Pentax K-70 Review
HTC 10 Review
Sony RX10 III Review
Canon EOS M10 Review
Microsoft Lumia 950 Review
Nikon Coolpix A100 Review
Nikon Coolpix A10 Review
Fujifilm FinePix XP90 Review
Huawei P9 Review
Canon EOS 80D Review
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS
Nikon Coolpix S7000
Canon EOS 1300D
Canon PowerShot SX720 HS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ70
Canon EOS 1200D
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ100
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V
I appreciate your reviews, as always, and consider them valuable! That’s why I take the time to comment here…the picture you’ve posted of the Q10 actually has the f/1.9, 47mm equivalent lens on it, not the new kit lens. I wish Pentax realized that, for a street shooter (which in my opinion is a good app for this cam), the 47mm equiv is actually probably a better choice than the kit they have chosen, as it is a prime, faster, no zooming time needed, etc. They apparently stopped offering the 47mm equiv as a kit lens option even with the original Q. That would have made a cheaper, more attractive package for me! I wondered also, if you tested the Q and Q10 at f/2.8 aperture, as another respected review site did. Apparently at apertures above f/2.8, diffraction setting occurs, seriously blurring the image. But, with the f/2.8 and the small sensor, there is plenty of dof!
Thanks for your reviews!
2:15 pm - Thursday, November 15, 2012
Hi, Bill again here…with reference my previous comment, pls see your sample shots (example the building sign at f/2.8 vs a scene at f/5.6). At f/2.8, really, no sharpening needed. All of your bookshelf test images were shot at f/5.6 according to the data stated…they may be a bit blurry. If you like, try re-shooting at f/2.8 and see if there is a difference…thanks, and if you get a chance, let Pentax know that they would probably sell more of the Q and Q10 to street shooters like me, if they made the f/1.9 available as a cheaper kit alternative. Pentax will probably pay more attention to you guys than to me!
2:26 pm - Thursday, November 15, 2012
What a waste of money, HR,and everything around this useless, insane product…I will not waste my time and words, I hope Idiots at Pentax will make a new camera with an even smaller sensor…way to go Pentax!!!
8:08 pm - Thursday, November 15, 2012
This camera is for people who collect cute miniature trains, toys cars that actually has an engine and moves, etc. people who fancy tiny things and show them off.
For the rest of the world, it is a big puzzle. Why bother changing lenses, even if the price is not an issue, when the image quality is so limited?
9:09 pm - Thursday, November 15, 2012
In every Pentax Q review comments you can always count on a thoughtful response, based upon no experience with the camera, like we see from JS. Frankly, I used to think like him and I could not get past thinking small sensor = crap results = why bother. However, looking at some of the results and experiences of Q owners opened my eyes and I finally “got it” (after which I bought an original Q kit with the 8.5mm f1.9.
It is an amazing camera. It was so great to be able to have a camera on me AT ALL TIMES. (This is what cargo pockets were made for). The best camera is the one you have with you and there is never a reason to be without the Q on your person. (It is that unobtrusive).
The image quality will probably surprise you. It has a lot of the same features as the full size Pentax DSLRs (RAW capability, multiple exposure, exposure bracketing, built-in intervalometer, shake reduction, etc.)
Related: It is great fun to edit Q photos with Snapseed on the iPad.
As an earlier reviewer noted, the small sensor means greater DOF. This is helpful in macro and extreme telephoto. Both of these things are very easy to do on the Q if you get an adapter to put full size 35mm lenses on it. With its 5.6x crop factor, a 100mm macro becomes a 560mm equiv. You’ll get the whole bug in focus with the macro, rather than just a thin sliver and have a big working distance.
I’ve taken a lot more photos, per day, since getting the Q. No it probably won’t be a serious photographer’s ONLY camera, but it makes the ultimate accessory and extends your overall capabilities in ways you may not expect.
9:43 pm - Thursday, November 15, 2012
Bravo Darren, some thinking going on.
2:49 am - Friday, November 16, 2012
I’ve got the first Q, definitely better than expected image quality (for sensor size), lot of fun to use. Just wish Pentax would bring out a 28mm or 35mm equivalent prime lens, the 50mm equivalent is great, but for general/street use I’d prefer something wider without having to resort to the zoom.
