Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2011, 03:02 AM   #1096
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Frog-eaters country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 359
Come on, for such a tiny sensor, it's a very good performance !
When the price get under 450, i'll buy it.
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Yes. Not bad for P&S camera for USD400 at ISO125.

ISO250 and above have rather high level of NR.

But...the colours...so strange colours on photos...Rather pale. And unnatural.


09-02-2011, 03:02 AM   #1097
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Well, it's now beyond reasonable doubt that the Q's sensor has better performance than the K10D - something I mentioned as a possibility early on in the thread which generated some mirth amongst the naysayers in this forum. Strangely enough, these naysayers have gone quiet recently now that we are starting to see sample images from the camera that are surprisingly better than expectations.
yaa i remember you asked about comparison with k10d , but i had 0 experience with k10d so i wasn't in position to say anything.

So far my impression is that k10d has very good IQ at base isos, and with this I can related to , because i had sony r1 from similar times and i like its IQ at base isos a lot (at least at base isos i definitely prefer R1 over k-x).
09-02-2011, 03:30 AM   #1098
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Dozens of Pentax Q images, including RAW's for download, at all ISO's:

Pentax Q Photos | PhotographyBLOG
Thanks for the interesting source. I looked at some raw images.

The ISO125 images have a useful DR. I applied 100% fill light (or +4EV exposure correction) in LR to some of the in-room shadows of pentax_q_11.dng. Quite some noise but still treatable with LR noise reduction. And no banding I could find. Not bad.

The sharpness I see is good at f/2.8, even f/1.9 looked ok when I looked at the spider web filaments in pentax_q_14.dng. The "Welcome" sign in pentax_q_13.dng at f/4 looks reasonably sharp (01 standard prime) with LR's default setting (25% sharpening).

However, at f/8 (pentax_q_11.dng again) the 100% crops become soft. Not really bad but visibly soft. Applying 100% LR3 sharpening with detail at 100% too (this does deconvolution then) and 2+ pixels radius restores some of it but with noise, artefacts and remaining softness. I'd say just don't use the Q above f/4

But that's just the expected behaviour and I am glad that the 01 standard prime at least is sharp enough below f/4.
09-02-2011, 04:16 AM   #1099
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
So far my impression is that k10d has very good IQ at base isos, and with this I can related to , because i had sony r1 from similar times and i like its IQ at base isos a lot (at least at base isos i definitely prefer R1 over k-x).
Yes, the K10D is a great ISO100 camera, and I think has the edge over the Q at base ISO. ISO400 and above, the Q is clearly better. The shift comes at around ISO200.

I remember when I said that (based on early pre-production samples) I was ridiculed, but it now looks like my impressions are pretty much confirmed by the production samples.

09-02-2011, 06:42 AM - 1 Like   #1100
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Yepp true but then my opinion has at least equal value as yours and I do not agree with you.

So we are at 0 conclusions at the moment.

If there is one more opinion that disagrees with you, you will be in minority.
I have to say I agree with Ogl here... (!) Nice images, but the images coming out from the current coming crop of P&S's are nice also at low ISOs, and then we have the 2/3 and other sensors coming out in bodies that frankly make more sense to probably more people.

Q is, as I've said from the beginning, simply too expensive for what purports to deliver. I mentioned before that I expected shot-shot performance to be dismal - its even worse than I thought.

It's hard to think of a good application for the $800 'Q' that couldn't be covered by either a lesser expensive camera with similar IQ, or a similarly priced camera with a larger sensor and better IQ, better shot-shot performance, and more DOF control capability.

Re potential applications: I think that a camera I'd choose to take shots of myself in a changing room mirror for example wouldn't be a $800 specialty device like the 'Q', it would be something like the excellent little snapper in the iphone4. Unless I had taken momentary leave of my senses. (duck)




.

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-02-2011 at 07:34 AM.
09-02-2011, 06:43 AM   #1101
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Yes, the K10D is a great ISO100 camera, and I think has the edge over the Q at base ISO. ISO400 and above, the Q is clearly better. The shift comes at around ISO200.

I remember when I said that (based on early pre-production samples) I was ridiculed, but it now looks like my impressions are pretty much confirmed by the production samples.
imo the iso 200 files at infinity / near unfinity still look unimpressive compared to K10d with a good lens like FA 35, bu the closeup shots do look very very good.

