Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-22-2015, 12:20 PM   #16
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
So you're comparing an APCS sensor with the 1/2.3" Q sensor? That's hardly fair! But your point is taken re: better tech over a period of several years.

However just because of the above doesn't mean that the same applies to the small differences you'll see between the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors which were likely developed around the same time frame anyway.
I think you're thinking purely in terms of hardware only, where new components replace older, obsolete ones. Keep in mind that it is the WHOLE cam+lens + SETTINGS that makes your final image.
Some cams work really well straight out of the box, but some require tweaks and adjustments to produce good results.

User error usually has more to do with poor pics than older tech!

See: Pentax Q7 Review - Compared to the Q | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The differences are pretty small!

12-22-2015, 01:17 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
This discussion is silly. As a long-time computer professional, I am well aware of Gordon Moore's contributions to my profession, and how his observation has played out over time, and I have been a participant in how hardware engineering, and those who work with hardware, have been affected.

Attribute it to whatever you want. No reasonable person doubts that there has been a consistent improvement in sensors over the years.
Oh, I agree that sensor tech has improved, it just doesn't have much to do with Moore's Law, that's all.

QuoteQuote:
A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to a Madrigal Dinner at the college where she is an administrator and I teach part-time. We were in the second row; the lady in the first row, and almost directly ahead of us, took lots of flash pictures with her Nikon DSLR. After the dinner, I asked her why she used so much flash, because it washed away the candle-light atmosphere that the producers had worked so hard to achieve. She showed me that natural light pictures were not working out well (noticeably noisy even on her LCD). When she looked at my pictures, she gasped and asked me to email them to her; the first picture she saw was of her daughter's solo.

I am not claiming that a Q-7 is superior to a contemporaneous Canon or Nikon DSLR, but it does demonstratively provide better low-light images than a six years older Canon DSLR, or even a three years older Nikon DSLR (nearly the time difference between Q and Q-7). That is the kind of progress we all have observed; most of that is purely in hardware, partly in how putting more devices (a sensor contains more than just the light-catching elements) on the sensor, and having more room in which to arrange things, has enabled the engineers to improve all aspects of what those sensors do.
I find this hard to believe, unless you were shooting low ISO with a fast lens and she was shooting with a slow lens and high ISO. The Q7 came out in 2013, and it most certainly does not provide better low-light images than a Nikon D3000 or D7000 at similar ISO settings.

QuoteQuote:
If you wish to discuss this further you certainly may do so, but claiming "marginal" improvement between Q and Q-7 is silly, just as it would be silly to claim that a Q-S2 would not demonstrate similar progress in sensor development. That is all I was saying, and that is all I will say.
I claimed no such thing.

Sensor development is not continuous - it comes in fits and starts. It may be near-stagnant for several years, and then take a leap - if there is incentive do make it so. We can't just assume that newer is significanlty better.

DXO maintains that the 1/2.3" sensor in the Q offers very similar performance as the 1/1.7" sensor in the MX-1 (same sensor as Q7?) I've owned a Q7 and a Canon SX50, which uses the same sensor as the original Q. My own observations lie between digital029art's "margin difference" and dcshooter's "quite obviously and noticeably better". I do notice a positive difference in the Q7, the RAW files from the 1/1.7" sensor seem somewhat more malleable than those from the 1/2.3" sensor... IMO, moreso than the differences put forth by DXO suggest.

Edit: Since 2014, there has been a newer 1/1.7" sensor on the market, and I wonder if this is the one in the Q-S1? It looks to offer a bit more of a jump over previous sensors.

Last edited by luftfluss; 06-08-2016 at 08:23 AM.
12-22-2015, 01:53 PM - 1 Like   #18
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by digital029art Quote
So you're comparing an APCS sensor with the 1/2.3" Q sensor? That's hardly fair! But your point is taken re: better tech over a period of several years.

However just because of the above doesn't mean that the same applies to the small differences you'll see between the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors which were likely developed around the same time frame anyway.
I think you're thinking purely in terms of hardware only, where new components replace older, obsolete ones. Keep in mind that it is the WHOLE cam+lens + SETTINGS that makes your final image.
Some cams work really well straight out of the box, but some require tweaks and adjustments to produce good results.

User error usually has more to do with poor pics than older tech!

See: Pentax Q7 Review - Compared to the Q | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The differences are pretty small!
I was truly amazed, but my Q-7 with its 1/1.7" sensor really has demonstrated its strength in low light compared to older APS-C sensor cameras, and I had complete control over one of the APS-C cameras; I was the user on both sides during my experiences in San Diego (and I had many years of experience with the APS-C camera, and yes, I did check, and recheck my settings and procedures). Yes, it is part of the complete package - and all along I've said that the Pentax package is really good. I wanted a "Q" with a 01 lens; the Q came packaged with a 01, while the Q-7 came packaged in the USA with a 02. People I trust, people here, told me that the Q-7 was noticeably better, so I bought a Q-7 package, and then purchased a 01 separately from a Japanese merchant.

You will believe what you will believe; that is your right.

I have shared my experiences, which is all I can, and will, do.
12-22-2015, 02:07 PM   #19
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
Happy Holidays are here again! Enjoy your Q7, as I will my Q. I do hope that Pentax keeps the Q continuum going!

Re: original post, FYI lately I've been really impressed with the Kinotel 1.5" 3.5 D mount lens. It's about a 210mm equivalent and amazingly sharp, even wide open at 3.5 with no CA or PF. Impressive lil lens for less than $10 delivered!

12-22-2015, 02:25 PM   #20
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by digital029art Quote
Happy Holidays are here again! Enjoy your Q7, as I will my Q. I do hope that Pentax keeps the Q continuum going!
Here we totally agree!

