Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-09-2011, 01:25 PM   #586
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Yeah, but remember the camera is in the hand of a very tiny Japanese girl.

Thanks for the link to an interesting article. Wow, a queue of people lining up to try the Pentax Q!

I agree the zoom lens is not very compact. I'm planning to buy the Q with all the toy lenses, but I'm skipping the zoom (I hate zoom lenses, they destroy/confuse my internal sense of perspective)

The camera is amazing tiny, here's a picture from the link that shows how tiny it is compared to the people holding it:


I'm really hoping the camera will arrive soon to Australia - can't wait to try it!

07-09-2011, 02:01 PM   #587
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
Some really useful info from the article:

Black, white and red matching straps/sleeves (bottom right):


Pretty impressive image quality (judging by those posters):


Some pretty interesting effects - there is an "Auto 110" mode (lower left) and a mode called "Solid Mono Colour" (upper right):


Looks like it will be released in 31 August in Japan (yay! a solid release date) with a "W lens kit" (wide angled?) available in September:


Hmm, maybe I should be planning a trip to Japan in late September ...
07-09-2011, 02:22 PM   #588
Pentaxian
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 64ー57' North
Posts: 806
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Pretty impressive image quality (judging by those posters)...
Until now I thought you were at least half serious. But now you're judging the "impressive image quality" based on web-sized pictures of which those mentioned posters consist a small part.:ugh:
07-09-2011, 02:33 PM - 1 Like   #589
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Raffwal Quote
Until now I thought you were at least half serious. But now you're judging the "impressive image quality" based on web-sized pictures of which those mentioned posters consist a small part.:ugh:
LOL - what can I say, I'm easily swayed ...

Honestly, if Pentax is brave enough to blow up pictures to poster size and hang up for display, the image quality is more than likely to be acceptable ... that's all I'm saying ...

Which is far better than all the pissing contests on this forum from people who haven't even seen the camera ...

07-09-2011, 02:43 PM   #590
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
And as an alternative perspective to all this talk about sensor size ...

Someone I know has recently won a major photography award ... based on a photo taken from a 2 megapixel phone camera.
07-09-2011, 03:01 PM   #591
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 550
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
This wasn't really a mp debate but a sensor size debate. No matter how you slice it an dice it, a good 1/1.63" sensor is going to be better than a good 1/2.3" sensor. There is a substantial difference in area and even more some when comparing the 4/3. Compared to the Q, the Auto 110 is a medium format.

File:Sensor sizes overlaid inside.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, I'm back. I'll bite. Good is really subjective. A good sensor from 2 years ago isn't considered good in today's standards. How about we just stop arguing about image quality until we see the final product and then we can judge and argue all we went then. I recall when M4/3 sensors were compared to APS-C sensors and were terrible. However, now it is comparable if not better then older APSC sensors in terms of ISO performance and dynamic range. Who says that this new 1/2.3" sensor can't be comparable? We are all speculating and assuming. I'd just say hold off until we get cold hard facts and then we can all jump on whatever bandwagon we want.

On a side note, wow that zoom lens is huge compared to the camera itself. Its almost the length of the camera. I didn't know that until these pictures. I'd have to say it's not impressive with that combo. I think the primes are the way to go on these things. However, general public wise it's going to be a tough sell. The m4/3 zooms relative to the body do not look as big. Perspective wise.
07-09-2011, 03:24 PM   #592
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote

Someone I know has recently won a major photography award ... based on a photo taken from a 2 megapixel phone camera.
Who? Any link to the image? Curious about what phone it was, the iphone 4 gives pretty good results.
07-09-2011, 03:43 PM - 1 Like   #593
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
it's not very compact with zoom lens
Wow, doesn't look any smaller than the Olympus E-PM1 with kit zoom attached. When I read about the tiny sensor I assumed the one (and only) advantage the Q would have over m4/3's is smaller zoom lenses, but that doesn't even appear to be the case.

I wonder when Pentax will allow us to see sample images. I don't ever recall a period this long between camera announcement and sample images. Seems very odd.

QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
And as an alternative perspective to all this talk about sensor size ...

