[thibs]

76 posts in this thread alone, for a camera that doesn't interest you. I'd hate to see your participation in threads about cameras you like!

The question is why do admins let him do it the way he does.
Frankly, Ogl, find something else to do.

[johnmflores]

And it's rather strange to count my posts. By the way, if it's true - 76 posts is just 7.8% of all answers here.

Search is your friend.


(How's that for an Ogl-esque post?!)

[Blue]

We'll have to wait until the DxO measurements are done. I expect a performance closer to a LX5 too. However, m43 isn't impossible to beat with respect to dynamic range because of the much outdated sensor technology used by that system now. Low light noise will remain better with m43 though.

BTW, DxO indicative price for the Q is interesting: USD 250 !
-> DxOMark - Pentax Q

. . .

Panasonic has a new 16.7mp 4/3 sensor coming out (G3) and the 12mp one has been revised for the GF3. Olympus has also updated the system with their 12mp for the e-p3 and other Pen digital bodies. However, I suspect Oly has pushed that 4/3 sensor as far as they will be able to. On top of that the LX5 will probably be replaced this fall or spring. The Q needs to be able to compete with things coming out, not stuff from 2 or 3 years ago. That is why I don't understand why they didn't go with a larger sensor the size of the LX5 but with the improvements seen in the 1/2.3" sensor they are using.

[gazonk]

it seems to remain about 1 stop advantage for the m43 systems.

That's pretty impressive. I'm really starting to think that I could enjoy the Q as a second camera. I still won't recommend it to my daughter, though - the lack of ability to create shallow DoF with the Q would be the main reason.

[snostorm]

The Q needs to be able to compete with things coming out, not stuff from 2 or 3 years ago. That is why I don't understand why they didn't go with a larger sensor the size of the LX5 but with the improvements seen in the 1/2.3" sensor they are using.

If I'm understanding the translations of the bloggers who attended the Q presentation and posted the samples that we've seen so far, the Pentax designers allowed for using a larger sensor and the camera/lens have an adequate image circle size to accommodate one, but opted to introduce the system with the 1/2.3" sensor format because it was, at least at this point , more available, more advanced, and more likely to be further developed. Pentax stated that the Q was a system waiting for a sensor, and the 12 MP 1/2.3" BSI CMOS was the first to acceptably fit into the system.

1/1.7" CCD sensors have been around for quite a while, but were not chosen. The fact that all of the cameras using this sensor use OIS, use larger bodies, and do not offer full 1080 HD video point to the possibility that heat dissipation could be a problem with the Q with one of these sensors. Add SR as another potential heat source around the sensor, and the tightly packed very compact body of the Q, and heat would be even more of a problem. Introducing a new system concept with iffy sensor performance/reliability would have been stupid. There's enough resistance to a compact sensored system (as we've seen in this forum), and iffy sensor reliability would have been a major nail in the coffin for such a project. Introduction with the smaller sensor allows upgrade paths both within the same format, and with a larger sensor format if suitable advanced sensors are offered in the future. That seems to fit better into your model of producing products that will be competitive into the future. . .

The Pentax presentation apparently mentioned that they purposefully did not label any of the Q lenses with a 35mm FL EQ, allowing for the possibility of a future sensor format size upgrade if a viable CMOS or BSI CMOS sensors were to be offered in 1/1.7" or 1/1.63".

I don't know if they sell enough larger format compact cameras to make further sensor development in this format a priority. Remember that Canon "downgraded" the sensor from 14MP to 10 MP to get IQ gains between the G10 and G11. Compare this to the availability of CMOS and BSI CMOS in 1/2.3" format, and it's pretty clear which format shows the greatest potential for future development. Note that there is already a possible sensor upgrade to the 16MP 1/2.3" Sony BSI CMOS sensor. . .

Pentax has to be practical concerning sensor choice since they neither produce their own sensors, nor sell enough units to compel the sensor mfgs to develop and produce new sensors just for them. The larger sensor might seem more desirable on paper, but maybe not in practice, at least at this time or the near future.

Scott

[RedPanda]

Here is something interesting:

Am I the only one that thinks that combination just looks silly? :-)

(no offence intended to you zxaar)

[zxaar]

Am I the only one that thinks that combination just looks silly? :-)

(no offence intended to you zxaar)

that is why i posted it.

[Art Vandelay II]

Pentax Q is no more gimmick than m43 system or NEX system that promises to be compact are really not compact. With m43 the IQ is similar to Q system and it is not pocket-able (with more than 90% of its lenses).

With Q one has truly compact system with interchangeable lenses. Among all these mirrorless system Q is least gimmicky.

IQ of Q looks to be on par with m43 system's IQ, thanks to BL sensors of Sony.



---------------------------------
Here is something interesting:

That's the m4/3's example you chose to "prove" how un-pocketable m4/3's cameras are? Why not just choose a photo of a GH2 with a a Sigma Bigma adapted?

You can rule out zooms, because not even the Q is a pocket camera with a zoom attached, so that leaves us with pancake primes as the only option if you want a pocket camera. Perhaps it's not the case for everyone, but I simply don't require a camera any smaller than a GF3 + 14mm prime. It will fit in my pocket without issue. As far as the 90% of lenses that make a camera unpockatable...who cares? So long as a system has a few lenses that are pocketable that's all I care about. I don't make a habit of carrying 10 different lenses with me on photo walks; do you?



