What if the Q had been made by a different company?


robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 12:17
I've really enjoyed monitoring all the forum discussion on the Pentax Q.

It, more than any other recent Pentax product, seems to have divided the Pentax faithful. Some people see it as just the model the Pentax line-up needs, whilst others are concerned that the price is to great considering what it offers. If nothing else, it has certainly generated a huge amount of debate and speculation.

This got me to thinking, why has the Q (in particular) been so polarising (pun intended)? The more I thought about it, just one question revolved around my head which I believe could explain quite a lot:

What if the Q had been made by a different company?

Would it be pointed to as an example of what Pentax desperately needed to do? Or would it be laughed off as a ridiculous niche product, not something that 'real' photographers would be concerned with?

Pondering this brought me back to an old thread where I was seeking advice regarding a new camera which offered more portability than a DSLR kit, but still gave good image quality and user interface (at this time the Q hadn't even been announced). One of the staunch defenders of the Q gave me the following response:

Quote:
The confusion arises because you're torn between wanting too many things. There are lots of exciting cameras out there and we can't own them all....

Now you might be an equipment freak, in which case but whatever you fancy, because next week it will be something else....

Or, you might want to take pictures, in which case:

Main camera: Pentax K-r with 18-55mm amd 55-300mm lenses. This is for when you have some photography definitely in mind.

Pocket camera: Pentax W90. This can be carried everywhere, always. The added bonus will be the shockproof and waterproof construction, so you will be safe with it on the beach or under water, or even if it rains. This will augment your main camera.

A small bag to hold the DSLR kit and total resistance to buying anything else until you have fully explored this kit, which is IMHO far more practical and cost effective than the off-beat niche market cameras that you list.

The cameras I was seeking advice on were enthusiast compacts, M4/3 and large sensor compacts, the very cameras which we are told the Q is targetting.

No more off-beat or niche than the new Pentax darling, however with Pentax not in that field, this sort of camera was one to be looked down upon, not something to be considered if "you might want to take pictures".

In short, not the sort of camera that a 'real' photographer should concern themselves with, and one which would be far better replaced with a Kr and W90.

It's funny how a few months, and the entry into the 'niche' market by Pentax changes some people's views on the very worth of this type of camera.

So I guess my take on the original question is that were the Q made by another company, I doubt anyone currently defending it would be queueing up to purchase it on launch day.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

Anvh

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 12:40
Even if it was make by another company i would have interest in it.

There are two simple reasons for that.
The Q falls in between, the CSC cameras now out there and compacts.
What it has over the CSC is the smaller size and what it has over compacts is that you can change lenses.

Besides that i never get the grips with most compacts because of their controlls and the same is true for most of the CSC in the price range of the Q, i hope that the Q is different. That's the point where it hangs for me.

How i see the Q is like where you put in the W90 in your story, not to replace the Kr but a camera that augments it. The Q give you the ability to use prime lenses with at a compact size, not something other cameras can give you.

Some CSC, certainly sony with their Nex 7 you can see as a replacement of your Kr, however I can never see the Q like that although i can see replacing compact cameras.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 15/09/2011 - 12:42

robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 12:50
Anvh wrote:
Even if it was make by another company i would have interest in it.

There are two simple reasons for that.
The Q falls in between, the CSC cameras now out there and compacts.
What it has over the CSC is the smaller size and what it has over compacts is that you can change lenses.

Besides that i never get the grips with most compacts because of their controlls and the same is true for most of the CSC in the price range of the Q, i hope that the Q is different. That's the point where it hangs for me.

How i see the Q is like where you put in the W90 in your story, not to replace the Kr but a camera that augments it. The Q give you the ability to use prime lenses with at a compact size, not something other cameras can give you.

Some CSC, certainly sony with their Nex 7 you can see as a replacement of your Kr, however I can never see the Q like that although i can see replacing compact cameras.

Never going to happen.

