[Christine Tham]

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.

I think it is possible to speak "openly and passionately" for or against any topic without devaluing or ridiculing others who may hold different views. At least that's how I'm interpreting those facepalm and animated icons - or maybe I'm just too dumb to interpret the brilliant and reasoned logic behind them.

Anyway, I'm not bothered by it - I'm deliriously happy at the moment that Cadel Evans may quite possibly have become Australia's first Tour de France winner.

I just spent all day yesterday building my new bike. I think I am going to call it "Cadel" in honour of him. It's currently 5:15am and I've just finished breakfast, so I am going to go out for a ride.

[jsherman999]

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.

Frankly I'm confused how my skills or lack thereof have any bearing in this thread. With regards to my 'attitude', you may remember this post:

At this point I should probably say this - if you (or anyone) are fully aware of the probable limitations of the Q, but still find it compelling enough to try, more power to you, I'm sure it can make some good images for you. My main problem isn't that it's useless, it's that it's not an investment in K-mount, and it's (IMO) not robust enough to survive in it's own silo, where there's a lot of competition, priced better for the same performance. In this regard it represents a drain on Pentax's resources without a likely payoff.

I hope to be wrong.

My problem is with the 'Q', not those who choose to buy it for their own reasons. However, if those reasons are posted in here and they seem unsound or (to me) silly, I may comment on those reasons, too, as others are doing.

Note that it's perfectly fine to simply say the following, and move on:

"... I really want the Q. I love it's size, it's IQ will be good enough for me, and I'm OK with the price."

That's an unassailable and perfectly fine argument in itself. No-one can argue with that. It gets dicey when the Q suddenly has better IQ (and AF!) than an aps-c DSLR based on some downsized jpegs, when the Zeiss formula suddenly doesn't apply to the Q's sensor, etc. I (and others) are going to have a hard time resisting diving in there. Nature of an internet forum.



.

[jsherman999]

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.

$500, and some silliness drains away, IMO. $300, and it's a semi-smart offering.

Who knows, I may buy a lightly-used 'Q' sometime in 2012 or 2013 for $250. I like small too!


.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

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.

And what is your compelling case? Assuming that the answer is no?

The first Q camera doesn't have to have widespread appeal to justify the project - a FF camera would have even less appeal, but we have no shortage of arguments for why Pentax should invest into that.

And it is not clear what significant resources have been poured into this project. More importantly, it is not clear what other projects may have benefited from this investment into the Q - maybe the entire Pentax compact line will be revitalized by research done to make the Q the best compact camera around a sensor of that size. The 645D benefited from technology first deployed in the K-7 - the K-5 built further on that and is a success. Yet the K-7 got criticized like no other camera and people made "compelling" arguments on why Pentax made a big mistake with that model. But for me, the K-7 was a historical camera because of the technology incorporated in it. The Q may very well be the same - criticized initially, but its impact may be realized further down the line in other models. Even if the Q is a commercial failure, the research done for putting it together is valuable for Pentax and can be reused in other places - it is not a waste of resources.

[Zygonyx]

Yes, lets' hope they can later on adapt (in order not to crush the "Q egg" from the start) their apparently excellent 1/2,3" sensor IQ in the other compact lines.

[conradj]

This is a shot with my A650 which has a 12MP 1/1.7" sensor 3 generations back from the 2010 stuff. It's processed from DNG, with almost nothing done to it except a bit of lightening of the lower part of the levels curve, a teeny tiny drop in the light part of the green curve, and just a teensy bigger drop in the red curve in the dark tones --i don't have colour profiles for my cameras with my linux software, assume if i did the greens in the trees would look better.

At full size there's a minute blanket of noise everywhere at base ISO, par for the course with this generation of small sensor. i'd assume that whatever sensor is in the Q will do at least this well for noise and lots better for colour since the A650 has only 10 bit colour, and the Q has 12 bit colour.


Canon A650IS, 22mm, f4, 1/80s, -2/3EV, ISO80

[Art Vandelay II]

And it is not clear what significant resources have been poured into this project. More importantly, it is not clear what other projects may have benefited from this investment into the Q - maybe the entire Pentax compact line will be revitalized by research...

The problem with the R&D tent pole argument you're making is the rest of the line would benefit just as much had they chosen to use a larger sensor. That's what it all comes back to; why on earth did they choose a sensor that's only slightly larger than a camera phone sensor? Anything a 1/2.3" sensor can do a 1/1.6" or 2/3's sensor can do better.

If the reason was to keep the lens size as small as possible, well, I think they failed when you look at the size of the standard zoom. True, it is really tiny, but it still makes the Q too large to be a pocket camera when attached. Besides, the Q standard zoom isn't even much smaller than Olympus' 14-42mm; which covers a much larger sensor.

If the reason was to keep the body as small as possible; well, the human hand limits just how small a camera body can be, and IMO the Canon S95 is pushing those limits with a sensor larger than the Q's.

Was it to keep cost down? At $800 clearly that wasn't the case either.

It just seems like in this price range with the features the Q has a 2/3's sensor should have been used. The camera body would be no larger, the pancake prime's would be no larger, the standard zoom wouldn't be significantly larger, and the the IQ would be better. People that are currently interested in the Q would still be interested if it had a 2/3's sensor, and people like myself wouldn't be scratching our heads trying to figure out why on earth they used such a tiny sensor.

