Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-28-2011, 04:16 AM   #16
Pentaxian
dosdan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,699
Doesn't the Q have raw NR at all ISO sensitivities? If so, hasn't it already sacrificed resolution for smoothing?

Dan.

11-28-2011, 05:27 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,074
Yes it is :

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
11-28-2011, 08:59 AM   #18
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
For the price of the Q, I'd rather have the Nikon (which is still too high).
11-28-2011, 09:03 AM   #19
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
Asahiflex, can you comment on the AF performance of the Q? I've read that it's abysmal, even for its class.


11-28-2011, 09:13 AM   #20
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
For the price of the Q, I'd rather have the Nikon (which is still too high).
If I had to choose one of them as my only camera, I'd probably choose the Nikon. But as a second camera for whenever a DSLR is too bulky I think I'd rather have the Q.
11-28-2011, 09:14 AM   #21
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
For the price of the Q, I'd rather have the Nikon (which is still too high).
The size of Nikon's body is almost like m4/3. No any sense. The sensor is smaller than 4/3, the price is higher. High ISO is worse than m4/3. No fast lenses.
Strange system IMO.
11-28-2011, 09:19 AM   #22
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
The size of Nikon's body is almost like m4/3. No any sense. The sensor is smaller than 4/3, the price is higher. High ISO is worse than m4/3. No fast lenses.
Strange system IMO.
Still, if I *had* to have either the Q or the 1 (gun to head, wife and kids hostage) I would choose the 1 without even a debate.
11-28-2011, 09:43 AM   #23
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
I think that the Q with the standerd one lens is a fine combo. The 1 is a very nice system, and I like the V1 and all the options, but that is with the lense very big and expensive. The new Oly PM-1 is also a nice little camera. Of those the Q is simply to say the least in performance when the sun isn't shining, but when coming from a P&S that would be a great choice.

11-28-2011, 10:24 AM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
Still, if I *had* to have either the Q or the 1 (gun to head, wife and kids hostage) I would choose the 1 without even a debate.
Sure, but would you really take the 1 over a micro four thirds camera? I just don't understand any benefit of the V1 over that system. At least the Q has the benefit over those systems as being smaller...
11-28-2011, 12:24 PM   #25
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Sure, but would you really take the 1 over a micro four thirds camera? I just don't understand any benefit of the V1 over that system. At least the Q has the benefit over those systems as being smaller...
No, I'd take a m4/3 camera over the 1. But I sort of understand the logic of the 1 vs. m4/3. While the body might not offer much of a size savings ( see here ), the smaller sensor on the 1 (or Q) means the lenses will be smaller, especially at longer focal lengths (we've all chucked at the NEX w/tele-zoom). Which makes for a smaller overall package than m4/3.

That said, I'm not willing to make the $$$ sacrifice in the Q (or the 1) for this body-lens economy in size. If a m4/3 with a single pancake prime was not pocketable or versatile enough, my next logical step wouldn't be a 1/Q but something like a x10, s100, xz1, etc.

Let's face it though - in this special segment, the 1 simply has better specs than the Q.
11-28-2011, 12:39 PM   #26
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
No, I'd take a m4/3 camera over the 1. But I sort of understand the logic of the 1 vs. m4/3. While the body might not offer much of a size savings ( see here ), the smaller sensor on the 1 (or Q) means the lenses will be smaller, especially at longer focal lengths (we've all chucked at the NEX w/tele-zoom). Which makes for a smaller overall package than m4/3.

Let's face it though - in this special segment, the 1 simply has better specs than the Q.
Problem is that the lenses of the 1 aren't that small since they have VR and motor inside. The big lens 10-100mm even has powerzoommotor making it a real big lens.
11-28-2011, 01:34 PM   #27
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Problem is that the lenses of the 1 aren't that small since they have VR and motor inside. The big lens 10-100mm even has powerzoommotor making it a real big lens.
Well, the Q doesn't even have a lens equivalent to this.
Are you arguing that 1 lenses aren't that small relative to Q, m4/3, or in general?

Compared to APS-C, 1 is small.

Compared to Q, 1 isn't that much bigger:
Pentax Q 5-15/2.8 - 4./5 (equiv. 27.5 - 83mm) = 1.91W x 1.89L" (48.5 x 48mm), 96g
Nikon 1 10-30/3.5 - 5.6 (equiv. ) = 2.26W x 1.65L" (57.5 x 42mm), 115g

Compared to m4/3, the 1 is notably smaller especially because the tele lenses are internal focusing:
Olympus m4/3 14-150 f/4-5.6 (equiv. 28-300mm) = 2.5W x 3.3L" (6.35 x 8.38 cm) retracted, 5.6 inches (142mm) extended, 280g
Nikon 1 10-100 f/4.5-5.6 (equiv. 27-240mm) = 3.0W x 3.7L" (7.62 x 9.40 cm) all focus lengths, 516g
Also, the 10-100 is a special exception because it's a power zoom.

Now I sound like an advocate for the 1. I'm not, but it makes some sense, and certainly makes more sense than the Q.
11-28-2011, 01:40 PM   #28
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
The 10-100 is as big as the corresponding NEX lens. Which is quite a joke!
11-28-2011, 01:43 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
I think it's pointless to compare the little systems based on hard specs alone. Things like build quality and novelty are very important to me too. The Q is definitely a joy to use and I had lots of fun with it. To me, it seemed well thought-out.

(I write in past tense because the Q I bought locked up, so I had to return it to the shop. I cannot wait until it's repaired though, it was *that* fun to use).
11-28-2011, 01:46 PM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
Well, the Q doesn't even have a lens equivalent to this.
Are you arguing that 1 lenses aren't that small relative to Q, m4/3, or in general?

Compared to APS-C, 1 is small.

Compared to Q, 1 isn't that much bigger:
Pentax Q 5-15/2.8 - 4./5 (equiv. 27.5 - 83mm) = 1.91W x 1.89L" (48.5 x 48mm), 96g
Nikon 1 10-30/3.5 - 5.6 (equiv. ) = 2.26W x 1.65L" (57.5 x 42mm), 115g

Compared to m4/3, the 1 is notably smaller especially because the tele lenses are internal focusing:
Olympus m4/3 14-150 f/4-5.6 (equiv. 28-300mm) = 2.5W x 3.3L" (6.35 x 8.38 cm) retracted, 5.6 inches (142mm) extended, 280g
Nikon 1 10-100 f/4.5-5.6 (equiv. 27-240mm) = 3.0W x 3.7L" (7.62 x 9.40 cm) all focus lengths, 516g
Also, the 10-100 is a special exception because it's a power zoom.

Now I sound like an advocate for the 1. I'm not, but it makes some sense, and certainly makes more sense than the Q.
I guess, but the standard kit lens for the 1 is a whole stop slower at every focal length than the Q lens and is still larger.
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, score
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Test of DXO 6.5 Corros Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 01-15-2012 07:18 AM
DxO Optics hardware preferencies/requirements (public test?) Siegfried Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 02-22-2011 03:38 PM
DXO are giving 30% off DXO Optics Pro until Dec 25 rawr Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 11-11-2010 01:22 PM
K-r RAW Sensor Test From DxO Biro Pentax K-r 7 11-04-2010 01:09 AM
Test: DxO K20D - full size comparisons falconeye Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 11-03-2009 03:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 AM. | 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