Pentax Q shoots the ISO flower

devorama · 09-13-2011, 08:57 PM

With all the talk of sensor performance, I though people might want to see some controlled comparison shots. You may remember this flower from my K-m vs. K-x or the K-x vs. K-r series. Well it's back now for the Pentax Q vs. Olympus XZ-1.

Flickr series

The earlier shots are just out of camera JPG files.

Later shots are RAW files from the Q and XZ-1 converted with no noise reduction in Raw Therapee. I tried to shoot both at the same focal length, but the XZ-1 has a power zoom with biggish steps. I used a white board to set the color balance manually, but the Q came out definitely cooler. Focus was spot focus for both on the center and both used a 2 second timer.

Also included are the ISO elevators for ease of pixel peeping.

From my estimation, the XZ-1 has better resolution. It looks like the RAW files were sharpened. But I checked and even reprocessed the files and they are that sharp with sharpening turned off. It seems like the grain of the nose is actually finer on the XZ-1, which I didn't expect because it's a lower resolution sensor.

Last edited by devorama; 09-13-2011 at 08:58 PM. Reason: fixed title

mysticcowboy · 09-13-2011, 09:38 PM

Thanks for posting these. I beginning to rethink my initial reservations about that camera.

brkl · 09-13-2011, 11:59 PM

Yikes, really poor showing from the Q

**barondla** · 09-14-2011, 05:39 AM

Does Raw Therapee do the Q raw files as well as it should? Pentax has says Photoshop doesn't do DNG correctly untill there is an update. What happens if you use Silkypix that is included with Q?
thanks
barondla

just got my Q and love it. The Pana LX 2 and Olympus EPL1 will be sitting a lot more.

pinholecam · 09-14-2011, 07:11 AM

If the comparison images is the ability of the Q, then it should go straight into the dustbin.

Is RAWTherapee handling the Q RAW properly?

Maybe just a jpeg comparison will be better?
Both cameras and do all the dirty tricks to churn out the JPEG but at least it will let me know what I can get straight out of camera for JPG.

devorama · 09-14-2011, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by pinholecam

If the comparison images is the ability of the Q, then it should go straight into the dustbin.

Is RAWTherapee handling the Q RAW properly?

Maybe just a jpeg comparison will be better?
Both cameras and do all the dirty tricks to churn out the JPEG but at least it will let me know what I can get straight out of camera for JPG.

I'm not sure if the choice of RAW converter makes that much difference if I'm not applying any noise reduction, sharpening, exposure curves, etc. It does appear that the RAW Therapee converter does not do any barrel distotion correction by default, as I can see the distortion in the RAW files.

Just so you can see the difference, I uploaded the original JPEG files of the flower too with the Q and XZ-1. I shot them as RAW+JPEG, so the conditions are the same.

Edgar_in_Indy · 09-14-2011, 08:20 AM

I just looked at the entire out-of-camera JPG series from the Q, and was actually impressed. Thanks for taking the time to post these! In the past, the output from a lot of these 1/2.3" cameras look like impressionist paintings when viewed at 100%, even at low ISO levels. But the Q looks amazing at base ISO, and holds up acceptably well when going up the ISO scale.

I was among the skeptics and the disgruntled when Pentax announced the Q, but I could actually see myself owning one of these things one day, assuming the price comes down. I think it would also make a great starter camera for my kids.

snostorm · 09-14-2011, 11:36 AM

Hi devorama,

Are the jpegs at default image settings and High ISO NR on "Auto"?

Scott

devorama · 09-14-2011, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

Hi devorama,

Are the jpegs at default image settings and High ISO NR on "Auto"?

Scott

Yes, default color setting (I think it's "Bright") and default NR settings. Three star quality (the highest) for the JPEG quality. I was surprised the file size for the Q was pretty small compared to the XZ-1 files. Q JPEGs were about 2 MB while the XZ-1 was about 4MB. Maybe the JPEG compression is just more aggressive even at highest quality setting.

snostorm · 09-14-2011, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by devorama

Yes, default color setting (I think it's "Bright") and default NR settings. Three star quality (the highest) for the JPEG quality. I was surprised the file size for the Q was pretty small compared to the XZ-1 files. Q JPEGs were about 2 MB while the XZ-1 was about 4MB. Maybe the JPEG compression is just more aggressive even at highest quality setting.

Hi devorama,

Thanks!

I think I can pretty well extrapolate what I'd expect to get out of the Q from these and a few other samples, and AFAIC, the Q will do just fine for my purposes, set up the way I anticipate, and PP'd to taste.

Thanks for a well executed test!

