Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-22-2011, 06:51 PM   #1
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,957
Pentax Q Review by PentaxForums.com (w/ micro 4/3 comparison)

Our in-depth review of the Pentax Q has been posted!

In the review, we example all aspects of the Q, and perform a direct comparison with the Olympus E-PL3 micro-four-thirds body. The following main issues are addressed:
  • Does that new backlit sensor stand a chance against the larger sensor of the E-PL3
  • How does the image quality from the Q compare to that of the APS-C sized Pentax K-7
  • Who is the Q for?
  • What did Pentax get right in the Q, and what was a miss?
Read the review for answers to all these questions! Enjoy


Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-22-2011, 07:39 PM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
Pretty nice review. A few silly factual errors (for example, this is definitely NOT the first implementation of a backside illuminated sensor in a consumer cam) but great comparison shots.
10-22-2011, 08:16 PM   #3
WJW
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 378
Why chose the E-PL3 as the comparison camera?

The E-P3 has a built-in flash, grip (replaceable with options) for better hold, and a much better control layout.

The E-PM1 would have been the closest in size to the Q.

Personally, I'm not buying either one as I already have an E-PL2 (closer to the P3 than the PL3) and a few lenses as my everyday carry.

Last edited by WJW; 10-22-2011 at 08:22 PM. Reason: wasn't finished
10-22-2011, 09:02 PM   #4
New Member
rcarindom2003's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 19
I somewhat feel this review is pretty much biased towards Pentax Q , this observation was made since

1) No proper emphasis on image making, some shots are not worth comparing, all brightly lit subject, no proper low light samples
2) Hugely cropped sensors, so definitely OOF rendition goes out of window, no special emphasis.. this is definitely no no camera for people who love bokeh, and who doesn't love bokeh
3) Very small form factor, may be better in a queen's hand, but a toy in King's hand , and they rated form factor better than E-PL . E-PL have a slight feel of traditional SLR , this feels like a P&S completely.
4) Pentax seems to disappointed a few forever loyalist , had expectations, but it also thrown out of the window. Smaller punitive sensor (backlit or whatever), not impressed by High ISO noise at all.
5) Lenses will crop up in due course of time, so no point worrying about this , rather I think the review mentioned that Pentax JPEG are smaller in size, means more compression, more loss of details, what makes me feel, this is a ____less camera .
6) Saw much more punchier , contrasty images from E-PL , what happened with pentax Q .

Had expected reviews like dpreview, with proper studio settings, at same conditions. This review is in shambles, I couldn't like it at all. Completely biased.

10-22-2011, 09:12 PM   #5
New Member
rcarindom2003's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 19
According to the questions posed by the moderators, I would like to answer some.

First thing first, this camera was compared to K-7 considered to be a noisy camera, why not K-x, K-r , or even K-5 , Could have even compared to 550D or D7000 , so many good cameras are there, and the reviewer thought about comparing the camera with slightly backdated sensor.

Answers in my humble opinion

1) Does that new backlit sensor stand a chance against the larger sensor of the E-PL3
Ans: Definitely no, E-PL3 have more details anyday at normal conditions, even a P&S works good provided you give it enough light , what is the meaning of shooting under direct sun ???

2) How does the image quality from the Q compare to that of the APS-C sized Pentax K-7
Ans: I guess its worth joking, everybody knows, no point arguing

3) Who is the Q for?
Ans: Kids , Babies, I seem a bit biased here, but a male holding a so called professional camera in hand with interchangeable lens as a size of P&S , sounds interesting. No I wont even add Womens here, they are pretty good photographers to be holding a Pentax Q, but they can be interested.

4) What did Pentax get right in the Q, and what was a miss?
Ans: Ohh , they got into competition right, Wide angle ??? , 11mm , 16mm, 8mm . What pentax Q will manufacture 1mm lens specification with equal FOV of 8mm . , though people will be thrilled cause they will have a huge DOF, everything will be in Focus .

Regards,
Arindom
10-22-2011, 09:49 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: in a middle of nowhere
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 165
The Olympus is more responsive, though, there was basically no wait from shot to shot. This could be due to the lack of lens correction processing of course.

Read more at: Pentax Q Review - Overview


Guys,
you must be kidding me. Either I'm missing something or you may want to go study m3/4 image corrections that are always applied to the output (and that's why Oly and Lumix by Leica decided to ease on lens design - who gives whenever it's lens that is just fine or it's the in-cam processor who corrected all those aberrations).

Cheers,
Zig
10-22-2011, 10:56 PM - 1 Like   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
I really do not think the camera "literally" yells at you to buy it though that would be a fun feature.
10-22-2011, 11:43 PM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 94
QuoteOriginally posted by rcarindom2003 Quote
1) No proper emphasis on image making, some shots are not worth comparing, all brightly lit subject, no proper low light samples
I am afraid this is not true. There are many low light pics in the comparison. Well, I do agree with you that the image quality of Q, under low light or not, is disappointing. At $700, Q is quite expensive too, considering things like NX100, Nex3 are already in the market at $300-500 level and with a APS-C sensor.

