Pentax Q in the Flesh

Clicker · 07-29-2011, 05:18 PM

Just look at the samples on display, the photos.

Youtu.be

HAI, either she's tiny or the Q grew...lol

Youtu.be

jsherman999 · 07-29-2011, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

Oh dear.

Goodness gracious!

Quote:

IIRC, I thought all I was saying was wild speculations on the DOF of the Q based on fudge factors like the Zeiss formula may perhaps not be accurate.

Remember "f11"? :-)

Those sample pictures don't seem like f11 to me. They seem more like f8,

A CoC difference enough to realize a fraction of a stop in perceived DOF is what we're talking about. But even if it were a full f/11 to f/8 difference there... Dang. f/8! Why in the world did Pentax waste time with that stupid bokeh filter, we have f/8!

Quote:

So, what were you saying again about who was imaging what? :-)

"...you can say I'm a dreamer / but I'm not the only one...."

.

Couscousdelight · 07-30-2011, 01:28 AM - **1 Like**

French photo magazine "Chasseur d'Images" publish a 6 pages preview in their last publication, with sample images.

A few words : " ...Ce qui est intéréssant avec ces fichiers RAW, c'est de constater que le capteur du Q possède un potentiel sensiblement supérieur à ce que nous attendions..."

"...What is interesting with these RAW files, it's to notice that the sensor of the Q has a potential significantly greater than what we expected ..."

Wait & see..

Kenn100D · 07-30-2011, 03:46 AM

Just bought a 35mm DA polycarbonate (COCl2) and went to talk with my friend for the Q, Well aside from the white and black, there would be a new color coming out. It's Pentax Green.

Zygonyx · 07-30-2011, 05:48 AM

That would be excellent !

Art Vandelay II · 07-30-2011, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Why in the world did Pentax waste time with that stupid bokeh filter, we have f/8!

That's been my overriding thought as well while watching this whole debate transpire while sitting in the corner with a bucket o popcorn.

Zygonyx · 07-30-2011, 12:30 PM - **1 Like**

It's a "Canada-dry" function.
It's aim is to actually create "blurr" that you would hardly get only with aperture modulation.

Couscousdelight · 07-30-2011, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

It's a "Canada-dry" function.
It's aim is to actually create "blurr" that you would hardly get only with aperture modulation.

Hey Zygo !

Christine Tham · 07-31-2011, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by conradj

i can save up enough for either a K-5 or the Q with a couple of the extra lenses, not both. And i'm torn. Espesh after spending a few nights downtown grabbing people shots.

I would get the K-5 (assuming you have an existing decent lens collection).

The Q, much as I like the concept, is unlikely to be as ultimately rewarding as a K-5. Its novelty value is the size, not the flexibility or quality.

I actually got tired of waiting for the Q to arrive - I bought a Sony DSC-HX7V. It's a compact with a superzoom and similar sensor technology to the Q (16 Mp rather than 12).

Okay, the lens is not great (it's fixed aperture f3.5) but I'm currently having a lot of fun with the camera. It has 10fps continuous shooting (although I was disappointed that is only for 10 images - 1 sec of shooting), and the camera uses the 10fps capability quite imaginatively - there are various modes where it will automatically take several consecutive shots for HDR, background defocus, eliminate motion blur, combine for low light photography, eliminate eye blinks, pick the photo with a smile on someone's faces etc.

This camera is giving me a good indication of what the Q will be like when I finally buy it.

The background defocus mode can produce good results, but requires knowledge of photography. Use it in conditions where you will get good bokeh on a normal DSLR, and it will probably work (ie. use a higher zoom, get closer to the subject, and put some distance between the subject and background). Use it in conditions where you would not normally get bokeh and the camera will complain or it will give strange results.

I suspect the Q will be similar. Not sure I'll end up using this function a lot, but who knows I may end up taking some creative shots by deliberately forcing it to create anomalies.

Christine Tham · 07-31-2011, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Blue

That is the whole point I was making.

You were going to the trouble to attempt to calculate and exact CoC for your self and were/are using estimations of DOF in the process.

Again, that wasn't the point. Furthermore, I don't have the dof plugged in a calculator, I use my droid. Furthermore, I suggest you go take some freshmen physics courses. Currency hedging and options don't have jack to do with optics etc.

LOL - suggest you actually read the Wikipedia article on DOF and COC. As I mention before, DOF is always an estimate based on your eyesight and your viewing conditions. If you use estimations of CoC from elsewhere, you end up with someone else's DOF, not yours :-)

As for taking freshmen physics courses, as far as I can remember from doing two years of university physics at the honours level (my knowledge of finance is from a masters degree) - it still relies on knowledge on how to substitute/eliminate variables from high school maths :-) If you think that was a snide comment - sorry, but the advice is still relevant.

