[Art Vandelay II]

the m4/3 bodies for example adjust out barrel distortion when shooting in jpg

m4/3's also corrects in RAW mode. The only way to ever see the true distortion with their lenses is to use an unsupported RAW converter. However, since most people use Lightproom, Aperture, Silkypix, etc most people never see the uncorrected images.

I for one don't mind though. I view it as a new way to do things. If lenses can be made smaller and no one can detect a drop in IQ from it then why not? The same goes for the Q and it's bokeh filter. If by some miracle Pentax has managed to make their 01 standard prime render OOF regions like a Leica 50mm Summicron then great. The end result is all that matters to me. Let's just say that I'm skeptical that they've somehow managed to do that based on using Photoshop for 15 years now.

[Nass]

Heh, this is a marmite camera. People are *so* binary

[junyo]

Alien skin bokeh is what I used on the sample image I posted above. However it is not a solution to the halo effect around the subject I described. In order to properly create a nice effect it helps if you take two photos, one with the subject, then one of an empty background, then combine the two. That will save you from tedious touch up work around the edge of the subject. It would be an absolute nightmare trying to create a photo like this one with software.

Edit: Also there is a problem on photos like this. That looks totally fake to me, almost green-screen like. Since every part of the boy is in perfect focus when a blurry background is applied it just looks superimposed. There needs to be slight blurring at various depths on the subject. I really hope Pentax has figured out someway to do this with the Q because it would be a breakthrough, but man, I just have a hard time seeing it happen. Kind of reminds me of all the hype around the Photoshop content aware fill with CS5. The demo videos made it look great, but in actual use I've found I still get better results just cloning things manually.

The problem is, breakthru or not, if 'bokeh' is what you want, you can buy real, honest to God bokeh for less money, or get fake bokeh in software on your PC with a cheaper/smaller kit.

Pure speculation re bokeh control: perhaps the Q takes multiple shots (focus bracketing) and then blends them, kind of like HDR.

Synthetic aperture processing perhaps?

[Aristophanes]

m4/3's also corrects in RAW mode. The only way to ever see the true distortion with their lenses is to use an unsupported RAW converter. However, since most people use Lightproom, Aperture, Silkypix, etc most people never see the uncorrected images.

"Most people" do NOT use advanced PP software processing photos from a DSLR or mirrorless or whatever. They shoot JPEG by a vast majority.

The greatest development markets for sales in DSLR, M43, whatever is developing nations where personal computers are expensive and unable to keep up with photo suites such as the ones listed here. Japan is a market with few home PC's and people move photos straight from camera to their phones or online.

The camera makers know this, and have put PP functions (filters, etc.) into the cameras themselves to compensate.

[Aristophanes]

Pure speculation re bokeh control: perhaps the Q takes multiple shots (focus bracketing) and then blends them, kind of like HDR.

If it can do that then it should be able to AF video.

[Christine Tham]

The new Sony compacts (DSC-HX7V and HX9V) have a background defocus mode that takes two pictures and blends them.

So I'm starting to get confident this is what the Q does as well. Of course, ideally it should take 3 pictures and blend them, but two should be sufficient.

[Art Vandelay II]

The new Sony compacts (DSC-HX7V and HX9V) have a background defocus mode that takes two pictures and blends them.

Interesting. I wasn't aware anyone even tried this before the Q, but a quick HX9V image search turns up a sample image that displays the exact halo effect around the parameter of the subject I mentioned earlier. I've spent hours touching that sort of thing up in Photoshop. Via this site.

Pentax certainly has their work cut out for them if that's the best Sony can do...but hopefully they've figured out a way to get better results since they were confident enough to put an external dial just for blur mode on the Q.

Here's another interesting link from Sony's literature:

DSC-HX9/HX9V | Background Defocus | Cyber-shot User Guide

The notes section at the bottom lists quite a few short comings. One biggie of course is the subject can't be moving. I assumed as much on that when I read they were merging images. But some things I didn't think would be a problem were "The scene is too bright or too dark" and "The subject is the same color as the background".

If the HX9 is any indication it looks like it will be a feature that is fun to play with for web size images no bigger than 800px or so, but if you want to go bigger then you better either be prepared to do lots of touch up work or simply buy a large sensor camera. Although even at tiny web size images you can still see smudging/glow around the girl in this pic:



Another example here in this Flickr set. So it might not even be useful for tiny web images unless Pentax has figured out how to do something Sony couldn't.

[Christine Tham]

Pentax certainly has their work cut out for them if that's the best Sony can do...but hopefully they've figured out a way to get better results since they were confident enough to put an external dial just for blur mode on the Q.

Here's another interesting link from Sony's literature:

DSC-HX9/HX9V | Background Defocus | Cyber-shot User Guide

The notes section at the bottom lists quite a few short comings. One biggie of course is the subject can't be moving. I assumed as much on that when I read they were merging images. But some things I didn't think would be a problem were "The scene is too bright or too dark" and "The subject is the same color as the background".

That "halo" effect you speak of is also common in HDR processing, and there are several ways of reducing/fixing that. Also the limitations you listed are also common in HDR processing.

I doubt that Pentax would be doing any different from Sony - in fact, I would speculate they are using exactly the same algorithm, which they probably purchased from Sony as part of a package deal with the sensor.

Pentax probably bought a "kit" from Sony which includes the sensor, the processor (that's why the Q is not using the PRIME engine), the OS and a library of in-camera effects. Pentax then built a shell around the kit, and added the lens system.