Even if we ignore the price (the main reason it won't make compacts redundant) it simply isn't compact enough. The body dimensions are theorectically small enough, but for a truly compact camera (something that will fit in the pocket of your jeans) you need a retractable lens, otherwise it's a coat pocket/small bag camera and at that point there are options offering greater image quality and/or better control.

I'm also still unconvinced that the users of a compact camera really want to change lenses, and that's before we get to consider what dust spots will look like on small sensor.

I'm also a little confused regarding your comment about the controls of compacts. There are compacts around which offer as much (in some cases far more) external control than the Q.

For me, and as I've said many a time I'd love to be proved wrong, this is a case of filling a niche that didn't exist.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Last Edited by robbie_d on 15/09/2011 - 12:53

thoughton

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 12:52
My, my, that's a patronising quote The distinctive grammar and casual dismissal of "off beat niche cameras" sounds like a certain well known member

You've hit the nail on the head Robbie, but I don't know why it surprises you. Some people on this forum are simply blind to anything non-Pentax. It doesn't matter if the NEX7 or GF3 are much better than the Q (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were), said people will still denigrate the NEX and GF3, and praise the Q.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 12:57
thoughton wrote:
My, my, that's a patronising quote The distinctive grammar and casual dismissal of "off beat niche cameras" sounds like a certain well known member

You've hit the nail on the head Robbie, but I don't know why it surprises you. Some people on this forum are simply blind to anything non-Pentax. It doesn't matter if the NEX7 or GF3 are much better than the Q (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were), said people will still denigrate the NEX and GF3, and praise the Q.

It was patronising wasn't it? I said as much in my reply to it.

Funny thing is, despite it painting me as someone obsessed with "off beat, niche cameras", an "equipment freak" who would be after the next big thing a week later, I went out an purchased one of the cameras I had been considering in January, and have shot over 5,000 (varied) pictures with it since. Perhaps not so 'niche' after all.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Last Edited by robbie_d on 15/09/2011 - 13:00

robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 13:03
thoughton wrote:
My, my, that's a patronising quote The distinctive grammar and casual dismissal of "off beat niche cameras" sounds like a certain well known member

You've hit the nail on the head Robbie, but I don't know why it surprises you. Some people on this forum are simply blind to anything non-Pentax. It doesn't matter if the NEX7 or GF3 are much better than the Q (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were), said people will still denigrate the NEX and GF3, and praise the Q.

The other thing that made me chuckle about the quote was that despite me making it quite clear that I wasn't after a DSLR, the recommendation was...a (Pentax) DSLR!

I wonder if I now needed advice on whether to buy a Full-Frame DSLR I'd get recommended the Q?!
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

Anvh

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 13:11
robbie_d wrote:
Never going to happen.

Maybe i said it a bit wrong.

The CSC that Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung have are more aimed to replace DSLR than the Q is, which in my view is more leaning to replace the high-end compacts.

I've been looking for a compact camera myself, something to have next to the K5.
I must say i'm atracted to the Pen and some of the high-end Sony cameras but it's bugging me that it's not that much smaller.
I'm worried that in the end i would just leave them at home and just take the extra weight of the K5 for granted.

So in the end, if the Q is small enough than i'm attracted to it because i could use prime lenses, or i would go for the high end compacts that Canon and Nikon are offering, Nikon P7000 and the Canon G12.
I would pick one of those two over the Q when i would want a zoom lens because of their size and price.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 15/09/2011 - 13:16

thoughton

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 13:14
I've been looking at compacts myself lately. The NEX7 looks pretty nice but it's way too expensive. Thinking about an older model, NEX3 or S95 perhaps. The Q isn't even in the running, IQ is crapper (is that a word?) than rivals introduced over a year ago, and it costs twice as much.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 13:17
Anvh wrote:
robbie_d wrote:
Never going to happen.

Maybe i said it a bit wrong.

The CSC that Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung have are more aimed to replace DSLR than the Q is, which in my view is more leaning to replace the high-end compacts.

I've been looking for a compact camera myself, something to have next to the K5.
I must say i'm atracted to the Pen and some of the high-end Sony cameras but it's bugging me that it's not that much smaller.
I'm worried that in the end i would just leave them at home and just take the extra weight of the K5 for granted.