Christine Tham · 07-31-2011, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

A CoC difference enough to realize a fraction of a stop in perceived DOF is what we're talking about.

No - you need to pay attention to falconeye's posts. CoC estimates from format size varies from over d/1000 to under d/2000.

Blue · 07-31-2011, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

LOL - suggest you actually read the Wikipedia article on DOF and COC. As I mention before, DOF is always an estimate based on your eyesight and your viewing conditions. If you use estimations of CoC from elsewhere, you end up with someone else's DOF, not yours :-)

As for taking freshmen physics courses, as far as I can remember from doing two years of university physics at the honours level (my knowledge of finance is from a masters degree) - it still relies on knowledge on how to substitute/eliminate variables from high school maths :-) If you think that was a snide comment - sorry, but the advice is still relevant.

The last time I looked, I was a university professor and scientist.

Your advice isn't relevant because I don't need to read an open source definition on CoC and DOF and that wasn't the discussion anyway. The discussion is that the Q will have a different CoC than the bodies with 1/1.63", 4/3, various aps-c sizes etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Christine Tham

No - you need to pay attention to falconeye's posts. CoC estimates from format size varies from over d/1000 to under d/2000.

Why don't you take your own advice and pay attention to Falk's posts since he does this stuff for a living.

Kenn100D · 07-31-2011, 11:13 PM

Hey folks let's cool down a bit. This was supposed to be friendly discussion. I'll try to check the Q once it arrives in two weeks.

froeschle · 08-01-2011, 01:42 AM

Target market? See here and here

. Q-te (cute)...

adr1an · 08-01-2011, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by froeschle

Target market? See here and here

. Q-te (cute)...

That red head has me sold

But seriously - this looks like a good fit and it might just work well in that segment ? The Q seems to fit right in with all those Promo shots (well - you'd expect them too I guess - but it doesn't look contrived tooo much ) Or am I missing something ?

07-31-2011, 01:31 PM	#911
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by jsherman999 A CoC difference enough to realize a fraction of a stop in perceived DOF is what we're talking about. No - you need to pay attention to falconeye's posts. CoC estimates from format size varies from over d/1000 to under d/2000. Last edited by Christine Tham; 07-31-2011 at 01:37 PM.

07-31-2011, 03:19 PM	#912
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Christine Tham LOL - suggest you actually read the Wikipedia article on DOF and COC. As I mention before, DOF is always an estimate based on your eyesight and your viewing conditions. If you use estimations of CoC from elsewhere, you end up with someone else's DOF, not yours :-) As for taking freshmen physics courses, as far as I can remember from doing two years of university physics at the honours level (my knowledge of finance is from a masters degree) - it still relies on knowledge on how to substitute/eliminate variables from high school maths :-) If you think that was a snide comment - sorry, but the advice is still relevant. The last time I looked, I was a university professor and scientist. Your advice isn't relevant because I don't need to read an open source definition on CoC and DOF and that wasn't the discussion anyway. The discussion is that the Q will have a different CoC than the bodies with 1/1.63", 4/3, various aps-c sizes etc. etc. etc. Originally posted by Christine Tham No - you need to pay attention to falconeye's posts. CoC estimates from format size varies from over d/1000 to under d/2000. Why don't you take your own advice and pay attention to Falk's posts since he does this stuff for a living. Last edited by Blue; 07-31-2011 at 03:35 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh!	pickles	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay	dantuyhoa	Post Your Photos!	9	11-11-2008 11:57 PM

07-29-2011, 05:58 PM	#902
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Christine Tham Oh dear. Goodness gracious! Quote: IIRC, I thought all I was saying was wild speculations on the DOF of the Q based on fudge factors like the Zeiss formula may perhaps not be accurate. Remember "f11"? :-) Those sample pictures don't seem like f11 to me. They seem more like f8, A CoC difference enough to realize a fraction of a stop in perceived DOF is what we're talking about. But even if it were a full f/11 to f/8 difference there... Dang. f/8! Why in the world did Pentax waste time with that stupid bokeh filter, we have f/8! Quote: So, what were you saying again about who was imaging what? :-) "...you can say I'm a dreamer / but I'm not the only one...." .

