Q (original) vs Q7 opinions?

ChopperCharles · 10-28-2013, 10:02 PM

I not only have a Pentax Q, I have two - one black and one white. (The white came with the 01 prime and the black with the 02 zoom -- was cheaper than buying the lens alone!)

So... is it worth upgrading to the Q7 for the larger sensor? Or is that just a waste of money?
Q seemed pretty worthless for low-light shots, until I found lightroom and raw files. Now i can get decent results out of it. But wondering if it's worth the expense of another upgrade... especially since I really like the handling of my all-metal Q...

Charles.

Last edited by ChopperCharles; 10-28-2013 at 10:23 PM. Reason: Because I meant Q7 apparently. Whatever the new one is. Dammit.

Adam · 10-28-2013, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by ChopperCharles

I not only have a Q, I have two - one black and one white. (The white came with the 01 prime and the black with the 02 zoom -- was cheaper than buying the lens alone!)

So... is it worth upgrading to the Q10 for the larger sensor? Or is that just a waste of money?
Q seemed pretty worthless for low-light shots, until I found lightroom and raw files. Now i can get decent results out of it. But wondering if it's worth the expense of another upgrade... especially since I really like the handling of my all-metal Q...

Charles.

The Q10 has the same sensor as the Q, so the image quality is basically the same. Some say the Q10 is actually worse due to stronger NR in JPEG mode.

If you want to read about the Q vs the Q7, which does have a larger sensor, see our review:
Pentax Q7 Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

ChopperCharles · 10-28-2013, 10:22 PM

Wait, the 7 is the new one, not the 10?

Whatever the Q is, vs the new one with the bigger sensor. I will never understand Pentax's naming convention. Fixed original post....

Charles.

Adam · 10-28-2013, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by ChopperCharles

Wait, the 7 is the new one, not the 10?

Whatever the Q is, vs the new one with the bigger sensor. I will never understand Pentax's naming convention. Fixed original post....

Charles.

It goes Q -> Q10 -> Q7. Seems that there isn't much of a naming convention at the moment!

In any case, the review should give you plenty of insight into the performance of the Q7.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Sandy Hancock · 10-28-2013, 11:16 PM

I have both. The Q7 blows the Q out of the water for low light performance. I also prefer the wider angles of view it gives to each of the lenses.
I have kept the Q for aesthetic and sentimental reasons, and because it provides more magnification when used with the Q-K adaptor. I sold my Q10.

zany225 · 10-28-2013, 11:18 PM

I would guess it's probably go follow the series of DSLR in the future like, Q --> Q10 --> Q7 --> Q5 --> Q3 (or Q5IIs then Q3)

Just my guess.

**crewl1** · 10-28-2013, 11:31 PM

I had two Qs and sold one to buy the Q7.

I have not used the remaining Q since buying the Q7 - the image quality and responsiveness is so much better with the Q7.

Like Sandy I am holding onto the Q for sentimental reasons but I think it will be gathering dust on the shelf now.

**LaurenOE** · 10-29-2013, 06:44 AM

While I built a complete Q system around the original Q, the K-01 with it's native K mount support, took the place of the Q in my small grab and go kit.

Besides being 16mp, the K-01 uses the same batteries as my K5 (and soon to have K3).

When the Q7 comes down in price I might get one.

What happened?

I could never find a decent way to take all the Q stuff with me.
I tried several different bags, but nothing was designed for small lenses and a tiny camera.

Probably the biggest thing that made me stop using the Q was battery life.

Absolutely abysmal.

ChopperCharles · 10-29-2013, 06:57 AM

I don't have any problems with my Q battery life, and batteries are cheap. I get way more mileage out of my Q batteries than my K-30 batteries. As for bags, I got a small Optio bag, which can hold the Q, two batteries, several memory cards, and one additional lens. Can't haul all the lenses, but it's great for an 01/02 combo, or my preferred an 01/fisheye combo.

Note that the Optio bag will fit a K-01 with wrist strap and 40mm XS lens, and more or less nothing else, if you remove all the dividers. So that gives you an idea how big it is.

Charles.

**LaurenOE** · 10-29-2013, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by ChopperCharles

I don't have any problems with my Q battery life, and batteries are cheap. I get way more mileage out of my Q batteries than my K-30 batteries. As for bags, I got a small Optio bag, which can hold the Q, two batteries, several memory cards, and one additional lens. Can't haul all the lenses, but it's great for an 01/02 combo, or my preferred an 01/fisheye combo.

