Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-22-2011, 09:15 AM   #796
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
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.
.


Possibly - here's the image showing relative sizes, MF --> 1/2.5 (yellow square = rumoured Nikon 2.6crop sensor) :



07-22-2011, 09:26 AM   #797
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.


Possibly - here's the image showing relative sizes, MF --> 1/2.5 (yellow square = rumoured Nikon 2.6crop sensor) :
I doubt...If you have a look at photo of sensor and mount - it's not 2.6 crop sensor.
Maybe bigger than 1/2.3", but not 2.6.
07-22-2011, 10:49 AM - 1 Like   #798
New Member
RedPanda's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 12
@Christine Tham
No one else seems to have said it so I will...those pictures of yours were excellent! I especially liked the first one, the impressionistic dancer.
07-22-2011, 11:52 AM   #799
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
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.
With respect, that's the answer to a different question than is being proposed. Are there some people for whom this is the perfect camera? Surely; but there were people that thought the Edsel was a great car. The question posed is 'are there enough people that see this as a value proposition to make this a wise investment of Pentax's limited resources' and to that question I still don't see how the answer could be yes.

Again, you'd need a consumer who effectively:
- Wants high quality images in a small package
- Who doesn't care about absolute camera performance
- Wants to control shooting parameters
- Yet is effectively willing to give up in camera DOF control and ISO's past 800
- To achieve marginal size/weight savings
- And doesn't mind paying a premium
- Or buying into a new, and otherwise unsupported, lens mount
- And values the above combination so highly as to pick the Q over competitors that are cheaper and/or better spec'd on all fronts, save absolute dimensions

Again, I'll readily acknowledge that this fits some people. And I'd be happy to be wrong about the number of those people. But it's a very narrow band at which to target a product.

Also, I'm not sure why one would be comforted by the idea of a camera company making a premium product where absolute performance in at least some aspect isn't a main consideration.

07-22-2011, 12:05 PM   #800
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Also, I'm not sure why one would be comforted by the idea of a camera company making a premium product where absolute performance in at least some aspect isn't a main consideration.
Because there is no such thing as absolute performance.
Camera design and lens design is all about compromise - performance vs cost vs weight vs size etc. So it all boils down to whether this specific set of compromise suits your needs or not. If not, then the camera is not for you.
07-22-2011, 12:18 PM   #801
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
Because there is no such thing as absolute performance.
Camera design and lens design is all about compromise - performance vs cost vs weight vs size etc. So it all boils down to whether this specific set of compromise suits your needs or not. If not, then the camera is not for you.
That's kind of ridiculous. There are finite capabilities of cameras at a current state of technology. Those define what can be done, those are effectively absolutes. Hewing closely to those absolutes in one of more dimensions means that you've achieved the best performance available to you at that point, at least on that dimension. Compromise is what you have to do to achieve price point and thus marketability. However, if you come in at a ridiculous price point AND you you're not striking at the limits of performance, then what's the point?
07-22-2011, 12:33 PM   #802
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,211
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
That's kind of ridiculous. There are finite capabilities of cameras at a current state of technology. Those define what can be done, those are effectively absolutes. Hewing closely to those absolutes in one of more dimensions means that you've achieved the best performance available to you at that point, at least on that dimension. Compromise is what you have to do to achieve price point and thus marketability. However, if you come in at a ridiculous price point AND you you're not striking at the limits of performance, then what's the point?
Absolute performance design is not practical for any kind of mass market. Leica's best lenses target absolute performance, but they are hardly mass market (lets see the local price for the Noktilux M 50 f 0.95 is a hair under 11 grand for a manual focus lens. the more reasonable 50 f1.4 Summilux M (also a stellar lens) is a mere 3900
Absolute performance is not a road I want to see Pentax pursue myself.
the Q seems a bit high on the price scale, but it really seems pretty impressive for its market segment, which as has been pointed out many times is not most of the members here. Like Christine I see a use for it (unfortunately unlike Christine I will have to work about 8 days after tax to take one home so it is a more serious consideration for me (and the GXR is what is competing for it in my case)
07-22-2011, 12:34 PM   #803
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,211
QuoteOriginally posted by RedPanda Quote
@Christine Tham
No one else seems to have said it so I will...those pictures of yours were excellent! I especially liked the first one, the impressionistic dancer.
a Big + 1 to this they were all excellent Christine

