Pentax Q Hands-on Preview

June 23, 2011 | By Richard Butler & Simon Joinson

Preview based on a pre-production Pentax Q running firmware 1.0

The Pentax Q is the smallest interchangeable lens camera on the market. And, just like the company's famously diminutive Auto 110 SLR from the late 70's, it achieves this by embracing a smaller format than its peers. Being built around a 1/2.3" sensor, the Q is a fraction of the size of even the smallest existing mirrorless cameras and is the first really pocketable model (though the protruding lens still means that'll have to be the pocket of your jacket, rather than your shirt or trousers).

To make clear what the rather opaque 1/2.3" figure actually means, it equates to a surface area of around 28mm². This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras and 1/13th the size of the the APS-C format sensor in Sony's NEX. The advantage of this is that the lenses for the Q mount can be made a lot smaller than those for other systems, but the downside is that the image quality is more likely to resemble that of a compact camera than a DSLR.

You can glean a lot about Pentax's approach to the Q from the lenses it has announced: a 47mm equivalent F1.9 prime lens for the enthusiasts but accompanied with a healthy dose of fun in the form of two fixed focal length 'toy' lenses (a wide-angle and a telephoto version, both sub-$100). On the fun side of things there will also be a fisheye lens or, at the more serious end, a 28-83mm equivalent standard zoom with a built-in shutter, allowing flash sync at any shutter speed.

Coupled with the 47mm equiv. prime or the standard zoom the Q, with its sturdy magnesium-alloy build, appears to be offering an alternative take on the photographers' compacts such as the Canon G12, Olympus XZ-1 and even the Ricoh GRD. However, the fact that it can take different lenses means that in a matter of seconds it can be converted into a fun little camera that should still offer a more satisfying shooting experience than a mobile phone and image processing app.

And the Q is no toy camera, despite its modest sensor size it boasts a magnesium alloy body with rubber front coating, a 460,000 dot LCD on the rear and raw output in the DNG format. Interestingly, Pentax bucks the recent trend of trying to attract point-and-shoot users by removing those intimidating buttons with all those mysterious symbols on them, and includes plenty of external controls.

Pentax Q key specifications:

12.4MP back-illuminated CMOS sensor (1/2.3" size - 6.17 x 4.55 mm)
Q-mount interchangeable lens mount
12-bit DNG raw file option
3" 460,000 dot LCD
Sensor-shift image stabilization and dust-removal
1080p30 HD movie recording in H.264 format
5 frame-per-second continuous shooting capability
Quick-dial control giving access to four image settings
In-camera HDR option blends three images
Built-in flash
Flash hot shoe (also used for mounting optional viewfinder)
Front and rear IR remote sensors

Compared to the Sony NEX-C3

The Q's well-proportioned design makes it a little hard to work out how large it is until you see it in comparison to another camera. The sensor is around 1/13th the size of that in the NEX-C3 but does means it's the closest a mirrorless camera has yet come to being truly pocketable.

Placing the Q side-by-side with the NEX helps give some idea of how small it is, but taking the lens off also reveals how small its sensor is. The Pentax doesn't trigger quite the same wonder about how the engineers managed to fit so much into so little space - suggesting that there's a minimum size a camera can currently be, regardless of sensor size.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

Comments

Total comments: 260

I would like to buy one but it is too expensive for me... I don't know where I can find one in India so I looked on ebay.in and it is around $800-$1200...
I like the small concept. I am a 5feet tall female and carrying my Canon 40D with additional lenses is quite bothersome so I got Olympus EPL2. Olympus is just fine but I would like to buy something even smaller....
I like the concept and the look of Pentax Q but I hope the sensor was bigger or 4/3...now I am no technical person as to why it can't be bigger...
The price is the killing factor for me... :(

0 upvotes

purchased for AU$445 with 01+02
took well over 3000 photos in last 6 weeks and love it
marvel in engineering and highly addictive

0 upvotes

I like my XZ-1, and I'm not reading anything here that would get me to buy it for my shirt-pocket camera.

0 upvotes

When do we get a full review - it is long over due.

7 upvotes

i would so much like to have the internals of the grd4 in that :)

0 upvotes

Well its good to hear the Pentax Q has dropped to $499 if and when the camera hits $399 i take a dive

0 upvotes

It is absolutely fantastic and I would not have problem to pay $299 for it, or maybe even $399.
Very Q-ute. But the $799 price in Henrys, is sure a mistake, right? Typo, 7 instead of 2 or 3 at worst.

