[CWRailman]

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?

Go to the DPReview site. Bring up the review of the Q7 then on one of the comparison pages you can bring in similar shots from various other cameras. That will give you an idea of how the Q7 compares to other cameras from Pentax as well as other manufactures..

[patarok]

same game other players ----->

[eyeswideshut]

@cwrailwayman
You probably mean the studio scene. Not sure how would that help to settle the question of reach?

[Nicolas06]

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.

You can't post a terrible image and show it as an example of benefit of the system. That only giving argument to your contracdictors. You could accuse them, but really nobody forced you to bring a terrible Q7 image to begin with. If you'd managed to produce a great image, it would have been a good argument.

[Nicolas06]

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.

I concurs if you get a great lense the Q would get more details. You can get 12MP instead of 2.6... The best candidates are likely the Q primes because they are designed for this.

Out of curiorsity, I made a Q crop of an APSC image I was processing from my latest vacations to see how bad theses larger APSC sensors behave...

So in attachement is a vacation picture I just processed. It was taken with the FA77 (iso 100, 1/250s, f/5.6) to get some distant cityscape of Sevilla. In order:
- the websized full original image - 115mm FF equivalent
- the websized Q crop image from it - 323mm FF equivalent
- a 100% crop - 676mm FF equivalent.

While I agree with the proper lens a Q should do much better, even a sensor with not that great pixel density can get some nice details :P.
No I didn't try with a Q, I let someone with an FA77 an a Q do it. I do think this could be indeed better because the FA77 is quite sharp and has some margin behind.

[reh321]

I concurs if you get a great lense the Q would get more details. You can get 12MP instead of 2.6... The best candidates are likely the Q primes because they are designed for this.

Out of curiorsity, I made a Q crop of an APSC image I was processing from my latest vacations to see how bad theses larger APSC sensors behave...

So in attachement is a vacation picture I just processed. It was taken with the FA77 (iso 100, 1/250s, f/5.6) to get some distant cityscape of Sevilla. In order:
- the websized full original image - 115mm FF equivalent
- the websized Q crop image from it - 323mm FF equivalent
- a 100% crop - 676mm FF equivalent.

While I agree with the proper lens a Q should do much better, even a sensor with not that great pixel density can get some nice details :P.
No I didn't try with a Q, I let someone with an FA77 an a Q do it. I do think this could be indeed better because the FA77 is quite sharp and has some margin behind.

OK, we've seen what your K-3 can do.
Now we need to see what your fixed-lens or cell phone camera does,

[Nicolas06]

OK, we've seen what your K-3 can do.
Now we need to see what your fixed-lens or cell phone camera does,

But that's the issue, I get so much from this DSLR that even through I recently wondered for quite some time to buy a smaller camera like EMD5 or LX100 because this is much more practical, I didn't do it.

But if really you think you need an example of what a compact camera would do... If really you have no idea, in attachment I have put a pic from my syster camera, an LF1 (same sensor size as a Q):

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.

[reh321]

But that's the issue, I get so much from this DSLR that even through I recently wondered for quite some time to buy a smaller camera like EMD5 or LX100 because this is much more practical, I didn't do it.

But if really you think you need an example of what a compact camera would do... If really you have no idea, in attachment I have put a pic from my syster camera, an LF1 (same sensor size as a Q):

The discussion between us began because of your claim that compact cameras and cell phone cameras leave no place for the Q. I know perfectly well what those cameras can do, and I totally disagree with your contention that they leave no room for the Q. People here, such as Heinrich Lohmann
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/304293-wit-q7-08-lens-kanana...ml#post3379597
have demonstrated that the Q can produce images as breath-taking as come from any compact camera, and compact cameras simply lack the versatility that the Q has (which brings us full circle to nearly a week ago).

[jethro10]

The 08 cost is ridicilous...for the same price..a Q7 + 2/3/6 can be had

Perhaps, but a 2/3/6 can't take the pics an 08 can. So not much point comparing.

J

[CWRailman]

Perhaps, but a 2/3/6 can't take the pics an 08 can. So not much point comparing.

J

However an 08 cannot maintain the perspective nor take the detailed photo's I accomplish with the 06, or for that matter with the 02 on my Q7 but then I have never been a wide angle sort of shooter. Shot taken with the Q7, ISO 100 for 1/60th of a second with 02 lens set to f5 at a focal length of 15mm Gun was sitting on a stump about 12 foot high surrounded by a 8 foot fence. I had to shoot from about 15-18 foot away to get over the fence.

Then I cranked the 02 lens to 6mm wide to take this shot at the same location. This shot actually looks better in B&W. I like feeling textures in photographs.

[BigMackCam]

However an 08 cannot maintain the perspective nor take the detailed photo's I accomplish with the 06, or for that matter with the 02 on my Q7 but then I have never been a wide angle sort of shooter.

