Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-08-2011, 05:42 AM   #91
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,009
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote

@Laurentiu: You need a Tardis camera bag. I could need one too.
While this sounds like a good idea, in practice it's not:

Me: Hon, have you seen my camera bag?

Wife: No, but yesterday I heard that Tardis sound again.

Me: Oh crap, it's probably back in 19th Century England again. Worse yet, it's with the Ood again.

Wife: Don't worry, it always comes back.

Me: I know, I just hate looking at all the photos that were taken while it was away...

08-08-2011, 05:57 AM   #92
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Not too pointless. The sensors in these cameras are usually pretty much the same. Unless the Q uses CMOS... can't remember.
Hi kadajawi,

There's quite a bit of difference -- your SX 130 uses a CCD, and the Q uses a BSI CMOS. Even with the "same" sensor, differences in the spec for a particular model, A/D processor, and imaging engine could make a difference.

If your basing 1/2.3" sensor noise performance on what you see from your Canon, then your doubts about noise performance are understandable, but not based on anything close to a comparable sensor.

Scott
08-08-2011, 06:34 AM   #93
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
Hi kadajawi,

There's quite a bit of difference -- your SX 130 uses a CCD, and the Q uses a BSI CMOS. Even with the "same" sensor, differences in the spec for a particular model, A/D processor, and imaging engine could make a difference.

If your basing 1/2.3" sensor noise performance on what you see from your Canon, then your doubts about noise performance are understandable, but not based on anything close to a comparable sensor.

Scott
Agree. Criticizm of Q based on experience with SX130 is very much like criticizing IQ of D3 based on experience with Contax N digital. They both use the same sensor size and Contax N Digital was noisy above ISO 400. So what?

Let's wait for the real performance samples.
08-08-2011, 06:45 AM   #94
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote

@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.
This might be an issue but some compromises have to be made. Can not have everything. DOF control would also be lost. But i think as long as one knows what he is getting into, it is alright.



QuoteOriginally posted by elho_cid Quote
Agree. Criticizm of Q based on experience with SX130 is very much like criticizing IQ of D3 based on experience with Contax N digital. They both use the same sensor size and Contax N Digital was noisy above ISO 400. So what?

Let's wait for the real performance samples.

Surprisingly in so many days we have so few images to judge from. It seems there is no full size image from Q to make any assumption.

31st aug it would all clear up.

08-08-2011, 10:08 AM   #95
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
While this sounds like a good idea, in practice it's not:


Ok ok, you convinced me. These cameras can't really be compared (though the ISO 80 sample does look quite a bit like the ISO 80 performance of my SX130, as in it has to denoise even at base ISO. Also, both cameras are pretty much of the same generation, you don't compare a modern DSLR with one of the first DSLRs). I still expect the Q to be only a bit better than the SX130 in terms of noise (the optics will be a lot better).

It's a bit of a shame that they don't use a CCD sensor. Yes, CMOS can perform better, but that rolling shutter effect really bugs me when taking videos.

Btw.: This is supposed to be the shutter sound of the Q... http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/articles/1287/pentax-q-declenchement.wav

The Sony DSC-WX5 seems to use at least a very similar sensor. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX5 Camera - Express Review

Hopefully we'll get samples soon... especially RAWs, I don't really care about JPEGs, those we have seen so far look pretty much like what I expect from a current camera with this sensor size. But seeing the RAWs will give us an indication of what the camera can actually do.
08-14-2011, 10:39 AM   #96
Senior Member
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 290
Our area Pentax rep popped into the store with a pre-production version (0.30) of the Q on Friday. Focusing was very quick and accurate, it's a very "snappy" camera in operation, all the important functions are close-at-hand, none of the menu-fumbling/dial-turning that you do on a NEX. If you're coming from a K-7/K-5 the interface is second nature. I was impressed.

He had some sample images from marketing that compared the Q to an Oly XZ-1 and a Micro 4/3s model (don't remember which, may have been Panny GF-2 or Oly EPL-2). The sample images were also from a pre-production Q.

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated. Colour accuracy at high ISO was superb, the other two cameras had a colour cast. There were no RAW-converted samples to look at unfortunately.

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details.
He only had the 01 and 02 lenses, not the fisheye or the toy lenses. I'm quite excited to some images from the fisheye lens.

Also, apparently, Pentax will produce a K-Q adapter!

Any questions?

