Thoughts on improving the Q

ronniemac · 09-21-2011, 04:17 PM

(The previous thread has now been closed, but because my comments are about the Q and how it might develop, I have placed this note here so that readers can refer to the closed thread. I would be equally happy if the moderator moved this and the original Q on Steroids thread to the forum for other cameras. This reply contains no references to cameras other than the Pentax Q)

Your points are very well made, Scot, and give an excellent in-depth analysis of important technical issues. Thank you for going into the subject in such detail – I learned a good deal from reading and then re-reading your text.

And as Devorama pointed out, PASM is a real strength in the Q

Because I‘m a Pentaxian I want to buy a quality compact Pentax with certain key features. The Q ticks almost all the boxes and I agree a K>Q adaptor would add long range functionality and, for me, some fun with existing lenses for relatively little outlay.

For me the critical drawback is a lack of built in viewfinder, but I will be in a minority here. I would prefer a clip on flash like the old Auto110, to the Q’s clip on viewfinder because I use a viewfinder 95% of thetime and a built in flash hardly at all. Maybe some of your workarounds, Scott, would persuade me otherwise – do let us know more on this in due course please.

If Pentax bring out an alternative version of the Q, one that ticks this last EVF box,then I will buy one. I really do want a discrete pocketable camera for the times when I have to leave the K-5 at home. I might even go for the existing Q model provided that each lens was accompanied with an appropriate viewfinder, but Ican’t see this happening, especially for a zoom lens.

The Q is a jewel of a camera, and I do wish Pentax every success with it ….. and it successor, the Q-i!

Last edited by ronniemac; 09-22-2011 at 01:50 AM.

**DRabbit** · 09-21-2011, 04:48 PM

Technicals aside (I leave that to the engineers), what I'd like to see in a mirrorless compact from Pentax is this:

Sized somewhere between the Olympus EP3 and Fuji X100.
Uses SAME MOUNT as existing Pentax dSLRs to take advantage of all their great pancake primes that already exist!
Built-in or clip-on EVF.
APS-C Sensor like the K-5, with great dynamic range and high ISO performance.

I think if they put out something like that it would be a winner!

**jpzk** · 09-21-2011, 06:02 PM

Although this is not presently on my list of https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/158161...-one-wait.html
I seriously think that there should be a viewfinder in the next (maybe?) installment of this cute camera.

Totally agreed on being able to use the K-mount glass as well, at least have the same mount.

JP

Ole · 09-21-2011, 07:06 PM

I agree with ronniemac - a view finder is a must have. I'm foregoing the Q due to the lack of a view finder. There is so much light here in Arizona that no back LCD is bright enough to be useable in lieu of a view finder.

Pentax was in forefront during several years with compact zoom film cameras with a zoom viewfinder so they know how to make 'em. Granted, these viewfinders weren't 100% accurate (far from) but they sure beat an LCD screen that you cannot see!

Wheatfield · 09-21-2011, 08:59 PM

+1 to the viewfinder. I handled a Q for the first time the other day.
It is a lovely little thing, but it is too small.
Add a little height for a finder (unfortunately, it would have to be an EVF), and even a bit wider wouldn't hurt this camera.
Everything else about it I liked well enough. The lenses are really cute.

pinholecam · 09-21-2011, 11:03 PM

Solution to the viewfinder.

Get a hood loupe.

**barondla** · 09-22-2011, 04:59 AM

A folding hood lupe would be fantastic. Copy one of the many tlr cameras that had folding hood wih magnifier. It would let us see the lcd in bright light and protect the screen when closed.
thanks
barondla

Check out the point & shoot contest winners in compact camera forum. Enter #46. Any brand camera. Enter now!

Wheatfield · 09-22-2011, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by pinholecam

Solution to the viewfinder.

Get a hood loupe.

Nope, that isn't a solution, that is a kludge.
Some people don't like holding a camera at arms length to take a picture. The hood does nothing to address that.

Anvh · 09-22-2011, 07:44 AM

Viewfinder would indeed be nice, maybe they can make one like in the Leica M9?
Also much faster lenses, they should be able to go past f/1 with the Q mount.
Maybe then some stop making complains about the lack of DOF and image quality because with such a low f-ratio you will hardly need to go past ISO800.

robbie_d · 09-26-2011, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

Viewfinder would indeed be nice, maybe they can make one like in the Leica M9?
Also much faster lenses, they should be able to go past f/1 with the Q mount.
Maybe then some stop making complains about the lack of DOF and image quality because with such a low f-ratio you will hardly need to go past ISO800.

As the Q isn't a rangefinder, I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

Anvh · 09-26-2011, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by robbie_d

As the Q isn't a rangefinder, I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

We can always dream right

I've no idea what kind of contacts the Q mount actually has, does someone know here?

pinholecam · 09-27-2011, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Nope, that isn't a solution, that is a kludge.
Some people don't like holding a camera at arms length to take a picture. The hood does nothing to address that.

