[RonHendriks1966]

I don't think Sony has upgraded the 1/1.7" 12MPix sensor, and this might be the biggest issue preventing Ricoh from releasing a new Q series camera. Personally, I don't need more pixels. In fact, I would prefer to trade pixels for dynamic range. I would love a Q-S2 with an 8MPix sensor with 14.5EV of dynamic range.

Abbazz

Sensors are made to customs need by Sony if requested and payed for.

So I look at the dxo database (very popular overhere)....
Camera Database - DxOMark

Dynamic range is more dependent on sensor quality and time of development then for pixel size. The best scoring in this I took the Nikon D850. High score of 14,8 and a high pixelcount.

So if we make a cut out of this sensor of 8 megapixel.....would it fit in Q?

The pixelsize is 4,36 micron. With the sensor from Q you would get:
1743 x 1307 = 2,278 megapixel......

So a bigger sensor is needed or you just have to give up some of your wishes.

With Nikon D7200 you would get a dynamic range of 14,6 and a resolution of the Q sensor of 2,832 megapixel.

With the Panasonic Gh5 you would get a dynamic range of 13,0 with a resolution of 3,9 megapixel.

So your wishes demand a bigger sensor!

(And I hope I didn't get this wrong to much, since it is more technical then my knowledge)

As I suggested earlyer. A 1 inch sensor would be possible. With pixels 3 1/3 micron you get a sensor with 3960 x 2640 pixels. This would accomodate 4k video and closing in on your requested dynamic range. Not completely, but well above 12,5 EV.

---

Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 02-04-2019 at 02:42 AM.

[biz-engineer]

Following that logic , a 4K sensor with 5um pixels would be 19mm large, almost apsc size. Would be interesting to see a 4K dedicated apsc sensor, 6.1u pixels, with high frame rate what allow high speed frame capture to allow high speed CDAF @ 60 frames per sec. (no PDAF needed). Would make it a good solution for video, but also great solution for wildlife shooting e.g with a DFA150450. 6.1um pixel would deliver good high ISO quality. AF and AE based on fast image sensor (but 4K resolution only) would make it possible to continuously improve via firmware updates. 4K res. would be enough for most users who post on the web, tablets and phones and even printing.

[RonHendriks1966]

Following that logic , a 4K sensor with 5um pixels would be 19mm large, almost apsc size. Would be interesting to see a 4K dedicated apsc sensor, 6.1u pixels, with high frame rate what allow high speed frame capture to allow high speed CDAF @ 60 frames per sec. (no PDAF needed). Would make it a good solution for video, but also great solution for wildlife shooting e.g with a DFA150450. 6.1um pixel would deliver good high ISO quality. AF and AE based on fast image sensor (but 4K resolution only) would make it possible to continuously improve via firmware updates. 4K res. would be enough for most users who post on the web, tablets and phones and even printing.

That is about the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II with the 1,5" sensor. To big a sensor for Q and to small for K-mount.

[biz-engineer]

That is about the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II with the 1,5" sensor. To big a sensor for Q and to small for K-mount.

Not really, the G1 X Mark II does have about 13Mpixels, but is far from large pixels and ultrafast frame rate and it is not an ILC / long lens. The kind of camera I described doesn't exist.

[RonHendriks1966]

Not really, the G1 X Mark II does have about 13Mpixels, but is far from large pixels and ultrafast frame rate and it is not an ILC / long lens. The kind of camera I described doesn't exist.

You are a bit of an old school photographer. You like to frame a scene and take a picture. And then tell people, look this is the image I took. New generations like to use a camera with a big sensor and as much pixels that is possible. Then they take an image of a scene. .....make a cut from the frame.....run that true photoshop and then tell people that this is the image they took.

[biz-engineer]

You are a bit of an old school photographer. You like to frame a scene and take a picture. And then tell people, look this is the image I took. New generations like to use a camera with a big sensor and as much pixels that is possible. Then they take an image of a scene. .....make a cut from the frame.....run that true photoshop and then tell people that this is the image they took.

