Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-06-2012, 02:27 PM   #61
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
let me get this straight, what possibly Robin is trying to say is that the best image quality from an MFT camera at a certain ISO level is not that far from the best image quality on an APS-C sensor. we know exactly what are the compromises here such as FOV, MP resolution limitations, DOF, DR and High ISO quality. but I think those are not the parameters that Robin is not aware of and trying to point out but best IQ detail a camera could produce.

to be more clearer, let's say an image shot from a 12MP MFT at base ISO or 200 will have an almost or near level of IQ as that of an equal size 12 MP image from an APS-C camera. this is not improbable cause the MFTs do produce great images as well only it has to deal with certain compromises.

as stated by Robin, the Q displayed much or a lot more compromises and IQ is not that as good as produced from either MFTs nor APS-Cs. I myself disliked the Q very much. and it's no wonder why the much smaller sensors on P&S cameras are ridiculously poor. I think the gap between P&S and Q are much close with respect to IQ, compared to Q and MFT.

At the base isos and for normal printing the Q is very close to m43. If someone wants small then he has to give up on something. You can not create FF D3s in Q size.

with small sensor plus fast glass , you might not need to go to higher isos anyway for same deepness of DOF as compared to m43. The problem with Q is not of noise and DR etc the main compromise is of DOF with smaller sensor this is lost.

But as I said something has to be given up for size.


For me m43 makes ZERO sense because they do not solve issue of size (Not pocketable) yet they are compromise on IQ and DOF. If I have to compromise these two things I would want something to be in size of Q and not in size of m43s.

02-06-2012, 02:47 PM   #62
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
At the base isos and for normal printing the Q is very close to m43. If someone wants small then he has to give up on something. You can not create FF D3s in Q size.

with small sensor plus fast glass , you might not need to go to higher isos anyway for same deepness of DOF as compared to m43. The problem with Q is not of noise and DR etc the main compromise is of DOF with smaller sensor this is lost.

But as I said something has to be given up for size.


For me m43 makes ZERO sense because they do not solve issue of size (Not pocketable) yet they are compromise on IQ and DOF. If I have to compromise these two things I would want something to be in size of Q and not in size of m43s.
the GF3 is pocketable with certain pancake lenses of it's own. except that M4/3 doesn't really appeal me. the difference between the Q and GF3 with respect to pocketing are good. on the otherhand, I'm not sure how many people would pocket either camera on their pants or shirt pockets since it would still show some bulk or have to contend with your keys and phone. I avoid doing such and would rather pocket those cameras either on my coat/jacket, purse, handheld, sling it on my shoulder, neck or attach it on my belt. the only time that I only pocketed a camera inside my pants or shirt pockets is when I got a ridiculously thin and small PS camera which doesnt show substantial bulk on my clothings. other than the interesting miniature size, the IQ sucks. that was the last time I'm owning a smaller sensor.
02-07-2012, 07:20 AM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,651
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
For me m43 makes ZERO sense because they do not solve issue of size (Not pocketable) yet they are compromise on IQ and DOF. If I have to compromise these two things I would want something to be in size of Q and not in size of m43s.
I disagree. It's actually a decent compromise. You loose a bit in IQ, but not that much, you loose a bit in pocketablilty, but at least it's a bit better. It's like looking at a Caterham Levante and a truck, and saying the BMW M5 Touring (if there is one) isn't a decent compromise because it's neither as practical nor as fast as those two.

Mount the equivalent of an 18-55 onto a mFT and a APS-C mirrorless, and compare then. The difference is pretty big IMHO (that Sony 18-55 is huge!).

Btw., before I buy a Q I'd buy a superzoom. The lens folds away nicely into the camera, it covers the range of several Q lenses (and more), and the image quality is probably not that different, for a fraction of the cost. Or perhaps the Canon G1X, which has an APS-C sized sensor but a fold away lens. Actually I did buy a Canon PowerShot SX130 IS... it's very affordable, it shoots great videos (no color noise!), it shoots RAW (giving a nice fish eye effect at the widest angle setting, and quite a bit more than 28mm), it is pocketable but still has a reasonable decent grip.

Last edited by kadajawi; 02-07-2012 at 07:51 AM.
02-07-2012, 07:33 AM   #64
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the GF3 is pocketable with certain pancake lenses of it's own. except that M4/3 doesn't really appeal me. the difference between the Q and GF3 with respect to pocketing are good. on the otherhand, I'm not sure how many people would pocket either camera on their pants or shirt pockets since it would still show some bulk or have to contend with your keys and phone. I avoid doing such and would rather pocket those cameras either on my coat/jacket, purse, handheld, sling it on my shoulder, neck or attach it on my belt. the only time that I only pocketed a camera inside my pants or shirt pockets is when I got a ridiculously thin and small PS camera which doesnt show substantial bulk on my clothings. other than the interesting miniature size, the IQ sucks. that was the last time I'm owning a smaller sensor.
I agree about the Q and GF3. They aren't that different in size, but the lens makes a big difference for the pocket. For slipping into a shirt or jeans pocket, you really are looking at something with a retracting lens and a sensor size no bigger than an LX5. (still a bigger sensor than a Q, though). The GF3/Q are still valuable as waist pack or coat pocket cameras. I'd be curious how the K01 does in that realm.

02-07-2012, 08:26 AM   #65
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I'd be curious how the K01 does in that realm.
it does look pretty close. the only thing that is missing on the K-01 is the camel hump and some protrusion from the K-x. other than that, the dimensions are pretty similar. it might fit some pancakes.
02-07-2012, 08:47 AM   #66
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
it does look pretty close. the only thing that is missing on the K-01 is the camel hump and some protrusion from the K-x. other than that, the dimensions are pretty similar. it might fit some pancakes.
It's a smaller hump, but it still has some camel vestiges.
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!
ad, k-01, k01, mirrorless, pentax k-01, pf
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Casey Anthony Appealing Conviction For Lying To Police jogiba General Talk 28 08-03-2011 07:24 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:03 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