Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA |
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
|