Q-S1 compared to original Q

wildman · 05-08-2015, 08:47 PM

Been working with the original Q trying to get bird shots with some success.
However that tiny sensor soon runs out of steam and I found it particularly slow and unresponsive for my purposes.
Anyway got a decent price on a Q-S1 from BH and it should be here next week

Just wondering what others have found to be improvements of the latest version over the original.
For instance the Q can't shot in RAW simply because the buffer is too slow to keep up with my kind of shooting.

Anyway, other than the sensor, what's better with the latest version?

Here's a few shots I got today with the original....

Last edited by wildman; 05-14-2015 at 03:44 PM.

reh321 · 05-08-2015, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by wildman

Been working with the original Q trying to get bird shots with some success.
However that tiny sensor soon runs out of steam and I found it particularly slow and unresponsive for my purposes.
Anyway got a decent price on a Q-S1 from BH and it should be here next week

Just wondering what others have found to be improvements of the latest version over the original.
For instance the Q can't shot in RAW simply because the buffer is too slow to keep up with my kind of shooting.

Anyway, other than the sensor, what's better with the latest version?

Here's a few shots I got today with the original....

Those are nice, sharp pictures!

The EXIF is reporting a 900mm lens. Which lens is that? (and how many arms and legs did you have to sacrifice to get it)

wildman · 05-08-2015, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by reh321

The EXIF is reporting a 900mm lens. Which lens is that? (and how many arms and legs did you have to sacrifice to get it)

That's just the FL I use to set up SR and that's what it's showing not the true FL.
See this:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-304.html#post3246897

Sandy Hancock · 05-08-2015, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by wildman

That's just the FL I use to set up SR and that's what it's showing not the true FL

I think the prevailing wisdom is that for SR to work optimally you should set the camera to the lens' actual focal length, but these are excellent regardless.

wildman · 05-09-2015, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

the prevailing wisdom is that for SR to work optimally you should set the camera to the lens' actual focal length,

When it comes to the conventional wisdom, especially in photography, I always verify for myself.
One of the nice things about digital is it's no big deal to experiment to see if something works for you.
So far I've tried everything from 500-1000 with 900 tentatively working pretty well so far but that's not final either.

Adam · 05-09-2015, 06:40 AM

The Q-S1 is essentially a more fashionable version of the Q7, so I think all the original Q7 vs Q findings apply

wildman · 05-10-2015, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Adam

The Q-S1 is essentially a more fashionable version of the Q7, so I think all the original Q7 vs Q findings apply

Thanks for that. It's pretty much just what I was looking for. I read it thoroughly.

For my specialized use it sounds like the S1 is just the Q with a somewhat bigger sensor.
I can live with that but I'm surprised they haven't done more to make the Q series faster and more responsive.
Dealing with the glacially slow shutter lag, buffer performance, lack of a proper viewfinder and the distortion of the electronic shutter can make the Q a real challenge for my purposes.

Ideally what I'm really looking for is a K5 body with a 1 inch or smaller sensor.
In the mean time I will make do with what I have.

Last edited by wildman; 05-10-2015 at 02:00 AM.

Adam · 05-10-2015, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by wildman

Thanks for that. It's pretty much just what I was looking for. I read it thoroughly.

For my specialized use it sounds like the S1 is just the Q with a somewhat bigger sensor.
I can live with that but I'm surprised they haven't done more to make the Q series faster and more responsive.
Dealing with the glacially slow shutter lag, buffer performance, lack of a proper viewfinder and the distortion of the electronic shutter can make the Q a real challenge for my purposes.

Ideally what I'm really looking for is a K5 body with a 1 inch or smaller sensor.
In the mean time I will made do with what I have.

I likewise hope that the next generation brings us some hardware improvements- most importantly a high-resolution LCD, since the half VGA (460k) dot display oftentimes makes focusing difficult. The tech in the Q-S1 is from mid-2013 so I wouldn't be surprised to see an upgraded version of the body in the near future.

reh321 · 05-10-2015, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by wildman

For my specialized use it sounds like the S1 is just the Q with a somewhat bigger sensor.
I can live with that but I'm surprised they haven't done more to make the Q series faster and more responsive.
Dealing with the glacially slow shutter lag, buffer performance, lack of a proper viewfinder and the distortion of the electronic shutter can make the Q a real challenge for my purposes.