Nice shot, Denny. This is why I love the Q7 and the 06 (and the 02, and even - to a lesser extent - the 01)

[Nicolas06]

The discussion between us began because of your claim that compact cameras and cell phone cameras leave no place for the Q. I know perfectly well what those cameras can do, and I totally disagree with your contention that they leave no room for the Q. People here, such as Heinrich Lohmann
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/304293-wit-q7-08-lens-kanana...ml#post3379597
have demonstrated that the Q can produce images as breath-taking as come from any compact camera, and compact cameras simply lack the versatility that the Q has (which brings us full circle to nearly a week ago).

Just to be clear, i don't think the Q can't do as well as similar camera in different form factor (compact) with similar quality optics and sized sensors. Sure you get the flexibility of being to mount any optics. Even through the native choice isn't that great (some complain of it even there). I don't doubt the Q is a great as any other camera in the same league.

No my claim was a bit different. My claim was the market for a such tiny interchangeable lense camera was quite small. This is because even with a compact or smartphone you get similar quality picture (technically) and that if you really mess up with the ILC part, usually you are an enthousiast that expect more. Even if you want something small. At the bottom you already have your phone anyway with you so you expect more than that.

Some m4/3 camera indeed are priced like the latest Q body (for example Olympus Pen vs Q-S1); They are small, they are ILC, they are design, they can mount anything with converters... But have more than 80 native lense avaiable from Samyang, Olympus, Panasonic, Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander... And you can evolve in the mount by getting camera with EVF, with outstanding video, by getting lenses with f/0.95 or up to 300mm (600mm FF equiv)... You even have a TC if you want !

I don't want to prevent anybody to invest into the Q... I just think the market is small and so I'am not surprised there no much activity from Pentax/Ricoh in Q mount... To me it was logical to put the priority on the 645Z, K3 and FF instead because there was more potential.

[reh321]

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."

Serious wide-angle is an issue with almost any camera, but the smaller the sensor, the more of a problem it becomes. I don't do serious wide-angle very often - most often when I'm at a museum and narrow aisles don't give me any place to go. When I moved from Canon to Pentax for my primary camera last May, the thing I missed the most was my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens. Later I was able to buy one used-like-new from a member here (the same, except the K-mount variant doesn't have an internal focusing motor). Even buying it at the PF marketplace, it is currently the most expensive lens in my bag, despite its also being the least used. The newer Sigma f/3.5 costs $496 at B&H; in that context, I guess the 08 is reasonable at $449 (but I'm not buying one - one expensive, little used, ultra wide-angle lens is enough for me).

---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 05:47 PM ----------

Just to be clear, i don't think the Q can't do as well as similar camera in different form factor (compact) with similar quality optics and sized sensors. Sure you get the flexibility of being to mount any optics. Even through the native choice isn't that great (some complain of it even there). I don't doubt the Q is a great as any other camera in the same league.

No my claim was a bit different. My claim was the market for a such tiny interchangeable lense camera was quite small. This is because even with a compact or smartphone you get similar quality picture (technically) and that if you really mess up with the ILC part, usually you are an enthousiast that expect more. Even if you want something small. At the bottom you already have your phone anyway with you so you expect more than that.

Some m4/3 camera indeed are priced like the latest Q body (for example Olympus Pen vs Q-S1); They are small, they are ILC, they are design, they can mount anything with converters... But have more than 80 native lense avaiable from Samyang, Olympus, Panasonic, Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander... And you can evolve in the mount by getting camera with EVF, with outstanding video, by getting lenses with f/0.95 or up to 300mm (600mm FF equiv)... You even have a TC if you want !

I don't want to prevent anybody to invest into the Q... I just think the market is small and so I'am not surprised there no much activity from Pentax/Ricoh in Q mount... To me it was logical to put the priority on the 645Z, K3 and FF instead because there was more potential.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't need 70 native lenses if 5 native lenses can cover all missions. Seeing the great excitement following the Canon and Nikon super zoom bridge cameras, I believe that a reasonable 100-300mm lens would complete the 01, 02, 06, 08 family,

I've said that for many years I used two cameras to cover all my needs - a primary camera and a pocket camera - but that isn't quite true. Ever since I got my second film camera, I also had a secondary camera (my previous primary camera) in reserve in case my primary camera had issues. That basically ended eight years ago when I went digital, because the only backup for my primary camera was a couple of film cameras in the closet. Then, my primary camera (a Canon Rebel) unexpectedly died this past May. I had bought my Q-7 in December, and I found myself accepting it also in the role of backup secondary camera, in addition to its roles as pocket camera and birding camera; I was able to buy a used-like-new K-30 in a fairly short time, but my wife was surprised at how relaxed I was about it. In truth I had found that, while the Q-7 certainly doesn't come up to the quality of the K-30 in darkish times, it does quite well under sunlight (and several times I preferred my Q-7+01 over my Rebel in dark churches). From my experiences, I believe that a few things would make the Q a much better camera - I would welcome an EVF, WR, and a tilting LCD - but, frankly, its biggest issue right now is that no one knows about it. It is a much better camera than I realized when I purchased it ten months ago. I agree that Pentax sees more potential from MF, FF, and APS-C, but I believe they need to keep up the Q family, partly because it does have potential right now if people just knew about it, and partly because I believe Pentax needs to be completely familiar with current MILC technology just in case we reach a tipping point and suddenly APS-C (or even FF) camera sales are primarily MILC.

