[epqwerty]

Judging from the sample pictures. For resizing and everything it is decent. Nothing that can be griped about compared to some aging DSLRs. However, the blur control seems to but really a hit or miss function with 75% of the time failing.

However, from the pictures with the coloured marbles/balls the pictures seems really good. Yes, you can't do bokeh to the point where everything is blurred like a true 1.8 lens on a DSLR. However, for the most part it's almost like F3.5 or F4. Switch if you had the kit DSLR very similar. Very usable I think for day to day use.

Very much a camera for those moving up from P&S but not ready for a full fledged DSLR.

[Clicker]

PENTAX Q test - a set on Flickr

[jsherman999]

.

I was looking through that second set (link,) and stopped in my tracks when I saw this:


.



... but then I saw the Exif (taken with the K-7 ) and realized I had moved beyond the set in his photostream, into other pictures.

Re the Q - maybe not fair to judge beta jpegs, but they literally look no better than my Panasonic TZ3 - maybe another stop of 'good' ISO (up to ISO 800.)

The 'BC' mode looks exactly as I suspected.


.

[conradj]

looked thru some of schaft9's Q tests. The EXIF data shows a lot of his outdoor shots are ISO250, a bunch ISO125. Contrast and sharpness set to high most of the time. The ISO250 shots show a lot of noise smoothing and look kinda soft, no fine hair detail. A few of them has up to +1 EV dialed in on top of the ISO250.

Perhaps those are the defaults for contrast and sharpness? Outdoor in daylight i'd be more inclined to keep my cameras at base ISO with contrast and sharpness both set full soft, punch it up later if i need to. i'd also dial down the blue cast.

He's a couple of shots of the big Pentax logo and mosaic taken at ISO125 and f2.8. Those show a bit of softness in the preproduction standard lens at the borders.

Everyone's Q test shots so far do show they're being used by people who haven't gotten familiar with the camera.

A couple of the standard lens shots do show that's a fine piece of glass, and hints of good colour subtlety from the camera hidden by the overall blue. All the sun and that girl's white top says the sensor's DR is definitely in the realm of tiny sensors, espesh all those ones with high ISO.

---Judging by these beta cam shots, would i be able to use the thing to good advantage on the street, well into the evening hours? O quite definitely.

For $800? Nopes. $600? Likely not, tho ...

---

Last edited by conradj; 07-17-2011 at 08:10 PM.

[ogl]

High iso is pretty good, better than my K10D.

Image quality on the prime - pretty good, comparable to my K10D I think, give or take.

[conradj]

Hm, am inclined to agree with Christine Tham abt the standard lens. i haven't played with the Canon G10-11-12, neither the Olympus XZ-1, but have tried the Canon S90-95, and in terms of lens IQ the Pentax Q standard lens has the S90-95 beat. Extrapolating from these beta cam tests.

Has my A650 beat too, which has the Canon G9 lens and it's no slouch; get better shots out of it, optically, than with most of my old F and FA glass.

Suppose the proper comparison is to the Q standard zoom, haven't done that.

[Christine Tham]

Hm, am inclined to agree with Christine Tham abt the standard lens. i haven't played with the Canon G10-11-12, neither the Olympus XZ-1, but have tried the Canon S90-95, and in terms of lens IQ the Pentax Q standard lens has the S90-95 beat. Extrapolating from these beta cam tests.

The sensor in the Q is about a generation ahead of those cameras, so not surprised that it would beat them, especially with a prime lens.

The real question is how does the Q compare with the Sony HX9v/HX7v.

Strictly from an image quality perspective, it will be hard to justify the Q premium above the Sony compacts.

However, the Q remains the only camera in that class with a prime lens and good set of camera controls, and a non-dumbed down user interface. I think that's worth the premium, but others may disagree.

[bhairavp]

That K1 - as Asahiflex pointed out, are they subtly pointing to an FF camera in the near/not-so-far future?

[conradj]

The real question is how does the Q compare with the Sony HX9v/HX7v.

Strictly from an image quality perspective, it will be hard to justify the Q premium above the Sony compacts.

Guess we'll find out in the next few weeks!

Personally i've always preferred to use cameras where the lens outclasses the film/sensor and hope this'll be true for the Q. Images can have a certain feel to them when the lens doesn't define their IQ limits: used to like the unpredictable hints of quality that show up in pictures when shooting candid night shots with pushed Tri-X and HP-5 in active environments.

[Christine Tham]

Guess we'll find out in the next few weeks!

Personally i've always preferred to use cameras where the lens outclasses the film/sensor and hope this'll be true for the Q. Images can have a certain feel to them when the lens doesn't define their IQ limits: used to like the unpredictable hints of quality that show up in pictures when shooting candid night shots with pushed Tri-X and HP-5 in active environments.

I agree with you - I hate it when the sensor shows the limits of lens resolutions. I had to upgrade my lenses after upgrading from *ist D to K10D, I was using el cheapo zooms at the time and with the K10D I discovered they weren't as sharp as I thought they were. Luckily the DA/FA Limiteds are still good when I upgraded to the K5 - which is one reason I'll never go back to zooms.

If we're lucky this won't be the first Q body, or the only Q lenses.

[ogl]

Hm, am inclined to agree with Christine Tham abt the standard lens. i haven't played with the Canon G10-11-12, neither the Olympus XZ-1, but have tried the Canon S90-95, and in terms of lens IQ the Pentax Q standard lens has the S90-95 beat. Extrapolating from these beta cam tests.

Has my A650 beat too, which has the Canon G9 lens and it's no slouch; get better shots out of it, optically, than with most of my old F and FA glass.

Suppose the proper comparison is to the Q standard zoom, haven't done that.

If you could be more attentive, you can see that Christine Tham compares Pentax Q with Pentax K10D...

[ogl]

However, the Q remains the only camera in that class with a prime lens and good set of camera controls, and a non-dumbed down user interface. I think that's worth the premium, but others may disagree.

Try to use LX5 or XZ-1

[Art Vandelay II]

If you could be more attentive, you can see that Christine Tham compare Pentax Q with Pentax K10D...

Perhaps the JPEG engine is just better on the Q, but from a noise perspective one could compare the Q to the K10D. I owned both the K10D and the Nikon D200 (both shared that same 10mp sensor), and I can say purely from a noise perspective the Q isn't too far off from either of them. Especially the K10D. It's a different kind of noise mind you, but I can can work around the noise the Q produces at ISO800. However in dark areas my K10D would often produce serious color banding that noise reduction software couldn't help with. The D200 was better than the K10D, but still not a low light champ either.

That said, noise is the only aspect of IQ where I would compare them. Dynamic range, pixel sharpness, and DOF control are all in favor of the K10D. But then again, a K10D is a big freakin camera; that's why I sold it and the D200 after I got an E-P1. I simply stopped using them because they were such a pain to carry around. For some users I'm sure the Q will do what the E-P1 did for me.

[Blue]

That K1 - as Asahiflex pointed out, are they subtly pointing to an FF camera in the near/not-so-far future?

The K-1 is from 2000 so I'm not really sure what can really be made of it.

[adr1an]

The K-1 is from 2000 so I'm not really sure what can really be made of it.

A very stylish paper weight that doubles as a cool talking point in the office ?