Pentax Q in the Flesh

ogl · 07-09-2011, 10:23 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Christine Tham

Yeah, but remember the camera is in the hand of a very tiny Japanese girl.

It seems to me that it's not girl's hand.

Japanese girls are different, by the way.

ogl · 07-09-2011, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

Sorry, the S95 makes zero sense to me.

I don't want a zoom lens, I want a prime lens - I hate zoom.

And I want control over shooting parameters.

What I want basically is a camera with controls and a prime lens shrunk to the size of a compact. Which is exactly what the Q is. There is nothing else even remotely comparable.

It's stupid conclusion.

Do you understand that Pentax Q prime 8.5/1.9 is useless as prime because of tiny sensor?

In terms of DOF - it's eq.~ 47 mm/f11 (35 mm system).
Pay attention - f11 is opened aperture.

Nothing to control - to control aperture from f11 has no any sense

conradj · 07-09-2011, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by ogl

It seems to me that it's not girl's hand.

Yeah, it is. You can match up the T-shirt in one of the other shots, and she's wearing the cam.

Christine Tham · 07-10-2011, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Do you understand that Pentax Q prime 8.5/1.9 is useless as prime because of tiny sensor?

In terms of DOF - it's eq.~ 47 mm/f11 (35 mm system).
Pay attention - f11 is opened aperture.

Nothing to control - to control aperture from f11 has no any sense

LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...

ogl · 07-10-2011, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...

Do you really have some secret information about Q prime?

Christine Tham · 07-10-2011, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Do you really have some secret information about Q prime?

LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though.

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):

juu · 07-10-2011, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Vylen

As for drawing the line at a MacBook, I don't see how it's any different from any other laptop - laptops are generally not meant to be user-serviceable apart from RAM. So if you bought a Dell, HP or Lenovo and they broke, you'd have to send it in to an authorised service-person

That is completely false in case of Lenovo. They publish repair manuals online and sell parts at reasonable prices at their store, as do 3rd parties online. I replaced my broken LCD screen for 60 GBP and keyboard for 16 GBP - both new, and it took 30 mins for both as the devices are well designed, as opposed to Apple crap which look nice but aren't meant to be serviced, just replaced by the newest model. Hell even batteries aren't user swappable on iPhones, wtf.

ogl · 07-10-2011, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):

It seems to me - it's macro shot from very short distance (3 cm, 5 cm? 10 cm?)...Or maybe I'm wrong...And it's your friend at this photo...?

Use DOF calculator with 1/2.3" sensor + 8.5/1.9 + 2 m distance to object - it's easy.

uccemebug · 07-10-2011, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by conradj

Yeah, it is. You can match up the T-shirt in one of the other shots, and she's wearing the cam.

Nah. There may be a woman standing in the back, but that's a man's hand. And not a Japanese man's I'd bet from the hair. When I lived in Tokyo I was surprised at how many people wanted to touch the fur on the back of my arm.

As for the Q, my first reaction was the same as my reaction to a certain 1999 "prequel" for which I'd waited half my life: "What's going on??" But now I'm rather glad that it's there:
a) it bridges the K line of cameras with the lego/hello kitty stuff
b) it's generating a lot of talk and controversy and all 'round awareness of Pentax
c) it's made me more interested in the advancement in tiny sensor capability

So .. good for Pentax. Given the improvements in small sensors, I'm now watching to see what Ricoh does with the GRD IV.

holycow · 07-10-2011, 04:43 AM

a certain prequel in 1999?? oh man..

jsherman999 · 07-10-2011, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...

What are you referring to?

.

Art Vandelay II · 07-10-2011, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though.

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):

That is also a close up shot. Even an iPhone can produce somewhat shallow DOF when shooting macro. The problem is portraits. Here is a portrait taken wide open with the XZ-1:

Ron | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That is a really nice portrait with fantastic light, but that is about as shallow of DOF as one can realistically hope for with the Q without softening the background in post processing...and who wants to do that? I did it on two pics taken with my G10 and said to hell with it and sold my G10.