[CWRailman]

Just to be clear, i don't think the Q can't do as well as similar camera in different form factor (compact) with similar quality optics and sized sensors. Sure you get the flexibility of being to mount any optics. Even through the native choice isn't that great (some complain of it even there). I don't doubt the Q is a great as any other camera in the same league.

No my claim was a bit different. My claim was the market for a such tiny interchangeable lense camera was quite small. This is because even with a compact or smartphone you get similar quality picture (technically) and that if you really mess up with the ILC part, usually you are an enthousiast that expect more. Even if you want something small. At the bottom you already have your phone anyway with you so you expect more than that.

Some m4/3 camera indeed are priced like the latest Q body (for example Olympus Pen vs Q-S1); They are small, they are ILC, they are design, they can mount anything with converters... But have more than 80 native lense avaiable from Samyang, Olympus, Panasonic, Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander... And you can evolve in the mount by getting camera with EVF, with outstanding video, by getting lenses with f/0.95 or up to 300mm (600mm FF equiv)... You even have a TC if you want !

I don't want to prevent anybody to invest into the Q... I just think the market is small and so I'am not surprised there no much activity from Pentax/Ricoh in Q mount... To me it was logical to put the priority on the 645Z, K3 and FF instead because there was more potential.

The Q7 more than holds it’s own when compared to even larger format cameras with similar pixel count and produced during the same time frame.

While I did this test for my own purposes pixel peepers might find it interesting and I believe it is applicable to this discussion. Not all 12mp sensors are equal.Here are two nearly identical shots that I posted in full size to my WEB site. Both were taken from the same tripod.Both were taken with the lens set to the smallest aperture to get the most depth of field which is important for this type of photography.(In such shots, depth of field is more important than any impact caused by diffraction.) The first shot was taken with a Panasonic G1 4/3 camera with a 12MP sensor and a 14-45mm Panasonic lens which is one of the sharpest kit zooms ever produced for the 4/3 format. The second image was taken with a Pentax Q7 with 02 lens.If you look at the first image and zoom in to the closest corner of the structure check out the texture of the wood.Then do the same to the second image. Though the 4/3 sensor is larger and the individual pixels should be able to capture more detail, the small sized Q sensor actually captured more detail in the texture of the wood.Actually in all areas the Q7 image is sharper.Both cameras were set to the default sharpness settings. Just to give you an idea, Santa is about 1 inch tall. You can right click on each image and download them to your puter than do a critical pixel peep review.

And while folks make claims that their cell phones do better than the Q, they fail to provide photos to demonstrate these claims. My Nokia cell phone, which came out about the same time as the Q7, has a great camera but my personal tests concluded that it cannot compete with what I get out of the Q7. For that matter it did not compete with what I got out of the original Q which I had on the premises at that time.

[BigMackCam]

Just to be clear, i don't think the Q can't do as well as similar camera in different form factor (compact) with similar quality optics and sized sensors. Sure you get the flexibility of being to mount any optics. Even through the native choice isn't that great (some complain of it even there). I don't doubt the Q is a great as any other camera in the same league.

...

I don't want to prevent anybody to invest into the Q... I just think the market is small and so I'am not surprised there no much activity from Pentax/Ricoh in Q mount... To me it was logical to put the priority on the 645Z, K3 and FF instead because there was more potential.

I think the Q cameras offer one big advantage, and that is the ability to use lenses intended for (D)SLRs, giving super-high magnification (as a result of sensor size). That was the main driver for me buying the Q7 - I just figured that I may as well get the 01, 02 and 06 lenses so that I could use it as a "regular" camera too. Oh, and then I started playing around with cctv and cine lenses, just because it's fun

Someone on the forum recently said that it's best to think of the Q cameras as a different back for your lenses, and while that's only one narrow view, it fits with my interest in the format (not to take anything away from those who use the system as a general photographic tool). I appreciate that may be a limited market.

As for Ricoh's investment and continued support, recent post-expo posts suggest they're not planning anything new in this area just yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Q line is gradually coming to an end. Sad, but I think that may well be the case if Ricoh focuses on DSLRs as has been mooted. It won't stop me from continuing to use my Q7, though, and I'm certain there will remain a solid following for the cameras, lenses and accessories.