[Christine Tham]

It gets dicey when the Q suddenly has better IQ (and AF!) than an aps-c DSLR based on some downsized jpegs, when the Zeiss formula suddenly doesn't apply to the Q's sensor, etc. I (and others) are going to have a hard time resisting diving in there. Nature of an internet forum.

I certainly agree that the Internet fora is full of people arguing based on rather questionable grounds.

The so called "Zeiss" formula has no scientific validity. It was proposed by someone on the Internet based on examining the DOF markings on a Zeiss lens.

Carl Zeiss, the maker of that particular lens, quotes a different formula (d/1000) in one of their technical papers.

The formula has questionable applicability not only to the Q, but to any camera.

There is no clear relationship between sensor size and image quality. Those that argue so are perhaps "sillier" than those who are comparing sample images (some of which were full size, not downsized) against a camera they actually own (and still own).

---

Last edited by Christine Tham; 07-24-2011 at 01:29 PM.

[Zygonyx]

Hello Christine,
as far as regards DOF and blur/neat transitions, it is obvious for any people having practissed different sensors or film formats, that you get much more latitude on these two points in increasing primary image size.
And this is the main reason, as well as cost of digital big sensors/resolution potential, why large film medium format bodies are still on the market.

[Christine Tham]

Hello Christine,
as far as regards DOF and blur/neat transitions, it is obvious for any people having practissed different sensors or film formats, that you get much more latitude on these two points in increasing primary image size.
And this is the main reason, as well as cost of digital big sensors/resolution potential, why large film medium format bodies are still on the market.

Not disagreeing with you there, but DOF isn't everything. A good lens will give better bokeh on f8 compared to a kit zoom at f4.

Earlier on in this thread, there were people claiming that the Q at f1.9 will be equivalent to a full frame at f11. Looking at the sample images, I very much doubt that is true.

[rawr]

Wow. A 57 page thread full of passion and angst even before anyone in the thread has used the camera. Must be a new PFF record.

[Art Vandelay II]

Wow. A 57 page thread full of passion and angst even before anyone in the thread has used the camera. Must be a new PFF record.

Well, if there really are 7 stages of grief those of us that are upset Pentax made this camera are probably approaching the Upward Turn stage at this point. By page 80 or so we might finally reach stage 7: Acceptance.

[junyo]

And what is your compelling case? Assuming that the answer is no?

Actually I've put out quite a number of rational, objective arguments:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/149244-pentax-q-flesh-...ml#post1588000
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/149244-pentax-q-flesh-...ml#post1575956
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/149244-pentax-q-flesh-...ml#post1561663
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/149244-pentax-q-flesh-...ml#post1561353

The first Q camera doesn't have to have widespread appeal to justify the project - a FF camera would have even less appeal, but we have no shortage of arguments for why Pentax should invest into that.

Did I make those arguments? So how is that a valid response? And at least there's a semblance of a reason to look at FF. It doesn't require a significant investment in new lens design/manufacture, and has a small, but natural logical market. The Q has neither.

And it is not clear what significant resources have been poured into this project. More importantly, it is not clear what other projects may have benefited from this investment into the Q - maybe the entire Pentax compact line will be revitalized by research done to make the Q the best compact camera around a sensor of that size. The 645D benefited from technology first deployed in the K-7 - the K-5 built further on that and is a success. Yet the K-7 got criticized like no other camera and people made "compelling" arguments on why Pentax made a big mistake with that model. But for me, the K-7 was a historical camera because of the technology incorporated in it. The Q may very well be the same - criticized initially, but its impact may be realized further down the line in other models. Even if the Q is a commercial failure, the research done for putting it together is valuable for Pentax and can be reused in other places - it is not a waste of resources.

Again, I'm not going to sit here and try yo respond to objections that other people made about other products.

However, by Pentax's own statements, their engineers worked on the Q for 5 years. Even if the prototypes and tooling cost nothing, even if Pentax couldn't think of anything else for them to do, they lost a couple hundred man years of engineering and management time that could have been spent of something that would turn a profit, or other halo products like the 645D, or refining theeir other products released in that timeframe.

And let's be serious. The Q isn't some revolutionary camera, it's Pentax wrapping and interface design wrapped around Sony guts. If they were going to do that, either do it cheaper, or use better guts than this.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

...
That's what it all comes back to; why on earth did they choose a sensor that's only slightly larger than a camera phone sensor? Anything a 1/2.3" sensor can do a 1/1.6" or 2/3's sensor can do better.
...

Look, all I care about is a compact camera with a quality lens that is not of the telescopic kind used in point and shoots (a prime is great, especially if the camera can mount different lenses). Point me to something better than the Q and I'll move my interest to that. Otherwise, you're really not offering me any options, just the argument that *maybe* a better camera could be built. I don't really care if a better camera *could* be built if no one is available to build it. To me, the Q is the quality compact that could be built, but no one dared to - until now.

All K-7 development was able to migrate directly to the k-5.

