A little Q love

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

Thing is: Do you really want to spend $800 on a camera that only performs well when the sun is shining?

In my case and speaking for me only, the answer could be big yes, but that depends on image quality at base iso. For far I have not seen enough images to make my mind. The crop i posted is not enough to make much out of. The images from raw would decide for me.

Now about when the sun is shining part. I usually need a small camera when i go out and it is usually in day time. For me most of my low light photography is inside house where my trusty k-x is good enough and i do not have to worry about carrying it.

For example i would not mind taking this with Q.

kadajawi · 08-07-2011, 08:20 AM

Judging by my SX130 the Q should easily do that. Maybe a bit of Lightroom 3 magic, but that's ok. Dynamic range might be an issue (clouds vs. the dark areas...), if it's really bad do a HDR perhaps. But then again a cheaper camera can probably do the same...

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

Judging by my SX130 the Q should easily do that. Maybe a bit of Lightroom 3 magic, but that's ok. Dynamic range might be an issue (clouds vs. the dark areas...), if it's really bad do a HDR perhaps. But then again a cheaper camera can probably do the same...

most of the cameras are just fine at base isos. I personally have problems with smudgeness you see in images but for most of practicall purposes that works out.

**rparmar** · 08-07-2011, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

Point 4 means that at the base isos, I expect pentax Q to produce very good image quality. Off course Q is little bit more expensive too.

If you are this picky, why are you considering a small sensor at all? Sorry, but you cannot beat physics. Get a larger sensor and get better images.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 08-07-2011, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

If you are this picky, why are you considering a small sensor at all? Sorry, but you cannot beat physics. Get a larger sensor and get better images.

And let's not forget about a larger pocket or bag. Unless someone has figured out how to beat physics by fitting a large camera in a small pocket.

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

And let's not forget about a larger pocket or bag. Unless someone has figured out how to beat physics by fitting a large camera in a small pocket.

exactly.

I already mentioned that I use k-x mostly and the thing that i did not mention is that i also use sony R1, which is also apc and has very good image quality.

I already mentioned that i wish to buy a cam for my wife that i can also use. These two things means small and good IQ. This is the reason I might not mind 800$. I paid 1000$ for R1 and today i do not think i regret a penny of it.

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

If you are this picky, why are you considering a small sensor at all? Sorry, but you cannot beat physics. Get a larger sensor and get better images.

We have beaten physics, today Q can beat yesterday's DSLRs with large sensors. .

One more thing which i did not mention, i really do not think Q as an 12MP camera, for most of my purposes 6-7MP is good enough, this means I would downscale it. I am sure , at 6MP , this sensor size is good enough to produce good images with today's technology.

It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images.

**rparmar** · 08-07-2011, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by zxaar

We have beaten physics, today Q can beat yesterday's DSLRs with large sensors.

You believe marketing companies over optical reality. I do not.

Obviously technology improves, within constraints. But all that means is that the next APS-C sensor will be better again than the current ones and leave smaller sensors in the dust. I do not advocate buying every new sensor that makes some incremental improvements in image quality. That is wasteful and unethical. Far larger improvements in the end result can be made through learning how to be a better photographer, no matter what the tool (APS-C, FF, PnS).

Originally posted by zxaar

One more thing which i did not mention, i really do not think Q as an 12MP camera, for most of my purposes 6-7MP is good enough, this means I would downscale it.

What you are saying is that you will use an even smaller part of the sensor for your images. The only conclusion I can draw is that your image quality needs do not equal mine -- fair enough. Either that or you fundamentally misunderstand how sensor size and pixel pitch affect image quality. Read my Pentax Q preview, which links to further discussions of these issues.

No, you cannot beat physics.

Originally posted by zxaar

It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images.

I await proof. But if this is true then most users will be disadvantaged, since the AA filter is there for a reason. Moire is going to bother the casual user a lot more than some exacting standard of sharpness that is better achieved by a larger camera.

Originally posted by zxaar

I already mentioned that i wish to buy a cam for my wife that i can also use. These two things means small and good IQ. This is the reason I might not mind 800$. I paid 1000$ for R1 and today i do not think i regret a penny of it.

