[monochrome]

We're exhibiting static thinking again. We don't know where PRI will take the Q in coming years other than the limits of the mount being a ceiling. I don't think the quality of a current Q image indoors at a dimly lit bar is nearly as noisy as a phonecam and the Q flash is dramatically better. The people I talk to (voice talk, on the telephone) who use Q extensively also use other image capture devices when necessary, hope the Q improvement curve accelerates to reduce the number of necessary situations and are quite happy with what they have now (aside from their recommendations to PRI).

So sure, we can complain about 1st Gen output and 2nd Gen unserious (we think) colored bodies, but are we going to come back and EDIT our posts when FW Updates and generational transitions remove these issues?

but I have to say, most Q pictures that I have seen are rather "meh" even just in web size

I suspect some of that is User input issues. I for one can't yet do things that come naturally with a film camera or dSLr (because I've done them for years, and because I am just not very good). There is a learning curve. About a dozen members are working really hard to push the camera and learn and compensate for its quirks and compromises, and are beginning to post much better images.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 05-15-2013 at 11:35 AM.

[Aristophanes]

Minimum ISO for the Q is 125.

Comparing to Fuji Velvia 50 is therefore nonsense.

[RonHendriks1966]

Assuming you are at iso 100 on the Q, your dynamic range would be 11 stops. At iso 3200 on a 5D MK III or D600, you will only have 10 stops of dynamic range.

How much disadvantage would there be if, instead, you used a full-frame camera at F/11 and 47mm, compared to the Q at 8.5 and F/2?

The Q is a design camera. Low light small sensor performance sucks. Noisy. Looks obvious in most web-based sharing photos. 1" sensors and above make big headway at ISO 800 to 1600. Smaller sensors....still see it. That is the Achilles' Heel of the Q and all small sensors. To differentiate sensors for dedicated system cameras will need to be 1"+.

Minimum ISO for the Q is 125.

Even just a couple of years from now... but I have to say, most Q pictures that I have seen are rather "meh" even just in web size, the IQ hasn't convinced me so far.

Well I only handled the Q two times. I had it in my hands at the Salon in Paris in 2011 and last year I had it with me for two weeks. For that I had the 01 prime and the 02 zoom. To my idea the 02 zoom sucked, since it already was into the limit where diffraction comes in for the sensor and never really sharp (to my likings).

The prime lens I found was very nice. But with one limitation: due to the small sensor the 8,5mm lens does give a truckload off curved lines in the image. To my idea this is a camera not much used by people with LightRoom, so they do depent on out-off-the-camera jpg's since you need to apply lenscorrections for the distortion. That does limit the use for the camera when you want more then just a snapshot.

I actually had only one shot that pleases my own likings (and many nice images, but for wich I would use another camera). The Q actually can make very nice images when you know what you'r doing. Settings with f2.5; iso125 and a shuttertime fast enough does give you some pleasing images. But that also limiteds its use as far as I'm concerned.



I have to add to this that I don't take images with a Phone, so my expectations are bigger then people who are comparing ti their inbuild camera in their smartphone/iPad.

[Aristophanes]

We're exhibiting static thinking again. We don't know where PRI will take the Q in coming years other than the limits of the mount being a ceiling. I don't think the quality of a current Q image indoors at a dimly lit bar is nearly as noisy as a phonecam and the Q flash is dramatically better. The people I talk to (voice talk, on the telephone) who use Q extensively also use other image capture devices when necessary, hope the Q improvement curve accelerates to reduce the number of necessary situations and are quite happy with what they have now (aside from their recommendations to PRI).

So sure, we can complain about 1st Gen output and 2nd Gen unserious (we think) colored bodies, but are we going to come back and EDIT our posts when FW Updates and generational transitions remove these issues?

but I have to say, most Q pictures that I have seen are rather "meh" even just in web size

I suspect some of that is User input issues. I for one can't yet do things that come naturally with a film camera or dSLr (because I've done them for years, and because I am just not very good). There is a learning curve. About a dozen members are working really hard to push the camera and learn and compensate for its quirks and compromises, and are beginning to post much better images.

No. Pentax is the one demonstrating static thinking.

