Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-27-2011, 07:32 AM   #16
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,248
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
Those are "close-up" shots. I would like to see street and landscape shots.
PENTAX Q ?????? ??? ? 01 STANDARD PRIME - ??????

P&S's IQ.

This photos are worse than official with good light and close distance.


Last edited by ogl; 08-27-2011 at 07:47 AM.
08-27-2011, 08:11 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
wow, very impressive. if it was more like 400-500, i would considering owning one.
08-27-2011, 01:04 PM   #18
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
PENTAX Q ?????? ??? ? 01 STANDARD PRIME - ??????

P&S's IQ.

This photos are worse than official with good light and close distance.
I actually liked the samples, good results with dim lightning and the lenses look pretty sharp.

Also, interesting DoF in this one. I would expect the Q to be more like a P&S (flat image) in that regard.

08-27-2011, 04:08 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
I think that there are no any P&S camera which can make landscape shots close to APS-C DSLR.

Don't you remember that photographers had used MF for good landscapes in the film era and 35 mm was just for amateur landscape photos?
The same is now. FF DSLR is not bad for landscapes, but any digital MF is much better.

To demand good landscape photos from P&S cameras is strange.... IMO.
I the world of 8x10 prints, yes. MF for landscape, film or digital.

In the world of web JPEGS, no. Snapshot landscapes at small sizes a P&S is fine for capturing the "scene".

3/4 of all photography is of people according to some surveys.

These Q photos all have lighting boosts.

The Q is a super-P&S. That's all. Price will make the difference.

08-28-2011, 02:43 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I the world of 8x10 prints, yes. MF for landscape, film or digital.

In the world of web JPEGS, no. Snapshot landscapes at small sizes a P&S is fine for capturing the "scene".

3/4 of all photography is of people according to some surveys.

These Q photos all have lighting boosts.

The Q is a super-P&S. That's all. Price will make the difference.

Sensor size only gives image quality but it can not improve quality of images. I would argue that with 12mp point and shoot one can shoot same as 12mp APC sensor landscapes. The reason is that for landscapes one need deep DOF which is strong point of P&Ss. Plust most of the landscapes are shot on tripod at base isos. Given these two things, i can not think of why one can not shoot landscapes with smaller sensors.

Anyway here is one from sony p72 point and shoot from year 2004, it was 4 mp camera. This is web size of file i printed (that is why saturation is bit high). It prints very well and was on my house wall for quite some time.

08-28-2011, 09:01 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,328
I wonder what percentage of the forum members actually make prints. I bet it is not majority. If so, nearly all discussions on IQ to me is pointless.
08-28-2011, 02:55 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
I wonder what percentage of the forum members actually make prints. I bet it is not majority. If so, nearly all discussions on IQ to me is pointless.
you are correct, a small percentage makes big prints. Even if people make prints, it hardly matters because there are only two possiblities.

1. Print small, then almost of all of today's camera can do it.
2. Print big, then viewing distance will increase, so one can not still tell the difference.
08-28-2011, 08:29 PM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 90
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
I wonder what percentage of the forum members actually make prints. I bet it is not majority. If so, nearly all discussions on IQ to me is pointless.
Wait don't things like noise levels, flaring, aberrations, color depth, EV range, and sharpness count towards IQ? If so, it's pretty easy to notice the performance in handling such qualities on a JPEG even at reduced sizes such as 640 x 480.

08-28-2011, 10:41 PM   #24
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,248
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
I wonder what percentage of the forum members actually make prints. I bet it is not majority. If so, nearly all discussions on IQ to me is pointless.
Of course, the cameraphones with 2, 3 or 5 MP are enough for 90% of people...Nothing to discuss IQ of any digital cameras - it's fetishism...
08-29-2011, 05:26 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Of course, the cameraphones with 2, 3 or 5 MP are enough for 90% of people...Nothing to discuss IQ of any digital cameras - it's fetishism...
Much more than 90% people are NOT DISCUSSING photography on poto forums.