Note that the Optio bag will fit a K-01 with wrist strap and 40mm XS lens, and more or less nothing else, if you remove all the dividers. So that gives you an idea how big it is.

Charles.

Yep. I have two of the "optio" bags. They were the only bags that seemed to work.
However, with the K to Q adapter and a few manual K lenses, I had to go back to a back pack, and since the magnification/crop of the adapter, I then had to take along a tripod.

Then it became clear that the Q, as for being my "lightweight" kit, became just another kit.

I love the Q, it's just more toy than tool.

ChopperCharles · 10-29-2013, 08:26 AM

I'm so-so about my Q. I don't love my Q because I do a *lot* of low-light photography, and it's not a suitable tool for that. But I do love it because it's always with me, and it's much higher quality than my iPhone could ever hope to be. With Lightroom high ISO is usable. I can go for a slightly grainy film look from the raw files, instead of a horribly smoothed and noise-reduced look from the jpegs. But it's still not ideal. It'd be nice to have a little more low light performance in the small package.

As for the adapted lenses... I haven't really found a lens combination that works really WELL as an adapted lens. They're all abysmally soft wide open, and the whole point is to have a fast super tele lens. If they're not remarkably soft, they have excessive purple fringing. (Often times both). Coupled with the poor ISO performance, difficulty focusing, and jello effect from an adapter without a shutter... well that means adapted shooting is altogether more trouble than it's worth to me. So my Q is a "I don't really want to carry around a big honkin' camera bag today" camera for me. It also accompanies me on motorcycle trips.

Charles.

**crewl1** · 10-29-2013, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by ChopperCharles

I haven't really found a lens combination that works really WELL as an adapted lens.

The DA*300 is the perfect combo on the Q.

From your set of lenses the only one I have is the Tam 28-75 and I have not tested it on the Q, not sure why.

The Q7 produces slightly better results than the Q when I tested it with the DA*300, which was already pretty good.

Since the Q7 has a larger sensor it may help with some of your lenses that start in the diffraction range on the Q, but I don't think the difference will be earth shattering.

Any lens bad tendencies will still be amplified with the Q7.

For me the Q7 (like the Q) is also my small kit when I don't want to carry the larger K5 and lenses, or when I want to do serious telephoto with a tripod and gimbal.

**monochrome** · 10-29-2013, 08:52 AM

I carry my Q everywhere I can't or don't want to carry a dSLR.

I have the 01 mounted and the 06 in the slot (in the Optio bag) plus two betteries. My wife carries Q / 02 in her purse with an Eye-Fi Mobi (which is very fast) synced to her phone. She does much more social media posting than I do.

I carry an Eye-Fi X-Pro card loaded, synced to my phone, for the jpeg's only, and an extra 32Mb card. That just about covers all the power-snap-shot uses I can think of with much better IQ than a phone or compact could ever hope to produce. If social media or a blog site is the final display location this set up is really good and so flexible that I can make images a phone user can't even dream of.

Q can make printable images with some work. The question is really when would you use Q instead of a K5II / K3 for the same shot?

ChopperCharles · 10-29-2013, 09:45 AM

When I want to be discreet, mostly. When I don't want to worry about a $800 camera and $450 lens walking away while I'm dancing or otherwise occupied as well.

Charles.

lytrytyr · 10-29-2013, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by ChopperCharles

I haven't really found a lens combination that works really WELL as an adapted lens. They're all abysmally soft wide open, and the whole point is to have a fast super tele lens. If they're not remarkably soft, they have excessive purple fringing. (Often times both). Coupled with the poor ISO performance, difficulty focusing, and jello effect from an adapter without a shutter... well that means adapted shooting is altogether more trouble than it's worth to me.

I've been very pleased with the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 on the Pentax K2Q adapter.
It's already sharp wide open, no diffraction effects at f/3.5,
and it's small enough to make hand-held shooting feasible.