In fact, it actually 'reforms' that stability triangle between hands and head.

snostorm · 09-27-2011, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Nope, that isn't a solution, that is a kludge.
Some people don't like holding a camera at arms length to take a picture. The hood does nothing to address that.

Hi Wheatfield,

I think that pinholecam was referring to the Hoodman Hood Loupe:
HoodLoupe 3.0 (PATENT US 7,386,229 B2 and 7,034,877)-Hoodman Corporation

Certainly a workaround, perhaps not elegant, and it is not a very compact solution if mounted on the camera with straps or such, but definitely solves the arms' length hold. I'm probably going to use my Hood Loupe when using the Q on a tripod mounted lens where compact doesn't matter, but am still trying to figure out the best way to use one with a Q in handheld situations where the camera needs to be deployed quickly. I have a few ideas, but am waiting for the dual lens kit and K>Q adapter before I buy a Q, so I can only guess how well they'd work in real life. . .

I'm an OVF user, and never use LV with my DSLRs that have it. The Q is the first camera where the lack of a VF is offset with enough potential advantages to make working around the VF thing worthwhile.

Scott

Smeggypants · 09-27-2011, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Ole

I agree with ronniemac - a view finder is a must have. I'm foregoing the Q due to the lack of a view finder. There is so much light here in Arizona that no back LCD is bright enough to be useable in lieu of a view finder.

Pentax was in forefront during several years with compact zoom film cameras with a zoom viewfinder so they know how to make 'em. Granted, these viewfinders weren't 100% accurate (far from) but they sure beat an LCD screen that you cannot see!

This is a good point regarding ambient light levels and not being able to see an LCD screen. of course you can get an optional Viewfinder for the Q, but it's 250 shekels thus making the Q 850 shekels, and sending the price from exorbitant to absurd.

IIRC the viewfinder onyl works with some of the Q's lenses too. Is that correct?

Mock · 09-27-2011, 08:09 PM

I would like to have the Auto ISO Parameter settings that are in the K-5, the ability to set the camera to prefer a "slow" ISO over a 1:1 Focal-Length/Shutter-Speed calculation. The Q has very effective SR, it can safely be used at slower shutter-speeds than the meter recommends.

09-21-2011, 04:17 PM	#1
ronniemac Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Oxford Photos: Albums Posts: 244	Thoughts on improving the Q (The previous thread has now been closed, but because my comments are about the Q and how it might develop, I have placed this note here so that readers can refer to the closed thread. I would be equally happy if the moderator moved this and the original Q on Steroids thread to the forum for other cameras. This reply contains no references to cameras other than the Pentax Q) Your points are very well made, Scot, and give an excellent in-depth analysis of important technical issues. Thank you for going into the subject in such detail – I learned a good deal from reading and then re-reading your text. And as Devorama pointed out, PASM is a real strength in the Q Because I‘m a Pentaxian I want to buy a quality compact Pentax with certain key features. The Q ticks almost all the boxes and I agree a K>Q adaptor would add long range functionality and, for me, some fun with existing lenses for relatively little outlay. For me the critical drawback is a lack of built in viewfinder, but I will be in a minority here. I would prefer a clip on flash like the old Auto110, to the Q’s clip on viewfinder because I use a viewfinder 95% of thetime and a built in flash hardly at all. Maybe some of your workarounds, Scott, would persuade me otherwise – do let us know more on this in due course please. If Pentax bring out an alternative version of the Q, one that ticks this last EVF box,then I will buy one. I really do want a discrete pocketable camera for the times when I have to leave the K-5 at home. I might even go for the existing Q model provided that each lens was accompanied with an appropriate viewfinder, but Ican’t see this happening, especially for a zoom lens. The Q is a jewel of a camera, and I do wish Pentax every success with it ….. and it successor, the Q-i! Last edited by ronniemac; 09-22-2011 at 01:50 AM.

09-22-2011, 07:44 AM	#9
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Viewfinder would indeed be nice, maybe they can make one like in the Leica M9? Also much faster lenses, they should be able to go past f/1 with the Q mount. Maybe then some stop making complains about the lack of DOF and image quality because with such a low f-ratio you will hardly need to go past ISO800. Last edited by Anvh; 09-22-2011 at 07:56 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Building a website and improving my business as a peer potrait photographer?	I shoot people	Photographic Technique	29	02-13-2011 11:03 PM
Improving K7 dynamic range	Tony3d	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	10-12-2010 03:27 PM
The Economy Is Improving	graphicgr8s	General Talk	22	05-21-2010 07:26 PM
Improving AF with some MF finetuning?	danielchtong	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	05-03-2009 01:04 AM
improving bokeh	Urmas R.	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	04-08-2009 06:31 AM

09-21-2011, 04:48 PM	#2
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Technicals aside (I leave that to the engineers), what I'd like to see in a mirrorless compact from Pentax is this: Sized somewhere between the Olympus EP3 and Fuji X100. Uses SAME MOUNT as existing Pentax dSLRs to take advantage of all their great pancake primes that already exist! Built-in or clip-on EVF. APS-C Sensor like the K-5, with great dynamic range and high ISO performance. I think if they put out something like that it would be a winner!

