[Mothballs]

Compact, amazing image quality, and capable of super telephoto shots with excellent low light abilities.

More adaptable than Sony's mount, or m43.



Only thing is my one friend can't deal with the small size. He has ham hocks for hands.

[CarlJF]

I've serioulsy considered the A5000 before setting on the Q. The main reason was that although the A5000 is a great camera when used in full auto mode, itbecomes akward to use the more you want to control things. On the other hand, the Q really shines when getting out of the auto mode and shooting in RAW. So, it depends on what you want or need. The A5000 is great for casual shooters that will use it as a super-P&S. The Q would probably be more satisfying for peoples not wanting to stick to the auto modes.

Size difference has also to be considered. Although the kit lens coming with the A5000 is compact, additional lenses are much bigger, particularly if you need a telephoto. Any equivalent to the 06 Q lens will be much bigger and the size of the whole system simply doesn't compare. I can bring my Q, 01, 03 and 06 lenses in a pouch about the same size needed to carry a A5000 and kit lens...

So, if for you size and weight of the whole system is important above all else, the Q is the way to go. If the size isn't that important, the m43 system is probably a better choice anyway than the A5000 in terms of ergonomy/IQ/size balance.

[Vitalii]

you are mixing up quite a stuff.
yeah after sony made their nex series, and aps-c sensore cameras become quite cheap i see the resons, why people are always mixing them up in places where they don´t belong.

well if you are quite a photograph and you want somthing that looks a big bigger which also means more "professional", go for a58 - cheap as hell, absolutely not usable even compared to my k-x it feels cheap, and doesn´t even has a ir port. want to have same thing in smaller design, get yourself a cheapo nex series. tiny body, and big soul with huge lenses. Why do you need huge lenses? well actually the camera is designed for those who don´t use lenses at all - yeah, some will buy 55-200, others may go for a 18-200. but the minority of the buyers go for the marketing - huge MP count was before - huge sensor is now, and sony have both%)

so reasons why there are still cameras with smaller sensor.
why is nikon investing in 1" sensor cameras like nikon 1? why olympus stick with mft? why pentax has it´s q lenses?
have you ever compared the lense size? have you ever seen a prise and a size of 600mm lense? it´s huge, heavy, and costs a lot. compare it to the olympus mft, which is almost the size of a sony´s 55-200. and costs around 500-600$. and thats mft. imagine now the required size for the 1" sensors?
another point - APS-C cameras are often sold as "Universal" cameras. Sure! if you have right equipment... and knowledge... well the lenses for the q are the cheapest on the market. add this to a great macro and landscape(bigger DoF) capability, and you get your point. sure you might have a bit more noice with the q. for that you get much faster and smaller lenses. you don´t get blown out bokeh, therefore flash sharp and bigger DoF.

the gear is always about making compromisses. and a well build 1" sensor camera has much more rights, than a cheap build aps-c in my eyes.

[pacerr]

To the point -- I'd send 'em to this sub-forum to see for them self what can be done with the Q's. If it appeals to 'em, there'll be no need to "sell" anything.

If they haven't the patience to peruse this site, you're wastin' your time anyway.

[spinno]

It's fun! The fisheye lens, wide angle and telephoto primes are fun.
It's practical, the other lenses are dare I say it practical.

[narual]

Well, you can adapt absolutely any lens to it - it has the smallest flange focal distance of anything out there. With an adaptor, you can get pretty ridiculous telephoto length from a not terribly long lens. (for fun, try the 40mm XS lens on it)

It's fun, and tiny, and the look people give you when they see you changing lenses on something that's smaller than the palm of your hand is worth the cost of a used one.

[6BQ5]

Because the Q is a mirrorless camera the size of a small P&S but with the capability and control of a single-wheeled DSLR. That's a lot of horsepower to carry in a tiny little body.

[Transit]

I recently sold my Q to an old film user. her eyes lit up at the real controls, both on camera and on lens.
I was showing it to someone else but she pounced on it.
The speed of actual zoom ring rather than lame zoom motor in P&S had her convinced.

[redeleon]

I just got my Q7 last monday and I've managed to influence some of my mates (they bought one for themselves after they tried it out.. they are CaNikon users)
I just told them. "well it's Qute, and if you know the story of David and Goliath.. that's pretty much, most of it "

[starbase218]

And it's a 5x teleconverter for your K-mount lenses without losing light.

Sure, if you forget for a moment that most of the light projected by those lenses does not fall on the image sensor.

