[jogiba]

Here is what kills the Q:

Compact Camera Meter

The Q10 kit at B&H is US$496.95:

Pentax Q10 Compact Digital Interchangeable Lens Camera 12161 B&H

The NEX3 is almost $50 less expensive on sale:

Sony Alpha NEX-3N Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-50mm

And the NEX E mount cameras have many interesting PK-NEX adapter options like the new PK-NEX Lens Turbo that would convert fast lenses like my PK mount full frame 24mm F1.4 Rokinon that I use on my full frame Sony NEX-VG900 into a F1.0 lens in APS-C mode on my VG900 or NEX-3N.
Sony NEX-6 with 50mm Pentax and PK-NEX Lens Turbo adapter

[Aristophanes]

Three interchangeable camera systems, all roughly the same price, 3 different sensor sizes, with lenses:

Compact Camera Meter

[jogiba]

Three interchangeable camera systems, all roughly the same price, 3 different sensor sizes, with lenses:

Compact Camera Meter

sensor size comparison

[Aristophanes]

sensor size comparison

He who must not be named has perhaps the best graphic reprsentation:

[thibs]

Well, I think everybody got that sensor size thing.
Can we move on?

Or rather, those still moaning about strictly the sensor size may wanna discuss somewhere else?
After all, this has nothing to do with a rumour or news, has it ?

[jogiba]

He who must not be named has perhaps the best graphic reprsentation:

The 645D has no 1080p60 HD video mode so I will stick with my full frame Sony NEX-VG900 that works with all APS-C and full frame Pentax lenses using low cost PK-NEX adapters unlike the 645D.

[thibs]

The 645D has no 1080p60 HD video mode so I will stick with my full frame Sony NEX-VG900 that works with all APS-C and full frame Pentax lenses using low cost PK-NEX adapters unlike the 645D.

That's certainly a very funny comparison, tough I can't see the relevance...

[MMVIII]

sensor size comparison

Wow, what was your point again? Do you mind to sum it up and repeat it, I might have just missed it...?

But I'm still happy to again feel this joy of telling someone on the internet he's wrong (tongue in cheek). Because this comparison does not give me proof of anything. Be aware: ME. However, maybe not you two guys, but I think many others too. Because I presume there is something like an apropriate level of desired image quality and the sensor size is only ONE of MANY factors in this equation. There are inner factors (related to the equipment) and outer factors (conditions).

Most systems are capeable of delivering a certain comparable amount of image quality under good lighting conditions. For webpresentations, home computer/TV presentations, small prints, and I impute that this is where most images end up, you can use your phone without reaching the limits of your system. I cover most of these things with my phone (always with me), when I know the outer factors are going to be more demanding I take a system with way better ergonomy, versatility, in this case my Q system. If my primary goal is to go for photographs suitable for large prints I don't hesitate and take my DSLR. If I do professional work on my job I take the Nikon D800 or Hasselblad H2D.

If you tell me now, that with a Nikon J I could get "better" IQ than with my Q - which I highly doubt for most situations - then I have to say: so what? What I can get is good enough and the differences are dismal. What counts more, and that is where the Q wins (YMMV!) is the handling, ergonomy and versatility. It's sheer fun to use and I love to take it with me!

Regarding the NEX. If I have a look at the photozone tests of the Q lenses and NEX lenses the main difference is: the Q lenses are great even fully open! What would you suggest me as a replacement for my 1.8 Prime 01? If I look at tests of primes for NEX the results are awful:
Sony E 16mm f/2.8 (SEL-16F28) - Review / Re-Test - Analysis
A vignetting of 3EV! That means that the borders practically speaking are ISO 800 if you want to compensate it. But who cares, better don't use the borders anyway, because the resolution is terrible. I surely outperforms the Q in the center, but the borders and corners are just bad. Add some CA...

So if you really want to be compact with the NEX, this seems to be the price. Sure you can use some normal sized primes, but then I'm still better of with my DSLR.

Just a last remark: In my job i do some photogrammetrical stuff and I used my Q to document cultural heritage. The even sharpness wide open, the lack of vignetting the DOF are perfect for stiching images and mosaicing them.
Pentax-02 Standard Zoom 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5 (Pentax Q) - Review / Lens Test - Analysis

I have not seen a system (at this size and price) better suited for that. The Ricoh GR will be a good candidate. The corner sharpness seems to be good, at least in comparison to tests with Nikon A. Pentax/Ricoh has some high competence there, looking forward to more such tools.

[falconeye]

It really isn't useful for me. I can get everything in focus with a FF camera.

That's all far too complicated.

-> Falk Lumo: LumoLabs: Camera equivalence

(fortunately now cited by many independent publications, incl. on luminous landscape).

The simple story is:

Focal length f -> f' := Focal length * crop
F-Stop N -> N' := F-Stop * crop
ISO iso -> iso' := ISO * crop^2

and (f', N', iso') totally describe a photo in EVERY aspect (framing, noise, depth of field, diffraction etc.) and no dependency on the crop factor whatsoever remains.

Based on this simple piece of background knowledge, most discussions of differences of formats become useless.

[jogiba]

Wow, what was your point again? Do you mind to sum it up and repeat it, I might have just missed it...?

If sensor size comparisons makes you get all bent out of shape then maybe you should avoid viewing camera forums.

[MMVIII]

If sensor size comparisons makes you get all bent out of shape then maybe you should avoid viewing camera forums.

True I'll just keep on looking at my 9x9 Aerial Film scans...size comparison? Pah! *g*

But agree with falk, many variables and therefore also many possibilities. It's just about lining up your defined work preferences and the sweet spots of different systems.

[RonHendriks1966]

That's all far too complicated.

-> Falk Lumo: LumoLabs: Camera equivalence

(fortunately now cited by many independent publications, incl. on luminous landscape).

The simple story is:

Focal length f -> f' := Focal length * crop
F-Stop N -> N' := F-Stop * crop
ISO iso -> iso' := ISO * crop^2

and (f', N', iso') totally describe a photo in EVERY aspect (framing, noise, depth of field, diffraction etc.) and no dependency on the crop factor whatsoever remains.

Based on this simple piece of background knowledge, most discussions of differences of formats become useless.

So basicly to gain a one-stop image quality advantage over out K-5 we just need an APS-H sized sensor in our camera!

[jogiba]

So basicly to gain a one-stop image quality advantage over out K-5 we just need an APS-H sized sensor in our camera!

And I guess two stops with full frame sensor if that is true.

[ElJamoquio]

That's all far too complicated.

I don't see how.


The claim is that a larger sensor has smaller DOF. That isn't really practically true - you can go to F/22 or F/32 or F/45. If that isn't enough (when is that?) you crop (which the chart clearly shows).

I know YOU know this but people like pictures better than they like words.

[ElJamoquio]

And I guess two stops with full frame sensor if that is true.

It isn't. APS-H is a bit under one stop. A true one stop would be 33.4mm on the long end. A true two stop would be 47.4mm on the long end.