[mamethot]

Larry I would like to see your results, because mine could well be defective. I mean it's pretty obvious from the images I posted...

If it were the case, then a simple warranty return would probably make me happy...

[crewl1]

OK here is a quick test, first shot is a comparison at 1:1 in LR4 with the 01 (left) and 02 (right), then the samples.

Samples are JPEG straight from camera, custom image is set for natural, only the watermark was added in LR4.











Not sure if this a good subject and/or distance, but the images are consistent with my results in use, the 02 is right behind the 01 in IQ, with a very slight loss of detail only evident on close inspection.

I also noticed that the 02 has a slightly warmer color than the 01. All this could just be sample variation.

*Sorry I don't have/do test charts as I usually just go with my gut on whether I like how a lens produces images or not. Also apologies for the over expose. I should have watched that better but I did it quick.

[Riv]

Crewl1, that's closer to the results I see between mine. I think I read someplace that the 02 isn't the best choice for close-up shots. OK, I know read it and I think it was the 02 mentioned. :confused:

Edit: pulling that until I can find it again.

[ndjedinak]

I have done some side by side shots before and found much the same. Here's one:



Interestingly, since that test, I have picked up another Q double-lens kit. Our 2nd Q zoom is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the first; casual test shots show it perhaps equal to the 01. Operationally, the 2nd zoom is different; the zoom action is much less damped. I will try to do a series soon.

Close focus is definitely a weakness of the 02; especially so at the long end, where spherical aberration paints the image in a vintage haze:



!!

[Sdyor]

01 and 02...which is which? No peaking at the exif

[GibbyTheMole]

I dunno.. I'm pretty satisfied with the results from my 02:





IMO, the 02 is a pretty good performer & not deserving of the bum rap it gets. That said, I would like to have an 01 for the extra speed.

[Docrwm]

01 and 02...which is which? No peaking at the exif

As corner sharpness is one of the differences for my 01 & 02, I would need to know whether the shots were cropped.

[Sdyor]

No crop. Just reduced size to upload.

[hnikesch]

01 and 02...which is which? No peaking at the exif

I traded my 01 for an 02 last month because I never used the 01 and wanted something wider. Per photozone.de the 02 is very close to the 01 in sharpness at the wide and normal end of the zoom loosing a little at the tele end. Your post seems to show the same. I am very happy with the trade and now use the Q more with native lenses than before but I still not as often as I use it with adapted lenses. The 06 is on my radar.

Hans

[selar]

01 and 02...which is which? No peaking at the exif

I think the 01 lens image is slightly out of focus.

[Sdyor]

Both were taken on auto, so they should be in focus?

[selar]

Ah, should be, two words that have got me into trouble many times!

[ephophex]

I have done some side by side shots before and found much the same. Here's one:



Interestingly, since that test, I have picked up another Q double-lens kit. Our 2nd Q zoom is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the first; casual test shots show it perhaps equal to the 01. Operationally, the 2nd zoom is different; the zoom action is much less damped. I will try to do a series soon.

Close focus is definitely a weakness of the 02; especially so at the long end, where spherical aberration paints the image in a vintage haze:



!!

I apologize for resurrecting an old thread ndjedinak; but one of your comments was particularly relevant to a situation I have.

Quick background: I acquired a Q7 to function as my new go-to travel and festival camera. I've been taking some shots under various conditions to compare its performance to that of the camera I had previously bought for travel and parties, a Canon S95.

I was a bit surprised, however, when I took a series of shots at close focus (inside 8") with the 02 lens. In every case, the Canon provided finer detail. I turned down the noise reduction on the Q7 to its lowest setting; but inevitably, the Canon would out-resolve it. This was true at both ISO 400 and 800, and with both manual and autofocus. Also, it's not a subtle difference - the Canon's shots are significantly more detailed when viewed full size. At greater subject differences, however, the Q7 pulls even (and eventually ahead) in resolution.

So, I'm curious: does the 01 perform better than the 02 up close? I realize the Q isn't about pixel-peeping, and that it offers many, many features that the S95 does not; but I *do* take a fair number of close up shots, and would very much like to at least equal the performance I'm getting now out of my trusty Canon.

I'd greatly appreciate any feedback you (or anyone else, for that matter) might have on this. This little guy is fun to use, and I'd like to bandage this Achilles' heel.

[Sandy Hancock]

You might not have a particularly good copy. Mine does pretty well. My first 06 was terrible wide open at the long end, and only performed well stopped down to f/8.0. Its replacement is brilliant from the get-go, so there is quite a bit of variation.

02 @ 15mm on the Q7. Feel free to look at the 2048 image on flickr.

[raider]

Quick question. If there is a sample variation in the 02 lens, how does one go about it asking for an exchange when the seller/shop/Pentax store will invariably say that the variation is within lens design tolerances?