Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-14-2012, 01:03 PM   #211
Senior Member
ElStellino's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
....

So far I am very happy with the prime and the little zoom. I am also looking forward to getting the new larger zoom that is coming. But when I attach my Voigtlander 90mm Apo Lanthar using my Leica Thread Mount (LTM) adapter and see just how nice that lens really is, I am stunned. I have attached one of my recent pictures below to give as an example. It is not really a great shot, but it does show what can be done. This image was taken with a 90mm lens, which is the 35mm equivalent of 500mm. The reason I attached it was because of the background, which is extremely ugly. If you could see it!! When can you remember the last time you were able to take a camera with a sensor this small, and blur out the background this nicely? I have done absolutely nothing with this image but resize it.

I know that things are different today, but I look at my little Q like my Leica IIIc. Contrary to what Leica fans would have you believe, the early Leica cameras were not perfect. They had a number of problems that still exist. But they took a new film format and provided a camera and lenses that were capable of producing images that were good enough to successfully compete with the medium format cameras that ruled the world at that time. And it was much smaller than the other cameras of the day. Even the Contax, which was produced to compete with it, was larger than the Leica. The Q is not perfect, but it is producing an image that is plenty good enough to compete with digital slr cameras. And it is far smaller then any of the dslr cameras out there, even the micro 4/3rds cameras. Everything else looks like a monster alongside of it.

I was thrilled to death to see the announcements from Pentax regarding the new Q 10, the new lens and the new adapter. This means that Pentax does believe in their new Q and they are not going to let it die like the LX. I immediately put my order in for the K to Q mount adapter and the new telephoto lens. As time goes on people may just look back at this little Q like people look at the Leica. I know it isn't for everyone. Many people still want their K5s and their full frame digital cameras. But to be truthful I believe that the future of digital photography belongs to the Q, and the other cameras like it, not with the K5.
I agree, and although I don't have one yet, I am seriously thinking about getting one, now that they are cheaper than ever.

Size matters, in a SLR/DSLR I love the fact that you can change the lenses, of the compacts I don't like the full automation without any chance to override stupid settings.
I think the Q system stands in between, getting the size of a compact, with the versatility of a DSLR.

If the results coming out from the Q are nice, I simply don't get why it shouldn't have its own success.

I know that it may not become my first camera, but definitely a nice device to keep in my pocket always.

Also, I don't hide that having the chance of attaching my 200mm prime to a Q to get over 1000mm is quite cool. (and I would also experiment with my two TC stacked together to get a ✕6 focal length, on the ME super worked superbly and I managed to picture the Venus' transit)

I am only concerned about the buffering times of this camera - to be honest.
Looking at some videos it actually takes forever for it to write on the card, and enabling the user to take another photo.
You guys (Pioneer - cheekygeek), can you tell something about this, please? Thanks!

Luca


Last edited by ElStellino; 09-14-2012 at 01:04 PM. Reason: mistake
09-14-2012, 02:10 PM   #212
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
I have not noticed an limitations with my own photography because of buffer size or card writing times. I have not really tried to use it for any real action shots (though I probably will this weekend at my grandson's soccer game) but I have used it at birthdays and a couple of other normal family events. It worked great and did not slow me down at all.

As for video I have only captured a couple of quick videos so I can't yet give you a good answer for video performance.

I am using 2gb Extreme II Sandisk SD cards so I doubt that I am stressing the buffer and transfer system that much. I shoot in jpeg only and only save in RAW if I think I may have captured a decent shot. Those things may be helping speed things up for me but I don't really know. I know everyone thinks you have to shoot in RAW to get good pictures but I have been very happy with the jpeg performance of this camera so I have not seen a need to do that very often.

There may be others out there with other experiences, and I have owned mine for less than a month, so you should collect other opinions. All I can say is that, for the stuff I do most frequently, this camera is fast replacing any other dslr I have. I already sold my K7 and so far I do not regret that decision one bit. For me, owning and using this camera has been a very positive experience and I am very glad I made the move.
09-15-2012, 05:19 AM   #213
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
I can also offer my practical findings with the Q and buffering. I started out trying to shoot in RAW, but I would find that after taking 2 pictures in a row, the camera would be unresponsive for half a minute afterwards. So the JPEG setting is a lot nicer, and having the ability to capture a RAW afterwards by pressing the exposure comp button is good for most stuff. I found the screen good to tell me the exposure of the shot beforehand, as well. But taking more than 3 photos in 2-3 seconds? It lags a bit afterwards. But I agree with Pioneer that the JPEG cooking is to my liking most of the time anyways.
09-15-2012, 05:43 AM   #214
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by icywindow Quote
...JPEG cooking is to my liking most of the time...
May I ask if you will share the 'lessons learned' ingredients and setup details of your best JPEG recipes?

