Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-23-2011, 04:15 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
Haha, yes, comparing it to the iPhone 4S could be quite interesting. From what I have seen so far it does pretty well (wonder what the sensor size is).

Also other cameras like a state of the art Sony NEX-5N (probably the main competition for the Q?) and a high end point & shoot (Panasonic LX5, Canon S95, ...) would be interesting for the test. The Panasonic and Canon are significantly cheaper but offer a larger sensor (but don't offer interchangable lenses), while the Sony is probably rather similar priced (or soon will be), offers similar features but is larger.

10-23-2011, 05:04 AM   #17
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 17
m4/3rds auto focus worse? Er. no… sorry….

I have one big huge problem with this review: that the m4/3rds auto focus is worse, inconsistent. I have not tried that pancake lens but everything I tried and saw of the new pens (Pen 3 line up of which the EPL3 is the middle model) is that aufofocus is screamingly fast and accurate.

I have also tried the Q in person. There's simply no comparison. The EPL3 just beats the @#$# out of the Q and many other cameras out there in the market at AF. I really found this point extremely misleading- the least the review could have done is try another lens and see if it was different because I can tell you it is *way way way* different than that assessment.

The AF speed of the Q is about the speed of the previous Pen generation. That's not horrible but not in a million years the same as the current Pen 3 line up, which for still shots rivals cameras as high end as the Nikon D3 DSLR's (no, I am not kidding).

- Raist

PS: I found the rest of the review interesting and very useful for presenting information about how the Q performs. Would have been nice if a Panasonic LX5 was thrown in for comparison too, but it was pretty good information (sans the issue I noted above).

Last edited by raist3d; 10-23-2011 at 05:12 AM.
10-23-2011, 05:07 AM   #18
Senior Member
piesforyou's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 129
Gosh. The noise. Even if you don't consider any of the other bad points, the noise is all it takes to blow Q out of the water. It's terrible. Look at these two images, both at ISO 200.

https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/PentaxQ/Oly-noise-I0200-F056_111011_07o_a.jpg
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/PentaxQ/Q-noise-I0200-F056_111011_16q_abc.jpg

The pentax image is absolutely shocking. There is no detail at all.

For noise I would rate olympus a good 8 or 9 out of 10; the Pentax? 2? 3?

I assume noise is lumped into "image quality" for the review score.
10-23-2011, 06:42 AM - 1 Like   #19
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
Most boring, ME TOO review

Why one more ME TOO review? Everyone does that — comparisons till death.
Or better to say, "death by comparisons".
That's how much 'reviewers' get to understand about the photography; scrutinising size of the sensor, and all obvious conclusions based on paper specs compared to the price of the ideal — an invisible mind camera — which costs just below the asked price for the reviewed product (it's always like that, no matter what the camera, its price "should be lower").

And the photography experience and nuances that make subject matter unique in its entirety, goes in the bin.

Compare Q with a camera with a sensor 8 times the size, 6 times the size, 16 times the size, and so forth.
Why not a comparison with a FF camera and a 645D? Would that be too stupid? Well, it goes with the spirit of the review, and the image quality of the Q would be just pathetic. Instead of 4, the mark would be nought.
It would then entirely match quality of the comprehension of a reviewer, and the quality of this 'review'.

Yawn.


Last edited by Uluru; 10-23-2011 at 06:49 AM.
10-23-2011, 07:53 AM - 1 Like   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
I'm really disappointed and appalled by the comments in this thread. I've never seen such animosity towards a product by a group of users that have never used said product. Usually this kind of hate and ignorance is found on Apple product forums or when a religious or political debate arises. This complete bandwagon effect to voice and support your bias in the comments made above is alarming and shameful. Everyone here should be an adult, have respect for others opinions, and have good reasoning and discussion skills. Instead we find people jumping along with the first person to make an attack and pouring in their emotional feelings, bias of the product, and very few providing any evidence to their claims or counter-claims.

I don't blame anyone. It's easy for humans to naturally group up on a like minded idea and bias, but that is a very primitive instinct. We've all hopefully learned to grow out of that phase and learn to think more about our actions and our decisions. Understanding why you might harbor these feelings, rather then going straight to a gut instinct, that may have been primed by marketing or spec sheets or previous assumptions. I hope we can all grow up and begin to provide some constructive comments to make this a better discussion overall for everyone.


