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

    862
    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
    Kiillarney, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
  3. RichardB

    RichardB Snapshooter Subscribing Member

    495
    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    Richard
    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

    990
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    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
    Steve
    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
    Kiillarney, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    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. 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. 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
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.