I maybe an young old school photographer. But the point is, high resolution high frame rate camera present a contradiction to solve. Without solving the contradiction, it is easier to make camera with lower resolution fast frame rate and high resolution slow cameras. The K1 (or D810) sensor is an example of a tradeoff by dual mode acquisition sensor (1 crop in the center at faster rate or whole sensor slower). I once suggested to use hardware decimation after the sensor to deliver variable frame/rate resolution tradeoff by software feature option, but so far no one made it this way because the image sensor is the bottleneck, large sensor is too slow to output frame fast enough up front the decimation.

---------- Post added 05-02-19 at 09:21 ----------

Important note: photographers better spend their money into going to photography workshops so that to frame / compose correctly, as opposed to buying an expensive large sensor camera and crop the frame to lower image quality.

[ThorSanchez]

You are a bit of an old school photographer. You like to frame a scene and take a picture. And then tell people, look this is the image I took. New generations like to use a camera with a big sensor and as much pixels that is possible. Then they take an image of a scene. .....make a cut from the frame.....run that true photoshop and then tell people that this is the image they took.

There's nothing wrong with either way. Have you ever looked at a photo and then asked "how much did they tweak and crop this" before deciding if you like it?

[RonHendriks1966]

There's nothing wrong with either way. Have you ever looked at a photo and then asked "how much did they tweak and crop this" before deciding if you like it?

No, but myself I was more of the old school kind a guy.

[dms]

There's nothing wrong with either way. Have you ever looked at a photo and then asked "how much did they tweak and crop this" before deciding if you like it?

True, but the Q is not the sort of system that can support both, in the same way a APSC or FF dslr can.

But for those who want interchangeable lenses--from fisheye to telephoto (and throw in superb macro and huge effective FL)--and yet carry it and one or more lenses in ones sport jacket pocket, the Q has a lot to offer.

Given the limitations of very small sensor, if the Q is to give acceptable (for the capable photographer) image quality, then it requires more careful exposure and limited cropping.** And if lesser quality, then why bother with the Q. Use your phone, or whatever.
__
** Actually the same is true of any system, but you can to a greater degree save the image when the DR is wider and the number of pixels larger.

[cmohr]

I would like a All Weather Q, that would be great, but means a whole new set of lenses.

A Marco lens, as most say, would be the one to complete the lens line, I'd like to see a Macro, with a set of LEDs around the front built in, that would be excellent.

I can't say that I would want a pop up or pop out EVF, I think that would add too much to the small form factor of the Q , which is one of the things that makes it, BUT, I would like the option to attach an EVF say on the hotshoe , like other small form cameras do, so when I want it I can just attach it, like I do with the optical View finder now. Op course, the EVF would auto shut of the back screen when you put it up to the eye.

I'd also like to see a battery grip, just a tiny one underneath.

Wifi / bluetooth, for tethered control would be just brilliant.

Also, I'd like to see a K-mount adapter, still with it's own leaf shutter, that actually has power in it, and can run the AF in the DC or SDM lenses, and , hopefully even the aperture on the electronic aperture lenses, so AF and exposure fully supported when using K-mount on the Q.

[bladawiec]

EVF, GPS, pixelshift, on sensor phase-detect, other (better screen resolution, 09 macro lens, universal zoom lens better than 02 (greater zoom range in longer focal lengths, better quality in corners). Tilty screen and astrotracker are also interesting features (atrotracker requires redesigning of SR system (one more axis of rotation))).

[reh321]

universal zoom lens better than 02 (greater zoom range in longer focal lengths, better quality in corners)

The '02' is a 3X zoom that pairs well with the '06' {one ends where the other begins}; I don't see a point to extending it beyond its current 15mm.

[bladawiec]

The '02' is a 3X zoom that pairs well with the '06' {one ends where the other begins}; I don't see a point to extending it beyond its current 15mm.

You have right about pairing of both lens but in my opinion it can not be the reason to no extending the current lens choice. The 08 also partially overlaps the 02 lens but it is no the 08 lens disadvantage.

As I wrote two years ago in other thread:
"The good idea to increase the Q system popularity would be to develop the new standard zoom lens with higher zoom index than 02 lens. Maybe 6-24 mm lens adapted from MX-1 (cheaper proposal) or even "megazoom" (better but probably demanding more investment). Even if it overlaps the 06 lens range it did not would compete with 06 lens because of high brightness of the last one."
Maybe "increase popularity" is currently little difficult idea for Q but this new lens could be still useful in everyday use.