Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2015, 04:39 PM   #151
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
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.
I've seen some 08's resell on Ebay for $325.

10-29-2015, 06:37 PM   #152
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,906
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
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.
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
I've seen some 08's resell on Ebay for $325.
There's a market - but not at those prices.
10-29-2015, 07:47 PM   #153
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
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.
Still marked $497 at B&H, $450 at Adorama.

I've heard a lot of griping about the price of the 08 lens, and guys who'd like to have one, but they think it's too much dough. Somebody has to say this: The 08 lens is awesome. Shop for something in the same zoom range for other systems and see what it costs you!

It also holds a rating of 9.80 here in the PentaxForums.com lens database. One reviewer noted: "But to really appreciate this lens you have to place it in context with the Q- bodies. It is simply gonna BE THERE when any of my other APS-C DSLRs and WA lenses would have been too burdensome to bother with."
10-29-2015, 08:09 PM   #154
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 57
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
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".
Nikon J5 has ~20 mp which some suggest gives almost same pixel density as Q7. Small deficit in pixel density is not worth many lost photo opportunitities due to waiting.

10-29-2015, 08:14 PM   #155
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
Nikon J5 has ~20 mp which some suggest gives almost same pixel density as Q7. Small deficit in pixel density is not worth many lost photo opportunities due to waiting.
Waiting for what?
I decided that the Pentax Q family fit my needs better than the Nikon 1 family does, so I bought it, and now I carry it with me almost everywhere.
10-29-2015, 10:06 PM   #156
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Still marked $497 at B&H, $450 at Adorama.

I've heard a lot of griping about the price of the 08 lens, and guys who'd like to have one, but they think it's too much dough. Somebody has to say this: The 08 lens is awesome. Shop for something in the same zoom range for other systems and see what it costs you!

It also holds a rating of 9.80 here in the PentaxForums.com lens database. One reviewer noted: "But to really appreciate this lens you have to place it in context with the Q- bodies. It is simply gonna BE THERE when any of my other APS-C DSLRs and WA lenses would have been too burdensome to bother with."


I don’t think the 08 lens was priced properly to be accepted by the Q’s target market. A price more in line with the 06, which most owners agree was built to a higher optical quality than the 02 lens, and it might have met with some success.
10-29-2015, 10:28 PM   #157
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,652
The 08 cost is ridicilous...for the same price..a Q7 + 2/3/6 can be had
10-30-2015, 12:55 AM   #158
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
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).
I probably wasn't very clear. I'm advocating more Q bodies not a replacement for the existing Q's. So I think we want the same thing. An extension of the Q into the area of (part time) birding. An alternative I would like even more would be a beefy grip with evf and extra battery, not possible with current Q implementations as they lack the contacts required. So one way or another I'll probably have to buy another Q (if Pentax pursues development further...)
Same for the lenses - I'm envisioning an interchangeable long zoom, not a new fixed lens camera. That experiment (XG1) just failed for Pentax.

10-30-2015, 12:59 AM   #159
kwb
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 137
Hi reh321,
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
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.
If the doubly scaled-down image has about the same photographic details as the already-scaled-down original, that would indicate that the lens is the limiting factor of sharpness for the sensor resolution that is equivalent of already-scaled-down original, and therefore it would be the limiting factor for the original image that is unscaled. His conclusion doesn't change in this case.

If you say that this is irrelevant to the reason why you use Q7, I support that position. I actually agree with many of what you wrote. I just disagree with one position of yours.

Shoot, I wrote that I was done, and I still wrote yet another off-topic thing. Sorry people.
10-30-2015, 02:21 AM   #160
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 57
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
This all just seems like a fancy way of saying the Q7 has smaller sensor sites. But that's not a good thing. Smaller sensor sites are less sensitive and subject to (relatively) more noise than large ones. That's why the Q7 has poorer high-ISO performance than cameras with larger sensors.
It's an urban legend. If you take large sensor and crop area which corresponds to Q sensor area, you're very likely to get both more noise and less resolution that if you had used the Q.
10-30-2015, 03:10 AM   #161
kwb
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 137
Hope that this time I'm sort of, kind of on-topic.