0 upvotes

Having purchased the camera and shooting with it for awhile it is a pleasure to use. It's small size and build quality causes the owner to want to carry it everywhere thus never missing the opportunity for candid photography.
I've achieved very impressive photos when using manual lenses with adapters. The video quality is quite good at 14 Mbps and opens up quite a bit of tele-video capabilities for those seeking long range videography.
The image quality is on par with the current crop of point and shoot cameras but is underpar to the other interchangeable lens cameras.
If you consider it a point and shoot camera with interchangeable lenses you'd have a good summation of the camera.......for some it will be worth it and for others it will not.

1 upvote

This thing is selling for $619 at the local camera store and $500 with free shipping on eBay, both with the 8.5mm kit prime. It's the same price as the X10 in the real world. They're both great cameras, imo.

1 upvote

one having white orbs and one doesnt :)

5 upvotes

With a GN of 6 for the flash, you can only get about 8 feet away from your subject.

DaveOl

0 upvotes

For $ 800 I could get a Fuji X10 with a couple of hundred dollars left over and bigger sensor plus free orbs or a Canon G1X with a sensor a little bigger than micro 4/3.

DaveO

0 upvotes

Well handling system. good samples images. Have to keep an eye on the lens line up...

0 upvotes

Yes, those sample images are good but is this camera really relevant apart from it's novelty value? A Canon S95/100 is about the same size and offers a similar zoom range with its non-interchangable lens and allthough the lens options in the Pentax may be faster, the canon offsets this with better low light performance.
Also, the portrait lens equivalent is not going to give shallow depth of focus meaning that really there is no point to having interchangable lenses on this camera.

A good fun toy for a child or novice but not even of much use to learn about the differences in the characteristics of lenses of different focal lengths. i.e. not even a good learning tool as an intermediate step from compact to DSLR or other interchangable lens system camera.

2 upvotes

I'm pleasantly surpised with the sample images as well. Hmm, this will require some further investigation. I like what I see!

1 upvote

I have to say that I am amazed by those shots in the preview gallery posted today.

I really did not expect such quality.
I also have to say that I agree with everything raised by Raist3d.

It seems that the quality of the results from tiny sensors has risen remarkably with the Pentax Q and the Fuji X10 especially when one considers that many in both galleries were taken at around 6MP rather than the full 10 or 12MP size.

I do however think that the cost is a problem to me and it's a shame because the sales of lenses would bring the total outfit cost up very high especially if you factor in a viewfinder which I find I must.

This makes the Fuji X10 a bargain even though tele range is limited somewhat.

2 upvotes

I already have a robust, Minox-like Canon TX1 with a 39-390 mm equivalent zoom which will focus down to zero mm, and retracts behind a solid metal shutter when not in use. Its smaller than the Pentax Q. It is a very useful on-hand-at-all-times model which cost me a third the price of the Q, and I won't be tempted to buy other lenses and carry them with me.

james

0 upvotes

The camera may be pricey but I think many here are missing a lot of points.

The sensor actually does better ISO than the LX5 or XZ-1. Yes, I have tried it from raw, both. And I have had the LX5 for well over a year so I know what I am saying here (and the LX5 is by no means a bad camera. We also need to get rid of the notion that talking good about a camera model necessarily means the other one s*cks).

Most here haven't even touched it. This camera is super well built and has superb ergonomics. I want to see how much the AF and startup has improved with the firmware upgrade- which it has.

Better photography is being done with an iPhone than many of the complainers about sensor size are doing here. The key thing to the Q is a sensor that allows at least a wide enough range of expression while keeping the smallest well built camera around with superb ergonomics. Good interface and ergonomics matter. This camera has those.

7 upvotes

No eye level viewfinder -1. No matter what.

1 upvote

I would've bought this camera if it was Japanese made quality product. I have a ZX5n film camera that bought 15 years ago, Made in Japan quality, still as awesome as it was that first time I took it out of the box. On the other hand I own 2 Pentax digital cameras that are already showing signs of wear and problems, needless to say they were not manufactured in Japan. Forget Pentax, I am in line for the x10 as well, as long as the production models are made in Japan.

0 upvotes

you wont say that after youve handled one. Very well made.

3 upvotes

Wrong planning from Pentax - No one will buy this camera with a 2.3 sensor at this price and so many lenses. A 2.3 sensor has its own limitation.

0 upvotes

Like pcblade, I also had a play with a Q today. I am warming to it. beautifully made, tiny, well designed, and from the look of the images already taken, impressive performance, especially considering the sensor size. The toy lenses arn't actually toy's, yes they may be fixed aperture, and have no AF nor in-built shutter, but the optics are typical SMC-Pentax glass, ie high quality multi coated optics.

