Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-29-2016, 12:24 PM - 2 Likes   #31
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,270
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Possibly you could put together a series of clinics demonstrating how you achieve these results so the rest of this forum can benefit from your experiences.
A series of clinics may be more than I'm comfortable committing to right now, but I'd be happy to pull together a post explaining my workflow, using a few real examples of Q and/or Q7 images - if you think there's genuine appetite for it (I wouldn't want to invest time in it if there's only extremely limited interest, for obvious reasons)

09-29-2016, 12:28 PM   #32
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 699
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Which fully supports my point. Who actually develops Q RAW's in LR?
Well, I'm one of them. And being able to get the raw file is one of the main reason I've got the Q in the first place. At the time, most compact camera were only giving you precooked jpg. And those that were able to provide raw were costly high end compact or much bulkier camera. Bulkier meaning they can't be carried confortably in my coat pocket or wife's purse.

EDIT: I've just seen BicmackCam's messages above, seems we were crosswriting... So, I'm alone, we're at least two processing RAW files from the Q/Q7!

EDIT 2:
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Me I treat my Q and Q7 just like mini DSLRs, with exactly the same workflow. The results are far, far better than the in-camera JPEG engine is capable of... especially when you start getting into the noisier ISO settings.
Same thing for me. My workflow is about the same I do with my DSLR pictures. However, the levels of adjustments aren't the same. The Q/Q7 really benefits passing through a good denoising software. Overall, the files cannot be pushed as much as the ones from my DSLR. But they benefit from a more agressive sharpening. The results are usually significantly better than the OOC jpg. When printed on 5 x 7, or resize for web size viewing, you would be hard pressed to tell which pictures were taken with a Q/Q7 or a DSLR.

Last edited by CarlJF; 09-29-2016 at 12:48 PM.
09-29-2016, 12:37 PM   #33
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,270
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
And being able to get the raw file is one of the main reason I've got the Q in the first place.
The main reason I bought mine was to use as a small sensor back with some of my K-mount lenses, but I wouldn't have bought it unless it had the capability to produce RAW files
09-29-2016, 12:47 PM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Who actually develops Q RAW's in LR?
I do - precisely because it is a Q - That tiny sensor needs all the help it can get.

All my Q shots are RAW and run through ACR+Photoshop...


Last edited by wildman; 09-30-2016 at 11:24 PM.
09-29-2016, 12:52 PM - 1 Like   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,049
@CarlJF (and everyone else who is responding, "I do!"). The 06 is an exceptional lens, as is the 01. By comparison the 02 is pedestrian.

I'm not denigrating the system - I use it (or did, before K-1) more than full-sized systems. I just wonder whether enthusiast Forum posters are outlier users of Q. My wife for example just imports her image files into her MacBook and complained vociferously about the work to import .DNG's. She seems content to email herself iPhone image files, which says plenty about the tunnel vision of the true consumer user.

From the 'What else is new' Department, I don't think Pentax has done a good job marketing Q as a high quality tool.
09-29-2016, 01:00 PM   #36
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,270
^^^ I agree.

Outside of the Japanese fashion/gadget market, there's little incentive for anyone to buy a Q-type camera unless they are reasonably serious users. And then, as you say, there is the MILC competition to worry about. In that respect, the Q line (its evolution or replacement) has to offer a differentiator that other MILCs don't. The sensor size attracted me because of the magnification I would get with adapted lenses... also the fact that the user interface closely followed that of my Pentax DSLRs. But I wouldn't think either of those has enough crowd-pulling potential to ensure a large enough marketplace for any future Q-line product.
09-29-2016, 01:05 PM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,779
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
How does Q stack up against competitive small MILC's?
If you take DXO reports into account, reasonably good.The Q7/S1 and Pano GM1 are 1 point different in IQ for stills.....The video from the GM1 is far superior to Q7,thats my personal observation..
09-29-2016, 01:10 PM   #38
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,270
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
My workflow is about the same I do with my DSLR pictures. However, the levels of adjustments aren't the same. The Q/Q7 really benefits passing through a good denoising software. Overall, the files cannot be pushed as much as the ones from my DSLR. But they benefit from a more agressive sharpening. The results are usually significantly better than the OOC jpg.
That's exactly my experience, too. Regarding adjustment levels, I have different levels even for Q vs Q7 files, especially in relation to noise reduction and sharpening. Plus, as with photos from my other cameras, I tend to fine tune noise reduction based on subject, intended dimensions of the output file and expected viewing distance.

