Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2012, 06:26 AM   #31
Pentaxian
VladimirYo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 287
Very nice.

08-05-2012, 10:35 AM   #32
Forum Member
AKum8's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Milan
Posts: 89
Hello Pinholecam, your shots are very impressive and look you're getting the best from the Q. I'm wondering if you have ever compared the Q with premium compact cameras.
08-05-2012, 01:25 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Pentaxtic's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 417
Nice review. Thanks for taking the time with this. Always wondered about the Q and all the bad press it got and whether it was warranted or not. Just recently found out about the kmount adapters and the awesome macro shots with your postings. Q definitely needs more press!
08-05-2012, 03:51 PM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,770
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by VladimirYo Quote
Very nice.
Thanks



QuoteOriginally posted by AKum8 Quote
Hello Pinholecam, your shots are very impressive and look you're getting the best from the Q. I'm wondering if you have ever compared the Q with premium compact cameras.

Thanks.
I have not compared it to any other advanced pns.
I do have an old Canon A590 (pretty good in its time) and a G3.
So both are unfair comparisons.

I like it how the A590 easily admits defeat in poor light and asks for AF help from the AF assist lamp.
The Q on the other hand, stoically refuses to acknowledge that it needs AF assist help unless its really dark.
The result is pretty poor AF in low light for the Q vs many cameras including hand phones.
Not that they are really better, but they keep turning on the AF assist lamp.




QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxtic Quote
Nice review. Thanks for taking the time with this. Always wondered about the Q and all the bad press it got and whether it was warranted or not. Just recently found out about the kmount adapters and the awesome macro shots with your postings. Q definitely needs more press!
Thats what the review is for....he..he...

08-06-2012, 06:16 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
QuoteOriginally posted by AKum8 Quote
Hello Pinholecam, your shots are very impressive and look you're getting the best from the Q. I'm wondering if you have ever compared the Q with premium compact cameras.
I did a quick technical IQ comparison between the Q, Sony HX9V travel zoom and Sony RX100, see my post on this forum

Pinholecam, thanks for the nice little write up. I am not a macro or tele guy, but I wasn't a fisheye guy until I tried the Q with its brilliant little fish lens... So your posts leave me intrigued. The incredible flexibility of the Q is really its biggest benefit over other premium small compacts. IQ is "good enough"* and the size is really a boon to taking it everywhere with you--which results in the ability to challenge and grow your photography on a daily basis. Love that.

If the Q had a native, AF + ND, fast wide prime and short tele, I would be so thrilled. I'd also buy a short tele zoom--would be really fun for the occasional sports shooting I do. If Pentax can build out the lens library, this will be a really neat system. Even as-is, you show the strengths and possibilities well.

One question: you seem to get good results from the "reversal film" color setting. This is one area I've found very weak with the Q (color). I've only used the reversal film setting a little, and some shots were brilliant, others showed a weird shift in skin tones. Have you noted that, or has the reversal film setting really been a great all-rounder?

* "Good Enough" isn't a slam; remember, the Leica was originally designed to be "good enough" in a land of large format cameras.
08-07-2012, 02:19 AM   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,770
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ndjedinak Quote
I did a quick technical IQ comparison between the Q, Sony HX9V travel zoom and Sony RX100, see my post on this forum

Pinholecam, thanks for the nice little write up. I am not a macro or tele guy, but I wasn't a fisheye guy until I tried the Q with its brilliant little fish lens... So your posts leave me intrigued. The incredible flexibility of the Q is really its biggest benefit over other premium small compacts. IQ is "good enough"* and the size is really a boon to taking it everywhere with you--which results in the ability to challenge and grow your photography on a daily basis. Love that.

If the Q had a native, AF + ND, fast wide prime and short tele, I would be so thrilled. I'd also buy a short tele zoom--would be really fun for the occasional sports shooting I do. If Pentax can build out the lens library, this will be a really neat system. Even as-is, you show the strengths and possibilities well.

One question: you seem to get good results from the "reversal film" color setting. This is one area I've found very weak with the Q (color). I've only used the reversal film setting a little, and some shots were brilliant, others showed a weird shift in skin tones. Have you noted that, or has the reversal film setting really been a great all-rounder?

* "Good Enough" isn't a slam; remember, the Leica was originally designed to be "good enough" in a land of large format cameras.

If I had a summary for the review, it would be along those lines you've written above (underlined)

I just hope the Q is viable enough for Pentax to produce more high quality lenses in the near future.

I've not noticed the shift in skin tones, but maybe I'm not sensitive to it.
My guess is that I live in a cosmopolitan city where there is a good mix of skin tones so nothing is apparent.
I'd immediately suspect it to be on the warm side though.
Indoors, with the myriad of yellow/orange tinted lighting, 'Reversal Film' can be quirky for sure
08-07-2012, 04:04 AM - 1 Like   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Feel free to appropriate that as your summary

I agree on the lenses. I suspect if we don't see anything at photokina, we're sunk.

I really liken the Q to a modern day screwmount Leica. Amazingly, you can still buy new lenses for screwmount Leicas... But if you stick with the average later/coated and not exorbitant vintage stuff, the kind of stuff like the 35 Summaron and 50 Summitar that helped Leica make its name, the quality is good... But not as good as modern gear (or the later M and it's lenses). Still, in the day, that camera was "good enough" to make 35mm viable over larger formats.