That's kind of good and bad - the good is Pentax is leveraging Sony's bigger R&D dollars - the bad is that the Q is basically a compact camera with interchangeable lenses.

I'm now thinking of buying both the Q and the DSC-HX7v (if the image quality is good) since it's likely they share a common set of electronics. Previously I was kind of thinking of buying both the Q and the GF3, but I can't really afford investing in 2 extra lens systems (in addition to K mount).

The more I look at micro 4/3, the more I realise it's not for me. It seems to be stuck in between. It's smaller, but not small enough. The quality is almost as good as K mount, but not quite. The lens range is kind of patchy and inconsistent. The camera bodies all feature dumbed down user interfaces targeted at beginners.

In the longer term, I'll wait for Nikon and Canon to get into the game, and probably buy something from them. If Pentax releases a mirrorless K-mount, or joins the micro 4/3 club with a body that features the Pentax ergonomics (including front/back dials) then I could be interested.

[doggy1972]

The new Sony compacts (DSC-HX7V and HX9V) have a background defocus mode that takes two pictures and blends them.

So I'm starting to get confident this is what the Q does as well. Of course, ideally it should take 3 pictures and blend them, but two should be sufficient.

The later Fuji F series cameras also use this technique. I owned an F70exr for a short while and tried it a few times. It worked to a certain degree but, always seemed to blur edges too much. It takes two shots with differing focus points/distances and merges the output. Seemed to work better with subjects that had solid defined edges and was unusable in any kind of wind but, I suppose this stands to reason. Very interesting feature if it can be developed further. I will try to find some sample images from it and post them

[doggy1972]

This is the only example I can find but, it demonstrates the limitations of this method (well at least the limitations of this cameras implementation of it)

[Art Vandelay II]

That "halo" effect you speak of is also common in HDR processing, and there are several ways of reducing/fixing that. Also the limitations you listed are also common in HDR processing.

Yep. That's one of the many many many things I hate about over processed and poorly done HDR.

The more I look at micro 4/3, the more I realise it's not for me. It seems to be stuck in between. It's smaller, but not small enough. The quality is almost as good as K mount, but not quite. The lens range is kind of patchy and inconsistent. The camera bodies all feature dumbed down user interfaces targeted at beginners.

Considering the age of the system I've been pleased so far with their lens line up. They've already covered everything from 14-600mm (in full frame terms) with many excellent primes. In fact it looks like Olympus might have even outdone the Pentax Limiteds with their new 12mm f/2.

As far as image quality goes; the sensor in the new Panasonic G3 is quite good. Good enough for my needs anyway. I can't imagine that sensor hindering my photography in any way.

I somewhat agree about the consumer oriented camera designs so far. I've still yet to find a m4/3's body I truly love. The GF1 could have been that body, but it didn't have an EVF. However, this Fall we are supposed to get first "Pro GF" body. Hopefully it will look something like their old LC1 camera. I could see myself using that camera for most everything, then possibly picking up a tiny body like the GF3 to go with it if I want something really small. There is also a rumor about a Pro PEN coming, but I'll believe it when I see it seeing as how Olympus just released 3 bodies.

In the longer term, I'll wait for Nikon and Canon to get into the game, and probably buy something from them. If Pentax releases a mirrorless K-mount, or joins the micro 4/3 club with a body that features the Pentax ergonomics (including front/back dials) then I could be interested.

I'm interested to see what Canikon does also, but I seriously doubt either of them will use in body shake reduction. How could they after they've claimed lens SR is better all these years? That's the main thing that also bugs me about Panasonic and also the reason I'd buy a Pro PEN over a Pro GF (if given the option). Don't forget Sony though. The NEX-7 leaked image looks pretty much like what most enthusiast want. It's a pity about their lens line up. They may very well create the best mirrorless body with the NEX-7 and not have a single lens worth using on it. I'm sure the Zeiss 24mm will be a good lens, and I could use that 70% of the time, however it looks really really large. Even if the NEX-7 IQ is better than m4/3's, the Pro GF will probably get my money due to the lack off NEX glass. It's a shame, I rather enjoyed my NEX-3 as a street camera...I just had to use my manual focus Pentax lenses on it

[ogl]

All sizes | PENTAX Q (Digital Mirrorless) test | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
photos from Pentax Q...there are 3200*2400

to say honest - absolutely ordinary pictures - common P&S's result.

[Kenn100D]

All sizes | PENTAX Q (Digital Mirrorless) test | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
photos from Pentax Q...there are 3200*2400

to say honest - absolutely ordinary pictures - common P&S's result.

At Least the K-1 is functional. Hope they give out the test.

[Kenn100D]

Checked the Photo. Firmware version: Pentax Q Ver.0.30.

[Blue]

As mentioned earlier, Pentax released a 3 page Q&A document on the Q at PMA - their description of the bokeh control in there implies it's more than just software processing.

However, it's still pretty vague. My suggestion of focus bracketing is my interpretation of the description in that document - it's quite possible it's something completely different.

The document says the bokeh control relies on more than just subject distance but also distance of background objects in relation to the subject. That implies some degree of interaction between the AF and the control.

I missed this earlier. It has to either be software/firmware or they have something going physically with the lens. Are some of the lenses capable of shifting and element? I doubt they would do that with such a small sensor system given they have never done it on 645D, aps-c or any of their film systems except for the soft focus 85mm lenses.