I'd be interested to know what you use for de-noising. I've tried all sorts, but I keep coming back to LR as I find the colour noise reduction superior. I'm gentle with the luminance noise reduction (typically zero to 15, but occasionally as high as 20 or even 25), then a high level of masking in the sharpening tool to avoid emphasising remaining noise.

09-29-2016, 01:32 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,739
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
Maybe because getting better performance is the goal of buying and using a larger sensor in the first place? If not, why would you want to buy one ?
When I got my mirrorless camera I choose a APS-C camera as is was more pocket friendly than any Q camera with kit zoom at the time (still true). It also made it possible to fully use my K-mount APS-C lenses with adapter, and use a lens turbo for full coverage of FF vintage lenses. A FF solution for $400.

QuoteQuote:
I can assure you that wide open, at its long end, the 06 lens fare much better than most consumer 5.6 zoom at their long end. I can tell you that my 06 on a Q7 can make a tough competion to my 55-300 on an APS-C. And I often prefer to go for the Q7+06 instead of the K500 + 55-300... I only use the 55-300 if I need the extra reach or better AF. In fact, this damned 06 makes me seriously think that I should upgrade the 55-300 for a 60-250 or 50-135... But that's another story...
It would be interesting to see reviews on this lens. Q lenses may show more uniform performance as the optics don't have the same resolution as larger optics. Comparing data on Photozone.de the Q 01 prime on 12MP camera give slightly better performance at f/2.8 than DA 55-300 tested on 10MP at 300mm wide open. But the DA 55-300 would perform better with a 12MP sensor without AA filter. I would expect the Q 06 to perform similar to 01 if it's a very good lens.

QuoteQuote:
Yes, but what's the point of getting a pricier, bigger, camera body to only get you to the same point of a smaller cheaper one only because you don't want to put a fast lens on it ? Sure, you can decide to use 5.6 lens on a m43 or a APS-C and crank up the ISO to compensate, but what's the point if in the end you don't get a significantly better IQ ? What is the point of getting a larger sensor body if only to tie it with lenses 2-3 stops slower ? What are you trying to demonstrate by showing that you could get results that are only as good as a small sensor with bigger ones ? I hope they do! It's the least they can do, but I expect them to be significantly better, not just the same.
My point is that larger sensor camera do not have to be more expensive or bigger if you use lenses that perform similar. But on a larger sensor camera you usually have more options if you need better performance. A larger sensor camera gives you more room to grow with your system, and have more options if you want to specialize in one area of photography.

QuoteQuote:
And that's the point of comparing 2.8 lenses between these system. Because it's what will allow you to get a significantly better IQ with what is supposed to be the better sensor. If you only get "as good as" and want a compact system, you just take the smaller one... Because, it only make sense to get the larger one if you can get something better out of it, meaning using a lens that is at least as good.
Everyone need to start somewhere, and when starting to invest in a system it's something you want to last you many years ahead. You might not be able to get the best and most expensive lenses from start.

I don't think Q users often use it as their only system, not as many as users of larger sensor systems.
09-29-2016, 03:11 PM - 1 Like   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Which fully supports my point. Who actually develops Q RAW's in LR?
uhhh. . . I do. I spent about six months using the Q7 as my primary camera, and I learned the squeeze the maximum out of it. The benefit of shooting DNG and learning my way around Lightroom was probably the biggest lesson I picked up from that experience.

As for how the Q7 would compare with my iPhone. . . The phone has a wide-angle lens, and typical wide angle photos in good light aren't going to show a big difference. The interchangeable lenses and zoom lenses are the major advantage for the Q system. There's also the raw shooting that can handle more dynamic range.

