Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-21-2011, 09:02 AM   #31
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
My point is that I believe those who are into photography to the extent where they will take out multiple lenses will also want to preserve IQ as much as possible even that means taking out larger lenses.
Then why get a CSC to begin with?

I would love to play with the primes with such a small system and the fisheye, something you can't do with compacts.
Well you might but you need to work with filters and such and that's really not good for your image quality.

09-21-2011, 09:52 PM   #32
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Then why get a CSC to begin with?
I can well understand the magnetism to a smaller physical system when going out shooting. No one wants to lug around heavy kit if you don't have to. But surely serious snappers have IQ as a priority? if I go out on a serious shoot I take two K-5 bodies and upto 7 lenses. It's like doing boot camp training with a back pack full of bricks. I'd love to pack lighter but the kit gets me the pics

QuoteQuote:
I would love to play with the primes with such a small system and the fisheye, something you can't do with compacts.
Well you might but you need to work with filters and such and that's really not good for your image quality.
But the Q system isn't good for image quality either.

The reality is that technology isn't good enough to give a decent enough image quality that one would expect from a camera that offers interchangeable lenses and the features of the Q

As you know I have a Sony compact that uses the same Exmor R sensor tech as the Q and has the same pixel density. The IQ is pretty damn good in optimal light for a compact. The Q for me is like putting a Skoda engine in a Ferrari body
09-22-2011, 11:20 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
I can well understand the magnetism to a smaller physical system when going out shooting. No one wants to lug around heavy kit if you don't have to. But surely serious snappers have IQ as a priority? if I go out on a serious shoot I take two K-5 bodies and upto 7 lenses. It's like doing boot camp training with a back pack full of bricks. I'd love to pack lighter but the kit gets me the pics
But most of the weight are your lenses, a sony NEX setup won't be much if any lighter then the same setup with a K5.
In that regards, Sony and Samung don't make much sense.
Olymopus and Panasonic seem to be better at this point but also not by much and I've no idea what Nikon is doing by making their lenses so big...


QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
But the Q system isn't good for image quality either.

The reality is that technology isn't good enough to give a decent enough image quality that one would expect from a camera that offers interchangeable lenses and the features of the Q

As you know I have a Sony compact that uses the same Exmor R sensor tech as the Q and has the same pixel density. The IQ is pretty damn good in optimal light for a compact. The Q for me is like putting a Skoda engine in a Ferrari body
I said it has better quality then using all kind of filters on your compact camera to create an effect, it might be fun to do that but not usable.

As for the Q, up to ISO1600 it does seem to do really well and it seems to be better at that point then the K10D is so for me at least the image quality is good enough.
When it's good enough, why would you need more?
I only want to see some faster lenses for that thing, 10 or 15mm f/0.8 sounds quite nice for example.

Pentax Q Compact System Camera Review
09-23-2011, 07:47 AM   #34
Veteran Member
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
It's now $699 at Aden here in Toronto just yesterday it was $769. (Prime Kit)

09-23-2011, 03:16 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
But most of the weight are your lenses, a sony NEX setup won't be much if any lighter then the same setup with a K5.
In that regards, Sony and Samung don't make much sense.
Olymopus and Panasonic seem to be better at this point but also not by much and I've no idea what Nikon is doing by making their lenses so big...



I said it has better quality then using all kind of filters on your compact camera to create an effect, it might be fun to do that but not usable.

As for the Q, up to ISO1600 it does seem to do really well and it seems to be better at that point then the K10D is so for me at least the image quality is good enough.
When it's good enough, why would you need more?
I only want to see some faster lenses for that thing, 10 or 15mm f/0.8 sounds quite nice for example.

Pentax Q Compact System Camera Review

We've both owned K10D's. teh IQ of a K10D is far better than the Q. Sure it's noisy at higher ISOs, but the Q using the exmor R sensor employs some smeary noise reduction that looks exactly like the smeary noise reduction used in my Sony that uses the Exmor R sensor
09-24-2011, 01:11 AM   #36
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
But the Q isn't a compact though but a CSC, diferent kind of camera.

The Panasonic GF3 with the prime lens is only €50 cheaper.
Good the GF3 has a larger sensor but the Q has build-in SR, better build quality and better controls/interface

Compare to that camera the Q doesn't look that expensive.
As we stand today you can get the GF3 with the 14mm pancake for £419. Please tell me where I can get the Q plus prime for £469.

