Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-26-2015, 12:57 PM   #166
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Upstate New York, US
Photos: Albums
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
The Nikon 1 J5 was announced in april this year, so I think they are.

Nikon 1 J5: Digital Photography Review

---------- Post added 08-22-2015 at 06:22 PM ----------

I don't think Nikon has given up on it. However, I've noticed that the regular stores that carry it have put Nikon 1 models on clearance and are not carrying new ones (and the clearance models do not sell out, though I'm sure they would if they marked them down more). I don't know that means the format is failing, but it's not a runaway success either. Of coure, M 4/3 cameras are not even sold at most of these stores.

QuoteQuote:
You may be right in terms of image quality, but aren't you forgetting that smaller sensors mean [more] DOF? (again, that doesn't bother me so much in case of the Q)
I agree that this will play an important factor as far as more serious photographers are concerned (especially for certain kinds of shots, for example, portraits). The people who are satisfied with small sensors will probably be more and more satisfied with cell phone cameras.

Of course, my Q7 still blows cell phone cameras away as far as picture quality is concerned even though some of the cell phone cameras have more megapixels. People who know what they're doing will always want bigger sensors for certain occasions where quality is more important, so I think price will always be a big factor. It's just as possible that the in-between models will end up being squeezed out by the cell phone cameras at the one end for ultimate portability and APS-C or full-frame cameras at the other end for ultimate image quality (including depth of field effects). It depends on what compromises people find appealing.

For the moment, my Q is an interesting compromise, and I bring it with me sometimes when I would have left my APS-C cameras at home.

08-26-2015, 02:11 PM   #167
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
DOF and Bokeh can be addressed in software so the lack of it with the smaller sensor is less of a problem than some would make of it.
Hmm... the Q's blur control is software I think, but I can't say I have gotten reliable results out of it. You can add blur in post, but that's also time-consuming (not even sure Lightroom can do it). It's all about tradeoffs. You can get more expensive gear and get shallow DOF right out of the camera (bc of the bigger sensor and/or larger aperture lenses), or get some software, use the Q, and invest time into getting a similar DOF.

Or use something like the 06 telephoto zoom, take multiple shots of a static subject, then stitch them together. You'll get greater resolution too (aka Brenizer method). Again, it will take more time and effort, but it's cheaper.
08-27-2015, 11:50 AM   #168
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 201
Since the thread asks "what's your take" I personally think the Q line will be left undeveloped and remaining inventory sold as desired and the Q line will die. Sad as it was a great concept and I would have loved to see better sensor development but the advent of great cell-phone cameras has obliterated the camera's market (aside from the Q enthusiasts)..........with cameras like the Panasonic GM1 and Samsungs Mini NX line the Q simply can't compete on a video or image quality standpoint.
I really like my Q but looking at the images it produces causes me to reach for my other cameras just about all the time.........I know it's a great camera with excellent build quality but the still image quality just can't compete with the other makers super compact cameras with larger sensors.
08-28-2015, 04:42 AM   #169
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
I want to believe!
That a WR Q Body is waiting for me.
It is there Scully, believe me.

08-28-2015, 06:17 AM   #170
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveNunez Quote
Since the thread asks "what's your take" I personally think the Q line will be left undeveloped and remaining inventory sold as desired and the Q line will die. Sad as it was a great concept and I would have loved to see better sensor development but the advent of great cell-phone cameras has obliterated the camera's market (aside from the Q enthusiasts)..........with cameras like the Panasonic GM1 and Samsungs Mini NX line the Q simply can't compete on a video or image quality standpoint.
I really like my Q but looking at the images it produces causes me to reach for my other cameras just about all the time.........I know it's a great camera with excellent build quality but the still image quality just can't compete with the other makers super compact cameras with larger sensors.
You have shown here some really nice "super zoom" pictures. Are you saying that you could get even better, but equivalent, pictures from cameras with larger sensors (and therefore less "effective magnification")?
08-28-2015, 02:45 PM   #171
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Are you saying that you could get even better, but equivalent, pictures from cameras with larger sensors (and therefore less "effective magnification")?
I pretty much agree with his post.

I use a 560mm glass so exchanging unnecessarily high magnification for, what I hope would be a significant improvement in quality is a no-brainier.
After all even under the best of condition that tiny sensor is always struggling let alone when your trying get bird shots in a dark woods understory for instance.
The trick is both enough magnification and enough quality with the same sensor.
It makes sense for my gear but I don't have a clue what he has.

Last edited by wildman; 08-28-2015 at 03:05 PM.
08-28-2015, 03:04 PM   #172
Senior Member
Mothballs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 259
In the end, here's what I'd like to see; A split in the Q Line.

Basically, a Pro and a Standard Model; Pro with WR and metal body and Standard without. From there It's just a push for sensor, hardware and Firmware improvements; Faster speeds on shutter and buffer clear, sensor quality improvement.

And a Price drop. The camera's a bit expensive for most.
08-28-2015, 07:24 PM - 1 Like   #173
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,891
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
. . .you could get even better, but equivalent, pictures . . .
There's a trade off here that has nothing to do with relative IQ of the sensor.

I have favorite images from the Q7 that exist ONLY because the the Q-system is convenient enough to be "be there" (whether f/8 or not) when larger format cameras would have been left behind.

For me, it's not about how perfectly I can capture an image, it's the appeal of the images that I CAN capture -- simply because I have a suitable body and selection of lenses in hand when I wouldn't have a larger system. Just as I have images from the '60's taken with an Olympus 1/2 frame Pen-F system when I couldn't possibly have carried an equivalent Spotmatic 'system'.