I bought Q7 for the compactness of the package (body and lenses), versatility of ILC, and cost performance. I'm quite satisfied with these qualities. I'm not shooting for ultimate quality or ultimate resolution or anything.

I wasn't planning to do super telephoto, but I ended up enjoying it, too. I'm again pretty happy with the details of pictures I can take with my telescopes though my telephoto chops are still sort of limited.

This is one of my moon shots. (You can see the full resolution image by clicking the image and then clicking the "download" icon in flickr.)


I don't usually pixel peep much, but the moon is an exception. I enjoy looking at each and every detail I can find. And since I was kind of curious about the idea of down scaling test, below to the left is the full resolution image cropped but unscaled, and to the right is a 1/2.2 scaled image cropped to the same view angle (to mimic the resolution of 24MP APS-C sensor).


Scaled down photo is not bad at all. But to me it seems like the one on the left has some finer details than the right, e.g. outline of "thumbs up"-like mountain in one of the craters and ridge of the craters simply look richer with more gradation in the left, and tiny craters/wrinkles look merged on the right image etc. So it seems to me that there's some benefit of using Q7 sensor over larger ones for this telescope as far as extracting details is concerned. Noise is not a big problem either, moon provides enough light, but if it becomes an issue I can mitigate it by stacking multiple pictures.

This is just a cheap telescope, less than 100 USD delivered to your door when on sale, red dot finder and somewhat wobbly mount/tripod included. If you have better (as in bigger aperture, better precision optics) telescopes the difference would be larger.

Oh but I digress. Anyway. Good detail of the moon that satisfies me, checked.

This is possible at all for Q7 while meeting my other needs because it is ILC. Versatile, checked.

Q7/02 lens, telescope/mount/tripod and telescope adapter probably cost me about 350 USD total. Cost effective, checked.

I can talk about how compact my regular kit (Q7, 01, 02, 03 and 06 lens) is but I won't, but compactness checked anyway.

These are the things I like about Q system, and it would be sad if Ricoh throws it away.

As a side note, if there is a system that meets all of my needs and gets the same or better quality pictures, that's awesome. If cheaper, that's super awesome. That doesn't reduce my enjoyment of using Q7 now, I'll be happy to know that there is such a system, and I might consider buying that system in the future if Q7 fails and Ricoh doesn't offer anything. If you think you own such a system, congratulations, more power to you!

I thought for a short while that Nikon 1 system would be such a system for my purpose. But it turns out that no focus peaking/magnification is available without using Nikon 1 to Nikon F mount adaptor, and that means that my small telescope won't focus to infinity because it needs a very, very short flange back length. Oh well.
10-30-2015, 03:28 AM - 1 Like   #162
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by kwb Quote
Hope that this time I'm sort of, kind of on-topic.

I bought Q7 for the compactness of the package (body and lenses), versatility of ILC, and cost performance. I'm quite satisfied with these qualities. I'm not shooting for ultimate quality or ultimate resolution or anything.

I wasn't planning to do super telephoto, but I ended up enjoying it, too. I'm again pretty happy with the details of pictures I can take with my telescopes though my telephoto chops are still sort of limited.

This is one of my moon shots. (You can see the full resolution image by clicking the image and then clicking the "download" icon in flickr.)


I don't usually pixel peep much, but the moon is an exception. I enjoy looking at each and every detail I can find. And since I was kind of curious about the idea of down scaling test, below to the left is the full resolution image cropped but unscaled, and to the right is a 1/2.2 scaled image cropped to the same view angle (to mimic the resolution of 24MP APS-C sensor).


