Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2015, 06:51 PM - 1 Like   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,231
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Honestly it never occurred to me that the LCD was "poor" until I read this thread. I've had no trouble with it, and at least half my Q usage is with adapted lenses where I have to manually focus.
I certainly agree with that. But in my silliness I actually though it was very good. I rarely try to use live view unless I have the camera on a tripod. Otherwise with a long lens the screen view jumps around wayyy to much. But when everything is settled down on a tripd its a breeze. The only problem is front lighting that causes the screen to fade. It is under those circumstances where the Hoodman, or its 3rd party equivalent, really becomes valuable.

But, what do I know? I'm just an old man with glasses.

01-07-2015, 07:06 PM   #47
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
It just boggles the mind how folks get defensive about things that are apparently unimportant. The debate about viewfinders isn't Q-specific, it's non-TTL-specific. For decades cameras have had viewfinders because that's what very many of us are comfortable with. There is no substitute for a good viewfinder unless you don't care for viewfinders in the first place. It has nothing to do with how well your LCD behaves in the sun.
Now, the issue is that EVFs are far from looking and feeling like OVFs, whereas OVFs are not suited to follow what modern cameras can do. Until the day EVFs cannot be distinguished from OVFs even with prolonged usage, and I expect architectural changes are needed for that, the problem will not be solved. In the mean time, the Q could take some kind of external EVF. Whoever doesn't want it, wouldn't be forced to get one.
01-08-2015, 06:28 AM - 1 Like   #48
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 201
If the Q had live HDMI output you could mount a monitor on the hotshoe or on an arm............now before someone starts saying "you're defeating the purpose of small form factor of the Q" ~I'm addressing the enthusiasts who bought the Q for "astro" "macro" and "super tele" use where they bought the Q to use as a superior platform for those specific uses- which are allot of us based on the threads here- the forums are populated with tons of posts of guys (like myself) who are using 300mm+ lenses for super-range photography and all the macro and astro shooters............all Pentax would have to do is to enable "LIVE" HDMI out of the port instead of "playback" only (I tested this and no live HDMI".......the Q wouldn't gain size or weight- in fact battery drain would be lessened if live HDMI is enabled and the user uses a monitor as the LCD could be shut off.........this would go along way in making the Q more useable and fun for those specific uses........would address the lack of EVF and low-res LCD completely.
(I have some super small compacts that have hdmi ports and some have "live" out which is just a matter of the manufacturer enabling it- no extra hardware required!- Almost all my Sony compacts have LIVE hdmi- and they're smaller than the Q!)
01-08-2015, 08:12 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,910
Seems like Pentax needs a "Skunk Works" (see Ed Heinemann + Douglas aircraft) to enable uses for the Q-as-a-SYSTEM that could be accomplished with 'soft solutions' that would otherwise be uneconomical or impossible to provide relative to the major market for the camera. I can think of many medical and industrial uses for the Q's that would duplicate the earlier film-era tasks. That's a special roll that Pentax has filled before.

01-08-2015, 08:25 AM   #50
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 201
If someone could read the firmware updates, they could in essence "enable" live Hdmi as well as make adjustments to other parameters......this is very popular amongst the Panasonic micro 4/3 community due to the work of a coder named Vitaly who has cracked the code for Panasonic cameras......those cameras have really woken up due to tweaks in the firmware people can adjust and apply........if the Q were more popular, I bet Vitaly or others could open the firmware binary code and change tons of parameters......just dreaming but it does seen within the realm of possibility.
01-08-2015, 09:48 AM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
Over the years I have developed a number of photographic "needs"
1. outside views (qualilty of picture primary requirement)
2. inside views (needs external flash to do right)
3. quick grab ("look what the cat is doing")
4. pocket-able (so I always have something other than cell phone with me)
5. museums (needs lots of wide-angle)
6. birds & butterflies (wife's hobby, needs lots of telephoto)
7. real railroads (my hobby, needs quick focus and high shutter speed)

For years I have had two cameras, because i found that just one could not do an adequate job for all these purposes. In 2006 I tried to go with one camera; I bought a compact camera in February, but by Black Friday I gave up on this compromise and bought a Canon Elph (for purposes 3,4) and a Canon Rebel (for the other purposes), because it could use the lenses from my last film camera. Typically I have used a camera for around ten years (my primary camera for 1984-1995 was a Pentax Super Program; my primary camera for 1995-2006 was a Canon EOS Elan), so by last fall I had come to the point of feeling that I really did need to think what the next pair would be. At another photo site, there is a subgroup that has gotten nice Bird&Butterfly pictures (always my weakest area) using a Canon SX-50, so when the SX-60 came out and SX-50 prices plummeted, I briefly considered it, but I couldn't figure out how to meet my other needs with just one other camera. However, that got me started thinking about the Pentax Q-family, because it's sensor is similar in size to that of the SX-50, so it might be able to fill the B&B niche for me, but it's body is small enough that it might also be able to fill the pocket-able niche also. Frankly, there are people here who almost talked me out of this idea ("don't try to make it do what it wasn't meant for"), but with the help of others I was able to work out accommodations.

