[Andi Lo]

I thought we have a 645D out there somewhere

The photog they hired couldn't afford it

[Blue]

No.

A macro adapter shortens the focal length. It doesn't widen the aperture which is what would influence DoF. And correct, you'll loose infinity (or normal distances) to focus at.

A tele front converter (lile a Raynox 2025) would actually help. But then, the Q has interchangeable lenses and just fitting a tele lens would be the better choice.

A macro adapter will change close focusing distance though, which will effect dof. For a standard image, you may be 4 meters back, but with the raynox, you are more likely to be less than 0.4 meters.

[falconeye]

A macro adapter will change close focusing distance though, which will effect dof. For a standard image, you may be 4 meters back, but with the raynox, you are more likely to be less than 0.4 meters.

Correct,

assuming it doesn't matter if you photograph a beautiful face or a nose hair

[Mock]

My impressions of the Q, cross-post from another thread...

Our area Pentax rep popped into the store with a pre-production version (0.30) of the Q on Friday. Focusing was very quick and accurate, it's a very "snappy" camera in operation, all the important functions are close-at-hand, none of the menu-fumbling/dial-turning that you do on a NEX. If you're coming from a K-7/K-5 the interface is second nature. I was impressed.

He had some sample images from marketing that compared the Q to an Oly XZ-1 and a Micro 4/3s model (don't remember which, may have been Panny GF-2 or Oly EPL-2). The sample images were also from a pre-production Q.

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated. Colour accuracy at high ISO was superb, the other two cameras had a colour cast. There were no RAW-converted samples to look at unfortunately.

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details.
He only had the 01 and 02 lenses, not the fisheye or the toy lenses. I'm quite excited to some images from the fisheye lens.

Also, apparently, Pentax will produce a K-Q adapter!

Any questions?

[epqwerty]

Correct,

assuming it doesn't matter if you photograph a beautiful face or a nose hair

Your assuming that we are using a raynox 250 adapter or something a +2 or + 1 will not have the same magnification to bring you down to 0.4 meters also the lenses are 8mm on the prime lense and these close up filters do its best magnification on telephoto lenses. Your kind of exaggrating your point. It is not the case.

[joe.penn]

Mock, thanks for the info - it's starting to sound really tasty...

My impressions of the Q, cross-post from another thread...

Our area Pentax rep popped into the store with a pre-production version (0.30) of the Q on Friday. Focusing was very quick and accurate, it's a very "snappy" camera in operation, all the important functions are close-at-hand, none of the menu-fumbling/dial-turning that you do on a NEX. If you're coming from a K-7/K-5 the interface is second nature. I was impressed.

He had some sample images from marketing that compared the Q to an Oly XZ-1 and a Micro 4/3s model (don't remember which, may have been Panny GF-2 or Oly EPL-2). The sample images were also from a pre-production Q.

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated. Colour accuracy at high ISO was superb, the other two cameras had a colour cast. There were no RAW-converted samples to look at unfortunately.

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details.
He only had the 01 and 02 lenses, not the fisheye or the toy lenses. I'm quite excited to some images from the fisheye lens.

Also, apparently, Pentax will produce a K-Q adapter!

Any questions?

[ogl]

My impressions of the Q, cross-post from another thread...

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated.

try to prove it with samples, not by words...XZ-1 has very good IQ...If we talk about RAW IQ from XZ-1, it's the best IQ between ALL P&S cameras...Even better than LX-5.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/page9.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/page10.asp


IQ from 1/2.33" is close to m4/3???? really?

I saw video from youtube - AF speed with 0.30 firmware is rather slow. You say that it's quick....How to be?

[ogl]

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details

Prove it.

[OV-DesertRat]

The 4 position dial on the front looked pretty ugly didn't it, OTOH the Fuji is just beautiful

For $1200 it ought to be I love the retro look, wish I could afford one.

Cheers,
Ken

[epqwerty]

My impressions of the Q, cross-post from another thread...

Our area Pentax rep popped into the store with a pre-production version (0.30) of the Q on Friday. Focusing was very quick and accurate, it's a very "snappy" camera in operation, all the important functions are close-at-hand, none of the menu-fumbling/dial-turning that you do on a NEX. If you're coming from a K-7/K-5 the interface is second nature. I was impressed.

He had some sample images from marketing that compared the Q to an Oly XZ-1 and a Micro 4/3s model (don't remember which, may have been Panny GF-2 or Oly EPL-2). The sample images were also from a pre-production Q.

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated. Colour accuracy at high ISO was superb, the other two cameras had a colour cast. There were no RAW-converted samples to look at unfortunately.

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details.
He only had the 01 and 02 lenses, not the fisheye or the toy lenses. I'm quite excited to some images from the fisheye lens.

Also, apparently, Pentax will produce a K-Q adapter!

Any questions?

A k-q adapter would be very odd. As it stands the crop factor will cause a 50mm lens to become 250mm fov. Pretty useless in my opinion. The only way they could make it work is if they added optics to the adapter almost like a teleconverter but reversed in that it would focus the light thus allowing it to work properly. However this would undoubtly affect image quality. However if they made it like the af teleconverter 1.7x coul be interesting.

[gazonk]

A k-q adapter would be very odd. As it stands the crop factor will cause a 50mm lens to become 250mm fov. Pretty useless in my opinion.

It would only be useless if the lens lacks the necessary resolution. I'd really like to try my DA70 on a Q - it might be sharp enough.

[Christopher M.W.T]

Prove it.

I'm eagerly waiting for the camera you've invested a tonne of R&D into and releasing soon

[ogl]

I'm eagerly waiting for the camera you've invested a tonne of R&D into and releasing soon

you are welcome. free special PR of Pentax products.

[zxaar]

Prove it.

On 31st Q would be available in shops and soon images would be available, you will get your proof. That with condition xz-1 could even focus because last time i tried xz-1 in shop it did not even focus, after trying 3-5 minutes with it, i put it back. Camera simply refused to focus.

In all likelyhood Q would thrash xz-1 but by that time enjoy.

[Mock]

try to prove it with samples, not by words...XZ-1 has very good IQ...If we talk about RAW IQ from XZ-1, it's the best IQ between ALL P&S cameras...Even better than LX-5.
Olympus XZ-1 Review: 9. Compared to (JPEG): Digital Photography Review
Olympus XZ-1 Review: 10. Compared to (JPEG High ISO): Digital Photography Review


IQ from 1/2.33" is close to m4/3???? really?

I saw video from youtube - AF speed with 0.30 firmware is rather slow. You say that it's quick....How to be?

They were printed samples, I have no reason to believe they were falsified. The Q wasn't given any obvious upper-hand. There were 100% crops from a centre area, and a corner area with text. The XZ-1 example was garbage (in the corner), the Q was legible. This is how I know the 8.5 is sharp in the corners...

There is a certain etiquette when dealing with reps...you don't put your own SD card into a pre-prod camera, and you don't go ask to photocopy their printed material - especially ones with "confidential" printed on them...so you'll have to take my word for it, ogl.

AF speed was very good in my experience with selling and using all other manner of compact camera/mirrorless, it's not reasonable to compare it to a phase-detect system. I didn't pull out a stop-watch and time it for you though, as I suppose my word is not good enough.

epqwerty: The 5.5x crop is certainly unusual, but not useless. It remains to be seen how well lenses made for FF/APS-C will resolve on the tiny sensor anyways. Something fun to experiment with...