Instead of hoping that quirks and compromises and user input issues will solve the Q's problem, the real issue is that, to differentiate between cameraphones and dedicated cameras, sensor size is emerging as THE dominant criteria. By far. Canon, Nikon, Sony are all making it the issue. Even m43 is making it a factor by stating they have ALWAYS had a bigger "small" sensor.

In the same way the market standardized on APS-C for DSLR with little cousin m43 and Big Brother FF, we are now seeing the vast gaps between compacts and DSLR's being met by intermediate sensor sizes, both for high-end compacts and system cameras. 1" is looking like the minimum for a serious compact (low light, noise control being the major criteria) and small system.

Of all this market thrust the Q has by far the smallest sensor. We no longer have a megapixel race so much as we have a sensor size race and Pentax is riding a donkey.

Pentax gambled with the Q that the smaller sensor would be OK because people wanted a system camera and toy lenses and a good looking unit more than they wanted a larger sensor for the same price. The Q10 is about the same price as a lower-end m43 system right now. Sorry, it's actually more now that I look. On what terms is that competitive? It's not. the Pentax response? The Q10 comes in a staggering variety of colours. Every review knocks the camera for its poor sensor comparison to other brands of the same price in the same market space.

The combined Q10 2-lens zoom kit in a blazing array of colours is C$699 right now. The Nikon D3200 in a 2-lens kits C$769 or the same with only the 18-105VR.

The Sony RX100 is $699.

This does not compute. The size and "toy lens" premium (and that nice Q $249 external VF) is not moving the market.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-15-2013 at 12:15 PM.

[monochrome]

What I mean by mount limitation ceiling is whether a larger sensor can go into a somewhat larger body while retaining the Q mount (since PRAC says Pentax is committed to the Q-mount) or whether the register distance / image circle of Q mount and lenses are prohibitive for upgrading.

Potential problems such as this are why I always harbor the suspicion that Ricoh's QuickandDirty Plan B is, acquire a mount or m4/3-related patents and designs (Oly?) and kill something of their own.

[IchabodCrane]

It's a bad year if the Habs don't win the cup.

This makes it 20 bad years in a row now. Go Blackhawks!

[Zygonyx]

No. Pentax is the one demonstrating static thinking.

You have your arguments some of them i can agree with, but you draw also wrong conclusions.

Who needs higher ISO than 1600/3200 ? maybe less than 5% of the photography market-share, in less than 10% of their shooting conditions ; and progress will continue independently of sensor size even if the biggest the sensor, so the better for noise control improvement margin.

Is the megapixel race ending ? Samsung's smartphone innovation has proven 40 Mpix bugged in one of the smallest sensor was not ridiculous.

Is photography only relilying on depth of field modulation? For more than 5 to 10% of the consumer crowds, this is a totally abstract - if detected/understood - concept at all.

Also, "price to compacness" comparison is anything but a rational criteria for the consumer.

So, the Q system has nothing to look like a dead-end for me.

And you are demonstrating a very "blinker thinking".

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 05-16-2013 at 12:56 PM.

[audiobomber]

1" is looking like the minimum for a serious compact (low light, noise control being the major criteria) and small system.

G15, LX7, ZX-2, EX2F, I guess Canon, Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung never got the memo. The Sony's larger sensor and slower zoom is no advancement IMO. Nor is stuffing 20MP in there, while unable to resolve any more than the 12mp competition. Have you looked at Fuji X10/X20 files? They don't look any better than other advanced compacts either.

Note that DXOMark rates the Q sensor as fully equal to all of the 1/1.7" compacts. Meanwhile it does things none of the preceding can match. Small sensor performance will continue to improve, and so will the Q system. It's already a lot of fun shooting with a small fast prime, fisheye or long tele. It's harder to get good results out of the Q compared to m4/3 or APS-C and it's not for everyone there's no doubt. But it is a worthwhile choice in its price range for versatility and fun factor.

Ron, the 01 prime distortion can be corrected in the camera, or with one click in Lightroom.

[ElJamoquio]

Who needs higher ISO than 1600/3200 ?

Noise on the Q at 1600 ISO is roughly the same as a FF at ISO 300.

Noise on the FF at 1600 ISO is roughly the same as the Q at 8800 (if it could do that).

I've never had what I've considered a 'keeper' at ISO > 1600 (APS-C) or 2400 (FF) or 300 (Q).

