Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-31-2013, 11:45 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 89
Surprised we haven't heard anything about the telephoto macro lens they have as upcoming on the lens roadmap. That's what I'm anxious to hear more about.

11-01-2013, 06:53 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
What I'd like is a Q superzoom... Something like a 28-200 or 28-300 equivalent for the Q. For those times I want to go extremely light. Don't know if they could pull that off well, though.

QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Q is meant for scrapbook type of work by its own designers
I'd say it's quite a bit better than that. I've seen some staggeringly good shots of all kinds taken with the Q. There's at least one PF member (Pinholecam) who does some amazing stuff with the Q. Here's his flickr Q album.
11-01-2013, 08:56 AM   #18
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,350
From the pentax ricoh site:
QuoteQuote:
Wide-angle zoom
08 WIDE ZOOM The use of glass mold aspherical lens of three ", has been achieved with the lens length of the shortest about 38mm, the size and weight of about 75g weight in the Q mount zoom lens. Size and be able to carry it willingly, 35 mm Taking advantage of the angle of view of the 27mm equivalent from focal length 17.5mm in size conversion, you can use and narrow space that does not take the distance to the subject, such as landscape that emphasizes the sense of perspective is vast, in a variety of applications. further, aluminum cutting cam tube is adopted, and has realized the operation feeling of high-quality smooth.
3.8mm ~ 5.9mm (17.5 ~ 27mm equivalent 35mm format) F3.7 ~ 4 "
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/q7/lenses/index.html
11-01-2013, 09:37 AM   #19
Senior Member
bluefoam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 107
How wide is 17.5? This is the lens I've been waiting for. My use is for architectural interiors... Will it be wide enough?

11-01-2013, 09:45 AM   #20
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
3.8mm ~ 5.9mm (17.5 ~ 27mm equivalent 35mm format) F3.7 ~ 4 "
Note they are quoting Q7 conversion factor - on the Q it will be 20 - 33 mm equivalent.

Still pleased to see that Ricoh is surging ahead with the Q mount, as was told to us in the Q call a few months back.
11-01-2013, 10:29 AM   #21
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,350
21.28 on the q/q10 that's about 14mm aps-c equivalent. Still pretty wide. On the Q7 it's a aps-c 11.7-18 on the q-q10 a 14-22 aps-c equivalent
11-01-2013, 01:54 PM   #22
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote

I'd say it's quite a bit better than that. I've seen some staggeringly good shots of all kinds taken with the Q. There's at least one PF member (Pinholecam) who does some amazing stuff with the Q. Here's his flickr Q album.
It's meant that Pentax collects all the scrap around the floors, puts all in bags, writes it all in the book, and gives the book to its optical division to see what's available to make lenses.

Jokes aside, I know what Q is capable of, and only 01 prime lens truly shines. 02 is a dud compared to it.

Pentax Q zooms, even 06, are cheaply made, flimsy, they just ooze scrapyard quality. I'm sorry to say that, but they do. At least I had hoped 08 lens could be a faster wide prime of the 01 image quality (and slightly better construction), but they give us ultraslow zoom scrapyard lens.

What Pentax doesn't get for some reason, is that MX-1 lens, or a lens in any dedicated modern compact camera with 1/1.7" sensor, is far superior to 02 lens. And they sell Q in kits with 02. Actually, 02 is horrible compared to modern dedicated compact zoom lenses. Only 01 lens compares favourably in resulting images when compared to other compact cameras — which was visible from the DPR test, for example.

So in that focal range, from 28-80mm, Q gives absolutely no incentive for people to buy it (and substitute their compact camera), and is a total waste of a product line in that range. The most obvious purpose of the Q — possible higher quality interchangeable lenses for small sensor across the focal lengths — are not there. Now after the 07 lenscap (!), and 08 lens which turns out to be a slow zoom made to be superlight, and endless wait to see some sense in all this, I finally figure out that Pentax Q is actually a total waste of time.

Seriously, why did they make a camera that has the most pathetic zoom quality in the range most people will most likely use and be inspired by it, and doesn't have good quality primes in ranges that attract even those that would love to see best possible image quality squeezed out of a small sensor?

If Q is a niche product, then Pentax is really working hard in making it so. I see no reason why would anyone now choose Q over the new tiny m4/3 cameras. I presume that if there was no 06 lens, even most ardent Q users wouldn't even consider the Q, and if the GM1 existed 2 years ago, Q wouldn't have even half the users.