07-22-2011, 12:50 PM   #804
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Absolute performance is not a road I want to see Pentax pursue myself. the Q seems a bit high on the price scale, but it really seems pretty impressive for its market segment, which as has been pointed out many times is not most of the members here.
The Q is a far cry from absolute performance. Heck, it's not even in the ballpark. The Q's performance is just fine for a $300 camera, but $800? What exactly about the Q impresses you for $800? Small size? That price alone puts it up against cameras that are going to blow it away in side-by-side comparison shots. Review sites will be comparing it to cheaper cameras like the PEN E-PM1, GF3, X-Z1, and even the Sony NEX C3. A person is going to have to drink a lot of Pentax koolaide to choose the less performing, more expensive option just to save a tiny bit of size.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-22-2011 at 01:03 PM.
07-22-2011, 02:13 PM   #805
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
ist D's price was approx. ~ 1700 USD first month, but very soon down till ~ 1400-1500 USD
I think he knows what he spent, ogl. ;^)

He was quoting AUD, not USD. The AUD was cruising at about USD0.55 for a while earlier in the decade. I know because naturally I was earning AUD at the time.
07-22-2011, 02:14 PM   #806
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
The question posed is 'are there enough people that see this as a value proposition to make this a wise investment of Pentax's limited resources' and to that question I still don't see how the answer could be yes.
The fact that you don't see how the answer could be yes doesn't mean that the answer is no.
07-22-2011, 02:17 PM   #807
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
QuoteOriginally posted by RedPanda Quote
@Christine Tham
No one else seems to have said it so I will...those pictures of yours were excellent! I especially liked the first one, the impressionistic dancer.
Me, too. Fantastic tiger image, also.

@Christine, I hope you get your desired level of performance from your Q.
07-22-2011, 02:19 PM   #808
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by RedPanda Quote
@Christine Tham
No one else seems to have said it so I will...those pictures of yours were excellent! I especially liked the first one, the impressionistic dancer.
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
a Big + 1 to this they were all excellent Christine
Aww ... gee thanks guys!

I've always considered myself a point and shoot photographer, but I took a career break two years ago and I think I only started improving as a photographer when I had the luxury to take lots of photos and get used to the camera and lenses.

I used to spend time taking the same scene over and over again on different lenses, different apertures, different ISOs etc. That tiger in one of the photos - I have spent days in the zoo taking thousands of shots of that tiger. Which is probably why I can get real close shots on my FA43.

The payback is that I now am so familiar with my camera and lenses I instinctively know exactly how a picture will turn out even before pressing the shutter. And I am much better at predicting what the optimal shooting parameters for a scene should be.

Back to the Q. The reason I like it is the size and the prime lens (as well as the toy lenses). It will be like learning photography again but in a different context and I think it will be fun. Compacts with superzooms don't attract me - I want control over shooting parameters and I want the fixed perspective of a prime lens - zoom lenses mess with my head and I find them unpredictable.
07-22-2011, 02:55 PM   #809
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
By the way, here is another photo of the tiger, but taken on a Tamron 28-300 superzoom.


Same camera, same sensor, but a significant difference in image quality, in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness. Pity, because I consider this to be a better image aesthetically.

As the saying goes, beginners worry about camera bodies (and perhaps sensor sizes), enthusiasts worry about lenses, pros worry about light.

To me, I am not concerned about sensor quality - pretty much any current generation camera will deliver adequate quality. I used to worry about lenses, and perhaps still do to an extent, but I like to think I know my equipment well enough now that I don't worry about them - I focus on the picture I want to take.

Last edited by Christine Tham; 07-22-2011 at 03:15 PM.
07-22-2011, 03:52 PM - 1 Like   #810
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
As the saying goes, beginners worry about camera bodies (and perhaps sensor sizes), enthusiasts worry about lenses, pros worry about light.
I wouldn't presume people worry about camera bodies all that much just because they like to discuss them in a rumors forum. I also wouldn't assume someone is a beginner just because they love to discuss these things. A while back on some other forum I said something similar to your quote to a guy that was having a field day trashing a camera that I thought was pretty good. I asked him to see a few photos and he surprised me. He turned out to be quite good. I was expecting a lot of photos of brick walls and flowers, but he was a surprisingly good portrait artist. I personally just use these "debates" as a fun time killer and nothing more.

As far as pro's only worry about light; that is only somewhat true. Pro's worry about their gear enough to make sure it can produce the results they need, then they no longer worry. I've seen interviews of Phil Borges talking about the gear he uses, as well as Chase Jarvis. Jarvis actually puts one foot in both camps. He seems to enjoy talking about gear and technical aspects of photography, but on the flip side he coined the phrase the best camera is the one you have with you, and published a book by that title full of photos taken with his iPhone. Of course Ansel Adams was well known to be a bit of a tech geek in his day. He even wrote a number of technical books on photography.

It is possible to be both camera nerd and artist...
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 04:34 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