Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-30-2016, 03:26 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Coloroado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 247
here's the size comparison tool - comparing the GM-5 to the Q

Compare camera dimensions side by side

08-30-2016, 03:42 PM   #17
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 4
I'm actually on a trip in Corse (France) with my pentax Q-S1 (lenses 01,02,03, 06 & 08), my fuji x100t. My girlfriend is with my sony rx100 m3.
I think that if I had to take only one of the 3, it would be the qs-1 )
Shots from x100t are amazing, vidéos from Sony are superb but the more fun and versatile is the qs-1!! Photos and videos with the wide zoom 08 are the most beautiful for me... I have a flashair card from Toshiba to have wifi with the Q-S1, and I put a USB power if i want to make timelapse.
For me, the pentax Q is a winner... I hope the adventure will continue but I'm afraid to see the end of Qs... So I bought a new qs-1 body yesterday to make a back-up and continue to play with it as long as possible...
Name:  ImageUploadedByTapatalk1472599748.030382.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  253.8 KB
08-30-2016, 06:41 PM   #18
Pentaxian
GateCityRadio's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 496
I think at this point I would go with one of the APS-C Sony E-mounts or fuji mirrorless. These systems are still growing and could grow with you as a photographer where the Q is pretty stagnant now.
08-30-2016, 10:22 PM   #19
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,067
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
I think at this point I would go with one of the APS-C Sony E-mounts or fuji mirrorless. These systems are still growing and could grow with you as a photographer where the Q is pretty stagnant now.


I keep reading that Sony's AF on their a6300 is fantastic whereas Fuji lacks a bit. Both work well ... but Sony's works better.

08-31-2016, 12:55 AM   #20
Pentaxian
GateCityRadio's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 496
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I keep reading that Sony's AF on their a6300 is fantastic whereas Fuji lacks a bit. Both work well ... but Sony's works better.
I don't have any experience with Fuji, but the AF on the A6000 I had was the best I've seen on a camera. The A7 I had wasn't too shabby either. My only beef with sony is their E-Mount lens line-up is incomplete compared to Pentax it seems...at least for APS-C, they have the jump on pentax when it comes to FF (if you don't include legacy glass). Fuji seems to have a very good lens line up.
08-31-2016, 01:34 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
I think at this point I would go with one of the APS-C Sony E-mounts or fuji mirrorless.
sure a good way to go if you did not own a system to begin with but both options are quite a substantial investment, also both have no form of in body image stabilization and the later fuji cameras have focal plane shutter which limits your flash photography options

QuoteOriginally posted by grahame Quote
There are usually much more small details in photos taken from wider lens and Q7's sensor is not very good in resolving them
not sure what your on about but its definitely not the sensor thats the problem its the lens quality combined with aperture diffraction limit (f2.8 is the sweet spot for a 1/1.7 sensor, anything over f4 is gonna result in a massive resolution hit)

QuoteOriginally posted by emergo Quote
comparing the GM-5 to the Q
its not the size that matters its how much you want to use it
08-31-2016, 02:15 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,699
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
its not the size that matters its how much you want to use it

Size of the bodies is very close, however the EVF makes a GM5 pretty attractive


BUT, what about the size of the lens inventory? ? ?....80, of which 50 are autofocus.....Q has 1/2/6/8 in AF plus the toyboys!
08-31-2016, 02:46 AM   #23
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,430
Q7 + 01 + 06 + 08 = awesome

With the original Q, I would go for the 02 and 06 and leave it at that.

If you like the system, invest. The 03 is also bloody good fun if you are willing to climb the learning curve. But it's steep.

08-31-2016, 02:46 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
BUT, what about the size of the lens inventory? ? ?....80, of which 50 are autofocus.....Q has 1/2/6/8 in AF plus the toyboys!
but only 2 AF lens and 1 MF lens you would really want to own from that massive inventory (and will look completely hilarious on the gm5)

Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8 ASPH Power OIS (24-70 eqv)

Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 Power OIS (70-200 eqv)

Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 (50 eqv)
08-31-2016, 02:59 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,699
Obviously, you've used the other 77 too?
08-31-2016, 03:37 AM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Size of the bodies is very close, however the EVF makes a GM5 pretty attractive

BUT, what about the size of the lens inventory? ? ?....80, of which 50 are autofocus.....Q has 1/2/6/8 in AF plus the toyboys!
In the days of film, for many years my personal lens inventory consisted of a 50mm prime and a 70-210mm zoom, and that met my need for a primary system. Q7 + 01 + 06 gave me the same capability and 02 is just bonus as far as I'm concerned ... and that is just for a secondary system.
08-31-2016, 05:11 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,674
QuoteOriginally posted by grahame Quote
I dislike the wide zoom lens. There are usually much more small details in photos taken from wider lens and Q7's sensor is not very good in resolving them.
At low ISOs, the Q7's is as good as any other 12MP sensor at resolving fine detail.
And unless you are unlucky enough to have a bad copy,
the 08 is an absolutely superb wide-angle optic
that does way better than all except the biggest lenses of that type in other systems.