Still, the initial price is far too high!, and the as yet unhandled Fuji X10 may put the spanner in the works.

However, if you already have Pentax and want a well built pretty good performing camera that will work with all Pentax accessories that you have, it might be worth looking at. But only when that price comes down!

3 upvotes

I've tested this afternoon and make some photos :
- I've experienced some lag : time to focus and trigger the shooting ;
- the raw are in DNG format ;
- the noise is already present at ISO 125 in the dark areas ;
- the camera is very small and nice looking ;
- the build quality is great ;
- they are some automatic corrections taking place with the 8mm f1.19 ;
It's like a jewel : you can put it in your pocket and touch it to get the feeling of having a camera with you all time :)
you can see some sample on my flickr account : http://www.flickr.com/photos/PeFClic/

2 upvotes

Gonna get killed by the X10...

0 upvotes

I see a few commonalities, but the X10 feels so utterly different from the Q that the recurring comparisons don't ring true to me. They both look retro and they share some traits, but as cameras 'in the hand' (feel, size) they are so so different. And aside from the Euro-settler states, these two cameras seem to have different gender appeal.

0 upvotes

Puny sensor, low IQ, high price .... hmmm, who would buy this crap!!??

3 upvotes

low IQ? This beast is creating images on par with m4/3

2 upvotes

BTW you posted this thrice

0 upvotes

@zanypoet, I guess you haven't seen the images. They are excellent.

0 upvotes

@zanypoet, I guess you haven't seen the images. They are excellent.

3 upvotes

Quality compacts like the XZ1 or the S95 have /bigger/ sensors, are just as pocketable, much less expensive than the kit, have a reasonable zoom range and glass is mostly just as fast throughout the zoom range.

Even if the sensor of the Q is better right now, the next generation of compacts will have the same sensor technology, but in a smaller package, and at a price not much higher than the Pentax standard zoom.

Why on earth should anyone buy this obscenity?

Which of these two cameras has a smaller sensor and costs twice as much?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/masatsu/6100180034/

2 upvotes

The next generation of Q will also have a better sensor. It's how this game is played. What the other ultracompacts don't have is the ability to use different lenses, a better ergonomics/interface (despite the smalls size) and a better build.

1 upvote

if this had a k-mount with an apsc sensor it would be perfect. especally considering how well it would compliment the limited lenses

0 upvotes

At $350-$400 this would be a maybe. At $800, this will definitely not be considered.

2 upvotes

i think even $500 would be fine given the IQ this thing has. $600 is pushing it but even the MAYBE. $800? no way

0 upvotes

From full sized samples seen in Flickr, the lenses are foggy even on a sunny day and contrast is woefully low. But those fixed lenses are optically well behaved perhaps due to simpler construction without those fuzzy optical artifects typical of zooms. But the coating and glass quality do not appear to be convincing. Was attracted by the rediculous small size but overall I am disappointed and will not pursue this.

0 upvotes

@Duckie, visit a doctor and have your eyes checked. It seems you can not see properly. To a normal person whose eyes are alright there is no such problems. Lenses are not foggey, they are high quality lenses (normal and zoom). About the coating educate yourself about pentax's SMC coating, who knows even you might learn something.

8 upvotes

Who told you anything from Pentax must automatically be acceptable and anthing else must be wrong? Your mother I guess? This outrageously laughable. Don't tell me you are fathered by one of those Pentax SMC coating engineers!

0 upvotes

@Duckie, I tried and used the camera and seen the pictures that come out this camera. So based on my experience , you not only need to visit doctor for vision problems , you also need some mental help.

6 upvotes

Wow, this really makes the Leica M9 a bargain.

It would take $24,685 worth of Pentax to equal the sensor area of one M9.

(30.89 times the area for FF)

1 upvote

Images? There's a lot of doubt regarding the sensor size. I'd have said that the IQ would be an essential part of any review.

0 upvotes

Saw the mockup today in a Tokyo camera store where there is a big promotion for it. It is another toy accessory for the people who want something different are willing to pay for it. Looks like one of those Minox minatures on steroids and will attract the eye of passers by.The FX 100 can at least do some serious photographic work and be a nice accessory. "Q" for Quirky.

0 upvotes

$200 and I will consider it! :) This looks small and easy to carry around.

0 upvotes

$200? I think Pentax won't stop tossing up our consumers's pocket until they find $2000.

