[Kunzite]

The MP race stalled because the D700 emphasized low light, high-ISO capacity at the expense of megapixels. This went against all marketing trends at the time.

The MP race is still going, because it didn't stop

Every current FF camera has a higher resolution, including entry levels. And here and there, Pentax is blamed for not having a 24MP APS-C camera, even though the current 24MP sensors aren't better (I would say they're slightly worse) than the 16MP one.

This being said, I wish for such things to slow down, allowing for the technology to catch up with marketing (and we're almost there, fortunately).

[ElJamoquio]

Well, but i did say something about DOF : its bigger depth easily achieved with small sensor IS AN ADVANTAGE for a lot of newbees and amateur consumers.
As well as it IS AN ADVANTAGE for landscaping shooters.

It's not really an advantage unless you're saying that people should be shooting beyond F/22 or F/32.

Dr. Camera: F/it.doesnt.matter

[Aristophanes]

It's not really an advantage unless you're saying that people should be shooting beyond F/22 or F/32.

Dr. Camera: F/it.doesnt.matter

Can you say diffraction?

[monochrome]

Can you say diffraction?

Is that why the 01 Prime only has f/8?

Seriously, Pentax thinks the Q is a serious camera line and they want it to be a system. In reality it is a very capable adult toy - a lot of fun to use (really, it is joyfully fun to use) and remarkably very near larger-sensor IQ, but not for truly serious photographic work, at least not this iteration.

I compare mine to an Olympus XA. I finally retired the XA from my briefcase and carry the Q / 01 instead. There's nothing wrong with a Q except the price.

[ElJamoquio]

Can you say diffraction?

I can. With the same DOF they're equally diffraction limited.

[ElJamoquio]

Think of it this way: a Q with an 02 lens is very similar to a full frame camera with a 28-82mm F/15.5-25 lens. It has the same DOF and the same diffraction. If the sensors are made of the 'same stuff' it has the same SNR, too.

In reality the smaller lenses make resolution with those smaller sensors problematic, and even at F/16 you're not completely diffraction limited by any means, so the larger format camera has quite a bit of advantage in terms of 'actual' resolution. Of course you can't actually purchase a lens that slow on the FF camera so you have to balance the performacne, cost, weight and size of actual lenses.

[Uluru]

Think of it this way: a Q with an 02 lens is very similar to a full frame camera with a 28-82mm F/15.5-25 lens. It has the same DOF and the same diffraction. If the sensors are made of the 'same stuff' it has the same SNR, too...

Please. It's not true; aperture is aperture, and you cannot "convert it". You are forcing it into a different measure, but it is pointless, like all your "arguments", same as it pointless to use the FF camera if you want the same DOF as available to the Q camera.
So you give FF a priori bias, which is semantically incorrect and photographically misleading. You sing a country and western song with the banjo in your knees that says there are no cars like trucks, and all cowboys except truck drivers are losers.
Similarly, we could turn your C&W song upside down and make a FF blues song, to say how FF sucks in deep OOF performance and has too large pixels to gather all the data a mere little Q can.
So yes, FF sucks and Q rulez — using the lenses of the same aperture, or, the whiskey of the same alcohol content. Q still sees clearer!

PS. Blues players were always better guitar players anyway.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 05-16-2013 at 11:19 PM.

[RonHendriks1966]

Think of it this way: a Q with an 02 lens is very similar to a full frame camera with a 28-82mm F/15.5-25 lens. It has the same DOF and the same diffraction. If the sensors are made of the 'same stuff' it has the same SNR, too.

In reality the smaller lenses make resolution with those smaller sensors problematic, and even at F/16 you're not completely diffraction limited by any means, so the larger format camera has quite a bit of advantage in terms of 'actual' resolution. Of course you can't actually purchase a lens that slow on the FF camera so you have to balance the performacne, cost, weight and size of actual lenses.

Q already suffers from diffraction at f4 and up (or down wichever you like). That is why the 02 zoom isn't a good lens for the system. On the other hand the 06 zoom with an aperture off f2.8 is a good lens for the system.

