Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2015, 09:20 AM   #136
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
The biggest problem with a superzoom is on the long end, they can be quite dim and diffraction tends to turn everything into mush: Best Superzoom 2014: Eight competitors, 2.5 clear winners
I know, by your lights all problems would disappear if only that sensor were 1", right ;-) That sensor thing, however, is a slippery slope as the increasing sensor size does push the boundary of diffraction back but also introduces larger and more expensive lenses and pretty soon I would find myself using my Olympus OM-D. Whereupon some smart alleck will tell me that mft is diffraction limited at f/8 and I should really go... bla bla bla.

BTW, the moon shot I posted above was taken at f/11, which contrary to conventional wisdom yielded the 'optimal' result for this capture. Diffraction is real but not half the bogey it is ogten made out to be.

---------- Post added 29-10-15 at 17:21 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
why don't you simply buy a superzoom, they already exist, with EVF and larger grip, with 1/2.3", 1/1.7", 1/1.5", 1" sensors etc...
Why spend another $500 for a bridge camera when I have a Q-ILC?

---------- Post added 29-10-15 at 17:31 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
people keep trying to make rational arguments from the perspective of a large-format dslr or milc. They don't seem to understand that final absolute iq is not the primary objective; ranking q by that standard completely misses the point.

Please stop trying to 'nudge' me to make the decision that you 'know' is in my best interest. You and i do not agree on the feature ranking weights, so your conclusion of my best interest is plain wrong - but that's a common complaint these days.

I tire of being told someone understands my best interest better than i do and that i am too stupid or poorly educated or unsophisticated to make good decisions, so 'said someone' will make my 'good' decisions for me.

Q does precisely what i bought it to do. I have other cameras that do precisely what i bought them to do. Ok?
a m e n

10-29-2015, 09:57 AM   #137
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 355
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
a m e n
And +1
10-29-2015, 10:24 AM   #138
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I know, by your lights all problems would disappear if only that sensor were 1", right ;-) That sensor thing, however, is a slippery slope as the increasing sensor size does push the boundary of diffraction back but also introduces larger and more expensive lenses
Canon G3X still keeps quite compact size while having 25x zoom and 1" sensor
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Why spend another $500 for a bridge camera when I have a Q-ILC?
You can have bridge camera for much less than $500... and superzoom for Q is surely to cost more because of small market (e.g. Q 08 sells at $450 at amazon)
10-29-2015, 10:28 AM   #139
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,863
QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
(e.g. Q 08 sells at $450 at amazon)
The 08 is selling for less than $400. It was $500 at launch. Ricoh thought there was a market for a premium lens line for the Q. They were not right.

10-29-2015, 10:33 AM   #140
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
and pretty soon I would find myself using my Olympus OM-D.
Right. It is much better to ask Olympus to find BSI sensors with more MP count. Once pixel size on 4/3" equals pixel size of Q, Q becomes superflous, because instead of using Q you can just crop from larger sensor.
10-29-2015, 10:54 AM   #141
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
Canon G3X still keeps quite compact size while having 25x zoom and 1" sensor

You can have bridge camera for much less than $500... and superzoom for Q is surely to cost more because of small market (e.g. Q 08 sells at $450 at amazon)
I'll spell it out for you: I make my own purchasing decisions. When I need, help I'll ask. Thank you very much.
Meanwhile most of us are here to talk about the Q.

---------- Post added 29-10-15 at 18:55 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
Right. It is much better to ask Olympus to find BSI sensors with more MP count. Once pixel size on 4/3" equals pixel size of Q, Q becomes superflous, because instead of using Q you can just crop from larger sensor.
See above.
10-29-2015, 11:14 AM   #142
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
Compare the size of top-rated bridge camera to the Q: Compare camera dimensions side by side

Make sure you check the top view.
Yes I know and that is the (potential) beauty of the Q. It is a very small q-ilc that could also be morphed into Pentax' answer to all those bridge cameras => a bridge camera with an interchangeable mount. I'm sure that is a concept many people will immediately understand. Particularly as Pentax has discontinued the XG-1 after only about one year.

Nikon has done a far better job of diversifying the basic sensor/mount combination of the 1 by giving it superior auto focus, evf and a 300mm lens. Pentax should learn if they want to grow the Q beyond small and qute.

To develop such a cam would cost little as it simply recycles the Q's innards in another package to attract a broader audience.
10-29-2015, 11:24 AM - 1 Like   #143
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
I'm with you on keeping the Q small! A 20mp 1" sensor is about the same pixel density as a 12mp 1 1/7" sensor, so no advantage there, especially when cropping. I added the link so that people could judge a superzoom for themselves!
You need 34 MP on 1" sensor to match pixel density of 12 MP 1/1.7" sensor. So we are not just here, yet. And Olympus is still stuck with 16 mp FSI sensors.

QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
That makes no sense at all, you're just hauling around a bigger camera and a much bigger lens and creating much bigger files.

The primary design objective of the Q was to make the smallest ILC camera.
At time of its launch, it was barely smaller than NEX-5 with APS-C sensor; and mainly because NEX had larger battery. Today there's even GM5 with EVF. So I don't understand which bigger camera you're talking about. When the point when sensors with high MP counts provide sufficient readout rate and low power consumption is reached, you can just have one large sensor camera and use it with lenses with different frame sizes.

---------- Post added 10-30-15 at 01:30 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I'll spell it out for you: I make my own purchasing decisions. When I need, help I'll ask. Thank you very much.
Meanwhile most of us are here to talk about the Q.
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Pentax should learn if they want to grow the Q beyond small and qute.

To develop such a cam would cost little as it simply recycles the Q's innards in another package to attract a broader audience.
Don't you see a contradiction here?? When Pentax needs your advice, they'll ask you. Meanwhile most of us are here to talk about the Q, not about non-existent superzooms.

---------- Post added 10-30-15 at 01:35 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
Compare the size of top-rated bridge camera to the Q: Compare camera dimensions side by side

Make sure you check the top view.
What do you mean? 4.3-215 mm lens wouldn't get any smaller if made for Q. If such lens made for Q, you would win only in EVF hump which Q lacks.
I didn't suggest to dump Q and buy bridge camera instead. I suggested to buy bridge camera in addition to Q, and this surely *IS* cheaper.


Last edited by alliumnsk; 10-29-2015 at 11:37 AM.
10-29-2015, 11:36 AM   #144
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Yes I know and that is the (potential) beauty of the Q. It is a very small q-ilc that could also be morphed into Pentax' answer to all those bridge cameras => a bridge camera with an interchangeable mount. I'm sure that is a concept many people will immediately understand. Particularly as Pentax has discontinued the XG-1 after only about one year.

Nikon has done a far better job of diversifying the basic sensor/mount combination of the 1 by giving it superior auto focus, evf and a 300mm lens. Pentax should learn if they want to grow the Q beyond small and qute.

To develop such a cam would cost little as it simply recycles the Q's innards in another package to attract a broader audience.
As I mentioned earlier already, i guess we will just have to wait until FF infrastructure is up and running. About 1Year(+a few weeks) later we may see an overhauled Q + new lenses...
Maybe +WR, +Tiltable LCD, EVF!!! *fingerscrossed*



Today i had a wonderful dream of an "RE" (retractable like the DA L 18-50) Superzoom with 50-250mm F:4

i would buy it immediately... even for 400-500 Euro.... if it is up to the IQ of the Wide-Angle...
10-29-2015, 11:52 AM - 1 Like   #145
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
Don't you see a contradiction here?? When Pentax needs your advice, they'll ask you. Meanwhile most of us are here to talk about the Q, not about non-existent superzooms.

---------- Post added 10-30-15 at 01:35 AM ----------
And of to my ignore list you go

---------- Post added 29-10-15 at 20:01 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
My final word (I promise!) Check out crewl1's Q7 shot: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2762697

Then go back and look at the superzooms results at about the same FL: Best Superzoom 2014: Eight competitors, 2.5 clear winners
Thanks I'm familiar with that thread, posted there a bunch of times. The difficulty with adapted lenses - much as I love adapting anything even remotely resembling a lens - is that the current Q has so little support for it. With the current low res LCD and a very long lens it is very, very tough to get focus, particularly if the sun is out. So evf and an af superzoom would make life a lot simpler.
Sure, sometimes the results with top notch adapted lenses will be better than what we can expect to get with a superzoom, but sometimes the reverse will be true. And the latter solution will certainly be smaller (collapsible) and have auto focus.

---------- Post added 29-10-15 at 20:05 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
As I mentioned earlier already, i guess we will just have to wait until FF infrastructure is up and running. About 1Year(+a few weeks) later we may see an overhauled Q + new lenses...
Maybe +WR, +Tiltable LCD, EVF!!! *fingerscrossed*



Today i had a wonderful dream of an "RE" (retractable like the DA L 18-50) Superzoom with 50-250mm F:4

i would buy it immediately... even for 400-500 Euro.... if it is up to the IQ of the Wide-Angle...
I'll second that dream!
10-29-2015, 12:53 PM   #146
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by kwb Quote
Dear reh321,
I hate to add more off-topic posts to here, but I feel as if I need to do it once.

This APSC crop thing is about the only claim that was sort of interesting to me in Nicolas06's posts. His math is good for his claim. Yours is not.

That claim is that, when you (reh321) used 24MP APSC sensor interchangeable lens camera with the same lens as you used for your telephoto shot with Q7, the resulting image quality wouldn't be that different from what you get now as far as resolving power is concerned, and that one way to test it is to scale your image by a factor of 2.1 or 2.2. Therefore he made a 546x364 image out of your 1201x800 image.
My issue is with the relevance of the arithmetic. I started off with a 4000x2664 image which was down-scaled by a factor of 3.3 to be displayed here. I don't see the point to down-scaling it again to "prove" anything. And, yes, both his choice of words and his presentation of arithmetic leave a lot to be desired.

