ePhotozine reviews the Q-S1

reh321 · 12-31-2014, 12:18 PM

I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics with a minor in physics, but frankly I find the last page of mathematics on this topic to be irrelevant and boring. None of this matters. What does matter is what a person can do with a Q7 or Q-S1.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have had my Q7 for just a couple of weeks, so I'm still learning what I can, and cannot, do with it. So far, by chasing specials, I have spent less than $500, but I have a Q7+01+02+06+adapter and a hood that makes the whole thing useable in sunlight. I have taken the Q7+01 several places in my pocket (including to church), so I am reasonably confident that having it will allow me to replace my oldish Canon Elph. That would be good, because on one of those trips, I used it to take a picture of my family in a dark "Irish pub"; the picture is not wonderful, but it is much better than I would have gotten with the Elph and its lower maximum ISO. At the other extreme, I used the FD-PQ adapter with a 70-210mm lens from my mother's old Canon AE-1 kit to take a very readable/sharp picture of our street sign from a block away; this was a proxy for the birds/butterflies pictures I would like to use it for when they are available - I may eventually discover that I need to spend another $200 for the Pentax PK-PQ adapter and use it with the 75-205 lens from my old Pentax Super Program kit, but that would be OK.

I am not claiming that I will use this camera for all of my needs. I may eventually buy a K-50 to replace the Canon Rebel which is currently my main camera. But I have never depended on just one camera to meet all of my photographic "needs", and I am now convinced that the pictures from a Q can meet several different needs that I have never met as well as I would like. Buying a Q7, even at regular B&H/PWS/Adorama prices is going to turn out to have been a good investment for me, regardless of what the mathematics may, or may not, say.

Nicolas06 · 01-02-2015, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by reh321

I am not claiming that I will use this camera for all of my needs. I may eventually buy a K-50 to replace the Canon Rebel which is currently my main camera. But I have never depended on just one camera to meet all of my photographic "needs", and I am now convinced that the pictures from a Q can meet several different needs that I have never met as well as I would like. Buying a Q7, even at regular B&H/PWS/Adorama prices is going to turn out to have been a good investment for me, regardless of what the mathematics may, or may not, say.

Nobody ever said the contrary ! Anyway, only you can know what you want/need. Me for example shoot many landscape with more than enough light. I'am not that much after wide apertures anyway.

It seems to me through that it not well seen to state out even in neutral (or worse with basic mathematical formula) something that could be seen by some as negative while the negative interpretation is 100% from them.

I'am very happy with my basic car and even think it fulfill all my needs and I'am not ashamed to learn a truck can deal with more load or a sport car can go faster. I don't even try to hide this or pretend or whatever. I agree and continue to be happy with my own car, its strengths and weakness: it fit perfectly well to the job.

**mepaca** · 01-02-2015, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Nobody ever said the contrary ! Anyway, only you can know what you want/need. Me for example shoot many landscape with more than enough light. I'am not that much after wide apertures anyway.

It seems to me through that it not well seen to state out even in neutral (or worse with basic mathematical formula) something that could be seen by some as negative while the negative interpretation is 100% from them.

I'am very happy with my basic car and even think it fulfill all my needs and I'am not ashamed to learn a truck can deal with more load or a sport car can go faster. I don't even try to hide this or pretend or whatever. I agree and continue to be happy with my own car, its strengths and weakness: it fit perfectly well to the job.

You mention basic car, truck and sport car all in the same sentence but you seem to have no understanding as to how to determine the equivalence amongst them. I insist because otherwise you are misleading people. You can see it as a game...........

CWRailman · 01-02-2015, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Nicolas06, for the last time: NOBODY who enjoys the Q system gives a flying f*** about shallow depth of field. In fact, the extra depth of field is a major POSITIVE.

I agree that not all of us current Q series owners are looking for shallow depth of field. It's extended depth of field capabilities is exactly the reason I have been successfully experimenting with the Q series. I am looking for the maximum depth of field from a camera that can get into tight spaces and NOT cost an arm and a leg. Shallow depth of field is a negative in what I am using the Q for. See my albums or my WEB site to see how I am using it. The Q series (I am presently shooting with a Q7) will not replace my K-5 or K-5IIs or for that matter even my K-110 but it does have it's uses.

