Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

View Poll Results: What is your position on Q now?
I have Q already. 1715.74%
I have another camera of similar size/performance. 76.48%
I want no mirrorless camera at all. 1211.11%
I'd buy Q for lower price. 3229.63%
I'd buy Q sucessor with better performance. 87.41%
I miss macro lens for Q system.   00%
I miss better telephoto lens for Q system.   00%
I miss better wide angle lens with Q system. 21.85%
I want a superzoom lens with Q. 10.93%
Another reason. 2926.85%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2012, 02:39 PM   #46
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,828
That's interesting Wheatfield... what you're saying is that the Q produces IQ that compare with a K20D with a DA* lens attached, or a 21 ltd.. cause that would be something I'd be real happy to hear. Sample pictures taken side by side would be appreciated if you have any to support your position...

01-12-2012, 02:53 PM   #47
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 6457' North
Posts: 806
"Another reason":

- Ridiculously small sensor for an ILC
- Ridiculously expensive for a small sensor camera
- Robs resources from more worthy products
- Toy lenses
- Too small
- No benefit over a fixed-lens small sensor camera
01-12-2012, 03:15 PM   #48
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
Pentax DSLRs produce the same IQ as the Q's 1/2.3" CMOS. No wonder the K system cements at the bottom of the market. Oh boy.
01-12-2012, 07:51 PM   #49
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
Pentax DSLRs produce the same IQ as the Q's 1/2.3" CMOS. No wonder the K system cements at the bottom of the market. Oh boy.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here...

01-13-2012, 04:01 PM - 2 Likes   #50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Here are comparable crops from the Q and the K-7 -- sorry, I don't have a K20 any more, but essentially the same sensor. . .

I set this up for my own ease, and exposure parameters cannot be set quite as easily on the Q with adapted lenses, so there are obvious differences, but I think that things are close enough to make a comparison.

I've never claimed that the Q offers IQ as good as a DSLR, but I think that it's not as far off as most detractors assume.

This comparison is with the Q and an F 50 f1.7 @ f2.8 and the K7 and a Tamron EX 180 f2.5 f2.5, each with onboard P-TTL flash. Comparing FL EQ, these are very close with the 50mm x 5.53 = 276.5mm EQ and 180mm x 1.53 = 275.4. Lens quality, I think is comparable, but if there's an edge, it probably goes to the Tamron which is usually regarded as close to as good as it gets in a 180mm. The F50/1.7 is usually regarded as a very good "fast 50".

Here's a review of the lens when it came out for those not familiar with the lens:

Both were shot in jpeg *** and the crops are 100% and straight out of the respective cameras with no further processing. Both cameras were set at default image parameters, except contrast and sharpness were set at -4 for both cameras, because that's the way I normally shoot them. Both were shot at ISO 200, Both were shot handheld and using AWB, but both cameras were set to use flash WB when the flash is used.

In fairness, even though these were taken with flash in an attempt to equalize things, the very slow shutter sync speed of the Q's electronic shutter at 1/13 can effect sharpness even though the ambient light level was low and I used ISO 200 to minimize this.

In any event, the K-7 shot is clearly sharper and has more contrast. Is the Q shot really as inferior as most seem to assume? Personally, I think not, and it has to be remembered that the K-7 + Tamron 180 is an $1100 body with a $500 lens, and the Q + F50 is @ a $600 body (when considered as a body alone) with a $200 lens, and the K-7's sensor is 13x larger in area.

Maybe it's time we get a bit more realistic when comparing IQ from different cameras with different format sensors. The Q definitely doesn't outperform current DSLRs, but this makes it neither useless nor ridiculous.

Here's another pair of crops with the available light at ISO 3200, both shot handheld, both using AWB. I used Av priority with both, and made the mistake of not checking metering coverage, so the K-7 was in spot mode and the Q was in center-weighted, but the exposures are reasonably close.

It must be noted that with the Q, there is no SR since it is currently deactivated when an adapted lens is used. Obviously the Q shot is cleaner and has considerably more accurate color. Again, the K-7 shot is sharper and has more contrast, but is the IQ really better? Eye of the beholder and PP skills and tools come into play here for final output potential. You tell me. . .

My conclusion is that the Q cannot give me equivalent output to a DSLR, but it's certainly far from unacceptable -- but I'm an amateur, and don't need to satisfy publication photo editors, and don't need extremely large print output. What I do know is that with adapted lenses, the Q allows me to get shots that I cannot get with my K-5, since I cannot seem to find any 1660mm EQ f2.8 or 2820mm EQ f4.8 tele and native 3.8:1 macro lenses for my K-5 -- and conversely, the K-5 can get me quality that the Q cannot deliver with at FLs from 10mm FE to 714mm and the Fields Of View that these provide on that camera. I see this as allowing me more versatility (at my level as a photographer) that no other camera can give me, and at a very acceptable level of IQ, especially with some PP magic applied -- you are welcome to disagree for your own case, and I can't argue against that since it's a matter of personal preference. Consider it a toy if you like -- your loss, IMO.


