For most of the time, DC Watch reviews are useful and interesting. But this time, I'm afraid they have made junk:-
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/special/20111213_498083.html
Well, we all knew that the P-Q is the smallest and lightest ILDC on Earth. So, these size and weight comparisons by actual measurements are mostly meaningless. But the most silly part of the review is about the marking scheme it adopts!
Just say when it compares for the first time about the weight of the body (without flash, if it is detachable) for which the Pentax Q wins and gets a full mark of 5 points. But then in the next part it compares the weight of those bodies with the flash mounted (if it is detachable) and then the Q wins another 5 points. Indeed, this violates the basic principle of statistical analysis for calculating the weighted score, as actually just for this part of assessment for nearly the same thing has been double counted.
To illustrate this fundamental flaw, should the DC Watch reviewer measure the weight of the bodies for four times? That is, the first time for body only, the second time for body+battery, the third time is for body+battery+card and finally the body+battery+card+flash for the last time? And then, the Pentax Q will get a total of 20 full marks, i.e., four times for the weighting! See? :-o
In fact, the above example, although looks rather silly as it does, is not exaggerated. The reviewer did continue measure the combined weights of the prime lens + body and then the zoom lens + body, of which the weight of the body is counted once again, for the third and the fourth times!
After all, this is the pseudo science that is existent in the world. This review gives no more additional information than anything other than the weights and physical dimensions of those cameras (or maybe also for the sizes and weights of the lenses) under "test", that are already published anywhere. In fact, how difficult would it be to have a look on these hard figures?