[GibbyTheMole]

Hey all.

I'm really wanting a Q to explore the super-tele possibilities with my longer K-mount lenses, and I'm thinking of selling my *ist DS (my current "grab & go" camera) & a spare superzoom to fund the purchase. I already have 2 other DSLRs (both K-x) as my main cameras. Here's the question:

Will the Q zoom kit be a good replacement for the *ist DS as a "grab & go"? Can I expect as good IQ from the Q as the *ist DS?

If I'm getting a Q, I want to do it now before the good deals on the zoom kit are gone.

Cheers,
Bobbo :-)

[Adam]

The Q will work well for super tele shots, but I honestly can't recommend the Q as a walkaround camera. The AF is slow and there's shutter lag- making it seem much slower than even the *ist DS overall. The IQ should be comparable at the lowest ISO, but after ISO 400 or so the Q really starts losing detail because of the small size of its sensor.

The Q will likely get you much better IQ than your phone, though, so if you're going somewhere where you can't bring a DSLR, then it'll come in handy. As for super tele shots, they pretty much require a tripod, which means you'll want to get the Pentax adapter and the corresponding tripod mount.

I have the Q and the Pentax adapter at the moment and will be posting a hands-on video later today, hopefully.

[Riv]

As to grab-n-go, I'd say yes seeing you have 2 K-x's. You'll gain a huge advantage size/weight wise (when using the native lenses). IQ wise, I'm leaning towards no. I have a DS on loan to my sister, but there were times I liked the images better from the DS than I did the K7 mainly at the lowest ISO's. You mentioned super-tele, in that case you'll likely get better with the Q vs cropping the DS files. Part of the problem compairing the 2 is they are different sensor types let alone sizes.

I've had my Q for about 2 months and the K5 for about 7 months, my shot count on the Q is double the K5 if that's an indication of anything. Mainly because the Q can go anywhere with me, and much less burden to carry around so I take the Q more often even when I could have taken the K5 kit. My biggest complaint about the Q would be battery life, not IQ.

[GibbyTheMole]

My biggest complaint about the Q would be battery life, not IQ.

So how many shots do you typically get on a charge? (I could always pick up a couple of spares to have charged at the ready...)

Just subjectively speaking, how much worse than the *ist DS are we talking, IQ-wise?

The AF is slow and there's shutter lag- making it seem much slower than even the *ist DS overall.

I wouldn't be doing much action stuff with it. Mainly photos of static or nearly static subjects.

[Adam]

I wouldn't be doing much action stuff with it. Mainly photos of static or nearly static subjects.

I had a hard time getting pics of my girlfriend in the kitchen You basically need to be in MF if you want to capture the right moment!

[mike.hiran]

I had a hard time getting pics of my girlfriend in the kitchen You basically need to be in MF if you want to capture the right moment!

Personally, I find the AF to be decent in all but very dark conditions. In good light, it's pretty quick. But there is a bit of shutter lag as Adam mentioned so getting timing right for candids is more difficult.

Here's a link to a set going from daylight to dark... this set will also give you an idea about what happens to the image quality at high ISO.
Harvest Pot Luck 2012 - a set on Flickr

The focus peaking in the latest firmware update helps focus a lot. Also it added SR when you are using lenses via adaptor - and it works quite well and I don't even own the Pentax adapter.
Here's a shot handheld using a 100 macro



Image quality wise to a DSLR sensor... I don't think I'd go that far. The quality is good and better than say my point and shoot enthusiast type camera (panasonic lx-3).

[Riv]

So how many shots do you typically get on a charge? (I could always pick up a couple of spares to have charged at the ready...)

Just subjectively speaking, how much worse than the *ist DS are we talking, IQ-wise?



I wouldn't be doing much action stuff with it. Mainly photos of static or nearly static subjects.

Battery life has to many factors to give a solid number, most say around 200 shots. Here's a thread I started a bit back about it gives results of testing time wise vs shot wise.

Seeing you have the DS and not the Q, and I have access to both. Here's the Q vs DS with simular lenses fully extended DA50-200mm vs Q 06.

---

Last edited by Riv; 12-22-2012 at 12:22 PM. Reason: Updated image

[GibbyTheMole]

Seeing you have the DS and not the Q, and I have access to both. Here's the Q vs DS with simular lenses fully extended DA50-200mm vs Q 06.

Petite little bugger, ain't it? I appreciate the pics! 200 shots on a charge isn't horrible. I can just pick up some spare batteries.

I don't suppose you've happened to shoot the same thing with both cameras with the same setting for a comparison, have you? (I do that sort of thing for reference when checking out photo gear.)

[Riv]

Just subjectively speaking, how much worse than the *ist DS are we talking, IQ-wise?

Sorry, I avoided this on purpose as it's been a while since I shot the DS. I going to try to get you a shot from both, might take a little bit her battery in the DS is dead.

[GibbyTheMole]

I going to try to get you a shot from both, might take a little bit her battery in the DS is dead.

Hey Riv. I appreciate that immensely! As it is, I get great results from my DS & of course, the K-x's. I just don't want to regret my purchase, if I buy the Q. A couple of comparative shots at 100% would be a huge help! :-)

[stormtech]

Hey Riv. I appreciate that immensely! As it is, I get great results from my DS & of course, the K-x's. I just don't want to regret my purchase, if I buy the Q. A couple of comparative shots at 100% would be a huge help! :-)

If you are going to compare shots of an APS-C sensor camera to a 1/2.3", especially at 100%, you will not be happy. That is not what the Q is about at all.

[GibbyTheMole]

If you are going to compare shots of an APS-C sensor camera to a 1/2.3", especially at 100%, you will not be happy. That is not what the Q is about at all.

I get what you're saying. But a graphic showing the size of the sensors doesn't tell me as much as looking at the finished photos will. Besides, you're talking about a fairly new 12MP 1/2.3 sensor vs. a several year old 6MP APS-C sensor. Sensors might have improved enough to kind of bridge the gap some. Or not. I dunno... That's why the pics will be helpful.

[hnikesch]

When I first got my Q I did a test of a common image using my Kr, Canon S100 and my Q see link below. The Kr shares a sensor with your Kx

Hans

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/204952-how-does-q-compare-my-other-cameras.html

[Heinrich Lohmann]

So how many shots do you typically get on a charge? (I could always pick up a couple of spares to have charged at the ready...)

Just subjectively speaking, how much worse than the *ist DS are we talking, IQ-wise?



I wouldn't be doing much action stuff with it. Mainly photos of static or nearly static subjects.

Have a look here:https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/204193-took-wifes-q-volley-ball-tournament.html

Might not be ideal, I do prefer my K5 for it, but it is doable. I did use manual focus for these.

[GibbyTheMole]

When I first got my Q I did a test of a common image using my Kr, Canon S100 and my Q

Helpful link. Thanks much... I expected the K-x (K-r) to trounce the Q. The difference between the Q & the *ist DS should hypothetically at least, be less drastic. I found a nice Q image gallery here with full size images, and comparing some of the test images of exactly the same subjects between the Q & the K100D at dcresource, the IQ of the Q is somewhat less than the K100D, but I think some post processing could lessen the gap.

From what I've seen so far, the IQ on the Q is surprising, considering the sensor size.