Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-03-2016, 06:45 AM   #76
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,100
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
There isn't any real size advantage to the Q over other mirrorless cameras with larger sensors.
I owned both the Q and Lumix GM1 at the same time, along with a good collection of lenses for each. There is a size clear size advantage. The bodies may be similar in size but the 01 Prime is probably a third of the volume of the 20/1.7. The 02 Zoom is longer than the 12-35 Vario but much narrower so their volume is similar. The 06 Telephoto Zoom is similar in length to the 35-100 Vario but again much narrower so I'd say that it's half the volume. And the 08 Wide Zoom is much smaller than any Micro Four-Thirds wide zoom, and the size advantage just grows as you go wider. Here is the 03 Fish-Eye vs. the Lumix 8mm (pardon the potato quality).

Not only that, but a Q system is significantly lighter than a comparable Micro Four-Thirds system which is an important consideration for hikers, bikers, and for my application, crash camera.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
SM-G935V  Photo 
10-03-2016, 06:53 AM   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,686
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
the fact that you have more DOF control on the camera with the larger sensor, which is a clear advantage to most photographers.
Really?
The control I often want is to maximize DOF for action/low-light telephoto shots.
That's where the Q comes in to its own.
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
There isn't any real size advantage to the Q over other mirrorless cameras with larger sensors
There is when you mount a lens on the camera.
E.g., for a 70-200/2.8 FF equivalent, 10cm long Panny versus tiny 06.
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
get the whole subject in focus and still get subject isolation
Are your subjects always that flat?
10-03-2016, 08:07 AM   #78
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by GateyRadio Quote
CitHow many more times do you want to repeat the same exact things back and forth? Lol....okay so 2.8 is good on low light on a small sensor, so is 5.6 on a camera with a larger sensor that can handle higher iso with less noise...so its kind of a wash, unless you want to include the fact that you have more DOF control on the camera with the larger sensor, which is a clear advantage to most photographers. There isn't any real size advantage to the Q over other mirrorless cameras with larger sensors (except maybe the FF A7 series) and most all of those other cameras have a similar feature set (except the leaf shutter on the Q and wireless on the Sony/Fuji cameras). I don't understand how shallow dof its such a problem on a long zoom on APS-C or FF anyway....instead of shooting wide open at 2.8, step it down to f4 and get the whole subject in focus and still get subject isolation....I don't seem to have these problems on any lenses because I use the correct aperture for the subject. If you truly understand how aperture affects DOF (and also focal length and distances) it really isn't a problem. I mean damn, if you think its bad on APS-C try shooting medium format lol. Oh god I'm repeating myself again....
That is correct, You talk and talk and talk about subject isolation.

I'm guessing most of us do understand DOF; the only time it has been a "problem" for me is when lighting conditions {I shot mostly Kodachrome 25 in the days of film} forced me into an aperture which gave me inadequate DOF. Even when I was using FF, in the form of 35mm, I didn't intentionally isolate my subject. Most of the time I prefer to show as much of the context as I can.

QuoteOriginally posted by GateyRadio Quote
I think its time to quit this thread..lol.
You may stop trying to sell subject isolation any time now - yes, we understand your point ... the "Q" is not a good tool for those who focus on being partly unfocused

QuoteOriginally posted by GateyRadio Quote
I didn't think putting an idea out there to help pentax/ricoh sell the Q to a larger market would get the natives so restless....lol. #changeisbad
I think the right change would be great - but you and I disagree on what that right change should be. I would like to see them keep the same sensor and compete with the 1/2.3" bridge cameras, which would require completely changing their focus.

QuoteOriginally posted by GateyRadio Quote
Lets just agree to disagree and sit back and see where pentax/ricoh actually goes with the Q.
That's exactly what I've been saying for some time now
10-03-2016, 08:09 AM   #79
Pentaxian
GateCityRadio's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 496
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Are your subjects always that flat?
They are usually people, so yeah....obviously you have to adjust the aperture for the situation (distance, focal length, what all you want in focus etc etc). Subject isolation can be pretty important in portraiture. F4 really isn't that shallow that you can't get a whole person in focus in most situations (again depending on the distance from the subject and focal length of the lens). I never said anything about shooting everything at F1.2 and barely getting one eye in focus....believe it or not I actually know what I'm doing.

