So what's the second 2011 Pentax mirrorless?

**Aristophanes** · 06-27-2011, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by juu

Pentax Q + kit prime: 200g + 37g = 237g
GF3 + kit prime: 319g

Pentax Q + kit zoom: 200g + 96g = 296g
GF3 + kit zoom: 475g

Pentax Q sensor size: 28.5 mm^2
GF3 sensor size: 225 mm^2

Would be interesting to see how much the Olympus EPM-1 with the new 14-42mm kit zoom weights; I expect somewhat less than GF3's 475g.

With lens, the GF series is bulky to say the least:

The displayed Q zoom lens has got to be half that size, and certainly the lens mount diameter is a good 2% less:

The Q's diminutive sensor (and all the negative IQ implications) allows for a hotshoe and obviously much smaller lenses, as well as a shorter profile, not to mention full DSLR controls using real dials, tactile feedback, in-body SR, and the legendary Green Button! (and in-lens shutters on the better optics...hmmmmm...).

One interesting design point: the Q flash looks like the best design feature over many DSLR/M43's.. Well away from the lens, nicely out of the way when down, a single arm rather than easily bendable scissor system. Clever.

The Q's fate will be determined by high-ISO/low-light performance at its street price point. It's either going to be a superior compact with excellent control design and multiple lenses, or its going to be over-priced for its IQ despite its DSLR control system.

No matter what you crop from this sensor you'll see watercolours, which, to say the least, is what a majority of photos taken in the world today are. Penatx is just wrapping a mini-DSLR around an incrementally better small sensor.

Pentax can call it an entry-level DSLR-like camera until they are blue, but the market will not perceive it as such, not at this price point where people buy on specs like sensor size. The Q is a G12/LX-5 with changeable lenses and DSLR control system.

Price. IQ. Features. = Value. Gotta get all 3. Not sure about that right now.

eddie1960 · 06-27-2011, 09:46 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ogl

Turn your brain ON. And learn to analyze.

I can analyze (I am a buyer for a living), and spent 27 years in CE retail, i'm more than capable of understanding what they are saying, perhaps you need to be more open rather than being one of the most negative people on the forum, spouting a lot with nothing to back it up

eddie1960 · 06-27-2011, 09:50 AM

Once again we are all spending a lot of time slagging a product that hasn't even come to market or had pictures and reviews come out. everything is speculation based on our own biases
once there is some valid data then opinions will count

ogl · 06-27-2011, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

I can analyze (I am a buyer for a living), and spent 27 years in CE retail, i'm more than capable of understanding what they are saying, perhaps you need to be more open rather than being one of the most negative people on the forum, spouting a lot with nothing to back it up

Ha-ha...Retail...I spent many years in secret service

ogl · 06-27-2011, 10:02 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by eddie1960

Once again we are all spending a lot of time slagging a product that hasn't even come to market or had pictures and reviews come out. everything is speculation based on our own biases
once there is some valid data then opinions will count

sensor 1/2.3" is the judgement already.

You Tube

you can see here that camera is hard to control in big hands.

but camera has some charm...

eddie1960 · 06-27-2011, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by ogl

sensor 1/2.3" is the judgement already.

YouTube - ‪PENTAX Q‬&rlm;

you can see here that camera is hard to control in big hands.

A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors

yep it's not an aps-c camera. who cares, it wasn't designed to be a replacement for that

juu · 06-27-2011, 10:07 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Aristophanes

With lens, the GF series is bulky to say the least

Or isn't, depends on the lens:

The Panasonic 14-42mm lens is somewhat bulky indeed. But compared to the Olympus 14-42mm lens which is 62x43mm the Q kit zoom is only somewhat smaller - 48.5x48mm.

Likewise, 45.5x23mm for the Q kit prime vs. 55.5x20.5mm the GF3 kit prime.

Which means one of three things:
a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed
b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind
c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it

ogl · 06-27-2011, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors

You hope that Pentax could to deceive physics and can work miracles

???

DNG + no AA filter are good. I think that users can get something not bad for P&S level at lowest ISO.

ogl · 06-27-2011, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by juu

Which means one of three things:
a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed
b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind
c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it

Flange focal lenght is only 9.2 mm.

