M4/3s Being Smaller than Pentax Q

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by tjdean01, Oct 26, 2014.

  1. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    This is interesting. I was trying to think of a use for my Pentax Q (since its pixel pitch is too high to adapt lenses) and have even made posts about it. I like the little camera but any lens I try to buy for it is trumped by m4/3s.

    -Pentax 01 Standard Prime f/1.9 (40mm eq) - I was thinking this lens would for sure be the default one to buy at around $150, but it doesn't really give me anything my Olympus PM2 + 20mm f1.7 pancake doesn't. Same exact focal length and not decidedly much smaller: http://j.mp/1rurIzj

    -Pentax 02 Standard Zoom f2.8-4 (28-80mm eq) - After seeing the sub $100 price for this lens used and the relatively fast speed I figured this would be the one. I do own the Panasonic 12-32mm pancake (similar FL, f3.5-5.6, however) for my PM2 and the combo is quite a shorter than the Q + the Standard Zoom: http://j.mp/1tqc3HV

    -Pentax 04 Wide Toy Lens f7.1 (35mm eq) OR 07 Mount Shield f9 (53mm eq) - both small and could be really fun. But, then again, I already have the Olympus 15mm f8 Body Cap Lens which is 1/2" long and I can push the ISO to 3200 and be happy with that. The Q I wouldn't go over ISO800. Plus I have the 14. Neither lenses exact but sizes comparison similar: http://j.mp/1tqegTz

    And yes, the body of the Q is definitely smaller than my PM2 (and plus I only paid $100 for it and it's all solid metal so that's probably why I like it), but then again, check it out next to the GM1: http://j.mp/1rus1tS#sthash.54Ls6rdt.dpuf

    m4/3s is making me want to sell this Q!
  2. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
  3. RichardB

    RichardB Snapshooter Subscribing Member

    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    The Q is a worthy camera. Its sensor punches above its weight. I sold mine because its uses were too similar to those of my MFT gear, and I needed only one system for those tasks.
  4. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    I'm pretty sure Pentax made a decision on size based on how holdable the camera would be. Sensor size and lens size factor in, yes, but I suspect they still wanted a camera that had good grip'ability.

    It's an interesting experiment, but it's not new. Pentax had a lot of fun with the 110 format. They produced a nice little DSLR system for it in the 70s. I do wonder why they chose not to use the "cigarette pack" design for the Q... It would have been a nifty looking little design for those who never had/saw the original Pentax 110 system.
  5. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    • Like Like x 10
  6. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Great. Now I want a Scout and a pizza. Sadly, I'll probably only get the fattening one. That's a nice set.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    as one who owns a Pentax 110 (and loved them when they were released) I look to that system and wonder why it is we don't have a system today that is as compact as it is.

    4350592453_a6050f9259_z.jpg cameraTwins

    that these lenses perform well enough on m43 today is a testimony to how compact things can be.
    this is the 50mm on my GF1
    10018371755_22bd6550b9_z.jpg P1030786

    Given that my slim and tiny cell phone has a screen and a 5mp autofocus camera built into it I can't see why such a device as the 110 could not be made today for little money.
    • Like Like x 1