Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2015, 06:01 PM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
How would you sell someone on the Pentax Q?
What makes this camera so worth while? It's a neat little curiosity, but why I would someone pick it up over the NEX/A5000 Series?

Curious to hear your answers on this, I wonder how distinct you Q fans can make the camera seem
my answer is based on why i want a Q-S1, it looks better than a smartphone, doesn't rhyme with fony pony ballony, i like the look of gunmetal and maroon red, iso 1600 raw reminds me of portra 800, the name sounds like a tool a spy would use yet could still pass it off as a toy, and I'm sure i will appreciate the weight of this camera as it hangs from my neck. and the number one reason why i want it..... 1/2000 shutter speed with flash making it perfect for daylight fill flash

07-21-2015, 05:37 AM   #47
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 86
beside this DOF-discussion ...
(that I know good enough from the fullframe/aps-discussion in other forums !
- and still find it useless because for me the f-stop is reducing the incoming light and only as a second result increasing the DOF)

I made some video with the Q and they turned out great.
I made some concert-shots at ISO 800 and they turned out to be as good as those from the pro shooting her Nikon at ISO 1600.
I made some great shots with my old 3.5/135 giving me 742.5 mm with a very small equipment that I can carry for hours in the mountainside.

The Q is lightweight&small, results are good enough. The whole equipment with fisheye, prime and both standard- and telezoom didn't cost me that much.
(The wideangle-zoom is quite pricey though.)
What else do I need to tell?
07-21-2015, 10:47 AM   #48
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 815
Original Poster
Since I don't want to make a seperate thread I will ask here. If I were to do some deep space astrophotography with the q, would it be better to have the raw crop factor of the original or the better iq of the q7?

Edit: also how much more enjoyable is the q7 compared to the q?

Last edited by ZombieArmy; 07-21-2015 at 10:57 AM.
07-21-2015, 12:27 PM   #49
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,108
Any Q camera is a joy to use. The Q7 is a bit more responsive with a slightly larger sensor that offers more dynamic range and better color sensitivity. Noise at high ISO settings is lower too. The Q7's quick-dial can be configured to toggle the ND filter on and off. A Q would require the photographer to dig through the Info screen.

I'd be a little concerned using the Q7 for astrophotography and long exposures. Noise may creep in and muddy up the details. Your telephoto reach would be incredible, though!

07-21-2015, 04:32 PM   #50
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 815
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Your telephoto reach would be incredible, though!
Yeah I was planning on using a 1200mm mirror telescope.

It's less how good the photo would be and more how far can I take a picture in the sky?
07-21-2015, 04:54 PM   #51
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 11
I have a Q7 and 2 Q's. Also happen to have an A5000. I love the Q's portability and am considering a month long trip with the 7 and the 02 and the Q with the 06. I would cover a decent range and never change lenses. Put one in each jacket pocket. However, someone said if you only have one camera go with the Sony. It depends on what you want to do with your final product but here's an observation. I took the A5000 out for a walk around our mountain with the stock 16-50mm lens on it. I shot some meaningless pics and one was of my truck from about 25 yards. I can enlarge that shot and read the expiration stickers on my license plate. I can't even read the state name on a shot taken with the Q and the 02. I haven't tried it yet with the Q7 and same lens but just saw this posting tonight. Granted, apples and oranges. A 20 mp APS-C sensor is clearly in a different league. But I took my original Q to Berlin a few years ago and took a shot there of the Brandenburg gate in 'tone expansion' that is now a 20 x 30 on my wall. Everybody that sees that print wants a copy. I would like to experiment with the Sony more but I just don't want to start another lens system to go with Canon and MFT stuff.
07-22-2015, 12:33 PM   #52
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I've zero interest in joining your insult parade.