I know you'll tell me that a graph shows the Q matches the GF3 for signal to noise ratio and dynamic range, but please don't confuse those for what others describe as 'image quality'.

Ok, the Q is better built than the GF3, so what? So is the G12, which last time I checked cost under £400, comes with a collapsible zoom lens (therefore more pocketable), great manual control, bigger sensor than the Q (CCD which means apart from in very low light should give easily as good, likely better images) and a moveable screen.


This isn't a dig at the Q, moreso Pentax. Launching a premium-priced (but not fully premium featured) product in a new niche, from a position in the market which has relied on good value for money in recent years is, to me, commercial suicide. Had the Q been released as a Lumic system leaning heavily on the Leica name then perhaps it could have worked. I would be stunned if the Q isn't anything more than a commercial failure that in 20 years becomes the oddity we all talk about ("Just got a Q with all 5 of its lenses off Ebay, just need an adaptor now to mount them on my XYZ).

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I fear I won't be. My main concern is, if it does go on and bomb, what does this say about the decision makers at Pentax, the people who signed this project off. Why couldn't they see what seems apparent to many others?

Why oh why didn't they launch a Micro-K mount in th same way the 4/3 - Micro 4/3 relationship works?

Keeping my fingers crossed for the Q.
09-24-2011, 12:58 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 12,336
QuoteOriginally posted by robbie_d Quote


Launching a premium-priced (but not fully premium featured) product in a new niche, from a position in the market which has relied on good value for money in recent years is, to me, commercial suicide.
Who are you to decide what is good value or not for someone, other than your own personal hubris?
If people only bought based on your values, companies like Rolex, Rolls Royce, etc wouldn't be in business. The fact that premium product manufacturing is worthwhile proves that cameras such as the Q will more than likely be market viable.
09-24-2011, 01:14 PM   #38
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Who are you to decide what is good value or not for someone, other than your own personal hubris?
If people only bought based on your values, companies like Rolex, Rolls Royce, etc wouldn't be in business. The fact that premium product manufacturing is worthwhile proves that cameras such as the Q will more than likely be market viable.
You've missed my point entirely.

I haven't said that there is no place for premium products, that would be a ridiculous statement, so I don't understand why you're trying to put words in my mouth suggesting I have.

What I have said is that a company not associated with premium priced products in recent years (Pentax's products have typically offered good/great 'bang for buck') launching a product with 'premium' aspirations into a newly created niche, appears (to me) to be commerical suicide.

Imagine if Ford released a two seater sports car, smaller than a Porsche, with a fraction of the power for the same (if not more) money. Would that seem like good sense to you?

I'm sorry if my logic gets in the way of your staunch defence of the Q, but I'm just calling it as I see it, and I am someone who deep down really wants the Q to be a success.

09-24-2011, 04:46 PM   #39
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Pentax Q for $250 ?

DxOMark - Pentax Q

I will get one for that price.
09-24-2011, 05:17 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Who are you to decide what is good value or not for someone, other than your own personal hubris?
If people only bought based on your values, companies like Rolex, Rolls Royce, etc wouldn't be in business. The fact that premium product manufacturing is worthwhile proves that cameras such as the Q will more than likely be market viable.
I hate to use that passée term FAIL but I can't think of a more appropriate description at the moment, so .... FAIL

Rolex, Rolls Royce, etc are premium products as well as being premium priced. The Q is premium priced without being a premium product.
09-24-2011, 05:18 PM   #41
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by robbie_d Quote
You've missed my point entirely.

I haven't said that there is no place for premium products, that would be a ridiculous statement, so I don't understand why you're trying to put words in my mouth suggesting I have.

What I have said is that a company not associated with premium priced products in recent years (Pentax's products have typically offered good/great 'bang for buck') launching a product with 'premium' aspirations into a newly created niche, appears (to me) to be commerical suicide.

Imagine if Ford released a two seater sports car, smaller than a Porsche, with a fraction of the power for the same (if not more) money. Would that seem like good sense to you?