Scott

Roberts · 09-15-2011, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by devorama

I'm not sure if the choice of RAW converter makes that much difference if I'm not applying any noise reduction, sharpening, exposure curves, etc.

The choice of RAW converter makes very big difference, even if you just convert files by using defaults, i.e., you do not touch any of sliders. Try the same RAW file (of any camera) to convert with different converters putting all sliders to 0 or start position, and you will see the difference

devorama · 09-15-2011, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Roberts

The choice of RAW converter makes very big difference, even if you just convert files by using defaults, i.e., you do not touch any of sliders. Try the same RAW file (of any camera) to convert with different converters putting all sliders to 0 or start position, and you will see the difference

Well, I chose RAW Therapee so I could use the exact same RAW file program on both files. I just opened the Q ISO 1600 file in SilkyPix and processed it with minimum values. It seems it does the barrel distortion correction even if I don't ask for it. But the resulting file is very similar to the Raw Therapee file. The SilkyPix pic looks less sharp than the Raw Therapee one, but I think that's because I can't disable the sharpenung, But overall the changes are minor, other than the barrel distortion correction.

Zygonyx · 09-15-2011, 05:18 AM

The "problem" might be that in modifying it's RAW files, Pentax has lessened numerical "born" noise, but to an other extent too, the apparent resolution of the sensor...

devorama · 09-15-2011, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

The "problem" might be that in modifying it's RAW files, Pentax has lessened numerical "born" noise, but to an other extent too, the apparent resolution of the sensor...

Has it been stated that Pentax is modifying RAW files? Are you talking about how Pentax dslr RAW files have noise reduction for high ISO?

Zygonyx · 09-15-2011, 11:49 PM

Yes, Pentax has actually modified the RAW files "in-body" since the K10D, according to DxO Lab. The advantage being a better noise control.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Pentax/K10D

See the "smoothed" values on the graphs. An explanation lies somewhere in their website, but i can't find it now.

09-13-2011, 08:57 PM	#1
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	Pentax Q shoots the ISO flower With all the talk of sensor performance, I though people might want to see some controlled comparison shots. You may remember this flower from my K-m vs. K-x or the K-x vs. K-r series. Well it's back now for the Pentax Q vs. Olympus XZ-1. Flickr series The earlier shots are just out of camera JPG files. Later shots are RAW files from the Q and XZ-1 converted with no noise reduction in Raw Therapee. I tried to shoot both at the same focal length, but the XZ-1 has a power zoom with biggish steps. I used a white board to set the color balance manually, but the Q came out definitely cooler. Focus was spot focus for both on the center and both used a 2 second timer. Also included are the ISO elevators for ease of pixel peeping. From my estimation, the XZ-1 has better resolution. It looks like the RAW files were sharpened. But I checked and even reprocessed the files and they are that sharp with sharpening turned off. It seems like the grain of the nose is actually finer on the XZ-1, which I didn't expect because it's a lower resolution sensor. Last edited by devorama; 09-13-2011 at 08:58 PM. Reason: fixed title

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-r vs. K-x ISO samples (or return of the ISO flower!)	devorama	Pentax K-r	31	10-29-2010 02:05 AM
Nature Flower shots.	dws1117	Post Your Photos!	2	08-03-2010 12:34 AM
Nature Two flower shots	the swede	Post Your Photos!	3	08-02-2010 04:59 PM
Macro First flower shots	miss_alexx	Post Your Photos!	14	04-30-2010 03:42 PM
Pentax K10 Tamron 18-250mm Flower shots	eagle2	Post Your Photos!	4	05-19-2008 11:37 AM

09-13-2011, 09:38 PM	#2
mysticcowboy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: port townsend, wa Photos: Albums Posts: 968	Thanks for posting these. I beginning to rethink my initial reservations about that camera.

09-13-2011, 11:59 PM	#3
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	Yikes, really poor showing from the Q

09-14-2011, 05:39 AM	#4
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,716	Does Raw Therapee do the Q raw files as well as it should? Pentax has says Photoshop doesn't do DNG correctly untill there is an update. What happens if you use Silkypix that is included with Q? thanks barondla just got my Q and love it. The Pana LX 2 and Olympus EPL1 will be sitting a lot more.

09-14-2011, 07:11 AM	#5
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,709	If the comparison images is the ability of the Q, then it should go straight into the dustbin. Is RAWTherapee handling the Q RAW properly? Maybe just a jpeg comparison will be better? Both cameras and do all the dirty tricks to churn out the JPEG but at least it will let me know what I can get straight out of camera for JPG.