07-30-2011, 01:28 AM - 1 Like	#903
Couscousdelight Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Frog-eaters country Photos: Gallery Posts: 357	French photo magazine "Chasseur d'Images" publish a 6 pages preview in their last publication, with sample images. A few words : " ...Ce qui est intéréssant avec ces fichiers RAW, c'est de constater que le capteur du Q possède un potentiel sensiblement supérieur à ce que nous attendions..." "...What is interesting with these RAW files, it's to notice that the sensor of the Q has a potential significantly greater than what we expected ..." Wait & see..

07-30-2011, 03:46 AM	#904
Kenn100D Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paranaque City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 697 Original Poster	Just bought a 35mm DA polycarbonate (COCl2) and went to talk with my friend for the Q, Well aside from the white and black, there would be a new color coming out. It's Pentax Green.

07-30-2011, 05:48 AM	#905
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	That would be excellent !

07-30-2011, 09:49 AM	#906
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by jsherman999 Why in the world did Pentax waste time with that stupid bokeh filter, we have f/8! That's been my overriding thought as well while watching this whole debate transpire while sitting in the corner with a bucket o popcorn.

07-30-2011, 12:30 PM - 1 Like	#907
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	It's a "Canada-dry" function. It's aim is to actually create "blurr" that you would hardly get only with aperture modulation.

07-30-2011, 11:34 PM	#908
Couscousdelight Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Frog-eaters country Photos: Gallery Posts: 357	Originally posted by Zygonyx It's a "Canada-dry" function. It's aim is to actually create "blurr" that you would hardly get only with aperture modulation. Hey Zygo !

07-31-2011, 01:13 PM	#909
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by conradj i can save up enough for either a K-5 or the Q with a couple of the extra lenses, not both. And i'm torn. Espesh after spending a few nights downtown grabbing people shots. I would get the K-5 (assuming you have an existing decent lens collection). The Q, much as I like the concept, is unlikely to be as ultimately rewarding as a K-5. Its novelty value is the size, not the flexibility or quality. I actually got tired of waiting for the Q to arrive - I bought a Sony DSC-HX7V. It's a compact with a superzoom and similar sensor technology to the Q (16 Mp rather than 12). Okay, the lens is not great (it's fixed aperture f3.5) but I'm currently having a lot of fun with the camera. It has 10fps continuous shooting (although I was disappointed that is only for 10 images - 1 sec of shooting), and the camera uses the 10fps capability quite imaginatively - there are various modes where it will automatically take several consecutive shots for HDR, background defocus, eliminate motion blur, combine for low light photography, eliminate eye blinks, pick the photo with a smile on someone's faces etc. This camera is giving me a good indication of what the Q will be like when I finally buy it. The background defocus mode can produce good results, but requires knowledge of photography. Use it in conditions where you will get good bokeh on a normal DSLR, and it will probably work (ie. use a higher zoom, get closer to the subject, and put some distance between the subject and background). Use it in conditions where you would not normally get bokeh and the camera will complain or it will give strange results. I suspect the Q will be similar. Not sure I'll end up using this function a lot, but who knows I may end up taking some creative shots by deliberately forcing it to create anomalies.

07-31-2011, 01:20 PM	#910
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by Blue That is the whole point I was making. You were going to the trouble to attempt to calculate and exact CoC for your self and were/are using estimations of DOF in the process. Again, that wasn't the point. Furthermore, I don't have the dof plugged in a calculator, I use my droid. Furthermore, I suggest you go take some freshmen physics courses. Currency hedging and options don't have jack to do with optics etc. LOL - suggest you actually read the Wikipedia article on DOF and COC. As I mention before, DOF is always an estimate based on your eyesight and your viewing conditions. If you use estimations of CoC from elsewhere, you end up with someone else's DOF, not yours :-) As for taking freshmen physics courses, as far as I can remember from doing two years of university physics at the honours level (my knowledge of finance is from a masters degree) - it still relies on knowledge on how to substitute/eliminate variables from high school maths :-) If you think that was a snide comment - sorry, but the advice is still relevant.

07-31-2011, 11:13 PM	#913
Kenn100D Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paranaque City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 697 Original Poster	Hey folks let's cool down a bit. This was supposed to be friendly discussion. I'll try to check the Q once it arrives in two weeks.

08-01-2011, 01:42 AM	#914
froeschle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 552	Target market? See here and here . Q-te (cute)...

08-01-2011, 02:06 AM	#915
adr1an Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 739	Originally posted by froeschle Target market? See here and here . Q-te (cute)... That red head has me sold But seriously - this looks like a good fit and it might just work well in that segment ? The Q seems to fit right in with all those Promo shots (well - you'd expect them too I guess - but it doesn't look contrived tooo much ) Or am I missing something ?