Anyway this conversation seems to have gotten way off the original topic.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A brief, unscientific comparison : Original Q vs Q-S1	6BQ5	Pentax Q	29	11-30-2014 07:21 AM
It's here, the Pentax Q-S1	knightzerox	Pentax Q	52	09-27-2014 07:26 AM
Q-S1 and K-S1 New Naming?	LaurenOE	General Photography	8	08-21-2014 09:36 PM
The Verge, Ephotozine, Techradar K30 reviews	schufosi777	Pentax K-30 & K-50	6	07-31-2012 01:37 PM
ephotozine reviews DA55-300mm	jamesm007	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-25-2011 05:31 PM

12-31-2014, 12:18 PM	#46
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics with a minor in physics, but frankly I find the last page of mathematics on this topic to be irrelevant and boring. None of this matters. What does matter is what a person can do with a Q7 or Q-S1. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have had my Q7 for just a couple of weeks, so I'm still learning what I can, and cannot, do with it. So far, by chasing specials, I have spent less than $500, but I have a Q7+01+02+06+adapter and a hood that makes the whole thing useable in sunlight. I have taken the Q7+01 several places in my pocket (including to church), so I am reasonably confident that having it will allow me to replace my oldish Canon Elph. That would be good, because on one of those trips, I used it to take a picture of my family in a dark "Irish pub"; the picture is not wonderful, but it is much better than I would have gotten with the Elph and its lower maximum ISO. At the other extreme, I used the FD-PQ adapter with a 70-210mm lens from my mother's old Canon AE-1 kit to take a very readable/sharp picture of our street sign from a block away; this was a proxy for the birds/butterflies pictures I would like to use it for when they are available - I may eventually discover that I need to spend another $200 for the Pentax PK-PQ adapter and use it with the 75-205 lens from my old Pentax Super Program kit, but that would be OK. I am not claiming that I will use this camera for all of my needs. I may eventually buy a K-50 to replace the Canon Rebel which is currently my main camera. But I have never depended on just one camera to meet all of my photographic "needs", and I am now convinced that the pictures from a Q can meet several different needs that I have never met as well as I would like. Buying a Q7, even at regular B&H/PWS/Adorama prices is going to turn out to have been a good investment for me, regardless of what the mathematics may, or may not, say.

01-02-2015, 03:40 AM	#47
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by reh321 I am not claiming that I will use this camera for all of my needs. I may eventually buy a K-50 to replace the Canon Rebel which is currently my main camera. But I have never depended on just one camera to meet all of my photographic "needs", and I am now convinced that the pictures from a Q can meet several different needs that I have never met as well as I would like. Buying a Q7, even at regular B&H/PWS/Adorama prices is going to turn out to have been a good investment for me, regardless of what the mathematics may, or may not, say. Nobody ever said the contrary ! Anyway, only you can know what you want/need. Me for example shoot many landscape with more than enough light. I'am not that much after wide apertures anyway. It seems to me through that it not well seen to state out even in neutral (or worse with basic mathematical formula) something that could be seen by some as negative while the negative interpretation is 100% from them. I'am very happy with my basic car and even think it fulfill all my needs and I'am not ashamed to learn a truck can deal with more load or a sport car can go faster. I don't even try to hide this or pretend or whatever. I agree and continue to be happy with my own car, its strengths and weakness: it fit perfectly well to the job.

01-02-2015, 06:40 AM	#48
mepaca Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 59	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Nobody ever said the contrary ! Anyway, only you can know what you want/need. Me for example shoot many landscape with more than enough light. I'am not that much after wide apertures anyway. It seems to me through that it not well seen to state out even in neutral (or worse with basic mathematical formula) something that could be seen by some as negative while the negative interpretation is 100% from them. I'am very happy with my basic car and even think it fulfill all my needs and I'am not ashamed to learn a truck can deal with more load or a sport car can go faster. I don't even try to hide this or pretend or whatever. I agree and continue to be happy with my own car, its strengths and weakness: it fit perfectly well to the job. You mention basic car, truck and sport car all in the same sentence but you seem to have no understanding as to how to determine the equivalence amongst them. I insist because otherwise you are misleading people. You can see it as a game...........

01-02-2015, 08:55 AM	#49
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Nicolas06, for the last time: NOBODY who enjoys the Q system gives a flying f*** about shallow depth of field. In fact, the extra depth of field is a major POSITIVE. I agree that not all of us current Q series owners are looking for shallow depth of field. It's extended depth of field capabilities is exactly the reason I have been successfully experimenting with the Q series. I am looking for the maximum depth of field from a camera that can get into tight spaces and NOT cost an arm and a leg. Shallow depth of field is a negative in what I am using the Q for. See my albums or my WEB site to see how I am using it. The Q series (I am presently shooting with a Q7) will not replace my K-5 or K-5IIs or for that matter even my K-110 but it does have it's uses. Anyway this conversation seems to have gotten way off the original topic.