[eddie1960]

Why can't a decent photographer who is capable of capturing a nice photo understand that image quality cannot be judged from 640 pixel wide web images.

Gosh

Of course can the Q do the above.

And I hope the above is your photo or otherwise, please pay the proper credit.

Nicely put. IF you have the full size file (which people rarely post with good reason, you can pixel peep and compare directly (if you have 2 controlled shots of the same setup, one taken by each camera of course and even this doesn't taken into account sample variation)
For me though the true test is going to be how good a print looks not a shot viewed at vastly reduced quality on a monitor
Even with prints i take into account how they are printed, did it get done at a 1 hour lab setup (likely mediocre at best, did I do it on my home printer colour corrected as best i can (much better but still not best quality by any stretch) or did I have it done by one of my local pro labs as a fine art print (mostly fantastic and definitely as good as i can achieve). of course this all comes at a price the cheapest being the worst and the best being the most costly:

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

This grows increasingly nonsensical.

Let me agree with you on this point and exit the scene of this thread.

[Art Vandelay II]

And I hope the above is your photo or otherwise, please pay the proper credit.

Not mine, but I assumed linking to the photographers Flickr page was credit enough...

[Christine Tham]

The Zeiss formula is as scientifically valid as anybody would ever require.

Don't really want to argue with you, but suggest your post contradicts the wikipedia article in several ways:
Zeiss formula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you strongly believe you are correct, suggest you edit the wiki article.

[eddie1960]

Not mine, but I assumed linking to the photographers Flickr page was credit enough...

Given the terms on the photo are All Rights Reserved then no that wouldn't be enough unless you notified the Tog and he gave permission to use for that purpose
If it had a variant of the creative commons license then yes it would likely be enough (I've been paid for back linked stuff by a website do to an error on their programmer's part using the mining tools - in many other cases I've had to pursue the hosting company for removal of my work taken from Flickr)

[Art Vandelay II]

Given the terms on the photo are All Rights Reserved...

Sheesh, who knew. I removed the photo just in case. Very odd that someone would get upset about a link from a forum though; I typically get excited when I see that someone has linked to one of my pics so long as they're not trying to make money from it. Now if someone downloads one like this and uses it for an erectile dysfunction ad; then perhaps I might get upset

[falconeye]

Not mine, but I assumed linking to the photographers Flickr page was credit enough...

I think when embedding photos with artistic value, the artists name should always be given for proper credit. How shall we know that that Flickr account isn't your's?

OTOH, work published on Flickr can be embedded elsewhere. That's my opinion. If an artist doesn't want this then he should stay away from Flickr which is a sharing website. Copy-paste is different but embedding should be ok. Even if rights are reserved. But proper credit should always be given anyway. BTW, images can be hosted such that embedding doesn't work. Smugmug offers this as an option.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 07-25-2011 at 05:02 PM.

[falconeye]

Don't really want to argue with you, but suggest your post contradicts the wikipedia article in several ways:
Zeiss formula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you strongly believe you are correct, suggest you edit the wiki article.

I don't object to call the Zeiss formula Zeiss formula only if 1730 is used as the constant.

I wanted to explain that the Zeiss formula is about a fundamental relationship rather than this particular constant. And the reason to explain was your comment about the formula being unscientific. You may argue if the constant should read 1000, 1730 or 2203. But that would always completely miss the point in any discussion I've seen to date.

[jackseh]

I'm not expecting Q to replace my K-r or K100D, but what it comes down to is price and usability.

Q has some novelty features, but I expect the novelty to quickly wear off. It may take some interesting photos, preferably with interesting lenses, but I don't see why a photographer can't do just that with a used DSLR from 2005.

I think many people here would agree with me that Pentax should have thrown those man-years and money to develop full frame DSLR instead, especially if their survival is going to hinge on it.

[Rondec]

I'm not expecting Q to replace my K-r or K100D, but what it comes down to is price and usability.

Q has some novelty features, but I expect the novelty to quickly wear off. It may take some interesting photos, preferably with interesting lenses, but I don't see why a photographer can't do just that with a used DSLR from 2005.

I think many people here would agree with me that Pentax should have thrown those man-years and money to develop full frame DSLR instead, especially if their survival is going to hinge on it.

