• News about Products and Latest Company Direction • Summaries of Reported Problems and Potential Issues • Technical Articles on Photographic Gear and Technologies
I'd probably be interested in getting the gm-1. But the point would be that together with a lens the q7 would still be smaller, unless of course you plan in shooting without a lens
As we can see the Pentax has lost or is losing step-by-step one of its (most?) important advantages - smallest camera bodies. Almost all of the competitors began to make cameras, the sizes of which are not inferior to the Pentax small camera bodies. What are an other benefits remained with Pentax, which have no competition?
Really?! I do appreciate your sharing this incredible news with me! I never heared about this before and never buy any camera. Thanks. Approximately in each press-relise of any new camera Pentax made emphasis on the "smallect body in the World" - that was the mostly main feature of the camera body. later, when competitors began to make camera bodies in approximately the same dimentions or even smaller - Pentax find the new main feature: Fully Weather Sealed. Soon this feature will be used by the competitors as well.
Do you think that Pentax lens now are the smallest in the World? Do you mean that competitors cannot make any compact lens? This is only the matter of time and of the real needs of the market.
What are the other benefits remained with Pentax, which have no competition?
The sensor size is called "moving the goalpost"; there wasn't anything about it when the discussion starts, but we were talking about camera+lens size. The Q is smaller because the smaller sensor allows for smaller lenses. It's as easy as that.
Of course, the Pentax Standard Zoom 02 is not collapsible - like the Panasonic 12-32 f/3.5-5.6; it's always in working position. And it has both a zoom ring and a focus ring. And it's an f/2.8-4.5. And it's smaller diameter. And it's 3x instead of 2.7. But I guess none of these matters.
the sensor size is big difference, the M43 is even bigger and better than RX100, which is 1inch sensor,
I bought Q and sold it after 1 month, the 02 lens and 1/2.3 in bring me back to stone age quality, of course after 2 year spoiling with Pentax Kx and K01..
sensor size is still quality big factor for image quality, Q is better than iPhone but not M43.
I would agree Q with 05 zoom lens (70-200 f2.8) is better than M43 with 35-100 in term of size and portability,
but for (24-70 range) Q win only the lens speed 2.8-4, while GM1 kit is 3.5-5.6, considering the high iso performance, the GM1 can cope with smaller aperture. but Body size wise, Q is not much advantage, while of course, both lose to RX100 for portability 25-120 f1.8-5.6. as RX100 is best balance between Body size, lens zoom range and aperture speed.
Why a lot of fuss for a couple of mms. Q7 has built in SR and a flash connection on top which takes some space. GM1 has bigger sensor and a better IQ, which imho is the most important. But both are history very soon because they have no viewfinder.
quote: "But both are history very soon because they have no viewfinder."
That Sir, is the single most-obvious cost-reduction (as in manufacturing) feature that has made me hesitate to this day to purchase a Q. On the other hand: I am extremely curious about the idea of an inexpensive photographic toy that still has a semi-serious "aura" about it: meaning that can be used seriously to practice new ideas and techniques that can be later translated into ones main workflow.
Mainly: I would love to take one with me on cross-country bike-rides - small enough to fit inside my rucksack and inexpensive enough to not worry too much about a full write-off. I know my Pentax DSLR is tough - but I do not have a death-wish, just yet.
The new GM1 with the sexy small kit-lens: that's not cheap, at all. I know: 700 bucks asking price is only relevant for the uninformed early buyers since noone in their right mind will pay that much for it. Same with the Pentax Q. That went down to about 250€ street-price after half a year (original 2/3" magnesium-alloy version) with the standard prime. Had it had a viewfinder (of any kind, even see-through glass) I would have got one, when that happened. Because the lenses were/are "affordable toys". Not cheap but I consider them still fair-priced - just!
GM1 to me seems too much like a case of chasing the facts-sheet: LOOK AT ME, I am sooooo small. Doesn't matter that I don't fit inside your hand properly without an additional $$ accessory-grip, or that the buttons are cramped on the right because that super-large screen just had to go somewhere.
