Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Blue · 09-07-2011, 10:36 AM

I can fit my GF2 with 17/2.8 (or 14/2.4, or 20/1.7) in most of my shirt pockets. However, it is a bit more heavy than I would want in order to carry it there very long so a jacket pocket would be better.

Blue · 09-07-2011, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

They don't qualify because their cameras are too big.

Well, the LX3, LX5 and Leica versions aren't very big and have a 1/1.63" sensor.

**ManuH** · 09-07-2011, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Well, the LX3, LX5 and Leica versions aren't very big and have a 1/1.63" sensor.

We are getting nowhere here. These cameras while fine cannot interchange lenses so you have the problem for example that the LX3 is a very short zoom (24-60mm). My EX1 is excellent but it's only 24-72mm. The Q could swap lens to a 12-24mm or a 100-300mm. I'm not going to explain further to you the advantages of IL cameras

All these excellent "advanced compacts" use about the same zoom range so too bad if you want an ultrawide, a fisheye, a macro or a tele.

That said, none of these cameras are truly pocketable like a S95 can be.

Andi Lo · 09-07-2011, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

We are getting nowhere here. These cameras while fine cannot interchange lenses so you have the problem for example that the LX3 is a very short zoom (24-60mm). My EX1 is excellent but it's only 24-72mm. The Q could swap lens to a 12-24mm or a 100-300mm. I'm not going to explain further to you the advantages of IL cameras

All these excellent "advanced compacts" use about the same zoom range so too bad if you want an ultrawide, a fisheye, a macro or a tele.

That said, none of these cameras are truly pocketable like a S95 can be.

Q has a fullframe 12-24mm equivalent?

I dont think it even has APS-C 12-24mm equivalent. Q cannot shoot wider than the LX 3 unless the fisheye is used

The Pentax DA 12-24 mounted on Q is a standard - tele zoom (fullframe 60-120mm equivalent). Q is probably good for shooting long but for shooting wide non-fisheye, LX3 is superior (and is actually cheaper than a DA 12-24)

Zygonyx · 09-07-2011, 02:02 PM

By the way, it would be interesting to calculate the angle of the Q fish-eye after putting straight it perspectves... so as to evaluate the resulting focal equivalent.

zxaar · 09-07-2011, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Q has a fullframe 12-24mm equivalent?

I dont think it even has APS-C 12-24mm equivalent. Q cannot shoot wider than the LX 3 unless the fisheye is used

Well Q has 160deg fisheye at the moment. And good thing about IL system is that camera maker can launch 12-24mm for Q.

Unless you believe that there will no more lenses for Q in future.

Brangdon · 09-07-2011, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

Some people pretend that the Q mount could accept a bigger sensor, but what about the lenses? They would have their FOV changed, not desirable so I'm very skeptical that Pentax would use a bigger sensor in the future.

I would be astonished if they didn't. They must hope the Q-mount will last as long as the K-mount, and will still be in use in 30 years. As such, not allowing for variation in sensor size would be very short-sighted. Especially as they don't make the sensors themselves.

That field of view changes is already the case when you move a K-mount lens between full-frame and APS-C. It will also happen when you use the K-Q adapter. It's not the end of the world. Especially not for the kind of people who care about the improved image quality a larger sensor would bring.

They'd need more lenses, of course. I wouldn't expect a larger sensor Q-mount body for 2+ years, so they have plenty of time to introduce them.

devorama · 09-07-2011, 03:02 PM

I'm waiting for the first Chinese company to make a c mount adapter for the Q mount. Flange depth is 17.5mm versus Q's 9.2mm. This makes much more sense than using the c mount lenses on m4/3 cameras as some are doing now. This would open up a whole new source of cheap lenses for the Q.

Blue · 09-07-2011, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

We are getting nowhere here. These cameras while fine cannot interchange lenses so you have the problem for example that the LX3 is a very short zoom (24-60mm). My EX1 is excellent but it's only 24-72mm. The Q could swap lens to a 12-24mm or a 100-300mm. I'm not going to explain further to you the advantages of IL cameras

All these excellent "advanced compacts" use about the same zoom range so too bad if you want an ultrawide, a fisheye, a macro or a tele.

That said, none of these cameras are truly pocketable like a S95 can be.

That wasn't the point. He said they were too big. They are not. The GF2 and GF3 then. Well the Q isn't as pocketable as the s95 either. If I wanted to use a true ultra wide, I would want a 15mm or 18mm on full frame. Lets face it an 8.5mm on a Q (1/2.3") isn't exactly an ultrawide field of view at the equivalent 47mm fov.

Blue · 09-07-2011, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Brangdon

I would be astonished if they didn't. They must hope the Q-mount will last as long as the K-mount, and will still be in use in 30 years. As such, not allowing for variation in sensor size would be very short-sighted. Especially as they don't make the sensors themselves.