Thanks for understanding.
I posted facts that are verifiable and I offered an explanation as to why reh321 experienced what he experienced. This all started as a side note, at least in my opinion. Nevertheless he dismissed this and posted his own experiences and expectations as truth, saying "I can't change that with an avalanche of words". Expectations that again can be proven to be false (e.g. you don't have bags of depth of field at f/26 with a 1400mm eq. lens).

Where I went wrong is that indeed, saying that your telezoom behaves like an f/26 does not help to sell the Q system. And the fact that this side note developed into much more than it needed to be.

Nevertheless, if someone dismisses verifiable facts I posted (which I thought about long and hard btw, did some research on etc), and instead basically tells me "I'm experienced, so what I say is the truth", I preserve the right to mock him however I like. Or I preserve to walk away. Whatever I feel like doing.
07-22-2015, 12:58 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I posted facts that are verifiable and I offered an explanation as to why reh321 experienced what he experienced. This all started as a side note, at least in my opinion. Nevertheless he dismissed this and posted his own experiences and expectations as truth, saying "I can't change that with an avalanche of words". Expectations that again can be proven to be false (e.g. you don't have bags of depth of field at f/26 with a 1400mm eq. lens).

Where I went wrong is that indeed, saying that your telezoom behaves like an f/26 does not help to sell the Q system. And the fact that this side note developed into much more than it needed to be.

Nevertheless, if someone dismisses verifiable facts I posted (which I thought about long and hard btw, did some research on etc), and instead basically tells me "I'm experienced, so what I say is the truth", I preserve the right to mock him however I like. Or I preserve to walk away. Whatever I feel like doing.
The relevance of my experience is simply that it leads to what a potential user cares about. "Equivalent focal-length" is useful because it communicates how large the resulting image will be; if "equivalent f-stop" doesn't communicate depth-of-field and amount of light needed, then talking about it is a confusing wandering around in the weeds. A potential user does not care about theory. S/he does care about how the camera system will behave and what it can deliver. Anything beyond that causes FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), the best deal-killer known, and my goal was to keep the discussion purely on-topic.

I guess I don't understand how mocking words contribute to the discussion. You right; of course you may act anyway you want to, wander where-ever you want, come-and-go as you want; animals do the same thing.


Last edited by reh321; 07-22-2015 at 01:09 PM.
07-22-2015, 02:48 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,909
Don' make me stop the car an' come back there, kids.

'S all real an' pertinent to us users, but IMO, we're beyond a simple answer to the OP about tweakin' someone that's just interested in explorin' the Q's.
07-22-2015, 03:12 PM   #55
Senior Member
Professor Batty's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 118
starbase218 is still trying to hijack this thread?
07-22-2015, 03:47 PM - 1 Like   #56
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I don't really want to step in the middle of this discussion, but I want to point out that the magnification (to the sensor and then to the print) influences the DoF as well, and a 1400mm lens would still have one heck of a lot of magnification at 50' away. So, don't try to directly translate the experience of f/22 (or higher) on 35mm (or aps-c) if you've mostly used standard focal length lenses (say 200mm or less) with how a 1400mm @ f/26 would render DoF and out of focus backgrounds on a FF camera.
Lens speed isn't about DOF but exposure. So that F:4 is always equal to F:4.
Thin DOF in a super telephoto is a problem. Having more DOF is generally desirable. A camera is not a DOF measuring device.
Equivalentist obviously aren't well schooled in the theory of exposure.
07-22-2015, 03:51 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,123
my K50 has 1.5 crop factor....so does that mean my DA/L lenses(designed for aspc)....are the correct F designated speeds?.....and my FF designed lenses are actually not those spEeds on the k50?....PLEASE EXPLAIN?
07-22-2015, 03:52 PM - 1 Like   #58
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
My wants are different, but that wasn't really my point. My point is, once you put a lens on a smaller sensor camera than the one it was intended for, you ARE losing f-stops relative to that camera. It's math, and it's caused by all the light falling not on the sensor, but beside it.
Wrong.

