Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-25-2015, 04:11 PM   #61
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
Pentax Q vs. Nikon Coolpix P900 - Sensor Comparison
Gimme 16mp in the Q body. Done! (evf would be icing on the cake)
I'm not quite sure what your point is here.

and ... in any consideration of this kind, you have to consider qualities of the lens.

11-25-2015, 04:12 PM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,879
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
This discussion of Phase Detection verses Contrast Detection always amuses me. It seems like a step backward. Most folks donít realize but when Pentax came out with itís first series of cameras such as the istDS and K100, K10 series which all had CCD sensors they HAD Phase Detection. That went away with the K20D model when Pentax started using the more popular and less costly CMOS sensors. The K200D which was also issued around the same time as the K20 continued with the CCD sensor and Phase Detection focusing.
All Pentax DSLR's have Phase Detection AF. The K-3 II has 27 PDAF points.
11-25-2015, 04:22 PM   #63
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 23
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm not quite sure what your point is here.

and ... in any consideration of this kind, you have to consider qualities of the lens.
My point is a 16mp sensor is available in the same form factor, so a it's a drop-in upgrade. Is that naive?

I didn't consider lenses at all, since Q has many lens options.
11-25-2015, 04:23 PM   #64
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,485
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
This discussion of Phase Detection verses Contrast Detection always amuses me. It seems like a step backward. Most folks don’t realize but when Pentax came out with it’s first series of cameras such as the istDS and K100, K10 series which all had CCD sensors they HAD Phase Detection.
I'm not sure what you meant to say here. All Pentax DSLRs have phase-detect autofocus, regardless of what sensor they have. The CCD sensored bodies did not have PDAF-on-sensor; the PDAF module was below the mirror like all the other Pentax DSLRs and AF film bodies before them. This image shows the PDAF module in a K100D Super (6MP CCD sensor):



QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
That went away with the K20D model when Pentax started using the more popular and less costly CMOS sensors.
No, Phase Detection did not go away with CMOS sensors. The CMOS-sensored bodies have PDAF modules below the mirror, the same as the CCD-sensored cameras. CMOS-sensored bodies DID add LiveView and Contrast-Detect AF in LiveView mode, but otherwise use PDAF when shooting through the viewfinder.

Because PDAF tends to be faster than CDAF, folks asking for PDAF-on-sensor just want the faster focusing system without requiring an external module and mirror.

11-25-2015, 07:05 PM - 1 Like   #65
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
My point is a 16mp sensor is available in the same form factor, so a it's a drop-in upgrade. Is that naive?
Well, since Pentax left the funkily-described 1/2.3" sensor behind when they went to the Q-7 with its funkily-described, but larger, 1/1.7" sensor, "immaterial" might be a better word than "naive".

QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
I didn't consider lenses at all, since Q has many lens options.
As cwrailman already implied, when you cram even more pixels onto a sensor, you are forcing them to be even smaller and inviting even more small-sensor issues, mostly noise caused by various natural electronic phenomena.What little benefit comes from the added pixels is lost if the lenses cannot provide that much "resolution" (separation). in the light , and frankly I don't know exactly what the Q lenses can do, so I don't know whether pictures taken using a P900 sensor would show any more detail or not. I have already experienced this a number of times, because often when I mount a K-mount lens on my Q-7, the resolution is insufficient and what is essentially the same light-beam hits multiple pixels in its sensor.

---------- Post added 11-25-15 at 09:10 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
Because PDAF tends to be faster than CDAF, folks asking for PDAF-on-sensor just want the faster focusing system without requiring an external module and mirror.
Actually, we want the best of both worlds, as Sony is now coming to. PDAF goes to its focus faster than CDAF, but sometimes has accuracy problems of the front/back focus type. CDAF is slower, but eventually "nails" the focus. A hybrid sensor gets the speed of PDAF and the unerring accuracy of CDAF.
11-25-2015, 09:00 PM   #66
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 23
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Well, since Pentax left the funkily-described 1/2.3" sensor behind when they went to the Q-7 with its funkily-described, but larger, 1/1.7" sensor, "immaterial" might be a better word than "naive".

