Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2012, 06:23 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
Thanks, I really appreciate that. I cannot be bothered to shoot raw and PP with the Q. If I need better IQ than what the Q can give me in Jpeg I use a camera with a bigger sensor.
Firmware is on its way

10-29-2012, 06:41 PM   #17
Veteran Member
wanderography's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hayward, California, USA
Posts: 567
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
Thanks, I really appreciate that. I cannot be bothered to shoot raw and PP with the Q. If I need better IQ than what the Q can give me in Jpeg I use a camera with a bigger sensor.
I seriously find this comment hilarious, when I learned to PP properly JPEG became an utter hassle, you have to upload your images to the computer right? Or do you take your SD card to the store to get developed? If so it makes complete sense to shoot JPEG, but if your uploading to your computer you can just do a direct upload to lightroom which takes the same amount of time to upload to your computer, you have a bar on the bottom to scroll through all your images and the ones you choose to upload or print will automatically be corrected with your presets you have already created...

EDIT: with JPEG you usually have to use the in browser uploaders to upload to the net or sent to get printed, in LR I have direct connection to upload services, I drag and drop and can upload to facebook, flickr, and sent to get printed with the click of a button... And where I'm going with this is that with this short process to upload it takes just an extra click to get my RAWs edited. No one is more lazy than I...

Last edited by wanderography; 10-29-2012 at 06:47 PM.
10-29-2012, 06:59 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bmonki Quote
I seriously find this comment hilarious, when I learned to PP properly JPEG became an utter hassle, you have to upload your images to the computer right? Or do you take your SD card to the store to get developed? If so it makes complete sense to shoot JPEG, but if your uploading to your computer you can just do a direct upload to lightroom which takes the same amount of time to upload to your computer, you have a bar on the bottom to scroll through all your images and the ones you choose to upload or print will automatically be corrected with your presets you have already created...

EDIT: with JPEG you usually have to use the in browser uploaders to upload to the net or sent to get printed, in LR I have direct connection to upload services, I drag and drop and can upload to facebook, flickr, and sent to get printed with the click of a button... And where I'm going with this is that with this short process to upload it takes just an extra click to get my RAWs edited. No one is more lazy than I...
Of course, you could get it right in camera when you shoot it... JOKING ! (Half)

In all seriousness, please let's not devolve this thread into a RAW vs JPEG debate. It's highly likely the changes didn't affect RAW shooters in a meaningful way, so move along now
10-30-2012, 12:10 AM   #19
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by bmonki Quote
I seriously find this comment hilarious...
For the record, I don't take the Q all that seriously. I have far more capable cameras that are worth the extra effort of shooting raw and post processing. The Q is more a novelty and about having fun.

10-30-2012, 12:12 AM   #20
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by ndjedinak Quote
Firmware is on its way
Many thanks - looking forward to it...
10-30-2012, 12:30 AM   #21
Veteran Member
wanderography's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hayward, California, USA
Posts: 567
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
For the record, I don't take the Q all that seriously. I have far more capable cameras that are worth the extra effort of shooting raw and post processing. The Q is more a novelty and about having fun.
Expensive novelty is it not? Kinda like buying a hunting rifle to shoot bottles in the backyard... I figure if I have something I'm going to use it to it's utmost abilities, novelty or not...
10-30-2012, 03:53 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
Many thanks - looking forward to it...
Did you see it yet? I sent yesterday. It's 15MB.
10-30-2012, 10:44 AM   #23
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by ndjedinak Quote
Did you see it yet? I sent yesterday. It's 15MB.
No, that's strange, because I haven't received it as of yet.

10-30-2012, 11:24 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
No, that's strange, because I haven't received it as of yet.
Can hotmail accept that large of a file? I'd say likely not, as it should have been there long ago.

In other news... Anyone else done any testing on this?
10-31-2012, 07:53 PM   #25
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
Good news... In light of ndjedinak's preliminary discovery (see the first post in this thread) anyone who fears the latest firmware version 1.10 is too much of a step backwards can revert back to 1.01! I`ll run my own tests to see if they concur with ndjedinak's results and if so, I`ll forego the benefits of 1.10 in favor of IQ.

FW 1.01 can be downloaded here... Pentax Q Firmware Update v1.01 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

And for your convenience, here's 1.10... Pentax Q Firmware Version 1.10 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com
11-03-2012, 05:30 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
Good news... In light of ndjedinak's preliminary discovery (see the first post in this thread) anyone who fears the latest firmware version 1.10 is too much of a step backwards can revert back to 1.01! I`ll run my own tests to see if they concur with ndjedinak's results and if so, I`ll forego the benefits of 1.10 in favor of IQ.