But not to the 645D. Yet the 645D carries over many styling marks introduced with the K-7. There's a lot that can be reused and getting the best IQ out of tiny sensors and dealing with noise at that level is something that can be shared across multiple lines.

There is no clear relationship between sensor size and image quality.

Just check dxomark - sensor scores are pretty much proportional to their size: P&S < 4/3 < APS < FF. The relationship is clear both in theory and in practical results.

Actually I've put out quite a number of rational, objective arguments:

The arguments may be objective, but your focus on those particular arguments is purely subjective. You're really trying to draw conclusions based on your personal assessment of the Q - but those conclusions only apply to you. The only compelling argument I have seen is that around the price. But whether the price is too much or too little is really a subjective thing as it depends on how much value each individual puts on the camera.

Did I make those arguments? So how is that a valid response? And at least there's a semblance of a reason to look at FF. It doesn't require a significant investment in new lens design/manufacture, and has a small, but natural logical market. The Q has neither.

You asked for a compelling argument that the Q would have "widespread appeal" - I was answering to that. I also think that the Q lenses require a lot less design work than APS or full-frame lenses - the toy lenses are manual focus and fixed aperture - how much resources do you think their design required?

However, by Pentax's own statements, their engineers worked on the Q for 5 years. Even if the prototypes and tooling cost nothing, even if Pentax couldn't think of anything else for them to do, they lost a couple hundred man years of engineering and management time that could have been spent of something that would turn a profit, or other halo products like the 645D, or refining theeir other products released in that timeframe.

Are you saying they should have closed their compact camera business? Have you noticed the styling similarity between the I10 and the Q? The people that worked on the Q did their job - that of building a compact camera - they weren't resources diverted from the development of other systems.

And let's be serious. The Q isn't some revolutionary camera, it's Pentax wrapping and interface design wrapped around Sony guts. If they were going to do that, either do it cheaper, or use better guts than this.

You are first complaining that Pentax spent 5 years and now you are describing this work as a patch job. Make up your mind.

The Q doesn't have to be revolutionary to be successful. It just has to provide a solution that no one else has been offering. And it does *exactly* that - it offers a high quality compact camera system that no one else dared build. You may say that they didn't dare build it because it makes no sense, but that's you looking at the half empty glass. I am always happy to see a manufacturer having the guts to offer something that no one else has been offering.

In the end, if you think that there are other better options than the Q, you should just go for those - I know I would - I don't really care about getting my next camera from Pentax if it's going to have another mount than K-mount.

[junyo]

The arguments may be objective, but your focus on those particular arguments is purely subjective. You're really trying to draw conclusions based on your personal assessment of the Q - but those conclusions only apply to you. The only compelling argument I have seen is that around the price. But whether the price is too much or too little is really a subjective thing as it depends on how much value each individual puts on the camera.

This grows increasingly nonsensical. Objective facts and conclusions are by their very nature not subjective. And again, still you don't offer any counter arguments as to why the Q would be successful, or a good camera, or make someone chose it over the alternatives.

And you seem to to claiming that the pricing exists in a special bubble where people don't have near equivalent options from which to chose that are better priced or better spec'd?

You asked for a compelling argument that the Q would have "widespread appeal" - I was answering to that. I also think that the Q lenses require a lot less design work than APS or full-frame lenses - the toy lenses are manual focus and fixed aperture - how much resources do you think their design required?

I'm going to guess some number greater than zero, which what assigning them to existing projects would have cost. I'm also going to guess that with likely no shared components with any existing produce line, the development costs were higher than they would have been for lenses closer to the size of their existing small primes. And while it's possible that the smaller lenses will be cheaper to manufacture over time, that assumes that they will sell well and long enough to reach ROI.

Are you saying they should have closed their compact camera business? Have you noticed the styling similarity between the I10 and the Q? The people that worked on the Q did their job - that of building a compact camera - they weren't resources diverted from the development of other systems.

Again, tedious. Where did I say that? Where did I even imply that?

And unless you're in the management of Pentax, a declarative statement that resources were not diverted from other work is just silly. Common sense says that their work on the Q represents, at minimum, lost opportunity costs. We know that Pentax doesn't have a complete SLR lineup, a complete SLR lens lineup, no serious EVIL, and mostly legacy support for their flagship 645D. It's a reasonable supposition that Pentax has other things on their plate that at least some of these resources could have been devoted to. Unless you're claiming that all other Pentax products are perfect, and that there's no other products that they could have conceivably improved or developed in the last 5 years?

You are first complaining that Pentax spent 5 years and now you are describing this work as a patch job. Make up your mind.

Sigh. I don't have to make up my mind. Pentax claims that they worked on the Q for 5 years. That's an objective fact. Pentax does not manufacture imaging sensor, therefore any camera they make is essentially their spec, interface design and assembly, largely from other company's components. Also, objective fact. The two statement aren't even vaguely contradictory

The Q doesn't have to be revolutionary to be successful. It just has to provide a solution that no one else has been offering. And it does *exactly* that - it offers a high quality compact camera system that no one else dared build. You may say that they didn't dare build it because it makes no sense, but that's you looking at the half empty glass. I am always happy to see a manufacturer having the guts to offer something that no one else has been offering.