If you want a standard zoom that means you're going to have to put any of these cameras in something like a messenger pack. After you do that you'll have a hard time telling the difference in size on any of the three cameras above. Even the NEX-C3 with 18-55mm isn't exactly a 2lb DSRL pounding against your spine.

As far as your IQ claims...here is a test photo I took with an E-P3 and 12mm f/2 lens (I uploaded full size if you view all sizes). I feel pretty safe in saying that Q isn't capable of anything close to that. I've never seen a small sensor camera that is. Small sensors just can't produce the depth that large sensors + fast glass can do. I haven't seen anything out of the Q so far that makes me think it will be any different then all the other small sensor cameras that have come before it. In fact I haven't even seen a sample yet that has made me think it's better than the X-Z1.

[fikkser]

Small sensors just can't produce the depth that large sensors

Because m43 is so big? I've seen that argument for ff vs aps-c. Is it relevant?

A close up with a wide angle gives depth feeling. I bet my phone can give similar depth feeling. My panasonic lx3 can for sure caputre depth as seen in your picture with it's tiny sensor.

[Art Vandelay II]

Because m43 is so big? I've seen that argument for ff vs aps-c. Is it relevant?

A close up with a wide angle gives depth feeling. I bet my phone can give similar depth feeling. My panasonic lx3 can for sure caputre depth as seen in your picture with it's tiny sensor.

In comparison to 1/2.3" yes, 4/3's is indeed large; much much larger. IMO, anything from a 3x crop to a 2x crop is about the right size for CSC's. Anything in that range will give some DOF control, yet still be pretty small over all. Nikon's camera announcement on the 24th could spell bad news for the Q if they are indeed using a 2.7x sensor. I'm betting the camera will only be a tiny bit larger than the Q, but be in an entirely different IQ class. Yes, of course, IQ isn't all that matters; but in this price range with the competition the Q is facing it is pretty important to most people.

As far as the sample I posted, that isn't exactly a close up macro shot. The subject (if you want to call it that) is about 2' high (or a bit over 1/2 a meter). In other words, about the same size as a head and shoulders portrait. I'm a big fan of the LX5, and would choose that over the Q if I were looking for a tiny camera, but I've never seen a wide angle portrait from that camera produce a soft background. I have however seen a few pics on the telephoto end of the X-Z1 with fairly pleasant bokeh; but still, nothing close to what you can get with a 4/3's sensor and a 50mm lens.

[jsherman999]

That's the m4/3's example you chose to "prove" how un-pocketable m4/3's cameras are? Why not just choose a photo of a GH2 with a a Sigma Bigma adapted?

You can rule out zooms, because not even the Q is a pocket camera with a zoom attached, so that leaves us with pancake primes as the only option if you want a pocket camera. Perhaps it's not the case for everyone, but I simply don't require a camera any smaller than a GF3 + 14mm prime. It will fit in my pocket without issue. As far as the 90% of lenses that make a camera unpockatable...who cares? So long as a system has a few lenses that are pocketable that's all I care about. I don't make a habit of carrying 10 different lenses with me on photo walks; do you?



If you want a standard zoom that means you're going to have to put any of these cameras in something like a messenger pack. After you do that you'll have a hard time telling the difference in size on any of the three cameras above. Even the NEX-C3 with 18-55mm isn't exactly a 2lb DSRL pounding against your spine.

As far as your IQ claims...here is a test photo I took with an E-P3 and 12mm f/2 lens (I uploaded full size if you view all sizes). I feel pretty safe in saying that Q isn't capable of anything close to that. I've never seen a small sensor camera that is. Small sensors just can't produce the depth that large sensors + fast glass can do. I haven't seen anything out of the Q so far that makes me think it will be any different then all the other small sensor cameras that have come before it. In fact I haven't even seen a sample yet that has made me think it's better than the X-Z1.

That's a nice image Art (your med-sized link below.) The E-P3 is an intriguing system.


.

[Art Vandelay II]

That's a nice image Art (your med-sized link below.)

Ha! Well thanks, but not exactly a work of art there. That was just one of my first test photos I took within an hour of unboxing my new lens. I'm going to do a motorcycle road trip this fall from NC to Nova Scotia stopping by NYC and various others spots along the way. Hopefully I can put that lens to good use on that trip, because it is fantastic. It's the first AF lens I've owned that can rival Pentax Limited's. In-fact Pentax needs to steal that manual focus lock mechanism from Olympus ASAP and produce a 28mm f/1.4 using it.

[Christine Tham]

I feel pretty safe in saying that Q isn't capable of anything close to that. I've never seen a small sensor camera that is

Taken on my HX7V

[junyo]

I haven't seen anything out of the Q so far that makes me think it will be any different then all the other small sensor cameras that have come before it. In fact I haven't even seen a sample yet that has made me think it's better than the X-Z1.

The Pentax rep had some prints. Case closed.

[Art Vandelay II]

Taken on my HX7V

Are those taken at wide angle or taken with telephoto? The portrait looks to be at least a 60mm eqv shot. Either way, from a technical point of view none of those are very impressive. I can clearly see the bokeh filter smudge around the ladies face in the portrait as well as the stone statue photo; even at small web size. The purple flower photos looks the best to my eye, but that is still a pretty nervous background there. If a Leica 35mm Summilux is a 10 on the bokeh scale, and and iPhone is a 1, then I'd put that somewhere in the ballpark of 4.

Again, it's not that DOF control is all that matters to a camera system; some people don't care, but the problem is the Q faces competition that does offer DOF control (without the aide of software)....and for less money.