I have said already that if you have money to burn, go wild with the Pentax Q. But such is not my world nor any world I hope to encourage.

I believe I am becoming redundant and so bid you adieu.

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 06:26 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rparmar

No, you cannot beat physics.

Really :-D

Kidding

PS: when people write that you can not beat physics, they usually meant about low light where larger sensor gathers more light and thus has advantage. We are talking about situation when light is good and i could shoot landscape that require deep DOF.

napawino · 08-07-2011, 06:34 PM

I'm going to buy one. Just because.

When are they going to release them?

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Y

Obviously technology improves, within constraints. But all that means is that the next APS-C sensor will be better again than the current ones and leave smaller sensors in the dust.

Obviously APC/m43/FF/Medium format cameras would also improve given the same technology. But here is the crux of all things - as a layman photographer how much of that would be useful to you.

At the moment, these are the things going on:

1. Low light performance is improving. (this part i already took out so not really relevant to discussion).
2. DR would improve.
3. More megapixels are coming eg sony 24mp etc

Now about (2) and (3) one has to decide. DR would certainly help and with smaller sensors this might have to be compromised a bit.
More megapixels, ummm, this part is big issue. For 90% of things i do, 6mp is more than enough. I would need even less if I have to resize to 900xH pixels for web viewing and sharing.
About the point #2 (ie DR) our monitors and printers can only support limited DR so, even if APC/FF sensors improve it too much for all practical purposes one could be able to live with DR of smaller sensors. (someone's need might be different though).

zxaar · 08-07-2011, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by napawino

I'm going to buy one. Just because.

When are they going to release them?

In japan, 31st Aug. I would be able to handle one then and that time would decide on buying it.

kadajawi · 08-08-2011, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

We have beaten physics, today Q can beat yesterday's DSLRs with large sensors. .

One more thing which i did not mention, i really do not think Q as an 12MP camera, for most of my purposes 6-7MP is good enough, this means I would downscale it. I am sure , at 6MP , this sensor size is good enough to produce good images with today's technology.

It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images.

They may have improved, but at 6 MP (downscaled on the computer) my SX130 still easily gets beaten by my ancient Pentax *istDs. JPEGs it is absolutely no competition at all, even at ISO 80 there is quite some noise filtering going on. ISO 1600 (maximum) is more of a painting, and not exactly a very detailed one. Shooting RAW is a bit different, you still have to (colour) denoise to get a shot at ISO 80, which IMHO is comparable to ISO 400 on the *istDs, but it's usable. (I don't think the Pentax needs denoising at all at base ISO.) ISO 800 is maybe like 3200 on the Pentax.

@zxaar: The dynamic range is a big problem IMHO. Usually mobile phones and video cameras blow out immediately when there is any contrast... they have the smallest sensors. P&S are better, but in a contrasty scene they give up. My Pentax *istDs again performs better... when I shoot with the SX130 during daylight I have to be careful, contrasty scenes are problematic to impossible. And if you shoot film you have even higher DR.

@Laurentiu: You need a Tardis camera bag. I could need one too.

If there is interest I could take a shot at 80 and 1600 with the SX130, and upload the RAW file.

elho_cid · 08-08-2011, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

If there is interest I could take a shot at 80 and 1600 with the SX130, and upload the RAW file

That's like sharing K20D raw file to give someone an idea about K-5 image quality. Very pointless..

kadajawi · 08-08-2011, 05:35 AM

Not too pointless. The sensors in these cameras are usually pretty much the same. Unless the Q uses CMOS... can't remember.

