[ogl]

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.

[Eagle_Friends]

wow, very impressive. if it was more like 400-500, i would considering owning one.

[hcarvalhoalves]

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.

[Aristophanes]

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.

[zxaar]

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.

[Fontan]

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.

[zxaar]

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.

[UdonUdon]

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.

[ogl]

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...

[zxaar]

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.

[er1kksen]

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.

[wjjstu]

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.

[Fontan]

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.

[zxaar]

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.

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.

[Fontan]

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.