Q at ISO1600

I don't know, it's either a hit or a miss...

It just depends how many people are looking for a Olympus Pen, Sony nex or panasonic but find them too large when actually looking at them.
The shop owner told me he had many of such customers that actually went for such camera but went home with a small DSLR.
I can see the Q picking some customers that way and for that reason he might stock a few to see how it goes.

Hopefully the Q feels very nice in your hands when you hold it, that's the most important thing i think.

'we' ?

Small photos? Look like full sized versions to me. Even John's OP link says 'FULL SIZE'

Ambient Housewife provided another link toa full size one at OSI250

LOL


And I base £130 and even £90 being too expensive for a toy lens on my own perception of value.

It's easy to wrap a couple of layers of cling film over the front of your lens if you want that "Lomography feeling baby!!!"

It's dutch

This also Dutch, seems you do know some word.

At least i can do math...
2660 x 1995 pixels = 5306700 pixels
The Q has a 12.4MP so where are the rest of the pixels???

Look at the exif it's using firmware version 0.3 Pentax always launch with 1.0 so you can't draw a lot of conclusions yet, at least not hard ones.

Do you know what's funny... Dpreview and I believe imaging-resource had their Q running with 1.0 firmware why doesn't this guy???

Yes off course, do you've an idea on how they preform or what they do?

Well come on tell me and show me some photos.


ps.
I'm now even wondering if those photos are really taken with the Q...

Stefan you're going to huge lengths to excuse the Q. Whenever something is pointed out, even a the flaws in a real picture you dig deep for some possible excuse as an apology for it.

1] OK so the pics aren't full size, but they are more than big enough to tell the difference. I can tell the different between a K-5 and my Sony k-5's pics at 800x600. That plasticy smear in those pics isn't going to get any better at fill size

2] Unlike a lens claiming to be top quality I don't need to see the IQ of a 'toy' lens to judge whether a price is worth paying for it. It's description tells what it should emulate.




In fact it seems you are so disappointed with the IQ of the Q's sensor you start the conspiracy theory

Why shouldn't they be? Let's face it the IQ of Q images linked to in this thread are exactly what you would expect from that tiny sensor. Surely you didn't expect anything better did you?

After seeing those pics, I won't be rushing out to buy one...

Oh, where do i do that?
I only say it's to early to say anything about the camera when there aren't any reviews about it or any true full size photos are on the web.

I still find it very funny that you can conclude so many things as fact while you have only read the description
It's like saying a car drive rubbish, because you've read the specs and see a photo of it...

Because the number of the pixels doesn't match the number of pixel on the camera, whi;e he is caliming it's a full size photo without crop.
And that the reviewers from almost 2 months ago have had the Q with firmware 1.0 and he has one with 0.3

Now that you're stating this as a fact i wonder how much of a troll you're, i already had a feeling but gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Videos from ricehigh.
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-pentax-q-youtube-videos.html

full size ISO1600 photo.
Full resolution this time...
http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/used/IMGP0537.jpg

And ISO500
http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/used/IMGP0550.jpg

more photos.
http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/walk/2011/08/-pentax-q-with-01-standard-prime.html

http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/walk/2011/08/pentax-q-01-standard-prime.html

http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/walk/2011/08/pentax-q-01-standard-prime-1.html

http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/used/2011/08/pentax-q-2.html

Now you're resorting to personal attacks Stefan.

Hey i'm just saying what i feel, just like you did as well at that point.

You always start talking about these points when the Q is mentioned and it's getting old.
And when is ask for more details you point at other cameras or say that you've read the specifications so you base all your facts on other cameras and some words/numbers...
So don't you see that it feels like you're doing this just for the sake of an argument?

Great that you already know the Q so well, i rather wait on a review instead of speculations.

It seems this has run out of steam now gentlemen, please retire to your corners......

I find it hard to believe any digital camera will be usable in 30 years time. USB socket? What's a USB socket? Any one here heard of an SD card? Any one know how to convert a K10D PEF to jpeg2040? They'll be as much use as a BBC Microcomputer... Hopefully we'll still be able to use our k-mount lenses though...

K.

I must say that I was surprised when the Q was announced.

I love small cameras, the smaller the better, but I can't help but feel with the Q that it's one step too far.

Better image quality is available from just as pocketable cameras, and at a lower price.

Really want to love it, but on the evidence of these pictures it is going to have to feel absolutely epic in the hand and take photography to a whole new level of joy for me to consider one.

I rarely trust reviews to be honest.

Regardless of what people claim there is almost always some agenda behind a review which impacts the final outcome.