That field of view changes is already the case when you move a K-mount lens between full-frame and APS-C. It will also happen when you use the K-Q adapter. It's not the end of the world. Especially not for the kind of people who care about the improved image quality a larger sensor would bring.

They'd need more lenses, of course. I wouldn't expect a larger sensor Q-mount body for 2+ years, so they have plenty of time to introduce them.

Very true! the 8.5 has a fov equivalent to 47mm on full frame. To get an ultra wide angle field of view, Pentax will need to come up with a 2mm and 4mm lens, OR bigger sensor.

devorama · 09-07-2011, 03:45 PM

Hello, Pentax 4.2mm lens!

This would be like a 23mm equivalent. But what I've really got my eye on is this:

Pentax 8-48mm F/1.0-1.2 C mount lens

Andi Lo · 09-07-2011, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by devorama

Hello, Pentax 4.2mm lens!

This would be like a 23mm equivalent. But what I've really got my eye on is this:

Pentax 8-48mm F/1.0-1.2 C mount lens

Are cctv lenses ideal for photography? I would assume they're nowhere as sharp / pleasing

Quote:

Well Q has 160deg fisheye at the moment. And good thing about IL system is that camera maker can launch 12-24mm for Q.

Unless you believe that there will no more lenses for Q in future.

Looking at the size of Q's standard zoom lens I have my doubts the wide zoom will be much smaller than the new zoom pancake from Panasonic (28mm equivalent). That lens look like a marvel of engineering equivalent to DA 40. Look at Jogiba's post. The first and third picture are lenses with equivalent FoV!

**ManuH** · 09-07-2011, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Q has a fullframe 12-24mm equivalent?

I said "could". I was talking about potential future lenses not what's available now.

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Are cctv lenses ideal for photography? I would assume they're nowhere as sharp / pleasing

Maybe not but the Q can do 1080p video and these lenses could be extremely useful in that context.

Blue · 09-07-2011, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

I said "could". I was talking about potential future lenses not what's available now.

Maybe not but the Q can do 1080p video and these lenses could be extremely useful in that context.

I am the most curious about the 1080p capabilities of the Q than any other single aspect.

jsherman999 · 09-07-2011, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Blue

I am the most curious about the 1080p capabilities of the Q than any other single aspect.

Yep.

.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh!	pickles	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay	dantuyhoa	Post Your Photos!	9	11-11-2008 11:57 PM

09-07-2011, 10:36 AM	#1216
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	I can fit my GF2 with 17/2.8 (or 14/2.4, or 20/1.7) in most of my shirt pockets. However, it is a bit more heavy than I would want in order to carry it there very long so a jacket pocket would be better.

09-07-2011, 10:37 AM	#1217
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Kunzite They don't qualify because their cameras are too big. Well, the LX3, LX5 and Leica versions aren't very big and have a 1/1.63" sensor.

09-07-2011, 12:24 PM	#1218
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Blue Well, the LX3, LX5 and Leica versions aren't very big and have a 1/1.63" sensor. We are getting nowhere here. These cameras while fine cannot interchange lenses so you have the problem for example that the LX3 is a very short zoom (24-60mm). My EX1 is excellent but it's only 24-72mm. The Q could swap lens to a 12-24mm or a 100-300mm. I'm not going to explain further to you the advantages of IL cameras All these excellent "advanced compacts" use about the same zoom range so too bad if you want an ultrawide, a fisheye, a macro or a tele. That said, none of these cameras are truly pocketable like a S95 can be.

09-07-2011, 01:15 PM	#1219
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by ManuH We are getting nowhere here. These cameras while fine cannot interchange lenses so you have the problem for example that the LX3 is a very short zoom (24-60mm). My EX1 is excellent but it's only 24-72mm. The Q could swap lens to a 12-24mm or a 100-300mm. I'm not going to explain further to you the advantages of IL cameras All these excellent "advanced compacts" use about the same zoom range so too bad if you want an ultrawide, a fisheye, a macro or a tele. That said, none of these cameras are truly pocketable like a S95 can be. Q has a fullframe 12-24mm equivalent? I dont think it even has APS-C 12-24mm equivalent. Q cannot shoot wider than the LX 3 unless the fisheye is used The Pentax DA 12-24 mounted on Q is a standard - tele zoom (fullframe 60-120mm equivalent). Q is probably good for shooting long but for shooting wide non-fisheye, LX3 is superior (and is actually cheaper than a DA 12-24)

09-07-2011, 02:02 PM	#1220
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	By the way, it would be interesting to calculate the angle of the Q fish-eye after putting straight it perspectves... so as to evaluate the resulting focal equivalent.

09-07-2011, 02:36 PM	#1221
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by Andi Lo Q has a fullframe 12-24mm equivalent? I dont think it even has APS-C 12-24mm equivalent. Q cannot shoot wider than the LX 3 unless the fisheye is used Well Q has 160deg fisheye at the moment. And good thing about IL system is that camera maker can launch 12-24mm for Q. Unless you believe that there will no more lenses for Q in future.