Further, if you're curious about how much better a 2/3's sensor may be just browse Flickr for photos taken with a Sony F828. Keep in mind that camera/sensor is 7 years old now. Imagine how good it could be with today's technology.

---

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 07-24-2011 at 06:51 AM.

[dankoBanana]

Further, if you're curious about just how much better a 2/3's sensor may be just browse on Flickr taken with a Sony F828; and that camera/sensor is 7 years old now.

or take a look what the Canon Powershot Pro 1 was capable of

[jsherman999]

And what is your compelling case? Assuming that the answer is no?

The first Q camera doesn't have to have widespread appeal to justify the project - a FF camera would have even less appeal, but we have no shortage of arguments for why Pentax should invest into that.

And it is not clear what significant resources have been poured into this project. More importantly, it is not clear what other projects may have benefited from this investment into the Q - maybe the entire Pentax compact line will be revitalized by research done to make the Q the best compact camera around a sensor of that size. The 645D benefited from technology first deployed in the K-7 - the K-5 built further on that and is a success. Yet the K-7 got criticized like no other camera and people made "compelling" arguments on why Pentax made a big mistake with that model. But for me, the K-7 was a historical camera because of the technology incorporated in it. The Q may very well be the same - criticized initially, but its impact may be realized further down the line in other models. Even if the Q is a commercial failure, the research done for putting it together is valuable for Pentax and can be reused in other places - it is not a waste of resources.

Good points, but it doesn't use phase-detect AF, it's lenses won't use SDM or an SDM-replacement, and it's mount is unique, so lens development is only for it.

All K-7 development was able to migrate directly to the k-5.

Some of the R&D could be used towards another mirrorless offering I suppose, but that's a place that (I think) will be even harder for Pentax to compete in than aps-c DSLR or FF.

(FF in contrast would have virtually nothing wasted; almost all of it's advances would filter down into aps-c DSLR (and vice-versa.) )


.

[jsherman999]

or take a look what the Canon Powershot Pro 1 was capable of

These points just harken back to the "look what my P&S is capable of; who needs a DSLR?" arguments used in the P&S forums for years

Again: In certain shooting situations, P&S is all you need and does just fine. You get a larger-sensored DSLR is for when you want those P&S scenarios covered, but also want to be able to move into more challenging scenarios; more DOF control, lower light, faster AF lock and tracking, long+good telephoto, very wide FL, more DR, etc.

I have buckets of 'pretty good' P&S shots from the mid 00's in my picasa albums also.


.

[Art Vandelay II]

These points just harken back to the "look what my P&S is capable of; who needs a DSLR?" arguments used in the P&S forums for years

I didn't mean imply that, I just wanted to show what a 2/3's sensor was capable of. However, now that you bring it up, with today's sensor technology I imagine a 12mp 2/3's size backlit sensor camera would be all the camera a good number of people would need. Not most of the people on this forum obviously, but it would make a great "soccer mom" camera (assuming the AF speed is as good as the E-P3).

Speaking of soccer mom/dad cameras, if Nikon is indeed using a 3x crop sensor (or something in that ball park) I think they will be extremely successful with it. It should be a really good travel camera. Pretty much all the same arguments I made for 2/3's size (roughly a 4x crop factor) also hold for a 3x crop sensor; except a 3x crop will have even better IQ. Depending on the price even I'm thinking about it now.

[conradj]

I think it is possible to speak "openly and passionately" for or against any topic without devaluing or ridiculing others who may hold different views. At least that's how I'm interpreting those facepalm and animated icons - or maybe I'm just too dumb to interpret the brilliant and reasoned logic behind them.

It's a search for perfection too. i've recently had conversations that run along similar grooves altho not over camera geekery. i think my conclusion out of those threads is that i can find enough of what is perfect in what is, and others need to make it from a vision they have of what it can be.

[jsherman999]

Depending on the price .

The operative argument against the Q, ultimately.

[Ash]

Yeah, the Q is overpriced as is, but there was similar talk about the K-5 when it first come out too - the D7000 being considerably more attractive given the price differential.

Time will tell how the street price for the Q system will fare...

[dylansalt]

Frankly I'm confused how my skills or lack thereof have any bearing in this thread. With regards to my 'attitude', you may remember this post:



My problem is with the 'Q', not those who choose to buy it for their own reasons. However, if those reasons are posted in here and they seem unsound or (to me) silly, I may comment on those reasons, too, as others are doing.

Note that it's perfectly fine to simply say the following, and move on:

"... I really want the Q. I love it's size, it's IQ will be good enough for me, and I'm OK with the price."

That's an unassailable and perfectly fine argument in itself. No-one can argue with that. It gets dicey when the Q suddenly has better IQ (and AF!) than an aps-c DSLR based on some downsized jpegs, when the Zeiss formula suddenly doesn't apply to the Q's sensor, etc. I (and others) are going to have a hard time resisting diving in there. Nature of an internet forum.



.

+1

I don't think anyone was questioning Ms Tham's photographic ability rather her statements that a very small sensor can compete with an aps-c sensor which is considerably larger.

With regards the technology advancement argument - my old Oly 5060 prosumer p&s smokes my uber advanced Sony HX5 at ISO 100;-)

both of these p&s are nowhere close at any ISO to my K10D. I have shot thousands of shots for publications/magazines/schools of indoor climbing comps where ISO 1600 was mandatory.

I have many superb 5x7's printed out from the K10D at Iso 1600.

Would any here accept a sensor transplant in their K10D with the Q's sensor??