As far as the Q is concerned, I would suggest those interested look at all reviews currently available, sample photos on the forums and on Flickr groups, and of course also handling the Q for yourself before making any judgment as you should with ANY product or decision you make. Making a choice off of only once source of information is a poor decision as you are always subject to the source's bias and you need MANY more alternative sources with different opnions to counteract any of your own.
10-23-2011, 08:41 AM - 1 Like   #21
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by knightzerox Quote
I'm really disappointed and appalled by the comments in this thread. I've never seen such animosity towards a product by a group of users that have never used said product. Usually this kind of hate and ignorance is found on Apple product forums or when a religious or political debate arises. This complete bandwagon effect to voice and support your bias in the comments made above is alarming and shameful.
Too much drama. People are just stating their personal opinions about a product on an internet forum. No one is being irrational, everybody is talking about pros and cons. If you felt insulted because you like the Q, or already own one, take it easy. Post some photos instead
10-23-2011, 08:46 AM   #22
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by piesforyou Quote
Gosh. The noise. Even if you don't consider any of the other bad points, the noise is all it takes to blow Q out of the water. It's terrible. Look at these two images, both at ISO 200.

https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/PentaxQ/Oly-noise-I0200-F056_111011_07o_a.jpg
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/PentaxQ/Q-noise-I0200-F056_111011_16q_abc.jpg

The pentax image is absolutely shocking. There is no detail at all.

For noise I would rate olympus a good 8 or 9 out of 10; the Pentax? 2? 3?

I assume noise is lumped into "image quality" for the review score.
Considering the Oly sample is already crap (all smudged), to say the Q sample has noise is an understatement. I would say there is an image on the noise.
10-23-2011, 09:14 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
Too much drama. People are just stating their personal opinions about a product on an internet forum. No one is being irrational, everybody is talking about pros and cons. If you felt insulted because you like the Q, or already own one, take it easy. Post some photos instead
I'm not insulted, just would have expected a better discussion with everyone expressing their opinions in an adult way, not child-like insults. As for posting photos, here you go:


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/163093-pentax-q-photo-shoot-b-w.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/162533-long-pentax-q-review-youtube.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/161564-k-x-versus-q-versus-lumix-ts3.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/156819-more-q-images-non-official-10.html

10-23-2011, 10:52 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
EricBrown's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Arlington, VA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 695
In my opinion, the Q is a camera meant not to replace your dslr, but as a camera to take with when you don't want to lug your all your equipment around. The Q gives you the ability to have dslr features but in a small package. I know this is not a new thought, but I think too many are trying to make something out the camera was not meant to be. Just go out and be photograhers and enjoy your work and your equipment no matter what it is.

I don't own the Q, but I would love to try it our and reserve judgement. It is like reading a movie or wine wine review, if you like it then that is all that matters. But, I do agree the price point is too high. $400 to $500 is more in line.
10-23-2011, 01:10 PM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by EricBrown Quote
In my opinion, the Q is a camera meant not to replace your dslr, but as a camera to take with when you don't want to lug your all your equipment around. The Q gives you the ability to have dslr features but in a small package. I know this is not a new thought, but I think too many are trying to make something out the camera was not meant to be. Just go out and be photograhers and enjoy your work and your equipment no matter what it is.

I don't own the Q, but I would love to try it our and reserve judgement. It is like reading a movie or wine wine review, if you like it then that is all that matters. But, I do agree the price point is too high. $400 to $500 is more in line.
I agree, each product will either work for you or not and you should choose a product that helps make your photography easier. Too much debate and justifications for a purchase of a product.

I also thought that the Q price point was too high until I looked at other competitor products prices from NIkon and Olympus. Compared to the Nikon j1 and v1, respectively at $650 and $900, $800 doesn't seem that far off. The complaint here tends to come from the IQ of the Q versus the other products at that same price point. I'm waiting for more in-depth reviews comparing these two products before making a judgment but I think that comparing on IQ is missing the point.

