Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-31-2016, 08:57 AM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,833
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
How big are you trying to enlarge grahame?
I print only very few of photos - I just don't have place to hang them My largest print size is also 13x19 and I agree most of them look fine on the wall. And I agree with you that photos should be printed and exhibited on the wall instead of on computer screen -- but it is just too expensive to do.

I am a pixel peeper, but only when I am testing a lens and I know Q should not be inspected at 100%. Here I am talking about viewing them on computer screen, say, 22 inch, 1920x1080, full screen model. But unfortunately it is about 50% view of Q's photos. Veins and leaves that are close should look great. but focus to far, you start to see smudge in small details even on 13x19 prints.

08-31-2016, 09:17 AM   #32
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
Over the years I went through several Qs then several Q10s. I currently have both a Q7 with the 01, 02 and 06 lenses as well as a GM-5. There will be no GM-7 as per several company announcements Panasonic has apparently dropped that line. With the exception of more depth of field due to the small sensor size, the GM-5 is far superior to the Q7 though that ruffles more than a few feathers when I say it but that is what I have found to be true. Most Q series owners who object to that statement have never owned nor shot the GM-5. The out of camera JPEG files, are of much higher resolution and when you zoom in they are sharper. The Q7 which costs about half what a GM-5 sells for does feel better in my hands as the GM-5 is a bit more slippery which is a problem I also had with the original Q. One of the reasons I added the GM-5 to my arsenal of photographic equipment was that it could fit into my pocket and if necessary it could use without adapters or fuss all of the 4/3 lenses from my Olympus cameras. This paid for itself when my E-M10 quit working on the first day of my trip and the GM-5 which was in my pocket was put into service and saved the rest of the trip. Though I have now moved on from the 4/3 format to Fujifilm, I have kept the GM-5 and several lenses one of which is the 15mm Leica/Panasonic lens which is one of the sharpest (though also one of the most expensive) lenses available for that format. Another camera that is a bit larger but offers a great sensor and image processor is the Fujifilm X-M1 which gives you the same sensor as the much more expensive Fuji X-T1 and X-T10 in a much smaller body. When teamed up with the small Fuji 27mm pancake lens this is a "near pocket able" combination producing great sharp images with the industry dominating colors that Fuji is known for. The Fuji X-A1,2,or newly released 3 are the same size as the M1 but they have a Bayer sensor which is not to my liking.
08-31-2016, 09:32 AM   #33
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by grahame Quote
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.
Actually, there are two mathematically correct ways of doing the comparison:


(1) purely calculation:
12/60 = .2, so Q7 has 20% the area of a 60mp FF sensor.

The more important measure is linear.
sqrt(.2) = .44, so Q7 should have 44% the number of pixels in each direction as a 60MP FF sensor


(2) rough actual values:
Q7 sensor measured in pixels is 4000 x 2664
60mp FF sensor measured in pixels is roughly 9714 x 6476

4000/9714 = .41 =2664/6476


These numbers should come out more like 1/4.65 = .215
Obviously your choice of 60mp FF sensor still gives the FF sensor larger pixels than the Q7 has, but I'm not going to re-do that arithmetic also.

In any case, your "5% area" comparison is much worse than not very accurate ... its also not very relevant.
Reciprocal of the crop factor { 1/crop-factor = 1/4.65 = .215 } is where the truth is.

Last edited by reh321; 08-31-2016 at 09:40 AM.
08-31-2016, 09:42 AM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,833
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
12/60 = .2, so Q7 has 20% the area of a 60mp FF sensor.
Area percentage is not 12/60. Q: 6.17 x 4.55 mm vs FF 35.9mm x 24.0mm = 28/862= 2.9% Q7: 7.6mm x 5.7mm VS 35.9mm x 24.0mm = 5%

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Reciprocal of the crop factor { 1/crop-factor = 1/4.65 = .215 } is where the truth is.
This is linear length; area should be (1/4.65)*(1/4.65)


Anyway, it is not the major point. Q is a fun system but has its limit. I guess most member ere that are very happy with Q because it is the 2nd or 3rd system they have and use Q in only the situations that they can avoid the limitations.
To me, I like combine Q7 with 06 lens, and take GR with it for wide. This is my casual light-equipped travel gear, if I know I don't need any low light photos or portraits.