This is at 18mm on the MX-1 at f2.3 (same sensor size as the Q and Just a snap shot playing around to see what I had to do to get the background out of focus) I had to get real close to her face and make sure the background was super far away (talking about football fields here) to get any sort of shallow DOF, and I was amazed I got this much.


here is 50mm @ f2.8 on a K200D, shot at a much more comfortable distance, managed to get the entire face in focus, and managed to get the background out of focus at about 6-7 feet away from the subject
.

and just for laughs....NEX5t with a rokinon 12mm @ f2 (in near dark at 2500iso, plus added grain and b&w for that cool hipster film look in post #lookslikefilm) and still managed to get the silhouette of the face in focus and blur out the water. #superdupercooool


Oh wait there is more! FA77 @ 1.8! (#GASP! only her face is in focus and everything else is blurry!) On the full frames (tmax 100 films yo #yeoleschool) Just to make a few of you guys cringe. #butdidyoudietho


But even I know we are getting super off topic and that the Q (or MX-1) wasn't made for this...and that's fine. If it works for you, that's great.

I came in here to discuss adding connectivity and social networking into the Q line up and making it a competitive camera in the market, I even said that DOF didn't really matter on this camera or even to the market that I suggest it should be marketed to....lol, of course we have to cling on to the one thing I said about f2.8 not being all that on a small sensor (in my opinion and what I use my cameras for). Again, agree to disagree.

---------- Post added 10-03-2016 at 11:24 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
That is correct, You talk and talk and talk about subject isolation.

I'm guessing most of us do understand DOF; the only time it has been a "problem" for me is when lighting conditions {I shot mostly Kodachrome 25 in the days of film} forced me into an aperture which gave me inadequate DOF. Even when I was using FF, in the form of 35mm, I didn't intentionally isolate my subject. Most of the time I prefer to show as much of the context as I can.

You may stop trying to sell subject isolation any time now - yes, we understand your point ... the "Q" is not a good tool for those who focus on being partly unfocused

I think the right change would be great - but you and I disagree on what that right change should be. I would like to see them keep the same sensor and compete with the 1/2.3" bridge cameras, which would require completely changing their focus.
I said one thing about it (when someone pointed out the constant f2.8 zoom being an advantage over the other systems) and I said in my opinion the point is lost on such a small sensor for what I do. Then 50 people commented on that one thing and completely forgot about the main point I was trying to make which was marketing it to a younger market by adding social media connectivity and a touch screen interface. Instead of ignoring it and keeping on the subject I entertained those people. Lesson learned. I said a few times that it was okay that this camera couldn't subject isolation easily, and that the Q should play to its strong points (being a small portable snap shot camera) and add connectivity to it. I even said keep the small sensor. I never said it should adopt a larger sensor, in fact I said it shouldn't, that it should carve out its own market as an accessory to smart phone users who want better quality images instead of competing with sony and fuji (who have bigger sensors obviously). I even said to keep a model in the current layout for the more advanced users like the people here.

TL: DR The current Q is just fine the way it is, however if Pentax/Ricoh wanted to grow its market share with the Q they need to decide what market it should compete in, and in my opinion it should be the younger kids who like touch screens and instagram, since they are the future for better or for worse. #butyoungpeopleandchangeisscary


Last edited by GateCityRadio; 10-03-2016 at 08:28 AM. Reason: Edited vulgarity
10-03-2016, 08:36 AM   #80
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 645
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
TL: DR The current Q is just fine the way it is, however if Pentax/Ricoh wanted to grow its market share they need to decide what market it should compete in, and in my opinion it should be the younger kids who like touch screens and instagram, since they are the future for better or for worse.
Let's turn the Wayback Machine to about 1980 and listen in to an imaginary discussion in a Pentax strategy meeting. . .

Marketdroid: I know our 35mm SLR sales are in a slump, but Canon and Nikon aren't the real problem. Look here. . . Kodak are selling way more 110 format pocket cameras. A lot of the kids these days are going for those Polaroid instant cameras too. They're the future, for better or worse. That's the market we should be getting into.

CEO: You're fired.

That's how I see it. Phone cameras today are the Kodak Pocket Instamatics and Polaroid OneSteps of our age. Everybody starts with them. Those select few who pursue a greater interest in photography will soon graduate to a Real Camera. Pentax is in the Real Camera business.
10-03-2016, 08:50 AM   #81
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,686
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
The current Q is just fine the way it is, however if Pentax/Ricoh wanted to grow its market share with the Q they need to decide what market it should compete in
As I posted earlier here, there are different markets where the system can compete. You seem to be focusing on the first of those.
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
The problem (of riches) is that there are at least two directions for this versatile system.
On the one hand, the fun direction, which Pentax has certainly recognized in the past.
But on the other hand, the Q is also a serious photographic tool that does things the other systems can't do
10-03-2016, 08:54 AM   #82
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
They are usually people, so yeah....obviously you have to adjust the aperture for the situation (distance, focal length, what all you want in focus etc etc). Subject isolation can be pretty important in portraiture. F4 really isn't that shallow that you can't get a whole person in focus in most situations (again depending on the distance from the subject and focal length of the lens). I never said anything about shooting everything at F1.2 and barely getting one eye in focus....believe it or not I actually know what I'm doing.
.....
But even I know we are getting super off topic and that the Q (or MX-1) wasn't made for this...and that's fine. If it works for you, that's great.

