Q at ISO1600

That's more like it! The difference between this one and the original photo is like night and day. At 1:1 you can tell it's not DSLR sharp, but at web size it looks pretty good.

Seems pretty good to me. You wouldn't want to print it at A3 but 'normal' print sizes would probably be perfectly acceptable.

K.

Sue has won photo print competitions with images from the 5MP Pentax S5i, so providing it's the right sort of images I wouldn't totally count out the A3 print.

I think this is my main disappointment, I was hoping for more than 'pretty good' to be honest.

Plenty of cameras out there are pretty good, Pentax has got all the right ingredients & experience to make an absolutely class-leading compact, interchangeable lens camera system, but what they appear to have come up with appears to be a system which in all likelihood will be looked back on fondly 20-30 years from now, but here and now isn't doing enough compared to:

a). the price being asked
b). the competition.

I really hope I'm wrong (I'm wrong fairly often so there is every chance), because if everything came together well this is one camera above all others (perhaps not the X100) which could really interest me.

Looking beyond the first generation, perhaps the second generation of the Q (if it gets that far) could benefit from the Ricoh deal. If there's one thing that Ricoh do well, it's stunning little cameras.

Pitching the Q as a sort of interchangeable lens GRD, sitting alongside (or slightly below) the GXR system.

Who knows.

What is the general release date of the Q in the UK?

The Q will always fall short of the competition if you count apsc or even mft cameras as the competitors. Dof control will always be lacking and as tiny sensors improve, so will larger ones. The Q's true competition are the lx5 and s95 type cameras, which it competes with on size and ought to beat on IQ owing to the use of interchangeable lenses. It's already better than any Ricoh compact as far as I can see.

I have a camera with the same sensor. Coupled with now seeing actual pictures from the Q ( which my compact can replicate ) and adding it's price to the equation, for me there is little to speculate.

To be honest, I would be surprised if it matches the GRDIII.

Obviously the larger sensored modules of the GXR aren't fair comparison, though in terms of price they're not a million miles off.

Indeed, you actually need to read several to have a fair idea but most of the time the review on imaging resource are always quite good.

Like similar sites the Imaging Resources reviews consist of enumerating and comparing features. The writers treat cameras like gadgets and rarely say a single word about photography. These articles are useful only as glosses on the manufacturer's press releases and for certain functional determinations.

I don't recognise that assessment of Imaging Resource, Robin. As well as probably the most comprehensive run-down of camera features and easily compared image samples - which of course we all want to see - the actual text of their reviews suggests the writers are keen photographers who try these products in real life situations. It's something that has always struck me about Imaging Resource, and perhaps it's why they seem to have been tentatively positive about the Q despite the sensor and price not really stacking up on paper.

I'm with Will on this.
Imaging Resources is also not one of the fastest with their reviews so i do think they actually put quite a lot of time in them.

I almost never look at DPreview, maybe only to see the comparative photos.
Also it's easy to look up the menu from the camera with DPreview.

Those few select quotes are hardly illuminating in themselves. "Fast blackout times are critical for tracking action"? Er, thanks for the tip!

Regardless, such passages are vastly outnumbered by the lists of facts and figures, comparison charts, obsessions over which features are lacking, etc. Yes we all might care about those things, but it is a matter of proportion. I am not saying that this sort of a review does not serve a function, merely that they are entirely typical in this regard.

When looking at other reviews, i often see inded the charts and those test shot and test shot of other cameras to compare and things like that.
Imaging resource does that as well but they also write a lot around it, you do get a fair idea what they think about the camera.
With dpreview you really only have the conclusion...

I care little about bar charts and other such statistical analysis to decide which is the 'best' camera.

For me, a camera that produces the images I want and makes doing so an enjoyable experience are the main criteria I look for. The vast majority of cameras are able to produce decent enough images, so the user-friendliness really is the key for me. That and size.