We are 5 billion people, out of which how many people are photo forum users? 1 million??

I can bet that the most popular forum on internet might not have 0.1% of 1 million active users in their forums.
08-29-2011, 05:09 PM   #26
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
here are some sample images from m43 camera, mostly at base iso.

Sample Images | LUMIX G™ MICRO SYSTEM | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

After looking at Q sample images, i do not think Q is doing badly compared to m43 at base isos despite its very small sensor.


Edited to add:

Here is one such 100% crop.

WARNING: These are not presented here to say which camera is better than other. (subjects are not same and framing is also not same)

GF3 file first




Pentax Q sample
Just saying, the obvious motion blur on the panasonic file makes it very difficult to discern anything meaningful from this comparison. The Q image looks a little smoother in OOF areas but also oversharpened and artifact-y where it is in focus, leading me to suspect that there's some serious processing wizardry going into the quality we're seeing from the Q. Innovative data processing has given Pentax and edge over other brands using the same sense from the K-x forward, and the results are excellent, so I tend to view this as a very good thing.
08-29-2011, 06:50 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Sensor size only gives image quality but it can not improve quality of images. I would argue that with 12mp point and shoot one can shoot same as 12mp APC sensor landscapes. The reason is that for landscapes one need deep DOF which is strong point of P&Ss. Plust most of the landscapes are shot on tripod at base isos. Given these two things, i can not think of why one can not shoot landscapes with smaller sensors.

Anyway here is one from sony p72 point and shoot from year 2004, it was 4 mp camera. This is web size of file i printed (that is why saturation is bit high). It prints very well and was on my house wall for quite some time.
It may be apples to oranges but my APS-C DSLR appears to have more DR than any P&S camera I have ever owned or used.
08-30-2011, 11:52 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,328
QuoteOriginally posted by UdonUdon Quote
Wait don't things like noise levels, flaring, aberrations, color depth, EV range, and sharpness count towards IQ? If so, it's pretty easy to notice the performance in handling such qualities on a JPEG even at reduced sizes such as 640 x 480.
To me doubtful. What may be noticed by novices are probably negligible. Blind testing will embarrass most so-called experts.
08-30-2011, 11:57 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
Just saying, the obvious motion blur on the panasonic file makes it very difficult to discern anything meaningful from this comparison.
This is true, I also felt it was not fair to panasonic's sample, but it was only that was close in nature to what I had of Q. This is why I wrote, this is not for showing if one cam is better than other.

QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
The Q image looks a little smoother in OOF areas but also oversharpened and artifact-y where it is in focus, leading me to suspect that there's some serious processing wizardry going into the quality we're seeing from the Q. Innovative data processing has given Pentax and edge over other brands using the same sense from the K-x forward, and the results are excellent, so I tend to view this as a very good thing.
Yaa once we leave comparisons to m43 aside, pentax engineer's are doing good job with sensor they get from sony. They have shown it in k-x, in k-5 and now in Q.
08-30-2011, 11:58 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,328
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Much more than 90% people are NOT DISCUSSING photography on poto forums.

We are 5 billion people, out of which how many people are photo forum users? 1 million??

I can bet that the most popular forum on internet might not have 0.1% of 1 million active users in their forums.


A very well trained photographer will out shoot majority of the forum members with an iphone, let alone with Q. For casual shooters, today's equipments are a complete overkill.
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!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 low light/High ISO samples johnmflores Pentax K-5 21 04-19-2011 05:03 PM
Any K5 Long exposure low iso samples please? vancmann Pentax K-5 40 11-14-2010 12:42 AM
K5 High ISO low light images please Tommot1965 Pentax K-5 32 11-12-2010 05:29 PM
No ISO 51,200? Official Pentax site says 12,800 MAX! K-9 Pentax News and Rumors 6 09-20-2010 07:43 AM
Official samples & official web sites nosnoop Pentax News and Rumors 29 01-25-2008 06:12 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 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