

Complicated?



It is about size.... The bigger glass elements are, the more expensive they will get. Nex is APS-C size, 4/3rds still is a LOT bigger than that tiny compact digital sensor Pentax is using...



Both the material costs and elements manufacturing costs will be a lot lower, due to that tiny sensor.

[Guest]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1308819006' post='9428']

Pentax Q's sensor area is 0.6x of that Panasonic LX5's.

The 27.5-83mm zoom lens is f/2.8-4.5 (as opposed to LX5's 24-90mm f/2.0-3.3).

And with this zoom lens RRP is $1,100 - twice the LX5's.[/quote]



There are very nice compacts around featuring the same sensor size as the "Q", e.g. a Pana TZ10 provides a good quality f/3.3-4.9 lens with an extremely useful 25-300 mm zoom range and fits easily in a shirt pocket. IMHO the Pentax Q system is ridiculous.

[Kodachrome 25]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1308809898' post='9418']

Hi,



Learned about the Pentax Q today. It has some nice ideas, but a 1/2.3" sensor and a US$800 price tag. Not sure this will/can fly. There are not that many lenses on offer. I would expect for the time being (until that is a real system, if it ever becomes), many users are better served with the likes of Canon S95, G12, Lumix LX or Olympus XZ1.



Will be interesting to see how that copes with dust, the small sensor must be a lot more prone to dust problems.



A few links:



http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/PENTAXQA.HTM

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

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=4330



Joachim

[/quote]



Thanks for the links.



This all happened before: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110"]Pentax Auto 110[/url]. Pentax aims at a similar market segment again. I mean, somebody who bought an SLR for pocket film for a price ([url="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax#Pentax_Auto_110"]1000 Deutsche Mark[/url]) well in SLR range 30 years ago might as well shell out 800$ or more today.



For me, it is already such a big fun to read the previews and look at the product shots. Did you notice the photo of the magnesium alloy body? A magnesium alloy body for such a tiny camera is just hilarious as are the excellent photos by imaging resource with the camera as a key fob to illustrate the cameras tininess. Add to that the carefully arranged stills of the lens selection alone or combined with camera bodies in both colours accompanied by some distinguished accessories as a rectangular lens shade. The standard lens even seems to feature a - hold you breath - metal mount!



All in all this is awesome marketing by Pentax. From the classic or I would rather say old-fashioned body styling, the lenses which make me think of the silvery Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad from before the days black anodized metal became prevalent down to the tiny details as the "PENTAX METAL LENS HOOD MH-RA 40,5mm" engraved in capital letters. There may be two toy lenses, but they are clearly labeled as such. The rest of the of the gagdgets appeals to a subconcious region in my photographers brain in whispering on name: Leica!



Some of this reminds me of the heydey of classic SLR systems where nobody actually bought 220 degrees angle of view fisheyes, 360-1200mm zooms, 2000/11 mirror lenses, 250/5.6 Superachromats, exchangeable viewfinders or 250 shots film backs. But who wasn't fascinated to some degree by the spell of these systems! I still have the brochures of those MX, LX, F1, F3 and OM systems from the 1980ies somewhere in the closet.



This is not camera lust, nor lens lust - it is system lust. So, what's the price for the full-system-kit? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> It should be big fun to show off and play with this gadget and hey, it even produces digital images!

[Klaus]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1308829120' post='9443']

Makes me wondering what quality to expect. If they can do a fisheye for about €100 why can other companies not do it? Can't imagine a fisheye for mFT or NEX to be more complicated than a fisheye for 1/2.3". J.

[/quote]



Well, the Samyang 8mm fisheye is of decent quality and very affordable.

[mst]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1308838293' post='9448']

Well, the Samyang 8mm fisheye is of decent quality and very affordable.

[/quote]



As is the Zenitar. And both even have working apertures <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[thxbb12]

I understand they want the much smaller factor, but at what cost?



The sensor is so small it won't allow for any DOF control. And their post-processing trick to simulate DOF doesn't convince me at all. I just don't like the idea of a fake DOF hack.



To me, it's just ridiculous. Why would I buy this instead of a LX3 ?



I wish they would have done what Sony or Samsung did: using an APS-C sensor in a compact pocketable camera.

When you look at the size difference between the Pentax Q and the NEX (or even Panasonic GF3) which has a sensor 8x larger, it makes you wonder what Pentax were thinking... Between the Q and a GF3, I'd take a GF3 any day! And I already think 4/3 sensors are too small. A camera can only be so small. In this case, the size may not even be limited by the sensor size, but just the practicality of it. When a NEX can almost be the same size while having a MUCH bigger sensor with actual DOF control.



What a waste of resources, especially given the time they must have spent on this while they could have been working on K-mount lenses instead... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I really don't see the point. That's just a joke, how matter how cute it is.

[netrex]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1308819943' post='9431']

You're a Pentax user. All fanatics.

[/quote]

Hehe <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I'm no fanatic, but I do like Pentax a lot. I do have a box camera that is not Pentax however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[wim]

[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1308847565' post='9450']

I understand they want the much smaller factor, but at what cost?



The sensor is so small it won't allow for any DOF control. And their post-processing trick to simulate DOF doesn't convince me at all. I just don't like the idea of a fake DOF hack.



To me, it's just ridiculous. Why would I buy this instead of a LX3 ?



I wish they would have done what Sony or Samsung did: using an APS-C sensor in a compact pocketable camera.

When you look at the size difference between the Pentax Q and the NEX (or even Panasonic GF3) which has a sensor 8x larger, it makes you wonder what Pentax were thinking... Between the Q and a GF3, I'd take a GF3 any day! And I already think 4/3 sensors are too small. A camera can only be so small. In this case, the size may not even be limited by the sensor size, but just the practicality of it. When a NEX can almost be the same size while having a MUCH bigger sensor with actual DOF control.



What a waste of resources, especially given the time they must have spent on this while they could have been working on K-mount lenses instead... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I really don't see the point. That's just a joke, how matter how cute it is.

[/quote]

It's all about market segmentation, and in this case, creating a new market segment.



It's very portable, tiny, looks like fun, maybe even sexy, and will appeal to a whole generation of gadget lovers who are not willing to carry an APS-C, 4/3, FF etc. dslr, not even a micro 4/3 camera.



You and I are likely not in that category, but it may well prove to be very popular - even more pocketable than those other mirrorless, exchangeable or interchangeable lens cameras, with or without electronic viewfinders, in this case no viewfinder (IOW, a MILC, or even a SMILC, S for small <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).



Kind regards, Wim