[NickLarsson]

The Q is a fun camera but now with 1" and even APS-C sensors in cameras that are more pocketable than the Q, I don't see the system still existing in 10 years. Except maybe at a very low price point, but I'm doubtful.

It's a system with a 2-3 years life-expectancy.

[audiobomber]

Here's ISO 1600 on a Q. I like the grain, it does not detract from this photo at this resolution. In fact the fine grain adds character.


https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/PentaxQ#5878290016612517682

Same photo, flltered through Noiseware:


https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/PentaxQ#5878315220121477362

I prefer the dirtier version. I wouldn't print this larger than 4X6, but it's fine for the internet and computer viewing. Clearly my standards are lower than some.

[RonHendriks1966]

Ron, the 01 prime distortion can be corrected in the camera, or with one click in Lightroom.

I know, but I think that most users in this categorie don't have LightRoom. They use maybe Adobe Photoshop Elements or some kind off free software around on internet. You can't apply lenscorrections in PSE so you are limited to the jpg-output.

[Uluru]

Noise on the Q at 1600 ISO is roughly the same as a FF at ISO 300.
Noise on the FF at 1600 ISO is roughly the same as the Q at 8800 (if it could do that).
I've never had what I've considered a 'keeper' at ISO > 1600 (APS-C) or 2400 (FF) or 300 (Q).

.
.
It's not noise. Noise only exist in between people's ears.

It's called the grain.

And the grain is the photographic mean, or a vehicle, to achieve a desirable artistic output and the result.
It is same as in the painters palette, there are paints made of pigments that are ground fine, and some that are barely ground and left very coarse, to allow an artist a variety of approaches.

[Aristophanes]

You have your arguments some of them i can agree with, but you draw also wrong conclusions.

Who needs higher ISO than 1600/3200 ? maybe less than 5% of the photography market-share, in less than 10% of their shooting conditions ; and progress will continue independently of sensor size even if the biggest the sensor, so the better for noise control improvement margin.

Is the magepixel race ending ? Samsung's smartphone innovation has proven 40 Mpix bugged in one of the smallest sensor was not ridiculous.

Is photography only relilying on depth of field modulation? For more than 5 to 10% of the consumer crowds, this is a totally abstract - if detected/understood - concept at all.

Also, "price to compactness" comparison is anything but a rational criteria for the consumer.

So, the Q system has nothing to look like a dead-end for me.

And you are demonstrating a very "blinker thinking".

Look at the recent program modes for almost all cameras and note how the ISO is not bumping up routinely. The whole design engineering of cameras is changing to accommodate high ISO for everyday shooting in all types of lighting. It's not becoming the norm.

Progress in ISO and overall light gathering cannot "continue independently " of sensor size. The law of diminishing returns kicks in only sensor size will make the difference. We're already there.

The megapixel race is stalling because resolution sells no more images. It officially stalled with the Nikon D700.

I never said anything about DOF. What I said was that if 3 systems cost relatively the same--about C$700--then the one's with the larger sensors will do better. So in that category, the DSLR will win, or, in a compact size, the RX100 will win. Both provide superior photographic value because the essence of a photograph is now contained by sensor data, and larger sensors gather more data and more accurate data. I cannot envision a scenario where the Q competes as a photographic tool with the RX100 or a Nikon 3200 DSLR kit at the same price point. All reviews certainly say so.

Wait. Sorry. It does compete if you want lots of colour choices. My bad.

[ElJamoquio]

.
.
It's not noise. Noise only exist in between people's ears.

It's called the grain.

And the grain is the photographic mean, or a vehicle, to achieve a desirable artistic output and the result.
It is same as in the painters palette, there are paints made of pigments that are ground fine, and some that are barely ground and left very coarse, to allow an artist a variety of approaches.

"Noise" is the most common way to express the random error on electronic devices, and I'll continue with the convention of discussing it that way.

"Grain" is the most common way to express the limitations of film technology due to the inhomogeneity of the particles in the film.

I may want one or the other or both in my pictures. I agree that the picture above with more noise looks better than the processed one. I'd still rather have a camera that can produce perfect results optically, that I can "degrade" optically (but improve artistically) later if I so choose.