Pentax Q in the Flesh

gazonk · 06-28-2011, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Vylen

If they do successfully make and release an adapter, I look forward to the first photos of a Pentax Q with a Bigma attached.

I think you mean a Bigma with a Pentax Q attached?

eddie1960 · 06-28-2011, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

I think you mean a Bigma with a Pentax Q attached?

taking pictures of the lunar lander

Art Vandelay II · 06-28-2011, 10:58 AM

Have no idea where this came from, but a DPR user posted a 100% crop ISO3200 comparison between the Q, Canon S95, and the Sony NEX-5. Looks pretty bad (no worse than the S95 though):

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg

Via Rice's blog.

Noise was to be expected, but what I'd really like to see is a sample of the background blur filter. I have no idea what to expect from that.

Andi Lo · 06-28-2011, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

Have no idea where this came from, but a DPR user posted a 100% crop ISO3200 comparison between the Q, Canon S95, and the Sony NEX-5. Looks pretty bad (no worse than the S95 though):

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg

Via Rice's blog.

Noise was to be expected, but what I'd really like to see is a sample of the background blur filter. I have no idea what to expect from that.

Looks alright for 3200... what do you expect?

**Rondec** · 06-28-2011, 11:20 AM

Looks pretty good for iso 3200 -- pretty heavy handed noise reduction going on, but still, not bad for that sized sensor. You could certainly print 4 by 6 or 5 by 7 photos from that without too much problem, I would think.

gazonk · 06-28-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

taking pictures of the lunar lander

seriously, I wonder which telephoto lenses that have a good enough resolution to match the tiny sensor? I imagine my DA70 could be good enough, that would be a pretty compact ~400mm equivalent lens

gazonk · 06-28-2011, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

Have no idea where this came from, but a DPR user posted a 100% crop ISO3200 comparison between the Q, Canon S95, and the Sony NEX-5. Looks pretty bad (no worse than the S95 though):

I think it looks better slightly better than the S95 - better colors. Not bad at all for such a small sensor.

AND: This is obviously one of the imaging-resource samples. And they were taken down again on request from Pentax - because these were from a pre production camera. Let's wait for production samples.

Art Vandelay II · 06-28-2011, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Looks alright for 3200... what do you expect?

That's pretty much what I expected. Like I said though, I'm more interested in the Bokeh Control filter...I have no idea what to expect from that. No doubt nice bokeh can be done through software. I did it myself once with this shot I took from a Canon G10 using Alien Skin Bokeh in Photoshop. However, I took two photos to do that. One with the subject, and another empty background after he walked away. This is another shot I took with a G10 and softened the background in Photoshop later. However on that one I did not have an empty background to superimpose the subject on. It took hours of touch up work to remove the "glow" around the subject that appears when you do bokeh blur in Photoshop. I'm extremely curious to see how Pentax is doing this all in-camera.

If, and that's a huge IF, Pentax has found a way to make pleasing backgrounds on a sensor that small the Q makes a good bit of sense to me. Even if ISO3200 isn't very good today, it may very well be in a few years. ISO 1600 on my Pentax K10D was pretty much unusable just a few years ago after all...

**Aristophanes** · 06-28-2011, 12:39 PM

If it's as good as the S95, that's a good point.

cbaytan · 06-28-2011, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by fisheye freak

The whole concept smells like the old 110 format film SLR from many years ago, which was more a novelty than a serious camera .

Ditto..

Vylen · 06-28-2011, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by gazonk

I think you mean a Bigma with a Pentax Q attached?

Indeed, people might mistake it for an odd-looking lens cap!

Kenn100D · 06-28-2011, 06:28 PM

Does the New Sensor of Q is the same as the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V?

DSC-HX100V review
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V Review - Conclusion | PhotographyBLOG

**Clinton** · 06-28-2011, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by gazonk

seriously, I wonder which telephoto lenses that have a good enough resolution to match the tiny sensor? I imagine my DA70 could be good enough, that would be a pretty compact ~400mm equivalent lens

I think my 250-600 would cut it... what's that, 3300mm?

**Aristophanes** · 06-28-2011, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Kenn100D

Does the New Sensor of Q is the same as the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V?

DSC-HX100V review
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V Review - Conclusion | PhotographyBLOG

The Sony is a 16 megapixel sensor. The Q has 12 megapixels. But they are the same tech at the core and the exact same size at 1/2.3".

If they have the same profile, expect the Q's variant to be quite a bit better at high-ISO, low-light due to almost 25% larger photosites.

it is hard to compare because Sony has a rep for butchering JPEG and this Sony reviewed from you r link only processes JPEG.

Smeggypants · 06-28-2011, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The Sony is a 16 megapixel sensor. The Q has 12 megapixels. But they are the same tech at the core and the exact same size at 1/2.3".

If they have the same profile, expect the Q's variant to be quite a bit better at high-ISO, low-light due to almost 25% larger photosites.

it is hard to compare because Sony has a rep for butchering JPEG and this Sony reviewed from you r link only processes JPEG.

I have a Sony TX-5 with a 10MP Exmor R sensor. The Pentax Q's Exmor R sensor is slightly larger but 12MP. I would wager the pixel pitch is the same.

