Do you Q? If not, why not?

Wheatfield · 01-14-2012, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Kirill_est

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 :-(

You can still focus, you are just using the entire screen. The screen is contrasty enough that it isn't hard. I mounted my Q to a 600mm/5.6 and found focusing to be no harder than manual focusing it on an SLR.

elho_cid · 01-14-2012, 01:20 PM

Ricoh has the focus peaking technology, I bet they will share their patents with Pentax.

hcarvalhoalves · 01-14-2012, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

You can still focus, you are just using the entire screen. The screen is contrasty enough that it isn't hard. I mounted my Q to a 600mm/5.6 and found focusing to be no harder than manual focusing it on an SLR.

Woaaa... I wanna see a pic with (and of) that

snostorm · 01-14-2012, 03:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Wheatfield

You can still focus, you are just using the entire screen. The screen is contrasty enough that it isn't hard. I mounted my Q to a 600mm/5.6 and found focusing to be no harder than manual focusing it on an SLR.

Though Wheat is correct that focusing with the whole screen is not that hard once you get to know what to look for, magnification IS available with adapted lenses with a press of the OK button if Focusing Aid is turned on in the menu. I just learned this myself the other day, thanks to barondla. . . and it does make it easier to gain really critical focus.

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; 01-18-2012 at 12:42 PM.

elho_cid · 01-14-2012, 05:49 PM

I just wonder - what are the other reasons? Many woted other reason but did not give any...

Laurentiu Cristofor · 01-14-2012, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by elho_cid

I just wonder - what are the other reasons? Many woted other reason but did not give any...

I expect it is just lack of interest due to overlap with other owned cameras or lack of particular features (WR, for example) - these fairly obvious reasons are not really covered in the answers, so the only thing left is to pick "other reason".

Wheatfield · 01-14-2012, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

Woaaa... I wanna see a pic with (and of) that

By your command

Attached Images

**barondla** · 01-14-2012, 09:11 PM

Wonderful moon image Wheatfield. Great detail and tonal range. Also love the 600/Q combo. Of course you could do the same thing with any other small sensor P&S camera according to some. Lol.
thanks
barondla

**i_trax** · 01-14-2012, 09:55 PM

incredible Moon!
can touch it!
kind regards
jack

hcarvalhoalves · 01-14-2012, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

By your command

Awesome moon!

And we could say the Q is on the 600, instead of the other way around

**bushwhacker09** · 01-15-2012, 06:08 PM

Whole concept just doesn't make any sense to me. You can get comparable image quality for a third of the price (based on several reviews, Q image quality is good, not earth-shattering); simply looks like an expensive toy. Basically, it look too expensive for what it provides. Of course, I like the size of the CompactFlash card better than SD. I hope they sell gazillions of them, though.

Wheatfield · 01-15-2012, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by bushwhacker09

Whole concept just doesn't make any sense to me. You can get comparable image quality for a third of the price (based on several reviews, Q image quality is good, not earth-shattering); simply looks like an expensive toy. Basically, it look too expensive for what it provides. Of course, I like the size of the CompactFlash card better than SD. I hope they sell gazillions of them, though.

The same argument can be used against any "luxury" item, be it a Rolls Royce or a Gucci handbag.

**bushwhacker09** · 01-15-2012, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

The same argument can be used against any "luxury" item, be it a Rolls Royce or a Gucci handbag.

I would not put the Q in the category of a "luxury item." Leica, yes. I don't think the Q's published specs would allow it to qualify as the "Rolls-Royce" of digital cameras. Again, I hope they sell well.

wlachan · 01-15-2012, 09:03 PM

I am sorry but Pentax is no luxury brand.

**barondla** · 01-15-2012, 10:41 PM

Amazed someone says you can get comparable image quality to the Q for 1/3 the money after seeing Wheatfield's incredible moon shoot. What P&S could take that picture? The Q is two cameras in one. It is a high quality P&S that is in the ball park, quality wise, with any other premium P&S camera. It is also a system camera that gives some pretty specialized capabilities. What good is your cheaper camera's image quality if you can't even capture the picture to start with? The Q can be a very specialized tool that allows images to be taken in extreme situations.
thanks
barondla

View Poll Results: What is your position on Q now?
I have Q already.	17	15.74%
I have another camera of similar size/performance.	7	6.48%
I want no mirrorless camera at all.	12	11.11%
I'd buy Q for lower price.	32	29.63%
I'd buy Q sucessor with better performance.	8	7.41%
I miss macro lens for Q system.	0	0%
I miss better telephoto lens for Q system.	0	0%
I miss better wide angle lens with Q system.	2	1.85%
I want a superzoom lens with Q.	1	0.93%
Another reason.	29	26.85%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

01-14-2012, 10:19 AM	#61
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by Kirill_est 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 :-( You can still focus, you are just using the entire screen. The screen is contrasty enough that it isn't hard. I mounted my Q to a 600mm/5.6 and found focusing to be no harder than manual focusing it on an SLR.