[audiobomber]

Q already suffers from diffraction at f4 and up (or down wichever you like). That is why the 02 zoom isn't a good lens for the system.

In theory you are correct, but in reality the Q performs well at f4 according to the Photozone tests. The 01 Prime performs better at f4 than at f1.9, with similar center sharpness but significantly better borders:

It is very "sharp" across the image frame even at max. aperture. The peak performance is then reached around f/2.8. The lens is capable to keep the quality at f/4 before diffraction ends the glory at f/5.6

The 02 Zoom is at its best at f4:

It is fully usable at max. aperture already and the excellent peak is reached at f/4 (at 5mm and 7mm respectively). You can already observe that diffraction is limiting the performance at the tele end (@ f/4.5). There's a more pronounced quality penalty at f/5.6 and f/8 should be definitely avoided.

I agree with you that the 06 tele zoom is a much better lens for the system than the 02 zoom. I have very little interest in the slow standard zoom.

[Aristophanes]

Every lens does sharp these days from all manufacturers. Most people couldn't notice diffraction until they print wall-sized.

The Q is Pentax's mirrorless system camera and it has a sensor size to price ratio (or IQ to price ratio) that is the worst amongst its competitors. If that's what Pentax calls "serious" then there is a problem, especially if Pentax institutionalized the sensor size. Either the price has to drop a LOT further (like MSRP 40% less than it is now), or they will have to drop it. On spec the Q series simply does not compete.

[ElJamoquio]

Please. It's not true; aperture is aperture, and you cannot "convert it". You are forcing it into a different measure, but it is pointless, like all your "arguments", same as it pointless to use the FF camera if you want the same DOF as available to the Q camera.
So you give FF a priori bias, which is semantically incorrect and photographically misleading. You sing a country and western song with the banjo in your knees that says there are no cars like trucks, and all cowboys except truck drivers are losers.
Similarly, we could turn your C&W song upside down and make a FF blues song, to say how FF sucks in deep OOF performance and has too large pixels to gather all the data a mere little Q can.
So yes, FF sucks and Q rulez — using the lenses of the same aperture, or, the whiskey of the same alcohol content. Q still sees clearer!

PS. Blues players were always better guitar players anyway.

Aperture is aperture. You can convert it. Do the math about what I was arguing, and you'll see that I am correct. Go somewhere, figure out the airy disk area for a lens at F/22 and divide it by the area of a FF sensor. Then figure out the area of a lens at F/4 and divide it by the area of a Q sensor.

I own a Q myself, and am considering purchasing another one. There's lots of arguments for the Q. But a 'larger DOF without diffraction limit' is not one of them.

[audiobomber]

On spec the Q series simply does not compete.

Yeah, especially if you ignore the Q's unique features and only compare by sensor size.

- world's smallest ILC
- same DR, SNR and colour range as the best 1/1.7" sensor
- some of us prefer to shoot with a prime lens, and more primes are coming
- I have a $25 OVF that matches the FOV of the 01 prime
- 80-250mm FOV at f2.8, with AF
- cheap and capable fisheye lens
- focus peaking and focus magnification
- with Pentax A 135mm f2.8 mounted, it is TINY for a 750mm FOV, easily hand-holdable
- 1650mm FOV with my DA*300 f4 mounted
- awesome super-macro abilities
- mount a Carry Speed or similar LCD magnifier for supertele & macro focussing
- works with all my Pentax accessories; remote, flash, flash cord
- Pentax Ricoh is committed to growing the system

I'm sure others have their lists, that's mine. I just love the look and feel of the magnesium case. I'm hoping the Q and plastic Q10 lines will diverge. No way I'd trade my Q for an RX-100.

[Aristophanes]

world's smallest ILC

Bang!

Right there it loses because it has a small sensor at an ILC price point.

Other brands have similar systems with bigger sensors at the same price point.

The advantages of an ILC on a small sensor are diminished returns in any case.

None of the rest of your list is unique to the Q or the Pentax brand.

[Kunzite]

Other brands don't have the smallest ILC.

[Aristophanes]

Other brands don't have the smallest ILC.

No one buys "small". Marketing myth. They buy value and performance. The Q has neither.