Cheers...


Last edited by Michaelina2; 09-15-2012 at 08:22 AM.
09-15-2012, 07:39 AM   #215
Pentaxian
Dr Orloff's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton, England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 498
I only shoot in RAW and I have no problems whatsoever with write speeds. I use Sandisk Class 10. I rarely use video but when I have I have not noticed slow performance.

I disagree that the Q's image quality is up tp dslr levels. The Q is surprisingly good for what it is, but it is no match for cameras with a significantly larger sensor.
09-15-2012, 08:30 AM   #216
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by Dr Orloff Quote
I disagree that the Q's image quality is up tp dslr levels. The Q is surprisingly good for what it is, but it is no match for cameras with a significantly larger sensor.
I agree with you. I sold my K7 to buy the Q, but I also shoot a ton of 35mm and medium format film and scan a lot of those images. My Q does not put out images that are quite up to those standards. But then my K7 didn't do that most of the time either.

But I think that is the wrong standard to be using for this wonderful little camera. That is what every professional reviewer has been doing, comparing it against bigger cameras. That is just like comparing my little Pontiac Grand Am to a Corvette or Porsche. Of course it can't compete at that level, but how often am I traveling at 160 kph (100 mph) with my Grand Am. If that is all that will make you happy then by all means keep your DSLR.

What I can do is very easily print my Q images to 8x10 (which I think is similar to A4) even after I have cropped them, and I can share them with others on the internet. Since that is all I do with 98 percent of my images I can see no good reason for me to be packing around my bigger cameras most of the time. Do I print bigger than that. You bet! I have shot some beautiful chromes in my 645Nii and K1000 that I have printed much larger, a couple all the way to 16x20. But I am certainly not a Pro so that accounts for about two handfuls of my images in 30 some years of taking pictures.

But I have only owned this camera for a short time. Who knows how big a print I can get from the Q if I use One on One's Perfect ReSize software? Bet it goes bigger than 8x10!
09-15-2012, 01:33 PM   #217
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
I think the Q is was "sleeper." When it first came out I thought "not interested" but lately I've been seeing some amazing macros and telephotos and my interest has been piqued to the point that I'm planning on getting a Q10 and adaptor as soon as my bank account will allow.
09-16-2012, 09:01 PM   #218
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
May I ask if you will share the 'lessons learned' ingredients and setup details of your best JPEG recipes?

Cheers...
Chefs have a hard time divulging their secrets.
The main thing was setting up the front dial for quick access to portrait, landscape, bleach bypass, and monochrome - having that creative freedom to see what works at the time is really useful.

09-17-2012, 01:34 AM   #219
Senior Member
ElStellino's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 110
Thanks guys for the replies.

Ok, my interest in buffering is that I could use the lenses I already got to obtain pretty neat photos of the Moon, stars and with little investment planets such as Saturn and Jupiter.
Using a program like Autostakkert you can use say 100 jpg and creating much sharper images.
I have a contact in g+ (Alizče Rait) who explained this very well in the past, and she used a Nikon P510 bridge camera which has a super zoom equal to 1000mm and just a tripod.
Obviously if 100 jpg of the Moon take 1˝ hour to be taken, that's no good. The Moon (or better, the Earth) moves quite quickly and exposure times slower than 1/60s are blurry.... Imagine re-frame everything every 3 shots or 4...

Last edited by ElStellino; 09-19-2012 at 02:49 AM.
09-17-2012, 05:01 AM   #220
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by icywindow Quote
Chefs have a hard time divulging their secrets.
The main thing was setting up the front dial for quick access to portrait, landscape, bleach bypass, and monochrome - having that creative freedom to see what works at the time is really useful.
Ha!

For me, JPEG output seems much less forgiving than RAW. Given all the Q's subtle/nuanced setting choices, I find prioritizing them in ways that produce 'traction' an interesting challenge. From the looks of it, you (and others) seem to be grappling with them very well. Don't get me wrong, I have no fear and am up to dealing with all of this. I was just seeking a pointer (or two) that might spice things up and keep me from dawdling too long in a learning curve dead end. Guess it's the blind leading the blind... a voyage of discovery.

