mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

The Q Camera wants you to 'shut up and shoot'

27
Is there room in the market for a trendy, low-performance shooter?

When we first saw the Q Camera, we didn't know what to think. It has less megapixels and less storage than an iPhone but instead offers a bright ring flash and cool-looking waterproof body. More of a lifestyle device than professional tool, the Q Camera is looking to create a new market for casual, phone-less digital photography, much like the GoPro emerged as a ruggedized step between smartphones and high-end video cameras. 

For $199, it's cheaper than most new point-and-shoots and offers 3G connectivity with instant uploading to its web service. By appealing to (let's be honest) hipsters, the Q Camera gives users the chance to take unique-looking, share-able photos without a phone. As we observe the slow death of traditional point-and-shoot digital cameras in favor of smartphones, the Q Camera looks like it could be the last breath of low cost, photography-only devices.

The Q Camera's Key Specifications:

  • 5 megapixel
  • 24mm wide lens
  • F2.4 aperture
  • Manual focusing
  • Macro mode
  • 3 pre-set capture modes (Outdoor, Indoor, Night)
  • 3G Connectivity (micro SIM)
  • Four Buttons: Function, Save & Share, Shutter and Shutter with Flash
  • 8 segments powered LED ring flash
  • self timer (8 seconds)
  • 2.7 inches display
  • 800mAh battery (average 200 photos per charge)
  • Built-in 2GB memory
  • Nine photo filters
  • Waterproof up to 3.3 feet (1 meter) for up to half an hour
The Q Camera hopes users will forgo smartphones in favor of tactile controls.

Let's hear from you: Does the Q Camera have the potential to catch on with consumers, or will it go the way of the point and shoots before it?

Comments

Total comments: 27
marymaac
By marymaac (4 weeks ago)

Is your smartphone waterproof, up to 3 feet, for 30 minutes? I think you are missing the point of the camera. It is not competing with your phone, it is a lower cost vacation phone for those who might get wet!

0 upvotes
Gonard
By Gonard (5 months ago)

I'm using the 16 megapixel Canon A1400 digital compact . Cost $99 and great camera, including macro.

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (5 months ago)

Waterproofing is nice, but for $200 it seems like a stretch and a small market.

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
nickmtl
By nickmtl (5 months ago)

Sorry, real Q Camera is
http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_q

0 upvotes
dpfan32
By dpfan32 (5 months ago)

It should have WiFi not 3G ... useless ....

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (5 months ago)

Does it shoot HD video like every smartphone out there ? This camera would be great in 2006 but today every smartphone has a better camera built-in.

1 upvote
wansai
By wansai (5 months ago)

for photography purists; this is more pure than the Nikon DF.

3 upvotes
michelowski
By michelowski (5 months ago)

Hey, tactile controls, and still less embarassing than a Nikon Duff.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

OK, you buy this Q thing, and I'll buy a Nikon Df and we'll see. What do you like better the pink or blue? :-)

3 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (5 months ago)

i like a blue one....you can keep pink nikon to yourself...LOL!!!

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (5 months ago)

Doesn't Pentax have a camera that's also named Q?

7 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (5 months ago)

yes
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7236/7217893382_047091b08f_k.jpg

0 upvotes
springsnow
By springsnow (5 months ago)

You have to get a data plan yourself. So you have to spend $200, and pay more to your carrier for a data service that is just for this camera to work. Imo it's DOA. They should just do a wifi version for $100 and develop a smartphone app that the camera can pair with so people can use their existing data plans.

4 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (5 months ago)

Should they? Then who would buy a low-end-phone-class camera only to pair it with a smartphone?

0 upvotes
springsnow
By springsnow (5 months ago)

At least it could be an impulse purchase without further money draining subscription for another data plan. Right now, it's an overpriced low-end phone-class camera that requires a data plan to work.

0 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (5 months ago)

Sounds like a trademark infringement to me.

5 upvotes
leonche64
By leonche64 (5 months ago)

Not sure you can trademark a single letter.

3 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (5 months ago)

LOVE IT! Who does not want an inexpensive, fun camera that will make people smile when you hold it up to take their pictures.
(One thing... I'm pretty sure that there are no more hipsters. That was a mid-century Brooklyn thing when Brooklyn was still a cheap and scary place. Brooklyn is now full of ex-husbands and middle management DBs. The cool people have moved to Queens.)

0 upvotes
jimjim2111
By jimjim2111 (5 months ago)

Not sure if you've looked at the Q website but I've never seen so many group shots ecclusively showing trouble-free 20-somethings in sunglasses enjoying shared activities such as retro bike riding, sun-bleached ice cream eating, beach frisbee throwing!

1 upvote
Serenity Now
By Serenity Now (5 months ago)

Just looking at it screams kids not Hipsters? Pre Smartphone kids. PSK! I think I just coined a demographic?!

1 upvote
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (5 months ago)

I agree with serenity now. The ONLY market for this would be kids too young to be trusted with a cell phone yet cheaply added onto the family usage plan. My 12-year-old wouldn't go for this, but at age 5 or so....

0 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (5 months ago)

unless that ring flash does something impressive to the lighting....i am afraid its DOA.

0 upvotes
Ayoh
By Ayoh (5 months ago)

Trademark infringement? Pentax will probably not like someone using the Q name for a camera.

6 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (5 months ago)

No PASM modes, no buy...

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (5 months ago)

This actually is much better than using tablet or slippery smartphone brick with lousy or no physical control at all.

2 upvotes
vadimraskin
By vadimraskin (5 months ago)

The concept is a loser from the start: most "hipsters" have smartphone already with better cameras built-in and all the connection they want, including Wi-Fi! Other than 9-10 yo girls who aren't old enough for the iPhone (dahh!) I don't see any market for these devices.

4 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (5 months ago)

Is me (along with meself & I) wrong or we already have Q camera?
Me senses lawsuit coming! :-DDD

3 upvotes
Total comments: 27
About us
Sitemap
Connect