We have to compare the sum of the entire package of the camera system to see their differences and values. For example, the Q has more lenses available at a lower price point. It is also smaller and lighter then the competitors and offers very SLR-like features. It also has smaller lenses and a full sized hot-shoe. The Nikon has 3 lenses but each one is a high-quality lens. The Nikon system is split into to camps giving the option of more casual users at a lower price point an entry into the mirror-less game while still reserving the V1 for enthusiasts. Nikon also features a very quick autofocus and slow-motion mode. The Q is a premium product. Premium means it's capabilities and performance are at a price level lower then it's current price, but justifies the difference in features, usability, or build quality. Nikon took the other route and put more of your money into performance specs ( as far as we know till more reviews come out comparing the two ), and into other features that it's target market might find attractive.

Neither of these cameras are cheap, or provide anything more then a enthusiasts P&S until you start looking at them with the entire system of lenses and options in mind. In the end they are products that provide more flexibility and capabilities then their non-interchangeable lens counterparts and you are paying for that. The value of which you'll have to decide on your own. This is no more a debate of why someone should buy a Honda Civic, versus a Mercedes versus a Ferrari. If one can afford it, or if it has equivalent value for your purpose, it's not a premium or unjustifiable purchase.
10-23-2011, 04:39 PM   #26
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Pentax Q = two real lenses, terrible image noise, fake bokeh, no EVF
Olympus = thousands of lenses (with adapters), nice IQ, nice bokeh when using fast lenses, EVF

Yet the reviewer knocks the Olympus for the lens cap (?!) and other minutiae and uses heavily biased adjectives in order to justify a rich person's toy. Yes, MFT is not perfect, but the final score of 6.1 versus 6.3 is ridiculous.

Compared with a first gen Olympus E-P1 one can get for peanuts (and which has a better interface than the reviewed model), the Q is about a 2 for value.
10-23-2011, 09:04 PM - 2 Likes   #27
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
As the owner of both an E-PL1 (with the kit lens, 20mm Panasonic, and the new 12mm Olympus) and the Q, I think I have a bit of perspective on value for my money. If you look at the Q on paper - yes, it is expensive for what you get given the sensor compared to some of its other competitors in the price range. However, they are not all perfect, either. As I see it in the $600 - $1000ish category:

  • Sony NEX - Yes, you get APS-C in a small body, but the lenses are the weak link by a long shot.
  • Ricoh GXR - APS-C, interchangeable lens modules, but supposedly good usability. The lens modules are all $600+ give or take.
  • Fuji X100 - Again, APS-C but like the Leica X1 (which I owned and old), the fixed focal length either does or does not work for you.
  • Micro 4/3 - Good lens support with a wide range, major differences between Olympus and Panasonic in what you like and how images are/are not processed.
  • Nikon 1 system - Larger sensor than the Q, good looking lineup of lenses to start, but usability seems to be a general concern and IQ doesn't seem to knock people out even with a larger sensor than the Q (but not quite Micro 4/3).
Since everyone is different in terms of their photographic needs, what you want/need will steer you in a direction. None of these systems are perfect.

So why, after owning the E-PL1 and the lenses for close to a year did I get the Q? One major reason: portability with good (enough) IQ. Good IQ? Yes I said it. Is it perfect? No - but again, what camera is? For its sensor, it's good and I have yet to compare it to another smaller cam, but it holds well against even some stuff I've taken with my E-PL1. I have to get more mileage on it to see. I've traveled with the E-PL1 with both the 20mm and the 12mm, so it's not like I stay at home. What I really was looking for was the flexibility of changing lenses with something more portable. It's a compromise and tradeoff to go slightly smaller.

Yes, I could have purchased another 'enthusiast' compact like the XZ-1 or LX5. I had the D-Lux4 (now on permanent loan to someone) which I liked. Didn't like the LX5, and am not thrilled with how the XZ-1 handles JPG and its general processing of images. I don't like Canon cameras (I've tried a few). I had a so-so Nikon experience which ruled the 1 series out. Well, you get the picture. I didn't go in blindly. I knew exactly what I was getting.

Don't get me wrong - lenses like the 12mm are killer and give the u4/3 system nice advantages. I've taken some nice shots with it as well as the 20mm. The Q has other things going for it. It is very well built and the size I was looking for. It feels solid. The menus are easy to use and navigate - better than the E-PL1.