I don't think Pentax's survival hinges on it at all. They will continue making SLRs -- that is why Ricoh bought them. The Q, according to everything I have read, has been an idea bounced around for a long time, waiting for the right sensor. When it came along, they popped the cork on it.

I am sure there are a lot of other ideas that they have patented and sitting around -- some of which will never see the light of day. There are probably specs for a couple of full frame cameras mixed in there.

Anyway, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, the buyers for the Q will not be the people who frequent this forum. They are the people who believe that the kx (or km) is a really big camera. Those people do exist (by the droves) and some of them want better IQ than is offered by a cell phone camera. Perhaps some of those (and Christine) will by the Q.

[eddie1960]

Sheesh, who knew. I removed the photo just in case. Very odd that someone would get upset about a link from a forum though; I typically get excited when I see that someone has linked to one of my pics so long as they're not trying to make money from it. Now if someone downloads one like this and uses it for an erectile dysfunction ad; then perhaps I might get upset

the sites with commercial links are the ones that i get upset about, but i still like to be asked for usage, if i didnt care id use creative commons

[Kunzite]

I think many people here would agree with me that Pentax should have thrown those man-years and money to develop full frame DSLR instead, especially if their survival is going to hinge on it.

And IMO those people are making a big mistake, by considering that whatever resources they used for the Q would be enough for a full frame system.
Pentax can also survive without full frame. I believe right now going full frame is risky.

[eddie1960]

And IMO those people are making a big mistake, by considering that whatever resources they used for the Q would be enough for a full frame system.
Pentax can also survive without full frame. I believe right now going full frame is risky.

Also quite likely this did not get funded from the SLR side but from the compact camera side, Given the nature of changes happening in that sector this may well prove to have been visionary since the lower end of that market is rapidly disappearing to cell phones (to the level that Sony Panasonic and LG have all introduced cell phones that are based on camera tech which is another way to address the issue that these 3 - and samsung are in a position to develop)

[Christine Tham]

I don't object to call the Zeiss formula Zeiss formula only if 1730 is used as the constant.

I wanted to explain that the Zeiss formula is about a fundamental relationship rather than this particular constant. And the reason to explain was your comment about the formula being unscientific. You may argue if the constant should read 1000, 1730 or 2203. But that would always completely miss the point in any discussion I've seen to date.

Disagree about there being a "fundamental" relationship between CoC and sensor size. Yes, the sensor (and frame size) does affect assumptions about the magnification factor for final viewing, but CoC ultimately is a subjective measure, and not everyone view images at the same magnification factor or viewing distance (or have the same visual acuity).

There is no "constant" that would ever be appropriate for all cameras. If your point is that all these discussions about sensor sizes and image quality have therefore missed the point, then I agree.

[stanleyk]

I think many people here would agree with me that Pentax should have thrown those man-years and money to develop full frame DSLR instead, especially if their survival is going to hinge on it.

I would be curious to see what percentage of total camera sales for Nikon or Canon are their Full Frame models. I just can't buy into the survival of Pentax being based on a Full Frame camera unless I could see statistical sales data that indicated Canon/Nikon's Full Frame sales were 25% or more of their total sales. In any event, Pentax has the 645D.

I'm guessing that most camera buyers have no clue about sensor sizes. I have a friend with the 5D MkII. She has no clue whatsoever about the camera or sensor. She just had money to burn and was given a good sales spiel. Of course she doesn't really like the camera because it's so big. She does really like my EP2. So anecdotally, I would say Full Frame isn't the issue with the average consumer.

Also does Pentax have the professional support for people who actually make their living with photography and therefore have no issue spending that kind of money on camera demand? I don't think so.

Not being critical but I wonder how many of the Full Frame advocates have the K5. I own the K5 and good Pentax lenses and I'm not clamoring for a Full Frame camera. If someone isn't willing to purchase the best ASPC sensor camera Pentax makes, why should make Pentax make the assumption that someone will shell out $2500 or more for a Full Frame body?

Maybe Ricoh will develop one for Pentax. I'm doubtful, but if they do and it's $1500 or less I'll buy one. If not I'll get a GXR which is a really great camera and covers all the focal lengths I need at 28 and 50mm.

That said, I do think the Q is too expensive. I'm remain skeptical that it will be successful.