Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-03-2011, 04:59 PM   #1
Veteran Member
Stratman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,464
Adorama review of the Q

The Pentax Q Fashion Week Stress Test from Adorama Learning Center

10-03-2011, 05:26 PM   #2
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
The image quality of the pics in the review looks very average to me, some are downright horrid, which is completely at odds to the gushing text in the review.
10-03-2011, 06:43 PM   #3
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
There have been a couple other similar reviews. I think it's simply explained: people like the gadget and don't know any better about the image quality.

Or maybe they are distracted by the models. ;-)
10-03-2011, 08:36 PM - 1 Like   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
I enjoyed reading the Adorama review, if for nothing else then that it was a good length of material on opinions on the use of the camera and how it functioned for them. I've ordered a Q since there is no dealer here that carries the camera for me to have tested first, but I think it will suit my needs.

About the images on the Fashion Week review, they aren't all the best photographs I've ever seen but that wasn't the cameras fault. There were some very nice photos that were taken and some photos just for fun. I believe the person was just taking photos here and there because it was fun to take photos with that camera. I've taken better photographs with a 2 megapixel camera that's 10 years old and there are people who can take breathtaking photos with an iPhone. I'm sure we all agree that it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference. If these photos were shot with a K-5, would they be any better? They'd just have more pixels to work with and may be a bit more sharpness to them or even better color, but they'd still be the same image.

I think we have to step back a bit and realize most of the general populace, including amateur photographers in different industries, don't care about image quality as much as we do. I'm not saying it's not important, it is, but I think we're reaching a point where most cameras on the market more then adequately meet the needs of everyone. The cellphone camera has been shown to be "good enough" and most people are uploading 5 megapixel images on Facebook only to be re-sized down to less then 640x480 in size and are quite happy with the results. Most cameras and even cell phones have enough resolution to easily print 8x10's or a bit larger if need be in very good quality. When was the last time someone put their 12 megapixel at 100% view for anything other then editing or looking at image quality. Most compact camera images viewed at NORMAL sizes, i.e. at 50-25% of the original sizes image, look great. No one puts a 4000x3000 pixel image at 100% crop as their desktop background( most consumer monitors only go to 1920x1200) . Again, I'm only talking about 90% of the users out there. For a professional, having the higher image quality is important in-case the image needs to be cropped.

The number one complaint I hear from people who have compact cameras when wanting to upgrade is they wish they could get better photos without flash. I've heard the Fuji X100 does a a very good job at judging the flash exposure for a photo and would like more manufactures to focus on things like this that effect the average user on a daily basis.

I think the the positive feeling most of the reviewers are giving to the camera comes from the design and ease of use of the camera to get the types of photos they are looking for. Having a tool that works with you rather then against you is very valuable and worth more then one that is a struggle to use everyday. I hope I can confirm this when I get my Q in a few days.


Last edited by knightzerox; 10-03-2011 at 08:54 PM.
10-04-2011, 08:52 AM   #5
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
That's a good balanced evaluation. You now get a Like on your very first post! :-)

It bears repeating that if one wants a capable pocket camera, one can save a great deal of money by instead buying a Panasonic DMC-LX5, Canon S95, Samsung TL500/EX1 or similar. Save up the rest for a K-5 for when ultimate IQ and features are required.

Pentax has been unable to compete with the top-of-the-line compacts and now is unable to compete with better mirrorless cameras. All the Q can offer is the fact it's a nicely-designed, hip new glamour object. So shooting models with it is totally appropriate.
10-07-2011, 07:13 PM   #6
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
just as a note Facebook is now 960x720 max size.

but I agree with the premise that ultra IQ is no the priority of 90% of snappers. My beef with the Q has not been the IQ per se, But the IQ in relation to the price of the Camera

Of course it's the person behind the camera and to asnwer ...

" If these photos were shot with a K-5, would they be any better?"

In some cases yes. In optimum conditions then no, the pic wouldn't have been much better, but a K-r can take pictures in situations where the Q or other tiny sensor jobby would have failed miserably. There's high ISO performance. FPS, speed of AF, etc,etc to consider.

It's not all about IQ in optimum conditions. A lot of people want decent IQ in non-optimum conditions and that's why they buy DSLRs and other cams with bigger sensors
10-07-2011, 07:56 PM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
just as a note Facebook is now 960x720 max size.

but I agree with the premise that ultra IQ is no the priority of 90% of snappers. My beef with the Q has not been the IQ per se, But the IQ in relation to the price of the Camera

Of course it's the person behind the camera and to asnwer ...

" If these photos were shot with a K-5, would they be any better?"

In some cases yes. In optimum conditions then no, the pic wouldn't have been much better, but a K-r can take pictures in situations where the Q or other tiny sensor jobby would have failed miserably. There's high ISO performance. FPS, speed of AF, etc,etc to consider.

It's not all about IQ in optimum conditions. A lot of people want decent IQ in non-optimum conditions and that's why they buy DSLRs and other cams with bigger sensors
Hi,
I can't say anything about the price of the Q as that has been the biggest complaint about the camera. I agree and think it's a bit too high, but I think if it was $600 or even $700 it would be worth the price. The camera is very high-quality. And to be fair to Pentax, it only did come out less then a month ago, I'm sure by Christmas it will be down to a more reasonable cost. This same argument comes up often and it's just a matter of someone willing to pay a premium for something a bit nicer even if the core performance isn't better. Does a $400 Dell laptop any worse then a Apple laptop for $1000? Depends, people make the same argument that you can get something cheaper/better/faster for less money instead of paying for a premium overpriced product. I think of the Q as a premium SLR compact. It's not worth the price on paper, but it's more of an emotional/functional/etc.. value to a person that makes it worth it to them.

As for the IQ, so far in my tests that I've done ( I posted a comparison with the K-x ) the camera in RAW form has the same or better image quality then my K-x. For me that says a lot about the camera and IQ. Granted, the Q doesn't have the same FPS, or as quick an auto-focus, it definitely has better high ISO performance.

I think what you mean to say is that for the price you don't feel it has the same capabilities as a normal DSLR or other MILC cameras and I agree on that. It has a good auto-focus but is not the fastest or best and the FPS shots are stuck at 5 unless other options are turned off. Also getting shallow depth of field shots is harder to do. Other then that, the Pentax Q delivers in all other areas, at least as far as I can tell.

I think you'll be surprised at how good the sensor in the Q is. It doesn't compare to a Fuji X100, or K-5, or a Canon MKDII, but it's pretty close enough to be as good or better then most compacts and previous generation DSLR's I feel.
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!
adorama, camera, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adorama: Ed n Georgia General Talk 6 03-09-2011 06:52 AM
Way to go Adorama! shades General Talk 3 02-28-2011 07:57 AM
Oh... Adorama... flockofbirds Photographic Technique 20 01-26-2010 11:53 AM
Adorama is closed THAN THE SWORD Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 10-07-2009 07:29 PM
Adorama review on the K7 stanleyk Pentax News and Rumors 0 06-15-2009 12:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM. | 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