Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I personally think that misses the point of the Q. The Q is more about size, ergonomics, experimentation through the completely photographer centric ergonomics, interface, filters and lenses. It's a mini diana, yet it can punch above its weight a bit - it seems.Nice one, Carlos! I did like the Q but the image quality was just on par with the good compacts and the price with zoom lens was way above the others.
But oh so nice to ride inSort of like the Porsche Panamera - pretty from the front, ugly as sin from the rear.
Just a personal opinion.
We were discussing this about cars today - the most important thing after the performance is the dashboard . . 'cos you look at it all the time.I really wanted to love the Q, but it's as if they got 80% of the way there and stopped. Sort of like the Porsche Panamera - pretty from the front, ugly as sin from the rear.
Just a personal opinion.
I am not so sure about that. I for one didn't quite like how the X10 felt compared to the Q when I held them. The Q is still indeed smaller, and some of us rather shoot primes so the zoom is a non issue (on the Q).It's certainly well built, but at over $1000 for the prime + zoom, there are plenty of other options. You can nearly buy two X10s for the price, and one X10 just exceeds the Q in almost every way.
Again, it depends. I don't care about the zoom. The prime lens is F1.9 all the time, just having that at that focal length is great as far as knowing you can never change that F. With the prime the Q is indeed quite smaller. You get other few things like sync to 1/250th with external flash, sync to 1/2000th with the internal flash (I wonder if it could really overpower the sun out at that flash sync for some interesting effect).Sure it's bigger, but not much once you decide to carry two lenses with the Q. Plus, the zoom is f/2.8-f/4.5 and the X10 stays at 2-2.8.
I am not sure Fuji is all pretty on the back honestly. I think they got the front very right- no cheesy logos or anything but the back imho has more buttons than necessary, something that in a way the X100 also did.I really wanted to love the Q, but it's as if they got 80% of the way there and stopped. Sort of like the Porsche Panamera - pretty from the front, ugly as sin from the rear.
No problem. Mine is also my personal opinion. And I want to make clear that what I am saying should not be taken as if I think the X10 is a bad camera. I really think it's one of the very best compacts around. Fuji nailed many things right and it's no surprise it's running out of stock. Good for them, it's about time they use their good technology in a good product. I was always a fan of the F700/F710 and I said back then (this is like 5+ years ago) why not do a premium compact camera and this is it.Just a personal opinion.
In my opinion the Q from behind looks great! It's so photographer centric of an interface. Tripod aligned with lens, and you can remove battery and memory card without taking it off. Just little details like that, that makes you realize Pentax knows what a photographer workflow is like.We were discussing this about cars today - the most important thing after the performance is the dashboard . . 'cos you look at it all the time.
If you own a Panamera, who cares what it's *** looks like (that's for the person behind you to worry about!).