Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-21-2011, 06:46 AM - 1 Like   #781
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 158
because they all capture photos, because that's the most important bit in the tool chain we use to do what we do, and we're a passionate bunch where that's concerned.

Christine Tham knows what she's talking abt when it comes to the camera she's used for years. ogl knows what he's talking abt too. So do we all to the best of our abilities.

And it's a constant thing, this search for a better tool that lets us do our thing better than before. We used to rave abt film, sing odes to Pan-X and Kodachrome and FP-4, now we argue over sensors. Musing abt the shape and size and distribution of silver crystals have been replaced with conjectures abt pixels and sensor construction techiques.

Not that our collective understanding has remained the same. i seem to remember once we took it for granted that there were oddly abstracted guys, prolly wearing thick glasses, who knew a heck of a lot abt optics, so much that their understanding went beyond the realm of science and technology and deep into art and individual genius, who sketched on lunch napkins at the company cafeteria designs for lenses that we're happy to pay exorbitant amounts for so we could screw them on our cameras and take the best pictures of man and nature that ever existed.

Now we have more knowledge of economics and how profit oriented organisations prosper and decline, and the power the for-profit company wields in determining what choice of products we get to choose from, to use as the tools of our expressions, and we still forever hope that the designers and engineers retain the flexibility within their companies to put their understanding and genius into their designs so that we will have something to use that's more than just a product of trend and fashion and currently cost-effective technology.

With the Q, only a few more weeks then we'll know.

Of course the stuff the Q is made from has limitations we all know abt. Look at the early Leica tho. i'm sure it had a bad rep among photographers of its day for using too small a piece of film to record stuff on. Wow, even your sister's Brownie used a bigger piece of film.

Will this Q be a really excellent camera, one that has to it something that extends my ability to apply my skill to make better photos than i can now, that's what interests me.

edit: i look at pictures and descriptions of the thing and so far i'm hopeful, out of my experience with using various cameras to photograph life on the street and on the go. But damn it's expensive.


Last edited by conradj; 07-21-2011 at 06:54 AM.
07-21-2011, 07:08 AM   #782
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I forgot that I even had a 100% crop showing K10D noise at ISO 1600:
.
This is not the kind of noise people are mentioning. Colour banding are ugly green and purple splotches. I think it has to do with the K10D batch. Mine is from the earlier K10Ds and it has it quite bad in this department. K200D and K-m has it sorted out, of course.

Although those splotches honestly makes for beautiful desturated shots and B&W; it looks like grain. But I digress
07-21-2011, 07:47 AM - 1 Like   #783
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
The K10D can produce good results at ISO800 - even ISO1600. Any camera can, even an iPhone. It all depends on the photographer.

That's the point that some on this forum seem to be missing.
I'd just like to point out that that's exactly the point that some have been making since virtually the beginning of the thread, and questioning the premium for "perfectly acceptable" performance.
07-21-2011, 08:08 AM   #784
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
I'd just like to point out that that's exactly the point that some have been making since virtually the beginning of the thread, and questioning the premium for "perfectly acceptable" performance.
...+...


Last edited by jsherman999; 07-21-2011 at 09:56 AM.
07-21-2011, 12:56 PM   #785
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
I'd just like to point out that that's exactly the point that some have been making since virtually the beginning of the thread, and questioning the premium for "perfectly acceptable" performance.
And some of us have been pointing out that performance is not the primary consideration for the target market for this camera, which is what the Pentax marketing research shows (if you trust my translation of the Japanese in the slides provided earlier in this thread).

The "premium" is for the size, the lenses, control over shooting parameters. It's not me saying this (even though I agree with it) it is what the market segment that Pentax is targeting say they want.

If someone is not in the target market, then there's no point in them considering this camera. But recognise that different people have different needs.
07-21-2011, 01:09 PM   #786
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,051
ok here is a Face Book album all shot at 3200 with the Sony, something the K10D could not do;-)

I used the 6 shot stack on the Sony (it takes 6 shots in a nano second and merges them), something the Q doesn't have.

If you had the Q you would not have been able to cover this competition as you would need the flexibility of a 24 - 250 zoom.