Ideally what I'm really looking for is a K5 body with a 1 inch or smaller sensor.
In the mean time I will make do with what I have.

I think those of us who use a member of the Q-family with adapted long lenses are most aware of these issues. It turns out that we seem to be in the minority of Q users.When I was first looking at getting my Q-7, I was told that these aren't the problems I had thought they might be. Like you, I found ways around these issues, but fixing them would still be very nice.

BTW - you are showing really good pictures, despite having to deal with these issues.

Before we get too negative about the Q-family, we need to acknowledge that things could be much worse. At another photo forum where I'm a regular, someone was complaining about the Nikon 1. It turns out that mounting a "foreign" lens on the Nikon 1 disables its facilities for helping to focus and set correct aperture. In contrast to that, the Q-family does help us with those things.

magkelly · 05-10-2015, 01:21 PM - **1 Like**

They're not entirely the same beast the Q7 and the QS1. One of the reasons I went for the QS1 was this comparison page. There are some small but I think rather important differences. I actually liked the Q7 body better but went for the QS1 instead because the differences mattered a bit to me and the used price was for some reason about the same. Usually the QS1 is more but I got lucky...

Pentax Q-S1 vs Pentax Q7 Detailed Comparison

ruggiex · 05-10-2015, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by magkelly

They're not entirely the same beast the Q7 and the QS1. One of the reasons I went for the QS1 was this comparison page. There are some small but I think rather important differences. I actually liked the Q7 body better but went for the QS1 instead because the differences mattered a bit to me and the used price was for some reason about the same. Usually the QS1 is more but I got lucky...

Pentax Q-S1 vs Pentax Q7 Detailed Comparison

Hm the shutter speed comparison is incorrect. They are the same if you look at Ricoh's spec page. I am the opposite. I love how QS1 looks but I can't justify it when I already have a Q7 because functionally I can't see any difference.

magkelly · 05-10-2015, 06:44 PM

I'm not crazy about the front knobs but otherwise I don't think it's too bad and I suppose I'll get used to it.

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-11-2015, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by wildman

That's just the FL I use to set up SR and that's what it's showing not the true FL.
See this:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-304.html#post3246897

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

I think the prevailing wisdom is that for SR to work optimally you should set the camera to the lens' actual focal length, but these are excellent regardless.

I'll chime in here because I might have started this break with conventional wisdoms.

I have found with the Q, that for long adapted lenses, and my technique, that the shake reduction is over active, and sharper shots seem to be at about 80-90% of true focal length. This is shooting with a viewing screen eye loupe and holding the camera like an SLR.

wildman · 05-11-2015, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I'll chime in here because I might have started this break with conventional wisdoms.

I have found with the Q, that for long adapted lenses, and my technique, that the shake reduction is over active, and sharper shots seem to be at about 80-90% of true focal length. This is shooting with a viewing screen eye loupe and holding the camera like an SLR.

By "holding the camera like an SLR" does this mean tripod mounted or not? It's ambiguous.

If you mean mounted I'll give it a try and see what happens. Nothing to lose.

A shot from yesterday with no SR - go figure.

6BQ5 · 05-11-2015, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by ruggiex

Hm the shutter speed comparison is incorrect. They are the same if you look at Ricoh's spec page. I am the opposite. I love how QS1 looks but I can't justify it when I already have a Q7 because functionally I can't see any difference.

The Q-7 and Q-S1 are nearly identical in terms of tech specs and performance. i think the Q-S1 offers continuous AF during video. That's it.

05-08-2015, 08:47 PM	#1
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Q-S1 compared to original Q Been working with the original Q trying to get bird shots with some success. However that tiny sensor soon runs out of steam and I found it particularly slow and unresponsive for my purposes. Anyway got a decent price on a Q-S1 from BH and it should be here next week Just wondering what others have found to be improvements of the latest version over the original. For instance the Q can't shot in RAW simply because the buffer is too slow to keep up with my kind of shooting. Anyway, other than the sensor, what's better with the latest version? Here's a few shots I got today with the original.... Last edited by wildman; 05-14-2015 at 03:44 PM.

