Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-09-2011, 10:23 PM - 1 Like   #601
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Yeah, but remember the camera is in the hand of a very tiny Japanese girl.


It seems to me that it's not girl's hand.

Japanese girls are different, by the way.

07-09-2011, 10:27 PM   #602
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
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.
It's stupid conclusion.

Do you understand that Pentax Q prime 8.5/1.9 is useless as prime because of tiny sensor? In terms of DOF - it's eq.~ 47 mm/f11 (35 mm system).
Pay attention - f11 is opened aperture. Nothing to control - to control aperture from f11 has no any sense
07-09-2011, 11:06 PM   #603
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 158
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It seems to me that it's not girl's hand.
Yeah, it is. You can match up the T-shirt in one of the other shots, and she's wearing the cam.
07-10-2011, 12:13 AM   #604
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote

Do you understand that Pentax Q prime 8.5/1.9 is useless as prime because of tiny sensor? In terms of DOF - it's eq.~ 47 mm/f11 (35 mm system).
Pay attention - f11 is opened aperture. Nothing to control - to control aperture from f11 has no any sense
LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...

07-10-2011, 03:40 AM   #605
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...
Do you really have some secret information about Q prime?
07-10-2011, 03:52 AM   #606
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Do you really have some secret information about Q prime?
LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though.

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):
07-10-2011, 04:11 AM   #607
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
As for drawing the line at a MacBook, I don't see how it's any different from any other laptop - laptops are generally not meant to be user-serviceable apart from RAM. So if you bought a Dell, HP or Lenovo and they broke, you'd have to send it in to an authorised service-person
That is completely false in case of Lenovo. They publish repair manuals online and sell parts at reasonable prices at their store, as do 3rd parties online. I replaced my broken LCD screen for 60 GBP and keyboard for 16 GBP - both new, and it took 30 mins for both as the devices are well designed, as opposed to Apple crap which look nice but aren't meant to be serviced, just replaced by the newest model. Hell even batteries aren't user swappable on iPhones, wtf.
07-10-2011, 04:24 AM   #608
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):
It seems to me - it's macro shot from very short distance (3 cm, 5 cm? 10 cm?)...Or maybe I'm wrong...And it's your friend at this photo...?


Use DOF calculator with 1/2.3" sensor + 8.5/1.9 + 2 m distance to object - it's easy.


Last edited by ogl; 07-10-2011 at 04:33 AM.
07-10-2011, 04:38 AM   #609
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by conradj Quote
Yeah, it is. You can match up the T-shirt in one of the other shots, and she's wearing the cam.
Nah. There may be a woman standing in the back, but that's a man's hand. And not a Japanese man's I'd bet from the hair. When I lived in Tokyo I was surprised at how many people wanted to touch the fur on the back of my arm.

As for the Q, my first reaction was the same as my reaction to a certain 1999 "prequel" for which I'd waited half my life: "What's going on??" But now I'm rather glad that it's there:
a) it bridges the K line of cameras with the lego/hello kitty stuff
b) it's generating a lot of talk and controversy and all 'round awareness of Pentax
c) it's made me more interested in the advancement in tiny sensor capability

So .. good for Pentax. Given the improvements in small sensors, I'm now watching to see what Ricoh does with the GRD IV.
07-10-2011, 04:43 AM   #610
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: sydney
Posts: 26
a certain prequel in 1999?? oh man..
07-10-2011, 06:34 AM   #611
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...
What are you referring to?

.
07-10-2011, 06:35 AM   #612
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though.

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):
That is also a close up shot. Even an iPhone can produce somewhat shallow DOF when shooting macro. The problem is portraits. Here is a portrait taken wide open with the XZ-1:


Ron | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That is a really nice portrait with fantastic light, but that is about as shallow of DOF as one can realistically hope for with the Q without softening the background in post processing...and who wants to do that? I did it on two pics taken with my G10 and said to hell with it and sold my G10.

The problem with the Q is not that it will be a bad camera; I'm sure it will be fine for a number of things such as street, macro, and travel pics. The problem is when comparing it to the competition it's hard to justify it. For most people an E-PM1, E-PL3, GF3, NEX-C3, XZ-1, S95, TL500, or an LX5 just makes more sense...and every single one them not only *should* have higher IQ, but they are all cheaper too boot. I don't think there would be nearly as many people laughing at, or complaining about the Q if it were just cheaper. At $300-400 I understand why someone might want to have it as a toy. However, an $800 price tag for a camera with a $2 sensor is simply absurd.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-10-2011 at 06:49 AM.
07-10-2011, 06:37 AM   #613
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote

The problem with the Q is not that it will be a bad camera; I'm sure it will be fine for a number of things such as street, macro, and travel pics. The problem is when comparing it to the competition it's hard to justify it. At $300-400 I understand why someone might want to have it as a toy. However, an $800 price tag for a camera with a $2 sensor is simply absurd.
Agreed.
07-10-2011, 06:37 AM   #614
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though.

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):
1'' tall figurine shot from a couple inches away?

BTW, what was the name of the contest your friend won, or the name of your friend? If you can't find a link to the image, we can just search on the friends's name or name of the contest.
07-10-2011, 06:49 AM - 1 Like   #615
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

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

As for the Q, my first reaction was the same as my reaction to a certain 1999 "prequel" for which I'd waited half my life: "What's going on??"
Jar-Jar Binks. Jar-Jar Binks is going on here.

.
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 11:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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