So in the end, if the Q is small enough than i'm attracted to it because i could use prime lenses, or i would go for the high end compacts that Canon and Nikon or offering, Nikon P7000 and the Canon G12.
I would pick one of those two over the Q when i would want a zoom lens because of their size and price.

I disagree.

The Panasonic GF range and the PEN Micro are far more targetted towards attracting compact users to upgrade than they are trying to convince DSLR users to downsize. This is clear from their size, controls and feature-set.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 13:21
thoughton wrote:
I've been looking at compacts myself lately. The NEX7 looks pretty nice but it's way too expensive. Thinking about an older model, NEX3 or S95 perhaps. The Q isn't even in the running, IQ is crapper (is that a word?) than rivals introduced over a year ago, and it costs twice as much.

Of course it is, as in:

"The IQ of the Q is crapper than cameras costing half its price"

Seriously though...

The NEX7 looks great, until you see the price.

The S95 (and subsequently whatever replaces it, S100 I guess) is the camera that the Q pitches directly against.

The S95 offers plenty of what the Q does (decent image quality, external control, etc.) but is far more pocketable (compare it to the Q with the kit zoom) and less than half the price.

And, like it or not, for the mainstream camera purchaser two of the very biggest variables are size and price.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Last Edited by robbie_d on 15/09/2011 - 13:22

Anvh

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 13:24
I haven't seen any side to side comparison to have a good view of the IQ of the Q.
So far it doesn't seem so far away from the GF3 and that one with the prime lens isn't much cheaper...
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

robbie_d

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 14:04
Anvh wrote:
I haven't seen any side to side comparison to have a good view of the IQ of the Q.
So far it doesn't seem so far away from the GF3 and that one with the prime lens isn't much cheaper...

What you mean to say is that for some variables loosely related to image quality, you've seen a line graph where the lines for the Q are fairly close to the lines for the GF3.

Let's not go saying things like the overall IQ isn't "so far away from the GF3 with the prime lens". Because based on some of the shots I've seen, the overall IQ isn't so far away from my old 10MP 60 Kodak compact.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Last Edited by robbie_d on 15/09/2011 - 14:24

fatspider

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 15:11
Quote:
What if the Q had been made by a different company?

Then it would probably have been a subsidery of Pentax

Regardless of what you think of the Q Pentax have been responsible for many "firsts" when it comes to photographic equipment. In my mind the Q is just another of those firsts, whether it succeeds or not only time will tell, but it more than likely will pave the way for other manufacturers to take the concept and build on it or it will flop.

This is just Pentax pushing the boundries, Nothing ventured nothing gained as they say.
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 15:26
Well the 'charts n graphs' published by Angela Nicholson in her recent review did seem to put the Q and GF3 virtually neck and neck, and of course both higher than the Canon G12 or was it 13... in terms of DR and noise handling. The Sony NEX was consistently better though. But that's just charts and graphs, and while some of the actual sample images I've seen are great, others are a little bit disappointing on close examination.

robbie_d wrote:
The S95 (and subsequently whatever replaces it, S100 I guess) is the camera that the Q pitches directly against.

I think this is probably on the money. The Q does offer a few bells and whistles extra, like the useful looking fisheye prime lens, manual control in video (lets hope the feature trickles down - or should that be up? - into Pentax DSLRs), and external flash support. But the S95 will turn out similar results for half the cost.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/09/2011 - 21:38
"What if the Q had been made by a different company?"

LOL - pretty obvious really. The reaction from Pentax Fanboys would have been completely different.


Nice thread robbie. Made me smile.

btw - I would say Crappier rather than Crapper

Crapper is slang for toilet, from the legendary Thomas Crapper (baptised 28 September 1836; died 27 January 1910)

Crapper did not invent the Q. He did, however, do much to increase the popularity of the toilet, and developed some important related inventions, such as the ballcock.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Last Edited by Smeggypants on 15/09/2011 - 21:38
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.