That's still the downside of both of these models: The lcd-monitor is simply taking up too much room - the controls still take the backseat! Real photographers want to be able to make their tool work fast and precise. Better controls and an EVF, please! In the same-size package! With piezo-LCD panels on the rise this should be doable without compromising neither on-camera image-review nor handling!
Two years ago I bought a Lumix LX5 to take with me at bike rides (racing bike) and the image quality of this small camera compared to my Pentax DSLR surprised me in a positive way, but the lack of a viewfinder gave me many problems taking photos by sunlight. So I bought an EVF to solve my problem. Expensive solution and bulky on top of the camera, but I have to deal with it. Now I'm waiting for a small camera to come with build-in EVF and producing a decent IQ. How many people are still wanting a quality camera without viewfinder? Not most of the people I know. No more!! I think there will be more small cameras coming with EVF next year, but time will tell... I'll be waiting impatiently!
too expensive? Look at me? don't think so. It comes just in time (happy I didn't buy the Ricoh GR yet) This little gem with pana pancake primes.... I'll have it on me all the time.
Pfu... So many time lost comparing gear.... I hope you remember a camera is made to take photos, because you don't post a lot of pics... Maybe the 5D + Pentax lens is not good enough...
Anyway, before I definitively quit this "I-love-Pentax-but-I-don't-like-their-products-and-I-prefer-Sony-and-a-FF-is-what-I-need-to-take-good-pictures" blog, I'll give you an advice: You should write some articles like "1 week with xxxx (camera name)" and posting photos coming actually from the cameras. You would talk about the ergonomy, image quality and more important, you would actually have the camera in your hands!!!!!! Believe me, it's better than discussing all the day about one strange line on a specs sheet... You should try. It would be fun, interesting and "productive". My Ricoh GR, Pentax K-5 my future K-3 and Myself bid you Farewell
What is funnier: being big but pretending that you are small? Or being small and pretending you are big?
Ultimately with all these kinds of cameras, it is about fun quality in life — those who seek ultimate image quality in these, or compare sensor sizes, have very little sensor in their head and very little idea what they're doing.
I have yet to see a camera that is as pleasurable and fun to use as the Q. m4/3 cameras have a horrid interface, feel plasticky, and are devoid of anything considering fun in life.
You are really extreme Pentax fanboy who will defend any crap. Not all M4/3 cameras are not plastic. Some of them are weather proof with metal bodies. Pentax Q7 is plastic.
And sensor size is not our head. It's the sensor that captures light, and bigger sensor means more light and better image quality.
Logging you in...
Sam · 597 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 597 weeks ago
Sam · 597 weeks ago
But the gm-1 will be a fun new toy to get.
Uncle Vova · 597 weeks ago
What are an other benefits remained with Pentax, which have no competition?
Alex · 597 weeks ago
Uncle Vova · 597 weeks ago
Approximately in each press-relise of any new camera Pentax made emphasis on the "smallect body in the World" - that was the mostly main feature of the camera body. later, when competitors began to make camera bodies in approximately the same dimentions or even smaller - Pentax find the new main feature: Fully Weather Sealed.
Soon this feature will be used by the competitors as well.
Do you think that Pentax lens now are the smallest in the World?
Do you mean that competitors cannot make any compact lens?
This is only the matter of time and of the real needs of the market.
What are the other benefits remained with Pentax, which have no competition?
Alex · 597 weeks ago
You should compare Q with m4/3 lens sizes; we'll talk after that.
Uncle Vova · 597 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 597 weeks ago
Alex · 597 weeks ago
The sensor size is called "moving the goalpost"; there wasn't anything about it when the discussion starts, but we were talking about camera+lens size.
The Q is smaller because the smaller sensor allows for smaller lenses. It's as easy as that.
Of course, the Pentax Standard Zoom 02 is not collapsible - like the Panasonic 12-32 f/3.5-5.6; it's always in working position. And it has both a zoom ring and a focus ring. And it's an f/2.8-4.5. And it's smaller diameter. And it's 3x instead of 2.7.
But I guess none of these matters.
