Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-11-2011, 12:46 PM   #46
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mysticcowboy Quote
As to a great portrait lens: with that small sensor, there's no way that you're going to get the shallow depth of field that makes a truly great portrait lens.
Well I only had the Q for a few minutes in my hands and wasn't very good in browsing around and adjusting it to my likes for taking pictures, but I have the feeling that I can make some nice portraits with it when available for a while.

This one came out of it, made at the Pentax boot at the Salon de la Photo in Paris:


You can take good pictures with almost every camera, some are just easier to handle.

12-13-2011, 02:57 PM   #47
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
This one came out of it, made at the Pentax boot at the Salon de la Photo in Paris:
Didn't you get the memo - these cameras have no IQ to speak of! Your attempt to change minds with such tricks is doomed to failure!
12-17-2011, 05:59 PM   #48
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Q scored a 47 vs 5N that scored a 77

The Sony NEX-5N cost less than the Q and is not that much smaller. BTW the 5N works great with K-mount lenses using low cost adapters. They both have a magnesium alloy body.


Q vs 5N @6400iso :


click here for 1920x1200 view of Q vs 5N @6400iso




Last edited by jogiba; 12-17-2011 at 06:08 PM.
12-17-2011, 06:09 PM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,328
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well I only had the Q for a few minutes in my hands and wasn't very good in browsing around and adjusting it to my likes for taking pictures, but I have the feeling that I can make some nice portraits with it when available for a while.

This one came out of it, made at the Pentax boot at the Salon de la Photo in Paris:


You can take good pictures with almost every camera, some are just easier to handle.
For 99.9% of what you guys post around here, Q is more than adequate. Better IQ is not what is needed to improve your photography. For a minority of people with large format printers like Epson 3880, this may not quite suffice, but chances are it just may do it.

For that matter, for most of us iPhone cam is good enough to get the point across.

My God.

BTW, nice picture.

12-17-2011, 09:32 PM   #50
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Now compare the whole system not just the bodies, since you can't make a photo with just that.
So lets say a body and three lenses to make a real comparion in size.

I wonder if they can make faster lenses for the Q, with such a short register, small sensor and relative big lens mount the should be able to go under f/1 value or am i missing something?
It doesn't matter than that it can't preform so well at high ISO because the lenses are 2 or 3 times as fast.
12-17-2011, 09:56 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
The Sony NEX-5N cost less than the Q and is not that much smaller...
That is interesting information, but I am curious - what was the point you were trying to make? The Q is not an alternative for the NEX and neither is the NEX an alternative for the Q. If I would want to buy a pocketable camera, the Q would be the only choice with interchangeable lenses.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
For 99.9% of what you guys post around here, Q is more than adequate. Better IQ is not what is needed to improve your photography.


QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
I wonder if they can make faster lenses for the Q, with such a short register, small sensor and relative big lens mount the should be able to go under f/1 value or am i missing something?
It doesn't matter than that it can't preform so well at high ISO because the lenses are 2 or 3 times as fast.
High ISO is overrated. Why would you really need 6400 on the Q? For 99% of what I shoot, f/2 + ISO 800 will do the job. You don't even need lenses faster than f/2 - it's not like you'll ever get really thin DOF for portraiture even from an f/1.0 lens, and a lens faster than f/2.0 would be larger and would defy the entire point of the Q. But I'd like to see one or more fast primes and a faster zoom lens - they should be able to come up with a fast and compact zoom lens like the X10 has, which is one stop faster than the current Q zoom and shorter to boot.
12-17-2011, 10:24 PM   #52
Pentaxian
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 6457' North
Posts: 806
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
High ISO is overrated. Why would you really need 6400 on the Q? For 99% of what I shoot, f/2 + ISO 800 will do the job.
My portable setup is a Samsung NX10 + the f/2 pancake lens. The camera goes fairly comfortably to ISO 800, perhaps 1600 but the 3200 is so noisy that I try to avoid it. And is that 800 enough for me? Hell, no. I often wish I had a cleaner 3200+ ISO since even at f/2 and ISO 800 I get often blurred pictures. So for me clean high ISO is one of the main attractions of newer cameras (not talking about the Q, which I think is a bad joke more than a camera). But then again, it is the darkest time of the year and here at 65 North, it DOES get pretty dark.
12-18-2011, 02:42 AM   #53
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
and a lens faster than f/2.0 would be larger and would defy the entire point of the Q.
Just look at the lenses they have now, there is enough room to put a bit more glass in their.
Since the normal focal length is 8mm you need a pupil entrance of 8mm to get f/1, it's now f/1.9 so double the glass would do it and by the looks of it that wouldn't be a problem.

