Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

RonHendriks1966 · 11-25-2011, 09:44 AM

Not to bad score for the Q.

Sitting nice in this group:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Waiting to see how that Fuji 2/3th snesor will score in future.

gazonk · 11-25-2011, 10:09 AM

Wow. That's actually quite impressive! Slightly better than the Olympus xz-1 which is highly regarded and has a larger sensor!

JanG · 11-25-2011, 11:20 AM

Wow, the Q has more DR than my K20D. Quite impressive for a sensor of that size.

Raffwal · 11-25-2011, 11:24 AM

Well, on the other hand the results are almost identical to the years old Canon S90 P&S camera that I have and don't much use anymore...

EDIT: BTW, the S90 also has a bigger sensor it seems. A system camera with a sensor smaller than an OK P&S camera??? Oh boy.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-25-2011, 12:40 PM

But for the best results it is wise to use the Q only at iso125.

elho_cid · 11-25-2011, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Raffwal

Well, on the other hand the results are almost identical to the years old Canon S90 P&S camera that I have and don't much use anymore...

Would you use it if it has interchangeable lenses and flash hot shoe? This makes a camera a lot more useful and fun.

Raffwal · 11-25-2011, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by elho_cid

Would you use it if it has interchangeable lenses and flash hot shoe?

Nope. I may be an archnemesis of the Q, but I hate even the concept. More or less combining the worst aspects of P&S cameras and DSLRs/system cameras. But that's just me, for some it may be an option (although I have a difficult time understanding it...).

ogl · 11-26-2011, 01:53 AM

Northern Soul · 11-26-2011, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Raffwal

Well, on the other hand the results are almost identical to the years old Canon S90 P&S camera that I have and don't much use anymore...

EDIT: BTW, the S90 also has a bigger sensor it seems. A system camera with a sensor smaller than an OK P&S camera??? Oh boy.

The size per se doesn't matter though, does it - the point is that in terms of picture quality, it's as good. Who cares what size the sensor is? If I had a camera that gave images as good as a K-5 but had a sensor the size you could only see with a magnifying glass, it's still be good. (Although you might struggle to get much subject isolation given it'd have a massive DoF - the only argument in favour of size per se)

I love the idea of the Q for use as a pocketable everyday camera, or as a second body to turn long lenses into (effectively) very long lenses and macro lenses into extreme macro lenses. When it's cheaper, obviously

ogl · 11-26-2011, 02:21 AM

My idea was that Pentax Q became new Pentax high-end version of P&S cameras - instead of A or S, and old Optio serie with 1/1.8" sensor.
It seems to me - good job.

Asahiflex · 11-26-2011, 02:44 AM

I must honesty admit, as an avid DSLR user with a K-5 and lots of superb primes: at first I thought that the Q was a joke. But I got one nonetheless because of the fun factor. When I received it, I was honestly surprised by the quality of the little camera. In my feeling it is like a little K-5 in build quality, so to speak. And when I reviewed my results (shot in RAW) I can honestly say it outperforms the K10D. Way nicer (and less) noise, no banding. I can easily shoot at ISO 800 with the Q, with the K10D I wouldn't even think about it.

Yes, I also think it's a good job by Pentax. The Q may be a bit underappreciated, but that will change very soon I think.

falconeye · 11-27-2011, 06:29 PM

The Q of course has a result which cannot hide it's class (P&S sensor). It has a low iso score of 189 where the K-5 has 1162.

Nevertheless, by sensor size alone, the Q should have scored only 90. This shows that the low iso score of a dSLR can be doubled when using sensor technology as applied in the Q. The Q beats the LX5 too.

Considering the relatively good DR, then the Q is much closer to µFT than µFT is to APSC. Side note: DR isn't limited by sensor size but by production technology / cost / depth of die.

That's all really nice. But I rather like to have a Q mount socket at the back of my iPhone

JohnBee · 11-27-2011, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Not to bad score for the Q.

Sitting nice in this group:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Waiting to see how that Fuji 2/3th snesor will score in future.

I'm confused... is the Nikon 1 J1 depicted in the orange graph or am I seeing this wrong?

RonHendriks1966 · 11-28-2011, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I'm confused... is the Nikon 1 J1 depicted in the orange graph or am I seeing this wrong?

yes and they are about the same at base iso, but the Q is going down the hill very fast after iso200.

thibs · 11-28-2011, 04:14 AM

Still, it proves small sensors *can* actually provide very good quality.
Then, well, of course quality drops fast but then that's hardly surprising and IMO that's not the point of the whole concept.

11-25-2011, 09:44 AM	#1
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	DxO test for Q Not to bad score for the Q. Sitting nice in this group: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side Waiting to see how that Fuji 2/3th snesor will score in future.

