Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-10-2011, 07:06 AM   #1261
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510


09-10-2011, 08:24 AM   #1262
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And so while the Dell is not cheaper (almost same price), it lacks the engineering sophistication and beauty the Mac definitely has
Well I never liked Dell laptops. And without going into another PC vs Mac, you have more choice for a PC laptop. The one I really like was the Thinkpad. I still have my T60p from 2006 and it's still better (quality wise) than any Dell you can throw at it. But it's true that nothing really beat the beauty of those Apple. For computers it maybe true that Apple is not much more expensive but it's also because they don't really dominate that market. Of course, any company dominating a market will try to milk as much as margin as they can. Apple has no special status in this regard.

Now getting back to the regular program.

QuoteOriginally posted by frank:
The little Q is tiny, but it is very well made. You have to hold one to see how good this little thing feels in hand:
Your pictures do justice to the build of this tiny Q. But for the way I like to use a camera, there will be no Q in my future I'm afraid. No viewfinder is the big deal for me.
09-10-2011, 08:32 AM   #1263
Veteran Member
timh's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 445
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I could go on forever ...
Sigh. Yes, but let's not - I'll stop replying after this one.

OK, the prices in the US are cheaper and closer than in the UK. However, you're making some unrealistic choices in your specs. Spending near 2 grand on a laptop? You need a 3 year warranty. Applecare is the only option for the Mac, and a better service option (on site) is standard with the Dell. Accidental damage cover is unnecessary, there are much cheaper options for that (included in household contents policy, for example). Windows 7 Ultimate provides only very niche functionality that Pro doesn't provide and in fact for 90% of users "Home Basic" is more than enough. Battery life in a 15" laptop? It's going to be plugged in most of the time, the point here (and elsewhere) is that Dell offers a choice to reduce cost by only buying what the customer actually needs while Apple gives you a choice between excessive and even more excessive. Another example: Dedicated video hardware in a laptop is still pointless unless you're buying a gaming laptop; performance is generations behind desktop chips so games still run like crap. Stuff that you've paid for but never use, that's awful value. I checked the Dell US site, a comparable machine without the extraneous stuff is $1400 - a bit cheaper.

Build quality, fine, Apple is the winner. However, if this is a laptop you want to rely on it's only reliable as long as it's got a full warranty (and there's an Apple Store nearby, in the Mac case) after which it should be replaced and relegated to non-critical tasks. For practical purposes, the structural longevity of any laptop exceeds that 3 years so what you're really paying for is aesthetic.

(My current laptop: Reconditioned 12" Dell Vostro, 128gb SSD, full 3 year warranty. £600. It happily runs Eclipse, Visual Studio, LAMP and IIS/MSQL dev server setups and Photoshop - sometimes even simultaneously.)

Last edited by timh; 09-10-2011 at 08:49 AM.
09-10-2011, 09:17 AM   #1264
Veteran Member
fikkser's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 373
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Apple expensive is myth, not truth.
For what you get, it actually is rather cheap.
Well, it depends on what you want and need.

If you're fine with a crappy netbook and a cheap android phone like some people here, Apple is expensive.

I got a unibody macbook pro and I had an iphone 3g. Both apple products are lightyears before my acer laptop and my new HTC Desire HD in build, function and feel, but not even close in price/performance, which comes first for some (iphone 3g is quite old, but price performance when it was new was pretty crappy). However, thesedays there's enough performance in most modern devices.

09-10-2011, 10:44 AM   #1265
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
I love those quys at The Camera Store. Their reviews are always informative and fun. The Q really look like tiny. IQ is good, nice controls, build quality, etc. But still no viewfinder and not even as an option which I think I would have preferred over the hot shoe.
09-10-2011, 11:33 AM   #1266
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by timh Quote
Sigh. Yes, but let's not - I'll stop replying after this one.
[...]
the point here (and elsewhere) is that Dell offers a choice to reduce cost by only buying what the customer actually needs
Ok, if we settle on Apple giving fewer options to optimize price/performance than I can actually agree.

But that's something different than the common "Apple is expensive" myth which was claimed here to argue Apple profit margins are different from the rest of the industry. Because they are not.

Reg. optimize price/performanc, I actually prefer fewer options which save me time in buying. I update my notebook every 5 years (no time to do it more often) and my current one was $3500. W/o Apple care, of course ...
09-10-2011, 01:07 PM   #1267
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,967
BTW : what is the link between Apple and Q ? None, so let's move on the main subject. Plz
09-10-2011, 01:13 PM   #1268
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
But still no viewfinder and not even as an option which I think I would have preferred over the hot shoe.
There is an optional optical viewfinder for the Q.

09-10-2011, 03:54 PM   #1269
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
I love those quys at The Camera Store. Their reviews are always informative and fun. The Q really look like tiny. IQ is good, nice controls, build quality, etc. But still no viewfinder and not even as an option which I think I would have preferred over the hot shoe.
yaa viewfinder is important thing. On my R1 too first year or two it was mostly liveview shooting but after that i personally prefer viewfinder for shooting. Viewfinder is used 90% of time now.

QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
There is an optional optical viewfinder for the Q.
I think that has view of a Normal lens, so if you fixed anyother lens you will be just guessing. Besides too expensive for what it does.

PS: During touch and try event I did try it on Q. It was alright.
09-10-2011, 06:20 PM   #1270
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,327
Wish they had a connection for external evf like my Pen. Or a manually zooming add on viewfinder? Or may be a wider optical finder with other frame lines etched on the glass to give a Leica rangefinder effect. My hope now, is a folding "hood with magnifier" like on a TLR camera. It could bolt to tripod socket or hotshoe. Might extract one from a dead camera and build it myself.
thanks
barondla
09-10-2011, 06:27 PM   #1271
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote

Now getting back to the regular program.
Really!!!!



