Pentax launch the Q

This isn't an outfit to replace a DSLR, it's to replace a compact with the highest quality possible within those constraints that a compact demands.

There are many instances where a small sensor is preferable to a large one; macro and eBay shots benefit from an increased DOF for any given aperture, and telephoto benefits to the tune of insanely long effective focal lengths with relatively little bulk (and fast apertures unheard of on a DSLR for the same effective length - all at little cost).

I know from much experience with cameras with sensors of this size that diffraction will limit IQ to around f/5.6-6.3, but I don't see how this is an issue. At that aperture everything can be in focus anyway and if it's really bright the lenses have their built-in ND filters (just like my GR-D and G12 do). This will not be a camera for pixel peepers it's true, but photographers will probably find it jolly good fun. The fact it will fit in a pocket means it's far more likely to be the camera on you too.

Long live The Queen!

I don't expect it to remain at it's suggested retail price for long so you may be in luck. On this occasion though I'm prepared to be an early adopter which doesn't happen often...

Er, you didn't really read the articles did you?

A small sensor gains nothing and loses in diffraction effect, DOF, noise, etc. You don't magically get more telephoto or more anything... you just see less of what you would have had with a larger sensor.

I nearly commented after reading this "I'm quite excited by the prospect of the first Q-M42 adapter as I've just figured my Sonnar is now a 750/3.5" but resisted as its a worn out tune these days.

For those that believe in magic though, why not put a mask over their APS-C sensor that has an even smaller window and they could have 5000mm lenses that started off as 43mm Ltds.

Best regards

Well if it lives up to your expectations then I'm genuinely pleased for you


I already have a camera with this Exmor R 'backlit' sensor in. And while in optimum conditions the picture quality is perfectly acceptable the quality is nowhere near what I would expect from a 4/3rds or APS-C sensor.

My little Sony compact cost £180 new. That's what I'd expect to pay for a cam of that quality.

Ok the Pentax Q has more features, shoots RAW, etc but It's way over £500 ( assuming a dollar/pound of 1.5 ) and they even want $250 for a sodding viewfinder.

Had the Q been about £300 or £350 I would have understood.

had they put a decent sized sensor in it and charged £400 I might even be considering one. Although my style of shooting is either overt or covert.

I've put a pinhole in front of mine. My 50/1.2 is now a 10000mm/f1.2

See that's where I don't think they have succeeded. Why not a 4/3rds sensor?

I am more than willing to be proven wrong though.

I understand perfectly well how things work, that's why I use a variety of camera types to suit different purposes. To pretend that DSLRs are some sort of magical catch-all utility is foolish, so is to argue that small sensors don't have some advantages over larger ones.

You see increased DOF as a disadvantage, I see it as a plus in many scenarios. Noise is irrelevant, my current compact can make A4 size prints from ISO1600 shots without noise being obvious, and the technology is getting better. As for the telephoto effect not being real who cares? I don't, I just know I'll be getting full and uncropped high quality 12MP images shot over vast distances without incurring a hernia. Once the adapters come out and those K135/2.5's act like 750/2.5's I think more folk will "get" it (and the adapters will come - the "Toy" lenses already announced nod towards the fact that the camera is capable of handling dumb glass, the inclusion of the secondary electronic shutter is the real giveaway. And they'll be stabilised to boot).

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject and I look forward to receiving my Q so that I may serve many peoples' words back to them with liberal dollops of ketchup.

I was hitherto not familiar with diffraction limitations ( interesting, must read up on that soon ) but I've just read your review. Makes a lot of sense, cheers

It's taken you 24 hours and that's the best you can do?

hope Santa didn't stuff it anyplace unpleasant...

I kidd... I like gettin jelly bellies

Too big and too close to APS-C, it offers no tangible advantage over what they already have (APS-C). Within a generation or two the Q sensor will have better imaging characteristics (noise, dynamic range) than todays's 4/3rds anyway. Pentax are looking to the future and small/medium/large sensor choice makes more sense than a medium-ish/medium/large line up.

It's taken you 24 hours and that's the best you can do? [/quote]As I said, I nearly commented. Plus there's a we time difference.

That aside, please be happy with your adapters and micro sensor once you purchase, I'll have to make do with a larger sensor and 400mm f/2.8 with or without TC's to get my image magnification.

Each to their own.

Best regards

great smiley by the way.

Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.

Why not be a bit more open minded, wait until the Q appears and then see what it can actually do?

As for small sensors, they are terrific for macro shots and indeed I use an X90 for all my eBay images. Diffraction limited? Yes, all lenses are. I can quite happily use my DSLR lenses at f22 though, when that is what's required. They don't become useless simply because performance is being limited at that point by diffraction.

In fact, a high class lens will show a definite rise and fall pattern from open aperture to optimum aperture to smallest aperture. Theory tells us that the lens performs best wide open. We know it doesn't. That's because our lenses are not perfect lenses.

And a sensor with a lesser IQ offers a bigger advantage?

I'm not shooting blind here Hefty - I already have a camera with this generation of sensor. in fact given it's a 10mp and slightlty smaller I'd wager that the pixel pitch is exactly the same as that of the Q.

OK, I'll admit that the Petnax might have squeezed better IQ out o this sensor than Sony themselves have, but it would have to be a a good magnitude better in order to be in line what I would expect from an $800 camera.


That's an irrelevant and a pointless argument.

Within a generation or two 4/3rds and APS-C will also have moved on.

We're discussing a camera tat's released NOW, not in a generation or two.