2:54 pm - Friday, November 16, 2012
So many people seem to ignorantly slag off the Q for it sensor size. For me that’s the thing that attracts me. I love SLR’s but when i want to take a quick family picture, I always grab my point and shoot, as the huge depth of field means photos and videos are more likely in focus even if i focus at the wrong point. For me the Q’s a great idea and i can’t wait to buy one.
3:03 pm - Friday, November 16, 2012
Hey John C, that’s what I’ve wanted too, for me a 35mm would be perfect. If they would offer the Q or Q10 with that kind of single kit lens, they would much better tap the market for this camera I think! I’m hoping someone like the guys at this blog will send an open letter to Pentax…and Dan, that works for me too.
3:57 pm - Friday, November 16, 2012
It is in the planning stages for “2013 or later”.
See the Q lens roadmap: http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/Q10-4797/highres/pentax-q-lens-roadmap-photokina-2012_1348211462.jpg
I’d guess sooner rather than later.
4:42 pm - Friday, November 16, 2012
I bought a Pentax Q with standard prime lens for less money than the typical G12, P7100, LX5 price and i must say the image quality has surprised me!
Build quality and excellent and it has full manual controls—its a fun camera to use! WELL DONE PENTAX FOR BEING BRAVE AND TRYING SOMETHING NEW!
12:26 am - Saturday, November 17, 2012
I’m sorry, I’m an idiot and pissed cause my V2 lenses cost nearly as much as FF lenses.
11:24 am - Sunday, November 18, 2012
I suppose there are two main questions about the Q/Q10. Is it more than it’s apparent technical bits, and would I buy it? When the original Q came out, I was one of the more vocal Pentaxians who hated the Q. I thought it took resources away from Pentax and I couldn’t understand it. However, out in the field/location I usually shoot with 2 K5s with grips and tons of lenses and equipment. After a long day of shooting, the last thing I want, is to take a camera with me when I am going out to dinner or winding down the day. However, there are things that happen on the *way* to dinner or when I least expect them. I would take an Optio - a P&S - but I never could control the exposure factors to my liking with them. With the Q, I now have an additional camera that has a crop factor of 5.5x and can use interchangeable lenses. I never understood the Q, but now that I own one, I feel embarrassed for what I thought before. So to answer my original question - yes and yes.
4:21 pm - Sunday, November 18, 2012
People like JS & Matt seem to abound when it comes to the Q. Little, toy, small sensor = bad. Of course, none of them seems to have a first hand experience with the camera and realize that not only the sensor is more capable than at first thought, but the whole system, given its ergonomics, given its DSLR class features (external flash sync at 1/250th anyone?) and at least some key lenses like the 01 F1.9 47mm effective prime lens and now the 84-249mm constant F2.8 06 zoom really allow for an ultra small system with a lot of creative potential for expression.
I recently took pictures of a Cello concert in a very small theater, in very dim light. Having a leaf shutter proved essential to be absolutely invisible and quiet to the experience. Even with the fairly quiet K-5 I would have been kicked out as music would just drop to low volume or downright stunning silence in the entire place… and the last thing you want to hear is a DSLR shutter.
1:33 am - Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The problem with this (and MFT as well) is the lack of lens choices. Don’t get me wrong, I own a few Pentax including the current K-30. What I really want if I am to get a Pentax Q system is something like the 17-70 f2.8-4 lens I got for the K mount.
2:27 pm - Tuesday, February 19, 2013
You actually can autofocus whilst recording video. You just press the center OK button while recording and it will autofocus. This was not possible with the original Q.
3:01 am - Friday, September 5, 2014
the lcd screen does not rotate to take selfies, does it? vain question but that’s all my daughter wants!
3:37 pm - Saturday, September 27, 2014
I shoot primarily with a G5. It has been a workhorse for me that gives me great results, is easy to carry, and unobtrusive when shooting candids. As a “get in your face” photographer I am now interested in carrying a Q10 in my pocket along with a couple of lenses. If only it had a tilt screen…that would be a real plus.
I just sold a Nikon V1 outfit and will replace it with this easy to carry camera…Results will follow!
2:48 pm - Thursday, June 25, 2015
My dress is purple but the picture was blue. HOW can I fix it?
2:06 am - Monday, April 25, 2016
3 inch LCD,
compact system camera,
Pentax Q10 Review
Camera Reviews ·
Camera Buying Guide
Camera Buying Guide
Lens Reviews ·
Photography News ·
Best Digital Cameras
Best Digital Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Photo Gallery ·
© Copyright 2003-2016 Photo 360 Limited