The problem with the Q is not that it will be a bad camera; I'm sure it will be fine for a number of things such as street, macro, and travel pics. The problem is when comparing it to the competition it's hard to justify it. For most people an E-PM1, E-PL3, GF3, NEX-C3, XZ-1, S95, TL500, or an LX5 just makes more sense...and every single one them not only *should* have higher IQ, but they are all cheaper too boot. I don't think there would be nearly as many people laughing at, or complaining about the Q if it were just cheaper. At $300-400 I understand why someone might want to have it as a toy. However, an $800 price tag for a camera with a $2 sensor is simply absurd.

ogl · 07-10-2011, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

The problem with the Q is not that it will be a bad camera; I'm sure it will be fine for a number of things such as street, macro, and travel pics. The problem is when comparing it to the competition it's hard to justify it. At $300-400 I understand why someone might want to have it as a toy. However, an $800 price tag for a camera with a $2 sensor is simply absurd.

Agreed.

jsherman999 · 07-10-2011, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though.

Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):

1'' tall figurine shot from a couple inches away?

BTW, what was the name of the contest your friend won, or the name of your friend? If you can't find a link to the image, we can just search on the friends's name or name of the contest.

jsherman999 · 07-10-2011, 06:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by uccemebug

As for the Q, my first reaction was the same as my reaction to a certain 1999 "prequel" for which I'd waited half my life: "What's going on??"

Jar-Jar Binks. Jar-Jar Binks is going on here.

.

07-10-2011, 04:24 AM	#608
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Christine Tham Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing): It seems to me - it's macro shot from very short distance (3 cm, 5 cm? 10 cm?)...Or maybe I'm wrong...And it's your friend at this photo...? Use DOF calculator with 1/2.3" sensor + 8.5/1.9 + 2 m distance to object - it's easy. Last edited by ogl; 07-10-2011 at 04:33 AM.

07-10-2011, 06:35 AM	#612
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by Christine Tham LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though. Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing): That is also a close up shot. Even an iPhone can produce somewhat shallow DOF when shooting macro. The problem is portraits. Here is a portrait taken wide open with the XZ-1: Ron \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! That is a really nice portrait with fantastic light, but that is about as shallow of DOF as one can realistically hope for with the Q without softening the background in post processing...and who wants to do that? I did it on two pics taken with my G10 and said to hell with it and sold my G10. The problem with the Q is not that it will be a bad camera; I'm sure it will be fine for a number of things such as street, macro, and travel pics. The problem is when comparing it to the competition it's hard to justify it. For most people an E-PM1, E-PL3, GF3, NEX-C3, XZ-1, S95, TL500, or an LX5 just makes more sense...and every single one them not only should have higher IQ, but they are all cheaper too boot. I don't think there would be nearly as many people laughing at, or complaining about the Q if it were just cheaper. At $300-400 I understand why someone might want to have it as a toy. However, an $800 price tag for a camera with a $2 sensor is simply absurd. Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-10-2011 at 06:49 AM.

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

07-09-2011, 10:23 PM - 1 Like	#601
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Christine Tham Yeah, but remember the camera is in the hand of a very tiny Japanese girl. It seems to me that it's not girl's hand. Japanese girls are different, by the way.

07-09-2011, 10:27 PM	#602
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Christine Tham Sorry, the S95 makes zero sense to me. I don't want a zoom lens, I want a prime lens - I hate zoom. And I want control over shooting parameters. What I want basically is a camera with controls and a prime lens shrunk to the size of a compact. Which is exactly what the Q is. There is nothing else even remotely comparable. It's stupid conclusion. Do you understand that Pentax Q prime 8.5/1.9 is useless as prime because of tiny sensor? In terms of DOF - it's eq.~ 47 mm/f11 (35 mm system). Pay attention - f11 is opened aperture. Nothing to control - to control aperture from f11 has no any sense

07-09-2011, 11:06 PM	#603
conradj Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 188	Originally posted by ogl It seems to me that it's not girl's hand. Yeah, it is. You can match up the T-shirt in one of the other shots, and she's wearing the cam.