I have a Q10, but I'm not going to bother with the converter. I mean, my Q10 + 02 standard zoom can fit inside the space occupied by a 16-50 f/2.8, and they're way lighter. Why on earth would I want to put that 16-50 f/2.8 on a Q and have it become equivalent to an 88-275 f/16? I'll take the 06 telephoto zoom instead. About the same range and aperture, and WAY smaller, which is what the system is about.

The Q system feels liberating to me. Part of that probably has to do with the fact that it goes against conventional wisdom, with its small sensor. With the Q, I'm more inclined to play with the in-camera selection of digital filters, aspect ratios, etc.

The downsides so far? No orientation sensor, and the screen is crappy in direct sunlight. I really wish they'd bring out a Q-S2 that has a better screen (air-gapless) and maybe even an EVF. Not a high-end one, but just a good one. It shouldn't be much bigger than the Q-S1 though. I'd rather have them keep it the same size than having to make it bigger and include that EVF.

---------- Post added 07-18-2015 at 03:34 PM ----------

Because the Q is a mirrorless camera the size of a small P&S but with the capability and control of a single-wheeled DSLR. That's a lot of horsepower to carry in a tiny little body.

I wouldn't say it has the capability of a DSLR. But it does offer DSLR-like controls and interchangeable lenses in a tiny package. That's its appeal.

[reh321]

And it's a 5x teleconverter for your K-mount lenses without losing light.

Sure, if you forget for a moment that most of the light projected by those lenses does not fall on the image sensor.

I have a Q10, but I'm not going to bother with the converter. I mean, my Q10 + 02 standard zoom can fit inside the space occupied by a 16-50 f/2.8, and they're way lighter. Why on earth would I want to put that 16-50 f/2.8 on a Q and have it become equivalent to an 88-275 f/16? I'll take the 06 telephoto zoom instead.

You missed the teleconverter part.

One does not normally put a teleconverter on a 16-50; you do just get a longer lens.
One puts a teleconverter on a 70-300 to get a 140-600, but a teleconverter loses something like half the light; that is, you effectively have lost a couple of f-stops.

Sandy's point is that I could put a 70-300 on my Q7 and get the equivalent of a 330-1400, without losing any f-stops, which is great for me because one of the things I like to photograph is birds, who happen to be kind of camera-shy.
Your wants are different.
That is great!
One of the positive points to a Q is its flexibility - it can meet both your wants and mine, even though they are completely different!

[starbase218]

You missed the teleconverter part.

One does not normally put a teleconverter on a 16-50; you do just get a longer lens.
One puts a teleconverter on a 70-300 to get a 140-600, but a teleconverter loses something like half the light; that is, you effectively have lost a couple of f-stops.

Sandy's point is that I could put a 70-300 on my Q7 and get the equivalent of a 330-1400, without losing any f-stops, which is great for me because one of the things I like to photograph is birds, who happen to be kind of camera-shy.
Your wants are different.
That is great!
One of the positive points to a Q is its flexibility - it can meet both your wants and mine, even though they are completely different!

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. This has nothing to do with different needs, it has to do with the fact that if you say your 70-300 becomes equivalent to a 330-1400, you can't say it still behaves as if it were, what, an f/4-5.6? Why? Because at 1400mm, the lens would need to be at least 1400/5.6 = 250mm in diameter, or 25cm, if it were to behave like a 1400/5.6. But instead, it's still 300/5.6 = about 54mm. So, taking that aperture and the new equivalent focal length of 1400mm gives us an equivalent f-stop of 1400/54 = f/26, give or take.

You say it's different from using a teleconverter, while it's the exact same thing.

Check out this video if you want to know more about it:

You Tube

You Tube

[Professor Batty]

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. This has nothing to do with different needs, it has to do with the fact that if you say your 70-300 becomes equivalent to a 330-1400, you can't say it still behaves as if it were, what, an f/4-5.6? Why? Because at 1400mm, the lens would need to be at least 1400/5.6 = 250mm in diameter, or 25cm, if it were to behave like a 1400/5.6. But instead, it's still 300/5.6 = about 54mm. So, taking that aperture and the new equivalent focal length of 1400mm gives us an equivalent f-stop of 1400/54 = f/26, give or take.

You say it's different from using a teleconverter, while it's the exact same thing.

Check out this video if you want to know more about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA

I can get where Starbase is coming from, but the light "lost" is merely cropped out while the exposure time remains exactly the same, whereas with a tele-converter the image is "spread out" so one would have to increase the exposure time to get the same density at any given f-stop.