I took a screwmount Leica IIIc and the two lenses above on a family beach vacation last year. The photos were excellent, if not as technically perfect as my M, but very pleasing nonetheless.

Looking at pixels, the Q really reminds me of those shots...
08-07-2012, 04:05 AM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Oh, forgot to mention--I'll shoot reversal exclusively for a bit and let you know what I think. Warm shift is what I've noticed, particularly some nasty red and yellow tones to caucasian skin.

08-12-2012, 03:00 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Crop Engine - Macro
===================


Coupled with a macro lens which can do 1:1, the Q becomes a macro tool with the capability to focus anything from infinity to minimum focus distance (MFD).
At MFD, with a 1:1 macro lens, equivalent magnification due to the crop factor is a 5.5x magnification macro.

The capability of the Q with a macro lens is amazing to me.
On APS-C, I would have needed a long lens + reversed 50mm and still crop a lot to get near (but still not exactly) this.
And then struggle with the limited range of focusing due to the reversed lens.

But with the Q, its easy peasy....
Just focus at the distance I need.
Far, near, no problem at all.

Jumping Spider about 4mm in size.

This is probably a crop off 40% of the image. I had a 1:1 version, but not enough DOF to cover from segmented eyes to mouth.

Pollen on the back of a Bee
Got to say those macro shots are just amazing - any macro shooter would be proud of that JS. Moon shots look pretty good too.

I bought the Q for birding - where it is a total failure unless you have time to sit down with a tripod in the shade and micro-adjust for a static subject. Therefore I was going to add the Q to the list of gear I'm selling to get a D800 and 500mm. After having seen these macro shots I may just change my mind because that is damn impressive.
08-12-2012, 03:42 AM   #40
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Good work done here!
08-12-2012, 07:44 PM   #41
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,770
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Got to say those macro shots are just amazing - any macro shooter would be proud of that JS. Moon shots look pretty good too.

I bought the Q for birding - where it is a total failure unless you have time to sit down with a tripod in the shade and micro-adjust for a static subject. Therefore I was going to add the Q to the list of gear I'm selling to get a D800 and 500mm. After having seen these macro shots I may just change my mind because that is damn impressive.
Thanks for the compliment. Appreciate it.

Birding is the last hurdle that I am afraid to try out.
Its hot and humid here right smack on the Equator with bugs running up the pants at every minute.
Having tried the Q so far, I'm pretty sure the constant twitching for small birds would be a literal pain in the neck for the manual focus.
I had a pretty hard time with some of the smaller monkey shots from the zoo too.
Had to settle for multi-shot mode to get keeps for the very twitchy ones, but I hate going over tons of mulit-shots to weed out the keepers


Hope you will keep the Q at least for the macro and perhaps some static larger birds.


QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Good work done here!
Thanks man!
08-13-2012, 05:00 PM   #42
Site Supporter
cheekygeek's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alda, Nebraska USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,245
Gee, with a Pentax-F 100mm f2.8 in my arsenal I'm curious to try this. Also my Tokina AT-X 80-200mm f2.8 would become a 440-1100mm zoom.
08-13-2012, 06:51 PM   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,770
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cheekygeek Quote
Gee, with a Pentax-F 100mm f2.8 in my arsenal I'm curious to try this. Also my Tokina AT-X 80-200mm f2.8 would become a 440-1100mm zoom.
IMO, the Q is at a good price now.
The thing to note is that due to the pixel density, it shows up any flaws in the lens that may not have been apparent on APS-C,
You need to be sure that the Tokina 80-200 is generally good in the center.
My F135/2.8 which is stella in sharpness on APS-C (probably one of the sharpest lens I have at f2.8) but weak with CA, can't make the cut on the Q as the CA shows up badly.


Hope to see you join the Q community
08-14-2012, 06:17 AM   #44
Site Supporter
cheekygeek's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alda, Nebraska USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,245
I'm working on it. The Tokina AT-X 828 is considered a good lens (for full frame). One would think that the center would be even stronger, but won't know until I try!
Also have a Bigma which would be come a 280-2800mm on the Q (and look really , really, silly).
08-16-2012, 01:41 PM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Hey Pinholecam...

Nice review... I have a Q.. took it out for three weeks of street shooting. Even after all that, love it. Was very handy for popping in and out of museums (no bag that needed to be checked) and long walks (very light). Surprisingly sturdy (survived being smashed about in crowed areas). I didn't have the battery life issues you did, but was recharging it every night.

If you are on the fence about a camera with decent images, sometimes quirky behavior, light, small, and easy to use... go back and re-read page one. This is a pretty nice camera.
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, lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, price, q10, q7, review, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What does CA look like in the real world... DaveHolmes Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 05-23-2012 06:59 PM
Pentax K-5 User Review rei_vilo Pentax K-5 4 05-01-2012 09:29 AM
Sigma 17-50 real world photos Armanius Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 04-07-2011 04:10 PM
2mm on UWA: Real World Difference Biro Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 70 10-14-2010 02:59 PM
Real world TEST review K-7 Adrian Owerko Pentax News and Rumors 9 09-01-2009 10:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 PM. | 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