07-10-2011, 12:13 AM	#604
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by ogl Do you understand that Pentax Q prime 8.5/1.9 is useless as prime because of tiny sensor? In terms of DOF - it's eq.~ 47 mm/f11 (35 mm system). Pay attention - f11 is opened aperture. Nothing to control - to control aperture from f11 has no any sense LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ...

07-10-2011, 03:40 AM	#605
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Christine Tham LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ... Do you really have some secret information about Q prime?

07-10-2011, 03:52 AM	#606
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by ogl Do you really have some secret information about Q prime? LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though. Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing):

07-10-2011, 04:11 AM	#607
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	Originally posted by Vylen As for drawing the line at a MacBook, I don't see how it's any different from any other laptop - laptops are generally not meant to be user-serviceable apart from RAM. So if you bought a Dell, HP or Lenovo and they broke, you'd have to send it in to an authorised service-person That is completely false in case of Lenovo. They publish repair manuals online and sell parts at reasonable prices at their store, as do 3rd parties online. I replaced my broken LCD screen for 60 GBP and keyboard for 16 GBP - both new, and it took 30 mins for both as the devices are well designed, as opposed to Apple crap which look nice but aren't meant to be serviced, just replaced by the newest model. Hell even batteries aren't user swappable on iPhones, wtf.

07-10-2011, 04:38 AM	#609
uccemebug Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	Originally posted by conradj Yeah, it is. You can match up the T-shirt in one of the other shots, and she's wearing the cam. Nah. There may be a woman standing in the back, but that's a man's hand. And not a Japanese man's I'd bet from the hair. When I lived in Tokyo I was surprised at how many people wanted to touch the fur on the back of my arm. As for the Q, my first reaction was the same as my reaction to a certain 1999 "prequel" for which I'd waited half my life: "What's going on??" But now I'm rather glad that it's there: a) it bridges the K line of cameras with the lego/hello kitty stuff b) it's generating a lot of talk and controversy and all 'round awareness of Pentax c) it's made me more interested in the advancement in tiny sensor capability So .. good for Pentax. Given the improvements in small sensors, I'm now watching to see what Ricoh does with the GRD IV.

07-10-2011, 04:43 AM	#610
holycow Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: sydney Posts: 26	a certain prequel in 1999?? oh man..

07-10-2011, 06:34 AM	#611
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Christine Tham LOL - do you understand that the standard formula for DOF assumes a symmetrical lens design, which the Q lenses may not be? Something to think about ... What are you referring to? .

07-10-2011, 06:37 AM	#613
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II The problem with the Q is not that it will be a bad camera; I'm sure it will be fine for a number of things such as street, macro, and travel pics. The problem is when comparing it to the competition it's hard to justify it. At $300-400 I understand why someone might want to have it as a toy. However, an $800 price tag for a camera with a $2 sensor is simply absurd. Agreed.

07-10-2011, 06:37 AM	#614
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Christine Tham LOL - I don't need "secret information" to know that tweaking lens design to get more DOF control is not new. Your wild speculations re a camera you haven't seen do make hilarious reading though. Here's an example, from a compact camera (taken in 2004) by myself (no post processing): 1'' tall figurine shot from a couple inches away? BTW, what was the name of the contest your friend won, or the name of your friend? If you can't find a link to the image, we can just search on the friends's name or name of the contest.

07-10-2011, 06:49 AM - 1 Like	#615
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by uccemebug As for the Q, my first reaction was the same as my reaction to a certain 1999 "prequel" for which I'd waited half my life: "What's going on??" Jar-Jar Binks. Jar-Jar Binks is going on here. .