Pentax K-01 vs Q

[lesmore49]

Although I was happy to see the Q introduced, I must say that I have wondered if this is the modern version of the Pentax SLR 110 system which of course was introduced many years ago...think it was the late 80's...but not sure.

When I say that, I'm referring to the Q's small sensor, like the 110's design around the small 110 film format , limited it's appeal among photographers.

I realize that it's appeal is structured around it's small size and it is competitive in this niche of small cameras with interchangeable lens capability.

I'm not sure how much bigger the K-01 is, compared to the Q. Also price of the K-01 seems a bargain considering it's features...compared to the Q.


I have a Canon G 12 (can I say that on this forum ) and although Canon marketed this camera as the small camera for the enthusiast or professional...it really isn't a 'pocket' camera, unless I wear a Western shirt and even then the bulk of the G 12 almost overflows these large pockets.

So I carry it either in a bag or around my neck with it's strap.

I think the Q may be similar to the Canon G 12 in size from what I remember.

Although I do like the G 12, often since buying it (about a year ago) I have wondered if I would of been better off spending the money I put out for the G 12 on...say a Pentax 40 mm F 2.8 pancake lens, which would of fit very well with my KM (K2000). The KM when introduced was the smallest DSLR body on the market and given the fact that it has a larger sensor than the G 12...the pix quality is better....and the KM with a pancake 40mm F 2.8 isn't all that much bigger than a G 12.

I think there is a parallel to the G 12 vs KM (k2000) situation, with the K-01 vs the Q.

If this is the case...will the K-01 gradually attract more market than the Q, with the Q eventually being phased out ?

Will the Q go the way of the Pentax SLR 110 and become a very interesting, yet in the final analysis a technological dead end ?

Or will the Q, by virtue of it's small size and interchangeable lenses find a very good market for individuals that want to carry a quality camera with interchangeable lens capability, in their briefcase, purse, suit pocket, etc. ?

Before I retired and in the film era, I used to carry a very small Olympus clamshell 35 mm camera and sometimes a small, older Leica Rangefinder (11f) in my briefcase...just in case a photo opportunity arose.

[Biro]

Honestly, I don't think the K-01 and Q are comparable. Different tools for different jobs. Q, the cute, pocketable compact for fun and K-01, the near-DSLR mirrorless camera for more serious jobs. The sensors in the two cameras are from different worlds.

I suspect the price of the Q will have to come down given that the K-01's MSRP is roughly the same. But once that adjustment is made, I think both cameras can live happy together with the Pentax lineup for quite some time.

[mtngal]

I've got to actually see both cameras. The Q attracts me because it is something I could stick in my purse to have with me all the time. I suspect that the K-01 might also be purse size with the standard 40mm (I usually carry a fairly big purse, carry bunches of stuff), in which case I'd be more likely to buy it, at current pricing. If the Q drops quite a bit, I would have a much harder decision.

They are different horses for different courses, I agree that they could peacefully co-exist.

[lesmore49]

I wonder if they will continue to co-exist ? The Pentax 110 both auto and Super models remained in production from 1981 to 1985.

Not a long time by the standards of camera production back then. I recall the K1000 and the LX, both going on for about 20 years....think the K1000 lasted a bit longer.

Actually if it comes right down to it...I wouldn't mind having both the Q and the K-01.

However, although I have a very understanding, generous wife...and given that I just (couple months ago) bought a new K-5....I think resisting temptation would be a wise course of action to follow.

[snostorm]

Hi Les,

The problem that the Auto 110 and Super ran into was the death of the 110 format in film for all practical purposes. The cameras were introduced at a point when the format was already in trouble. I don't think this model is anything close to indicative of the potential for the Q in terms of longevity.

I think that the K-01 and the Q are both unique enough concepts that they both can survive for a good long time.

The K-01 is a mirrorless which should have close to APS-C class leading IQ, and is a very logical bridge from compacts to larger format cameras with the most extensive AF lens line available (that's the first time I've been able to say that!) and a common shooting interface with compacts (using the LCD for a VF). As it is, it can serve as a relatively inexpensive second body that doesn't sacrifice IQ for price.

If marketed effectively, it should sell well. I think that Pentax should continue the mirrorless K mount line along side the DSLR line with comparable models at the entry level and advanced enthusiast level (with an advanced AMOLED EVF, two dials, and high body performance). Innovative lens designs can make the MILC more compact, and these will benefit the DSLR line as well.

The Q is a jacket pocketable compact that can also add significant capabilities for super telephoto and high magnification macro (via lens adapter) to a DSLR kit without adding bulk.

IMO there's plenty of justification for both.

Scott

[lesmore49]

Originally Posted by snostorm

Hi Les,

The problem that the Auto 110 and Super ran into was the death of the 110 format in film for all practical purposes.I forgot about that. The cameras were introduced at a point when the format was already in trouble. I don't think this model is anything close to indicative of the potential for the Q in terms of longevity.

I think that the K-01 and the Q are both unique enough concepts that they both can survive for a good long time.

The K-01 is a mirrorless which should have close to APS-C class leading IQ, and is a very logical bridge from compacts to larger format cameras with the most extensive AF lens line available (that's the first time I've been able to say that!) and a common shooting interface with compacts (using the LCD for a VF). As it is, it can serve as a relatively inexpensive second body that doesn't sacrifice IQ for price.I've thought along those lines. In some ways I've been wishing I waited a year and a bit and instead of getting a Canon G 12...the K-01 would of been a better deal for me. As it is I've got two flashes (Pentax 360 + Canon 430) and a small sensor camera (G12). The new Pentax K-01 has more appeal for all those advantages you list.

If marketed effectively, it should sell well.A key. Marketed effectively. I think marketing wasn't a major consideration the last few years with Pentax under Hoya. I'm hoping and anticipating, that things will be much better under Ricoh. So many times over the past 5 years or so have I spent explaining why I have a Pentax DSLR and not a Canon/Nikon...or explaining to new DSLR owners...just what a Pentax camera did and why it should be considered for anyone...neophyte or grizzled old veteran.I think that Pentax should continue the mirrorless K mount line along side the DSLR line with comparable models at the entry level and advanced enthusiast level (with an advanced AMOLED EVF, two dials, and high body performance). Innovative lens designs can make the MILC more compact, and these will benefit the DSLR line as well. I'm in total agreement .

The Q is a jacket pocketable compact that can also add significant capabilities for super telephoto and high magnification macro (via lens adapter) to a DSLR kit without adding bulk.

IMO there's plenty of justification for both.

Scott

Scott, you have swayed me.
Les