0 upvotes

i think $450 is much more resonable

0 upvotes

$200? Yeah, and I'd consider a Fiat 500 for $3000. Not gonna happen. It's not cheap to produce something this small.

0 upvotes

has anybody reviewed this yet?

0 upvotes

Using today's sensor technology, it doesn't really make much sense. However, if and when sensor technology improves further, maybe someday a sensor this small will have enough sensitivity and dynamic range for most photographer. By then, the system will have more applications.

1 upvote

This camera makes absolutely no sense to me at all. With the small sensor, just go buy a fixed lens competitor from Canon,Panasonic, Olympus or Sony. Otherwise just go for the slightly larger cameras from the aforementioned companies, and it will be a much larger sensor.

0 upvotes

Let's say the sensor is equivelant to an micro 4/3. The boring part is you can't really play with DOF, at least I can do that with my micro 4/3. I don't know one photographer who will buy this, and I've talked to 30+ of them, 2 of which are Pentax fan boys. Only considerations are new Olympus E-PL3 or E-P3 line up, Canon G11/G12, or the lenses for my iPhone, LOL. For the camera with all the lenses, I wouldn't part with $300 for it all. I'd rather blow money paying Canadian retail for a battery grip (which will never happen by the way).

0 upvotes

With 800$ better I buy an second S5Pro.Or maybe something better....

0 upvotes

I think this camera will compete well in the market if the price is not more than 500$ with the kit.
it is a new approach camera aimes to a part of people who want a dslr concept in a portable package.

0 upvotes

I think this camera will compet well in the market if the price is not more than 500$ with the kit.
it is a new approach camera aimes to a part of people who want a dslr concept in a portable backage.

0 upvotes

I don't understand what this camera gives over say the olympus XZ-1, other than the ability to get dust on the sensor ?

4 upvotes

As an owner of multiple 4/3rds bodies I have listened to more than my share of crap over the size of my image sensor. So forgive me if I LOL over people defending a new lens mount and $800 camera that for some crazy reason features an image sensor 1/8th the size of the one in my Olympus.

Unless Pentax has managed to achieve a several order of magnitude breakthrough in image sensor technology, it is an absolute 100% GIVEN that the high ISO performance of this camera is going to suck hard.

4 upvotes

I think it will fit my hands just right. But at $800, I guess I will pass.

0 upvotes

I think it will fit my hands just right. But at $800, I guess I will pass.

0 upvotes

actually, nanoc, it depends - with regards of resolution, sensor technology have already far surpassed human eye. The same for sensitivity. Only dynamic range of human eye is still not reachable, and will not be reachable until we do not change 24bit RGB color representation.

0 upvotes

Unfortunately, sensor technology hasn’t come anywhere near replicating human eye’s IQ. So, right now, using the current technology, you would be lying if you said that bigger isn’t better.
Regarding the fun factor I, for one, don’t see what the fun in having many expensive toy lenses to switch is. Actually, switching lenses is one of the things that ruin the fun of photography or, at least, distracts from the true purpose of a photographer, which is not paying attention to the equipment or how to use it, but paying attention to the picture they want to capture. If the goal is fun and ultimate portability, why didn’t pentax just produce an excellent compact camera, instead of an interchangeable lens camera?

3 upvotes

0 upvotes

And a zoom doesn't distract? Changing all those focal lengths without paying attention to what it does to perspective? Most good fine art photographers I know agree that primes are one of the way to focus more on photography, not less. You start getting a very exact idea of what the lens does allowing you to pre-visualize more.

That said nothing wrong with zooms per se but if you talk about avoiding distractions, having a zoom on a camera is not a start.

Equally important is the camera ergonomics/interface. I can tell you right now the Q has better interface an ergonomics than an LX5, Nikon J1, Olympus XZ-1, and dare I say it, Fuji X10 (though the X10 is not bad). Yes, i have handled all of those. Every single one of them.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The size of optical sensor in your eyes is much smaller than many small sensors, yet it delivers a benchmark image quality, better than one achieved with the largest sensor on the market.
Today's 'tiny' sensors (what is "tiny" anyway? are our optical nerves tiny too?) are delivering better image quality than several years old big size sensors and they are evolving much faster too. Perhaps people will finally get (or not?) that sensor size is not a deciding factor for image quality, because technology sorts that out quickly. A good lens is the most important and is a constant for good photography.
Nevertheless, Pentax Q is made for enjoyment, ease of use, creativity, ultimate portability and fun on the go. We've missed that terribly in digital photography, which has become increasingly 'serious' and boring. This is a breath of fresh air.

0 upvotes