Incidentally... A while back I did a series of comparison shots between my Q7 and my Sony Alpha A7, just to try and quantify the IQ difference between a small sensor and a "full frame" sensor. The wide angle shots in good light showed very little difference. The further I ventured away from those ideal conditions, the more the full frame camera pulled ahead. However, the Q7 did hold up a lot better than I think most would expect.
09-29-2016, 04:20 PM   #41
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 699
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I'd be interested to know what you use for de-noising. I've tried all sorts, but I keep coming back to LR as I find the colour noise reduction superior. I'm gentle with the luminance noise reduction (typically zero to 15, but occasionally as high as 20 or even 25), then a high level of masking in the sharpening tool to avoid emphasising remaining noise.
I use Topaz Denoise. It works very well with the somewhat heavy denoising needed with the Q, particularly the original one. Compared to LR, I find that Denoise does a great job of keeping details while LR tends to smooth them...
09-29-2016, 04:51 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,779
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I use it (or did, before K-1)
Yes, definitely harder to pick up another cam when theres a K1 there to use.
09-29-2016, 05:10 PM - 1 Like   #43
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
A series of clinics may be more than I'm comfortable committing to right now, but I'd be happy to pull together a post explaining my workflow, using a few real examples of Q and/or Q7 images - if you think there's genuine appetite for it (I wouldn't want to invest time in it if there's only extremely limited interest, for obvious reasons)
Producing something that others can benefit from is very rewarding. I have a lot of experience with what I say check out my CWRailman Adventures in Model Railroading Every week I hear from individuals who have gotten something from my site and sometimes those comments come from countries that are (pun intended) foreign to me. There are probably some basic post processing settings that you use for all images such as contrast, clarity, color saturation, sharpness, highlight or shadow improvements or complete changes in the tone curves. To the best of my knowledge, such recommendations have not been discussed in depth in other threads. It seems more folks are focused on the technical aspects and like to argue about them and less on implementation of photographic techniques.


Last edited by CWRailman; 09-29-2016 at 06:08 PM.
09-29-2016, 05:11 PM - 1 Like   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,049
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Yes, definitely harder to pick up another cam when theres a K1 there to use.
My K-3 went to a better home, but my poor film cameras are actually getting a little snippy with me
09-29-2016, 06:40 PM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,688
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Q lenses may show more uniform performance as the optics don't have the same resolution as larger optics.
Say what? Their lp/mm resolution is way above the resolution of most larger optics.
That's noticeable when you put K-mount lenses on the adapter.
The 06 at 40mm clearly outperforms my DA40XS, for example.
(Although the 06 is actually longer than the DA40XS, if not as wide.)
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Comparing data on Photozone.de the Q 01 prime on 12MP camera give slightly better performance at f/2.8 than DA 55-300 tested on 10MP at 300mm wide open. But the DA 55-300 would perform better with a 12MP sensor without AA filter. I would expect the Q 06 to perform similar to 01 if it's a very good lens.
Photozone tested the 01-03 on the original Q.
On the 1/1.7" sensor, the lenses will show more lp/ih.

In real use, the Q system often outperforms APS-C systems for sharpness,
where the PDAF may not be accurate enough.
It's the difference between lab tests and actual practice.

Of course, other aspects of IQ like DR are a different story.

---------- Post added 09-29-16 at 08:44 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Who actually develops Q RAW's in LR?
The people who don't use Photoshop?
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!
adventures, camera, canon, check, individuals, lenses, line, mirrorless, model, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, people, photokina, q-mount, q-s1, q10, q7, system, vision, week
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Q-s1 discontinued. The end of Q? D1N0 Pentax News and Rumors 170 10-13-2016 08:19 AM
Is the KS-2 a quantum leap from the K-r? weijen Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 9 06-10-2015 08:40 AM
Is this the current state of the GOP?? larryinlc General Talk 2 04-01-2012 09:50 AM
ABC (.net.au) on the state of the union address jolepp General Talk 3 01-25-2012 03:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 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