10-28-2013, 10:02 PM	#1
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 953	Q (original) vs Q7 opinions? I not only have a Pentax Q, I have two - one black and one white. (The white came with the 01 prime and the black with the 02 zoom -- was cheaper than buying the lens alone!) So... is it worth upgrading to the Q7 for the larger sensor? Or is that just a waste of money? Q seemed pretty worthless for low-light shots, until I found lightroom and raw files. Now i can get decent results out of it. But wondering if it's worth the expense of another upgrade... especially since I really like the handling of my all-metal Q... Charles. Last edited by ChopperCharles; 10-28-2013 at 10:23 PM. Reason: Because I meant Q7 apparently. Whatever the new one is. Dammit.

10-28-2013, 10:04 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Originally posted by ChopperCharles I not only have a Q, I have two - one black and one white. (The white came with the 01 prime and the black with the 02 zoom -- was cheaper than buying the lens alone!) So... is it worth upgrading to the Q10 for the larger sensor? Or is that just a waste of money? Q seemed pretty worthless for low-light shots, until I found lightroom and raw files. Now i can get decent results out of it. But wondering if it's worth the expense of another upgrade... especially since I really like the handling of my all-metal Q... Charles. The Q10 has the same sensor as the Q, so the image quality is basically the same. Some say the Q10 is actually worse due to stronger NR in JPEG mode. If you want to read about the Q vs the Q7, which does have a larger sensor, see our review: Pentax Q7 Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Q lens equivalents for Q/Q10 vs Q7	Docrwm	Pentax Q	41	06-27-2013 03:05 PM
Q vs Q10	Lowell Goudge	Pentax Q	10	03-31-2013 02:25 PM
Q10 vs Q	mdodrill	Pentax Q	8	02-26-2013 01:16 PM
Q vs Q10?	Sagitta	Pentax Q	10	01-30-2013 05:52 PM
Q10 arrives. Q10 vs Q comparison images.	barondla	Pentax Q	6	10-29-2012 09:58 PM

10-28-2013, 10:22 PM	#3
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 953 Original Poster	Wait, the 7 is the new one, not the 10? Whatever the Q is, vs the new one with the bigger sensor. I will never understand Pentax's naming convention. Fixed original post.... Charles.

10-28-2013, 11:09 PM	#4
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Originally posted by ChopperCharles Wait, the 7 is the new one, not the 10? Whatever the Q is, vs the new one with the bigger sensor. I will never understand Pentax's naming convention. Fixed original post.... Charles. It goes Q -> Q10 -> Q7. Seems that there isn't much of a naming convention at the moment! In any case, the review should give you plenty of insight into the performance of the Q7. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-28-2013, 11:16 PM	#5
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,269	I have both. The Q7 blows the Q out of the water for low light performance. I also prefer the wider angles of view it gives to each of the lenses. I have kept the Q for aesthetic and sentimental reasons, and because it provides more magnification when used with the Q-K adaptor. I sold my Q10.

10-28-2013, 11:18 PM	#6
zany225 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Corvallis, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 247	I would guess it's probably go follow the series of DSLR in the future like, Q --> Q10 --> Q7 --> Q5 --> Q3 (or Q5IIs then Q3) Just my guess.

10-28-2013, 11:31 PM	#7
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	I had two Qs and sold one to buy the Q7. I have not used the remaining Q since buying the Q7 - the image quality and responsiveness is so much better with the Q7. Like Sandy I am holding onto the Q for sentimental reasons but I think it will be gathering dust on the shelf now.

10-29-2013, 06:44 AM	#8
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	While I built a complete Q system around the original Q, the K-01 with it's native K mount support, took the place of the Q in my small grab and go kit. Besides being 16mp, the K-01 uses the same batteries as my K5 (and soon to have K3). When the Q7 comes down in price I might get one. What happened? I could never find a decent way to take all the Q stuff with me. I tried several different bags, but nothing was designed for small lenses and a tiny camera. Probably the biggest thing that made me stop using the Q was battery life. Absolutely abysmal.

10-29-2013, 06:57 AM	#9
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 953 Original Poster	I don't have any problems with my Q battery life, and batteries are cheap. I get way more mileage out of my Q batteries than my K-30 batteries. As for bags, I got a small Optio bag, which can hold the Q, two batteries, several memory cards, and one additional lens. Can't haul all the lenses, but it's great for an 01/02 combo, or my preferred an 01/fisheye combo. Note that the Optio bag will fit a K-01 with wrist strap and 40mm XS lens, and more or less nothing else, if you remove all the dividers. So that gives you an idea how big it is. Charles.