No, it doesn't just have to "provide a solution no one else has been offering. Companies go broke daily offering solutions that no one else is offering. You know why? Because there's the very real possibility that the reason no one else is offering it is because not that many people want it.

[junyo]

Q mount side by side with the forthcoming Nikon mirrorless.



Nikon, you fools! Don't you realize that small sensors are better?

[rawr]

Q mount side by side with the forthcoming Nikon mirrorless.

Troll.

You are aware from the dpreview discussion where you lifted that image from that you would need the full dimensions of the two camera's mounts in order to make that image a valid comparison. So nothing is proven until you can supply measurements in mm for everything.

I could also easily create a juxtaposed image showing a 747 jumbo jet looking about the same size as a Cessna.

[Art Vandelay II]

you would need the full dimensions of the two camera's mounts in order to make that image a valid comparison. So nothing is proven until you can supply measurements in mm for everything.

Very true, but we can deduce two things from this.

1. If the lens mounts are roughly the same diameter, that means Nikon is using a much larger sensor (probably the rumored 2.7x).
   
2. If the sensors are indeed the same size, that means Nikon is using a much smaller lens mount. Wouldn't that be better for those that care more about size than ergonomics and IQ?

Either way it seems like Nikon wins.

I've still yet to hear a valid case as to why Pentax shouldn't have used something like a 3x crop factor themselves. The only case I've heard is that size matters more than IQ does. That's fine, I understand, that's why I like mirrorless cameras over DSLR's myself (well, so long as the IQ gap is within reason). However would there really be a noticeable size difference in the Q if it had a 3x crop sensor? I guess we'll see when Nikon shows their camera, but I'm willing to wager the size difference will be so minuscule that it will only matter to .00001% of customers. So....

Price? Nope, the Q is expensive even with a $1 sensor. Would using a $20 sensor really change the MSRP?

IQ? Nope, all things equal a 3x sensor will be better.

Camera size? The human hand dictates that, not the sensor.

DOF Control? The Q's BC control looks like a complete failure to me, however a 30mm f/2 pancake prime on a 3X sensor would make a decent portrait lens.

Lens size? Pancake primes will be no different, and I'll wager that standard zooms won't be much larger on a 3x sensor either.

I really am glad some people are happy with the direction Pentax chose to go with the Q, but it seems to leave a good number of us saying WTF. The bottom line is would the Q be any less of a fashion accessory or any less fun to use if it had a slightly larger sensor? No, it wouldn't; but it would be more appealing to those of us that are concerned about the IQ.

[junyo]

Troll.

You are aware from the dpreview discussion where you lifted that image from that you would need the full dimensions of the two camera's mounts in order to make that image a valid comparison. So nothing is proven until you can supply measurements in mm for everything.

I could also easily create a juxtaposed image showing a 747 jumbo jet looking about the same size as a Cessna.

Personal insults are generally considered proof that you have no actual point.

Any data, any data at all, that backs up your claim that the Pentax mount's size is grossly misrepresented?

Didn't think so.

I've still yet to hear a valid case as to why Pentax shouldn't have used something like a 3x crop factor themselves.

Well, because (stomps feet) because!

[Zygonyx]

Q mount side by side with the forthcoming Nikon mirrorless.



Nikon, you fools! Don't you realize that small sensors are better?

Well, i hope Photo engineers do a better job than the one who did this grotesque mounting !!!
So few geometrical adequation, the "Nikon rumors shot" not beeing without perspective, and so on...

[falconeye]

www.flickr.com/photos/yusuf_orta/2765665233

Let's just say I have my doubts the Q can do that.

Why can't a decent photographer who is capable of capturing a nice photo understand that image quality cannot be judged from 640 pixel wide web images.

Gosh

Of course can the Q do the above.

And I hope the above is your photo or otherwise, please pay the proper credit.

[falconeye]

The so called "Zeiss" formula has no scientific validity. It was proposed by someone on the Internet based on examining the DOF markings on a Zeiss lens.

Carl Zeiss, the maker of that particular lens, quotes a different formula (d/1000) in one of their technical papers.

The Zeiss formula is as scientifically valid as anybody would ever require.

It contains a constant factor, typically choosen to be 1/1730. But whatever value is choosen, it remains the Zeiss formula. If you quote the Zeiss formula, you quote it together with the factor used and this factor is constant throughout any discussion.

Personally, I prefer 1/2203. Because this happens to coincide with Full HD pixel sharpness. But that I still refer to as the Zeiss formula.

The important bit behind the Zeiss formula is that the diameter of acceptable circle of confusion is proportional to the diameter of the image circle. And by replacing coc by the Zeiss formula (d/const.), the sensor-size dependend terms all drop out.