08-07-2011, 06:45 PM	#87
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by napawino I'm going to buy one. Just because. When are they going to release them? In japan, 31st Aug. I would be able to handle one then and that time would decide on buying it. Last edited by zxaar; 08-07-2011 at 06:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
At Last My Love Has Come Along!	Rupert	Post Your Photos!	10	03-08-2010 10:47 AM
Streets Really this in love?	K-9	Post Your Photos!	11	10-18-2009 05:39 AM
Love my K7:)	dandog	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	09-03-2009 04:19 PM
Would LOVE some help.....	lightchaser	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	08-19-2009 09:13 AM
K7 and why I love it	celetron	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	08-04-2009 09:10 AM

08-07-2011, 08:10 AM	#76
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by kadajawi Thing is: Do you really want to spend $800 on a camera that only performs well when the sun is shining? In my case and speaking for me only, the answer could be big yes, but that depends on image quality at base iso. For far I have not seen enough images to make my mind. The crop i posted is not enough to make much out of. The images from raw would decide for me. Now about when the sun is shining part. I usually need a small camera when i go out and it is usually in day time. For me most of my low light photography is inside house where my trusty k-x is good enough and i do not have to worry about carrying it. For example i would not mind taking this with Q.

08-07-2011, 08:20 AM	#77
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Judging by my SX130 the Q should easily do that. Maybe a bit of Lightroom 3 magic, but that's ok. Dynamic range might be an issue (clouds vs. the dark areas...), if it's really bad do a HDR perhaps. But then again a cheaper camera can probably do the same...

08-07-2011, 08:26 AM	#78
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by kadajawi Judging by my SX130 the Q should easily do that. Maybe a bit of Lightroom 3 magic, but that's ok. Dynamic range might be an issue (clouds vs. the dark areas...), if it's really bad do a HDR perhaps. But then again a cheaper camera can probably do the same... most of the cameras are just fine at base isos. I personally have problems with smudgeness you see in images but for most of practicall purposes that works out.

08-07-2011, 09:04 AM	#79
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by zxaar Point 4 means that at the base isos, I expect pentax Q to produce very good image quality. Off course Q is little bit more expensive too. If you are this picky, why are you considering a small sensor at all? Sorry, but you cannot beat physics. Get a larger sensor and get better images.

08-07-2011, 10:38 AM	#80
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by rparmar If you are this picky, why are you considering a small sensor at all? Sorry, but you cannot beat physics. Get a larger sensor and get better images. And let's not forget about a larger pocket or bag. Unless someone has figured out how to beat physics by fitting a large camera in a small pocket.

08-07-2011, 03:12 PM	#81
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor And let's not forget about a larger pocket or bag. Unless someone has figured out how to beat physics by fitting a large camera in a small pocket. exactly. I already mentioned that I use k-x mostly and the thing that i did not mention is that i also use sony R1, which is also apc and has very good image quality. I already mentioned that i wish to buy a cam for my wife that i can also use. These two things means small and good IQ. This is the reason I might not mind 800$. I paid 1000$ for R1 and today i do not think i regret a penny of it.

08-07-2011, 03:19 PM	#82
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by rparmar If you are this picky, why are you considering a small sensor at all? Sorry, but you cannot beat physics. Get a larger sensor and get better images. We have beaten physics, today Q can beat yesterday's DSLRs with large sensors. . One more thing which i did not mention, i really do not think Q as an 12MP camera, for most of my purposes 6-7MP is good enough, this means I would downscale it. I am sure , at 6MP , this sensor size is good enough to produce good images with today's technology. It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images.

08-07-2011, 05:46 PM	#83
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by zxaar We have beaten physics, today Q can beat yesterday's DSLRs with large sensors. You believe marketing companies over optical reality. I do not. Obviously technology improves, within constraints. But all that means is that the next APS-C sensor will be better again than the current ones and leave smaller sensors in the dust. I do not advocate buying every new sensor that makes some incremental improvements in image quality. That is wasteful and unethical. Far larger improvements in the end result can be made through learning how to be a better photographer, no matter what the tool (APS-C, FF, PnS). Originally posted by zxaar One more thing which i did not mention, i really do not think Q as an 12MP camera, for most of my purposes 6-7MP is good enough, this means I would downscale it. What you are saying is that you will use an even smaller part of the sensor for your images. The only conclusion I can draw is that your image quality needs do not equal mine -- fair enough. Either that or you fundamentally misunderstand how sensor size and pixel pitch affect image quality. Read my Pentax Q preview, which links to further discussions of these issues. No, you cannot beat physics. Originally posted by zxaar It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images. I await proof. But if this is true then most users will be disadvantaged, since the AA filter is there for a reason. Moire is going to bother the casual user a lot more than some exacting standard of sharpness that is better achieved by a larger camera. Originally posted by zxaar I already mentioned that i wish to buy a cam for my wife that i can also use. These two things means small and good IQ. This is the reason I might not mind 800$. I paid 1000$ for R1 and today i do not think i regret a penny of it. I have said already that if you have money to burn, go wild with the Pentax Q. But such is not my world nor any world I hope to encourage. I believe I am becoming redundant and so bid you adieu.