05-09-2015, 06:40 AM	#6
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	The Q-S1 is essentially a more fashionable version of the Q7, so I think all the original Q7 vs Q findings apply Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

05-10-2015, 01:14 AM	#8
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Originally posted by wildman Thanks for that. It's pretty much just what I was looking for. I read it thoroughly. For my specialized use it sounds like the S1 is just the Q with a somewhat bigger sensor. I can live with that but I'm surprised they haven't done more to make the Q series faster and more responsive. Dealing with the glacially slow shutter lag, buffer performance, lack of a proper viewfinder and the distortion of the electronic shutter can make the Q a real challenge for my purposes. Ideally what I'm really looking for is a K5 body with a 1 inch or smaller sensor. In the mean time I will made do with what I have. I likewise hope that the next generation brings us some hardware improvements- most importantly a high-resolution LCD, since the half VGA (460k) dot display oftentimes makes focusing difficult. The tech in the Q-S1 is from mid-2013 so I wouldn't be surprised to see an upgraded version of the body in the near future. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

05-11-2015, 05:27 AM	#14
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I'll chime in here because I might have started this break with conventional wisdoms. I have found with the Q, that for long adapted lenses, and my technique, that the shake reduction is over active, and sharper shots seem to be at about 80-90% of true focal length. This is shooting with a viewing screen eye loupe and holding the camera like an SLR. By "holding the camera like an SLR" does this mean tripod mounted or not? It's ambiguous. If you mean mounted I'll give it a try and see what happens. Nothing to lose. A shot from yesterday with no SR - go figure. Last edited by wildman; 05-14-2015 at 03:44 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Given up on old Q- is Q7/Q-S1 much improved?	SteveNunez	Pentax Q	39	11-06-2015 04:55 AM
Nx3000 compared to the Q	sapporodan	Pentax Mirrorless Cameras	6	12-31-2014 06:33 AM
A brief, unscientific comparison : Original Q vs Q-S1	6BQ5	Pentax Q	29	11-30-2014 07:21 AM
Anyone compared Q to older DSLRs?	HenrikDK	Pentax Q	5	07-10-2014 08:28 AM
For Sale - Sold: Original Q with 01 lens, Wasabi battery kit, Q to PK lens adapter	ryan s	Sold Items	10	02-18-2014 12:35 AM

05-08-2015, 09:11 PM	#2
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by wildman Been working with the original Q trying to get bird shots with some success. However that tiny sensor soon runs out of steam and I found it particularly slow and unresponsive for my purposes. Anyway got a decent price on a Q-S1 from BH and it should be here next week Just wondering what others have found to be improvements of the latest version over the original. For instance the Q can't shot in RAW simply because the buffer is too slow to keep up with my kind of shooting. Anyway, other than the sensor, what's better with the latest version? Here's a few shots I got today with the original.... Those are nice, sharp pictures! The EXIF is reporting a 900mm lens. Which lens is that? (and how many arms and legs did you have to sacrifice to get it)

05-08-2015, 09:21 PM	#3
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 The EXIF is reporting a 900mm lens. Which lens is that? (and how many arms and legs did you have to sacrifice to get it) That's just the FL I use to set up SR and that's what it's showing not the true FL. See this: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-304.html#post3246897

05-08-2015, 09:52 PM	#4
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by wildman That's just the FL I use to set up SR and that's what it's showing not the true FL I think the prevailing wisdom is that for SR to work optimally you should set the camera to the lens' actual focal length, but these are excellent regardless.

05-09-2015, 03:14 AM	#5
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock the prevailing wisdom is that for SR to work optimally you should set the camera to the lens' actual focal length, When it comes to the conventional wisdom, especially in photography, I always verify for myself. One of the nice things about digital is it's no big deal to experiment to see if something works for you. So far I've tried everything from 500-1000 with 900 tentatively working pretty well so far but that's not final either.