One of the shots was taken using the Sweep Panorama mode - another area which is amazing with the Sony not withstanding the amazing HD (with double optical stabilization) video it shoots.

KZN Schools Climbing - 2nd Lead Comp | Facebook

For a very expensive p&s the Q is extremely limiting.
07-21-2011, 01:18 PM   #787
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by conradj Quote
With the Q, only a few more weeks then we'll know.

Of course the stuff the Q is made from has limitations we all know abt. Look at the early Leica tho. i'm sure it had a bad rep among photographers of its day for using too small a piece of film to record stuff on. Wow, even your sister's Brownie used a bigger piece of film.

Will this Q be a really excellent camera, one that has to it something that extends my ability to apply my skill to make better photos than i can now, that's what interests me.

edit: i look at pictures and descriptions of the thing and so far i'm hopeful, out of my experience with using various cameras to photograph life on the street and on the go. But damn it's expensive.
Excellent post - agree with you completely.

All cameras and all lenses have limitations. A good photographer tries to understand the limitations and work around them. It is possible to take good pictures on nearly all cameras (I do draw the line on some, though!) despite their limitations.

But all cameras also have their unique advantages. Size and weight are absolutely advantages that allow a camera to be used in situations where it would be inappropriate, difficult or impossible to use a different camera.

At the end of the day, if a camera allows a photographer to take more and better photos in specific situations that others can't, then it has a place in the collection. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Yes, the Q is expensive - when the *ist D first came out - it was A$3000 for the body. I still bought it. People paid a lot of money for the first gen ipods too. I remember a good business laptop used to cost around $10000.

Pentax has delivered an interesting product to a specific target segment, and they hope that target segment is willing to pay the premium. Once they have milked this segment, they will probably release an updated Q body that is significantly cheaper. I paid A$1200 for my K10D which replaced my A$3000 *ist D. But I don't regret buying the *ist D - it gave me a lot of fun and I felt I got my money's worth. And my brother is still using it today.

I am happy to be a sucker this time around and buy the Q with the premium, because I have been waiting for a camera like this for years. And whilst I understand that it may be a lot of money for some people, I am fortunate enough that it's not a big deal for me at the moment. I am currently earning enough to buy two Qs every day I work. So I could basically show up to work, and by lunch time I have already earned enough to pop out to the store, buy a Q, and even pick up lunch and coffee on the way back. So I am happy to allow Pentax to recoup their R&D, and I will buy a successor model if Pentax ever decides to make one.

If you like the Q, perhaps you may be able to pick a second hand one sometime next year?
07-21-2011, 01:50 PM   #788
Veteran Member
Kenn100D's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Paranaque City, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 646
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Excellent post - agree with you completely.

All cameras and all lenses have limitations. A good photographer tries to understand the limitations and work around them. It is possible to take good pictures on nearly all cameras (I do draw the line on some, though!) despite their limitations.

But all cameras also have their unique advantages. Size and weight are absolutely advantages that allow a camera to be used in situations where it would be inappropriate, difficult or impossible to use a different camera.

At the end of the day, if a camera allows a photographer to take more and better photos in specific situations that others can't, then it has a place in the collection. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Yes, the Q is expensive - when the *ist D first came out - it was A$3000 for the body. I still bought it. People paid a lot of money for the first gen ipods too. I remember a good business laptop used to cost around $10000.

Pentax has delivered an interesting product to a specific target segment, and they hope that target segment is willing to pay the premium. Once they have milked this segment, they will probably release an updated Q body that is significantly cheaper. I paid A$1200 for my K10D which replaced my A$3000 *ist D. But I don't regret buying the *ist D - it gave me a lot of fun and I felt I got my money's worth. And my brother is still using it today.

I am happy to be a sucker this time around and buy the Q with the premium, because I have been waiting for a camera like this for years. And whilst I understand that it may be a lot of money for some people, I am fortunate enough that it's not a big deal for me at the moment. I am currently earning enough to buy two Qs every day I work. So I could basically show up to work, and by lunch time I have already earned enough to pop out to the store, buy a Q, and even pick up lunch and coffee on the way back. So I am happy to allow Pentax to recoup their R&D, and I will buy a successor model if Pentax ever decides to make one.