BTW: Your insight is consistent with the advice I'd offer, if asked of me.

Thank you & Cheers...

Last edited by Michaelina2; 09-17-2012 at 05:08 AM.
09-17-2012, 06:58 AM   #221
Veteran Member
Verglace's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 468
I got a Q recently and I have to say that the Q has recently come into its own. When it came out it was priced a $800 which was grossly mispriced, at that price is was a definite failure. However, these days a Q can be had for $300-$350 if you shop around, so now it is a decent price and the price I feel it should have came out with. I use it as my portable camera when the DSLR is too big! It's a great min-max camera, it is small and light while IQ is acceptable, a great camera for when a full size DSLR is not appropriate. It would in no way be a DSLR replacement though, but that is fine since that is not what it should be.
09-17-2012, 03:47 PM - 1 Like   #222
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
May I ask if you will share the 'lessons learned' ingredients and setup details of your best JPEG recipes?

Cheers...

I am not sure I have any recipes to divulge. I started out with the Q by using RAW plus JPEG and then converting in PS just like I did with my K7. But I began to notice that my RAW conversions were not a whole lot different than what I was seeing in the jpegs coming out of the camera.

For what it is worth, these are my current settings and I am happy with them right now.

First, I do not use Program Mode. I am almost always on Manual Mode, occasionally I will flip to Aperture Priority but this is very seldom.

Second, I do not use Auto ISO. This is usually set to 125 at all times unless I need a higher ISO for indoor shots, but since I use the on board flash quite a bit I don't bump up my ISO very often.

Third, I do not use Auto White Balance. I set my white balance right along with my exposure settings each time. Once I had to set a custom white balance with a small gray card I carry in my wallet, because the lighting was mixed and I wasn't happy with what I was getting. These were some late evening shots after some street lights turned on.

Fourth, I am not afraid to play with my Custom Image settings based on what I want to see. I use Reversal and Vibrant quite a bit but I change based on the type of shots I am taking. If I am taking closer shots of my grandkids then I like the Portrait setting. If I am taking scenery shots in the mountains then I will sometimes use the Natural setting.

Fifth, I use the on-board flash for daytime fill flash anytime I am close enough for it to work. The Q sensor seems to respond very well to fill flash. I haven't used any external flash units yet, but I intend to play around with those as well. I have picked up a flash bracket for the tripod socket so I will be trying that out soon with some external flash units on Slave.

Like I said, this probably is not so much a "recipe" as a "way of working." It is one of the big reasons I enjoy working with this camera so much. It is tiny, not much bigger than a pack of cigarettes, but it provides the user a huge, dslr sized, level of artistic control.
11-07-2012, 09:13 PM   #223
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
had to bump for this:

Top 10 best selling mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras in Japan | Photo Rumors

Pentax Q, not only on the top 10 best selling mirrorless list, but higher than I expected!
11-08-2012, 11:37 PM   #224
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
had to bump for this:

Top 10 best selling mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras in Japan | Photo Rumors

Pentax Q, not only on the top 10 best selling mirrorless list, but higher than I expected!
Thanks for the heads up Wired.

#7 on the list and the only 1/2.3" sensor on the list. Ya gotta love it!!
11-09-2012, 05:26 PM   #225
Veteran Member
NickLarsson's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,390
I've stumbled upon a quick review of the Pentax Q which is quite objective but made in August, so the price was still a bit expensive.
Then the guy concludes: "And second, were it to sell for, say $300 OR $400, it would be the "perfect backup camera.""

Well, now I think it is

Pentax Q vs Nikon V1 vs Sony NEX-5N Best Mirrorless Cameras 2012

(Note: the k-01 is #2 of this shootout, not bad either )
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, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is k-5 a failure? yusuf Pentax K-5 272 03-30-2011 10:20 AM
Is this Pentax way of admitting SDM was a failure? mfdesalas Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 49 12-28-2010 11:34 PM
After 4 Pentax DSLR, a first failure: Kx Died! BBear Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 10-16-2010 11:30 AM
Pentax K100D Flash Failure Frosty Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 07-24-2010 05:15 AM
Hoya founder's grandson calls Pentax acquisition a failure MrPetkus Pentax News and Rumors 50 06-10-2010 07:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 AM. | 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