Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2011, 07:26 AM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 158
Digital Camera Info Q review

Pentax Q Mirrorless Digital Camera Review - DigitalCamerainfo.com

Edit: Pretty interesting read, the part explaining how the results i've seen from the 01 Prime is partly from in-cam processing, stuff like the low aberrations, distortion and wide open sharpness. They say it performs best around f3.5, and that the performance slacks off by its minimum stop of f8.

What they say abt the Q sensor is pretty much as you'd expect, that it holds up surprisingly well compared to other mirrorless systems cameras, but is still a compact sensor.

They praise the handling and function of the diminutive body.

When will someone give the Q zoom a thorough test report?


Last edited by conradj; 10-21-2011 at 07:44 AM.
10-21-2011, 10:21 AM   #2
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
Seems like the Q did well overall and it was interesting to see that they compare the IQ from the Nikon J1 and Q as being about the same with the Q having much better high ISO and dynamic range. My only complain about the review is that they didn't also do RAW to RAW comparisons and only did JPEG's unless I missed it.
10-21-2011, 01:41 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 158
Original Poster
i didn't see anything abt RAW files either. They also tested long exposure at ISO400, which i find somewhat incomprehensible as long exposures above base ISO will only ever amplify sensor noise and cause the camera to turn up the noise reduction.

Some test reports, and this is one, have a feel to them that causes me to think; Here's something written by a child of the digital age.

Edit: i don't mean that pejoratively. Overall that site does pitch itself to the advanced amateur market segment that don't do RAW files, a thing i don't have a problem with as it means they do detailed reviews of cameras that usually don't get such scrutiny.

Last edited by conradj; 10-21-2011 at 02:22 PM.
10-21-2011, 03:04 PM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by conradj Quote
i didn't see anything abt RAW files either. They also tested long exposure at ISO400, which i find somewhat incomprehensible as long exposures above base ISO will only ever amplify sensor noise and cause the camera to turn up the noise reduction.

Some test reports, and this is one, have a feel to them that causes me to think; Here's something written by a child of the digital age.

Edit: i don't mean that pejoratively. Overall that site does pitch itself to the advanced amateur market segment that don't do RAW files, a thing i don't have a problem with as it means they do detailed reviews of cameras that usually don't get such scrutiny.
Hmmm... I l read more of the article later. While not bad and I like how they put comparisons and broke up the review, I don't feel like they gave clear justifications for their scoring in each section. The short paragraphs under each area don't provide enough information as to what made them score it the way they do, not just for the Q but for the other cameras as well.

It's not a very thorough review such as something on DPReview but it's the first review I've seen that compares the Nikon 1 system to the Q. I do wish they had done RAW to RAW comparisons as well as for the low-light tests. ISO 400 for long exposure does seem high unless they feel their target audience would shoot at that ISO range while in low-light most of the time.

10-21-2011, 09:21 PM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
I think that the Q did very well, considering that it was being compared to cameras with 1", 4/3, and APS-C sensors which are 4x, 8x, and 13x larger respectively. The fact that the Q jpegs were even competitive is in itself remarkable, but seeing it outscore some of these cameras in some of these tests is impressive, IMO.

I can understand why they don't do RAW tests as RAW converters have always differed in output for different models of cameras. Through the years, I've seen Camera 1, Silkypix, RAW Therapee, ACDSee Pro, the various incarnations of Adobe Camera RAW, and others mentioned as the RAW converter of choice by very good photographers, and many of these shooters have changed converter programs when new versions of the software and new camera body models came out. Even if the reviewers chose to standardize on a single converter for all cameras, they would be inviting criticism for bias, and in most cases where the RAW format is proprietary to the particular model, they might have to wait for the software developers to update their converter to include the new model before they could conclude their test (which would draw criticism for the delay in posting the review).

Testing IQ with jpegs is really their only viable option, and it's a good one since the assumption is that the respective camera designers have taken the time to optimize the jpeg output to their own respective parameters before the camera was approved for final production. Also it's relevant because I'm guessing that the vast majority of users shoot jpeg. On fora like this, it seems like the majority shoot RAW, but there are still a large number who shoot jpeg primarily (I'm one of these, BTW), but forum membership is notoriously not representative of the general camera using population.

To my mind, the comparisons should have included scaled pictures of each of the cameras with comparable lenses and size/weight stats. System size and weight are the main selling point to the Q. Is it unrealistic to illustrate the main concept for this new system?

Scott
12-02-2011, 08:11 PM - 1 Like   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 113
I tested the Q in early October for Pentax USA, and just posted my impressions of the Q, with travel images. If you like go to:

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL... FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF THE PENTAX Q

The Q surprised me with it's quality, and in such a small and usable package. Many years ago I had a 110 Pentax, but never cared much for the results, as I shot with the LX thru MZ-S and the 67-67II system. I make my living full time shooting travel, so knowing I can sell Q images
means I will carry this little gem when there's no space or weight for my K5 or 645D. It'll never replace it's big brothers, but its a damn fine complement to them.

Kerrick James
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, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, review, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital Camera Info K-5 review conradj Pentax K-5 7 06-10-2011 10:43 AM
What Camera Digital K-7 REVIEW (Take Two) Adrian Owerko Pentax News and Rumors 11 11-21-2009 07:58 AM
Digital Camera Review GLXLR Pentax News and Rumors 9 06-14-2009 07:16 AM
Digital Camera Review reviews DA* 55 f/1.4 Urkeldaedalus Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 02-27-2009 09:29 AM
Digital Camera Magazine K20D review rparmar Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 04-28-2008 05:14 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:53 AM. | 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