As cwrailman already implied, when you cram even more pixels onto a sensor, you are forcing them to be even smaller and inviting even more small-sensor issues, mostly noise caused by various natural electronic phenomena.What little benefit comes from the added pixels is lost if the lenses cannot provide that much "resolution" (separation). in the light , and frankly I don't know exactly what the Q lenses can do, so I don't know whether pictures taken using a P900 sensor would show any more detail or not. I have already experienced this a number of times, because often when I mount a K-mount lens on my Q-7, the resolution is insufficient and what is essentially the same light-beam hits multiple pixels in its sensor.
Yeah i get that. It's a camera body, lens choice and the result is up to the user. But i do agree the native lenses should be tested. Would be interesting to see the optical resolution of the native lenses.

I have good lenses so i would like to get higher pixel density. Just saying i would buy it.
11-25-2015, 10:11 PM - 1 Like   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,879
QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
My point is a 16mp sensor is available in the same form factor, so a it's a drop-in upgrade. Is that naive?

I didn't consider lenses at all, since Q has many lens options.
The sensor in the P900, although it's 16MP, is only 1/2.3", whereas the current Q-S1 (and Q7 previous) are 1/1.7", so there's regression there.

From my experience with the 01 Prime, and from what I've seen with the 08 Wide Zoom, I bet those lenses would do well with a higher-res sensor.

FWIW, according to DXO, the most recent 1/1.7" sensor, as tested in the Nikon P340, holds it's own (at the very least) vs last year's Nikon 1 system cameras and 1st generation m4/3 cameras WRT dynamic range and color fidelity.

I miss my Q7, and plan on re-acquiring one at some point.
11-26-2015, 05:52 AM - 1 Like   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
I have good lenses so i would like to get higher pixel density. Just saying i would buy it.
Going to higher pixel density would also invite even more diffraction issues than we have already. I think my preference would be to keep the same resolution and work on improving the sensitivity and S/N ratio. However. . . It's not up to me or you, and it's not even strictly up to Ricoh either, since they are relying on some other company's sensor roadmap.

11-26-2015, 07:24 AM - 1 Like   #69
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
I am in the market for a Compact Camera at them moment and for me at least the QS-1 is in contention (next to LX100 / Ricoh GR / Sony RX 100 (mk II/III/IV)). Each of these has something unique to give. In what I do both the pocket-able interchangeable system and the insane crop with adaptors of the Q, if you really need it, is an 'added trick' that could/would make it useful next to my more traditional DSLRs on top of being an 'always carry' camera. [Wildlife / Conservation photography - could just pull out a bit extra reach if there's no other way. Getting a shot matters more than the potential quality of the one you didn't get, in the end.]

Pentax still has something really unique on those two counts, even with the m4/3 and similar other compacts out there. Niche - but it always a niche product. I am happy with a smart-phone-like sized sensor on that end, as long as I get the crop factor of the Qs. If a more current one adds a bit better video performance that'd be a plus.

I'd wish they'd upgrade the whole system as a WRed up one as with everything else (chance to re-sell those lenses slightly repacked, too!) though. And I'd actually like an added WiFi module, too (as long as it can be switched on / off easily) - more than an EVF. Compact cameras can squeeze in spaces neither I nor my bigger cameras fit in, but give some more interesting angles because of that; given that means the screen at the back then is likely blocked from view controlling via a remote screen is necessary. If they'd also produce a titchy but good underwater case for it they'd have something that can dig into the whole go-pro like market, but with interchangeable lenses ... Niche.

There's more potential to that system still - and it's just too easily dismissed by spec-sheet only often, sadly.
11-26-2015, 09:49 AM   #70
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
All Pentax DSLR's have Phase Detection AF. The K-3 II has 27 PDAF points.
I was under the impression that about the time Pentax went to the CMOS sensor it prioritized focusing on the contrast detect technology though it also maintained the Phase Detect. I recall reading about that transition someplace such as DPReview but cannot seem to locate it right now.

---------- Post added 11-26-15 at 09:58 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
But i do agree the native lenses should be tested. Would be interesting to see the optical resolution of the native lenses.

I have good lenses so i would like to get higher pixel density. Just saying i would buy it.

