[SteveNunez]

Since the main draw of the Pen Q is their small size, has anyone purchased the Panasonic GM-1 or NX Mini and still choose to shoot with their Pen Q?

The newer larger sensor cameras (GM1) are proven capable of exceptional image quality but lenses mounted make them much larger than a Pen Q with their small lenses.......anyone have both and still prefer shooting with their Pen Q?

My draw to the Q7 is the 4.6x multiplier of focal length for super telephoto captures- and aside from the native small lenses what would draw a Pen Q owner to stay with a Q?

(I had a GM1 when it was introduced but sold it, just ordered another.....will use it with a lcd magnifier as there is no evf.)

[sapporodan]

I have been thinking on similar lines.

The GM1/5 are only a little bigger but if you combine it with one of the Pancake zooms its more pocketable than the Q with the 02 lens.
As for lenses there is vastly more to choose from for M4/3, including 3 pancake zooms, 3 pancake primes and the new 35-100 that's almost the same size as the 06!

The whole point of the Q was Small sensor = Small lenses, and the 01 & 08 are still wonderfully tiny and fun, but Pentax really needs to step up their game if they want to stop people from jumping ship.

I love my Q and still enjoy using it as much as my Panasonic GX7, the Q's a really fun and enjoyable camera, but I am getting a little bit frustrated at the lack of innervation in the Q system. Its a shame as I think the Q deserves a chance to shine.

[reh321]

I have been thinking on similar lines.
The GM1/5 are only a little bigger but if you combine it with one of the Pancake zooms its more pocketable than the Q with the 02 lens.
As for lenses there is vastly more to choose from for M4/3, including 3 pancake zooms, 3 pancake primes and the new 35-100 that's almost the same size as the 06!
The whole point of the Q was Small sensor = Small lenses, and the 01 & 08 are still wonderfully tiny and fun, but Pentax really needs to step up their game if they want to stop people from jumping ship.
I love my Q and still enjoy using it as much as my Panasonic GX7, the Q's a really fun and enjoyable camera, but I am getting a little bit frustrated at the lack of innervation in the Q system. Its a shame as I think the Q deserves a chance to shine.

I bought the Q7 primarily because of the "multiplier" resulting from its small sensor, and as has been evident by my posts since I got it, initially most of my use has been using an adapted lens to take pictures of birds in our backyard preparing for birding walks with my wife once the weather improves here.

Before I bought the Q7, I determined that the 02 was too big for me to use the Q7 regularly as a pocket camera, so I also bought a 01 lens.
Before I bought the Q7, I determined that the lack of an EVF would be a problem for me, so I also bought a magnifying hood.
Before I bought the Q7, I located a couple of older flash units that I could use to supplement the pathetic flash on the Q7.

Yes, I would prefer a Q camera with a built-in EVF, having higher quality than the LCD on the Q7.
Yes, I would prefer having a pancake lens for my Q7.

Would I be willing to pay as much for those things as Pentax might charge?
Maybe not, based on the fact that I didn't buy an 08 at the same time I bought my 01.

[Wolfeye]

My draw to the Q7 is the 4.6x multiplier of focal length for super telephoto captures

That's an illusion. You can get better image quality using those same lenses on a real DSLR and cropping. The Q is better than most compacts when you use the prime lenses but it's still a compact sensor camera that becomes too big to pocket if you use even their base zoom lens. Canon's G15/16 are better image makers and will fit in a pocket. The Q only shines when it's your only camera. There are better specialist cameras out there but few are as versatile.

[reh321]

That's an illusion. You can get better image quality using those same lenses on a real DSLR and cropping. The Q is better than most compacts when you use the prime lenses but it's still a compact sensor camera that becomes too big to pocket if you use even their base zoom lens. Canon's G15/16 are better image makers and will fit in a pocket. The Q only shines when it's your only camera. There are better specialist cameras out there but few are as versatile.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

The small sensor allows the Q7 to concentrate the image on 12 MP. Before I got the Q7, I was using a Canon Rebel for photographing birds. The sensor on a Rebel is roughly 3 times the dimensions of the sensor on a Q7, so in order to get a 12 MP image by cropping the Rebel image, the Rebel image would have needed to be 9*12 = 108 MP!!. I understand that the Rebel will have better Image Quality, but the current newest Rebel, which runs around $700, has an 18 MP sensor, so once I cropped that image to match the crop of the Q7, I would be down to 2 MP, and there is no way that the IQ advantage is going to overcome this shortage of pixels. I am already getting better pictures of birds with my Q7 than I ever got with my Rebel.

