Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2011, 08:57 PM   #1
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

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
09-13-2011, 09:38 PM   #2
Veteran Member
mysticcowboy's Avatar

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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 499
Yikes, really poor showing from the Q
09-14-2011, 05:39 AM   #4
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,225
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
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,777
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
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
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
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
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
Pentaxian




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
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by devorama Quote
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
Senior Member
Roberts's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Latvia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
QuoteOriginally posted by devorama Quote
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
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Roberts Quote
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
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,951
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
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
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
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,951
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, files, flower, focus, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, resolution, series, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top