Yes. Q lenses are designed with larger sensor because of SR. But...it's larger sensor for P&S cameras.

eddie1960 · 06-27-2011, 10:33 AM

the difference in sizes are enough to be pocket-able versus not being pocket-able when you look at the body prime combos
I seem to remember reading part of the larger circle for the lens was to accommodate SR which may have been part of the limit (also moving to in lens shutter has to have added some size - but the very high speed flash benefit.... not all bad then)

I have to admit the new Pana looks very pretty and there are a couple of nice lenses, but for me it's either be pocket-able or I may as well just carry my K7 with a small prime, the weight difference for that is acceptable to me
just like I'd be more inclined to buy the s95 for the size than the G12 (the lx 5 falling in the middle, and the Nikon being a non starter IMO)
I've got an Oly 4/3 already but never really liked the viewfinders

unfortunately what i really want is a Digital Bessa R4 at under 2 grand with a FF sensor with a nice 15/35/50 mm kit all f 2 or faster lol (i'm not holding my breath for that)

eddie1960 · 06-27-2011, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by ogl

You hope that Pentax could to deceive physics and can work miracles

???

DNG + no AA filter are good. I think that users can get something not bad for P&S level at lowest ISO.

not miracles but i'm betting on the performance likely being far better than previous sensors in this size, and would be surprised if it's not. (I'm glad they didn't buy this small a sensor in even higher megapixels like the 16MP one. pixel density is an even bigger issue for iq and diffraction related softness - in reality 12MP is more than sufficient for what i imagine this will ned up used for which will me mostly web-shots and maybe some 4x6 prints with the odd 8x10 - for this type of work it should be reasonable)

**Aristophanes** · 06-27-2011, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by juu

Likewise, 45.5x23mm for the Q kit prime vs. 55.5x20.5mm the GF3 kit prime.

Which means one of three things:
a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed
b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind
c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it

It means that there is an in-lens shutter AND can probably reach to a marginally larger sensor (1.1.7" would be my guess). Some of the Q lenses are manual focus, so you need something to grip. That keeps costs down, especially for toy lenses.

Having the capacity to have both mechanical in-lens shutter and electronic P&S shutter allows for a $129.95 Fisheye lens :

Mirrorless Camera Lenses

One thing to note is initial lens prices. If they drop due to street pricing, they'll be fairly inexpensive. We'll have to see what the premium small sensor purchasers will pay for such lens diversity. I think this is an area where the Q concept makes its case and starts to create a cost advantage. A macro lens with built-in LED's might be interesting.

And if anyone questions where the channel will place the Q, B&H has it under mirrorless:

Page 2: Mirrorless System Cameras

...and for the lenses:

Page 2: Mirrorless Camera Lenses

And Pentax has it under their DSLR line:

PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras

The channel has spoken. Pentax marketing can blah blah blah about "new category", but it's being lumped in already. It requires a much more attractive street price.

eddie1960 · 06-27-2011, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

It means that there is an in-lens shutter AND can probably reach to a marginally larger sensor (1.1.7" would be my guess). Some of the Q lenses are manual focus, so you need something to grip. That keeps costs down, especially for toy lenses.

Having the capacity to have both mechanical in-lens shutter and electronic P&S shutter allows for a $129.99 Fisheye lens :

Mirrorless Camera Lenses

One thing to net is initial lens prices. If they drop due to street pricing, they'll be fairly inexpensive. We'll have to see what the premium small sensor purchasers will pay for such lens diversity. I think this is an area where the Q concept makes its case and starts to create a cost advantage. A macro lens with built-in LED's might be interesting.

And if anyone questions where the channel will place the Q, B&H has it under mirrorless:

Page 2: Mirrorless System Cameras

...and for the lenses:

Page 2: Mirrorless Camera Lenses

And Pentax has it under their DSLR line:

PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras

The channel has spoken. Pentax marketing can blah blah blah about "new category", but it's being lumped in already. It requires a much more attractive street price.