I came in here to discuss adding connectivity and social networking into the Q line up and making it a competitive camera in the market, I even said that DOF didn't really matter on this camera or even to the market that I suggest it should be marketed to....lol, of course we have to cling on to the one thing I said about f2.8 not being all that on a small sensor (in my opinion and what I use my cameras for). Again, agree to disagree
Nope, we totally agree here - portrait work is exactly what the Q is not good at.

In the nearly two years I've had my Q-7, the picture below is the closest I've ever come to taking a portrait - this was when I was playing with a 28mm lens and trying to find something, anything, to photograph




QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
....
I never said it should adopt a larger sensor, in fact I said it shouldn't, that it should carve out its own market as an accessory to smart phone users who want better quality images instead of competing with sony and fuji (who have bigger sensors obviously). I even said to keep a model in the current layout for the more advanced users like the people here.

TL: DR The current Q is just fine the way it is, however if Pentax/Ricoh wanted to grow its market share with the Q they need to decide what market it should compete in, and in my opinion it should be the younger kids who like touch screens and instagram, since they are the future for better or for worse. #butyoungpeopleandchangeisscary
This is where we need to agree to disagree. I believe that any smart phone has such prodigious computing power that it can morph to be almost any thing the younger market wants; I seriously doubt they are willing to carry around a "Q" kit just to get more lens flexibility.
10-03-2016, 09:16 AM   #83
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 699
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
I said a few times that it was okay that this camera couldn't subject isolation easily,
Well, if you're okay with this, and since this is what we're saying from the start, it seems we all agree, no ? No need to prove us that you can get better subject isolation with other camera-lens (nice portraits BTW), since it's something that we know but just aren't looking for when using the Q. It's the same thing as when you're using your MX-1: you don't look for nor expect results similar to what you would get with your K-3 and FA77. You don't use both for the same reasons, under the same situation, at the same moment, in the same way. This doesn't mean you couldn't get pictures you're happy with using the MX-1, or that you find it useless, even if you know you could have done better if you had had your better gear on hands ...


QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
and that the Q should play to its strong points (being a small portable snap shot camera) and add connectivity to it. I even said keep the small sensor. I never said it should adopt a larger sensor, in fact I said it shouldn't, that it should carve out its own market as an accessory to smart phone users who want better quality images instead of competing with sony and fuji (who have bigger sensors obviously). I even said to keep a model in the current layout for the more advanced users like the people here.

TL: DR The current Q is just fine the way it is, however if Pentax/Ricoh wanted to grow its market share they need to decide what market it should compete in, and in my opinion it should be the younger kids who like touch screens and instagram, since they are the future for better or for worse.
And I think we also agree on that too. The Q has potential, but RP has to exploit it. And yes, this camera just screams to have some kind of easy connection to share pictures, and a screen that is much better than what it is right now. A few additional lenses would not be a luxury either. There are a lot of things that can be done to improve it, even without a new sensor. I'm just far to be sure that RP has the will to push it more. If they haven't done it yet, I fear they would never choose to go that way.

It would also help if marketed differently than their others camera. If there's one Pentax camera that needs to be sold outside specialty store, the Q is the one. It would fare much better if available in superstore or large electronic retailer, where most people looking for something better than a smartphone, but not necessarely for the IQ or features provided by higher end cameras, mostly go to buy a camera. The Q would have its chances there, when compared side by side with P&S (or what remains of them), bridge, and other entry level mirrorless. In the other hand, people going in speciality stores usually are enthusiasts and serious shooters who will not find what they're looking for in the Q. Pentax was really bad at marketing the Q...

I even agree that the youngs are the future, but hopefully only for the best and certainly not the worse.

10-03-2016, 09:22 AM - 1 Like   #84
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,100
QuoteOriginally posted by GateCityRadio Quote
TL: DR The current Q is just fine the way it is, however if Pentax/Ricoh wanted to grow its market share with the Q they need to decide what market it should compete in, and in my opinion it should be the younger kids who like touch screens and instagram, since they are the future for better or for worse. #butyoungpeopleandchangeisscary
You're funny.

This old person Instagrammed the entire month of July while riding an electric motorcycle from SF to NYC. I chose a pair of Pananic Lumix GX85s and a GM1 because they were small, shot good video (4k on the GX85s), and had wifi connectivity. Multiple times a day I was using wifi to transfer JPGs from my cameras to my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge and iPad where I then post-processed with Snapseed, drafted and edited text and hashtags with OneNote (sometimes on my phone, sometimes on my tablet, sometimes on my laptop, but all synced automagically via the cloud) and then published on Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, multiple Facebook pages, and a blog. Several times on the trip I was mounting a camera somewhere on the bike and controlling it remotely via wifi and the app. I rode with a solar backpack and would charge my GX85s (which support USB charging), tablet, laptop, and wireless phone charger while I rode. Every evening I backed up to a hard drive and to the cloud with Dropbox, Flickr. Who the hell are you calling old and afraid of change?

