[post_eos]

I say #2 is Q. Very close though, looks good.

I agree, but I cheated and checked the EXIF . They are pretty close though. In my experience the Q is a little more contrasty and harsh when compared to the K5 / K01 but these two images don't really show that.

[bullitt_60]

I say #2 is Q. Very close though, looks good.

Yup.

I agree, but I cheated and checked the EXIF . They are pretty close though. In my experience the Q is a little more contrasty and harsh when compared to the K5 / K01 but these two images don't really show that.

I thought I sufficiently hid the exif... how'd you do that? Both images were shot RAW and processed to my taste. At the end I just had to change the color temp of the Q shot. They were processed to look alike, so that's why there is little difference.

[post_eos]

I thought I sufficiently hid the exif... how'd you do that?

The lens data was still in the exif. I was able to see it with fxif under firefox.

[drougge]

The lens data was still in the exif. I was able to see it with fxif under firefox.

Strictly speaking it's in the XMP block (though there is an EXIF block as well, with just a thumbnail in it).

The complete list of APP blocks in the file is:

7490 bytes "Exif" APP1 block
8358 bytes "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" APP1 block
9564 bytes "Photoshop 3.0" APP13 block
3158 bytes "ICC_PROFILE" APP2 block
12 bytes "Adobe" APP14 block

(Not that I imagine the exact details will interest anyone.)

[post_eos]

(Not that I imagine the exact details will interest anyone.)

Au contraire. I'm very interested. I checked out your code earlier for combining DNG files. Just glanced over it but I'm sure I'll be using it in the future. I'm just starting to look into graphic file formats. I'm a boring old corporate database programmer but I'd like to do some of my own stuff for photo manipulation.

[bullitt_60]

The lens data was still in the exif. I was able to see it with fxif under firefox.

Weird. It's all blank on my copy and exif viewer through Chrome. Oh well... cheater.

[bullitt_60]

Strictly speaking it's in the XMP block (though there is an EXIF block as well, with just a thumbnail in it).

The complete list of APP blocks in the file is:

7490 bytes "Exif" APP1 block
8358 bytes "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" APP1 block
9564 bytes "Photoshop 3.0" APP13 block
3158 bytes "ICC_PROFILE" APP2 block
12 bytes "Adobe" APP14 block

(Not that I imagine the exact details will interest anyone.)

I don't speak that language.

[ChrisJ]

Here you go first one is Jpeg




This one is Raw




This was shot first time out, needless to say I don't shoot Jpeg anymore.

It gets better, take bracketed shots and blend them together in Photomatix Pro and you get this




Even in low light you get this




Tripod required for this one.

Chris

[Steve.Ledger]

This was shot first time out, needless to say I don't shoot Jpeg anymore.

Yes indeed, shoot JPG and lose a lot of detail for one thing.
I'll use my phone for snapping JPGs

[gda13]

So my newegg Q with 02 lens special arrived today and although I haven't really had time to put it through its paces I took a few test shots as I wanted to see a comparison between the in camera raw processing vs what I may typically do in LR4. So the following shots were taken handheld as raw in Av mode and then converted in camera to jpegs with only the lens correction applied then I took the same raw files and ran them through LR4 with some quick and dirty light processing and utilizing LR4s lens profile correction as well (great feature btw). Surprisingly the raw files had plenty of head room to work with and I could definitely have pushed them harder...there are plenty of subtle but noticeable details in them. This is by no means a rigorous scientific test but rather is the result of a general curiosity over how I might typically use raw files in LR. I apologize in advance for the bland subject matter in the photos but understandably I couldn't wait to just try this little marvel out. Also I will mention that the differences are more pronounced with the full size images as I am sure many have experienced for themselves in their own comparisons. So for each picture the in-camera processed raw comes first.

[crewl1]

Thanks for the comparisons looks like there is a lot of room to work with those raw files.

[gda13]

Thanks for the comparisons looks like there is a lot of room to work with those raw files.

Yes I agree , when one considers how small this sensor is (0.43" or 6.17 x 4.55mm) this is quite amazing. I have an advanced P&S that also shoots raw it has a sensor size of 0.59" or 7.5 x 5.5mm and the Q definitely gives it a run for its money and so far in my limited experience with the Q I would say I can squeeze even more details out of the raw files. However keeping in mind that I paid 1/2 the price for the Q than I did for my P&S a couple of years ago, its smaller size, and considering the flexibility with the addition of an astonishing array of lenses...to me it is no contest. I will say that the P&S has some excellent options and algorithms that produce very nice jpegs straight out of the camera but from what I have seen here thanks to you and others is that the Q's jpeg production is no slouch either and can be fine tuned to get some really great results.

[Mikesul]

These are excellent examples of what can be done. I am repeatedly amazed by the quality of the 01 lens. Recently, in a fit of frugality I decided to sell all my Q lenses and just keep the camera. That lasted about a week until I just had to have the 01. Seller regret. Buyer regret. I am a mess with LBA.

[gda13]

And here I am wishing I could get a 01 without having to resort to buying a kit which basically costs just a bit more than getting the lens by itself.

[bullitt_60]

And here I am wishing I could get a 01 without having to resort to buying a kit which basically costs just a bit more than getting the lens by itself.

Supposedly it is going to be available this month. Surely they can release the Q10 and let it go too far without having a prime (06 is OOS in most places as well) available... surely?