09-14-2011, 07:40 AM	#6
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638 Original Poster	Originally posted by pinholecam If the comparison images is the ability of the Q, then it should go straight into the dustbin. Is RAWTherapee handling the Q RAW properly? Maybe just a jpeg comparison will be better? Both cameras and do all the dirty tricks to churn out the JPEG but at least it will let me know what I can get straight out of camera for JPG. I'm not sure if the choice of RAW converter makes that much difference if I'm not applying any noise reduction, sharpening, exposure curves, etc. It does appear that the RAW Therapee converter does not do any barrel distotion correction by default, as I can see the distortion in the RAW files. Just so you can see the difference, I uploaded the original JPEG files of the flower too with the Q and XZ-1. I shot them as RAW+JPEG, so the conditions are the same.

09-14-2011, 08:20 AM	#7
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	I just looked at the entire out-of-camera JPG series from the Q, and was actually impressed. Thanks for taking the time to post these! In the past, the output from a lot of these 1/2.3" cameras look like impressionist paintings when viewed at 100%, even at low ISO levels. But the Q looks amazing at base ISO, and holds up acceptably well when going up the ISO scale. I was among the skeptics and the disgruntled when Pentax announced the Q, but I could actually see myself owning one of these things one day, assuming the price comes down. I think it would also make a great starter camera for my kids.

09-14-2011, 11:36 AM	#8
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Hi devorama, Are the jpegs at default image settings and High ISO NR on "Auto"? Scott

09-14-2011, 11:41 AM	#9
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638 Original Poster	Originally posted by snostorm Hi devorama, Are the jpegs at default image settings and High ISO NR on "Auto"? Scott Yes, default color setting (I think it's "Bright") and default NR settings. Three star quality (the highest) for the JPEG quality. I was surprised the file size for the Q was pretty small compared to the XZ-1 files. Q JPEGs were about 2 MB while the XZ-1 was about 4MB. Maybe the JPEG compression is just more aggressive even at highest quality setting.

09-14-2011, 12:56 PM	#10
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by devorama Yes, default color setting (I think it's "Bright") and default NR settings. Three star quality (the highest) for the JPEG quality. I was surprised the file size for the Q was pretty small compared to the XZ-1 files. Q JPEGs were about 2 MB while the XZ-1 was about 4MB. Maybe the JPEG compression is just more aggressive even at highest quality setting. Hi devorama, Thanks! I think I can pretty well extrapolate what I'd expect to get out of the Q from these and a few other samples, and AFAIC, the Q will do just fine for my purposes, set up the way I anticipate, and PP'd to taste. Thanks for a well executed test! Scott

09-15-2011, 12:37 AM	#11
Roberts Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Latvia Photos: Gallery Posts: 127	Originally posted by devorama I'm not sure if the choice of RAW converter makes that much difference if I'm not applying any noise reduction, sharpening, exposure curves, etc. The choice of RAW converter makes very big difference, even if you just convert files by using defaults, i.e., you do not touch any of sliders. Try the same RAW file (of any camera) to convert with different converters putting all sliders to 0 or start position, and you will see the difference

09-15-2011, 01:33 AM	#12
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638 Original Poster	Originally posted by Roberts The choice of RAW converter makes very big difference, even if you just convert files by using defaults, i.e., you do not touch any of sliders. Try the same RAW file (of any camera) to convert with different converters putting all sliders to 0 or start position, and you will see the difference Well, I chose RAW Therapee so I could use the exact same RAW file program on both files. I just opened the Q ISO 1600 file in SilkyPix and processed it with minimum values. It seems it does the barrel distortion correction even if I don't ask for it. But the resulting file is very similar to the Raw Therapee file. The SilkyPix pic looks less sharp than the Raw Therapee one, but I think that's because I can't disable the sharpenung, But overall the changes are minor, other than the barrel distortion correction.

09-15-2011, 05:18 AM	#13
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	The "problem" might be that in modifying it's RAW files, Pentax has lessened numerical "born" noise, but to an other extent too, the apparent resolution of the sensor...

09-15-2011, 07:33 AM	#14
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638 Original Poster	Originally posted by Zygonyx The "problem" might be that in modifying it's RAW files, Pentax has lessened numerical "born" noise, but to an other extent too, the apparent resolution of the sensor... Has it been stated that Pentax is modifying RAW files? Are you talking about how Pentax dslr RAW files have noise reduction for high ISO?

09-15-2011, 11:49 PM	#15
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Yes, Pentax has actually modified the RAW files "in-body" since the K10D, according to DxO Lab. The advantage being a better noise control. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Pentax/K10D See the "smoothed" values on the graphs. An explanation lies somewhere in their website, but i can't find it now.