[schimi76]

Urban shot with Q

[devorama]

I took this with the in-camera HDR mode. His hair was almost glowing but the HDR Auto mode brought it back down.

[suncrimson]

Just got mine today,
Some quick sample, I didn't even get the battery charged.

-

-

-

-

[knightzerox]

Just some shots I took today playing around with the Q that arrived. The yellow rose photo was adjusted for color, but nothing else was done and all the other photos are as is from the camera. Thanks.

Attachment 105379
Attachment 105380
Attachment 105381
Attachment 105382
Attachment 105383

---

Last edited by knightzerox; 09-10-2014 at 08:48 PM.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Some nice shots and I particularly liked Devorama's, but I have to say - I have not yet seen anything that makes me feel that the Q is conclusively more competent than other P&Ss at lower ISO. I was excited by the idea of this camera design based on the assumption that the sensor will provide a step up from the current generation of compact sensors. But I don't see that advantage in any of the sample shots. It might be apparent only at higher sensitivities, but the lower ISO shots look like what other P&S cameras can produce already.

Here are a couple of shots from my current P&S - the second is a crop from the first, to show the detail that the camera can capture. You can click on them for larger sizes - I embedded small versions to distinguish them from the Q samples:

Original frame:


Crop:


The camera is the Lumix TS3 and I have more output from it here. It is waterproof, so it manages to achieve this quality while shooting through the protective glass, which I find to be a pretty impressive feat. The drawback is that that glass causes flare when there are strong sources of light in the frame. Can't have it all.

But, with the Q using a prime lens and having a newer generation sensor, I just expected it to smoke any other P&S in terms of IQ. I just don't see evidence of that. I downloaded the PF sample image from the Q preview the other day, and it looked very average.

Anyway, these are my observations based on the few full-sized samples I managed to see so far. I still like the concept of the Q - I always wanted a full fledged compact system, but I'll wait to see what future models will be like.

[StigVidar]

Some nice shots and I particularly liked Devorama's, but I have to say - I have not yet seen anything that makes me feel that the Q is conclusively more competent than other P&Ss at lower ISO. I was excited by the idea of this camera design based on the assumption that the sensor will provide a step up from the current generation of compact sensors. But I don't see that advantage in any of the sample shots. It might be apparent only at higher sensitivities, but the lower ISO shots look like what other P&S cameras can produce already.

The advantage of Q is in it's mount. The fact that you can change lenses is the whole difference.

[suncrimson]

Don't think too much, Q is just a toy, interesting toy.
The IQ sure is equal to some high-end P&S like S95 or Lx5, the high-iso is a bit better base on my test, but still some level.
Let's wait and see if pentax will put more effort on the lens line to give us some surprise.

[knightzerox]

Some nice shots and I particularly liked Devorama's, but I have to say - I have not yet seen anything that makes me feel that the Q is conclusively more competent than other P&Ss at lower ISO. I was excited by the idea of this camera design based on the assumption that the sensor will provide a step up from the current generation of compact sensors. But I don't see that advantage in any of the sample shots. It might be apparent only at higher sensitivities, but the lower ISO shots look like what other P&S cameras can produce already.

Here are a couple of shots from my current P&S - the second is a crop from the first, to show the detail that the camera can capture. You can click on them for larger sizes - I embedded small versions to distinguish them from the Q samples:

Original frame:


Crop:


The camera is the Lumix TS3 and I have more output from it here. It is waterproof, so it manages to achieve this quality while shooting through the protective glass, which I find to be a pretty impressive feat. The drawback is that that glass causes flare when there are strong sources of light in the frame. Can't have it all.

But, with the Q using a prime lens and having a newer generation sensor, I just expected it to smoke any other P&S in terms of IQ. I just don't see evidence of that. I downloaded the PF sample image from the Q preview the other day, and it looked very average.

Anyway, these are my observations based on the few full-sized samples I managed to see so far. I still like the concept of the Q - I always wanted a full fledged compact system, but I'll wait to see what future models will be like.

Hi, it's funny you mention the Panasonic Lumix TS3 as I also own that camera and did a video review on YouTube of it a few months ago when it was released. That is my current P&S and I love the camera and the quality of images it creates in good lighting. I think that is the key word here, good light. Most P&S fail at higher ISO or low light situations. Any decent camera can take very sharp and clear photos when provided with enough ample light. I still use my Canon SD200 (3.2 megapixel with a max ISO of 400) to take photos every now and then and it does a better job in low light then my then newer Canon SD780IS.

I own the TS3 and K-x and was already doing some RAW comparison shots between the K-x and the Q. I was going to save the TS3 for last but I'll take some more comparison shots between all three at different ISO's to compare. So far, the Q is close in IQ to the K-x at lowest ISO settings. The K-x has a bit more detail but when viewed at normal resolutions and not 100%, there are not noticeable.

Now on comparing the TS3 to the Q, even though I love the TS3 it's not the same thing as the Q. They both have the same sensor size and are relatively the same physical size as well, but that's about where the comparison ends.

Things I can't do with my TS3:

1. Have a full size hot-shoe to use with standard flashes
2. Change the lenses to suit a particular aperture or focal length
3. Attach different types of lenses such a C, D, and soon K mount lenses
4. Have full manual control both in still and video modes
5. Have very good low-light performance in comparison ( the TS3 starts to need PP at ISO800 and ISO 1600 is useless on that camera for me)

Obviously the TS3 is waterproof, droproof,has GPS, etc... It's a different kind of camera. The Q is a REAL DSLR shrunk down in that it gives you all the capabilities of a DLSR in a small package with very good IQ. That's the key, the capabilities of the camera. Having the interchangeable lenses makes it more valuable then say a S95 because it gives me options like a DSLR. I can attach it to my telescope for astrophotography, or use a real flash attached to the camera. I can take the Q to a wedding and shoot photos just as easily as with my K-x and get great photos, but cut my weight and size down significantly.