Scaled down photo is not bad at all. But to me it seems like the one on the left has some finer details than the right, e.g. outline of "thumbs up"-like mountain in one of the craters and ridge of the craters simply look richer with more gradation in the left, and tiny craters/wrinkles look merged on the right image etc. So it seems to me that there's some benefit of using Q7 sensor over larger ones for this telescope as far as extracting details is concerned. Noise is not a big problem either, moon provides enough light, but if it becomes an issue I can mitigate it by stacking multiple pictures.

This is just a cheap telescope, less than 100 USD delivered to your door when on sale, red dot finder and somewhat wobbly mount/tripod included. If you have better (as in bigger aperture, better precision optics) telescopes the difference would be larger.

Oh but I digress. Anyway. Good detail of the moon that satisfies me, checked.

This is possible at all for Q7 while meeting my other needs because it is ILC. Versatile, checked.

Q7/02 lens, telescope/mount/tripod and telescope adapter probably cost me about 350 USD total. Cost effective, checked.

I can talk about how compact my regular kit (Q7, 01, 02, 03 and 06 lens) is but I won't, but compactness checked anyway.

These are the things I like about Q system, and it would be sad if Ricoh throws it away.

As a side note, if there is a system that meets all of my needs and gets the same or better quality pictures, that's awesome. If cheaper, that's super awesome. That doesn't reduce my enjoyment of using Q7 now, I'll be happy to know that there is such a system, and I might consider buying that system in the future if Q7 fails and Ricoh doesn't offer anything. If you think you own such a system, congratulations, more power to you!

I thought for a short while that Nikon 1 system would be such a system for my purpose. But it turns out that no focus peaking/magnification is available without using Nikon 1 to Nikon F mount adaptor, and that means that my small telescope won't focus to infinity because it needs a very, very short flange back length. Oh well.
How could a moon shoot ever be off topic in a Q thread? Amazing capture!
10-30-2015, 05:27 AM   #163
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by alliumnsk Quote
It's an urban legend. If you take large sensor and crop area which corresponds to Q sensor area, you're very likely to get both more noise and less resolution that if you had used the Q.
Argument doesn't make sense. Why would you crop down your images from the big sensor to correspond to the Q sensor area? You don't buy a bigger sensor and plan to not use most of it.

Conversely. . . If the Q7 sensor has finer pitch (smaller photosites), where's the advantage in that? That helps me how, when I am taking photos?
10-30-2015, 07:13 AM   #164
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by kwb Quote
Hi reh321,

If the doubly scaled-down image has about the same photographic details as the already-scaled-down original, that would indicate that the lens is the limiting factor of sharpness for the sensor resolution that is equivalent of already-scaled-down original, and therefore it would be the limiting factor for the original image that is unscaled. His conclusion doesn't change in this case.
In my original posting, I had said this was a mediocre lens (in this setting, at least) which was tested here and found wanting.
I said I was retiring this lens because of this picture.
I keep trying to push off this discussion of sharpness as not being relevant to my original point.
At one point I tried to walk away from it, but was drawn into more discussion, so now, although I do have further thoughts on the matter, I will keep them to myself.
I absolutely refuse to respond to any more comments/posts on the subject of sharpness of this (in this setting) mediocre lens.
We we keep discussing this non-issue and ignoring the important stuff.
Every time I have responded to the non-issue I have tried to return discussion to the real issue, but the main thing people respond to is the non-issue part,
My original point was that the crop-factor of the Q-7 "gets me much closer", and I attached that picture as a readily available example.
I was reacting to his (false) assertion that a fixed lens camera was more than adequate.
That is what we should be talking about.
And I should have known better.
I have seen over and over again that when a person on a photo forum is put in a weak position, s/he attacks example pictures as a way of wiggling out of it and turning the discussion to something, anything, else.

Last edited by reh321; 10-30-2015 at 09:12 AM.
10-30-2015, 11:50 AM   #165
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
Much of the recent debate here revolves around the question wether the "reach" of the Q is real or imagined, i.e. wether a larger sensor is not better after all. So I wonder has anyone pitted the Q against an APS-C or better FF camera using the same lens and then compared the results - preferably with pictures?
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 06:34 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