[Christine Tham]

It is possible to be both camera nerd and artist...

True, but equally its possible to be a photographer and not a nerd.

I know which I'll rather be

[Art Vandelay II]

True, but equally its possible to be a photographer and not a nerd.

I know which I'll rather be

Being a nerd isn't all bad

[Christine Tham]

Being a nerd isn't all bad

No, and I enjoyed watching Revenge of the Nerds too.

But being a nerd and a not so great photographer ...

For example, I can't remember now, but whoever who posted that photo of the toy figurine of Einstein against a rather busy background. I know my photos aren't perfect, but I would not have kept that photo if I took it, let alone post it on a forum.

[Art Vandelay II]

I know my photos aren't perfect, but I would not have kept that photo if I took it, let alone post it on a forum.

Another nice adage is the only difference between a pro and an amateur is a pro doesn't let you see the bad ones. My boss saw a photo of Thomas Hawk's on my Google+ stream last week and he thought he was amazing, then I sent him a link to Hawk's Flickr account and he changed his mind after he saw TH had uploaded thousands of pics and only 10% or so were really good ones (still a high percentage, he should just be more selective). I remember back in college one of the things our instructors in portfolio class really drove home was it's better to show only a dozen good ones then it is 50 average pics. I've tried to keep my Flickr stream pretty well curated and I've done an even better job with my Google+ account. Photography is a funny thing; I'm now embarrassed by some photos I was proud of 5 years ago. If that ceases some day I think it might be time to quit.

---

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-22-2011 at 06:12 PM.

[jsherman999]

For example, I can't remember now, but whoever who posted that photo of the toy figurine of Einstein against a rather busy background. I know my photos aren't perfect, but I would not have kept that photo if I took it, let alone post it on a forum.

Well, Christine, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, tied in to the discussion a bit. It certainly wasn't meant to prove anything to you about photography. In fact, it happened to be one of a series of shots I took when I was testing a couple lenses for sharpness wide-open, bokeh, etc, something you yourself admitted to doing a few posts back.

(If you want to see more representative examples of what good equipment can bring, you're free to check the link in my sig, or look at threads I've started in PYP section. More representative, not definitive by any means.)

Anyway, to re-iterate a point made by someone else earlier, from what we've gleaned in this thread, 'Q' target market seems to be:

1) "Doesn't care about IQ", YET...
2) Does want a interchangeable lenses an manual control, AND...
(weird combo there already..)
3) Can afford it, AND
4) Is prone to impulse purchases + has level of immunity to price/performance considerations, AND
5) Has very small hands, or thinks the typical mirrorless offering is 'too big'

Huge potential market, there.

.

[NicoleAu]

FWIW I actually like the Einstein shot, I think it's very cute and a lot better than a lot of shots I have seen posted online. But Jsherman's other work is fabulous as well.

The Q seems too gimmicky for me.

[Christine Tham]

Well, Christine, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, tied in to the discussion a bit. It certainly wasn't meant to prove anything to you about photography. In fact, it happened to be one of a series of shots I took when I was testing a couple lenses for sharpness wide-open, bokeh, etc, something you yourself admitted to doing a few posts back.

(If you want to see more representative examples of what good equipment can bring, you're free to check the link in my sig, or look at threads I've started in PYP section. More representative, not definitive by any means.)

No need to be defensive. My comment wasn't meant to be personal, and I didn't realise the photo was taken by you.

No need to convince me of your skills - I'm sure my opinion of your photography does not really matter (to you or to anyone else), just like your opinion of me as a photographer does not really matter to me.

It's not your photographs that I dislike, it's your attitude. If you want people to respect your skills, perhaps you could also show some respect? It goes both ways you know. You may think it's "tongue in cheek", but I don't really appreciate it.

[jackseh]

1) "Doesn't care about IQ", YET...
2) Does want a interchangeable lenses an manual control, AND...
(weird combo there already..)
3) Can afford it, AND
4) Is prone to impulse purchases + has level of immunity to price/performance considerations, AND
5) Has very small hands, or thinks the typical mirrorless offering is 'too big'

Huge potential market, there.

.

