[wjjstu]

That image use Bokeh control, it looks not so bad.
http://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/walk/IMGP0657.jpg
(on the right of the frog, you can notice a thin spider web's thread, and it's not obliterate by the effect)
I'm curious to know how the camera get the Z-axis (depht) informations.

That certainly explains the odd-looking bokeh. It looks a lot like the old gaussian blur filter in Photoshop.

[zxaar]

Surely you can't be serious. Lets ignore for a moment that m4/3's sensors are large enough to give DOF control, something most photographers require,

This is another strong reason NOT to buy m43. If you want DOF control you get it better with FF or APC. Which side you are m43 or APC???

and just compare images at various ISO's using Imaging Recource's handy comparison tool: Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

Why to compare. Did you notice the person I replied to did not do so. If he pulled a 100% crop from somewhere and made a conclusion, why can't I do the same???
If you want to compare IQ properly wait for some review site like say DPR to do so, before that you stick to your 'it can't match m43' and Iwill stick to 'it can match m43'.

If you don't feel like using that here is an ISO3200 comparison screenshot from the G3 and the K5 (the ISO king of the APS-C world). Can you even tell which is which? Even if you do get lucky enough to guess correctly the difference in the two is so minimal that it won't make a difference in any real world shots.

Yepp, this is why it makes NO SENSE to buy any m43 camera. Here is the reason.

If you want DOF control -- buy APC or FF, if you want deep DOF buy Q, because difference is so minimal that your eyes won't be able to see the difference.

Further, the extreme corner crop of the trees you chose to post as a sample showing how poorly m4/3's sensors perform was taken using the cheapest and worst lens in all of the m4/3's line up.

Yepp I did so. and you agree to my point that - if someone selectively posts 100% crops he can call any camera a P&S, which is what ogl was doing.




Try to see in what context reply was made and to whom it was made, you will see things more clearly.

[hcarvalhoalves]

The Q seems like a bad compromise of size, price and image quality.

It's way smaller than needed, requires a new set of lenses which increases the overall cost of the system, and image quality suffers. It's not bad per se, and I was surprised by the sharpness of some of the sample pics, but there are no real strong points to make you want one.

I would much prefer spending $ 800 on a more compact camera (maybe EVIL?) which accepted K-mount and packed APS-C sensor than a P&S with interchangeable lenses.

[zxaar]

The Q seems like a bad compromise of size, price and image quality.

It's way smaller than needed, requires a new set of lenses which increases the overall cost of the system, and image quality suffers. It's not bad per se, and I was surprised by the sharpness of some of the sample pics, but there are no real strong points to make you want one.

I would much prefer spending $ 800 on a more compact camera (maybe EVIL?) which accepted K-mount and packed APS-C sensor than a P&S with interchangeable lenses.

The whole thing is more complicated than this. There are two very important points you made. I THINK (in my opinion), there are two types of people who would like to buy.

1. Someone who is not photographer but just a normal person, like for example my wife. She does not want to go into all this mumbo zumbo of sensor size and all that. For her , all this discussion has no meaning.
2. A person like you or me, who understand this mumbo jumbo and do care of all the aspects we get loggerhead about. But most of people like us , simply have no interest in this type of product, because most of us know what we want and Q is not an answer to it (like shallow DOF, worse low light performance etc etc handicap).

There are small percentage of type 2, like me who are interested in Q simply because they know when Q can not deliver they have other cams to use that time. I can always use my k-x when i think Q can not do the job. I simply do not want to buy another APC or m43 because I already have that in form cameras with me.

The Q seems like a bad compromise of size, price and image quality.

May be it does if you look the present only. But Q may not be as bad as this in say 2-3 years of time. This is what I believe is basis of chosing this sensor size by Pentax. It is bit like thinking of future too.

It's way smaller than needed, requires a new set of lenses which increases the overall cost of the system, and image quality suffers.lenses.

This point is main issue, if we once assume Q sensor would be much better than this in 2-3 years of time and would be good enough for type2 (photographers like you and me) then we know that the lenses we buy today could be use on Q bodies. If the system is compact it would make very good small package.

