Q-S1 compared to original Q

rafa75 · 05-11-2015, 12:08 PM

Hi wildman , we still don't know wch lens was used ..

wildman · 05-11-2015, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by rafa75

Hi wildman , we still don't know wch lens was used ..

Astro Tech 80mm F/7.1 560mm APO triplet. It's not really a "lens" it's a scope.

You can see my setup here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-304.html#post3247690

rafa75 · 05-11-2015, 12:30 PM

yes I saw it , thnks

CWRailman · 05-11-2015, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

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.

That is the only difference that has been reported by other review sites. I am not sure where or how that site got their info.

---------- Post added 05-11-15 at 07:32 PM ----------

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 make do with what I have.

Depending on what that use is, I found that there were a good number of changes and improvements between the Original Q and the Q7 with the increased size sensor and less noise at all ISO's just being two. Some folks still expect to get K-5 Quality out of the Q7 but of course such expectations are not realistic but the Q7 does produce much sharper and better detailed images than the original Q.You can check out my WEB site to see how we use the Q series and what are expectations are and I have photo's shot with the Q10 and Q7 in my Albums.

paulcote · 05-12-2015, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by CWRailman

That is the only difference that has been reported by other review sites. I am not sure where or how that site got their info.

---------- Post added 05-11-15 at 07:32 PM ----------

Depending on what that use is, I found that there were a good number of changes and improvements between the Original Q and the Q7 with the increased size sensor and less noise at all ISO's just being two. Some folks still expect to get K-5 Quality out of the Q7 but of course such expectations are not realistic but the Q7 does produce much sharper and better detailed images than the original Q.You can check out my WEB site to see how we use the Q series and what are expectations are and I have photo's shot with the Q10 and Q7 in my Albums.

Denny, would you post a link to your webpage? Thanks!

CWRailman · 05-12-2015, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by paulcote

Denny, would you post a link to your webpage? Thanks!

In the past the moderators of this board did not allow us to post links to our WEB sites within the messages and I do not know if that has changed. If you left click on my CWRailman heading which appears over any of my posts, the drop down will allow you to go to my “Home page”. Once on my site you can go to my Blog page. Click on “Photography” under the “categories” which is on the right hand side and a few of my blogs discussing using the Q, Q10 and Q7 cameras for photographing models will come up. In addition you can go to my “Photographing Models” page to get some additional information about how we easily photograph models using inexpensive cameras with small sensors. The Q series small size sensors produce a good depth of field which is great for our type of photography. If you have any questions you can either ask them here or send me an email using the address listed on my WEB site.

In my 02/17/2014 blog I provide a link to a Gallery of images shot for the Scottsdale Model Railroad Historical Society with the Q10 and Q7 using the Tonal Expansion special effects. We did that to represent an artists perception and how they might paint the scene. One of those shots, the one of the large articulated locomotive was actually printed on canvas by the owner of that particular model and does look like a painting.

wildman · 05-12-2015, 08:18 PM

Just got the S1 this afternoon.
Give me more time to work with it before I have anything to say about it.
In the mean time here's a few yardbird shots taken with it - posted without comment.
All FF.

Last edited by wildman; 05-15-2015 at 02:47 AM.

wildman · 05-13-2015, 07:20 PM

OK had a little time with the S1.

Quick and dirty report so far.

1. Haven't found anything worse on the S1 compared to the original.

2. Did find two things that are better:
A. The buffer performance when shooting RAW in single mode is much better. This is a big deal for me because I'm a RAW shooter and especially with such a small sensor it needs all the help it can get from PP. I'm surprised that in all the reviews I read no one mentioned this improvement.

B. Sensor quality while not stunningly better is noticeably better. About 2 stops with proper PP. See bird pic at ISO 1600.

Bare in mind I have no interest in using the Q for normal FL photography, under 300mm, and the only glass it will ever be used on will be my scopes.

