vagrant10 wrote:Geez, you're a little righteous in your opinion. I think there are a couple other ways to decide which camera is good for someone. Like do you want to carry around a fairly large pack with you whenever you want to take pictures? Sometimes having a camera that fits in your pocket is just more convenient. And I also think it's less intimidating to whoever you're taking pictures of so it's a bit easier getting natural candids w/ a smaller camera.
Another way to look at this comparison differently is by looking at the strengths of each camera. The Pentax Q has a much smaller sensor which gives it a larger depth of field (where at a given aperture, say f2.8, the Pentax will have a much larger area in focus than the Canon. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's not. For macro photography, that often can be a good thing. Sometimes at parties, I like to have everyone in the picture in focus. There are times when a larger depth of field is desirable.
Another feature that the Pentax Q has that the canon does not is focus peaking. I've been using my Q with my DSLR lenses via an adapter so I can take advantage of the 5.5 crop factor (a 50mm DSLR lens will then have a field of view of 275mm)... when I'm using an f1.4 lens, it gets a little tricky to focus, so focus peaking will highlight the area that is in focus.
Look, I'm not saying the Pentax Q is always better than the Canon or any other DSLR for that matter. I have and use both the Pentax Q and my DSLR depending on the situation (yes I am a camera junkie).
If anyone wants to see the pics I've taken with the Pentax Q, here's a set f/ my flickr page:
Oh, in regards to lens availability... the Q system has 5 lenses available for it right now with another lens that's about to be released before xmas. So their lenses will have a range in 35mm terms of 17.5 to 247.5mm. Of course if you add the millions of m42 and k mount lenses that you can attach to the Pentax Q, I think most people would find that adequate.
Common, righteous has nothing to do with it. If you read my very first post the flaw I saw in picking the Pentax was the C note difference in price in comparison of the two. BTW, while I shoot Canon myself I am not stating this because the DSLR offered is a Canon. I would make the exact same arguments for an entry level Nikon DSLR. Where we do agree would be the size advantage when size matters. Your example of being able to carry in a pocket certainly would be true. However, it kind of ends there because you can purchase some very workable and quality point and shoots for half what the Q costs. the savings alone will get you half way to a decent DSLR with lens. In that case, you would have both. As far as depth of field, the Canon lens will give or kill depth of field more than adequately for the person that takes the time to understand aperture. Of course, that is needed regardless of which camera you use. My bet is (unfortunately for the user) most of the people buying either one of these cameras will using program or auto modes never learning or understanding aperture and how to use it. I really didn't think too many pro's would be looking at either camera so my remarks were for novices in the field in order to point out some things they may not think about. I then, and again mow are becoming wordy so that just does not allow spelling out every scenario possible. But, I will expand on one I already started. If you go with an entry level DSLR such as Canon or Nikon (I prefer Canon as the auto-focus motor is in the lens) and you acquire one or more additional lens, if you decide to step up another level, you can do body only as your lens will still be useful with the new body. That option would open the door to several models ranging from the few hundreds to the few thousands of dollars.
In the end I guess we have to agree to disagree. For me and my advise is, More bang for the buck comes with the DSLR. If size is critical, save around $200 and pick a good point and shoot made by many of the very good companies out there including Pentax. Or, if you currently have a point and shoot that is doing a decent job for you but you still want more, keep the point and shoot you have as your pocket camera and join the world of DSLR and for $100 less. With all that said, there is no argument that the Q is a finely made and functioning camera that packs a wallop from a very, very small package. The question again, Does this small package warrant it's large price tag? I am a camera junkie, I have too many of them and some have not been used in years. I will admit though, when I first saw the Q, I wanted it. Needs and stuff just did not come into my mind. I just saw an attractive very small camera with a retro look that alone intrigued me. It looked very much like my first 35mm, a Yashica Lynx 5000 range finder that I still have. I still look at the Q with an admiring eye but for me, it does not deliver at it's price tag.