My only real gripes with the Q at the moment:
  1. Write speeds when doing JPG + RAW. Come on, Pentax.
  2. I wish I could use manual focus even with auto mode. Auto is auto everything. On my E-PL1 I'm used to being able even in auto picture mode to be able to manual focus.
  3. Lack of EVF. I've loved the Olympus one on the E-PL1.
  4. Battery life could be better, but then again, I also carried two batteries with the E-PL1, too.
  5. I wish there was a good wide angle prime a la the 12mm for the Q.
Different strokes for different folks. The Q is not for everyone.
10-24-2011, 03:41 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by FenderP Quote
As the owner of both an E-PL1 (with the kit lens, 20mm Panasonic, and the new 12mm Olympus) and the Q, I think I have a bit of perspective on value for my money. If you look at the Q on paper - yes, it is expensive for what you get given the sensor compared to some of its other competitors in the price range. However, they are not all perfect, either. As I see it in the $600 - $1000ish category:

  • Sony NEX - Yes, you get APS-C in a small body, but the lenses are the weak link by a long shot.
  • Ricoh GXR - APS-C, interchangeable lens modules, but supposedly good usability. The lens modules are all $600+ give or take.
  • Fuji X100 - Again, APS-C but like the Leica X1 (which I owned and old), the fixed focal length either does or does not work for you.
  • Micro 4/3 - Good lens support with a wide range, major differences between Olympus and Panasonic in what you like and how images are/are not processed.
  • Nikon 1 system - Larger sensor than the Q, good looking lineup of lenses to start, but usability seems to be a general concern and IQ doesn't seem to knock people out even with a larger sensor than the Q (but not quite Micro 4/3).
Since everyone is different in terms of their photographic needs, what you want/need will steer you in a direction. None of these systems are perfect.

So why, after owning the E-PL1 and the lenses for close to a year did I get the Q? One major reason: portability with good (enough) IQ. Good IQ? Yes I said it. Is it perfect? No - but again, what camera is? For its sensor, it's good and I have yet to compare it to another smaller cam, but it holds well against even some stuff I've taken with my E-PL1. I have to get more mileage on it to see. I've traveled with the E-PL1 with both the 20mm and the 12mm, so it's not like I stay at home. What I really was looking for was the flexibility of changing lenses with something more portable. It's a compromise and tradeoff to go slightly smaller.

Yes, I could have purchased another 'enthusiast' compact like the XZ-1 or LX5. I had the D-Lux4 (now on permanent loan to someone) which I liked. Didn't like the LX5, and am not thrilled with how the XZ-1 handles JPG and its general processing of images. I don't like Canon cameras (I've tried a few). I had a so-so Nikon experience which ruled the 1 series out. Well, you get the picture. I didn't go in blindly. I knew exactly what I was getting.

Don't get me wrong - lenses like the 12mm are killer and give the u4/3 system nice advantages. I've taken some nice shots with it as well as the 20mm. The Q has other things going for it. It is very well built and the size I was looking for. It feels solid. The menus are easy to use and navigate - better than the E-PL1.

My only real gripes with the Q at the moment:
  1. Write speeds when doing JPG + RAW. Come on, Pentax.
  2. I wish I could use manual focus even with auto mode. Auto is auto everything. On my E-PL1 I'm used to being able even in auto picture mode to be able to manual focus.
  3. Lack of EVF. I've loved the Olympus one on the E-PL1.
  4. Battery life could be better, but then again, I also carried two batteries with the E-PL1, too.
  5. I wish there was a good wide angle prime a la the 12mm for the Q.
Different strokes for different folks. The Q is not for everyone.
Hi, thank you for your perspective on the comparison between the Q and other cameras. I just wanted to let you know about 2 of your gripes:

2. Manual Focus Mode: You can make the Q focus in Manual Mode while the focus mode is set to AF. You can check out my video which goes into more detail here:
and
** EDIT: Looks like the forum won't let me start it at the right spot. Fast forward to 43 minutes and 10 seconds to see where I talk about the AF and Manual focus mode.

