Olympus got it right, Pentax got it wrong

+1 on this, this is the only thing I think that would have made the K5 better.

Dave.

---

Auto110,MZ-30, K5, loads of Black Tubes with Glass in.

Just picking up the point on crippled K mounts, this isn't a digital SLR thing, it started to happen long ago with the MZ series of film SLRs.

It really only becomes an issue with lenses that are more than 45 years old, so considering that they can still be used, with some inconvenience, it's a miracle they can still be used at all.

I don't know how much it would cost to sell a version of an existing DSLR with a full mount, but perhaps the increased cost would be more than the market would stand for. I wonder how much value we would put on the feature if it added, say, £100 to the cost?

---

Best regards, John

Well I think Pentax win over the OMD due to their support of legacy glass in their DSLRs and they are slowly reducing the size towards my ideal of the M series film bodies.
I agree they got the Q wrong by going for such a small sensor. Even with the current pricing I would still take a Canon s100 or Lumix LX5 in preference. They got everything right on the Q except the sensor size and price.( IMHO )
The K-01 is let down by the lack of articulating screen. It would be a great choice for video if it had that - and some more pancake lenses ready at launch.

---

.........all the gear, no idea!
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)

Maybe if the renamed the Q "Spotmatic D" all the Oly
users would say Olypus got it wrong and Pentax got it right

---

Pentax K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

I think there's a common misunderstanding about the logic of the Q. People have been asking for years for a digital equivalent of the Auto 110, which used tiny 110 film format. The Q is exactly that and offers what many users on this forum asked for.

We could equally say that Minox have got it wrong because sub-miniature wilol never produce medium format quality.

A product may not be what some people want, but it may be exactly what other people want.

---

Best regards, John

No, the Q is the 110-D - it's a very similar concept (sacrifice IQ, but not features, for tiny size)...

Edit- John beat me....

I agree wholeheartedly, now I better unthink all the nasty thoughts I had about the OM-D

---

My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

At least the OM-D is right in that it is FULL FRAME!
........ It IS isn't it?

---

Pentax K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Er, no Algi....

---

Best regards, John

A full micro four-thirds frame!!

John

OM-D

Red Frame/White Light....surely?

---

Peter

Pentax K10D & K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, , 55-300, 35 f2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f1.4
Ricoh KR10 Super + 50mm f2, Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm

Sorry John but if they had put a 110 sizes sensor in the Q it would have wiped the floor with everything else out there. Well, at least been a very serious piece of hardware.
The 110 frame size is 17x13 (mm) the Q is 6x4.5. Noise and depth of field are both compromised by this. I think they missed a trick. (badly)
To me this is why the Q is not a digital 110.

---

.........all the gear, no idea!
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)

That's fine MarkD. The question remains do cameras have a use for you or not. I don't think the sensor in the Q could be bigger without the camera being considerably bigger, but I don't mind as I do sometimes have a use for it.

I don't currently have a need for the K-01 as I prefer to use the DSLRs.

---

Best regards, John

Even if they had gone with the 1/1.7 size sensor which is 7.5x5.5 that should have shown a noticeable improvement only a millimetre bigger in each direction but a 20% increase in sensor area.
The Q is a lovely little camera but for me the picture quality isn't up to the price tag and it so nearly could have been!!
I was hoping it could be a digital Rollei 35......alas, no.

---

.........all the gear, no idea!
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)

That depends what sensors are available, and don't forget the Q has a new type that actually delivers pretty good quality, extraordinary for its size.

I have one and I think its well worth its £450 price tag for the two lens kit. Maybe as low as £399 now. Maybe as low as £250 for camera and standard lens.

---

Best regards, John