[BigMackCam]

Panasonic gm5

http://camerasize.com/compare/#570,561

That *is* small. Very nice design, and with an EVF too. Gimme one of those with a Q mount and the same size sensor as the Q7 and I'll buy it

[reh321]

Yeah that the part of the fun. Fully Agree

Still that doesn't mean other can't play with MFT or APSC to get 1000mm and up. Even for small money...

With the Samyang 800mm f/8 Catadioptric lens on APSC you could get 1200mm, you get something like that: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/63656-rokinon-800mm-s...s-10-pics.html

On a MFT that would be 1600mm... or if you add an old 1.4 or 2X TC on your APSC that would be respectivelly 1680 or 2400mm... Arguably at least the APSC K-mount body is bigger... But put that on an Olympus pen, some being same size as Q, I don't know if this is very different.

Have you ever used a "catadioptric" {i.e., mirror} lens?? They're OK if you can tolerate donut bokeh ... and they have fixed aperture ... and they're not zoom. I've found that I hardly ever take pictures at the full focal length when I'm taking this kind of picture. Even if I do end up at the full focal length, long experience has taught me the best way to get there is to zoom in so you don't spend all day looking for the wanted shot. Feel free to use one - I do have one, but I've taken fewer than half a dozen pictures with it. You're really digging for answers if this is the best you can do.

added: I'm not sure how you'd handle the tripod/monopod if you put a mirror lens on an MFT. The lens isn't that heavy, but it sounds like a really awkward contraption to me - my Q-7 setup is just a lens with a camera hung on the end of it

[lytrytyr]

Well that far less separation at same background distance but I'am curious to get the exif of this one...

06 on the Q7, at its sweet spot of f/3.2.

I mean even PentaxForum here isn't convinced, even if this is on the smaller initial Q: Pentax Q Review - Depth of Field and Blur Control | PentaxForums.com Reviews

No "blur control" going on here.

[Nicolas06]

I dont know of an Olympus Pen as small as the Q7 or Q-S1, and certainly nowhere near as small as the original Q... even the Olympus Pen Mini E-PM1 is noticeably bigger than a Q7...

Look on camera size: Compare camera dimensions side by side

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Look on camera size: Compare camera dimensions side by side

I did, before I replied to you, Nicolas. The Pen is bigger. Not hugely so, but it's significant.

Comparing the Pen to the Q-S1 is like comparing the K-1 to the K-3 - including the difference of full-frame vs APS-C lenses...

Ron's example of the Panasonic GM5 makes much more sense. The sensor is still too big though

[Nicolas06]

Have you ever used a "catadioptric" {i.e., mirror} lens?? They're OK if you can tolerate donut bokeh ... and they have fixed aperture ... and they're not zoom. I've found that I hardly ever take pictures at the full focal length when I'm taking this kind of picture. Even if I do end up at the full focal length, long experience has taught me the best way to get there is to zoom in so you don't spend all day looking for the wanted shot. Feel free to use one - I do have one, but I've taken fewer than half a dozen pictures with it. You're really digging for answers if this is the best you can do.

added: I'm not sure how you'd handle the tripod/monopod if you put a mirror lens on an MFT. The lens isn't that heavy, but it sounds like a really awkward contraption to me - my Q-7 setup is just a lens with a camera hung on the end of it

Honestly both things are awkward to me. Use of non native lenses, no AF. Lenses that are quite big compared to the camera.

I can get 900-1000mm framing just fine and with better quality than what was posted above with a mere 55-300. I have the HD version, that is a bit expensive but optically the old DA55-300 that goes $150-200 used on ebay does the same.

In attachement a shoot at 300mm (so 450mm FF equivalent) resized to 900mm framing. I got AF for that and if I you say most of the time you zoom etc. Well the 55-300 start at 55mm, (82mm FF equiv), and is quite easy to use. Yeah I know that if you go to 2000mm extreme case the Q will get some more details... I understand the achievement by itself is valuable but I am not sure that so conveniant to use on a regular basis or that it give that great results. After all you explained many time you don't want to go to the full focal length of the zoom...

The problem for birding/wildlife honestly is that the longuest Q-lens has a real focal lens of 45mm and give 209mm FF equivalent. Without going to the very expensive Leica 100-400, on m4/3 there affordable lenses that go natively to real focal length of 150, 200 or 300mm. They all support AF and work fine. Maybe they are not perfectly sharp pxiel wise, but This still bring you to 300, 400, 600mm FF equivalent and so with moderate crop you get 600, 800, 1200mm already. If you want there even TCs. All native. And still for less than $1000, body included. And there still the possibility to basically add any SLR lens to the system thanks to adapter and shorter registration distance...

[Nicolas06]

I did, before I replied to you, Nicolas. The Pen is bigger. Not hugely so, but it's significant.

Comparing the Pen to the Q-S1 is like comparing the K-1 to the K-3 - including the difference of full-frame vs APS-C lenses...

Ron's example of the Panasonic GM5 makes much more sense. The sensor is still too big though

Honestly if next Q was exactly the size of that Pen nobody here would ever complain. As the sensor being too big, that's another issue. At worst nothing prevent to have for one time innovative design, with not all lenses that cover the whole sensor... A bit like K1 and APSC lenses or LX100. A sensor is not expensive at theses size. There APSC DSLR at similar price than what a new Q would ask.