And that's the main issue. Price is high. compared to a G12/LX5 etc the build quality seems to be in a whole other dimension though and there is something to be said for picking up a small well machined product (ever used a leica

or one of the old Rollie 35 cameras which were beautiful build (if somewhat quirky to use) and sold about 2 million units by the end of the line lifecycle. mind you the original Rollei was not cheap by any standard at just under 500 DM which was in real terms probably not far off the price the Q is launching at (about $300 usd then which would have been about a week and a half salary for the average joe. )

Art Vandelay II · 06-27-2011, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

I have to admit the new Pana looks very pretty and there are a couple of nice lenses, but for me it's either be pocket-able or I may as well just carry my K7 with a small prime, the weight difference for that is acceptable to me just like I'd be more inclined to buy the s95 for the size than the G12 (the lx 5 falling in the middle, and the Nikon being a non starter IMO)

I used to make that same argument myself until I carried both a NEX-3 and a K-7 with me on a trip to NYC last year. I always carry a small messenger bag with me when walking around for snacks, water, camera, etc.

I carried my NEX-3 around the first day in my bag, and I decided to carry my K-7 the second day. I didn't even realize the NEX-3 was in the bag the entire day, but I returned to the hotel before lunch on that second day to switch my K-7 out for the NEX-3. There is just something about the bulbous shape of a DSLR pounding against my spine all day that drives me nuts. That can be remedied by carrying a full blown camera backpack, however I hate those. Your back ends up being covered with sweat and they're bulky.

When I see people say lenses like the Panasonic 14-45mm aren't pocketable my reaction always is so what? Just use primes if that's what you want; then use zooms for times when size doesn't matter so much. Although I admit some lenses such as the Sony 18-200mm make no sense any time.

I guess it depends on what kind of clothes you're wearing, but the GF3 + pancake should fit into most any pocket of mine...but then again, thankfully I'm old enough to have missed out on the whole skinny jeans trend.

Smeggypants · 06-27-2011, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors

yep it's not an aps-c camera. who cares, it wasn't designed to be a replacement for that

Actually it's not a new sensor, it's the Sony Exmor R

I have the same in my Sony TX-5. Slightly less pixels, but pixel pitch is the same.

You are correct in the image processing is new though.

06-27-2011, 10:20 AM	#53
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by eddie1960 A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors You hope that Pentax could to deceive physics and can work miracles ??? DNG + no AA filter are good. I think that users can get something not bad for P&S level at lowest ISO. Last edited by ogl; 06-27-2011 at 10:29 AM.

06-27-2011, 10:50 AM	#57
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by juu Likewise, 45.5x23mm for the Q kit prime vs. 55.5x20.5mm the GF3 kit prime. Which means one of three things: a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it It means that there is an in-lens shutter AND can probably reach to a marginally larger sensor (1.1.7" would be my guess). Some of the Q lenses are manual focus, so you need something to grip. That keeps costs down, especially for toy lenses. Having the capacity to have both mechanical in-lens shutter and electronic P&S shutter allows for a $129.95 Fisheye lens : Mirrorless Camera Lenses One thing to note is initial lens prices. If they drop due to street pricing, they'll be fairly inexpensive. We'll have to see what the premium small sensor purchasers will pay for such lens diversity. I think this is an area where the Q concept makes its case and starts to create a cost advantage. A macro lens with built-in LED's might be interesting. And if anyone questions where the channel will place the Q, B&H has it under mirrorless: Page 2: Mirrorless System Cameras ...and for the lenses: Page 2: Mirrorless Camera Lenses And Pentax has it under their DSLR line: PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras The channel has spoken. Pentax marketing can blah blah blah about "new category", but it's being lumped in already. It requires a much more attractive street price. Last edited by Aristophanes; 06-27-2011 at 10:56 AM.

