1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Review: Pentax Q vs. E-PL3

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by drd1135, Oct 23, 2011.

  1. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Interesting link:

    Pentax Q Review - Overview

    It's interesting that the review is essentially a head-to head comparison with the E-PL3. Given the bias of the author (it is in a Pentax forum) it's not a bad job either.
     
  2. WJW59

    WJW59 Mu-43 Veteran

    235
    Feb 20, 2011
    Even more interesting, read the comments so far. :biggrin:
     
  3. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    Jeesh, they really created a strange bird here. If it would have been launched at a much lower price, it could have been a great beginner/toy camera play. I am completely biased, but I cannot see why someone would pick this instead of m4/3. If they really want something even smaller than m4/3, it would seem that the ZX-1, LX5 or GRD are going to produce better results. Maybe not as cute, though!
     
  4. Rudi

    Rudi Mu-43 Top Veteran

    574
    Aug 16, 2010
    Australia
    Unfortunately, the same could be said for the new Nikon 1 system. Why in the world have they gone with a sensor that is half the size of m43? And Pentax? Really, what were they thinking? A sensor 1/8 the size of m43? Why even bother with interchangeable lenses?

    For really compact I have a Canon S95. For serious but compact I have m43. I just don't see the point of this Pentax Q system...
     
  5. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    I think you'll find us Pentaxians to be a level headed bunch :)

    I don't really see what the point of comparing the two was though, the Q is just a product on its' own. Would've been better maybe to wait for the Nikon compact ILC (even still would be apples to oranges).
     
  6. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Yeah, I agree with that. For a much lower price tag (300-400) it would have been a fun little camera.
     
  7. Canonista

    Canonista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Sep 3, 2011
    L.A.
    This reminds me of the Pentax Auto 110 system camera from the early '80s; a dead-end answer to a question no one asked.
     
  8. Rudi

    Rudi Mu-43 Top Veteran

    574
    Aug 16, 2010
    Australia
    Funny you should mention that, the reviewer also mentions it under "Background". IMO, your assemsment is more accurate. :biggrin:
     
  9. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Me too. I've had a Pentax SLR since 1974. Current one is a K7.
     
  10. Phoque

    Phoque Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Sep 18, 2011
    Ontario, Canada
    This is my anti bias excerpt from link provided.
     
  11. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    That's what I have been saying since day 1!
     
  12. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    985
    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    If I were a Camera MFG and a MAJOR player in today's Camera market.. (cell phone cameras KILLING Point and Shoot) I would produce a product that was compatible with all the m4/3 market and with lenses that fit all of the market of 4/3 or Mini market.. Oly, Panny.. etc.. why not? If I should buy the new Pentax or Sony tomorrow.. I should be able to use my new Zuiko 45/1.8 or the Panny/Leica 25/1.4... not many manufactures have ever done this.. but I surely would.. buy new Pentax, Sony or Nikon Micro size mirrorless and be able to slap on my Lumix 20/1.7... happy camper.. and sell their bodies and lenses that were all interchangeable.. maybe they should come out with a 100mm f2.0 or 17-55 f2.8 zoom that fits the Oly and Panny boides as well.. I don't get it..just call me Doug Jobs..LOL