As I already mentioned, I did all this thinking before I bought the Q7, so I bought a 01 lens, which does make my Q7 pocketable ... however, I did fit the Q7+02 into my now-bulging pants pocket when I went to my church's Christmas Eve service. Right "out-of-the-box" I was getting better pictures with my Q7 than I ever got with my Canon Elph.

[SteveNunez]

Wolfeye, I also disagree. I have quite a collection of cameras and lenses and my full frame Sony A7 is my favorite and produces the best images I've captured.
If I use the Sony A7 and shoot a hawk 100+ feet away and then mount the Q7 for the same shot, the resulting A7 crop won't match the capture of the Q7.....that 4.6 multiplier simply can't be beat when teamed with good glass and the capture is sharp......a cropped image from a full frame camera won't match the detail and clarity.....at least not in my experience.

Note: I have micro 4\3 cameras=2x focal length multiplier, as well as aps-c which equal 1.5x multiplier and the crops from those also will not match the final capture of the Q7 at distance. The only system I dont own is the Nikon V\J 1 systems which feature 1 inch sensors for a 2.7x multiplier!

I will start carrying the GM-1 because of its small size for those times I can reach the shot I'm attempting with a 2x lens reach simply due to the superior image quality the GM-1 produces compared to the Q7........for images I can't reach, there's the Q7!

[bernall]

Hello pentax world

That's an illusion.

Sorry but it's not an illusion at all.

I use an Orion ED80T-CF telescope with Q/Q7. This amazing scope delivers high definition pics. And Q7 is the only sensor I have used, wich can capture all the details ... I used D90, D7100, 100D, N1V1, GH4, G6, GM1 ...

My first contribution to pentaxforum (one shot, no stacking) : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/18-monthly-photo-contests/238748-moon.html



More pics and explanations in french : Pentax Q et reflexscopie ?
or : Une petite config pour d

Next step : Takahashi TSA102 ...

---

Last edited by bernall; 01-25-2015 at 01:03 AM.

[bernall]

I use both Q7 and GM1 : it depends on the field of view. Both have good quality enough to be used with my favorite tele-photo lens : Orion ED80T-CF.

GM1 and Q7 have the same size, weight, autonomy and build quality.



GM1 replaces my GH4 in case of long distance photography but results are very similar.

Distance 12m, 960mm eq focal length (GH4) : http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,217130.0/all.html




Distance 40m, 2200mm eq focal lenght (PtxQ7)

[SteveNunez]

Excellent.

[sapporodan]

I use both Q7 and GM1 : it depends on the field of view. Both have good quality enough to be used with my favorite tele-photo lens : Orion ED80T-CF.

GM1 and Q7 are the same size, weight, autonomy and build quality.



GM1 replaces my GH4 in case of long distance photography but results are very similar.

Distance 12m, 960mm eq focal length (GH4) : http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,217130.0/all.html




Distance 40m, 2200mm eq focal lenght (PtxQ7)

It's interesting to see the two cameras side by side. The Panasonic 12-32 is slimmer and the camera looks a little bit more pocketable.

The reason I got the Q is for its tiny form factor. I am holding out to see if Pentax release some more lenses and also the sizes of them. Sensor size does not bother me but lens size does (the 02 is too big!), and apart from the 08 lens the two systems are nearly the same now.

01 Vs Panasonic 20mm 1.7 - Both sharp and fast 40mm primes.

02 Vs Panaonic 12-32/14-42 X/Olympus 14-42 pancake - Have to say I feel M4/3 wins this one.

03 Vs Olympus 8mm Fisheye mount shield lens. - 180mm field of view on the 03 only 160mm on the Olympus. But the Olympus probably has better focus.

04 Vs Olympus 17mm F2.8 - Both 35mm but the Olympus has autofocus and is f2.8

05 Vs Sigma 60mm f2.8 - Humm no 100mm lenses on M43 system but the sigma is close (Ok the Sigma's a lot bigger!)

06 Vs Panasonic 35-100 f4-5.6 - Really don't know which one is better!

07 Vs Olympus 15mm Mount shield lens - Both toy lenses

08 Vs Olympus 9-18 f4-5.6 - The Olympus is larger and more expensive.

Sorry if I sound negative about the Q, that's not my intention as I am a huge Q fan. Just curious to compare the two systems.

[SteveNunez]

Ahh you have the beautiful orange edition- i have a white one and black/silver one......always liked the orange.

[Biro]

I had an original Q along with the 01, 02 and 06 lenses. As much as I loved the idea of the Q, I sold it after a year due to lack of use. But I loved looking at it and holding it in my hands. A built-in EVF would have gone a long way toward getting me to use it more often.