Once price drops to around 600 I think it will have many takers
09-02-2011, 07:05 AM   #1102
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I have to say I agree with Ogl here... (!) Nice images, but the images coming out from the current coming crop of P&S's are nice also at low ISOs, and then we have the 2/3 and other sensors coming out in bodies that frankly make more sense to probably more people.
Agree with what??? That Q is a P&S?? Is this you are agreeing to.

Is image quality your cretietria to decide if something is P&S or not???

Since DR of m43s seems to worse than Q, are they also P&S??

Or how about this - someone's isT D is now a P&S because images are worse than Q.


so lets get this one thing clear - Q is not a P&S.



And about IQ and price.

Well there are lots of over priced products in the market (Sigma SD1, D3X etc etc). It is nothing new. A company offers a product at some price, if you don't think price is alright then do not buy it, no-one is putting gun on his head or your head to buy it.

You can have an opinion , like you probably do. But your friend ogl is outright trolling. Only a blind would fail to see this. He can burn all he wants - Q is not a P&S.

He can write that 5 million times here, but this fact is not gonna change.
09-02-2011, 07:16 AM   #1103
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,238
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Yes, the K10D is a great ISO100 camera, and I think has the edge over the Q at base ISO. ISO400 and above, the Q is clearly better. The shift comes at around ISO200.
We've already heard this before...But now...It suddenly dawned upon me...
Of course, Pentax Q with 1/2.3" sensor at ISO400 and above are rather better than 10 MP APS-C sensor. Pentax Q is simply miracle.
The breaker of physics limits.

09-02-2011, 07:18 AM   #1104
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,238
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote

so lets get this one thing clear - Q is not a P&S.
.
What is it? Open our eyes...Please.
maybe it's new version of FF?
09-02-2011, 07:21 AM   #1105
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,238
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-pen...7748?artc_pg=1


Hands on: Pentax Q review | News | TechRadar UK
If you view our crops of the resolution chart's central section at 100% (or Actual Pixels) you will see that, for example, at ISO 125 the Pentax Q is capable of resolving up to around 22 (line widths per picture height x100) in its highest quality JPEG files.


It seems to me Pentax Q is camera of Canon Powershot G12's level.
09-02-2011, 07:33 AM   #1106
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
What is it? Open our eyes...Please.
maybe it's new version of FF?
Keep on trolling OGL.
09-02-2011, 07:58 AM   #1107
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Agree with what??? That Q is a P&S?? Is this you are agreeing to.

Is image quality your cretietria to decide if something is P&S or not???

Since DR of m43s seems to worse than Q, are they also P&S??

Or how about this - someone's isT D is now a P&S because images are worse than Q.


so lets get this one thing clear - Q is not a P&S.

No, it's more expensive than a P&S.

I can't speak for Ogle, but I've said from the beginning that it enters the fray already-niched into the hello-kitty market. It's not a terrible thing to start out with a safety niche, problem is that market probably isn't robust enough from Pentax's perspective to really embrace a $800 device that may be eclipsed in a matter of months by another whimsical device like it. Pentax was probably hoping to add a good-sized chunk of folks who are actually interested in photography to that group - problem is, folks interested in photography tend to comparison shop with more than one eye open and see that there are probably better alternatives.

'Q' would be a pretty intriguing choice if the body alone was priced at $300, with lenses extra. I'd still probably not buy one, but I'd think it was a smarter offering and IMO would hold up better against similarly-performing competition.

Here's what Thom Hogan said re 'Q' - a bit harsh, but he cuts to the chase and highlights the problem the 'Q' will have in the amateur/enthusiast market:



"June 23 (news and commentary)--Pentax today joined the mirrorless (or ILC) market with what can only be regarded as an oddball entry: the Q is a very small interchangeable lens camera with a 1/2.3" sensor (same as many compact cameras). It also costs more than any compact camera at US$800, and that's with just a 47mm f/1.9 equivalent lens.

Some of you may remember the old Auto 110 system, where Pentax (and Kodak) tried to invent a small, new film format. Why the folks at Pentax think it's worth repeating that mistake, I don't know. When 4/3 was originally announced, I accused Olympus of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Pentax has now officially brought a pea shooter slingshot. Or a paper weight.