To summarize, you basically have to first let the AF system "lock", then use manual focus for fine tuning the image and then fire off the shutter button. If you manual focus firs and then hit the shutter button you'll cause the autofocus to kick in again. HOWEVER, there is a way to "fix" this. The Pentax Q's green button has an option on the Green Button to make it "Enable AF". If you set this option on, the halfway-shutter release no longer causes autofocusing to occur! Instead, the green button enables AF in whatever AF mode you choose, on a when you need it basis. Meaning, you can now manual focus and fire the shutter without the AF getting in the way. If you decide you want to autofocus, you can then hold down the green button to enable it and then fire off the shutter button. The best of both worlds. I hope that can help relieve some of your frustration with the focusing as I had the same issue until I started trying to figure out why it was reacting that way.

As for having more lenses, I agree and wish there were more lenses for the Q to buy that were the "high quality" lenses. Until then, me and others are using adapters off of eBay to use C mount and D mount lenses to expand choices as well as using a C-K mount adapter to use all our K Mount lenses. You can see the thread here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/159328-c-mount-d-mount-adapters-ebay.html

The downsides to this is that you only get manual focus, no shake reduction ( firmware fix? ) , and shutter times ranges are only from 2 seconds to 1/8000 of a second because the Q has no built in shutter. Other than that, you can find a lot of good photos people have shot with these CCTV lenses.
10-24-2011, 10:05 AM   #29
New Member
rcarindom2003's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 19
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
Too much drama.
No drama here... its called fall-off of expectation.. If you expect something big and you are provided with peanuts.. people crib about it... Its human nature.. and on top of it, they use a astronomical price for such small offerings..

Why I personally disliked , crop factor.. bokeh gone, so useless for me. And like me , many will hate Q for that... try to understand a simple thing, its not cribbing, its like you wanted the next big thing like K-5 and you are provided with P&S sensor.. Already said, good for landscape where you want everything in focus, but here also Q is gone, it will need 1mm lens to get effective 7 to 8 mm FOV. Which part is not understandable here???

This is not something you need to use to understand stuff...or people trying to play dumb here
10-24-2011, 11:02 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by rcarindom2003 Quote
Already said, good for landscape where you want everything in focus, but here also Q is gone, it will need 1mm lens to get effective 7 to 8 mm FOV.
As for your 1mm lens, you can scroll to the bottom of this thread :

http://forums.dpreview
.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1028&thread=39614379

Where you will find someone who has a 1.55mm fish eye lens at 1.4 aperture to try on the Q. Granted it's CCTV lens but people have been able to get good images so far form high-quality versions of CCTV lenses. As for your bokeh being missing, which is a negative against the Q I myself agree with, am going to be testing this lens on the Q soon :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q-forum/162299-pentax-1-2-cctv-8-48mm-f-1-lens.html

It's a f/1 lens designed for 1/2" sized sensors. From early testing I seem to be able to produce a good bokeh at f/1 but am waiting for my official adapter before making any hard claims.

I'm not trying to convince you to like the Q or anything, just showing that others who own the Q or who may be interested in the Q are trying to find solutions to the very problems you mentioned. These are just some of the ways to get around those issues. They're not perfect solutions, but it's a workable option.

I understand a lot of loyal Pentax fans were hoping for a new K-3 or some super amazing Pentax mirror-less camera and are quite disappointed that they got the Q instead. None of us can independently influence what products a company makes or what target market they go after but I can say that there are many people who are quite happy the the Q exists and are very interested in what it has to offer. It may not be where we'd like to see Pentax go, but if it creates a new market for them and attracts buyers it's still a good decision on their part.
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, comparison, mirrorless, pentax, 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
Pentax K-5 Full-length Review by PentaxForums.com Adam Pentax K-5 79 12-14-2011 02:53 AM
DP Review comparison of K5, D7000 & 60D shots geauxpez Pentax News and Rumors 57 11-17-2010 09:46 AM
K-7 Review on spanish Pentax forum and brands comparison cooldude14es Pentax DSLR Discussion 47 08-02-2009 05:52 AM
pentaxforums in Photo Review Australia chrisman Photographic Technique 4 11-28-2007 11:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 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