I used to think that doing it all from my a camera was a good idea. But after a month in the field pushing the technology I've come to the conclusion doing it all the stuff I did on the phone would be clunky. Doing all the stuff that I did above while holding a GX85 with a 35-100 zoom lens would be a PITA. All the cloud synchronization would kill the battery of the camera.

I get the need for connectivity. As I traveled, I literally had seven devices (camera x 3, laptop, tablet, phone, watch) that could connect to the cloud and with each other, my own personal cloud of data. That is the future. The phone has won. Young people covet and buy and customize (with apps, themes, etc...) phones the same way that young folks in the 60s and 70s used to covet, buy and work on muscle cars. The best that camera makers can hope for is to recognize this and minimize any friction between taking a photo on a camera and getting it to the phone, to be a fast and friction-free member of a person's personal cloud that is centered around the phone.

So in my world I want the Q to stay focused on a being a small and light and highly refined small camera. But i want the next generation to be able to talk with my phone as easily as the GX85s did. Actually better-the Panasonic remote app is serviceable but not great. Adding a larger touchscreen and viewfinder is going to turn it into a GX85 and I already have two of those.
10-03-2016, 09:34 AM - 3 Likes   #85
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 699
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Nope, we totally agree here - portrait work is exactly what the Q is not good at.
Even then, although it's certainly not at its best for "classic" portraits, not even talking about studio work, it can be quite good for candid portraits, where the technical aspects aren't that important.

Here's one I've made with the original Q. DOF has no role here. I have printed on a 5x7, framed and hanging on a wall and it stand up very well beside other, more classical potraits, taken with other gear. I couldn't have taken it with my DSLR, simply because I don't bring it when simply going to play at the park with the kids. And certainly way better than what I could have get with my phone (WA lens aren't exactly good for headshots).

10-04-2016, 07:55 AM   #86
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 785
Hopefully Ricoh continues with the Q line. I still want to get one with the 01, 02, 06, & 08 lenses. I'm hoping that the next Q, if it happens, has either a much improved LCD screen that's easy to see in direct sunlight or they add an EVF. I don't mind if it gets slightly thicker & taller if they make those improvements.
11-29-2016, 04:21 PM   #87
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: New York
Posts: 22
Q Lens Size

QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
IMO the biggest issue for Q is the size of the lenses. Pentax/Ricoh need to work on minimizing the size of the lenses.

Except for long tele-lenses there are not much difference in size on Q lenses compared with m43/APS-C lenses for mirrorless cameras.
Q desperately need a few pancake zoom lenses, like on most other mirrorless systems. So Q will have a real size advantage of other systems with larger sensors.

Pentax smallest kit zoom for K-mount is more compact than the kit lens for Q.

Kit lenses on m43 vs Q vs Nex.
Agreed. The Auto 110 Legacy lenses are mostly truly small. Perhaps Ricoh can make some new auto-focus lenses similarly small even if they sacrifice features such as speed (or as in the Auto 110, adjustable aperture altogether, engineering the lenses to shoot wide open).
11-29-2016, 07:15 PM - 1 Like   #88
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,881
Just treat the system as 'completed' in Pentax's book and save the headache thinking/arguing about it.

Just like the 110 system was never continued till 'forever'.

Warts and all, the system is complete enough for someone who wants a ILC compact camera.
Anyone else who wants a grey, dour, stiff upper lip, "serious camera" (said with the most deep baritone voice), the bottom line is they never got one nor will they.

Its still takes picts, its still relevant to those who want to use one.
11-30-2016, 08:05 AM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,686
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Anyone else who wants a ... "serious camera" ..., the bottom line is they never got one nor will they.

Really?

As a reviewer of a Pentax DSLR said recently, "my Q-7 has better imaging".

Pentax K20D - Pentax K-mount DSLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications
11-30-2016, 08:01 PM   #90
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Just treat the system as 'completed' in Pentax's book and save the headache thinking/arguing about it.

Just like the 110 system was never continued till 'forever'.

Warts and all, the system is complete enough for someone who wants a ILC compact camera.
Anyone else who wants a grey, dour, stiff upper lip, "serious camera" (said with the most deep baritone voice), the bottom line is they never got one nor will they.

Its still takes picts, its still relevant to those who want to use one.
I could take better pictures, or take them more conveniently, if my Q-7 had an EVF ... but if they never take the next step, I will just use it as long as it works. So, "completed" now, or "completed" in the future, I will be contented.
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 09:41 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