[wanderography]

WIth a fast lens the Q does great in low light. All my pictures of my cats are in my dads dark cave of an apartment with all the blinds shut and only lit by like two dim half dead light bulbs. I never really go past ISO 500 and I only go to 500 when the lighting is really bad but I also shoot wide open too at 1.9 with the 01, 1.1 with the sonnetar, 1.4 with the SLR Magic, and 1.8 with my switar... slow lenses and even the zoom are not usable in my opinion in low light but thats why I have an assortment of lenses...

[snostorm]

Thanks for a very informative reply. When you say you limit the Q to ISO 3200 is that in good light to enable a faster shutter speed for birds/macro or is that in lower light?

Whilst I didn't initially mention it low-light performance is important to me in some ways. My Coolpix did well for me inTuscany except for inside churches/museums where colour, noise and shake all became issues even at ISO 800. I certainly see practical benefits to using the Q for this type of indoor shot. I don't see the Q as a silver bullet solution for this but the depth of field and lens quality even wide open suggests usable results may be achieved. An extra stop of light plus a stop or two of ISO performance could be very helpful. Also the K100D's shutter isn't the quietest!

.

Hi zou,

ISO 3200 is my personal practical limit for handheld snapshots in low light to to get an image that I can work with. Here's an example -- just shooting junk at a friend's house to demo the camera when I first got the Q. This was in a room lit only with a single 100 watt bulb just out of frame to the left, in the evening. This are straight OOC, jpeg ***, sharpness turned down, only downsized in steps. I've also included an unprocessed 100% crop that has a reasonably wide Ev range. This is ISO 3200, 1/60, f1.9 handheld, and shot very casually with the 01 prime.





My personal tolerance for luminosity noise may be relatively high compared to others, and I don't mind using NR in PP as I find that Topaz DeNoise tames it quite well without destroying detail for relatively non critical shots. For something like this, a quick downsize is enough to eliminate the noise for web posting or display on a computer monitor or tablet, and that's pretty much how I set my absolute limit. This level of noise is easily usable for me at higher resolution for 8x10 prints with a light application of DeNoise.

I'd say that with the Q, my limit for more critical subjects is more like ISO 800 or 1000 to preserve finer detail for birds or macro. I'd probably go higher shooting RAW, especially if I could turn high ISO NR off completely. The Q, IMO is pretty impressive in preserving color integrity and controlling chroma noise, which I find more difficult to deal with in PP and more destructive (unless I'm shooting B&W, of course)


Scott

[Wired]

Having own the K100D years ago when it first came out, and now owing the Q. Maybe its just my skill level... but I find the shots my Q are producing are much better in both contrast and sharpness. Yes, DOF is not as nice as a APS-C sensor, but it is adequate. Yes, higher ISO's do get noisy, but I'm happy at 800 and below. Without pixel peeping you can be very happy with the results.

The big thing about the Q and 01 prime isn't it's sharpness, bokeh, contrast, dynamic range..etc. etc... (which are all very good by the way), it's the fun factor and sheer enjoyment you get out of shooting with the little camera. Yes, I am infatuated with the Q. I've taken more photos in the past two weeks with my Q than I have in the last 6 with my K5. The reason isn't image quality, its sheer enjoyment and creativity the Q sparks for me. The K5 is a superior camera in every way shape and form. Even my K20D trumps the Q. It's cheasy, but the Q is a magical camera that you just wont want to put down. Just check out this thread for image samples. You will find that people are taking just as awesome shots with the Q as they are their DSLR's.

So if the decision is K100D or Q for travel/walkabout... there is no question about it. The Q wins all day long, just on sheer size alone! Even compared to the Nikon 1, MFT, and Sony NEX offerings you can't beat the Q for daily walk about just because of the sheer size and ergonomics of it.

Until you buy it you won't understand. Until anyone buys the Q they will not understand. I didn't understand until I left research, data, and lab tests in the wind and just bought the thing. Once I did, I understood.

[creampuff]

...

The big thing about the Q and 01 prime isn't it's sharpness, bokeh, contrast, dynamic range..etc. etc... (which are all very good by the way), it's the fun factor and sheer enjoyment you get out of shooting with the little camera.

...The Q wins all day long, just on sheer size alone!

...Until you buy it you won't understand. Until anyone buys the Q they will not understand. I didn't understand until I left research, data, and lab tests in the wind and just bought the thing. Once I did, I understood.

I wholeheartedly agree with you observations. Non-Q owners just can't get it.
My only wish is for Pentax to come out with a quality fast wide prime lens for this camera... then it will be even more awesome.

[barondla]

The last two posts hit the mark. Was afraid the Q arrived still born. Done in by those that interpret spec sheets instead of photographic subjects. The hate chorus was relentless. Thankfully the joy of the Q is spreading. Q owners are having more fun taking photographs than most others and that knowledge is spreading quickly.

There are pages of lens adapters, cases, and other accessories available for the Q. There are even 3rd party and hand built lenses. There are now 4 Q owners in our local photography club! The Q has arrived. Enjoy it.

thanks
barondla

Every camera crops the world!

[vrgard]

Having recently acquired a Pentax Q camera, I feel compelled to add my voice to those above in saying how very much I'm enjoying shooting with the lil' Q. Have had a K100D Super for a long time now, and have shot with other well known quality cameras, both film and digital, extensively but there's something about the Q that I love. Maybe it's a combination of "somethings." Size, degree of control, overall image quality, etc. All I can say is that I'm a happy camper with my Q.

-Randy

[Zou]

Good to hear more feedback. Even in the limited time I had the Q in-hand (less than ten minutes) I realised that it was a whole lot of fun. Just like the first time I picked up a 645Nii, and it just felt right. It's under £300 here again so I am sorely tempted. The double lens kit makes the most sense but at £450+ it'll be harder to sneak past the financial controller (my wife!).

[jezza323]

personally I dont like the zoom much. It is larger than the other lenses and detracts a little from the Q fun IMO

[Jacos]

Good to hear more feedback. Even in the limited time I had the Q in-hand (less than ten minutes) I realised that it was a whole lot of fun. Just like the first time I picked up a 645Nii, and it just felt right. It's under £300 here again so I am sorely tempted. The double lens kit makes the most sense but at £450+ it'll be harder to sneak past the financial controller (my wife!).

I went for the 1.9 prime kit and dont worry your wife will love it once she gets to see it.
I used to have various dslr- a Kx, sony a55 etc etc always looking for the right camera- after becoming a bit obsessed with tech specs etc i realised that i only ever really print normal size and the Q image quality is perfect for normal printuse. It has all the bells and whistles my Kx had but in a tiny pocket size body.
I think so many people have been put off this camera by silly site reviews its a tradgedy.
Before i bought mine i watched the digital rev review and then blunty's review on you tube. Its like they are reviewing two different cameras but i bought one because everything that blunty says is actually true.
And it is now also my 'favouritestist camera EVER' hehe