08-28-2015, 08:10 PM   #174
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: California
Posts: 11
I agree with pacer, it's always with me in my purse. But, I WANT Mothballs idea of a pro vs standard body. I'm constantly arguing with myself over whether to carry my Q or the Q7...Q7 performance is better, but I LOVE the "feel" of my little mag alloy Q!
08-28-2015, 09:30 PM   #175
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
There's a trade off here that has nothing to do with relative IQ of the sensor.

I have favorite images from the Q7 that exist ONLY because the the Q-system is convenient enough to be "be there" (whether f/8 or not) when larger format cameras would have been left behind.

For me, it's not about how perfectly I can capture an image, it's the appeal of the images that I CAN capture -- simply because I have a suitable body and selection of lenses in hand when I wouldn't have a larger system. Just as I have images from the '60's taken with an Olympus 1/2 frame Pen-F system when I couldn't possibly have carried an equivalent Spotmatic 'system'.
Oh, I agree with you. I have been carrying a camera in my pocket for roughly 40 years now (a decade or so later than the '60's in your experience), and my Q-7 is the best camera to ever fill that role. However, a side benefit to me is that my Q-7 is my first pocket-able camera to fill an additional role, namely as the camera that I take along on our (my wife and me) birding walks; the pictures I take with my less expensive lenses are not nearly as good as the pictures SteveNunez has taken with his more expensive lenses, but it is also the best birding camera I have ever had. Thus I was a tad surprised at his comment about how seldom he actually uses that camera. My decision to buy this Q-7 was largely made because I could potentially fill both roles at such a reasonable price. People like HeinrichLohmann have demonstrated the quality that can be coaxed out of a Q. Steve and Heinrich have shown me where I could be sometime, with the body I have already bought. It would be nice if Pentax would make it even better, but that is a business choice they will ultimately have to make.
08-29-2015, 07:44 AM   #176
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
I pretty much agree with his post.

I use a 560mm glass so exchanging unnecessarily high magnification for, what I hope would be a significant improvement in quality is a no-brainier.
After all even under the best of condition that tiny sensor is always struggling let alone when your trying get bird shots in a dark woods understory for instance.
The trick is both enough magnification and enough quality with the same sensor.
It makes sense for my gear but I don't have a clue what he has.
And, yet, you used that 560mm glass to take pictures that look really good to my eyes.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-317.html#post3355467
I'm not sure why you'd want to buy any more sensor than you used there
(but, to be perfectly honest, your glass wouldn't fit in my budget either)
08-29-2015, 05:10 PM   #177
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
There's a trade off here that has nothing to do with relative IQ of the sensor.

I have favorite images from the Q7 that exist ONLY because the the Q-system is convenient enough to be "be there" (whether f/8 or not) when larger format cameras would have been left behind.

For me, it's not about how perfectly I can capture an image, it's the appeal of the images that I CAN capture -- simply because I have a suitable body and selection of lenses in hand when I wouldn't have a larger system. Just as I have images from the '60's taken with an Olympus 1/2 frame Pen-F system when I couldn't possibly have carried an equivalent Spotmatic 'system'.

It has often been said, though nobody seems to know who said it first, that the best camera to have is the one you have in hand at the time the photo opportunity presents itself. While I never intended for my Q7’s to be my “go to” cameras, because of their size, I take them on daily adventures I would not think of taking my DSLR’s such as bicycle trips to the local post office to mail stuff etc. As such they have recorded some once in a lifetime events that I might have otherwise attempted to capture with my cell phone. Though my Nokia cell phone has one of the best cameras of it’s time, it cannot compete with the quality of image I get from the Q7. That being said, the Q7 cannot compete with the IQ that comes out of my DSLR’s.

On a trip to the Grand Canyon last year I took the Q7 along with my K-5. While the K-5 was used during the day, when going out at night I popped the Q7 with 01 lens into my jacket pocket. Several photo opportunities presented themselves that night that I might have otherwise missed but recorded with the Q7.
08-29-2015, 06:59 PM - 1 Like   #178
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
And, yet, you used that 560mm glass to take pictures that look really good to my eyes.
Let's share shots with Q!
I'm not sure why you'd want to buy any more sensor than you used there
(but, to be perfectly honest, your glass wouldn't fit in my budget either)
It's somewhat complicated.
My shooting style is very specialized. I usually go out for a specific species and know exactly where the ideal habit is for that particular species. Also the sweet zone is from 30-40 feet for the normal sized passerines that I am most interested in. Too close and they spook, too far away and at these magnifications (60x) and you are only magnifying air turbulence. 60 feet is about the absolute limit for ultimate quality no matter what glass you are working with because of turbulence. Suffice to say my shooting style is very controlled and constrained - I don't go about bashing through the wood expecting to taking shots of opportunity.

Anyway at that 30-40 foot range 60x is just too much - narrow field of view, high ISO, tripod shake etc. About 35x would be ideal. So why not exchange unwanted and dysfunctional magnification (diminished IQ, camera shake, narrow FOV etc) for improvement in all these areas?

IQ is only relative and take my word for it that scope will easily out resolve that Q sensor why not take advantage of that?

Case in point, same glass but with the K20. FF and crop. Judge for yourself.

Last edited by wildman; 09-02-2015 at 07:31 PM.
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!
body, camera, church, future, grip, kit, lens, lenses, mirrorless, model, nikon, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor, video, water
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is your take on the Da 70 vs Fa77 or the upstart Samyang 85? Canmannac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 01-03-2014 11:52 AM
What's the weirdest thing that's ever been in your camera bag? ASheffield General Talk 50 11-26-2013 05:11 AM
What's the first thing you did with your Q when it arrived? Lowell Goudge Pentax Q 22 04-18-2013 03:24 AM
What's your support for your Q? Clicker Pentax Q 4 05-03-2012 10:59 AM
New-York trip: what shot do you take ? what's the best spot? TanGU Photographic Technique 47 07-24-2010 08:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:49 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