10-22-2011, 11:57 PM - 1 Like   #9
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
The Pentax Q is a letdown on the most important aspects: ergonomics and image quality. Looks way too small, and framing with a Live View is a bad joke for a $ 700 camera. Having interchangeable lenses feels useless in such a system, specially considering only 2 lenses are not gimmicks. And I won't even comment on the price for the OVF...

I'm not sure what they wanted to achieve while designing the camera. Make the smallest ILC in the market, at all costs?
10-23-2011, 12:27 AM   #10
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,957
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
The Pentax Q is a letdown on the most important aspects: ergonomics and image quality. Looks way too small, and framing with a Live View is a bad joke for a $ 700 camera. Having interchangeable lenses feels useless in such a system, specially considering only 2 lenses are not gimmicks. And I won't even comment on the price for the OVF...

I'm not sure what they wanted to achieve while designing the camera. Make the smallest ILC in the market, at all costs?
I completely agree...hard to say what they were thinking with this camera. It's cool, but not much more than that. Having to switch lenses on such a small camera is more of a burden than a boon, IMO.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-23-2011, 12:44 AM   #11
Senior Member
garethwebber's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kent, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 104
Think a comparison between The iPhone 4s and the q may be more appropriate. Both have small backlit sensors.

The reason a say this is that if the phone is good enough for snaps then no one will buy a compact, or equivalent such as a Q. There will not be enough difference to justify camera.

Think aps-c slr, or mirrorless of that size, provide enough ergonomic and PQ differences but not convinced the smaller cameras will.

G
10-23-2011, 12:58 AM   #12
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,957
Original Poster
My blackberry, when held steady by something stationary, takes very sharp pics. This is why I don't have a Q

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-23-2011, 02:08 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Anton Magus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 345
My guess is that Nikon have just called "checkmate" by launching the Nikon 1 with a better range of lenses and an already available FT1 adapter allowing AF-S and AF-I lenses to be used with auto focus, a nicely positioned sensor size promising better IQ across the ISO range, and continuous shooting drive modes which knock the socks off any competitive camera. Add the great EVF and a separate flash adapted for the hot shoe and you have a camera system which is exactly what Pentax should have produced with the Q.

My guess is anyone wanting to upgrade from a point-and-shoot to a more versatile camera with significantly better IQ will happily choose the Nikon 1 J1 for $650 or even pay the extra $250 for the Nikon 1 V1 (both with zoom lens) than pay the $800 asking price for a Pentax Q.
10-23-2011, 02:23 AM   #14
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9
Way too biased towards the Q. Too bad, I was hoping for a serious review and not just a "Hooray for Pentax!".

The reviewer obviously doesn't know much about mFT cameras and fails on such basic topics like lens corrections on mFT, that I can hardly believe he actually used an mFT longer than just for this review.
Yes, sure the whole menu system etc. feels more logical on the Pentax camera, when you only have profound experience with Pentax cameras...
Why not choosing the better handling E-P3 or a GF1? Or the smaller E-PM1 or GF3? The E-PL3 sits somewhere in the middle and has nothing to do with a Q.

And why do you draw conclusions about image quality by using only a rather mediocre lens on the Olympus? Are we talking about interchangable lens cameras here or what?
You should have taken something like the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4. Both would be much closer to the field of view of the Pentax prime and literally kill the Q regarding resolution and general image quality. But perhaps you knew that...?

You only give mFT credit to it's absolutely undeniable strengths, like being able to work with small depth of field. The whole rest consists of "Q does not so bad" and unconsciousness of the E-PL3 as a whole (ever heard of the "super control panel"?)

I don't want to bash the Q. It's an interesting product and for it's sensor size the quality is quite good. Don't really see the point of "toy" lenses in such an expensive system, but that might just be me.
But comparing the Q to mFT (in a really meaningfull comparison) is like comparing an mFT to the Pentax 645D - there the mFT also won't do bad at all, but they are definitely very different classes of cameras we're talking about.
10-23-2011, 02:57 AM   #15
Forum Member
snogglethorpe's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 71
The annoying thing about the Q is that it's going to be a "blocker": Pentax is not going to do any serious development on a better-designed mini-camera system until the Q dies. Because the Q is a "system" (not just a single camera), it represents a much bigger investment for them, and they'll be loathe to kill it off quickly.

Even if it finds a niche as a "point-n-shoot with quality construction," with people that don't care about image quality, while that's good for Pentax as a company, it's bad for all those who want a better mini-camera from pentax—it seems unlikely that Pentax will ever put any money into a "mini camera with decent image quality" line, because there's too much perceived overlap, and it would dilute the market too much.

In the meantime, all the other players are coming out with much better mini camera systems.

Soo.... Pentax certainly missed this chance to be a leader. Maybe they can play a decent game of catchup in 5 years or so...
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 11:01 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