So nothing prevent to even put a bigger sensor. Like 1" crop automatically in the screen to the max coverage each lens can cover and design lens for different sensor size. Even zoom could vary by focal length. You could optimize freely for size or quality. The body would not have to be bigger or heavier. We already see m4/3 fit so 1" is piece of cake.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 09-29-2016 at 12:10 AM.

[Simen1]

Well, ether you waste image circle by having a too small sensor or you waste sensor area by having too small image circle. One are rectangular and the other are circular so they will never match perfectly. In my opinion, with sensor prices being small and lens sizes being so important for overall size, I hope Pentax will increase the sensor size of Q further. Even if it means wasting sensor area for some lenses and some settings (focus distance and aperture). All Q lenses are well known to Pentax and its easy to make firmware decisions on how much to crop, or even leave it up to the user in other modes then fully auto. Square formats and panoramas with corners always matching the image circle.

That said, I don't believe the Q lenses have a huge room for increased sensor sizes. Practically I believe the sensor may be increased from 1/1,7" to 1/1,5" or so. Camera size may be shrunken a few millimeters to set a new record of smallest ILC digital camera. And further shrinkage for each new camera so they set a new record every time. This will generate a lot of free publicity and strengthen the Q DNA even if its only about millimeters.

There should also be put some more effort into making even smaller lenses. Especially those types of lenses that benefits the most from short focal flange distance, large aperture normal and wide angles. These may be optimized for the slightly larger sensor size as well.

[D1N0]

Bigger sensor means new lenses. But does Ricoh need to be the smallest? Make a Q sized aps-c camera? Your lenses are going to be to big for such a small body especially anything in the telerange. There is a reason 1" Bridge zooms have a bigger body.

Compact Camera Meter


http://camerasize.com/compact/#570.376,124.417,672,677.585,ha,t

[gazonk]

Compact Camera Meter

Nice comparison, although those lenses aren't exactly equivalent.

Now compare a Q-S1 with a DA70 with a K-1 with a 300mm

(On the other hand, that would be a 300mm f/11, wouldn't it?)

[Fogel70]

Bigger sensor means new lenses. But does Ricoh need to be the smallest? Make a Q sized aps-c camera? Your lenses are going to be to big for such a small body especially anything in the telerange. There is a reason 1" Bridge zooms have a bigger body.

Compact Camera Meter


Compact Camera Meter

Every camera do not have to be optimized for everything.
The reason why I got a mirrorless camera was because I wanted a pocket size camera for everyday use, not a camera to use with a 600/2.8 lens.

It would be easy to design a large mirrorless camera better optimized for large lenses.
Sony kind of did that already for E-mount with the A3000.

Sony A3000 vs Q-S1 vs K3 II

[Digitalis]

..well at least Pentax will probably do it better than Nikon did.

[Simen1]

Bigger sensor means new lenses.

No, it doesn't. Read my post again on that point.

Q are small, but it needs to play more on its smallness to not drown in larger sensor options from others. Breaking smallness records for each launch starting with the 02 standard zoom (thanks Fogel70) will make it stand out.

[photoptimist]

Well, ether you waste image circle by having a too small sensor or you waste sensor area by having too small image circle. One are rectangular and the other are circular so they will never match perfectly. In my opinion, with sensor prices being small and lens sizes being so important for overall size, I hope Pentax will increase the sensor size of Q further. Even if it means wasting sensor area for some lenses and some settings (focus distance and aperture). All Q lenses are well known to Pentax and its easy to make firmware decisions on how much to crop, or even leave it up to the user in other modes then fully auto. Square formats and panoramas with corners always matching the image circle.

That said, I don't believe the Q lenses have a huge room for increased sensor sizes. Practically I believe the sensor may be increased from 1/1,7" to 1/1,5" or so. Camera size may be shrunken a few millimeters to set a new record of smallest ILC digital camera. And further shrinkage for each new camera so they set a new record every time. This will generate a lot of free publicity and strengthen the Q DNA even if its only about millimeters.

There should also be put some more effort into making even smaller lenses. Especially those types of lenses that benefits the most from short focal flange distance, large aperture normal and wide angles. These may be optimized for the slightly larger sensor size as well.

Interesting....

Certainly, one of the advantages of an EVF (or backpanel display) is that the camera can control how much of the sensor's data is shown to the user. The camera can automatically crop the sensor data to create the user's chosen aspect ratio within the limits of the user's designated image quality requirements (e.g., vignetting, fuzzy corners, CA, or whatever). Whatever usable image is pulled out of the sensor is then expanded to fill the EVF.

Of course, it does have some strange side effects: the field of view might change with aperture and focus; the pixel counts of images might vary a lot; and a long focal length lens with a big image circle might actually be "wider" than a short focal length lens with a small image circle.

[D1N0]

No, it doesn't. Read my post again on that point.

Q are small, but it needs to play more on its smallness to not drown in larger sensor options from others. Breaking smallness records for each launch starting with the 02 standard zoom (thanks Fogel70) will make it stand out.

you want circular images?