Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-25-2011, 10:49 AM - 1 Like   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
DXOMark scores for the Q posted. . .

. . . and it did well. They scored the sensor 47 which places its performance as equal (essentially) to the marks posted for the Canon G12, S95, and Panny LX5.

DxOMark - A quality review of the Pentax Q

They did comment that some smoothing was evident throughout the ISO range, but they estimated noise levels before smoothing in their relative scoring.

I'm sure that those who were whining about Pentax not using slightly larger sensors like the 1/1.7" or 1/1.63" CCD sensors in the Canon and Panny advanced compacts will rationalize their prejudices by pointing to the smoothing, but isn't the bottom line the results that can be coaxed out of the little sensor, not the numbers?

I really don't usually put that much stock in DXOMark ratings, but this time, at least, they reflect what I've seen from actual examples, and I'll accept them .

In my case, wanting to use the Q with K lenses to push the glass considerably past performance potential with larger sensors for tele and macro shooting performance, the interchangeable lens feature of the Q easily justifies the extra cost over the fixed lens compact competitors.

Scott

11-25-2011, 11:10 AM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
I agree, interchangeable lenses do go a long way. But still the lenses anounced so far are not that much attractive. As of todays situation the only EVIL systems with good lens options are Samsung NX and m4/3. And perhaps GXR module M.
11-25-2011, 03:47 PM   #3
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by elho_cid Quote
I agree, interchangeable lenses do go a long way. But still the lenses anounced so far are not that much attractive. As of todays situation the only EVIL systems with good lens options are Samsung NX and m4/3. And perhaps GXR module M.
Two classic FOVs (a standard and an 28-80 equivalent) isn't attractive?
11-25-2011, 03:56 PM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by elho_cid Quote
I agree, interchangeable lenses do go a long way. But still the lenses anounced so far are not that much attractive. As of todays situation the only EVIL systems with good lens options are Samsung NX and m4/3. And perhaps GXR module M.
Hi elho_cid,

I agree that the Q system lenses aren't ground breaking, but these are very utilitarian FOV lenses, and had to be covered up front. Don't forget that the initial µ4/3 and APS-C systems also were introduced with relatively mundane system lenses. The difference is that with them, SLR lens adapters were soon to come from the OEM, and the use with current lenses was touted as the way to make the system more versatile. Though Pentax showed a prototype K to Q adapter, it's pretty much been left to speculation what such an adapter could do with the Q. My preliminary playing with some K lenses show that there is some huge potential if Pentax were to release lenses that play to the Q's strength -- longer tele and macro (my personal bias is showing here .

A 50mm, 70mm, or even a 100mm f2.8 dedicated macro/tele prime in a Q* AF lens would be the best thing that they could do, but I'm probably being overly optimistic in my expectations. A 1:1 macro lens would fill the frame horizontally with a 6.17mm subject -- almost 4x the magnification relative to the frame as a 1:1 macro on an APS-C format camera which fills the frame horizontally with a 23.7mm subject -- and at the same working distance as the DSLR combinations. At the tele end, they would give 275mm, 385mm, and 550mm EQ for tele work -- all with an f2.8 max aperture. I say give the advanced shooter a reason to buy the Q as an specialty camera that stands out from the crowd in addition to being a more than competent compact.

My pessimist side says that they will next offer a consumer grade telephoto 80-200mm EQ f4-5.6 so they could offer it inexpensively, and it would still be relatively compact. They could also try to buck the Q's small sensor inherent weakness and try to offer a wider lens than they already have. Either, I think would not enhance the Q's image much, either with the P&S market who can get a bridge camera with a longer zoom or with the DSLR shooter who can get much better wide angle results with any larger format.

We'll have to wait to see what happens. . .

Scott

11-25-2011, 11:58 PM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
Even if it should be somewhat more expensive, somthing like 6mm f1.2 would be very useful. The overall package is not balanced well - what we have is an expensive body and cheap toy lenses. There should be a cheap alternative Q body and expensive lenses coming to match with the current one.
11-26-2011, 04:27 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
I didn't think the standard prime, fisheye or zoom were especially cheap. The two toy lenses certainly are out of character for the system, but to be fair, that is 2 out of the five available lenses. A really fast standard prime would be nice, but would probably be large enough to cause complaints around it's size (it doesn't matter what Pentax makes, people will find something to complain about).
11-26-2011, 04:36 AM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I didn't think the standard prime, fisheye or zoom were especially cheap. The two toy lenses certainly are out of character for the system, but to be fair, that is 2 out of the five available lenses. A really fast standard prime would be nice, but would probably be large enough to cause complaints around it's size (it doesn't matter what Pentax makes, people will find something to complain about).
what would that really fast prime be : F0.7 50mm readily available in every other mounts???
11-26-2011, 07:46 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,951


Well, look at the F/0,95 50mm navitar first...

12-03-2011, 01:47 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
I had been waiting for these scores. I expected that the Q will be close to the S95 but not a lot better and this seems to be indeed the case. Which is, of course, very good given the difference in sensor size and the fact that the S95 is one of the better compact cameras out there. I expect that in practical use the availability of faster lenses like the 1.9 prime can make a difference in favor of the Q.
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, canon, dxomark scores, lens, mirrorless, panny, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, sensor, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DX0 k-5 scores up WerTicus Pentax K-5 388 11-19-2010 03:54 AM
DxOMark scores Pentax 645D det1rac Pentax Medium Format 1 10-26-2010 07:12 PM
DXO Scores Adam Lucas Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 09-27-2010 11:36 AM
(dxomark) K20D and K7. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 01-13-2010 05:06 AM
DA*60-250mm F4 ED SDm scores high ... jpzk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-02-2010 01:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 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