Someone I know has recently won a major photography award ... based on a photo taken from a 2 megapixel phone camera.
A good photographer can take a good photo with any camera, and a bad photographer can use a Leica S2 and still produce poor photos. That's not the point. The point is why on earth would a good photogorgher choose to use an inferior camera? Given, we haven't seen samples yet, but unless Pentax has developed a breakthrough with 1/2.3 sensors then the Q won't even be able to match an LX5, let alone an EP-3 or NEX-5.

I know more than anyone there is more to a camera than simple image quality, I chose m4/3's over NEX for non-IQ reasons, but the IQ gap has to be pretty close or I will choose a camera that might have a few shortcomings if the IQ justifies it.


Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-09-2011 at 04:01 PM.
07-09-2011, 03:58 PM   #594
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Who? Any link to the image? Curious about what phone it was, the iphone 4 gives pretty good results.
I'll try and find a link to the image - it was a while ago, so definitely not a current generation phone.

I agree about the iPhone 4 quality - a friend of mine just came back from a round the world trip. He carried a G12, but ended up taking most of the photos on the iPhone4 and the quality was pretty acceptable. Actually, I was amazed how good the images were even blown up.
07-09-2011, 04:01 PM   #595
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
Wow, doesn't look any smaller than the Olympus E-PM1 with kit zoom attached.
You gotta be kidding right? I have seen the Q, and GF3 and G3. The new Olympus cameras are somewhere between GF3 and G3 in size, and look humongous compared to the Q.

The GF3 is what I could consider to be the maximum size I am willing to tolerate. Anything bigger, and I may just as well carry my K-5 with FA43. The Q is about 3/4 the size of the GF3.
07-09-2011, 04:09 PM   #596
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
The GF3 is what I could consider to be the maximum size I am willing to tolerate. Anything bigger, and I may just as well carry my K-5 with FA43. The Q is about 3/4 the size of the GF3.
I also used to say that if it doesn't fit in a pocket you might as well carry a DSLR. However, I have changed my tune. Weight matters. DSLR's require dedicated camera bags to carry comfortably, where as mirrorless camera the size of the GF3 or even the EP3 can be thrown into a messenger pack and disappear. If there are any size advantages in the Q I am unaware of them. It may be a tiny bit smaller, but at what cost? If tiny size is a persons ultimate goal then a Canon S95 makes more sense. It's smaller, will fit in a pocket with a zoom lens, and has a larger sensor to boot.
07-09-2011, 04:20 PM   #597
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
If tiny size is a persons ultimate goal then a Canon S95 makes more sense. It's smaller, will fit in a pocket with a zoom lens, and has a larger sensor to boot.
Sorry, the S95 makes zero sense to me.

I don't want a zoom lens, I want a prime lens - I hate zoom.

And I want control over shooting parameters.

What I want basically is a camera with controls and a prime lens shrunk to the size of a compact. Which is exactly what the Q is. There is nothing else even remotely comparable.

The closest equivalent is the GF3 with the Leica 25mm lens. I have played extensively with it, even took some sample photos. The image quality is good, but I am incredibly frustrated by the dumbed down user interface. Very poor control over shooting parameters, the touchscreen is not responsive, the icons on screen hard to read, and lots of frustrating quirks (for example, not being able to close focus in anything other than iA2+ mode - what's the point of buying an interchangeable lens camera if the only usable mode is point and shoot?)

The new Olympus E-PL3 looks more promising, but way too large (judging by comparison photos between the E-PL3 and the GF3 on the net).

Size and weight is absolutely crucial to me. The problem with the NEX and micro 4/3 is that they are smaller, but not significantly smaller. The K-5 plus FA43 is already quite small, so there's no point in buying something that's slightly smaller, slightly worse in quality, less controls, with a poor choice of lenses.
07-09-2011, 04:53 PM   #598
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Sorry, the S95 makes zero sense to me.

I don't want a zoom lens, I want a prime lens - I hate zoom.

And I want control over shooting parameters.

What I want basically is a camera with controls and a prime lens shrunk to the size of a compact. Which is exactly what the Q is. There is nothing else even remotely comparable.

The closest equivalent is the GF3 with the Leica 25mm lens. I have played extensively with it, even took some sample photos. The image quality is good, but I am incredibly frustrated by the dumbed down user interface. Very poor control over shooting parameters, the touchscreen is not responsive, the icons on screen hard to read, and lots of frustrating quirks (for example, not being able to close focus in anything other than iA2+ mode - what's the point of buying an interchangeable lens camera if the only usable mode is point and shoot?)