12-18-2011, 06:25 AM   #54
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by Raffwal Quote
My portable setup is a Samsung NX10 + the f/2 pancake lens. The camera goes fairly comfortably to ISO 800, perhaps 1600 but the 3200 is so noisy that I try to avoid it. And is that 800 enough for me? Hell, no. I often wish I had a cleaner 3200+ ISO since even at f/2 and ISO 800 I get often blurred pictures. So for me clean high ISO is one of the main attractions of newer cameras (not talking about the Q, which I think is a bad joke more than a camera). But then again, it is the darkest time of the year and here at 65 North, it DOES get pretty dark.
Of course it is a bad joke for you because you keep compering cameras which shouldn't be compared.

When will you (and most other guys on this forum) understand that.
I do not own a Q, and I don't need one, currently. But it isn't stupid.
It's just useless for you because it doesn't fit your usage pattern, there's nothing bad in this.

A D3 or an EOS 1DX aren't called bad joke though. I wonder why. Ridiculous marketing machines to scream 'yes we can do this' but nobody buys those. People get those from their agency, sure but buy it? C'mon...
12-18-2011, 09:29 AM - 1 Like   #55
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,075
Still, one can consider as a great achievement from Pentax, the fact that a lot of us do compare the Q's IQ to other MILC's, not taking into account it's sensor size.
12-18-2011, 06:04 PM   #56
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Raffwal Quote
My portable setup is a Samsung NX10 + the f/2 pancake lens. The camera goes fairly comfortably to ISO 800, perhaps 1600 but the 3200 is so noisy that I try to avoid it. And is that 800 enough for me? Hell, no. I often wish I had a cleaner 3200+ ISO since even at f/2 and ISO 800 I get often blurred pictures. So for me clean high ISO is one of the main attractions of newer cameras (not talking about the Q, which I think is a bad joke more than a camera). But then again, it is the darkest time of the year and here at 65 North, it DOES get pretty dark.
But why exactly do you need 3200? If it gets so dark, what are you shooting?

I agree that sometimes, you'll need a system that can do more than f/2 ISO 800, but if you need that all the time, you should buy the system accordingly. And be thankful that you are in the digital era and can actually take shots with variable ISO. If ISO 800 doesn't cut it, I'm not sure what you could have achieved with a film camera.
12-19-2011, 11:32 PM   #57
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
The Sony NEX-5N cost less than the Q and is not that much smaller. BTW the 5N works great with K-mount lenses using low cost adapters. They both have a magnesium alloy body.

It's nonsense to compare APS-C EVIL with high-end P&S camera. By the way, Pentax Q is not very bad even at ISO6400 for camera with 1/2.3' sensor.

Pentax Q is new high-end compact camera from Pentax. To change S Optio and A Optio series.
12-20-2011, 02:59 AM   #58
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It's nonsense to compare APS-C EVIL with high-end P&S camera. By the way, Pentax Q is not very bad even at ISO6400 for camera with 1/2.3' sensor.
When you compare with P&S you roughly gain a stop by the faster lenses, that's almost always forgotten.
12-26-2011, 04:30 AM   #59
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
When you compare with P&S you roughly gain a stop by the faster lenses, that's almost always forgotten.
I don't compare
12-27-2011, 02:00 PM   #60
Junior Member
jimpurcell's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tucson
Photos: Albums
Posts: 45
Well Done Pentax!

This is really encouraging! Well done Pentax!
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 09:39 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