10-29-2013, 07:10 AM	#10
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Originally posted by ChopperCharles I don't have any problems with my Q battery life, and batteries are cheap. I get way more mileage out of my Q batteries than my K-30 batteries. As for bags, I got a small Optio bag, which can hold the Q, two batteries, several memory cards, and one additional lens. Can't haul all the lenses, but it's great for an 01/02 combo, or my preferred an 01/fisheye combo. Note that the Optio bag will fit a K-01 with wrist strap and 40mm XS lens, and more or less nothing else, if you remove all the dividers. So that gives you an idea how big it is. Charles. Yep. I have two of the "optio" bags. They were the only bags that seemed to work. However, with the K to Q adapter and a few manual K lenses, I had to go back to a back pack, and since the magnification/crop of the adapter, I then had to take along a tripod. Then it became clear that the Q, as for being my "lightweight" kit, became just another kit. I love the Q, it's just more toy than tool.

10-29-2013, 08:26 AM	#11
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 953 Original Poster	I'm so-so about my Q. I don't love my Q because I do a lot of low-light photography, and it's not a suitable tool for that. But I do love it because it's always with me, and it's much higher quality than my iPhone could ever hope to be. With Lightroom high ISO is usable. I can go for a slightly grainy film look from the raw files, instead of a horribly smoothed and noise-reduced look from the jpegs. But it's still not ideal. It'd be nice to have a little more low light performance in the small package. As for the adapted lenses... I haven't really found a lens combination that works really WELL as an adapted lens. They're all abysmally soft wide open, and the whole point is to have a fast super tele lens. If they're not remarkably soft, they have excessive purple fringing. (Often times both). Coupled with the poor ISO performance, difficulty focusing, and jello effect from an adapter without a shutter... well that means adapted shooting is altogether more trouble than it's worth to me. So my Q is a "I don't really want to carry around a big honkin' camera bag today" camera for me. It also accompanies me on motorcycle trips. Charles.

10-29-2013, 08:44 AM	#12
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by ChopperCharles I haven't really found a lens combination that works really WELL as an adapted lens. The DA300 is the perfect combo on the Q. From your set of lenses the only one I have is the Tam 28-75 and I have not tested it on the Q, not sure why. The Q7 produces slightly better results than the Q when I tested it with the DA300, which was already pretty good. Since the Q7 has a larger sensor it may help with some of your lenses that start in the diffraction range on the Q, but I don't think the difference will be earth shattering. Any lens bad tendencies will still be amplified with the Q7. For me the Q7 (like the Q) is also my small kit when I don't want to carry the larger K5 and lenses, or when I want to do serious telephoto with a tripod and gimbal.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-29-2013, 08:52 AM	#13
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I carry my Q everywhere I can't or don't want to carry a dSLR. I have the 01 mounted and the 06 in the slot (in the Optio bag) plus two betteries. My wife carries Q / 02 in her purse with an Eye-Fi Mobi (which is very fast) synced to her phone. She does much more social media posting than I do. I carry an Eye-Fi X-Pro card loaded, synced to my phone, for the jpeg's only, and an extra 32Mb card. That just about covers all the power-snap-shot uses I can think of with much better IQ than a phone or compact could ever hope to produce. If social media or a blog site is the final display location this set up is really good and so flexible that I can make images a phone user can't even dream of. Q can make printable images with some work. The question is really when would you use Q instead of a K5II / K3 for the same shot?

10-29-2013, 09:45 AM	#14
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 953 Original Poster	When I want to be discreet, mostly. When I don't want to worry about a $800 camera and $450 lens walking away while I'm dancing or otherwise occupied as well. Charles.

10-29-2013, 10:09 AM	#15
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by ChopperCharles I haven't really found a lens combination that works really WELL as an adapted lens. They're all abysmally soft wide open, and the whole point is to have a fast super tele lens. If they're not remarkably soft, they have excessive purple fringing. (Often times both). Coupled with the poor ISO performance, difficulty focusing, and jello effect from an adapter without a shutter... well that means adapted shooting is altogether more trouble than it's worth to me. I've been very pleased with the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 on the Pentax K2Q adapter. It's already sharp wide open, no diffraction effects at f/3.5, and it's small enough to make hand-held shooting feasible.