Q at ISO1600

Does the TX-5 do raw? I had my brother's Sony compact (a bit old and a lower model too) but I was impressed with its results at his outdoor night wedding and the reason I love the current Pentax's is partly down to the tasty Sony sensor. I think the Q RAW files might be what confirms whether the price of this thing is worth it, but I suspect it is never going to match an APS-c or m4/3 sensor, but then cameras with them are not really pocketable.

uhmmm haven't you read my post!
The local store offered me the Pentax Q for €599 that's roughly 529 pounds
I've seen the prices of the toy lenses as well and they will be lower then what you say roughly 80 to 90 pounds and the 5-15 zoom lens will be 150-160 pounds.

Maybe i'm lucky to live in an € country

It looks great to me considering you'd never want to shoot at that iso on a compact. Inspires confidence in clean results at lower isos. Actually it doesn't look drastically worse than the k20 at 1600. Using raw will probably improve matters further too. Not bad for a compact... Bottom line, its going to beat the pants off the tx5 I keep hearing about, just as the canon s95 already does. For me that's the unfortunate show stopper. Other, cheaper, raw capable compacts are already available

But what about the lenses?
I wonder how much differnce they will make in the details when the ISO's are low.
Also i'm wondering how the Controls will be of the Q compared to the PowerShot G12 & Nikon Coolpix P7100.
The EVIL camera's in the same price range are just to big and don't offer the right controls, not sure about the two compacts i named either but will test that out in time.

You are comparing to a two-generation old camera. Perhaps compare to the K-5?

And even then the K20D has way more resolution, detail, DOF control etc. Not even to mention the ergonomics, system strength etc. And it's far cheaper.

I think it's polecats and polearms, apples and oranges... (insert your metaphor here)

If a compact can approach the quality of a dslr, even a 3 year old one, I think its pretty good going to be honest. The k5? Don't be daft. This is essentially a compact camera we're talking about here.

and how the heck does he eat ?

It's not a biro, its a single black hair or is it a sensor stain?

No the TX-5 doesn't save as RAW. Which is a shame.

I think one of the biggest caveats with these little sensor compacts, and this includes the TX-5 and the Q is that you can't turn the hideous noise reduction off. I have turned off on Camera NR on my K05sw at ALL ISO levels and prefer to add it as requried in lightroom.

The 1600 ISO pic from the Q sports the same nasty plasticy NR as my TX-5 does, and frank;ly I prefer some noise to the plastic.

In the same way I find ladies that grow old graceully more attractive than botox mutants.

You're right about the pocketable aspect versus the APS-C or 4/3rds quality, but there's still the price of the Q.

Yes I have read your post Stefan

Even the prices you are quoting are still far too expensive for the IQ of the Q

I paid £180 for a compact with the same sensor as the Q. OK it doesn't do raw and doesn't do interchangeable lenses, but it's far more discrete than the Q.

So lets factor that lens interchangeability and RAW file feature and double the price.... £360 for the Q and I wouldn't be complaining.

£90 is still far too much money for a toy lens.

The K20D didn't give that plasticy NR IQ at 1600

And don't forget the build quality, the SR, the build in ND filter and the leaf shutter.

And uhmm IQ... you based that on these small photos?
It's not even taken with the normal firmware but with some beta firmware as you can see...

I wonder where you based that on... only on the photos of the lens themself and the specs i think... or have you actually seen photos taken with these lenses?

So it's just to soon to judge, lets wait till there are actually some real reviews and photos online shall we

I had a Panasonic FX01 that had the ND filter in it rather than a proper aperture adjustment, you could see it flip down when it got brighter and the camera would report an aperture of 7.1 or something, but there was no real change in the aperture, depth of field etc. The q presumably has an Av mode and real aperture? (Still not interested though, still far too much for a compact. I think my m4/3 is 'toy' enough).

Some lenses have an real aperture and the Q has on e-dail like you find on the K-x, Kr and the likes.
The toy lenses have a fixed aperture and no ND filter or shutter but they are pretty cheap.
80 pounds for a lens, you can't really complain right if it's fun to use that is and that what it needs to be.
If the controlls on the Q aren't good then i doubt it will work...

I actually like the small size.
I really don't want to replace the K5 and the K5 with one of the limited lenses is also really small for such camera so I don't find many evils small enough for a camera just to carry with you all the time.
I can see the Q ending in my pocket of my jacket with 2 or 3 prime lenses.

I still get the feeling the Q will win several prestigious design awards and sell roughly 250 units.

btw, Read more about the symptoms of Q fever. link