QuoteQuote:
Your pictures do justice to the build of this tiny Q. But for the way I like to use a camera, there will be no Q in my future I'm afraid. No viewfinder is the big deal for me.
Hi ManuH,

I felt the same -- won't use no stinking EVF. . . but the Q changes things for me, I think. I shoot birds and macros mostly, and my subjects are living moving creatures. Any EVF has some lag -- has to since the image from the sensor needs to be processed to be shown on whatever screen, and no matter how quickly this is done, it's not real time, and add reaction time (which for me gets slower by the day), and the moment is either gone, or can't be anticipated sufficiently to get the shot I want.

For me, the workaround for ultra tele use will probably be to tripod mount the lens+Q, use an external OVF to spot, the LCD to finely align the frame, and then watch the subject in real time with naked eyes or binocs to time the shots. I'll also have a DSLR body with a long tele for quicker action handheld. I essentially do the same now, with really big glass (FA* 300/2.8 + 1.7x AFA) on the tripod and a more easily handheld slower lens (FA* 300/4.5 + 1.7x AFA) on the second body. The difference will be total carrying weight. Instead of a 300/2.8 w TC + DSLR body at @ 8 lbs and a 9 lb tripod and gimbal, I can opt for the Q + K>Q adapter with my A* 200/2.8 at @ 2.5 lbs and a 4 lb tripod and ballhead. I lose AF and AE and the OVF, but I also lose 11 lbs of awkward carrying weight -- a very good tradeoff for me at 61 YO with a weak ticker.

For macros, the Q + adapter + D FA 100 Macro + Metz 15 MS1 will weigh about 29 oz, the K-5 body alone weighs a bit over 26 oz. The LCD VF will actually probably be a benefit here since I normally handhold, and the camera is always at an awkward angle. Spiders and other critters aren't as expressive as birds, and capturing the right expression or pose is not as much of a concern.

For people shooting, the Q also offers advantages -- it's small, inconspicuous, and not intimidating. Even with the "normal" OVF, I can use it to center the frame with the Srd 02 zoom, and guesstimate the frame coverage with some experience. With the OVF, I should be able to as easily capture the expressions and "moments" that I want. If I want to use external flash, the Metz 24 AF 1 is pretty compact, about triples the onboard flash's power, only costs $90 USD, and weighs less than 1 lb. The whole Q w/external flash package would weigh something like 28 oz, so again, not much more than the K-5 body alone. It would also be stowable in two jacket or cargo pants pockets when not in use, so a lot easier to keep track of if I'm not shooting.

The Q is the first "mirrorless" camera to offer advantages that can outweigh the disadvantage that I've always seen between OVFs and EVFs for my use. I'm willing to give it a shot, and see if this old dog can learn some new tricks. . .

Scott
09-10-2011, 07:02 PM   #1272
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
Another solution is to use the Hoodloupe. I use it sometimes on my K-5 to good effect. Although on the Q it will certainly look awkward.
09-10-2011, 07:18 PM   #1273
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
Another solution is to use the Hoodloupe. I use it sometimes on my K-5 to good effect. Although on the Q it will certainly look awkward.
Hi ManuH,

I've got a Hoodloupe, and will certainly try it if (or rather when) I get a Q. It really wouldn't be that awkward to use on a tripod mounted camera despite the looks. . . and it won't help with the EVF lag for birds and candid people shooting, so I've been looking for workarounds to eliminate the lag for the situations where it will hurt my shooting.

I'm just doing some mental exercises to work out how I'd use this camera in the field. It's a fun way to pass the time while we see if there's a lot of initial resistance to the Q which might force the market price down relatively quickly here in the US. I also have to rationalize spending the money, but that's pretty much done now. . .

Scott
09-10-2011, 09:18 PM   #1274
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
A quick check revealed:

- MacBook Pro 15", 2.0GHz Core i7, 4GB RAM, 256MB graphics, 500GB@7200rpm (almost base config) is $1899 (*)


Apple expensive is myth, not truth.
For what you get, it actually is rather cheap.
nope... if you will check deals websites like you shall see deals directly from Dell or HP that you never ever find directly from Apple :


Dell Inspiron 15r Laptop: i7 2630QM 2.0 GHz Quad Core CPU, 6GB DDR3, 640GB HDD, GeForce GT 525M, 15.6 LED LCD (1366x768), WiFi N, DVDRW, 6 Cell Battery, Win 7 Prem $637 + Free shipping

or

HP Pavilion dv6tqe Quad Core Laptop: Intel i7 2630QM 2.0GHz, 6GB DDR3, 640GB HDD, 15.6" LED Matte Display (1920x1080), Blu-ray ROM + DVD-RW, 1GB Radeon 6770M, WiFi N, 6-Cell Battery, Win 7 Prem 64-bit $927 + Free shipping



granted they are not as shiny outside
09-11-2011, 03:40 AM   #1275
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
it won't help with the EVF lag for birds and candid people shooting
You're right.

I am actually wondering all those test sites measuring all their stuff don't measure viewfinder lag. Optical VF would be zero and EVF would vary depending on the implementation.

I am personally watching the lag come down to 25ms which is a long way to go still. With the K-5, it's more like 200ms. I think with fast EVF-only cameras like the A77, this could become an issue. A fast camera with a slow viewfinder is no perfect match.

Last edited by falconeye; 09-11-2011 at 05:05 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 11:57 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