DxO test for Q

dosdan · 11-28-2011, 04:16 AM

Doesn't the Q have raw NR at all ISO sensitivities? If so, hasn't it already sacrificed resolution for smoothing?

Dan.

Zygonyx · 11-28-2011, 05:27 AM

Yes it is :

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

MrPetkus · 11-28-2011, 08:59 AM

For the price of the Q, I'd rather have the Nikon (which is still too high).

MrPetkus · 11-28-2011, 09:03 AM

Asahiflex, can you comment on the AF performance of the Q? I've read that it's abysmal, even for its class.

gazonk · 11-28-2011, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

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.

ogl · 11-28-2011, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

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.

MrPetkus · 11-28-2011, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by ogl

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.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-28-2011, 09:43 AM

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.

**Rondec** · 11-28-2011, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

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...

MrPetkus · 11-28-2011, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

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.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-28-2011, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

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.

MrPetkus · 11-28-2011, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

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.

gazonk · 11-28-2011, 01:40 PM

The 10-100 is as big as the corresponding NEX lens. Which is quite a joke!

Asahiflex · 11-28-2011, 01:43 PM

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).

**Rondec** · 11-28-2011, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

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.

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

11-28-2011, 04:16 AM	#16
dosdan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,741	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
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Yes it is : DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

11-28-2011, 08:59 AM	#18
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	For the price of the Q, I'd rather have the Nikon (which is still too high).

11-28-2011, 09:03 AM	#19
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by MrPetkus 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 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by MrPetkus 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
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	Originally posted by ogl 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
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 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
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,651	Originally posted by MrPetkus 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
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	Originally posted by Rondec 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-28-2011, 12:39 PM	#26
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by MrPetkus 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
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	The 10-100 is as big as the corresponding NEX lens. Which is quite a joke!

11-28-2011, 01:43 PM	#29
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	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
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,651	Originally posted by MrPetkus 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.