06-27-2011, 12:59 PM	#59
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by eddie1960 I have to admit the new Pana looks very pretty and there are a couple of nice lenses, but for me it's either be pocket-able or I may as well just carry my K7 with a small prime, the weight difference for that is acceptable to me just like I'd be more inclined to buy the s95 for the size than the G12 (the lx 5 falling in the middle, and the Nikon being a non starter IMO) I used to make that same argument myself until I carried both a NEX-3 and a K-7 with me on a trip to NYC last year. I always carry a small messenger bag with me when walking around for snacks, water, camera, etc. I carried my NEX-3 around the first day in my bag, and I decided to carry my K-7 the second day. I didn't even realize the NEX-3 was in the bag the entire day, but I returned to the hotel before lunch on that second day to switch my K-7 out for the NEX-3. There is just something about the bulbous shape of a DSLR pounding against my spine all day that drives me nuts. That can be remedied by carrying a full blown camera backpack, however I hate those. Your back ends up being covered with sweat and they're bulky. When I see people say lenses like the Panasonic 14-45mm aren't pocketable my reaction always is so what? Just use primes if that's what you want; then use zooms for times when size doesn't matter so much. Although I admit some lenses such as the Sony 18-200mm make no sense any time. I guess it depends on what kind of clothes you're wearing, but the GF3 + pancake should fit into most any pocket of mine...but then again, thankfully I'm old enough to have missed out on the whole skinny jeans trend. Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 06-27-2011 at 01:06 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The forthcoming Pentax Mirrorless Camera	falconeye	Pentax News and Rumors	553	11-11-2011 02:55 PM
Pentax Q mirrorless, I might get my wife one...	JohnBee	Pentax Compact Cameras	22	09-23-2011 07:05 AM
Pentax on mirrorless: 'we never rule anything out'	Art Vandelay II	Pentax News and Rumors	21	01-11-2011 05:29 PM
Question about Pentax Mirrorless	Winder	Photographic Technique	5	11-19-2010 03:32 PM
New Pentax: K-5, K-r and Mirrorless models coming	JohnBee	Pentax News and Rumors	32	08-08-2010 01:57 AM

06-27-2011, 09:41 AM	#46
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by juu Pentax Q + kit prime: 200g + 37g = 237g GF3 + kit prime: 319g Pentax Q + kit zoom: 200g + 96g = 296g GF3 + kit zoom: 475g Pentax Q sensor size: 28.5 mm^2 GF3 sensor size: 225 mm^2 Would be interesting to see how much the Olympus EPM-1 with the new 14-42mm kit zoom weights; I expect somewhat less than GF3's 475g. With lens, the GF series is bulky to say the least: The displayed Q zoom lens has got to be half that size, and certainly the lens mount diameter is a good 2% less: The Q's diminutive sensor (and all the negative IQ implications) allows for a hotshoe and obviously much smaller lenses, as well as a shorter profile, not to mention full DSLR controls using real dials, tactile feedback, in-body SR, and the legendary Green Button! (and in-lens shutters on the better optics...hmmmmm...). One interesting design point: the Q flash looks like the best design feature over many DSLR/M43's.. Well away from the lens, nicely out of the way when down, a single arm rather than easily bendable scissor system. Clever. The Q's fate will be determined by high-ISO/low-light performance at its street price point. It's either going to be a superior compact with excellent control design and multiple lenses, or its going to be over-priced for its IQ despite its DSLR control system. No matter what you crop from this sensor you'll see watercolours, which, to say the least, is what a majority of photos taken in the world today are. Penatx is just wrapping a mini-DSLR around an incrementally better small sensor. Pentax can call it an entry-level DSLR-like camera until they are blue, but the market will not perceive it as such, not at this price point where people buy on specs like sensor size. The Q is a G12/LX-5 with changeable lenses and DSLR control system. Price. IQ. Features. = Value. Gotta get all 3. Not sure about that right now.

06-27-2011, 09:46 AM - 1 Like	#47
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by ogl Turn your brain ON. And learn to analyze. I can analyze (I am a buyer for a living), and spent 27 years in CE retail, i'm more than capable of understanding what they are saying, perhaps you need to be more open rather than being one of the most negative people on the forum, spouting a lot with nothing to back it up

06-27-2011, 09:50 AM	#48
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Once again we are all spending a lot of time slagging a product that hasn't even come to market or had pictures and reviews come out. everything is speculation based on our own biases once there is some valid data then opinions will count

06-27-2011, 10:00 AM	#49
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by eddie1960 I can analyze (I am a buyer for a living), and spent 27 years in CE retail, i'm more than capable of understanding what they are saying, perhaps you need to be more open rather than being one of the most negative people on the forum, spouting a lot with nothing to back it up Ha-ha...Retail...I spent many years in secret service

06-27-2011, 10:06 AM	#51
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by ogl sensor 1/2.3" is the judgement already. YouTube - ‪PENTAX Q‬&rlm; you can see here that camera is hard to control in big hands. A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors yep it's not an aps-c camera. who cares, it wasn't designed to be a replacement for that

