Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-24-2012, 08:32 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 896
I already have a large camera. I have a Kx, which isn't much bigger than the K-01. I want a small portable camera for when I can't take the Kx.

Charles.

07-24-2012, 10:44 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
I already have a large camera. I have a Kx, which isn't much bigger than the K-01. I want a small portable camera for when I can't take the Kx.

Charles.
Try here then .....

Imaging Resource "Comparometer"


Take note that its jpg only and will be largely dependent on each cameras jpeg engine as well as NR/Sharpening algorithms/factory-decisions.

If you shoot in RAW or tweak the JPG settings, they results can vary.
07-25-2012, 06:38 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 896
Okay, that's VERY interesting. That comparometer rocks. I like the Olympus shots up until about ISO400, maybe ISO800. Better color and considerably sharper. But when they both hit ISO1600, the Q walks away from the XZ-1, retaining a lot more detail and color.

That being said, at ISO1600 or above the images start looking pretty crappy as a whole. Sad to say but it looks like the XZ-1 may be the one for me. Useful (FAST) zoom range and much sharper, more vibrant images until that magic ISO1600.

Charles
07-25-2012, 08:06 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
I bought and used an Olympus XZ-1 last summer. I was initially totally thrilled with it, as it seemed like the magic I got from my old Canon G9 was back, and in many ways, better. The color was quite good if tweaked from RAW, the lens was really superb, and DoF control was possible due to the lens speed. I even enjoyed B&W, although mid tones suffered a little.

Sadly, I wasn't at all impressed in low light. In my experience, the XZ-1 took a nosedive at 400, and I preferred to stay at or under ISO 200 if at all possible, usually hanging on to base ISO for dear life.

While the fast lens did allow that to happen, and you can get away with a lot using a fast lens and ISO 200, the base ISO quality outdoors wasn't really a ton better than the the HX9V I had at the time. Dynamic range was notably poor, and colors weren't deep enough when the light was hard; they would block up quickly for me. I found myself wringing my hands over files in RAW processors when the HX9V would just bang 'em out. I really dislike RAW processing, and ended up disliking the camera for that. It was just too much work to wring the best out of it, both in good and low light.

I never shot the Q and the XZ-1 side by side, by my impression of the Q is quite different. It feels like a mini DSLR, and operates so intuitively. Dynamic range in my experience seems quite a bit better--skies don't blow out all the time as they did with the XZ-1 (and my old G9!), and I'm not constantly worried about managing DR. Color on the Q isn't it's strong suit, but I can do far more in camera and don't need to wring my hands over every image in post. Honestly, I love that. With the Q, just shoot and capture what the mind's eye sees. Generally

That said, the Q really shines only with the prime, or if you need ultra wide, you have the fun fisheye. And all the aforementioned fun with adapted lenses can be neat. If pentax ever brings out a wide and tele prime that equal the 01 Prime, the Q will rock. However, the XZ-1's lens is much better than the Q Zoom, in my experience. If you need that zoom range a lot, the XZ-1 may make a better camera.

I'd personally look at the new Panasonic LX-7 or the Sony RX100, instead, though... Until the XZ-2 arrives. I bought the latter

A few links of mine:
http://ndjedinak.blogspot.com/2011/07/olympus-xz-1-real-successor-to-canon-g9.html

http://ndjedinak.blogspot.com/2011/09/summer-of-film.html

http://ndjedinak.blogspot.com/2012/07/quick-test-sony-hx9v-vs-pentax-q-vs.html

07-25-2012, 04:04 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
Okay, that's VERY interesting. That comparometer rocks. I like the Olympus shots up until about ISO400, maybe ISO800. Better color and considerably sharper. But when they both hit ISO1600, the Q walks away from the XZ-1, retaining a lot more detail and color.

That being said, at ISO1600 or above the images start looking pretty crappy as a whole. Sad to say but it looks like the XZ-1 may be the one for me. Useful (FAST) zoom range and much sharper, more vibrant images until that magic ISO1600.

Charles
As I've said before, to me they are all not for pixel peeping and looks quite rubbish.
Note the EXIF too (and there is a discrepancy in the test)
The Q was shot at f2.8 (47mm) while the XZ-1 was done at f5.6 (112mm)

Oly does have a better Jpeg algo/engine (they are famous for it), so this test favors it.
Though who knows which had more sharpening at default settings (hint : Oly).
If one is competent in RAW, maybe it will be different??


But then, I do find that I seem to be getting better 100% crops from my Q that what I've seen on the ImagineResource test shots.

The XZ-1 can never do this.....




It can do this (with a macro filter attachment):


But certainly can't do this at the same breath :

since the attachment limits focus distance.