06-28-2011, 10:58 AM	#483
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Have no idea where this came from, but a DPR user posted a 100% crop ISO3200 comparison between the Q, Canon S95, and the Sony NEX-5. Looks pretty bad (no worse than the S95 though): http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg Via Rice's blog. Noise was to be expected, but what I'd really like to see is a sample of the background blur filter. I have no idea what to expect from that. Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 06-28-2011 at 11:04 AM.

06-28-2011, 12:16 PM	#488
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by Andi Lo Looks alright for 3200... what do you expect? That's pretty much what I expected. Like I said though, I'm more interested in the Bokeh Control filter...I have no idea what to expect from that. No doubt nice bokeh can be done through software. I did it myself once with this shot I took from a Canon G10 using Alien Skin Bokeh in Photoshop. However, I took two photos to do that. One with the subject, and another empty background after he walked away. This is another shot I took with a G10 and softened the background in Photoshop later. However on that one I did not have an empty background to superimpose the subject on. It took hours of touch up work to remove the "glow" around the subject that appears when you do bokeh blur in Photoshop. I'm extremely curious to see how Pentax is doing this all in-camera. If, and that's a huge IF, Pentax has found a way to make pleasing backgrounds on a sensor that small the Q makes a good bit of sense to me. Even if ISO3200 isn't very good today, it may very well be in a few years. ISO 1600 on my Pentax K10D was pretty much unusable just a few years ago after all... Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 06-28-2011 at 12:22 PM.

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

06-28-2011, 05:02 AM	#481
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Vylen If they do successfully make and release an adapter, I look forward to the first photos of a Pentax Q with a Bigma attached. I think you mean a Bigma with a Pentax Q attached?

06-28-2011, 07:24 AM	#482
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by gazonk I think you mean a Bigma with a Pentax Q attached? taking pictures of the lunar lander

06-28-2011, 11:14 AM	#484
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II Have no idea where this came from, but a DPR user posted a 100% crop ISO3200 comparison between the Q, Canon S95, and the Sony NEX-5. Looks pretty bad (no worse than the S95 though): http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg Via Rice's blog. Noise was to be expected, but what I'd really like to see is a sample of the background blur filter. I have no idea what to expect from that. Looks alright for 3200... what do you expect?

06-28-2011, 11:20 AM	#485
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Looks pretty good for iso 3200 -- pretty heavy handed noise reduction going on, but still, not bad for that sized sensor. You could certainly print 4 by 6 or 5 by 7 photos from that without too much problem, I would think.

06-28-2011, 11:59 AM	#486
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by eddie1960 taking pictures of the lunar lander seriously, I wonder which telephoto lenses that have a good enough resolution to match the tiny sensor? I imagine my DA70 could be good enough, that would be a pretty compact ~400mm equivalent lens

06-28-2011, 12:03 PM	#487
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II Have no idea where this came from, but a DPR user posted a 100% crop ISO3200 comparison between the Q, Canon S95, and the Sony NEX-5. Looks pretty bad (no worse than the S95 though): I think it looks better slightly better than the S95 - better colors. Not bad at all for such a small sensor. AND: This is obviously one of the imaging-resource samples. And they were taken down again on request from Pentax - because these were from a pre production camera. Let's wait for production samples.

06-28-2011, 12:39 PM	#489
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	If it's as good as the S95, that's a good point.

06-28-2011, 01:21 PM	#490
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by fisheye freak The whole concept smells like the old 110 format film SLR from many years ago, which was more a novelty than a serious camera . Ditto..

06-28-2011, 03:44 PM	#491
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Originally posted by gazonk I think you mean a Bigma with a Pentax Q attached? Indeed, people might mistake it for an odd-looking lens cap!

06-28-2011, 06:28 PM	#492
Kenn100D Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paranaque City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 697 Original Poster	Does the New Sensor of Q is the same as the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V? DSC-HX100V review Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V Review - Conclusion \| PhotographyBLOG

06-28-2011, 06:33 PM	#493
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910	Originally posted by gazonk seriously, I wonder which telephoto lenses that have a good enough resolution to match the tiny sensor? I imagine my DA70 could be good enough, that would be a pretty compact ~400mm equivalent lens I think my 250-600 would cut it... what's that, 3300mm?

06-28-2011, 06:49 PM	#494
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Kenn100D Does the New Sensor of Q is the same as the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V? DSC-HX100V review Sony Cybershot DSC-HX100V Review - Conclusion \| PhotographyBLOG The Sony is a 16 megapixel sensor. The Q has 12 megapixels. But they are the same tech at the core and the exact same size at 1/2.3". If they have the same profile, expect the Q's variant to be quite a bit better at high-ISO, low-light due to almost 25% larger photosites. it is hard to compare because Sony has a rep for butchering JPEG and this Sony reviewed from you r link only processes JPEG.

06-28-2011, 07:46 PM	#495
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Aristophanes The Sony is a 16 megapixel sensor. The Q has 12 megapixels. But they are the same tech at the core and the exact same size at 1/2.3". If they have the same profile, expect the Q's variant to be quite a bit better at high-ISO, low-light due to almost 25% larger photosites. it is hard to compare because Sony has a rep for butchering JPEG and this Sony reviewed from you r link only processes JPEG. I have a Sony TX-5 with a 10MP Exmor R sensor. The Pentax Q's Exmor R sensor is slightly larger but 12MP. I would wager the pixel pitch is the same.