The problem is that if you use the compact camera sensors, you're competing against...wait for it...compact cameras. Pentax gave the new Q (is the naming department on vacation or watching Bond movies?) five lenses, a "normal" f/1.9, a kit-zoomish f/2.8-4.5, a fisheye, and two lenses labeled Toy Lens that cost US$80 each (again, what's with that naming department?). Let's see, they're competing against some compact cameras with longer focal length ranges that are f/1.8-2.2. To what end is the "interchangeable lens" aspect helpful in that if you're already starting at a deficit?

Someone will surely bring up the "cute" or "retro" aspects (it looks a bit like a toy film-era camera), but as I've written before, if you go for fad-dominated design, you've completely lost the thread of camera making. Meanwhile, we've got startups like Lytro (next story) breaking entirely new ground. Who do you think is more likely to win that dance? At least the Pentax Q has a new Scene exposure mode we haven't seen before: Forest. Apparently Pentax designers can't see the trees for the forest.

dpreview called the Pentax Q "ever-so-slightly eccentric." No, it's not slightly anything. It's over-the-top bizarre. Bizarre enough that Pentax will sell a few to people who are more interested in being able to pull a mini-mini-SLR out of their pocket to impress others .... Meanwhile, the rest of us will be taking better pictures with an Olympus XZ-1 for half the price.







.
09-02-2011, 09:00 AM   #1108
Pentaxian
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 307
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Dozens of Pentax Q images, including RAW's for download, at all ISO's:

Pentax Q Photos | PhotographyBLOG

First impression: not bad.
The RAW files clean up quite well in Lightroom, here's the ISO 6400 shot before and after. This is 100% crop.



Reducing noise alone leaves a bunch of colour splotching, if you drop overall saturation and recover with vibrance, you get this. I'm very impressed with this result, the early JPEG samples of these high ISOs were disappointing. I probably won't shoot at ISO 6400, but for a web-sized image it will look okay for certain subjects.
09-02-2011, 09:01 AM   #1109
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
Technically the Q is not a P&S, it's a serious camera with a tiny sensor. It may perform very well for its size but it's still tiny. My Samsung EX1 is a f/1.8-2.4 *zoom* and has a bigger sensor... At of course 1/3 of the price. It's as unpocketable. So from a "serious" photographer perspective it's hard to see the point of this Q unless more exciting lenses start to appear. Some sub f/1.4 primes or zooms, macros going to 2:1 or more, super fast telephotos... There is potential for interesting niches but right now it's just "meh" compared to what is existing on the market.
09-02-2011, 09:48 AM   #1110
Senior Member
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 242
Ok, to bring in my 2c:

still I'm wondering about the effort of some people in posting massages* to a camera they claim they would never ever dare to touch, cetainly not find a possible way of use and - %E&$"Q$ - ever think avbout buying it. I guess this is part of human nature, and ogl, I'm afraid I got so much information from your postings, not about the camera but rather your personality that I would want to have some wodka with you and discuss the future of the universe (no pun intended)

But I think the main point in the Q that has been ignored in this discussion is: this little camera with the somehow tiny sensor is part of a new camera system with a new mount and interchangeable lenses that, IIRC support at least sensors up to 1,7, and, I find it funny not to have read this until now, offers the opportunity to bring new sensors which might have one advantage to larger formats: they use cutting edge sensor technology at an affordable price. That's the main difference between the Q mount and P&S cameras, cheep ones or high end like Fuji X100: you will never have the chance to use a part of your investment (the high quality lens) with a new sensor What you buy is what you will keep, that's it. I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax brings a Qf with a Foveon-sensor, at least technically and from a price-point of view this sensor should be fitting and not be at an astronomical price range as the larger version in the Sigma. It could be, and here I'm maybe just dreaming, that this is the ideal platform for all new technologies: aptiva APS-C or Q-Format? Guess?

It's the first of a system, you keep your investment in lenses, we will see to which use they will come, but I see some potential.

Anyway, give the little critter a chance, especially if you are "absolutely not interested" in it and think to have to proove this with 150 postings

*edit: I saw this typo and wanted to correct it, but thought it might fit as an acronym for "mass messages"
edit II: and yes, I do think the initial price point is overenthusiastic, guess 400 body and 500 with prime 600 with double kit would give it a kick.

Last edited by MMVIII; 09-02-2011 at 09:57 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 10:55 PM. | 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