Pentax Q10 vs Pentax Q

Winner
Pentax Q10

40

Pentax Q

38

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax Q10

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Built-in focus motor
Badge
Autofocuses with more lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from
Light-weight
Weight
200 g
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax Q

Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax Q.

competitors

Pentax Q10 Competitors

Pentax Q-S1

Pentax Q-S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$203 - $216 body only

Supports 24p Supports 24p
True resolution Higher true resolution
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Pentax Q7

Pentax Q7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$255 body only

$301 with 5-15mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
True resolution Higher true resolution
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$623 body only

$449 with 15-45mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Built-in focus motor Doesn't have a built-in focus motor

Pentax Q Competitors

Pentax Q-S1

Pentax Q-S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$203 - $216 body only

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Size Slightly larger
Pentax MX-1

Pentax MX-1

Pro digicam

$389

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Interchangeable lenses Built-in lens only
Pentax Q7

Pentax Q7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$255 body only

$301 with 5-15mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies

discussion

Pentax Q10
Q10
Pentax

Report a correction
Pentax Q
Q
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments