Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-09-2016, 10:01 AM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,718
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
My general sense is that our values have changed in recent years, that we valued a certain smoothness in the days of film, but today needle sharpness {a term I use to evoke images of addiction} is the be-all and end-all. Frankly, I tend to enjoy the smoothness more myself.

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 12:47 PM ----------

I guess this is why there are so many different models out there - we all have different needs and expectations. As I have commented several times here, over the past year, I myself have taken more pictures with my Q-7 than with my K-30 {but I'm also a low-volume photographer; the total count for both cameras over that time is less what you've done with the Q alone}

Yeah, I agree 100% with that, which is why I have both a compact genuine Hoodman and a Hoodman clone.

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 12:49 PM ----------


My "complete" Q system could be a Q7+01+06 - that would equal the capability I had in 1995 when I retired my Super Program + 50mm + 75-205mm
Then an m43 can do that. I can think of several models with EVF that you can put the 20mm f1.7 and a 35-100 into a fanny Pack. That gives a prime 40 and 70-200. I often carry my gx7 with a 17mm on the camera a 9mm fisheye and a 35-100. It is really small. My belt pouch is small so the 35-100 goes in my pocket.

However the q is so darn cute. If I didn't have the gx7 I might have one.

05-09-2016, 11:05 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Heinrich Lohmann's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Airdrie, Alberta Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,650
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Complete system = ?
Several m4/3 kits might be close.
On the Q7 In 35mm terms:

fisheye at 14.7mm f:5.6
08 at 17-27mm f:3.7-4
01 at 40mm f:1.9
02 at 23-80mm f:2.8-4.5
06 at 80-205mm f:2.8 (constant)

To me at least, this is a complete system and that the whole thing fits in a small fanny pack is a BIG bonus.
05-09-2016, 11:41 AM   #33
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Then an m43 can do that. I can think of several models with EVF that you can put the 20mm f1.7 and a 35-100 into a fanny Pack. That gives a prime 40 and 70-200. I often carry my gx7 with a 17mm on the camera a 9mm fisheye and a 35-100. It is really small. My belt pouch is small so the 35-100 goes in my pocket.
Yeah, but this whole discussion started off comparing Q to K, not to other options. I did consider an MFT camera when I bought the Q-7 instead, but the deciding factor for me was its ability to also serve as my "birding" camera, allowing the lens I already had to give me a view that would require a lens of over 1400mm, of giving me the utility of a Canon SX50 in that nice smaller package {and that is a completely different discussion}
05-09-2016, 12:24 PM   #34
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 47
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Yeah, but this whole discussion started off comparing Q to K, not to other options. I did consider an MFT camera when I bought the Q-7 instead, but the deciding factor for me was its ability to also serve as my "birding" camera, allowing the lens I already had to give me a view that would require a lens of over 1400mm, of giving me the utility of a Canon SX50 in that nice smaller package {and that is a completely different discussion}
Yeah crop factor is its achilles heel and swan song all at once. I started on the Q system. The price is unbeatable. I will move on to bigger and better camera systems eventually but as a thing to cut my teeth on, the Q and its limitations have been a great teacher. It feels like learning to race in a slow car that handles well. You have to get good at keeping up to compensate for your lack of grunt but on a good day you can show the big boys a thing or two.

05-09-2016, 12:37 PM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,718
QuoteOriginally posted by Heinrich Lohmann Quote
On the Q7 In 35mm terms:

fisheye at 14.7mm f:5.6
08 at 17-27mm f:3.7-4
01 at 40mm f:1.9
02 at 23-80mm f:2.8-4.5
06 at 80-205mm f:2.8 (constant)

To me at least, this is a complete system and that the whole thing fits in a small fanny pack is a BIG bonus.
Agreed. I can get close to this but the wide angle part is the part where the M43 system falls down in terms of compactness. The system isn't as small particularly when you talk about that 80-205 f/2.8 constant - the equivalent M43 lens is much larger. The 70-200 f4-5.6 lens is quite small and lovely but that's not the same.

In any case, I agree that the Q is a nice package and fun. I invested in an LX7 due to portability and I invested in a GX7 as well due to luck and chance.
05-09-2016, 01:14 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Agreed. I can get close to this but the wide angle part is the part where the M43 system falls down in terms of compactness. The system isn't as small particularly when you talk about that 80-205 f/2.8 constant - the equivalent M43 lens is much larger. The 70-200 f4-5.6 lens is quite small and lovely but that's not the same.
I got the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6. It's not fast aperture, but it's cheap, it's not huge, and it has great reach. In the daylight it's just fine. I also got the Bower (Samyang) 7.5mm fisheye, which is a real gem and can be very successfully "de-fished" using PTLens, allowing it to double as an ultra-wide.

My problems with the E-M5 have been. . . Fragility, unreliability, and a completely bonkers menu system, and many missing features relative to the Q7. Also, rather poor support for manual focusing. And even with my lean-and-mean set of travel lenses (Bower 7.5mm, Olympus 17mm, 12-50mm and 40-150mm) it still makes for kind of a porky camera bag when compared to the Q7. I did try replacing both the 12-55 and the 40-150 with a Tamron 14-150mm superzoom, but it failed to lock on focus a few to many times.
05-09-2016, 03:00 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,718
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I got the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6. It's not fast aperture, but it's cheap, it's not huge, and it has great reach. In the daylight it's just fine. I also got the Bower (Samyang) 7.5mm fisheye, which is a real gem and can be very successfully "de-fished" using PTLens, allowing it to double as an ultra-wide.

My problems with the E-M5 have been. . . Fragility, unreliability, and a completely bonkers menu system, and many missing features relative to the Q7. Also, rather poor support for manual focusing. And even with my lean-and-mean set of travel lenses (Bower 7.5mm, Olympus 17mm, 12-50mm and 40-150mm) it still makes for kind of a porky camera bag when compared to the Q7. I did try replacing both the 12-55 and the 40-150 with a Tamron 14-150mm superzoom, but it failed to lock on focus a few to many times.
The few times I have played with Olympus I have not liked their menus either. I agree that the choices are much larger, so the Q makes sense in that case. My solution at present is to go smaller than the q - same sensor size roughly with the LX7 as my pocket camera.
05-10-2016, 09:03 AM   #38
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,065
I wouldn't compare u4/3 and Q systems. While it is true that a u4/3 body like the Lumix GM1 can be made very small like a Q7, all those gains are lost when a u4/3 is attached to the body. Q lenses will always be smaller and when used with a Q body the Q system is miniscule. The best example is the excellent 06 lens. It's 15-45mm range is roughly equivalent to the popular 70-200mm in FF speak. A comparable 35-100mm lens in u4/3 will be absolutely massive in comparison. The size of the u4/3 body comes a moot point.

Even a mediocre u4/3 sensor will run circles around the Q's 1/1.7" unit when it comes to dynamic range and noise, especially at high ISO. It's not a fair fight. There's no fighting physics. u4/3 is an APS killer and it will give bodies like the K-S1, KS-2, and even the K-3 a run for their money. I have been bowled over by my Olympus M-10 and I am very pleased with it.

Leave the Q form factor and design philosophy as-is. Improve the sensor with some trickle-down technology gained from the larger sensors. Speed up auto focus and general shooting performance. Broaden the lens selection. Done!

05-10-2016, 10:45 AM   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,718
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I wouldn't compare u4/3 and Q systems. While it is true that a u4/3 body like the Lumix GM1 can be made very small like a Q7, all those gains are lost when a u4/3 is attached to the body. Q lenses will always be smaller and when used with a Q body the Q system is miniscule. The best example is the excellent 06 lens. It's 15-45mm range is roughly equivalent to the popular 70-200mm in FF speak. A comparable 35-100mm lens in u4/3 will be absolutely massive in comparison. The size of the u4/3 body comes a moot point.
Actually my 35-100 lens in u4/3 format f/4-5.6 is almost the same size - slightly heavier, but same rough length (50mm) and the weight isn't too bad 135g vs. 90) Given the ISO advantage and DOF differences in the sensor sizes I would assert this is a fair to compare lens in many ways. The wide angle zoom option that is similar is the 9-19 f/4-5.6 which again is roughly the same size (2.2x1.9" vs. 2.1x1.5") and a bit heavier (155g vs. 75g).

In essence I see the m43 system being a slightly larger Q - neither is very pocket friendly but both are fairly friendly to ways to carry that the DSLR's aren't. I think they are most assuredly different beasts - and I understand that the Q is smaller - but given ISO performance the differences become less stark. The main reason I bring it up at all is that if there are short falls in the Q that prevent someone from moving away from a DSLR, then something like the m43 might fit. I personally have both and an LX7 pocket camera.
05-10-2016, 10:48 AM   #40
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,065
How does the 35-100mm f/2.8 in u4/3 compare to the 06?


05-10-2016, 11:06 AM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,718
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
How does the 35-100mm f/2.8 in u4/3 compare to the 06?
It's huge. But the question is how relevant is the f/2.8 when comparing across sensors? A specific f/stop is mainly relevant in terms of what it allows - a shallow depth of field and the ability to shoot stable shots with low enough ISO that noise is not an issue. We agree that m43 offers higher iso performance which means that in the same lighting the slower lens can still be used without impact to noise. Additionally the shallow DOF at f/4-5.6 on m43 should be similar to that provided on the Q/QS1 etc. However I have no ability to A/B these against each other.

The Q has a place in the ecosystem. But if you want a viewfinder and you are willing to give up a little size - m43 is a strong alternative. As for image quality - well the photographer makes so much of a difference it is hard to compare. I would love to see someone A/B some smaller m43 lenses with the Pentax Q stuff - I imagine they would be very competitive with one another.

---------- Post added 05-10-16 at 02:11 PM ----------

A similar example is my decision to take the LX7 to Europe on a trip vs. my GX7. At the time the only m43 lens I had was the 14-42 f/3.5-5.6. ISO performance of the GX7 was around 700 ISO and the LX7 was around 125. Doing the math I realized that the LX7's 24-90 f/1.4 - f/2.3 lens (in full frame equivalent terms) was not that much worse than the GX7's 28-84 f/3.5 - f/5.6 lens (in full frame equivalent terms) if I took ISO into account. Essentially I had about 2.5 stops given up in ISO but the lens was about 2.5 stops faster on the short end and at least 2.3 stops on the long end.

In the end the portability and simplicity won out. I didn't have a viewfinder which I very much missed a few times but otherwise it really worked well for me. It was never a question of a similar f/stop lens on my GX7 - just a lens that gave similar results.

Last edited by UncleVanya; 05-10-2016 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Clarity
05-10-2016, 11:28 AM - 1 Like   #42
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 47
The thing is, though, if you want great image quality, APS-c can offer cheaper options because greater commonality means a cheaper secondary market. Perhaps you sacrifice portability, but then again, For a lower all-in price, I'll lug around a bigger camera if I need that bigger sensor performance. That isn't what the Q excels at. It excels at the "I want to carry 2 AF lenses in my cargo pockets and run around chasing my 4 year old niece or wander around Coachella or whatever and I don't want to tear my pants or slip a disc after 14 hours."

The dinky sensor doesn't matter. The camera you have with you is the best camera. If it has good glass in front of it, which the Q system does, you can work around most performance shortcomings.
05-10-2016, 03:27 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,652
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
How does the 35-100mm f/2.8 in u4/3 compare to the 06?
Yes, in size the 2.8 is a lot bigger


However the performance of the f4-5.6 35/100mm Panasonic in low light is very very good.I recently shot an outdoor music concert handheld with the GM1 +35/100 f4-5.6....it was late afternoon to well after dark.It was my first try at using the Panasonic and the results were excellent.


As far as size goes, the Q7 is a thicker body and a smidgin heavier....vice versa for the lenses.IN a cargo pants pocket the protrusion of the lenses away from the body is virtually the same, the Panasonic may be 1-2mm shorter!


Pocketability of the GM1 with the body cap lenses(both f8, so good light shooting)is the best of any ILC.Lowlight is when the Q+ 01 becomes the best..


These situations can be bettered by a different Q though.


The SONY QX series attached to your phone and is controlled by an app.Thickness in your pocket(QX10, 25-250mm,no raw though)is same as q10/q7.Same size sensor as Q/Q10.The QX100 offers a 1" sensor and theres a apsc(sony a5000)sensor on qX1.QX30 zooms 25-750eQivalent.


Any Qs?
06-06-2016, 01:01 AM   #44
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 260
Original Poster
Well my 01 lens came about 2 weeks ago, nice lens, it did not have the lens hood and I hadn't expected it to so I splashed out for a Chinese copy of it's tiny lens hood and now it fits in my jacket pocket. The 01 is more or less mounted permanently and I'm very pleased with it's performance. I don't think I'll go for the 08 although it's a very nice lens I find the 02 is wide enough so for now my system is complete. If Pentax produce a longer AF tele lens I would probably get that.

I have also got a Chinese red/green dot sight for the Q to work with my Tamron 70-300mm when the Geese come back in the Autumn but I'd still rather a Q with some sort of Viewfinder, either built in or clip on.

Kind Regards

CD
06-06-2016, 01:24 AM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,652
May I ask where did you find these chinese red/green dot sights?


I'm seeing some for around U$ 30ish on ebay, are they similar to yours?
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!
camera, count, f/2.8, film, hoodman, image, images, iso, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, performance, pm, q-s1, q10, q7, quality, smoothness, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Q7, Generic Q to K and Q to MD minolta converter transam879 Sold Items 3 01-09-2015 06:44 AM
Q-to-K Adapter and HD Teleconverter on Q. Is it possible? januko Pentax Q 8 12-08-2014 07:25 PM
Oz Pentaxians - Where to buy the Original Pentax Q to K Adapter? raider Pentax Q 6 10-18-2014 01:43 PM
New to me Q/02/Q>K Converter Kit!! monochrome Pentax Q 25 01-31-2013 08:13 PM
Pentax Q / adapter K to Q / DA 35mm f2.4 AL wax Pentax Q 4 11-06-2012 02:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 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