Last edited by pinholecam; 07-25-2012 at 04:25 PM.
07-25-2012, 05:35 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
I'm definitely getting better pixel-peeping IQ out of the Q than displayed on review sites. The key for me was to turn off all auto dynamic range optimizers, use lowest noise reduction possible, and use fine sharpness +1 instead of regular sharpening. You'll get more noise with these settings, but the noise is of the luminance variety, and tight in grain. Reminds me of film

Try it with the 01 Prime and see what that Q sensor can really do. It's quite impressive for such a small sensor. Sony makes great small sensors, as long as they don't push pixel density so much. I thought the HX9V at 16mp was a fair shade better than the successors (10V, 20V) at 18mp. Pentax was smart to pick the lower resolution Exmor sensor, and not use as heavy-handed NR combined with heavy JPEG compression as Sony.
07-27-2012, 03:39 PM   #22
Moo
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 174
Extreme macro and extreme telephoto are two things a small sensor is a big advantage for. I'd like to see an MPE-65 type thing in Q mount.

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
The XZ-1 can never do this.....
Nice photos. Looks like you used K mount lenses for all 3? Don't you agree it'd be great if there were "native" Q lenses for such purposes? Smaller sensor should mean great reduction in size, weight, and cost.
07-27-2012, 08:53 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
QuoteOriginally posted by Moo Quote
Extreme macro and extreme telephoto are two things a small sensor is a big advantage for. I'd like to see an MPE-65 type thing in Q mount.


Nice photos. Looks like you used K mount lenses for all 3? Don't you agree it'd be great if there were "native" Q lenses for such purposes? Smaller sensor should mean great reduction in size, weight, and cost.

Other than pure optical performance, diffraction limit and final o/p on APS-C/FF, the Q+macro lens is better in other ways.
The MPE-65 starts from 1:1, and does not focus further.
A pain to focus too as it turns forever
The Q+macro does anything from infinity to MFD.
Thats super tele 550mm for skittish insects (and perhaps some birds (yet to try) and 5.5x magnification at MFD.
Also works great if one wants to compose the macro shot differently (eg. insect with a bit of the environment)
All this flexibility on just Q+macro lens.
Main thing though, its just about having some Q fun


I only bought the K-Q adapter, so I used only K mounts. Other mounts to Q adapters are also avaliable.
Personally, I don't wish for any native lenses of such types.
Its just going to weigh Pentax down with needless RnD efforts and costs.
Ppl need to buy the Q first and reach a justifiable user mass to make such niche items a reality.
IMO, thats the reality and practicality involved.
I just try to make use of what is avaliable for now.

I use a 100mm macro cause I only have that as a macro lens.
I can envisage a 35ltd macro or DFA50 macro doing even better for much less size/weight (more DOF too).
So I really don't think I need any native options for Q now.
Good quality lenses whatever format is not going to be cheap, even if its Q mount.
A scaled down DA*200 for the Q with AF for birding won't be cheap anytime soon.


If new stuff comes out and they are affordable and does not clash with the existing lenses/uses I have, great, I'd buy them of course.

There are so many out there demanding camera brands do this and that, "why don't they do a 300/1.4 for my low light sports use?" "How about a 67 digital with a FF sensor?"
But the reality is, when these are made, many will then say..."Sorry, too expensive for me", "I think that D800 is close enough performance for my needs"
Even I myself felt that the Q price was ridiculous at launch and did not buy one until it has fallen so much from then.
I just don't wish to linger over the could have beens.

Ok...rant over...


Last edited by pinholecam; 07-28-2012 at 12:48 AM.
07-27-2012, 09:52 PM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,327
I wonder when these website comparison shots were made? Remember the Q had a flaw when shipped that actually reduced sharpness and image quality. The firmware update fixed the sharpness problem and improved stability. I have no problem beating those webshots now. Before the fw update it was a different story. Love my Q. If it were discontinued tomorrow I would buy a couple extra!
thanks
barondla
07-27-2012, 10:09 PM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
Back to that thing about Q IQ.




100% crop



seems pretty decent to me.
Certainly not like what the ImagingResource test suggests.
07-30-2012, 01:05 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 896
I played with the Q briefly in the Fry's in vegas. The battery in the camera was dead (and in the olympus too). The Q is actually bigger than I had envisioned, quite a bit thicker actually, but it felt good in my hand, and if that price drops down again, I will probably snag it.

Charles.
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, cameras, mirrorless, pentax, 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
Problems with Pentax Kr (similar to K-5 shutter problem) babilon Pentax K-r 24 07-24-2012 04:11 PM
Pentax lens of similar focal length: vs faceoff comparisons required! JayR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 10-31-2011 10:24 PM
Pentax zoom similar to canon 70-200 f4 kedavid Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 03-01-2011 05:31 AM
DXO Mark : an interresting performance comparison site for DSLR cameras ghelary Pentax News and Rumors 30 11-20-2008 11:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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