08-07-2011, 06:26 PM - 1 Like	#84
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by rparmar No, you cannot beat physics. Really :-D Kidding PS: when people write that you can not beat physics, they usually meant about low light where larger sensor gathers more light and thus has advantage. We are talking about situation when light is good and i could shoot landscape that require deep DOF.

08-07-2011, 06:34 PM	#85
napawino Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 151	I'm going to buy one. Just because. When are they going to release them?

08-07-2011, 06:44 PM	#86
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by rparmar Y Obviously technology improves, within constraints. But all that means is that the next APS-C sensor will be better again than the current ones and leave smaller sensors in the dust. Obviously APC/m43/FF/Medium format cameras would also improve given the same technology. But here is the crux of all things - as a layman photographer how much of that would be useful to you. At the moment, these are the things going on: 1. Low light performance is improving. (this part i already took out so not really relevant to discussion). 2. DR would improve. 3. More megapixels are coming eg sony 24mp etc Now about (2) and (3) one has to decide. DR would certainly help and with smaller sensors this might have to be compromised a bit. More megapixels, ummm, this part is big issue. For 90% of things i do, 6mp is more than enough. I would need even less if I have to resize to 900xH pixels for web viewing and sharing. About the point #2 (ie DR) our monitors and printers can only support limited DR so, even if APC/FF sensors improve it too much for all practical purposes one could be able to live with DR of smaller sensors. (someone's need might be different though).

08-08-2011, 02:26 AM	#88
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by zxaar We have beaten physics, today Q can beat yesterday's DSLRs with large sensors. . One more thing which i did not mention, i really do not think Q as an 12MP camera, for most of my purposes 6-7MP is good enough, this means I would downscale it. I am sure , at 6MP , this sensor size is good enough to produce good images with today's technology. It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images. They may have improved, but at 6 MP (downscaled on the computer) my SX130 still easily gets beaten by my ancient Pentax istDs. JPEGs it is absolutely no competition at all, even at ISO 80 there is quite some noise filtering going on. ISO 1600 (maximum) is more of a painting, and not exactly a very detailed one. Shooting RAW is a bit different, you still have to (colour) denoise to get a shot at ISO 80, which IMHO is comparable to ISO 400 on the istDs, but it's usable. (I don't think the Pentax needs denoising at all at base ISO.) ISO 800 is maybe like 3200 on the Pentax. @zxaar: The dynamic range is a big problem IMHO. Usually mobile phones and video cameras blow out immediately when there is any contrast... they have the smallest sensors. P&S are better, but in a contrasty scene they give up. My Pentax *istDs again performs better... when I shoot with the SX130 during daylight I have to be careful, contrasty scenes are problematic to impossible. And if you shoot film you have even higher DR. @Laurentiu: You need a Tardis camera bag. I could need one too. If there is interest I could take a shot at 80 and 1600 with the SX130, and upload the RAW file.

08-08-2011, 04:16 AM	#89
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by kadajawi If there is interest I could take a shot at 80 and 1600 with the SX130, and upload the RAW file That's like sharing K20D raw file to give someone an idea about K-5 image quality. Very pointless..

08-08-2011, 05:35 AM	#90
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Not too pointless. The sensors in these cameras are usually pretty much the same. Unless the Q uses CMOS... can't remember.