Are you talking about native lenses which would be those specifically designed for the Q and have been tested or are you referring to Legacy lenses which are other format lenses that are used with an adapter?
11-26-2015, 11:26 AM   #71
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 728
If they ever launch a new Q, Pentax could also remove the useless blur control feature. Unless they fix it so that it works properly, and not just blurs the whole picture in a more or less random way. As it is now, this just take a spot on the dial wheel that could be use for something actually working, no matter what it is.
11-26-2015, 11:50 AM   #72
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 222
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
You do know that in order to achieve this the pixel sites would have to to smaller and would result in an increase in the noise levels and a reduction in dynamic range. Are you willing to make that sacrifice?
Not necessarily the case. Several years ago we went to a concert and used an aps-c camera 16mp. We went to the same place last week. They have banned ilc cameras in the mean time, so we took a much newer 1" 20mp compact camera-cannon G7x.

The increase in quality of the 1" is very noticeable. Smaller sensor and more pixels.

Don't under estimate how much technology moves on also.
A new sensor for a Q line camera may have more pixels but still may be better if it's newer technology.

J
11-26-2015, 03:09 PM   #73
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by jethro10 Quote
Not necessarily the case. Several years ago we went to a concert and used an aps-c camera 16mp. We went to the same place last week. They have banned ilc cameras in the mean time, so we took a much newer 1" 20mp compact camera-cannon G7x.

The increase in quality of the 1" is very noticeable. Smaller sensor and more pixels.

Don't under estimate how much technology moves on also.
A new sensor for a Q line camera may have more pixels but still may be better if it's newer technology.

J
While there are many sites that offer more technical explanations and examples, may I suggest that you check out the link to a good dissertation on pixel sizes. Cramming more pixels into the small Q size sensor is NOT going to improve the image. However, if Pentax had started out with 8MP then grew to 10MP at most, it might have been a better sensor but in this day and age when buyers think more MP is gooder coming out with a really good 8MP sensor would not have been a smart business decision.
Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter
11-27-2015, 12:12 AM   #74
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 23
You guys worry too much. If that sensor can work in nikon p900 then it can be made to work just as well in pentax q.

I do agree on two points: native lenses might not pair well (luftfluss thinks 01 and 08 can work and i tend to agree); q-s1 sensor is already bigger so its a regression.

I would take a 1/1.7" sensor too, as long as it has the smallest pixel pitch that makes sense. Why? Because then i can get max resolving power with max reach, on a shoestring budget.

Image quality will never be the strength of the q. Dont even bother.
11-27-2015, 09:11 AM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,879
QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
You guys worry too much. If that sensor can work in nikon p900 then it can be made to work just as well in pentax q.

I do agree on two points: native lenses might not pair well (luftfluss thinks 01 and 08 can work and i tend to agree); q-s1 sensor is already bigger so its a regression.

I would take a 1/1.7" sensor too, as long as it has the smallest pixel pitch that makes sense. Why? Because then i can get max resolving power with max reach, on a shoestring budget.
You say you want max reach, but other folks who shoot wide want a wider field of view, so a larger sensor makes sense. The larger sensor offers better DR, better tonal range, lower noise, better DOF control. I have concurrently owned cameras with 1/1.7" and 1/2.3" sensors, and the 10MP 1/1.7" sensor in my Panasonic LX7 at the very least equaled the resolving power of the 12MP 1/2.3" sensor in my Canon SX50. Maybe, just maybe, at base ISO a 16MP 1/2.3" sensor will slightly out-resolve a 12MP 1/1.7" sensor, but one stop up the ISO ladder and electronic crosstalk in the sensor will eliminate any advantage, and further up the ladder the lower-pixel, larger sensor will readily out-resolve the smaller one.

QuoteQuote:
Image quality will never be the strength of the q. Dont even bother.
This is not the kind of thinking that generally equates with success.
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!
bigma, camera, focus, high-iso, k-3, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pentax rumors, phase, phase detection, pixels, profile, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumor: Pentax FF new Limited lenses coming soon? Stavri Pentax News and Rumors 253 09-27-2015 10:40 AM
New Pentax leaf shutter 645 medium format lenses coming soon i83N Pentax News and Rumors 73 10-03-2014 08:03 AM
New soon-to-be Q owner Soul_Est Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-05-2013 12:21 AM
First signs of upcoming Pentax K-3 appearing... JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 183 09-06-2012 08:20 AM
K20D will be replaced very soon? (Signs of..) RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 127 09-17-2008 01:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 PM. | 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