Last edited by Mock; 08-14-2011 at 10:47 AM.
08-14-2011, 11:02 AM   #97
Senior Member
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 290
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
It seems pentax has given away AA filter too with this cam. Which would also help in producing sharp images.
This is correct, there is no AA filter.
08-14-2011, 12:16 PM   #98
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,009
QuoteOriginally posted by Mock Quote
Our area Pentax rep popped into the store with a pre-production version (0.30) of the Q on Friday. Focusing was very quick and accurate, it's a very "snappy" camera in operation, all the important functions are close-at-hand, none of the menu-fumbling/dial-turning that you do on a NEX. If you're coming from a K-7/K-5 the interface is second nature. I was impressed.

He had some sample images from marketing that compared the Q to an Oly XZ-1 and a Micro 4/3s model (don't remember which, may have been Panny GF-2 or Oly EPL-2). The sample images were also from a pre-production Q.

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated. Colour accuracy at high ISO was superb, the other two cameras had a colour cast. There were no RAW-converted samples to look at unfortunately.

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details.
He only had the 01 and 02 lenses, not the fisheye or the toy lenses. I'm quite excited to some images from the fisheye lens.

Also, apparently, Pentax will produce a K-Q adapter!

Any questions?
Thanks for sharing this. Can't wait until the Q hits the streets and we get some real-world impressions of the cam versus much of the premature disappointment that we are currently seeing.

It's funny, throughout the forum we hear people saying things like, "it's not the camera, it's the photographer." and "Pentax really needs to do something innovative or they'll go out of business."

The moment Pentax does just that (remember the furor over colored K-xes?) people are up in arms as if it's the camera, not the photographer.

08-15-2011, 03:13 PM   #99
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
Sounds ecouraging indeed. I'm thrilled to see more.
08-18-2011, 07:28 AM   #100
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,952
QuoteOriginally posted by Mock Quote
Our area Pentax rep popped into the store with a pre-production version (0.30) of the Q on Friday. Focusing was very quick and accurate, it's a very "snappy" camera in operation, all the important functions are close-at-hand, none of the menu-fumbling/dial-turning that you do on a NEX. If you're coming from a K-7/K-5 the interface is second nature. I was impressed.

He had some sample images from marketing that compared the Q to an Oly XZ-1 and a Micro 4/3s model (don't remember which, may have been Panny GF-2 or Oly EPL-2). The sample images were also from a pre-production Q.

At base ISO the Q is much better than the XZ-1, and it came close to matching the output from the M4/3 camera, the images were 100% crops from a test scene. The ISO 6400 comparisons were very different, the Q uses a ton of noise reduction on the JPEGs, however fine detail wasn't completely obliterated. Colour accuracy at high ISO was superb, the other two cameras had a colour cast. There were no RAW-converted samples to look at unfortunately.

Of note, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is sharp corner to corner...the lens on the Oly XZ-1 is completely useless for corner details.
He only had the 01 and 02 lenses, not the fisheye or the toy lenses. I'm quite excited to some images from the fisheye lens.

Also, apparently, Pentax will produce a K-Q adapter!

Any questions?
Thank you for this interesting post !
I hope the K-Q adapter will at least include an aperture auto control.
08-18-2011, 07:22 PM   #101
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
@Zygonyx

@Zygonyx , how did you come up with name.

On BBC forums( 606 ) I used to post with user name - Zynonyz and then with zynonyz2 .


It is strange to find name similar to what i used to use. so just wondering.
08-18-2011, 11:18 PM   #102
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,952


Hi zxaar, this is the latin name of my favorite dragonfly.

Last edited by Zygonyx; 08-18-2011 at 11:25 PM. Reason: photo
08-19-2011, 05:40 AM   #103
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote

Hi zxaar, this is the latin name of my favorite dragonfly.
thanku for explanation.
08-19-2011, 09:03 AM   #104
Senior Member
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 290
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
Thank you for this interesting post !
I hope the K-Q adapter will at least include an aperture auto control.
Doubtful, it would have to have some kind of CPU to translate the Q's value, then a motor of some kind to move the aperture lever the proper amount. It would probably be too complex.
It would be very nice however, if it at least had a manual aperture ring, then you could use DA/DA* lenses with it.

Fotodiox have a little manual aperture lever on their adapters, but there is no numeric value, you've got to eye-ball the aperture yourself and guess what you're shooting at. To know for sure, you can focus wide open, and use the camera's meter to determine what aperture you are at when you stop down. If you meter wide open (let's say f/1.4) and you get ISO 200, 1/1000s and you want to shoot f/2.8, then move the lever until the metered exposure is ISO 200, 1/250s.

Last edited by Mock; 08-19-2011 at 09:25 AM.
08-19-2011, 09:18 AM   #105
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,952
Why not put an electrical aperture ring in the adapter, like those of the Prime 01 and 02 ?
No need to care about the mounted lens though.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
digital camera, employees, pentax cameras, point and shoot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top