---------- Post added 10-29-15 at 03:57 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The issue with the theory that you get more with you Q due to higher pixel density is that the lense that are good enough for that are more in the 16mm-135mm range than in the 200mm-600mm range. Oh maybe we could try the DA560, but the price is to take into consideration. If we look at DxO resolutions figures even a DA*300 is visibly less sharp than a DA35 macro on a K3 or K5-II meaning we are already facing the limits of DA*300 with a 24MP sensor. Sure a TC give a bit more, but apparently it is not at good as the 150-450 @ 420mm. 24MP maybe doesn't outresolve the DA*300 fully, but we are not far.

So yes, take a 100mm macro f/2.8, put it on a Q and get 2.1 time more details on the Q than K3. The framing would be like a 300mm lens. and the setup would be smaller than what you'd need on your DSLR. Not with an old 300mm prime full of CA.
I never claimed that mine was a great image; I said from the beginning that it was taken using a lens which had been found wanting as a result of this image. There is no point to whipping this dead horse.

BTW - one of the lenses I left home on this trip - to be honest I have very little experience with it in this setting - is a Sigma lens which looks very good to me in Croneberg's testing
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2337784.
One lesson from his testing, and comments by others, is that I should probably be more aggressive in closing down the lens (he is not the first to say that, despite diffraction, going to f/8 or even f/11 improves sharpness); I believe that my much-attacked image was taken at f/5.6.

I still claim, though, that a lens which does not fully resolve on the Q gives me better images than one which does fully resolve on the K but requires 3-fold (in each dimension) cropping.

Anyone who wants to continue beating this dead horse may continue to waste electrons.
I have long since tired of this, so I will not be a participant.

---------- Post added 10-29-15 at 04:10 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Yes I know and that is the (potential) beauty of the Q. It is a very small q-ilc that could also be morphed into Pentax' answer to all those bridge cameras => a bridge camera with an interchangeable mount. I'm sure that is a concept many people will immediately understand. Particularly as Pentax has discontinued the XG-1 after only about one year.

Nikon has done a far better job of diversifying the basic sensor/mount combination of the 1 by giving it superior auto focus, evf and a 300mm lens. Pentax should learn if they want to grow the Q beyond small and qute.

To develop such a cam would cost little as it simply recycles the Q's innards in another package to attract a broader audience.
But why recycle the Q's body? Why not simply provide an additional lens option? A 100mm-300mm Q lens would be great! The Canon SX-60 currently costs $479; the Nikon P900 currently costs $597 ... or would cost that if B&H had any in stock. Each of them has a 1/2.3" sensor, but each has created a certain amount of excitement in the market. The market is there. I am not willing to buy the 08 lens, because it doesn't add any real utility for me, but a "birding lens" for the Q, that would provide even better pictures than an adapted lens, would easily separate me from some money (once we got past the inevitable Pentax surcharge on early adopters).

Last edited by reh321; 10-29-2015 at 01:37 PM. Reason: further info
10-29-2015, 01:36 PM   #147
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 62
there's Nikon1 70-300 lens which also has bodies with fast fps, AF and EVF
10-29-2015, 01:39 PM   #148
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
there's Nikon1 70-300 lens which also has bodies with fast fps, AF and EVF
Which is very nice, but I specifically chose the Pentax Q-7 over the Nikon 1 because I wanted the benefit of more "crop magnification".
10-29-2015, 02:04 PM   #149
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
MindMadeUp. Anything but Q. Rebutting any point with a disconnected rejoinder.

Begone
10-29-2015, 03:02 PM   #150
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
I know, there is a dedicated satire thread, but:

If Mondelez can protect the color purple to pack only their chocolate ...
... could this mean Leica owes Ricoh to use the single letter "Q" for a cameras name?

If not all is just a big big plot... I guess there are some lawsuits to get filed now(ahem since a few weeks)... O - O

no need to get busy and comment on this... i 'll do myself. I think this meme just fits.
Attached Images
 
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!
arc, bodies, camera, camera line, history, hope, iq, length, lenses, mft, minutes, mirrorless, months, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor, size, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anyone have a good comparison of the Q line? Mothballs Pentax Q 30 12-28-2015 02:22 PM
Given up on old Q- is Q7/Q-S1 much improved? SteveNunez Pentax Q 39 11-06-2015 04:55 AM
Camera is DEAD! Coldcanuk Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 05-25-2015 07:33 AM
Dead Q StigVidar Pentax Q 8 01-15-2014 06:11 AM
Is Q the right camera? mblumm Pentax Q 38 04-26-2013 03:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:39 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