09-07-2011, 02:49 PM	#1222
Brangdon Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Nottingham Posts: 172	Originally posted by ManuH Some people pretend that the Q mount could accept a bigger sensor, but what about the lenses? They would have their FOV changed, not desirable so I'm very skeptical that Pentax would use a bigger sensor in the future. I would be astonished if they didn't. They must hope the Q-mount will last as long as the K-mount, and will still be in use in 30 years. As such, not allowing for variation in sensor size would be very short-sighted. Especially as they don't make the sensors themselves. That field of view changes is already the case when you move a K-mount lens between full-frame and APS-C. It will also happen when you use the K-Q adapter. It's not the end of the world. Especially not for the kind of people who care about the improved image quality a larger sensor would bring. They'd need more lenses, of course. I wouldn't expect a larger sensor Q-mount body for 2+ years, so they have plenty of time to introduce them.

09-07-2011, 03:02 PM	#1223
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	I'm waiting for the first Chinese company to make a c mount adapter for the Q mount. Flange depth is 17.5mm versus Q's 9.2mm. This makes much more sense than using the c mount lenses on m4/3 cameras as some are doing now. This would open up a whole new source of cheap lenses for the Q.

09-07-2011, 03:05 PM	#1224
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ManuH We are getting nowhere here. These cameras while fine cannot interchange lenses so you have the problem for example that the LX3 is a very short zoom (24-60mm). My EX1 is excellent but it's only 24-72mm. The Q could swap lens to a 12-24mm or a 100-300mm. I'm not going to explain further to you the advantages of IL cameras All these excellent "advanced compacts" use about the same zoom range so too bad if you want an ultrawide, a fisheye, a macro or a tele. That said, none of these cameras are truly pocketable like a S95 can be. That wasn't the point. He said they were too big. They are not. The GF2 and GF3 then. Well the Q isn't as pocketable as the s95 either. If I wanted to use a true ultra wide, I would want a 15mm or 18mm on full frame. Lets face it an 8.5mm on a Q (1/2.3") isn't exactly an ultrawide field of view at the equivalent 47mm fov.

09-07-2011, 03:19 PM	#1225
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Brangdon I would be astonished if they didn't. They must hope the Q-mount will last as long as the K-mount, and will still be in use in 30 years. As such, not allowing for variation in sensor size would be very short-sighted. Especially as they don't make the sensors themselves. That field of view changes is already the case when you move a K-mount lens between full-frame and APS-C. It will also happen when you use the K-Q adapter. It's not the end of the world. Especially not for the kind of people who care about the improved image quality a larger sensor would bring. They'd need more lenses, of course. I wouldn't expect a larger sensor Q-mount body for 2+ years, so they have plenty of time to introduce them. Very true! the 8.5 has a fov equivalent to 47mm on full frame. To get an ultra wide angle field of view, Pentax will need to come up with a 2mm and 4mm lens, OR bigger sensor.

09-07-2011, 03:45 PM	#1226
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	Hello, Pentax 4.2mm lens! This would be like a 23mm equivalent. But what I've really got my eye on is this: Pentax 8-48mm F/1.0-1.2 C mount lens

09-07-2011, 04:29 PM	#1227
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by devorama Hello, Pentax 4.2mm lens! This would be like a 23mm equivalent. But what I've really got my eye on is this: Pentax 8-48mm F/1.0-1.2 C mount lens Are cctv lenses ideal for photography? I would assume they're nowhere as sharp / pleasing Quote: Well Q has 160deg fisheye at the moment. And good thing about IL system is that camera maker can launch 12-24mm for Q. Unless you believe that there will no more lenses for Q in future. Looking at the size of Q's standard zoom lens I have my doubts the wide zoom will be much smaller than the new zoom pancake from Panasonic (28mm equivalent). That lens look like a marvel of engineering equivalent to DA 40. Look at Jogiba's post. The first and third picture are lenses with equivalent FoV!

09-07-2011, 04:49 PM	#1228
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Andi Lo Q has a fullframe 12-24mm equivalent? I said "could". I was talking about potential future lenses not what's available now. Originally posted by Andi Lo Are cctv lenses ideal for photography? I would assume they're nowhere as sharp / pleasing Maybe not but the Q can do 1080p video and these lenses could be extremely useful in that context.

09-07-2011, 05:38 PM	#1229
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ManuH I said "could". I was talking about potential future lenses not what's available now. Maybe not but the Q can do 1080p video and these lenses could be extremely useful in that context. I am the most curious about the 1080p capabilities of the Q than any other single aspect.

09-07-2011, 05:52 PM	#1230
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Blue I am the most curious about the 1080p capabilities of the Q than any other single aspect. Yep. .

Pentax Q in the Flesh

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!