In fact, the 08 is the lens that really convinced me of the value of the Q system.
08-31-2016, 05:25 AM   #28
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,096

Two ways to travel light
by John Flores, on Flickr

The camera on the left feels and operates like a mini-dslr, good for shooting in Manual mode.
The camera on the right (a GM-1) feels and operates like a point-and-shoot on steroids, good for shooting in Program or Aperture|Shutter priority. I have not tried the GM-5 so I can't comment on its controls.

In terms of image quality, in good light, the two are closer than their sensor sizes would lead you to believe. I've shot covers and full pages with the Q.

On my last trip I took the GM-1 because I was talking a pair of GX-85s as well and wanted to share lenses. But I knew that I had to shoot in Aperture Priority as shooting the GM-1 in Manual mode is frustrating. The built-in wi-fi was very helpful, as was being able to use the same charger as the GX-85.

But for leisure, I will always grab the Q. It encourages play.
08-31-2016, 07:50 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,813
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
At low ISOs, the Q7's is as good as any other 12MP sensor at resolving fine detail.
Q7 is a great camera, small, fun to use and has a lots of functions and controls, just like a mini DSLR.. all great. I have one and love it.

But it is still not as good as 12mp DSLR in resolving very small details such as leaves, because the pixel is too small. It is like cropping the center 5% area of a 60mp FF sensor image and enlarge it to normal size... Or it is somewhat like viewing K-1 image at 10x (100%) on LCD screen. (7360/5 pixels x 4912/5) pixels =1472x982=1446k, a little better than screens 1030k resolution. -- my numbers and calculations are not very accurate, q7 crop factor is little smaller the 5, but you get the idea.

but I agree, viewing the photos at small size such as for web, Q is more than enough.
08-31-2016, 08:34 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,206
How big are you trying to enlarge grahame?

I am looking at a 12x19 print hanging on my wall right now that was taken with the original Q and the standard 02 zoom. It is bright, colorful and I can see the veins in the leaves of the trees that are close. Obviously it is not possible to pick the leaves out on trees that are far off on the mountains. I used a tripod and the timer instead of the anti-shake, but I suspect it would have done all right with the anti shake as well.

I think that some people (reviewers are the worst) only want to pick certain images to blow up 100% on their computer screen to make their judgements on a camera or a lens. I personally find it better to take your file and print it at the size you want, then live with it for awhile. That gives me a far better idea of what it will be like to live with the photographs I get when I actually use the system.

---------- Post added 08-31-2016 at 08:44 AM ----------

To be honest, the biggest problem I originally had with the Q system was the size. I was used to carrying around the K10D or a film slr and the size of the Q made me feel a little self conscious. I mean face it, no serious photographer walks around with a little point and shoot...right? They need a big camera like a full frame professional Canon or Nikon. Or maybe a Pentax 645Z.

But then I started to print my photos. The biggest I can go at home is 13x19 (or something like that.) When I started to print I realized that I could easily go 8x10 (which is 95% of my work) or even as high as 13x19 if the photo had enough detail. I gradually lost my need to be packing around something that was only serving to demonstrate the size of my ..... (ahem).

Don't worry, I still carry around my film or digital 645 Pentaxes, and my various 35mm slr and dslrs. I enjoy working with them. But the reality is, if I am traveling and have to pack small, the Q is the choice every time.

Of course, as in anything in life, your mileage may vary.
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!
body, camera, film, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, photos, print, q-s1, q10, q7, slr, trees, trip
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone adding the new Pentax 1.4 converter to their Q system? barondla Pentax Q 6 03-23-2014 07:45 PM
So I finally made the jump to Q - Building up a system! 6BQ5 Pentax Q 9 01-06-2014 06:26 AM
Nikon Q system using 1/2.3" sensor too = Pentax Q system? ogl Pentax News and Rumors 31 07-14-2011 07:47 PM
Is it worth it to invest in a good flash? NecroticSoldier Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 34 05-06-2010 02:49 PM
Would you invest in filters? macopajuice Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 17 04-10-2009 03:56 PM



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