Pentax Q - hands on

Only a couple of years late but I just added a little white Pentax Q to my camera collection. It comes with the prime (45mm equivalent) and the standard zoom (27-82mm) and the whole set up is tiny.
 
So, what is the point of owning one? How does it fit in my camera family (Canon 1 series, NEX, GoPro, iPhone)? Who might find it useful? And what are the gotchas of the format? All the photos in this article were shot with the Pentax Q.

The Q suffered some seriously negative publicity when it was first released: the twin kit was priced at around £700 and the "experts" commenting on DPReview started comparing its (potential=imagined) high ISO performance against the D7000 even before the Q had been released. Thankfully, The DPR pros moved on and Pentax or dealers dropped the price to more realistic levels, especially as the Q10 (its slightly larger sized successor) was announced.

Why did I buy it?
I've been looking for a really small and pocketable take-everywhere camera that would surpass my iPhone, but would be smaller than my NEX+19mm Sigma. At its current price, the Q is pitched just right to make me consider it alongside the Fuji X10, the Panasonic LX7 and the Sony RX100. I was lucky enough to be able to play with all these cameras and test their RAW output in LightRoom 4. This is not a techy comparison of wall and cat shots. I will try to convey what makes this little camera different, special and a fantastic fit for some users- and a darn lousy fit for others!

Handling
The Q is a camera that makes you want to use it. It is a very well put together piece of solid kit with proper, accessible controls and a logical menu structure.
I can use it unobtrusively and silently. The leaf shutter on the lenses is whisper quiet and syncs with the flash at up to 1/2000. If someone wants to learn the basics of photography and wants the usability of a classic SLR but without the expense of film or the bulk of a DSLR: the Q is a very good place to start.
I have come to tolerate my NEX after customising its menus as much as I can, but using the camera still feels less immediate; and the RX100 felt very similarly fiddly. I applaud Sony for the innovation and the design of the RX100, but there are a few too many quirks.
The LX7 (like the Q) is one of these cameras seemingly designed by people who like and understand photography; while the X10 was a mystery wrapped inside an enigma: gorgeous retro looks coupled with labyrinthine menus and a -comparatively- massive size.

IQ  
None these cameras can be compared to the NEX format in terms of IQ. Even my humble NEX F3 is good enough for most things in life. I would like to write a more detailed analysis of this camera soon, but it's worth saying in advance that pound for pound (whether you measure weight or UK currency) the NEX line is an amazing proposition. 

But what if you want to go really small? Unfortunately, I found the X10 to be a disappointment. I am sure there is an EXR/magic button somewhere to make everything better, but really the files that came out of the camera (mushy, soft) were not good enough for 2012 - for my money.
 
 The RX100, the Pentax Q and the LX7 were solid in terms of their RAW files. The Sony had a bit more leeway in terms of higher ISO performance and a bit more acuity/clarity when it came to landscapes. The other two feature faster lenses to help keep the ISO below 640. And the Pentax has an in-built ND filter to make the most of its fast prime (unlike Sony which has to increase the aperture). In real life, it's a wash and I would happily print in A3 from any of these three.
  
In the end, the choice came down to an emotional response to the design: the RX was my least favourite (slippery little sucker) and the Pentax Q "defeated" the LX7 only due to its smaller size and the promise of a wider selection of lenses in the future.

What it can do
The Pentax Q provides trust-worthy metering, letting you concentrate on the composition and mood. Stick it on aperture priority and take advantage of the built in ND filter if you want to enjoy an easy life . 
The camera's superb design (unless you have large hands) provides quick access to key settings that help -indeed encourage- the user to experiment with their style of shooting.
It creates photos which are heads and shoulders above any smart-phone I have used (iPhone and Galaxy II) while not taking up too much additonal space in your pocket.
It produces good enough photos for A3 prints and the web.
RAW files can take quite a bit of sharpening in Lightroom.
Yes, photos have grain if you step over 400 ISO but -honestly- I could swear there is less chroma noise than my old GF1 and its red and green blotches.  

Overall, this is a remarkable achievement for a tiny camera and I think most photographers should take a moment to ponder what's "good enough" for them at this point in time. As well as what's good enough for their aching backs and shoulders :-) 
   





 And what it cannot do
The battery is small and it dies quickly and often - I bought another four knock offs at £2.46. Not a massive expense, but you are always aware that the camera is about to die on you.
It cannot AF during movies: not a problem for me, but trying to sell a compact camera without this very basic function must be a losing proposition. I am almost certain it is related to the terrible battery life, but I still think this is a colossal "gotcha" for its intended audience. 
This is a small sensor camera. It will not do shallow DOF even with the prime at f1.9. 
It does not have the fastest AF on the planet (it's on par with NEX).
The zoom lens is too soft at the long end - no doubt due to difraction (see Photozone.de for examples). I am mostly using my Q with the prime and I only use the zoom at the wide end (at f2.8). It would be nice if Pentax could construct a v2 of the basic zoom with a constant f2.8.
 
 Moral of the story - know your requirements


The Pentax Q is a very welcome and fun addition to my photo-gear family and I am glad I don't have to rely on the iPhone for my social/fun shots. However, this is the key issue: the Q is not my one and only camera. Photographers looking for "the one", might prefer to make a different set of compromises and go for NEX or m43 or the wonderful LX7. This is a difficult issue for Pentax who -I guess- wanted to pitch the Q as a natural step up from P&S.






From a more philosophical/detached point of view, I am incredibly glad that camera companies are innovating and I am happy to have "supported" NEX, m43 and the Q with my wallet. I hope these guys and Fuji can deliver a much needed kick in the pants for Canon and Nikon. I have been a Canon shooter for most of my life and I could not even bother to ask for a loan of an EOS M or a Nikon V1 from my regular rental place; the two big gorillas need to do something special one of these days, even if it is a gloriously failed experiment a la Pentax Q.