RiceHigh 110p · 597 weeks ago
Uncle Vova · 597 weeks ago
;-)))
pentaxk01 · 597 weeks ago
I bought Q and sold it after 1 month, the 02 lens and 1/2.3 in bring me back to stone age quality, of course after 2 year spoiling with Pentax Kx and K01..
sensor size is still quality big factor for image quality, Q is better than iPhone but not M43.
GM1 > RX100 > Q
pentaxk01 · 597 weeks ago
but for (24-70 range) Q win only the lens speed 2.8-4, while GM1 kit is 3.5-5.6,
considering the high iso performance, the GM1 can cope with smaller aperture. but Body size wise, Q is not much advantage, while of course, both lose to RX100 for portability 25-120 f1.8-5.6. as RX100 is best balance between Body size, lens zoom range and aperture speed.
Jac · 597 weeks ago
Heiko · 597 weeks ago
That Sir, is the single most-obvious cost-reduction (as in manufacturing) feature that has made me hesitate to this day to purchase a Q. On the other hand: I am extremely curious about the idea of an inexpensive photographic toy that still has a semi-serious "aura" about it: meaning that can be used seriously to practice new ideas and techniques that can be later translated into ones main workflow.
Mainly: I would love to take one with me on cross-country bike-rides - small enough to fit inside my rucksack and inexpensive enough to not worry too much about a full write-off. I know my Pentax DSLR is tough - but I do not have a death-wish, just yet.
The new GM1 with the sexy small kit-lens: that's not cheap, at all. I know: 700 bucks asking price is only relevant for the uninformed early buyers since noone in their right mind will pay that much for it. Same with the Pentax Q. That went down to about 250€ street-price after half a year (original 2/3" magnesium-alloy version) with the standard prime. Had it had a viewfinder (of any kind, even see-through glass) I would have got one, when that happened. Because the lenses were/are "affordable toys". Not cheap but I consider them still fair-priced - just!
GM1 to me seems too much like a case of chasing the facts-sheet: LOOK AT ME, I am sooooo small. Doesn't matter that I don't fit inside your hand properly without an additional $$ accessory-grip, or that the buttons are cramped on the right because that super-large screen just had to go somewhere.
That's still the downside of both of these models: The lcd-monitor is simply taking up too much room - the controls still take the backseat! Real photographers want to be able to make their tool work fast and precise. Better controls and an EVF, please! In the same-size package! With piezo-LCD panels on the rise this should be doable without compromising neither on-camera image-review nor handling!
Jac · 597 weeks ago
How many people are still wanting a quality camera without viewfinder? Not most of the people I know. No more!!
I think there will be more small cameras coming with EVF next year, but time will tell... I'll be waiting impatiently!
Wigelii · 597 weeks ago
don't think so.
It comes just in time (happy I didn't buy the Ricoh GR yet)
This little gem with pana pancake primes.... I'll have it on me all the time.
Black_Wizards · 597 weeks ago
Anyway, before I definitively quit this "I-love-Pentax-but-I-don't-like-their-products-and-I-prefer-Sony-and-a-FF-is-what-I-need-to-take-good-pictures" blog, I'll give you an advice:
You should write some articles like "1 week with xxxx (camera name)" and posting photos coming actually from the cameras. You would talk about the ergonomy, image quality and more important, you would actually have the camera in your hands!!!!!! Believe me, it's better than discussing all the day about one strange line on a specs sheet... You should try. It would be fun, interesting and "productive".
My Ricoh GR, Pentax K-5 my future K-3 and Myself bid you Farewell
Sam · 597 weeks ago
This cameras are not meant for serious work, it is meant to be fun. I'd have as much fun with the Q7 as I would have with the GM-1.
Both take decent photos, it is not exactly a pissing contest.
Bzrkd · 597 weeks ago
Ultimately with all these kinds of cameras, it is about fun quality in life — those who seek ultimate image quality in these, or compare sensor sizes, have very little sensor in their head and very little idea what they're doing.
I have yet to see a camera that is as pleasurable and fun to use as the Q. m4/3 cameras have a horrid interface, feel plasticky, and are devoid of anything considering fun in life.
Art · 597 weeks ago
And sensor size is not our head. It's the sensor that captures light, and bigger sensor means more light and better image quality.
You are truly pathetic apologist.
Bzrkd · 597 weeks ago