If we look at it this way, we can say the Q is a new line of compact DSLR's. Eventually the IQ of these cameras will get to the point that they are as good as high-end DSLR's of today and already it's approaching or meeting K-x in quality now.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I was going to save the TS3 for last but I'll take some more comparison shots between all three at different ISO's to compare.

I am looking forward to that comparison. Should be pretty interesting.

Things I can't do with my TS3:

1. Have a full size hot-shoe to use with standard flashes
2. Change the lenses to suit a particular aperture or focal length
3. Attach different types of lenses such a C, D, and soon K mount lenses
4. Have full manual control both in still and video modes
5. Have very good low-light performance in comparison ( the TS3 starts to need PP at ISO800 and ISO 1600 is useless on that camera for me)

I agree those are great features, but my comments were just about my expectation for Q's IQ to be higher at lower ISOs - I suspect that the low light performance may be the distinguishing performance, but it is not evident in the samples provided so far. And because the low ISO samples don't show any significant advantage, users that want to showcase the Q features really need to take shots in more challenging conditions than just good light, to prove the point that the Q's performance makes it worthwhile to get the camera.

FWIW, the TS3 quality seemed acceptable to me up to ISO 400 and I didn't really need more than that so far. I also discovered recently the High ISO mode, where you can push the ISO beyond 1600 up to 6400, at the cost of just getting 3MP images - the output actually looked decent at ISO 3200, but I didn't have a real need to use such high ISO, either, so I don't have any samples yet - I'll come up with something over the next weeks.

I had the Q in the cart and I thought several times of pressing the checkout button over the past month. But now, I'm really circumspect about the benefits it could give me in terms of IQ improvement. I don't want to pay the premium price difference over a competent P&S if I don't get a noticeable IQ improvement as well. I appreciate the build, controls, and mount, but they are not worth $500 to me.

[rawr]

It would be nice if this thread was about non-official Q sample pix ...

[rawr]

Just some shots I took today playing around with the Q that arrived. The yellow rose photo was adjusted for color, but nothing else was done and all the other photos are as is from the camera. Thanks.

Those last two images - of the pillows and the keyring - are particularly good quality. Very rich colours, excellent detail, good depth.

[knightzerox]

Those last two images - of the pillows and the keyring - are particularly good quality. Very rich colors, excellent detail, good depth.

Thanks! I think they came out really well. The pillows was taken using a Metz 58-2 Flash on the camera and bounced on the ceiling.

[knightzerox]

I am looking forward to that comparison. Should be pretty interesting.



I agree those are great features, but my comments were just about my expectation for Q's IQ to be higher at lower ISOs - I suspect that the low light performance may be the distinguishing performance, but it is not evident in the samples provided so far. And because the low ISO samples don't show any significant advantage, users that want to showcase the Q features really need to take shots in more challenging conditions than just good light, to prove the point that the Q's performance makes it worthwhile to get the camera.

FWIW, the TS3 quality seemed acceptable to me up to ISO 400 and I didn't really need more than that so far. I also discovered recently the High ISO mode, where you can push the ISO beyond 1600 up to 6400, at the cost of just getting 3MP images - the output actually looked decent at ISO 3200, but I didn't have a real need to use such high ISO, either, so I don't have any samples yet - I'll come up with something over the next weeks.

I had the Q in the cart and I thought several times of pressing the checkout button over the past month. But now, I'm really circumspect about the benefits it could give me in terms of IQ improvement. I don't want to pay the premium price difference over a competent P&S if I don't get a noticeable IQ improvement as well. I appreciate the build, controls, and mount, but they are not worth $500 to me.

If you can describe or tell me what might be a good example to push the limits of the cameras in more challenging conditions, I'll test the cameras with them. I'm planning on doing the K-x, TS3, Q, Canon SD780IS and SD200 all at once.

I've used the High ISO mode of the TS3 but they were too grainy for me unless changed to black and white. ISO 400 is really the limit of that camera for good pictures with any post work.

I understand. I think the price of the Q could be dropped $100-200, but I don't regret my purchase. Each person has to decide if the camera makes sense for them. I'll post up my results after this weekend when I get the chance. Thanks.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

If you can describe or tell me what might be a good example to push the limits of the cameras in more challenging conditions, I'll test the cameras with them. I'm planning on doing the K-x, TS3, Q, Canon SD780IS and SD200 all at once.

Any scene where the Q shows better IQ than the other compact cameras would be interesting. What I am interested to find out is where does the Q sensor provide an advantage versus other compact sensors. Is that advantage showing up at ISO 100, does it only show up above ISO 800 - these are the kind of questions I am looking for answers to. I would not do any post-processing and I would include 100% crops for comparison of detail. I would test at least ISO 100, ISO 400 and ISO 1600.

Thanks for undertaking this project.

[knightzerox]

I finished doing all the test shots tonight and putting them together. Just need to make one big image for comparison. Here's a preview of some things to come:

Pentax Q

FYI: The forum re-sized the images and a little tiny bit of quality was lost. I will post the originals later for people to download.

ISO 6400 JPG

Attachment 105446

ISO 6400 JPG from RAW after my own adjustments

Attachment 105447