The front view of the Pentax Q mirrorless camera

By PR admin | Published: June 22, 2011

 

This is a better image of the Pentax Q mirrorless camera. See the detailed specs in my previous post.

 

Related posts:

  1. Pentax K-7: full front view
  2. Leaked Pentax document indicates that there may not be a second mirrorless camera
  3. Rumor: Pentax K-01 APS-C mirrorless camera to be announced next month
  4. Pentax NC-1 mirrorless camera
  5. Pentax NC-1 mirrorless camera will come in two colors

This entry was posted in Pentax and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • What’s a Pentax?

    UGLY!

    The Fuji APS-C X100 is way better looking.

    This looks like something that came out of a bag lady’s purse.

    Should be interesting to see what Olympus brings out with it’s new models in the next few days.

    I can’t believe this Pentax is more expensive than a Sony NEX C3. The Sony NEX C3 has a 16MP APS-C sensor (the same one that’s in the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5).

    With a 16mm lens, the Sony NEX C3 is supposed to ship at $549.99 – $599.99

    Did Hoya fire anyone with any skills at Pentax? It was sad to see the best two lens designers Pentax had, leave.

    The rollout of the Pentax K5 was a nightmare, will there be an encore?

    Wonder what kind of quality control problems will plague this camera. Quality has really slipped since Hoya bought Pentax.

    • Global

      Pentax had a small huge success with a similar looking camera.
      But it was a bit more stylish.

      This one could have been better imitating the X100 and catching some entry-level guys.

  • http://www.adamson-imagery.com Aaron

    This camera is the hotness. I really hope to see a silver/black version a la K1000 or one of their old ones.

    I like what I see on the ergonomics as well – looks like you can get a whole lot done with that right pointer finger before without having to move the camera down.

    Looks good, it’s an interesting and different take on the mirrorless thing (small sensor lets you use smaller lenses… better to do portability well than to suck at a bunch of things). A large sensor would be nice, but then you get tiny-body, giant-lens syndrome. Overall, I’m looking forward to seeing what it can do!

    P.S. – Don’t feed the trolls. Maybe Mr. McDouchebag up there will go take his unproductive rants elsewhere so the rest of us can have a reasonable discussion.

    • Eric

      I’d normally agree with you about the first poster up there, but how does the idiom about a blind squirrel go…even he is right every once in a while. This new Pentax looks horrible; and I’ve been a Pentax user on and off for over 15 years now.

      I simply don’t understand this camera at all. Any of the compact m4/3′s bodies is more attractive, as are the Sony NEX 3/5/C3. More importantly any one of them should produce much higher IQ. Heck, even the Olympus X-Z1 should produce much better IQ and you don’t even have to change lenses on it…

    • Global

      +1 for something different in the market.

      Diversity is worth it. Lets see how it goes.

  • http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com BH

    Ok its pretty ugly in white/offwhite/cream/grey but black might look slightly normal. It automatically cant compete with the X100 because its not rangefinderish and I dont believe it will have leaf shutter lenses, but it could have better image quality you never know. I am concerned about the grip on the right with everything going on over there.

  • jimmy

    w.t.f.

    according to the preview/images at DPR, it’s still not shirt-pocketable/pants-pocketable, is more expensive than larger-sensored compacts, has ‘compact’-compact-camera IQ, and is fugly.

    why would i choose this over a cheaper and larger-sensored u4/3 or NEX, or stick to my 5MP (soon to be 8MP) cameraphone that allows me access to thousands of cool apps and the ability to share instantly via the www? huge mistake to make a camera like this without connectability options (beyond equipping it with an eye-fi card).

    • Global

      You wouldn’t. :-)

      I can’t wait to see the reviews, but this seems like a horror story in the making.

      WHY isn’t it much smaller? or at least have a much larger sensor?
      So confusing…..

      • Example

        It should be obvious why it’s not smaller. Look at the LCD screen on the back.

    • jimmy

      gah, typo errors… sorry, that should have been:

      “…why would i choose this over a cheaper and larger-sensored u4/3 or NEX, or not simply stick to my 5MP (soon to be 8MP) cameraphone [and it's thousands of awesome photo apps]…”

  • http://www.hetfotoatelier.nl Petrus Rothengatter

    Huuuuuuu ugly

  • http://www.hetfotoatelier.nl Petrus Rothengatter

    Maybe in chrome / black finish it will be better I hope so ;-)

  • vaporware_detector

    barf

  • Peter

    It’s ok to look at but… what the will i do with that small sensor??? Why buy a camera which takes interchangable lenses, when i can buy a s95 or lx5, which has a nice built in lens.

    So, so stupid.

  • me

    Wow, ugly.

  • broxibear

    I knew this was going to happen.
    As soon as other manufacturers saw the hype and buzz around the Fuji X100 it was enevitable they would all want a piece of the retro designed pie.
    Even Fuji would accept they copied their X100 from Leica designs of the past, they got the look and by all accounts functionality right…I don’t know what it’s like as a camera but aesthetically this Pentax is a muddle.
    On the other hand I’m not the market that Pentax are going for with the Q, maybe they know their market really well and this is exactly what they want ?

  • K1

    Can’t say for other people, but I would prefer a full manual K-1000 or Spotmatic remake with a digital back to this Q Camera….

  • chanhyok

    Wow… I can’t believe this situation. Is it a Pentax’s that I know ?

  • Back to top