But more to the subject of this string, I find myself just a bit depressed by all of these happy new GM1 and GM5 owners. Not because I think they're wrong - I may eventually pick up a GM5 myself. But because it's pretty clear that Pentax is being passed by technology and out-of-the-box thinking.

Pentax had a nifty idea in the original Q. But the reality came up just a bit short and they didn't follow up with meaningful improvements. The Q didn't evolve enough. So the state of the art passed the Q quickly. Now, one doesn't have to deal with a small sensor or no EVF in order to get a pocketable interchangeable-lens camera.

[reh321]

Pentax had a nifty idea in the original Q. But the reality came up just a bit short and they didn't follow up with meaningful improvements. The Q didn't evolve enough. So the state of the art passed the Q quickly. Now, one doesn't have to deal with a small sensor or no EVF in order to get a pocketable interchangeable-lens camera.

The Q remains a nifty product for those of us who can benefit by what it does do. I bought a Q7 specifically because it does have a small sensor, which provides good "reach" using a reasonably priced lens. I tried all kinds of combinations of lenses and teleconverters with my Canon Rebel, and within a few weeks my Q7 was giving me better Birds & Butterflies pictures than I got in several years of effort with the Rebel; based on what others are doing here, I believe i can get better pictures than I am getting so far, but my purchase of the Q7 has already justified itself.

Complaining about the size of the Q's sensor, is like complaining about the size of the size of the sensor on a "bridge" camera ... the sensor-size is an essential characteristic of the product. Yes, Pentax could do things to make the Q-family more convenient (such as a pancake lens or two), but the real question is whether others will discover (like I did) that the Q-family has answers to questions they are already failing to answer. Yes, I would like an add-on EVF so I don't have to carry my enlarging hood around with me, but I am making do, and based on the pictures posted here, I am not unique. The Q-family will probably always be a niche product, but those of us in niches need products also.

[6BQ5]

...

Pentax had a nifty idea in the original Q. But the reality came up just a bit short and they didn't follow up with meaningful improvements. The Q didn't evolve enough. So the state of the art passed the Q quickly. Now, one doesn't have to deal with a small sensor or no EVF in order to get a pocketable interchangeable-lens camera.

I disagree. In my opinion the Q line up was designed with a completely different philosophy in mind. Most products are designed with a heavy emphasis on improving specifications and ratings. I think this is called "spec-manship". It's a pursuit of better numbers Lenses are a good example of this. Everyone is looking for more lines per mm, smaller aberrations sizes in pixels, etc. It's very easy to get caught up in the numbers game. I get lost in it sometimes too. Pentax took a different approach. They put objective numbers aside and put the subjective user experience front and center. How does one feel shooting with the Q? Do the images render pleasantly? It's hard to put a number on all of this. I printed some wonderful 8"x10" and 8"x12" prints from my Q + 01 lens setup. They came out great! My wife looked at them and hung them on the wall. How can we put a spec number on that?

The FA Limited lenses are another great example of putting numbers aside and going after the subjective feeling. Pentax openly and publicly stated that they omitted certain optical corrections in the design of the lenses. This leads to reduced numbers in most tests but it produces images that come closer to what people perceive with their eyes. I think this is one of the factors that gives Pentax lenses their "character" and their legendary status. Think of it this way. The FA Limiteds came out way before the *ist D and every DSLR after the *ist D has been an APS system. Yet, the FF lenses are still being successfully produced and sold. Are they being primarily made for the few film shooters out there? No, they are being made for photographers buying a K-3. Even after releasing a DA 70mm the FA 77 is still current for its rendering.

Sorry ... I didn't mean to rant. Pentax does what seems to be counter intuitive but in reality it makes a lot of sense.

[Biro]

Sorry ... I didn't mean to rant. Pentax does what seems to be counter intuitive but in reality it makes a lot of sense.

Oh, you're not ranting, you're making a point. All I can say is I'm glad that you're happy with your Q. And, as I wrote, I really liked the Q but always found I had something just a bit better for any given task. Now, it's interesting that I have and use an Olympus Stylus 1, which has the same-size sensor that the Q7 has. The difference (at least for me)? The Stylus 1 has a great built-in electronic viewfinder, an f/2.8 constant aperture 28-300mm lens and is actually more pocketable than the Q when it's powered down and the lens is folded into the camera body. At least, more pocketable than a Q with lens other than the 01 mounted on it.

I think I would have kept my Q if compact cameras with one-inch sensors and even four-thirds sensors didn't suddenly come on the scene. But, who knows? I still have my Q-to-K adaptor. Maybe I'll pick up a Q7 body to use with my DA 55-300. There's no arguing with the advantages of that part of Q ownership.