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

11-25-2011, 10:09 AM	#2
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Wow. That's actually quite impressive! Slightly better than the Olympus xz-1 which is highly regarded and has a larger sensor!

11-25-2011, 11:20 AM	#3
JanG Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Berlin, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 150	Wow, the Q has more DR than my K20D. Quite impressive for a sensor of that size.

11-25-2011, 11:24 AM	#4
Raffwal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The North Posts: 879	Well, on the other hand the results are almost identical to the years old Canon S90 P&S camera that I have and don't much use anymore... EDIT: BTW, the S90 also has a bigger sensor it seems. A system camera with a sensor smaller than an OK P&S camera??? Oh boy.

11-25-2011, 12:40 PM	#5
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	But for the best results it is wise to use the Q only at iso125.

11-25-2011, 01:28 PM	#6
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by Raffwal Well, on the other hand the results are almost identical to the years old Canon S90 P&S camera that I have and don't much use anymore... Would you use it if it has interchangeable lenses and flash hot shoe? This makes a camera a lot more useful and fun.

11-25-2011, 07:23 PM	#7
Raffwal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The North Posts: 879	Originally posted by elho_cid Would you use it if it has interchangeable lenses and flash hot shoe? Nope. I may be an archnemesis of the Q, but I hate even the concept. More or less combining the worst aspects of P&S cameras and DSLRs/system cameras. But that's just me, for some it may be an option (although I have a difficult time understanding it...).

11-26-2011, 01:53 AM	#8
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382

11-26-2011, 02:07 AM	#9
Northern Soul Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The North of England Photos: Albums Posts: 494	Originally posted by Raffwal Well, on the other hand the results are almost identical to the years old Canon S90 P&S camera that I have and don't much use anymore... EDIT: BTW, the S90 also has a bigger sensor it seems. A system camera with a sensor smaller than an OK P&S camera??? Oh boy. The size per se doesn't matter though, does it - the point is that in terms of picture quality, it's as good. Who cares what size the sensor is? If I had a camera that gave images as good as a K-5 but had a sensor the size you could only see with a magnifying glass, it's still be good. (Although you might struggle to get much subject isolation given it'd have a massive DoF - the only argument in favour of size per se) I love the idea of the Q for use as a pocketable everyday camera, or as a second body to turn long lenses into (effectively) very long lenses and macro lenses into extreme macro lenses. When it's cheaper, obviously

11-26-2011, 02:21 AM	#10
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	My idea was that Pentax Q became new Pentax high-end version of P&S cameras - instead of A or S, and old Optio serie with 1/1.8" sensor. It seems to me - good job.

11-26-2011, 02:44 AM	#11
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	I must honesty admit, as an avid DSLR user with a K-5 and lots of superb primes: at first I thought that the Q was a joke. But I got one nonetheless because of the fun factor. When I received it, I was honestly surprised by the quality of the little camera. In my feeling it is like a little K-5 in build quality, so to speak. And when I reviewed my results (shot in RAW) I can honestly say it outperforms the K10D. Way nicer (and less) noise, no banding. I can easily shoot at ISO 800 with the Q, with the K10D I wouldn't even think about it. Yes, I also think it's a good job by Pentax. The Q may be a bit underappreciated, but that will change very soon I think.

11-27-2011, 06:29 PM	#12
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	The Q of course has a result which cannot hide it's class (P&S sensor). It has a low iso score of 189 where the K-5 has 1162. Nevertheless, by sensor size alone, the Q should have scored only 90. This shows that the low iso score of a dSLR can be doubled when using sensor technology as applied in the Q. The Q beats the LX5 too. Considering the relatively good DR, then the Q is much closer to µFT than µFT is to APSC. Side note: DR isn't limited by sensor size but by production technology / cost / depth of die. That's all really nice. But I rather like to have a Q mount socket at the back of my iPhone

11-27-2011, 06:43 PM	#13
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Not to bad score for the Q. Sitting nice in this group: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side Waiting to see how that Fuji 2/3th snesor will score in future. I'm confused... is the Nikon 1 J1 depicted in the orange graph or am I seeing this wrong?

11-28-2011, 03:08 AM	#14
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by JohnBee I'm confused... is the Nikon 1 J1 depicted in the orange graph or am I seeing this wrong? yes and they are about the same at base iso, but the Q is going down the hill very fast after iso200.

11-28-2011, 04:14 AM	#15
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Still, it proves small sensors can actually provide very good quality. Then, well, of course quality drops fast but then that's hardly surprising and IMO that's not the point of the whole concept.

DxO test for Q

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!