06-27-2011, 10:07 AM - 1 Like	#52
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	Originally posted by Aristophanes With lens, the GF series is bulky to say the least Or isn't, depends on the lens: The Panasonic 14-42mm lens is somewhat bulky indeed. But compared to the Olympus 14-42mm lens which is 62x43mm the Q kit zoom is only somewhat smaller - 48.5x48mm. Likewise, 45.5x23mm for the Q kit prime vs. 55.5x20.5mm the GF3 kit prime. Which means one of three things: a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it

06-27-2011, 10:26 AM	#54
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by juu Which means one of three things: a. Current Q lenses are mis-designed b. Current Q lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind c. There is a lower limit on how small interchangeable lenses can be made and Q is hitting it Flange focal lenght is only 9.2 mm. Yes. Q lenses are designed with larger sensor because of SR. But...it's larger sensor for P&S cameras.

06-27-2011, 10:33 AM	#55
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	the difference in sizes are enough to be pocket-able versus not being pocket-able when you look at the body prime combos I seem to remember reading part of the larger circle for the lens was to accommodate SR which may have been part of the limit (also moving to in lens shutter has to have added some size - but the very high speed flash benefit.... not all bad then) I have to admit the new Pana looks very pretty and there are a couple of nice lenses, but for me it's either be pocket-able or I may as well just carry my K7 with a small prime, the weight difference for that is acceptable to me just like I'd be more inclined to buy the s95 for the size than the G12 (the lx 5 falling in the middle, and the Nikon being a non starter IMO) I've got an Oly 4/3 already but never really liked the viewfinders unfortunately what i really want is a Digital Bessa R4 at under 2 grand with a FF sensor with a nice 15/35/50 mm kit all f 2 or faster lol (i'm not holding my breath for that)

06-27-2011, 10:38 AM	#56
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by ogl You hope that Pentax could to deceive physics and can work miracles ??? DNG + no AA filter are good. I think that users can get something not bad for P&S level at lowest ISO. not miracles but i'm betting on the performance likely being far better than previous sensors in this size, and would be surprised if it's not. (I'm glad they didn't buy this small a sensor in even higher megapixels like the 16MP one. pixel density is an even bigger issue for iq and diffraction related softness - in reality 12MP is more than sufficient for what i imagine this will ned up used for which will me mostly web-shots and maybe some 4x6 prints with the odd 8x10 - for this type of work it should be reasonable)

06-27-2011, 11:06 AM	#58
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Aristophanes It means that there is an in-lens shutter AND can probably reach to a marginally larger sensor (1.1.7" would be my guess). Some of the Q lenses are manual focus, so you need something to grip. That keeps costs down, especially for toy lenses. Having the capacity to have both mechanical in-lens shutter and electronic P&S shutter allows for a $129.99 Fisheye lens : Mirrorless Camera Lenses One thing to net is initial lens prices. If they drop due to street pricing, they'll be fairly inexpensive. We'll have to see what the premium small sensor purchasers will pay for such lens diversity. I think this is an area where the Q concept makes its case and starts to create a cost advantage. A macro lens with built-in LED's might be interesting. And if anyone questions where the channel will place the Q, B&H has it under mirrorless: Page 2: Mirrorless System Cameras ...and for the lenses: Page 2: Mirrorless Camera Lenses And Pentax has it under their DSLR line: PentaxWebstore - Digital SLR Cameras The channel has spoken. Pentax marketing can blah blah blah about "new category", but it's being lumped in already. It requires a much more attractive street price. And that's the main issue. Price is high. compared to a G12/LX5 etc the build quality seems to be in a whole other dimension though and there is something to be said for picking up a small well machined product (ever used a leica or one of the old Rollie 35 cameras which were beautiful build (if somewhat quirky to use) and sold about 2 million units by the end of the line lifecycle. mind you the original Rollei was not cheap by any standard at just under 500 DM which was in real terms probably not far off the price the Q is launching at (about $300 usd then which would have been about a week and a half salary for the average joe. )

06-27-2011, 01:14 PM	#60
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by eddie1960 A new sensor that has never been measured with a new image processing system that also has never been measured. once again we need to wait for proper data. Sony has done some pretty amazing things with sensors lately, and Pentax has maxed the output of the same sensors yep it's not an aps-c camera. who cares, it wasn't designed to be a replacement for that Actually it's not a new sensor, it's the Sony Exmor R I have the same in my Sony TX-5. Slightly less pixels, but pixel pitch is the same. You are correct in the image processing is new though.