> By now everyone knows about Nikon's mirrorless camera entry, the Nikon 1. > Mike Johnston's take: http://goo.gl/uTSZe > > But I'm thinking that the general design (ignoring some specifics) echos > the Pentax Q system and could be seen as a market validation for the > notion of a very compact system with a small sensor. > > If nothing else, this will help keep companies making mount adapters > busy for years to come. > > -bmw >
It doesn't validate it to me. I'm not sure what camera companies are thinking, but it seems to be along the lines of 'hey, there's some sucker out there that will buy anything if we make it and market it right'. It's almost like they're deliberately attempting to insult the consumers intelligence. Maybe image quality (IQ) = intelligence quotient (IQ). :-) This zdnet article (link below) pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Q, and I have to say that if image quality is ANY consideration, I'd sooner carry a NEX or a 4/3 body over a tiny sensor sensor camera that is pretty much a P&S with interchangeable lenses. An inevitable comparison must be drawn to the Pentax Auto 110. It, the Q, and now the 1, are all cute little cameras that would likely only appeal to someone whos primary concern is obviously not image quality. The size difference between any of the mirrorless systems is not so great that one could argue that an even smaller, thinner, lighter body is a compelling factor for giving up massive amounts of sensor real estate. The sensor-size comparison link in the article helps it sink in. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/digitalcameras/pentax-q-smallest-compact-interchangeable-lens-camera-sports-biggest-price-tag/5084?tag=mantle_skin;content Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.