09-21-2011, 06:02 PM	#3
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Although this is not presently on my list of https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/158161...-one-wait.html I seriously think that there should be a viewfinder in the next (maybe?) installment of this cute camera. Totally agreed on being able to use the K-mount glass as well, at least have the same mount. JP

09-21-2011, 07:06 PM	#4
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,409	I agree with ronniemac - a view finder is a must have. I'm foregoing the Q due to the lack of a view finder. There is so much light here in Arizona that no back LCD is bright enough to be useable in lieu of a view finder. Pentax was in forefront during several years with compact zoom film cameras with a zoom viewfinder so they know how to make 'em. Granted, these viewfinders weren't 100% accurate (far from) but they sure beat an LCD screen that you cannot see!

09-21-2011, 08:59 PM	#5
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	+1 to the viewfinder. I handled a Q for the first time the other day. It is a lovely little thing, but it is too small. Add a little height for a finder (unfortunately, it would have to be an EVF), and even a bit wider wouldn't hurt this camera. Everything else about it I liked well enough. The lenses are really cute.

09-21-2011, 11:03 PM	#6
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,709	Solution to the viewfinder. Get a hood loupe.

09-22-2011, 04:59 AM	#7
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,716	A folding hood lupe would be fantastic. Copy one of the many tlr cameras that had folding hood wih magnifier. It would let us see the lcd in bright light and protect the screen when closed. thanks barondla Check out the point & shoot contest winners in compact camera forum. Enter #46. Any brand camera. Enter now!

09-22-2011, 06:12 AM	#8
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by pinholecam Solution to the viewfinder. Get a hood loupe. Nope, that isn't a solution, that is a kludge. Some people don't like holding a camera at arms length to take a picture. The hood does nothing to address that.

09-26-2011, 03:09 AM	#10
robbie_d New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom Posts: 15	Originally posted by Anvh Viewfinder would indeed be nice, maybe they can make one like in the Leica M9? Also much faster lenses, they should be able to go past f/1 with the Q mount. Maybe then some stop making complains about the lack of DOF and image quality because with such a low f-ratio you will hardly need to go past ISO800. As the Q isn't a rangefinder, I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

09-26-2011, 01:41 PM	#11
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by robbie_d As the Q isn't a rangefinder, I doubt this will happen anytime soon. We can always dream right I've no idea what kind of contacts the Q mount actually has, does someone know here?

09-27-2011, 02:15 AM	#12
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,709	Originally posted by Wheatfield Nope, that isn't a solution, that is a kludge. Some people don't like holding a camera at arms length to take a picture. The hood does nothing to address that. In fact, it actually 'reforms' that stability triangle between hands and head.

09-27-2011, 03:21 PM	#13
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by Wheatfield Nope, that isn't a solution, that is a kludge. Some people don't like holding a camera at arms length to take a picture. The hood does nothing to address that. Hi Wheatfield, I think that pinholecam was referring to the Hoodman Hood Loupe: HoodLoupe 3.0 (PATENT US 7,386,229 B2 and 7,034,877)-Hoodman Corporation Certainly a workaround, perhaps not elegant, and it is not a very compact solution if mounted on the camera with straps or such, but definitely solves the arms' length hold. I'm probably going to use my Hood Loupe when using the Q on a tripod mounted lens where compact doesn't matter, but am still trying to figure out the best way to use one with a Q in handheld situations where the camera needs to be deployed quickly. I have a few ideas, but am waiting for the dual lens kit and K>Q adapter before I buy a Q, so I can only guess how well they'd work in real life. . . I'm an OVF user, and never use LV with my DSLRs that have it. The Q is the first camera where the lack of a VF is offset with enough potential advantages to make working around the VF thing worthwhile. Scott

09-27-2011, 03:55 PM	#14
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Ole I agree with ronniemac - a view finder is a must have. I'm foregoing the Q due to the lack of a view finder. There is so much light here in Arizona that no back LCD is bright enough to be useable in lieu of a view finder. Pentax was in forefront during several years with compact zoom film cameras with a zoom viewfinder so they know how to make 'em. Granted, these viewfinders weren't 100% accurate (far from) but they sure beat an LCD screen that you cannot see! This is a good point regarding ambient light levels and not being able to see an LCD screen. of course you can get an optional Viewfinder for the Q, but it's 250 shekels thus making the Q 850 shekels, and sending the price from exorbitant to absurd. IIRC the viewfinder onyl works with some of the Q's lenses too. Is that correct?

09-27-2011, 08:09 PM	#15
Mock Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Edmonton Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 314	I would like to have the Auto ISO Parameter settings that are in the K-5, the ability to set the camera to prefer a "slow" ISO over a 1:1 Focal-Length/Shutter-Speed calculation. The Q has very effective SR, it can safely be used at slower shutter-speeds than the meter recommends.