QuoteOriginally posted by digital029art Quote
Re: original post, FYI lately I've been really impressed with the Kinotel 1.5" 3.5 D mount lens. It's about a 210mm equivalent and amazingly sharp, even wide open at 3.5 with no CA or PF. Impressive lil lens for less than $10 delivered!
And also regarding the original post, my personal opinion is that a Focal Reducer would be too complicated in the Q ecosystem. Pentax provides basic lenses, and trying to get all the needed electronics, including a leaf lens, into the device seems like an engineering nightmare to me. My personal opinion is that the Pentax Q-to-K adapter costs too much for what it does (at that price I'd want it to transmit AF and other stuff), so I can imagine what a Focal Reducer would cost.
12-22-2015, 03:12 PM   #21
Site Supporter
ripper2860's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by digital029art Quote
Happy Holidays are here again! Enjoy your Q7, as I will my Q. I do hope that Pentax keeps the Q continuum going!

Re: original post, FYI lately I've been really impressed with the Kinotel 1.5" 3.5 D mount lens. It's about a 210mm equivalent and amazingly sharp, even wide open at 3.5 with no CA or PF. Impressive lil lens for less than $10 delivered!
Thanks. I think adapters along with C and D mount lenses may be my next LBA fixation given the comments about how cheap and excellent they are on the Q's.

---------- Post added 12-22-15 at 04:22 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Here we totally agree!


And also regarding the original post, my personal opinion is that a Focal Reducer would be too complicated in the Q ecosystem. Pentax provides basic lenses, and trying to get all the needed electronics, including a leaf lens, into the device seems like an engineering nightmare to me. My personal opinion is that the Pentax Q-to-K adapter costs too much for what it does (at that price I'd want it to transmit AF and other stuff), so I can imagine what a Focal Reducer would cost.
I'm thinking the same -- it seems that a FR would overwhelm the sensor. I do have a Fotodiox M42-to-Q adapter and that's where I will likely stop at trying to reuse my existing lenses since I see no elegant and cheap solutions for use of Pentax-DA lenses.

I do have a question regarding use of M42 and non-Q lenses, however. I assume I can only use electronic shutter with A/M Takumars and 2-ring preset lenses? I have my shutter set to AUTO and have seen some weird "jello-like" bending in some images with my M42 lenses on the Q. Normal? Any tips?

Thanks to all!!
12-22-2015, 03:33 PM   #22
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
ripper2850, sure thing, but don't get carried away with C and D mount LBA - not all are that good!

You're seeing the rolling shutter effect with the electronic shutter which is by design. You'll have to get the authentic Pentax K->Q adapter that has it's own shutter inside. Then you'll have speeds up to 1/1000 with a leaf shutter and flash synch above the pathetic 1/13 (part of rolling shutter - cmos readout design). Of course you can then attach M42 screw lenses (or anything else that focuses) and use the mechanical shutter. Personally idk that I'd buy it again, since I get vignetting at higher speeds with super tele lenses using the mechanical shutter (leaf) vs some jello with e-shutter. The main advantage to me are the much higher flash synch speeds for macro use!

Last edited by digital029art; 12-22-2015 at 07:42 PM.
12-24-2015, 12:39 PM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grapevine TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I am not claiming that a Q-7 is superior to a contemporaneous Canon or Nikon DSLR, but it does demonstratively provide better low-light images than a six years older Canon DSLR, or even a three years older Nikon DSLR (nearly the time difference between Q and Q-7). That is the kind of progress we all have observed; most of that is purely in hardware, partly in how putting more devices (a sensor contains more than just the light-catching elements) on the sensor, and having more room in which to arrange things, has enabled the engineers to improve all aspects of what those sensors do.
Agreed. As I've said here before, when my daily driver was a Q I still brought out my K20D when I wanted better IQ. The K20D has stayed in the closet since I got the Q7. The Q7, especially with the 08, is better than the K20D with the kit zooms.

Cjf

12-27-2015, 12:26 PM   #24
Senior Member
Mothballs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 259
Pentax Q and Long Tele is just fine. I just posted these elsewhere, and rest assured, this was hand held. TAIR-3 300mm f4.5







The black and white is the Q's onboard processing, the others are PP with Silky. I find that the White balance on my Q is utter trash.

The Rolling shutter isn't that bad as long as you keep the shutter speed up, and You're not going to see any color fringing in B&W for obvious reasons. Hell, I have test shots SOMEHWERE with a 1000mm Mirror that are decent, though I'd hightly recommend a Tripod at that point.

That Said, a Fast Fifty will do wonders as well. Super-Takumar 55mm 1.8 on Unicolour Bold Red.




AS for C-Mount, the Pentax made COSMICAR are really nice for fast lenses. This was the 6mm 1.2 With Unicolour Bold in camera set on Teal.




I think I actually use this thing more than the K-50. And I really love it for the B&W Settings (Mostly because you can squeeze extra speed out no problem), though you can really push it's in camera Raw and with some user tweaking you can get some really good In Camera JPGs.



But that White Balance, That is going to be the bloody end of my patience. EVERYTHING IS BLUE.
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!
adapter, bit, camera, fl, lens, lenses, m42, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, reducer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax q7 focal reducer Naughtyninja Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-28-2015 03:34 PM
Focal Reducer / Speed Boosters ? PiDicus Rex Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 5 10-24-2014 07:57 AM
Ricoh Pattent Focal reducer Steelski Pentax News and Rumors 7 03-27-2014 09:55 AM
Sony a7 with focal reducer thread konraDarnok Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 29 03-13-2014 01:25 PM
Focal length reducer for 645 lenses yusuf Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 02-06-2014 05:00 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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