Bird pic at ISO of 1600 and 5000 .

paranoia23 · 05-19-2015, 10:29 PM

Quote:

1. Haven't found anything worse on the S1 compared to the original.

you forgott to mention its thickness... since its a few mm thicker ... compared to the original it feels holding a vhs tape... and the "i do look like a got the magnesium body BUT I DON'T"

wildman · 05-20-2015, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by paranoia23

you forgott to mention its thickness... since its a few mm thicker ... compared to the original it feels holding a vhs tape... and the "i do look like a got the magnesium body BUT I DON'T"

For my purposes neither of these differences really matter to me. As a matter of fact I wish it was bigger with a size more in scale to the human hand. So far as the body material is concerned I wouldn't be able to tell the difference without being told there is a difference.

One big improvement I failed to mention is TAv mode is fully implemented in the S1 with the ability to control Ev.
A big deal when you are a RAW shooter trying to wring all the performance you can out of that tiny sensor with its tendency to blow highlights.

A recent shot with the S1.....

someone902 · 05-20-2015, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by wildman

OK had a little time with the S1.

Quick and dirty report so far.

1. Haven't found anything worse on the S1 compared to the original.

2. Did find two things that are better:
A. The buffer performance when shooting RAW in single mode is much better. This is a big deal for me because I'm a RAW shooter and especially with such a small sensor it needs all the help it can get from PP. I'm surprised that in all the reviews I read no one mentioned this improvement.

B. Sensor quality while not stunningly better is noticeably better. I would say at least about 2 stops with proper PP. See bird pic at ISO 1600.

Bare in mind I have no interest in using the Q for normal FL photography, under 300mm, and the only glass it will ever be used on will be my scopes.

Bird pic at ISO of 1600 and 5000 .

Is this compared to the Q7 or the original Q?

wildman · 05-20-2015, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by someone902

Is this compared to the Q7 or the original Q?

Thread title - "Q-S1 compared to original Q"

05-13-2015, 07:20 PM	#23
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	OK had a little time with the S1. Quick and dirty report so far. 1. Haven't found anything worse on the S1 compared to the original. 2. Did find two things that are better: A. The buffer performance when shooting RAW in single mode is much better. This is a big deal for me because I'm a RAW shooter and especially with such a small sensor it needs all the help it can get from PP. I'm surprised that in all the reviews I read no one mentioned this improvement. B. Sensor quality while not stunningly better is noticeably better. About 2 stops with proper PP. See bird pic at ISO 1600. Bare in mind I have no interest in using the Q for normal FL photography, under 300mm, and the only glass it will ever be used on will be my scopes. Bird pic at ISO of 1600 and 5000 . Last edited by wildman; 05-20-2015 at 05:54 AM.

05-20-2015, 02:13 AM	#25
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by paranoia23 you forgott to mention its thickness... since its a few mm thicker ... compared to the original it feels holding a vhs tape... and the "i do look like a got the magnesium body BUT I DON'T" For my purposes neither of these differences really matter to me. As a matter of fact I wish it was bigger with a size more in scale to the human hand. So far as the body material is concerned I wouldn't be able to tell the difference without being told there is a difference. One big improvement I failed to mention is TAv mode is fully implemented in the S1 with the ability to control Ev. A big deal when you are a RAW shooter trying to wring all the performance you can out of that tiny sensor with its tendency to blow highlights. A recent shot with the S1..... Last edited by wildman; 05-20-2015 at 05:43 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

05-11-2015, 12:08 PM	#16
rafa75 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Europe - France - Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 35	Hi wildman , we still don't know wch lens was used ..