Last edited by Uluru; 11-01-2013 at 02:49 PM.
11-01-2013, 02:10 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 385
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
but they give us ultraslow zoom scrapyard lens.
You know next to nothing about this lens, but I learned something about you

11-01-2013, 02:16 PM   #24
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
QuoteOriginally posted by StigVidar Quote
You know next to nothing about this lens, but I learned something about you
Judicious use of the ignore function makes for a more pleasant forum experience
11-01-2013, 02:30 PM   #25
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by StigVidar Quote
You know next to nothing about this lens, but I learned something about you
If you ever read user's responses about the 06 lens quality, and how many have returned it, that 02 gets loose in several months, you'd understand that what I presume now is not based on immaterial presumptions.
11-01-2013, 03:16 PM   #26
Senior Member
bluefoam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 107
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
If you ever read user's responses about the 06 lens quality, and how many have returned it, that 02 gets loose in several months, you'd understand that what I presume now is not based on immaterial presumptions.
Mine is as good as the day I bought it. Sounds like your opinions are based on hearsay, rather than experience.

Remember, the majority of happy users go about their business without comment. The majority of users who seek out forums are users who are looking for information & and much of that will be resolving difficulties... You'll find the same on most product related websites.
11-01-2013, 05:28 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by bluefoam Quote
Mine is as good as the day I bought it. Sounds like your opinions are based on hearsay, rather than experience.
Yeah, I actually have good luck with the 02 zoom. If you get a good copy, they're reportedly as sharp as the 01 below about 12mm at apertures of f4 or smaller. Tests by some members here and independent tests have shown this to be the case. I've used my 02 quite a lot for probably a year now & it's not loose, either.

None of these photos, taken with an 02 look like they came from a "dud", either.
11-01-2013, 06:32 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
If you ever read user's responses about the 06 lens quality, and how many have returned it, that 02 gets loose in several months, you'd understand that what I presume now is not based on immaterial presumptions.
I think I've read the majority of 06 user reviews (at least the English language ones) on the 'net, and the great majority, by quite a large margin, were favorable. Even the ones that were critical of the build quality praised the optics and seem to suggest that the size and weight especially for the EQ FL range), optics, constant f2.8 aperture and price point significantly overshadowed the negative aspects. I have not noticed mention of anything even close to an unusually high percentage of returns. My own copy, though frequently abused with heavy front mount TCs and achromatic diopters, still functions, mechanically and optically, as it did when new.

Your presumptions (which I have to assume by your choice of words, is not actual experience with the camera and the lenses mentioned), if based on what you've read on the 'net, are actually totally sourced largely from hearsay from unknown sources, so their validity is questionable at best.

Scott
11-01-2013, 07:34 PM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,450
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
Originally posted by Uluru Quote If you ever read user's responses about the 06 lens quality, and how many have returned it, that 02 gets loose in several months, you'd understand that what I presume now is not based on immaterial presumptions.
My experience with 3 02 lenses (came with kits on deals) has been exceptionally positive. My 06 is a tight, excellent lens.

I have read on this Forum a user-fix to tighten the zoom ring on early copies using a small strip of plastic from a sandwich bag. Members who made that mod weren't upset about having to do it.

Haven't yet read of a complainer who returned a dud lens, though they might exist.
11-01-2013, 10:13 PM   #30
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,092
Well, I've just ordered the Q7 with 02 and 06 lenses, to replace (or supplement) my Q. I'm hoping my experience of the 06 is as good as with the 02 that came with the original Q. That's still tight, but it hasn't seen any rough use.
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, hd, lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pentax-da, q10, q7, ricoh, rumor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Q 01 prime VS Q 02 zoom image comparison mamethot Pentax Q 37 11-01-2013 09:40 AM
Wide-Angle Prime for Q: What Would You Like? Biro Pentax Q 7 01-26-2013 01:15 PM
Pentax Q 07 Prime 15mm f/1.4 and 08 Macro 18mm f/2.0 NeilGratton Pentax Q 25 12-29-2012 05:26 AM
After Nikon D600 rumor, Canon entry level FF camera rumor ... LFLee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 17 05-16-2012 08:41 PM
Pentax Q price rumor - $699 Adam Pentax News and Rumors 50 07-05-2011 07:08 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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