The angle of view changes, not the exposure, which is why the Q is so popular with birders. For example: with a Q one can get the same angle of view with a 50mm lens as one could get with a 280mm on a full frame camera. The exposure time, angle of view and depth of field would be the same at any given ISO and fstop. Resolution is another issue altogether but some small format lenses, particularly the Pentax 110 lenses and C mount cine lenses, give excellent results within the limits of diffraction.

[reh321]

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. This has nothing to do with different needs, it has to do with the fact that if you say your 70-300 becomes equivalent to a 330-1400, you can't say it still behaves as if it were, what, an f/4-5.6? Why? Because at 1400mm, the lens would need to be at least 1400/5.6 = 250mm in diameter, or 25cm, if it were to behave like a 1400/5.6. But instead, it's still 300/5.6 = about 54mm. So, taking that aperture and the new equivalent focal length of 1400mm gives us an equivalent f-stop of 1400/54 = f/26, give or take.

You say it's different from using a teleconverter, while it's the exact same thing.

Check out this video if you want to know more about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA

I'm a mathematician by education, and I have taught mathematics at the college level, but I'm not interested in some guy talking on youtube about theory. I have always been more interested in practice than in theory. I can read and comprehend the theory for myself, but my actual interest is in practical photography.

What I know from practical experience is the following: I can use a $200 70-300mm lens on a $400 Q-S1 and get good solid pictures of birds in my backyard; yes, maybe I use a setting of f/4 and the camera sees the light that would normally go with something like f/8 (*) like a 2X converter would; my experience is that I get plenty of light to take a reasonable picture; I'm not losing anything like the amount of light that your theory predicts, and it gives me much better pictures than the 2X converter would.

Another option would be to buy a $750 K-3 and a $1050 150-500mm lens (total cost $1800 compared to $600 for the Q package),then crop the resulting picture by a factor of 3 (4.7/1.5) in each dimension, turning my $1800 system into a 3MP system; perhaps the superior K-3 system would produce 3MP crops as good as the 12MP images produced by the Q, but I'm not sure I would want to bet my $1800 on it.

Then, once I'm not taking birding pictures, I can replace the adapted zoom lens on the Q with a 01 prime lens, put the whole thing in my pocket, and go on with my life.

(*) I actually did this experiment in my backyard a few minutes ago.
I aimed my Q7 with the adapted zoom at a spot in my garden with the lens set at f/4 and determined what shutter speed was needed;
then I mounted my 06 lens, set the camera to Tv mode, set the shutter speed to the speed recorded above, and then walked to the point where the same area filled the LCD.
The camera was setting the aperture to 7.1.

[starbase218]

I can get where Starbase is coming from, but the light "lost" is merely cropped out while the exposure time remains exactly the same, whereas with a tele-converter the image is "spread out" so one would have to increase the exposure time to get the same density at any given f-stop.

The angle of view changes, not the exposure, which is why the Q is so popular with birders. For example: with a Q one can get the same angle of view with a 50mm lens as one could get with a 280mm on a full frame camera. The exposure time, angle of view and depth of field would be the same at any given ISO and fstop. Resolution is another issue altogether but some small format lenses, particularly the Pentax 110 lenses and C mount cine lenses, give excellent results within the limits of diffraction.

If light is cropped out, that means the total amount of light on the sensor is reduced. The light per mm2 is the same, which is why you can use the same ISO setting, but assuming you are concerned with the photo as a whole, that's hardly relevant. A smaller sensor will show more noise than a larger sensor if you don't adjust the exposure to keep the amount of light that actually hits the sensor equal (meaning more light per mm2).

Of course this doesn't mean you can't enjoy photos you get from this setup, and it may be very good in terms of value-for-money. But saying your 70-300/4-5.6 is suddenly a 330-1400/4-5.6 because you have a smaller sensor behind it, doesn't add up. You have to apply equivalence to both the focal length and the aperture.

Or you stop saying it's equivalent to anything and just enjoy taking photos with your setup. Which is far more important anyway.

---------- Post added 07-18-2015 at 11:18 PM ----------

I can get where Starbase is coming from, but the light "lost" is merely cropped out while the exposure time remains exactly the same, whereas with a tele-converter the image is "spread out" so one would have to increase the exposure time to get the same density at any given f-stop.

An APS-C lens with a 1.5x teleconverter on a fullframe body would project the same amount of light on the fullframe sensor as that lens without the TC would project on an APS-C sensor. Yet on the fullframe sensor, you would have more leeway to go to a higher ISO to compensate for the lower per-mm2 light intensity.

Now imagine exchanging that fullframe sensor an APS-C sensor. You once again have less leeway of going to higher ISO values because you get more noise.

ISO has a different impact wrt noise on different sensor formats.