Is this a $500 dollar question or a $300 dollar one ?
I can't see which market.

On top of that, this is going to be a brand new mount which will have some issues at launch, if recent history is any indication.

[Zygonyx]

Well, i still can see very thiny - but real - advantages of the Q versus high-end compacts or micro43/APS-C (if we set appart the size of the body) :

- lens lineup quite "complete", "creative" (fish-eye...), and "compact" ; this just from the start : the concept is highly coherent and very different from the NEX in this respect (still only 3 lenses all heavy and long but the 16mm, a fouth still voluminous soon delivered)
- extendable flash
- flash-speed up to any exposure-speed chosen, due to "in-lens" electronic diaphragm (only for 2 lenses)
- longer(?)lasting construction wih qualitative materials

OK, this is not worth 500 bucks.

[Ash]

Let's not allow this thread to get any more personal guys. It may just be a communication barrier getting the better of interpretive intuition. I don't believe Jay had his intentions to maliciously stir your pot with his comments, Christine, but clearly he speaks openly and passionately about the Q system, which is against your feelings towards this new system. Don't let that bother you.

[Art Vandelay II]

Well, i still can see very thiny - but real - advantages of the Q versus high-end compacts or micro43/APS-C (if we set appart the size of the body) :

- lens lineup quite "complete", "creative" (fish-eye...), and "compact" ; this just from the start : the concept is highly coherent and very different from the NEX in this respect (still only 3 lenses all heavy and long but the 16mm, a fouth still voluminous soon delivered)

I can't believe I'm about to defend Sony's NEX lens line up, because frankly, they should be embarrassed....but, NEX lens options are a bit better than it sounds the way you worded it. According to Steve Huff the 16mm/2.8 may not technically be a great lens, but it is tiny, and he likes the results he gets. I've owned the 18-55mm myself, it is a perfectly average kit lens (ringing endorsement eh?). The 30mm/3.5 macro seems like a very odd focal length for a macro lens, and it's quite large for such a slow lens, but the IQ *should* be decent. The 18-200mm is simply absurd on a small body. So admittedly none of that sounds great, but when you consider manual focus glass then things change drastically. The E-Mount has to be the best mount ever for adapting old manual glass, especially rangefinder glass; and Sony's new focus peaking feature is brilliant:

You Tube

You Tube

With that feature activated I'd be willing to bet I could focus manual lenses as fast as I can with a traditional rangefinder (something I rather enjoy doing). Plus, SLR magic has toy lenses available for NEX if that is your thing. Finally, if autofocus is a requirement within 2 months the Zeiss 24mm/2 should finally arrive. That lens alone will take care of 75% of my needs.

[junyo]

The fact that you don't see how the answer could be yes doesn't mean that the answer is no.

Anything's possible. Yet the fact that no one (yourself included) seems to be able or willing to make a compelling case for the wide spread appeal of it would tend to indicate no.

- flash-speed up to any exposure-speed chosen, due to "in-lens" electronic diaphragm (only for 2 lenses)

Well there's your compelling factor. The Q is the best less-than-medium format Pentax for fill flash.

If only strobes and/or pocket wizards weren't bigger than the camera.

[Zygonyx]

@Art, thank you for precisions you give, my point re. "concept coherence" was only compacity of the lenses as attached to the NEX or Q bodies, not lens performance (probably not perfect in any system anyway).
As far as adaptation of other mount lenses is concerned, OK to consider that NEX has a good potential though, but it doesn't add much to a better global compacity either. In this respect, Q may have quite a lot of potential too, for example with NC mount, definitely too small for APS-C sensor.
Im am wondering if the Q "bokeh control" function is not comparable with "focus picking" feature that you mean.

[Mistral75]

(...)
Im am wondering if the Q "bokeh control" function is not comparable with "focus picking" feature that you mean.

I am afraid it is not.

The Q's "bokeh control" function increases blur of defocused area to mimic a shallower depth of field.

The NEX's "focus peaking" function flags the zones where the contrast is maximal, i.e. those that are supposed to be in focus, thus helping you focus with manual focus lenses where you want to.

[Zygonyx]

Tks.