05-10-2015, 01:00 AM	#7
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam The Q-S1 is essentially a more fashionable version of the Q7, so I think all the original Q7 vs Q findings apply Thanks for that. It's pretty much just what I was looking for. I read it thoroughly. For my specialized use it sounds like the S1 is just the Q with a somewhat bigger sensor. I can live with that but I'm surprised they haven't done more to make the Q series faster and more responsive. Dealing with the glacially slow shutter lag, buffer performance, lack of a proper viewfinder and the distortion of the electronic shutter can make the Q a real challenge for my purposes. Ideally what I'm really looking for is a K5 body with a 1 inch or smaller sensor. In the mean time I will make do with what I have. Last edited by wildman; 05-10-2015 at 02:00 AM.

05-10-2015, 01:06 PM	#9
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by wildman For my specialized use it sounds like the S1 is just the Q with a somewhat bigger sensor. I can live with that but I'm surprised they haven't done more to make the Q series faster and more responsive. Dealing with the glacially slow shutter lag, buffer performance, lack of a proper viewfinder and the distortion of the electronic shutter can make the Q a real challenge for my purposes. Ideally what I'm really looking for is a K5 body with a 1 inch or smaller sensor. In the mean time I will make do with what I have. I think those of us who use a member of the Q-family with adapted long lenses are most aware of these issues. It turns out that we seem to be in the minority of Q users.When I was first looking at getting my Q-7, I was told that these aren't the problems I had thought they might be. Like you, I found ways around these issues, but fixing them would still be very nice. BTW - you are showing really good pictures, despite having to deal with these issues. Before we get too negative about the Q-family, we need to acknowledge that things could be much worse. At another photo forum where I'm a regular, someone was complaining about the Nikon 1. It turns out that mounting a "foreign" lens on the Nikon 1 disables its facilities for helping to focus and set correct aperture. In contrast to that, the Q-family does help us with those things.

05-10-2015, 01:21 PM - 1 Like	#10
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	They're not entirely the same beast the Q7 and the QS1. One of the reasons I went for the QS1 was this comparison page. There are some small but I think rather important differences. I actually liked the Q7 body better but went for the QS1 instead because the differences mattered a bit to me and the used price was for some reason about the same. Usually the QS1 is more but I got lucky... Pentax Q-S1 vs Pentax Q7 Detailed Comparison

05-10-2015, 06:21 PM	#11
ruggiex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: East Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 811	Originally posted by magkelly They're not entirely the same beast the Q7 and the QS1. One of the reasons I went for the QS1 was this comparison page. There are some small but I think rather important differences. I actually liked the Q7 body better but went for the QS1 instead because the differences mattered a bit to me and the used price was for some reason about the same. Usually the QS1 is more but I got lucky... Pentax Q-S1 vs Pentax Q7 Detailed Comparison Hm the shutter speed comparison is incorrect. They are the same if you look at Ricoh's spec page. I am the opposite. I love how QS1 looks but I can't justify it when I already have a Q7 because functionally I can't see any difference.

05-10-2015, 06:44 PM	#12
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	I'm not crazy about the front knobs but otherwise I don't think it's too bad and I suppose I'll get used to it.

05-11-2015, 04:46 AM	#13
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by wildman That's just the FL I use to set up SR and that's what it's showing not the true FL. See this: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-304.html#post3246897 Originally posted by Sandy Hancock I think the prevailing wisdom is that for SR to work optimally you should set the camera to the lens' actual focal length, but these are excellent regardless. I'll chime in here because I might have started this break with conventional wisdoms. I have found with the Q, that for long adapted lenses, and my technique, that the shake reduction is over active, and sharper shots seem to be at about 80-90% of true focal length. This is shooting with a viewing screen eye loupe and holding the camera like an SLR.

05-11-2015, 05:53 AM	#15
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Originally posted by ruggiex Hm the shutter speed comparison is incorrect. They are the same if you look at Ricoh's spec page. I am the opposite. I love how QS1 looks but I can't justify it when I already have a Q7 because functionally I can't see any difference. The Q-7 and Q-S1 are nearly identical in terms of tech specs and performance. i think the Q-S1 offers continuous AF during video. That's it.