I'm sorry if my logic gets in the way of your staunch defence of the Q, but I'm just calling it as I see it, and I am someone who deep down really wants the Q to be a success.
It's another Balfour but far less knowledgeable and far more acidic.
09-24-2011, 06:42 PM   #42
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 12,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
I hate to use that passée term FAIL but I can't think of a more appropriate description at the moment, so .... FAIL
Yes well for some reason, you have decided to be my internet troll, so anything you say is suspect, based on this decision.
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
Rolex, Rolls Royce, etc are premium products as well as being premium priced. The Q is premium priced without being a premium product.
How so? A Rolex is just a fancy watch, it doesn't tell time any better than a 50 dollar Timex. A Rolls is just a car, it won't get you where you are going any better than a Subaru.
In both instances, it is fit and finish and choice of materials that the customer will see and feel that places the product a cut above the norm.
In fact, the Subaru is probably worlds ahead in terms of reliability.
But people still pitch out money for the stuff that feels nice in the hands.
It's something that you seem unable to understand, so we should probably leave it at that until you have a few more things figured out.
One of the things I did notice about the Q was that it had a very quality "feel".
If people put that ahead of some undefined IQ, then that's what they will do.
And people will do that very thing. If one is human, then one will understand this concept.
If one is not, then they will not.
It's not a hard concept. You either get it or you don't, you are either human, or you are something else.
09-24-2011, 08:36 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
I don't really understand all the negativity, and especially the hostility. The Q, from my perspective, fills some of the gaps in the Pentax product line and for many shooters would complement their DSLR systems quite nicely for a lot of purposes.

For the narrow DOF fans and wide shooters, Pentax has this pretty well covered with the DSLR line with the wide to normal primes and fast lenses, plus the 645D. Where the line is a bit skimpy, Ultra teles, long dedicated Macros, and high end compacts, the Q fills in pretty admirably, and at a comparatively low cost. Bear with me. . .

First let me establish a standard to base EQ (FL equivalents for FOV) to -- I'll use APS-C because this is the relevant reference for me, so all EQs will be to a FL that will yield an equivalent FOV on an APS-C body. I'm doing this to eliminate a lot of typing of qualifiers because there will be quite a few EQ references. Second, -- apologies in advance for a long post -- I'm naturally a wordy person.

There are a lot of Pentax shooters who are justifiably proud of their DSLR kits of a high end body with a trio of Ltds, either FAs or DAs, it really doesn't matter. This is an admirable kit of premium gear that can be carried in a small bag. Now let's add a Q + 8.5mm f1.9 prime and a K>Q adapter to the same compact bag, which adds little bulk and @ only 8.4 oz of weight (plus whatever the adapter will weigh -- probably not more than a few oz).

The Q plus adapter can be used essentially as a 3.6x EQ TC that doesn't effect optical quality and doesn't effect FL so there is no adverse effect to effective aperture. This adds utility as an FA 31 f1.8 can now be used as essentially a 112mm EQ f1.8, the FA 43 f1.9 can be used as a 155mm EQ f1.9, and the FA 77 1.8 can be used as a 277mm EQ f1.8. Remember, this is all with only @ an 8.4 oz (plus the weight of the adapter) addition to the bag, so you'd now have the ability to shoot at 31, 43, 77, 112, 155, and 277 carrying essentially the same kit. I don't think that it takes much imagination to think of what a 110 f1.8, a 150 f1.9 and a 280 f1.8 would cost, and with 62mm, 81mm, and 153mm front elements required respectively, these lenses would range from big to huge and be very heavy.

The longer and faster the lenses one normally uses, the more advantage the Q offers -- well into the range of the unthinkable in size with speed. A 100mm f2.8 becomes a 360mm EQ f2.8, a 200mm f2.8 becomes a 720mm EQ f2.8, and a 300mm f2.8 becomes a 1080mm EQ f2.8, all with the addition of less than a lb and very little bulk and the comparatively low price of $800 + the adapter. . . if you already own these lenses. So much for the bitching about lack of long premium glass for Pentax. . .I'll give up AF and even the optical VF to get a credible 1080mm f2.8 for $800.

The Q does all of this contraction of FOV without changing the MFD so other bizarre possibilities present themselves -- with long modern tele lenses at MFD, the Q might allow macro shooting at impossible working distances. My FA* 300/4.5 has a max magnification of 0.17x. With a 5.53 crop factor, this becomes .94x, so I could conceivably shoot close to 1:1 at its MFD of @ 6 ft! The DA* 300/4 focuses even closer, so with a 0.24x max mag and the 5.53x crop factor, this becomes 1.33x:1 at @ 4 ft.