05-11-2015, 12:28 PM	#17
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by rafa75 Hi wildman , we still don't know wch lens was used .. Astro Tech 80mm F/7.1 560mm APO triplet. It's not really a "lens" it's a scope. You can see my setup here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-304.html#post3247690

05-11-2015, 12:30 PM	#18
rafa75 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Europe - France - Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 35	yes I saw it , thnks

05-11-2015, 07:18 PM	#19
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by 6BQ5 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. That is the only difference that has been reported by other review sites. I am not sure where or how that site got their info. ---------- Post added 05-11-15 at 07:32 PM ---------- 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 make do with what I have. Depending on what that use is, I found that there were a good number of changes and improvements between the Original Q and the Q7 with the increased size sensor and less noise at all ISO's just being two. Some folks still expect to get K-5 Quality out of the Q7 but of course such expectations are not realistic but the Q7 does produce much sharper and better detailed images than the original Q.You can check out my WEB site to see how we use the Q series and what are expectations are and I have photo's shot with the Q10 and Q7 in my Albums.

05-12-2015, 07:19 AM	#20
paulcote Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 96	Originally posted by CWRailman That is the only difference that has been reported by other review sites. I am not sure where or how that site got their info. ---------- Post added 05-11-15 at 07:32 PM ---------- Depending on what that use is, I found that there were a good number of changes and improvements between the Original Q and the Q7 with the increased size sensor and less noise at all ISO's just being two. Some folks still expect to get K-5 Quality out of the Q7 but of course such expectations are not realistic but the Q7 does produce much sharper and better detailed images than the original Q.You can check out my WEB site to see how we use the Q series and what are expectations are and I have photo's shot with the Q10 and Q7 in my Albums. Denny, would you post a link to your webpage? Thanks!

05-12-2015, 02:13 PM	#21
CWRailman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Scottsdale, Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 510	Originally posted by paulcote Denny, would you post a link to your webpage? Thanks! In the past the moderators of this board did not allow us to post links to our WEB sites within the messages and I do not know if that has changed. If you left click on my CWRailman heading which appears over any of my posts, the drop down will allow you to go to my “Home page”. Once on my site you can go to my Blog page. Click on “Photography” under the “categories” which is on the right hand side and a few of my blogs discussing using the Q, Q10 and Q7 cameras for photographing models will come up. In addition you can go to my “Photographing Models” page to get some additional information about how we easily photograph models using inexpensive cameras with small sensors. The Q series small size sensors produce a good depth of field which is great for our type of photography. If you have any questions you can either ask them here or send me an email using the address listed on my WEB site. In my 02/17/2014 blog I provide a link to a Gallery of images shot for the Scottsdale Model Railroad Historical Society with the Q10 and Q7 using the Tonal Expansion special effects. We did that to represent an artists perception and how they might paint the scene. One of those shots, the one of the large articulated locomotive was actually printed on canvas by the owner of that particular model and does look like a painting.

05-12-2015, 08:18 PM	#22
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Just got the S1 this afternoon. Give me more time to work with it before I have anything to say about it. In the mean time here's a few yardbird shots taken with it - posted without comment. All FF. Last edited by wildman; 05-15-2015 at 02:47 AM.

05-19-2015, 10:29 PM	#24
paranoia23 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 188	Quote: 1. Haven't found anything worse on the S1 compared to the original. you forgott to mention its thickness... since its a few mm thicker ... compared to the original it feels holding a vhs tape... and the "i do look like a got the magnesium body BUT I DON'T"

05-20-2015, 04:33 AM	#26
someone902 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 75	Originally posted by wildman OK had a little time with the S1. Quick and dirty report so far. 1. Haven't found anything worse on the S1 compared to the original. 2. Did find two things that are better: A. The buffer performance when shooting RAW in single mode is much better. This is a big deal for me because I'm a RAW shooter and especially with such a small sensor it needs all the help it can get from PP. I'm surprised that in all the reviews I read no one mentioned this improvement. B. Sensor quality while not stunningly better is noticeably better. I would say at least about 2 stops with proper PP. See bird pic at ISO 1600. Bare in mind I have no interest in using the Q for normal FL photography, under 300mm, and the only glass it will ever be used on will be my scopes. Bird pic at ISO of 1600 and 5000 . Is this compared to the Q7 or the original Q?

05-20-2015, 04:41 AM	#27
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469 Original Poster	Originally posted by someone902 Is this compared to the Q7 or the original Q? Thread title - "Q-S1 compared to original Q"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search