Last edited by grahame; 08-31-2016 at 09:53 AM.
08-31-2016, 10:01 AM   #35
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by grahame Quote
Area percentage is not 12/60. Q: 6.17 x 4.55 mm vs FF 35.9mm x 24.0mm = 28/862= 2.9% Q7: 7.6mm x 5.7mm VS 35.9mm x 24.0mm = 5%
OK, lets look at it a different way.
Your previous statement, the one I was responding to, had to do with detail {areas have to do with things such as Dynamic Range}.
QuoteOriginally posted by grahame Quote
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.
Cropping to 5% of the area of a 60mp FF sensor would be a rectangle approximately 22% of the sensor in each dimension, in other words a 2172 x 1448 sensor. (*)
That sensor would have barely half the pixels in each dimension that a Q7 has.
The Q7 sensor would resolve better because it has more pixels to work with.
I have seen this argument before; I've been told I would be better off using my K-mount lens on my K-30 and then cropping to get the "magnification" / "range" that I get with my Q-7
Last winter I did some actual tests using a paper target in my back yard; the primary purpose was to determine which of my lenses would work best with my Q-7, but I also took pictures with the K-30 and cropped them.
The Q-7 was significantly better every time because it had so many more pixels to work with.


(*) 2172 X 1448 = 3,145,056 pixels
60mp is approximately 9714 x 6476 pixels
3,145,056 / 62,907,864 = .04999 roughly = 5%

Last edited by reh321; 08-31-2016 at 10:04 AM. Reason: expanded commentary
08-31-2016, 12:19 PM   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Over the years I went through several Q’s then several Q10’s. I currently have both a Q7 with the 01, 02 and 06 lenses as well as a GM-5. There will be no GM-7 as per several company announcements Panasonic has apparently dropped that line. With the exception of more depth of field due to the small sensor size, the GM-5 is far superior to the Q7 though that ruffles more than a few feathers when I say it but that is what I have found to be true. Most Q series owners who object to that statement have never owned nor shot the GM-5. The out of camera JPEG files, are of much higher resolution and when you zoom in they are sharper. ...
Well, yes, I would expect a camera with more and larger pixels to do detail, dynamic range, and color depth better.

For me the deciding factor was very simply that the Q-7 could double as my "birding" camera, because it has over twice the "reach" / "magnification". We're allowed to make different decisions based on different purposes / objectives.


added thought: Interesting enough, to me the greatest advantage of the GM-5 is its EVF ... but, then, even when I was considering the Q-7, you didn't see any great advantage to EVF, so you remain consistent

Last edited by reh321; 08-31-2016 at 12:22 PM. Reason: added tought
08-31-2016, 12:22 PM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,770
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
The Q7 which costs about half what a GM-5 sells for
The cost in OZ is less for the Panasonic than it is for the Pentax(just did a quick ebay check).This maybe due to the GM5 being end of run?





QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
There will be no GM-7

Yes, GM and GF are no longer but the way the official announcement was phrased it appears the MINI Panos will take a GX prefix with 3 digits.
08-31-2016, 01:59 PM   #38
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Well, yes, I would expect a camera with more and larger pixels to do detail, dynamic range, and color depth better.

For me the deciding factor was very simply that the Q-7 could double as my "birding" camera, because it has over twice the "reach" / "magnification". We're allowed to make different decisions based on different purposes / objectives.


added thought: Interesting enough, to me the greatest advantage of the GM-5 is its EVF ... but, then, even when I was considering the Q-7, you didn't see any great advantage to EVF, so you remain consistent

Yes, the EVF is a benefit but it was not the deciding factor in my acquiring a GM-5. Several folks have asked me that if the EVF was not important why did I not go for the GM-1. My answer is to ask them if they ever handled a GM-1. Their answer is always no. Anyone who has used the two versions would be aware that the controls on the GM-1 were rather pathetic and left a lot to be desired. The GM-5 cleared up most of those issues as is noted in many of the GM-5 reviews.