This brings me back to the initial question: For several reasons, such as image quality, focus speed, and wide-angle, I may eventually find myself buying another camera (such as a K-50) to meet my needs 1,5,7, but for its price the Q7 is a remarkably versatile camera if you are willing to work with its short-comings. For example, I bought an enlarging hood because I was having trouble seeing in sunlight and I was having trouble focusing adapted lenses. I got a good deal on a "used like new" Q7 (I had decided on silver/black, but a yellow/black Q7+02+06 was available for $280) which left room in my budget for the 01 lens needed to make it pocket-able. I already had some lenses from non-autofocus cameras, so I bought adapters for them. I also had several generic manual flashes from the days when I used the Pentax Super Program.

So, to answer the original question, the Q's small sensor creates problems for very-wide-angle pictures and for Image Quality (if you are one of those who judges large prints with a magnifying glass), and until the weather improves I will list "focus quickness" as "not yet known". I am not ready to call the Q7 a "mini-SLR", but I believe that there are various niches that it does do very well in, however.

Last edited by reh321; 01-08-2015 at 09:59 AM.
01-08-2015, 11:38 AM   #52
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
Not that it's directly relevant to this thread, but from what I've seen the bigger sensor of the Q7, while certainly an improvement, doesn't relegate the Q/Q10 to an inferior product class. It's better (unless you prefer the crop factor of the Q, in which case it's worse), but it's not enough reason alone to upgrade or to dismiss the Q. This is based on pictures I've seen taken with it. (But besides the larger sensor, the Q7 has faster and a bit improved software.)
01-08-2015, 02:45 PM   #53
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 201
Antonio, there's a definite improvement in image quality as well as speed of operation........while it might not render the original Q as inferior, it does place itself as a worthy upgrade to the original......with emphasis on "upgrade!"

01-11-2015, 09:40 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,231
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveNunez Quote
Antonio, there's a definite improvement in image quality as well as speed of operation........while it might not render the original Q as inferior, it does place itself as a worthy upgrade to the original......with emphasis on "upgrade!"
True statement. It is enough of an upgrade to justify buying the Q7 over the Q if you understand what I mean.

However, that does not mean the original Q or Q10 are now worthless. Quite the opposite in fact. They are just as competent as they ever were and can be used to take excellent photographs.
01-12-2015, 08:40 AM   #55
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 201
I've seen Q/Q10 bodies sell in the $100 range- everyone should be snatching up a spare body at that price........EBay has a few and Amazon has a few used ones in that range......like Pioneer said, they're still great cameras.
01-12-2015, 09:16 AM   #56
Site Supporter
LaurenOE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,487
Image quality was the biggest dissapointment.

I now use an MX-1, which is almost the perfect travel camera.
Fast lens, flippy screen and all the modes.

The MX-1 is definitely the camera that is always on me.

The Q series had promise to me, but back to having a load of lenses with me, and no flippy screen really limits how I can use it as a travel camera.

The Q is a nice toy however.

Lauren
01-12-2015, 02:52 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by LaurenOE Quote
I now use an MX-1, which is almost the perfect travel camera.
As a RAW shooter, I wouldn't be too keen on seeing this:



OTOH, the Q and Q7 really work for me.

---------- Post added 01-12-15 at 03:56 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
the Q's small sensor creates problems for very-wide-angle pictures
I haven't found that to be a problem, using the 03 and 08 lenses.
In fact, the superb 08 on the Q7 has become my preferred compact option for super-wide,
at least until I can put my 18mm lens on a 24x36mm K-mount digital camera.
01-12-2015, 04:22 PM   #58
Site Supporter
LaurenOE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,487
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
As a RAW shooter, I wouldn't be too keen on seeing this:



OTOH, the Q and Q7 really work for me.

---------- Post added 01-12-15 at 03:56 PM ----------



I haven't found that to be a problem, using the 03 and 08 lenses.
In fact, the superb 08 on the Q7 has become my preferred compact option for super-wide,
at least until I can put my 18mm lens on a 24x36mm K-mount digital camera.
Interesting...I have never had lag, with the MX-1 and all I shoot is RAW.
What speed SD card are you using?
80gb a sec? 45?

Lauren
01-12-2015, 05:56 PM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
I haven't found that to be a problem, using the 03 and 08 lenses.
In fact, the superb 08 on the Q7 has become my preferred compact option for super-wide,
at least until I can put my 18mm lens on a 24x36mm K-mount digital camera.
You are right ... I tend to forget about the 08 because it is priced way out of my budget. If/when I follow through with my expectation of getting a K-50 (or then-current equivalent) to replace my current Canon Rebel, I'll have to decide what I'm going to do about the fact that all Pentax wide-angle lenses seem to be priced so high!!
01-12-2015, 06:00 PM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
The original thought for the Q was long telephoto. However, I never acquired the adaptor, plus I like the wider angle. My son just picked it up a couple of times and shot wonderful images each time. Just a natural.

The one thing I can see with the Q is without a mirror or a shutter it is a natural for time lapse. I started down that path but got busy else where - so that is something to continue with.

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!
beach, camera, cycle, dslr, gr, k-30, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, quality, seals, tide, travel
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
What is your biggest photography problem / challenge? slackercruster Photographic Technique 93 06-02-2012 06:44 PM
What has been your biggest print ? westmill Pentax K-5 20 02-21-2012 10:11 AM
What was your biggest LBA score? cheekygeek Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 112 04-27-2011 06:54 PM
Your biggest disappointment lens of 2008 Eastern Shore Charlie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 108 01-28-2009 12:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 AM. | 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