Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-12-2013, 10:56 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
Given the pixel quality on the current Q with most adapted lenses I doubt you're sacrificing much, if anything, from this pixel size increase.

.
Hi drouge,

I think not. the 1/1.7" BSI CMOS shows little if any significant improvement over a non AA filtered 1/2.3" BSI CMOS in reality if DXOMark scores for the MX1 and Q10 are any indication (I'm not suggesting that I rely on them -- they just quantify and confirm what I've seen from actual image samples). IMO, going to the larger format is essentially a sideways move IQ wise (except for some possible advantage at higher ISO) -- not really a significant upgrade (except in the minds of the bigger must be better crowd). If this is indeed the case, then the loss of over 20% in reach is very significant if FOV advantage from crop factor is a high priority for one's use for a Q, as it is for me.

I'd be curious to see some examples of your claim of significant difference in pixel quality between the two sensor formats, and how this would negate a very significant difference of over 20% in reach at long FL EQs.

Scott

06-12-2013, 11:35 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,779
QuoteOriginally posted by StigVidar Quote
The lens seems to be different from my 01 lens. The lens element in the front is smaller and more recessed on this one.
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
(...)

It looks the same to me, are you maybe looking right through the front element without noticing it? Something behind it is rather more noticeable in this image.
Because of the lens hood put on it may be?
06-12-2013, 11:55 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
I think not. the 1/1.7" BSI CMOS shows little if any significant improvement over a non AA filtered 1/2.3" BSI CMOS in reality if DXOMark scores for the MX1 and Q10 are any indication (I'm not suggesting that I rely on them -- they just quantify and confirm what I've seen from actual image samples). IMO, going to the larger format is essentially a sideways move IQ wise (except for some possible advantage at higher ISO) -- not really a significant upgrade (except in the minds of the bigger must be better crowd). If this is indeed the case, then the loss of over 20% in reach is very significant if FOV advantage from crop factor is a high priority for one's use for a Q, as it is for me.

I'd be curious to see some examples of your claim of significant difference in pixel quality between the two sensor formats, and how this would negate a very significant difference of over 20% in reach at long FL EQs.
I make no such claim. I have never looked at an image taken with the new sensor. The claim I make is about adapted lenses on the current Q. I claim that these are never pixel-sharp. You can scale them down a bit and not lose any detail. As a consequence, you can take these images on a sensor with bigger pixels without losing details. Or to put it differently, crop an 8MP image from the new sensor and scale it to 12MP, and you have lost nothing compared to taking the 12MP image from the original Q.

This might not quite apply to the native lenses, but mostly I think it will work out the same there. Assuming of course that the new sensor isn't worse per area in any other way than having fewer pixels.
06-12-2013, 12:37 PM   #19
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,246
Looking at the difference between 1/2.3 and 1/1.7 I did a test late last year looking at my Kr with DAL 35 f2.4, My S100 (1/1.7) and the Q with 01 all shot with close to the same effective focal length and cropped to the same image size and the 1/1.7 was only very slightly better than the Q. All are 12mp sensors.

Hans

Wouldn't you know it I picked up a new Q body before I read about the Q7, I think I would rather have the extra reach with the 1/2.3 sensor.

I should add the K30 to the mix to really stir it up (as Bob Marley would have put it).

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-r  Photo 
06-12-2013, 12:47 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
I make no such claim. I have never looked at an image taken with the new sensor. The claim I make is about adapted lenses on the current Q. I claim that these are never pixel-sharp. You can scale them down a bit and not lose any detail. As a consequence, you can take these images on a sensor with bigger pixels without losing details. Or to put it differently, crop an 8MP image from the new sensor and scale it to 12MP, and you have lost nothing compared to taking the 12MP image from the original Q.

This might not quite apply to the native lenses, but mostly I think it will work out the same there. Assuming of course that the new sensor isn't worse per area in any other way than having fewer pixels.
Hi drougge,

My experience does not correlate with your assumptions. I've always found that more optical reach trumps cropping for fine detail, unless, of course there is a substantial difference in IQ potential between sensors, and I've seen very little difference in IQ potential between the best of the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors so far, so I would assume that this will be the case with the Q7 vs the original Q. Some additional advantages for the extra optical reach are greater potential MF accuracy and metering accuracy.

You're welcome to theorize as much as you like. I will disagree until proven wrong with empirical evidence (actual images).

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; 06-12-2013 at 12:58 PM.
06-12-2013, 01:43 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
My experience does not correlate with your assumptions.
I think I'm only making one assumption, and one claim. The claim is that the current Q doesn't provide pixel perfection with adapted lenses. Since this is a negative claim I can't prove it (any problem could be me and not the equipment), but you could disprove it with an image where you did get pixel perfect results. That is, an image where each pixel really is contributing, and scaling it down even a little loses detail. (Scale to 8MP, I think that's how many pixels the Q7 looks like it will have in the area of the Q sensor.)