If you like the Q, perhaps you may be able to pick a second hand one sometime next year?
Hello Christine, if you ever buy two and sell later for the other one, sell it to me.

07-21-2011, 06:26 PM   #789
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by fikkser Quote
Iso 800, f2 1/60 isn't very low light. On a consert it's more likely you need iso 1600 f1,4 1/60. Then you won't get a good shot with the k10.
Not sure why not, but leaving that aside for a moment, the important part in the context of this thread is: do you expect to get a better shot with the Q in that light? Remember that the Q would have to go to a higher ISO, because its fastest lens, the kit prime, is f/1.9.

QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
And I stand behind that statement. Having taken over 40,000 shots on the K10D (and all of them available on Lightroom), I like to think I know it well.
And I don't doubt your experience with the K10D. But my question is: what experience do you have with the Q that supports your claim? I'd be happy to know that the Q provides better IQ than the K10D at ISO 200+, but where is your evidence for that?
07-22-2011, 01:23 AM   #790
Veteran Member
froeschle's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 552
Nikon X810:

Picture of Nikon's mirrorless camera mount | Nikon Rumors
The picture of the Nikon mirrorless mount is real | Nikon Rumors
07-22-2011, 01:37 AM   #791
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
it seems to me 1/2.3" sensor
07-22-2011, 02:03 AM   #792
Veteran Member
fikkser's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 373
ogl, compare to images of the q-mount. To me it seems the Nikon sensor is bigger. Hard to say without anything to measure against, but the pentax sensor looks tiny in comparison, much smaller inside the mount.
07-22-2011, 06:45 AM   #793
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
it seems to me 1/2.3" sensor
I'd say it looks more like the rumored 2.6x or 2.7x crop. If so, that could be a big blow to the Q.

Will be interesting to see how Nikon markets a smaller sensor as the right choice over the slightly larger m4/3's sensor. Based on some of the Nikon Rumors comments brand loyalty ceases with a new mount, and some of their users will choose whichever is best, Nikon or not. People have been hearing the bigger is better argument for years now. Of course if they are using a Sony-made 2.7x sensor it may very well have better IQ then a 2x Panasonic sensor.

Still though, I think 2.7x could be an interesting size for some users. I personally don't have an issue with the size of m4/3's cameras and lenses, so that is as small as I'll go, but clearly that isn't the case for everyone.
07-22-2011, 07:52 AM   #794
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote

Yes, the Q is expensive - when the *ist D first came out - it was A$3000 for the body. I still bought it. People paid a lot of money for the first gen ipods too. I remember a good business laptop used to cost around $10000.
it never was... you tell a lot of fabs here...about Pentax Q, prices, K10D...

*ist D's price was approx. ~ 1700 USD first month, but very soon down till ~ 1400-1500 USD
07-22-2011, 08:29 AM - 1 Like   #795
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Yes, the Q is expensive - when the *ist D first came out - it was A$3000 for the body. I still bought it. People paid a lot of money for the first gen ipods too. I remember a good business laptop used to cost around $10000.
The biggest problem with this argument is people paid a lot of iPods because they were better than any other MP3 player on the market. People paid a lot of *ist's because they wanted a digital body for lenses they already owned. What incentive is there to pay $800 for the Q? The only argument I can think of it's the only micro size camera with a prime lens. From an image quality perspective from what I've seen so far it's no better than an Olympus X-Z1 even though it has a prime. It's also no smaller. So a person will have to really really really want a prime lens in a micro-sized package to pay $300 more for the Q over something like an X-Z1.

Then of course there's the issue that most people shooting primes also want great IQ. I'd be willing to wager most of those people wanting a tiny travel camera will opt for something like a Panasonic GF3 + 20mm prime even though it's slightly larger and has fewer manual controls. A GF3/20mm combo will produce far better results and still offers enough control to use aperture priority mode without a hassle; all for about the same price. Let's just say I still firmly believe Pentax is going to have to drop the price of the Q considerably to make it an attractive offering to most people.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-22-2011 at 08:39 AM.
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 04:14 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