For long working distances and macro work, I can get @ 18" from the sensor plane (@ 14" from the end of the lens) and 1:1 mag ratio from a D FA 100 f2.8 macro with the Q, along with 3.8:1 mag ratio at @ 12" from the sensor. These are long enough to use a softened popup flash without any lens shadow in the frame. To get the same kind of working distances at 1:1, I'd need 180-200 mm in a dedicated macro with my DSLR, and I should get 2-7 times the DOF using 3-5 stops faster aperture at 1:1. The working weight of the Q setup would be between 1.25 and 2.5 lbs, and with a DSLR, @ 4.5 lbs. . .

If some feel that this added utility isn't worth the $800, don't forget that you're also adding the utility of having a jacket pocketable compact with best-in-format class build quality, user interface and performance (that comes close to matching the rest of your gear in these qualities), another quality fast prime, and probably best-in-format (and beyond) IQ. The very deep DOF has been greatly maligned, but the 8.5mm f1.9 will allow a hyperfocal distance of @ 8 ft at f1.9, with everything from @ 4 ft to ∞ in focus, and at f2.8, focus to @ 5 ft, will allow everything from @ 2.6 ft to ∞ to be in focus. How handy would that be for getting those "kids running around" available light shots at family get-togethers? Who needs blazing fast AF when MF, a fast lens, and a short hyperfocal distance will almost guarantee an in-focus subject? Lack of significant shutter lag should make capturing the "moment" easier with the Q than most other compacts, and you could add an optical VF (not necessarily the pricey Pentax item -- there are quite a few out there at different FLs and lower cost) to make the shooting more efficient.

Need 1/250 sync with an external flash for outdoor fill flash? You get it with the Q, and if you can use the popup flash with some modifying of it's light output, and if it has enough power for the situation, then you can go all the way up to 1/2000 with flash. The small GN of the popup can be stretched with higher ISO to make it more useful, and from the samples I've seen 800 from the Q is pretty acceptable for most people (personally, I think I could shoot at 3200 pretty comfortably for a lot of shots in good light, and we are talking fill flash outdoors here, not near darkness).

I think that too many dismiss the possible usefulness of this little camera. The more I consider it's possibilities compared to any of the cameras that others consider its competitors (there really aren't any!) the more I'm sold. I'll just wait for a two lens kit and the availability of the K>Q adapter, and I'll look forward to some serious exploring of out of the box possibilities to work with over the winter.

I'm primarily a long tele and macro shooter, so my perspective is going to differ from those who mostly shoot wide to normal, and I understand that, but I think that too many people are looking at the Q only with the perception of what a small sensor can't do as opposed to what it actually might be able to do for them.

Scott
09-25-2011, 01:15 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 589
IQ: The charts look ok to me

To those who keep bagging the IQ. Please have a look at some of the comparison charts at:
Hands on: Pentax Q review | News | TechRadar UK.

Second to Sony C3 for dynamic range in Raw. Well above Canon G12 and Panasonic GF3.
Second = for dynamic range in jpeg.
Second until iso 1600 for signal to noise ratio in raw.
First until iso 1000 for signal to noise ratio in jpeg.

Okay, these are charts only. But it certainly doesn't indicate the poor IQ that some people seem to think it has.

I'm hoping they bring out a wide angle zoom or prime, the price drops a bit and then I might consider it.

HowieB
09-25-2011, 05:27 AM   #45
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 12,336
QuoteOriginally posted by howieb101 Quote
To those who keep bagging the IQ. Please have a look at some of the comparison charts at:
Hands on: Pentax Q review | News | TechRadar UK.

Second to Sony C3 for dynamic range in Raw. Well above Canon G12 and Panasonic GF3.
Second = for dynamic range in jpeg.
Second until iso 1600 for signal to noise ratio in raw.
First until iso 1000 for signal to noise ratio in jpeg.

Okay, these are charts only. But it certainly doesn't indicate the poor IQ that some people seem to think it has.

I'm hoping they bring out a wide angle zoom or prime, the price drops a bit and then I might consider it.

HowieB
The people who keep bagging the Q don't want to know this stuff. They would rather stay ignorant of the facts.
It's rather sad,.
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, kit, lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, price, q10, q7, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SMC 200mm A* f2.8 Pricing advice LennyBloke Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 09-08-2011 06:56 AM
Pentax K7 Pricing A.M.92 Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 01-22-2011 10:19 AM
USA Pricing vs Canada Pricing Babbs Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 11-18-2010 05:27 PM
no pricing of pentax lens in B&H catalog cyy47 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-05-2009 09:19 PM
Help pricing a Pentax H2 Stephanie Pentax Film SLR Discussion 14 11-05-2009 11:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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