Last edited by snostorm; 01-13-2012 at 04:14 PM.
01-13-2012, 04:14 PM   #51
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I have to say tests done handheld is futile. The Q shot from the 1st set looks bad, but the K7 shot doesn't look good either. Also, adding a P&S to the mix may show what the Q has to offer over much cheaper P&S (other than built quality and interchangeable lenses). Just send me the Q and I will do a fair test (okay just kidding).
01-13-2012, 04:45 PM   #52
Veteran Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
Original Poster
I think the test Scott did if far from futile. And he has a fair point that for many situations the Q may even outperform larger sensor camera. Sometimes pixel density works to your advantage (magnification, detail captured) and small sensor size can be advantage too (greater DOF is often good thing).
01-13-2012, 05:50 PM   #53
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,828
Thanks for doing that, I'm going with the Q doesn't give me enough IQ based on the two photos shown, but that's a suspicion not a conclusion. I'm still hoping I can reduce the weight in my camera bad somehow.

01-13-2012, 08:11 PM   #54
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
I bought a camera last year (K-r) and already have other cameras hence no need to buy another camera just because some thing new comes out. I have had digital point and shoots before and did not really use them much as well as film ones which I paid a dollar for and shoot a roll per year perhaps. I also purchased a A110 system used in the 80s and even though still have it hardly ever used it all these years. Although there are some times that I would have liked to have a very compact camera with me those are the times I most likely would not anyways so I think for the most part small convenient cameras are not for me. For others that is all they will ever want or need. The fact that Pentax makes the Q or the 645D does not mean that I need one and the fact that I do not want or need them does not mean that Pentax should not make them. I have used the X100 and liked it but it is another camera I would be very unlikely to buy.

As some one referred to earlier some times a company has to make a market, there was a first 35mm SLR a first TLR and a first SUV. Not all attempts for new markets pan out (Subaru Brat for example) but it is worth the effort to attempt them time to time.
01-14-2012, 05:26 AM   #55
Veteran Member
xjjohnno's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
Being a big boy I kind of like big boy toys. The Q makes me think little kiddie toy, kind of like the camera you'd give to your kids to play with.
01-14-2012, 05:57 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
i_trax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,119
I do not think that kids would be able to utilise much of advanced functionality of the Q,
anyway i have one coming my way so I will be able to judge myself hopefully next weekend.
For the top jobs you have 645, then K5/K7, then KR/KX and now we have an option of Q, they are all in a different classes, you can not directly compare them ( common sense) and they serve different purposes.

Last edited by i_trax; 01-14-2012 at 06:14 AM.
01-14-2012, 06:03 AM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter
EricBrown's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Arlington, VA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 744
I am not taking any swipes at other peoples opinions, as I believe we all have our reasons and needs for cameras and gear. But, I bought the Q a few months ago and I love the camera. I also have the K-5 and K-20 and yes the IQ will never match them. I knew that before making my decision and I bought the Q for the small size, versitility, DSLR features and excellent build quality, ease of use, feels great in the hand for a tiny camera and pure fun factor. I have been able to get photos with Q that I would have missed or not able to due to the bigger siz of the K-5/K-20. I don't see the need to bash other people's choices, if it makes you happy that is all that counts. I have no regrets and I have taken some really good photos with the Q. Be happy to share a link to a Flickr set if there is any interest. Enjoy shooting with what you use!
01-14-2012, 08:24 AM   #58
Site Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Posts: 584
Q: Why I Bought One

I purchased the Q about 1 month ago to use with the Q to K adapter for birding and extra macro possibilities. The Q to K adapter just arrived a few days ago and so far I am underwhelmed by performace even with a solid tripod. The Q needs a focus peaking feature aka NEX series as there is no MF magnification with adapters. However, it is a fun camera and IQ with the 01 prime is solid but not spectacular. Is it worth the current price, hard to say. It is well built and it can be carried around your neck all day without even noticing. Main thing for me it is fun so worth it in spite of the limitations. However, Pentax needs a bigger sensor version mirrorless like the new Fuji if they really want to get marketshare though.

01-14-2012, 09:15 AM   #59
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Thanks for doing that, I'm going with the Q doesn't give me enough IQ based on the two photos shown, but that's a suspicion not a conclusion. I'm still hoping I can reduce the weight in my camera bad somehow.
When I made the comment about IQ being similar, I was speaking specifically about making prints or web sized images. While I haven't printed anything off the Q yet, my gut feeling from looking at the files on screen tells me that the quality isn't going to be that far off from the K20.
I won't have time to check this out until Tuesday at the earliest, but if time permits, I'll do some comparisons, knock off a couple of prints and post the results.
I'll be comparing the Q to a K7, as my K20 is on permanent loan.
01-14-2012, 09:32 AM   #60
Senior Member
Kirill_est's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by DDoram Quote
... there is no MF magnification with adapters.
Seriously, the OK button does not give you magnification?
Then I won't bother with the adapter as I wanted to use it for really long tele shots :-(

  • 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
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]