But here lies the worrisome part, we have no idea what Q's future is. What happens if ricoh simply decides to drop this whole thing?? If one has to buy lenses simply to find out that he is left in lurch than it is big problem. Insecurity in system is what makes me think about it. This is why for me at least APC is there to stay. I am very likely to buy Q, but i am not sure that I would be buying lots of lenses.

[hcarvalhoalves]

This point is main issue, if we once assume Q sensor would be much better than this in 2-3 years of time and would be good enough for type2 (photographers like you and me) then we know that the lenses we buy today could be use on Q bodies. If the system is compact it would make very good small package.

When I meant small, I meant the actual body, not the sensor. It looks absurdly small to me, much more than needed, and because of that, many things suffer: requires smaller sensors which give less quality and more noise, slower lenses, bigger DoF, etc. It also seems harder to handle, but I won't know for sure before I can have one in hand.

That said, my complaints are that the system just doesn't look appealing, specially at this price point. I believe PENTAX would make a lot more money with something less niche, like a K-mount EVIL, instead of repeating the Auto 110 flop again.

[jogiba]

darwinfish105 who also has the K-5 just uploaded some interesting shots :
Flickr: darwinfish105's Photostream

[rawr]

LOL. I knew birders would like the Q for the massive 5X focal length multiplier, but this rig is a bit over the top:

Pentax Q+smc PENTAX FA645 400mm f5.6

---

Last edited by rawr; 09-04-2011 at 01:49 AM.

[asw66]

darwinfish105 who also has the K-5 just uploaded some interesting shots :
Flickr: darwinfish105's Photostream

I'm starting to think that the fisheye is a bit of a liability for the brand new system. It's not the most pronounced fisheye, so a crop from this lens can look like severe barrel distortion. In fact I recall a comment on the techradar review that seemed to confuse an image from the fisheye with the standard prime.

[Couscousdelight]

It's way smaller than needed(...)
I would much prefer spending $ 800 on a more compact camera (...)

It's too small but you prefer to spend your money on a more compact camera...

[hcarvalhoalves]

It's too small but you prefer to spend your money on a more compact camera...

More compact camera compared to a DSLR, of course. For instance, I would love a comeback and have something the size of a MX, but still packing K-mount and APS-C sensor. The Q seems too small even to P&S standards. PENTAX has a fixation to miniaturize everything, which is great, but they stretch it too far at times.

[timo]

darwinfish105 who also has the K-5 just uploaded some interesting shots :
Flickr: darwinfish105's Photostream

The one I just checked out (the ferris wheel at night) is in fact 125 ISO, so not a total low-light test. That said, it looks pretty good. What strikes me is how variable all the samples we have seen are. It'll be a while before we get a real sense of the Q's potential.

[ogl]

LOL. I knew birders would like the Q for the massive 5X focal length multiplier, but this rig is a bit over the top:

Pentax Q+smc PENTAX FA645 400mm f5.6

All sizes | IMGP0137 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

:ugh: real trash

[gazonk]

:ugh: real trash

I looked at those photos with 645 and 67 (!) lenses mounted on a Q yesterday, and agree, ogl, if this is all you can do with a Q with adapter and tele, it's not worth it - I get better results from 100% crops from my K10D.

[zxaar]

I looked at those photos with 645 and 67 (!) lenses mounted on a Q yesterday, and agree, ogl, if this is all you can do with a Q with adapter and tele, it's not worth it - I get better results from 100% crops from my K10D.

The keyword is 'IF' , one can definitely do much better because it all depends on lens you put on adapter. There is no glass element in adapter to degrade IQ, so if you have sharp lens , results would very good.

So in the end, results produced are not depended on what OGL thinks of some camera but how a photographer uses that camera. His opinion is just that, an opinion not the truth and final word on this.

[ogl]

I looked at those photos with 645 and 67 (!) lenses mounted on a Q yesterday, and agree, ogl, if this is all you can do with a Q with adapter and tele, it's not worth it - I get better results from 100% crops from my K10D.

K10D - MUCH better.


It looks worse than P&S hyper zoom