It seems that in every conversation of the Q7 you bring up birding yet when I talked to folks who have an interest in that field as well as several sales folks in my local camera store, none have ever seen an article written on the benefits of using the Q series for that type of photography. Possibly you should publish an article delineating your experiences in using the Q series for that hobby. You might be doing them all a good service and also attract like minded individuals to the Q series. Note that on sites such as this, the Q is not listed though the author does list a few point and shoot cameras. Upon my initial testing I posted a series of blogs demonstrating the benefits of using the Q for our modeling work and followed that up with a demonstration of the Q7's capabilities at the Scottsdale Model Railroad Historical Society facility. That did generate some interest among others who shared my hobby.

08-31-2016, 02:16 PM   #39
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,070
Hey Denny ... !

What ever happened to your M10? I thought you had one when you ventured into u4/3 land.
08-31-2016, 02:20 PM - 3 Likes   #40
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,881
Buy and use.
Not buy and invest.


With all the 1", 4:3, apsc, FF, C-645, FF-645, we'd all be led to believe that the following photos suddenly turned to junk when newer cameras/sensors are released.











The Q system is as relevant today as it was when it was released.
Its good enough for many needs (and even A4 size printing).
Its not supposed to do shallower DOF isolation type shots, pixel peeping to an unknown end.

Buy it, use it and be happy.
Buy it, then keep letting all the sensor size arguments/theories eat into the head and one will not find any happiness. (it applies to any camera/system).

Whether the line is to be continued is not really relevant if the price for a set is good.
How many question if their RX100, Oly u, etc advanced pns is still being 'continued' (and they are not cheap at launch )
My Pentax Optio330 is still working after some 13yrs, so why not a Q 13yrs from now.
08-31-2016, 02:21 PM   #41
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
The cost in OZ is less for the Panasonic than it is for the Pentax(just did a quick ebay check).This maybe due to the GM5 being end of run?

Yes, GM and GF are no longer but the way the official announcement was phrased it appears the MINI Panos will take a GX prefix with 3 digits.


On some sites the price of the GM-5 and kit 12-32mm kit lens has gone down however on others, such as Ebay, it has actually gone up from it's low point so I guess it depends on where and when you shop. (I do not monitor those prices on a regular basis.) Since there is new offerings in the 4/3 format coming out on a regular basis I would suspect that the prices of the GM-5 will continue to drop. Just be aware that the GM-5's coming out of Asia have the PAL movie rates which may not be fully compatible with equipment where you live.
08-31-2016, 02:21 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,770
Yes CW, but I opted for the GM1 due to the price differential....its a good intro to M43.


Next stop is a GX85.
08-31-2016, 02:33 PM   #43
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Hey Denny ... !

What ever happened to your M10? I thought you had one when you ventured into u4/3 land.
I actually had four of them. First black one bought from Best Buy along with two lens kit stopped working after six days and was replaced by Best Buy. After several months and less than 600 shots, the LCD on that body quit working and was repaired under warranty by Olympus. On my trip to Chicago in December after taking about a dozen photo's the shutter of that body locked up and would not work. I used the GM-5 for the remainder of that trip. When it returned from repair I sold that body as well as the Silver body M10 I had purchased and was shown in my blog. Though I still have the GM-5 as well as a Olympus E-M5 which I acquired in a trade and seems to be working OK, hastened by those less than stellar experiences, I have now moved on strongly to Fuji and have acquired a series of their bodies and lenses. Besides employee publicity and product shots I am producing for several local companies you can see some of the casual work I am now doing with the Fuji X-T1 and X-T10 https://www.flickr.com/photos/33193217@N03/
08-31-2016, 04:08 PM   #44
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,275
Had a chance to shoot with a Fuji XT-1 last weekend. Friend loaned it to me while he played with his new camera. It was interesting. Wasn't too excited about the zoom "aperture ring" being drive by wire vs the 30mm. Definetly a much larger camera than the Q.

If my Q broke tomorrow I would buy another.
Thanks
barondla
09-01-2016, 08:56 AM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
Sometimes we don't appreciate what the "Q" offers.

At another photography discussion forum where I'm a regular, several others were intrigued by an ILC with a physical shutter that whispers "click" when it takes a picture.
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 11:29 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