---------- Post added 07-23-15 at 12:58 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
my K50 has 1.5 crop factor....so does that mean my DA/L lenses(designed for aspc)....are the correct F designated speeds?.....and my FF designed lenses are actually not those spEeds on the k50?....PLEASE EXPLAIN?

Aaargh this equivalence nonsense.

All you lenses have correct designated speed. Everyone saying that an F:4 lens is equivalent to an F:5.6 lens is talking nonsense as F:stops are defined in a manner that make exposure constant. Anyone why bring DOF into this simply does not understand the theory of exposure. DOF has no more to do with this than subject blur has to do with shutter speed. No one would define shutter speed for subject motion....
A lens have the same speed regardless of what format you use it on.

When you use different formats but the same angle of view you must use lenses with different focal lengths. Bigger formats therefore means longer shutter speeds at the same DOF than smaller formats. The problem starts when some insist that lenses must have the same DOF wide open at medium focusing distances, and not at all at shorter focusing distances. Without, of course, explaining why.


Sensor size is immaterial when it comes to a lens aperture; aperture is a property of the lens. Hence, the concept of equivalent lenses is meaningless as long as it demands different external factors.
It is comparing apple to oranges

---------- Post added 07-15-15 at 03:30 PM ----------
Here's something I've written before on the subject.


The 2.8 is not defined by DOF but exposure. What makes it nonsense is not understanding this simple point. DOF doesn't enter its definition and therefore shouldn't be used as marker for equivalency.

The law of reciprocity gives freedom from what parts that make up the exposure you want to change due to changing conditions to achieve the same goal exposurewise. Note that reciprocity does not "care" about DOF or motion blur or image noise; only exposure. This freedom mean that it makes no sense insisting on constant DOF in the image in order to compare lenses. It is possible to do that, sure, but that just an opinion; it makes no sense making into a rule because different subjects and circumstances demand different solutions, and besides, DOF equivalent lenses cross formats only exist in theory - not in real life. No one shoots after the "law of DOF wide open equivalency at moderate distances" anyway either. You do not shoot your FF camera at 200ISO so that it is equivalent to an APS body. It is not mandatory for an APS shooter to choose his/hers lenses from FF DOF wide open and shoot accordingly. Most will use fast lenses in order to use their cameras to their best advantages in low light regardless of format. In this way you maintain the benefit of your larger sensor camera.
The only thing that you can't get away from is the lens speed; at 1.4 at a certain light level and at a certain sensitivity will give you a certain shutterspeed regardless of format. This is the only equivalency there is.....

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 07-22-2015 at 04:16 PM.
07-22-2015, 04:09 PM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Wrong.

---------- Post added 07-23-15 at 12:58 AM ----------




Aaargh this equivalence nonsense.

All you lenses have correct designated speed. Everyone saying that an F:4 lens is equivalent to an F:5.6 lens is talking nonsense as F:stops are defined in a manner that make exposure constant.
A lens have the same speed regardless of what format you use it on.
YES YES YES.....sorry I knew that....but I was wanting the F man to explain seeing he explained the F26 thingo
07-22-2015, 04:17 PM   #60
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,145
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
starbase218 is still trying to hijack this thread?
I'm doing it instead....

---------- Post added 07-23-15 at 01:17 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
YES YES YES.....sorry I knew that....but I was wanting the F man to explain seeing he explained the F26 thingo
Ohh I see...
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!
camera, dslr, exposure, kit, lens, lenses, light, mirrorless, noise, nonsense, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, screen, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would you sell these lenses to purchase the new HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ? Driline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 42 01-30-2016 07:09 AM
How would YOU market the Pentax Q? cheekygeek Pentax Q 41 06-11-2014 04:23 PM
How would you improve the K-3 Tesla Pentax K-3 61 03-12-2014 05:59 PM
Would you get the original Q? mano Pentax Q 51 01-19-2014 08:37 AM
Could Pentax sell you on the Q if they had better lenses? devorama Pentax Compact Cameras 17 06-29-2011 09:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 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