The assumption (good enough middle of sensor) is about an as yet unreleased camera, so we don't have any actual experience with it. I think it's reasonable to assume it won't be worse per area than the old one (except having fewer pixels, which will also affect the quality of the noise), but I could certainly be wrong. It's somewhat possible to judge this by looking at other cameras with what we think is the same sensor, but it's better to have the same lens (and be sure it's the same sensor).

QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
I've always found that more optical reach trumps cropping for fine detail, unless, of course there is a substantial difference in IQ potential between sensors, and I've seen very little difference in IQ potential between the best of the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors so far, so I would assume that this will be the case with the Q7 vs the original Q. Some additional advantages for the extra optical reach are greater potential MF accuracy and metering accuracy.
I agree with the statement about optical reach, but disagree about what it means. The same lens has the same optical reach regardless of sensor. Since I'm talking about putting the same lens in front of different sensors, both which I believe will out-resolve the lens, the results should be very similar.

Your point about accuracy seems true. In theory Pentax could provide a crop mode to give you this on the Q7, but I don't expect they will.

QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
You're welcome to theorize as much as you like. I will disagree until proven wrong with empirical evidence (actual images).
I'm not much of a long tele shooter, and my bad images will as I said prove nothing anyway. I've seen fine images from you using a DA55-300 on the Q recently, but I see no reason to believe they look sharp when pixel peeped (especially not the ones I'm thinking of, as they were all shot at high ISO).

I think at this point it might be worth remembering that we're arguing on the internet, and that this is not a particularly useful activity. I'll shut up now.
06-12-2013, 03:05 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Hi drougge,

You are correct about the same optical reach from the same lens different sensors. That was a dumb statement on my part.

Here is an example of what the Q can do with adapted lenses, but I don't think this is the best it can do. I've posted this shot before. First the downsized image:



I'm attaching a 100% crop from the original with no PP. It's ISO 125, so you might get a better idea of the IQ

Realize that this was shot handheld with the shutter button used to initiate exposure, so it definitely could be better with solid support actuated by remote, and my settings make a difference also. This was shot in jpeg, Natural, color tweaked a little in camera, with Custom Image Sharpness at -4, High ISO NR to Low. This was with the Q, JR K to Q adapter unmodified, DA 55-300 at 300mm f5.8. This is about a 4" long bird shot from about 15-17 feet (guesstimate). Remember that this is a consumer grade zoom that has been criticized for being a bit soft at 300mm.

You tell me if this is not reasonably sharp at the pixel level. I think it is. . . I have some very high end glass and some very good DSLRs and would be very happy to consistently get results like this from them if I could.

Scott
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
06-13-2013, 02:39 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
Realize that this was shot handheld with the shutter button used to initiate exposure, so it definitely could be better with solid support actuated by remote, and my settings make a difference also. This was shot in jpeg, Natural, color tweaked a little in camera, with Custom Image Sharpness at -4, High ISO NR to Low. This was with the Q, JR K to Q adapter unmodified, DA 55-300 at 300mm f5.8. This is about a 4" long bird shot from about 15-17 feet (guesstimate). Remember that this is a consumer grade zoom that has been criticized for being a bit soft at 300mm.

You tell me if this is not reasonably sharp at the pixel level. I think it is. . . I have some very high end glass and some very good DSLRs and would be very happy to consistently get results like this from them if I could.
It's fine for many purposes (the full image looks great), but it in no way shows the need for the tiny pixel pitch of the current sensor. (To show that, the crop would have to look as sharp (after sharpening) as the scaled down version, and it's not even close.)

It also looks like the forum scaled it down a little (900px, file name says 1024). Even assuming the file name is wrong, and scaling it to 720px, it's still obvious the sensor (in the Q7) would have out-resolved the lens. Which to me means the Q7 will give you exactly the same results if it provides a crop mode, and slightly worse handling if it doesn't.

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, function, ii, image, media, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, sensitivity, shutter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What features you want to add to the Q7? ElvisQ Pentax Q 27 06-13-2013 04:39 PM
47 percent according to Mitt jeffkrol General Talk 122 09-21-2012 02:12 PM
Reality according to Ann jeffkrol General Talk 11 08-30-2012 04:05 PM
According to Panasonic, K-5 AF is better than...D7000 and 7D Zav Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 07-17-2012 06:28 PM
Sarah Palin Thought The Queen Ran Britain, According To New Film jogiba General Talk 15 03-16-2012 06:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM. | 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