FW 1.01 can be downloaded here... Pentax Q Firmware Update v1.01 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

And for your convenience, here's 1.10... Pentax Q Firmware Version 1.10 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com
Thanks for posting the links! I haven't successfully mailed the firmware to JHD so that is very helpful.

Yes, you can absolutely revert back (and forth), as I described initially.

I shot with FW1.1 late at night Halloween, and the new heaver in-camera NR is very noticeable. You lose almost all fine details over ISO 1000

That said, it is a mixed bag. Focusing is definitely faster and more reliable in low light.
11-03-2012, 06:14 PM   #27
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
I have a busy week ahead of me, but I run my own tests and resport back.
11-15-2012, 07:43 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 186
Original Poster
I have done some RAW testing since posting this thread. Certainly the folks who mentioned RAW PP are correct that there's a lot in those Q RAWs that the JPEG engine doesn't drag out. For me, I find the break over point to be about ISO640. Up to 640, the JPEG engine does just as well as ACR or Raw Therapee (provided you set it up well). Over and including 640 RAW is preferable, and I'd say over ISO 1250 RAW is necessary.

I post processed some really high ISO shots and I'm pretty astonished what I could get out of the RAWs. Here's an ISO 2500 shot from Halloween trick-or-treating:



I haven't touched luminance noise at all, just chrominance. You could easily reduce grain a little if you are grain averse (I am not). The JPEG engine made a waxy mess of this shot, with my wife and daughters faces looking like they belonged in tussauds. Here's a JPEG shot seconds before; its not a 1:1 comparison but you can get an idea:



At ISO 125-320, I see little benefit to using RAW with the intent of post-processing, as the JPEG engine does very well at low ISOs (even if FW1.1 removes more luminance than I'd like now, obscuring detail). Of course, RAW has benefits, even for Q JPEG shooters, and if you want to PP, the option is there.

Something else I'd like to mention, and perhaps I will do a longer write up someday, is that the Q reminds me very much of my Nikon D200. Up to ISO 640, the Q actually performs quite similarly at a RAW level, with even BETTER luminance grain (the D200 sometimes "clumps" it's grain). Chrominance is a little higher than the D200 over ISO320, but with modern NR technology you'd never know. The "feeling" of images is quite similar. This is astonishing to me! A camera I can hold in the palm of my hand, which is essentially equal to a nice DSLR that I dragged around the world a few times. Sweet!
11-15-2012, 06:31 PM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,225
Cool post and pics ndjedinak. You have done a good job of processing the Q images. Agree that the Q has nice grain vs many other cameras.

Ctein, wrote a fascinating article on high ISO processing. His technique was to shoot Raw + jpeg and let the camera do noise reduction on the jpeg. Then he would use a 3rd party image editing program to apply noise reduction to the Raw file. Next he would merge the jpeg & Raw. Since the noise reduction was different in the two he would gain about 1 full step of ISO quality. He did this for M43 but it should work for the Q. Have you tried this? I want to work on it this winter.
thanks
barondla
11-15-2012, 08:09 PM   #30
Veteran Member
wanderography's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hayward, California, USA
Posts: 567
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Considering that the Q's sensor is so small, unless one wants quick snaps it is pretty pointless to be just shooting with jpeg when one could get the best possible results shooting RAW. Imo the Q's jpeg rendition is just so-so, no matter what firmware version, new or old.
I agree, that was one of the advantages of the Q, small sensor camera that shoots RAW, I feel if you shoot jpeg your better off with WG-2 it's more pocketable does everything the Q can do and more, except change lenses and shoot RAW. The Qs JPEGs are not even close to it's RAW output...
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!
base, camera, contrast, detail, firmware, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, settings, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any more undocumented features of the K-5? tram57 Pentax K-5 4 03-12-2013 05:53 AM
firmware K-01? i83N Pentax K-01 5 08-31-2012 12:31 PM
K5 firmware available rechmbrs Pentax News and Rumors 14 11-19-2010 05:25 PM
Undocumented workers pay our bills ;) jeffkrol General Talk 30 09-06-2010 02:00 PM
Undocumented auto-focus feature? Ivan Glisin Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-20-2007 11:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 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