The new Olympus E-PL3 looks more promising, but way too large (judging by comparison photos between the E-PL3 and the GF3 on the net).

Size and weight is absolutely crucial to me. The problem with the NEX and micro 4/3 is that they are smaller, but not significantly smaller. The K-5 plus FA43 is already quite small, so there's no point in buying something that's slightly smaller, slightly worse in quality, less controls, with a poor choice of lenses.
I'm a prime guy myself for most things, so I understand that. However, along with the size advantage primes give me, the reason l love them is DOF control. The Q's sensor size would imply the Q won't have any DOF control whether using a prime or zoom (unless shooting really long telephotos, which I never do personally). So for that reason alone I'd take an Olympus XZ1 over it any day of the week.

We'll just have to disagree on the EPM1 being too large. The EPM1 + Panny 20mm is more than small enough for anything I need; and will surely be in a different IQ class all together. Also, if size is crucial I don't know how you dismiss the size advantage m4/3's has over the K5. I stopped using my K7 after street shooting with an NEX3 for a week. The size/weight difference was rather extreme. I ended up selling the K7 a few months later.

Also, m4/3's lens line up also isn't too far behind Pentax's at this point. I still can't wrap my brain around why Pentax has never made an APS-C equivalent of your FA43mm. I used to own the FA43 myself, great lens on film/full frame, but an odd focal length on a K5. The FA31mm is a fantastic lens and near perfect focal length for APS-C, but it is $1000+ and a very large lens on top of it. It's pretty inexcusable that they've never seen fit to make something like a DA30mm f/1.4. The two DA 35's are fine, but pretty slow apertures for standard primes.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-09-2011 at 04:58 PM.
07-09-2011, 05:13 PM   #599
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 336
FWIW, I bought a cheap Pentax compact a while ago (the H90) to serve as a semi-disposable alternative to my SLR and cell phone. But I've decided that I just like the look of the images produced by my cell phone better -- they have a robust, vivid quality about them.

I'm pointing this out in connection with this discussion of sensor sizes. The cell phone presumably has a much smaller sensor than the compact, but it's the one that I like better, despite all its limitations.

Who knows? Maybe the Q will produce images that have a likeable character of their own. Pentax is certainly a company that understands that the character of images is not always readily quantified, so the pedigree is promising.
07-09-2011, 05:23 PM   #600
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
I'm a prime guy myself for most things, so I understand that. However, along with the size advantage primes give me, the reason l love them is DOF control. The Q's sensor size would imply the Q won't have any DOF control whether using a prime or zoom (unless shooting really long telephotos, which I never do personally). So for that reason alone I'd take an Olympus XZ1 over it any day of the week.

We'll just have to disagree on the EPM1 being too large. The EPM1 + Panny 20mm is more than small enough for anything I need; and will surely be in a different IQ class all together. Also, if size is crucial I don't know how you dismiss the size advantage m4/3's has over the K5. I stopped using my K7 after street shooting with an NEX3 for a week. The size/weight difference was rather extreme. I ended up selling the K7 a few months later.
I think you need to understand your definition of small or large is likely to be very different from mine. What you find acceptable is way too large for me. To me, it has to be small enough to fit into my cycling jersey or mount on a bike. Or fit into a handbag. The GF3 is the absolute maximum size that I will consider to be acceptable.

Sorry, but comparing the G3 with my K-5, I don't really see the point of u4/3. Yes it's smaller and lighter, but not small enough to generate a different set of use cases.

The point of investing in alternate cameras is so that they are different enough to be used for different purposes. A smaller camera but not small enough defeats the whole purpose of a second/third/fourth system.

Image quality is not even a factor in my decision making. Anything greater than iphone4 quality will be acceptable, and I'm reasonably sure the Q will be at least that.

DOF control - nice to have, but I typically shoot at f4-f8 on my FA43, so the Q prime lens would give similar results. At the end of the day, it's possible to simulate shallow DOF, but it's not possible the change the size, shape and usability of a camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh! pickles Pentax Film SLR Discussion 8 08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay dantuyhoa Post Your Photos! 9 11-11-2008 11:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top