01-14-2012, 01:20 PM	#62
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199 Original Poster	Ricoh has the focus peaking technology, I bet they will share their patents with Pentax.

01-14-2012, 03:24 PM	#63
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by Wheatfield You can still focus, you are just using the entire screen. The screen is contrasty enough that it isn't hard. I mounted my Q to a 600mm/5.6 and found focusing to be no harder than manual focusing it on an SLR. Woaaa... I wanna see a pic with (and of) that

01-14-2012, 03:44 PM - 1 Like	#64
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by Wheatfield You can still focus, you are just using the entire screen. The screen is contrasty enough that it isn't hard. I mounted my Q to a 600mm/5.6 and found focusing to be no harder than manual focusing it on an SLR. Though Wheat is correct that focusing with the whole screen is not that hard once you get to know what to look for, magnification IS available with adapted lenses with a press of the OK button if Focusing Aid is turned on in the menu. I just learned this myself the other day, thanks to barondla. . . and it does make it easier to gain really critical focus. Scott Last edited by snostorm; 01-18-2012 at 12:42 PM.

01-14-2012, 05:49 PM	#65
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199 Original Poster	I just wonder - what are the other reasons? Many woted other reason but did not give any...

01-14-2012, 06:02 PM	#66
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by elho_cid I just wonder - what are the other reasons? Many woted other reason but did not give any... I expect it is just lack of interest due to overlap with other owned cameras or lack of particular features (WR, for example) - these fairly obvious reasons are not really covered in the answers, so the only thing left is to pick "other reason".

01-14-2012, 09:00 PM	#67
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves Woaaa... I wanna see a pic with (and of) that By your command Attached Images

01-14-2012, 09:11 PM	#68
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,713	Wonderful moon image Wheatfield. Great detail and tonal range. Also love the 600/Q combo. Of course you could do the same thing with any other small sensor P&S camera according to some. Lol. thanks barondla

01-14-2012, 09:55 PM	#69
i_trax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,621	incredible Moon! can touch it! kind regards jack

01-14-2012, 11:14 PM	#70
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by Wheatfield By your command Awesome moon! And we could say the Q is on the 600, instead of the other way around

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2012, 06:08 PM	#71
bushwhacker09 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Blue Ridge Parkway Posts: 67	Whole concept just doesn't make any sense to me. You can get comparable image quality for a third of the price (based on several reviews, Q image quality is good, not earth-shattering); simply looks like an expensive toy. Basically, it look too expensive for what it provides. Of course, I like the size of the CompactFlash card better than SD. I hope they sell gazillions of them, though.

01-15-2012, 07:05 PM	#72
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by bushwhacker09 Whole concept just doesn't make any sense to me. You can get comparable image quality for a third of the price (based on several reviews, Q image quality is good, not earth-shattering); simply looks like an expensive toy. Basically, it look too expensive for what it provides. Of course, I like the size of the CompactFlash card better than SD. I hope they sell gazillions of them, though. The same argument can be used against any "luxury" item, be it a Rolls Royce or a Gucci handbag.

01-15-2012, 08:30 PM	#73
bushwhacker09 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Blue Ridge Parkway Posts: 67	Originally posted by Wheatfield The same argument can be used against any "luxury" item, be it a Rolls Royce or a Gucci handbag. I would not put the Q in the category of a "luxury item." Leica, yes. I don't think the Q's published specs would allow it to qualify as the "Rolls-Royce" of digital cameras. Again, I hope they sell well.

01-15-2012, 09:03 PM	#74
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I am sorry but Pentax is no luxury brand.

01-15-2012, 10:41 PM	#75
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,713	Amazed someone says you can get comparable image quality to the Q for 1/3 the money after seeing Wheatfield's incredible moon shoot. What P&S could take that picture? The Q is two cameras in one. It is a high quality P&S that is in the ball park, quality wise, with any other premium P&S camera. It is also a system camera that gives some pretty specialized capabilities. What good is your cheaper camera's image quality if you can't even capture the picture to start with? The Q can be a very specialized tool that allows images to be taken in extreme situations. thanks barondla