Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-25-2011, 02:44 PM   #106
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
No fanboyism here, but why attack it before seeing any images from the 'toy' either?
If RH's source is of any accuracy, then size may not really matter.
DoF? The Q's clearly not for you.
Just go dSLR.
This is obviously a 'toy' for the point and shooter with an 'edge'.

06-25-2011, 03:39 PM   #107
Forum Member
snogglethorpe's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Yakim Quote
While I applause (sp.?) Pentax for making such a bold move out of the mainstream (similar to Ricoh GRX system) and while I think it's the cutest cam I've seen in years I think that the price is just too high WRT sensor size.
The GRX system actually seems a lot more innovative than the Q though. It's actually an attempt to rethink the entire concept of a "camera" as a series of interchangeable modules (well I guess that sort of thing exists to some degree with super-high-end cameras -- Hasselblad etc -- but I've never seen anything like it that a mortal could afford).

I think it's very cool, but in practice the details/implementation seem a bit more disappointing (e.g., when I've tried it in stores, the focusing was crazy slow).

Last edited by snogglethorpe; 06-25-2011 at 10:47 PM.
06-25-2011, 06:31 PM   #108
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 704
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
It's bloody EVERYWHERE in London.
I could not believe it - but it's true.
Ah well. What about mounting Q lenses on a larger sensor camera? Would, in other words, the Q lenses be compatible with a larger sensor, say, for the sake of argument, APS-C? The sensor seems quite small in this camera.

My ideal? A mirrorless FF with K compatability.
06-25-2011, 06:58 PM   #109
Forum Member
snogglethorpe's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Smolk Quote
I could not believe it - but it's true.
Ah well. What about mounting Q lenses on a larger sensor camera? Would, in other words, the Q lenses be compatible with a larger sensor, say, for the sake of argument, APS-C? The sensor seems quite small in this camera.
It's very unlikely -- the areas outside the sensor are probably either cropped explicitly, or if not, suffer from greatly degraded optical quality. To make it otherwise, they'd need to essentially design them for a larger sensor from the start, which would make them bigger and more expensive, negating some of the advantages of the Q.

[It's easy to adapt lenses the other way, from a larger sensor to a smaller one, as the lens just sees the smaller sensor as a patch in the middle of the larger sensor area.]

06-25-2011, 10:00 PM   #110
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
All this proves is that no-one needs the Q -- they can just use their phone.
Phones only have a capability of taking shots. Cameras are designed for that. I like my phone's capability, but I still feel the need for a small camera with better ergonomy, controls, and features.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Also your DOF argument is flawed. A small sensor forces you to use diffraction-limited larger apertures. With a larger sensor you actually have a choice -- stop down or not.
Phones have even smaller sensors than compacts like Q, so you've just contradicted your previous conclusion that phones are sufficient.

And who cares about diffraction and lens equivalence when a camera can produce shots like this one? The author of that image, Slavko Kersmanc, has a few other such impressive shots from his Canon A95 - a very competent compact camera of - gasp - 2004 vintage.

It is fun to talk theory as long as we don't get disconnected from reality. After that, it can still be fun, but it is not necessarily relevant to anything.
06-25-2011, 10:59 PM   #111
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Ned Bunnell has posted some images of the Q lenses:

Photos of the Five Q Lenses - Ned's Photo Journal
06-26-2011, 01:29 AM - 1 Like   #112
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Many years ago, my Minolta A1 had a pathetically old 2/3" sensor, I could shoot up to ISO 800 with acceptable results (oftentimes ISO 100-400 to keep it safe), and many photographs I've taken with it are my favourite of all time. They stand proudly, face to face with best modern DSLR shots. Is it because of the "big" A1 sensor?

No. It's because that camera had superb glass, anti-shake, and many features that enabled me enjoy and explore digital photography effortlessly.

Now 7 years afterwards, a smaller, much better camera in all respects with a sensor that is somewhat smaller, but outflanks 7 years old A1's sensor by miles, is on the market. And I'm getting a whole Q system with all the lenses for less money than I've paid A1 for.

I sometimes believe something's really wrong with people's brains and they cannot put anything into perspective. Perhaps because they have none. It's like they reset it every Xmas or something. All they know is to turn the 'lament channel on'.

For the first time after 7 years I got REALLY excited about a camera again, which almost instantly reminds me of Minolta A1, and the best times of my life spent with my family. But this is even better, because it's so much smaller.

With such a camera I know EXACTLY what I'm buying and getting, and that's a lot of immediate promises. When buying a DSLR, people also pay for lots of misses, and they are paying for the learning curve to use DSLRs potentially well one day. They are also paying for every time they've left camera at home because it was too heavy or big for another lug around. But with Pentax Q, people only pay for those keepers they'll get straight out of the box that day, and every other day, and for tons of fun with all these crazy lenses.

I don't know about you, but for me that's a bargain.
I think you've got the perspective thing wrong. Yes, in 2004 this would have been a great deal. But now? There are competitors that are slightly larger, yet offer significantly better image quality. And they cost half the price of this. So I get superior size image quality, pay half the price and perhaps get better ergonomics, and the only "bad" thing with it is that it is slightly bigger? It's like that new Sigma that costs 10000, where cameras that it probably should be competing with cost 1500? Balls Sigma, balls.

This is certainly a nice toy. But it's a toy. And $800 for a toy is absolutely insane. Who do they aim this thing at? Paris Hilton?
06-26-2011, 02:21 AM   #113
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 29
QuoteOriginally posted by Smolk Quote
My ideal? A mirrorless FF with K compatability.
There's a rumor that Pentax will introduce another MILC system with APS-C and K-mount compatibility in a few months.

06-26-2011, 08:32 AM   #114
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bountiful, Utah, USA
Posts: 74
I've been lurking here for a while, but this thread made me want to register so I can chime in.

The question was raised early in this discussion about what the actual projected image circle is, in hopes that we'll see a larger sensor in future models. It seems to me that if the normal lens has a focal length of 8.5mm, and they've actually labeled it as "01 STANDARD PRIME", I wouldn't expect that lens to perform in any other way than as a normal lens on a 1/2.3" sensor. Otherwise they would have used more traditional Pentax nomenclature. 8.5mm is a circular fisheye on an APS-C sensor. (See Sigma's 8.5mm for instance.) Remember that a "normal" lens is generally just a little bit longer focal length than the diagonal of the sensor. (APS-C diagonal is 28.5mm. FF diagonal is 43.3mm.) 1/2.3" is a 7.7 mm diagonal. If you used an 8.5mm focal length lens on a sensor with a diagonal of 9 to 9.5 mm (1/1.8" to 1/1.7", currently the largest sensors in compact digicams) it becomes a moderately wide angle lens (assuming the projected image circle is sufficient to cover that sensor).

While it's certainly possible, I don't think Pentax would have named the lens "01 STANDARD PRIME" if it's not going to be a standard lens for the life of the Q mount.


Speaking of which, has anyone heard anything about their choice of "Q" as the label for the mount? Is it supposed to stand for anything? Quick and Quality are the most obvious choices. "Q" doesn't exist in Japanese. Maybe they just liked it because it lends itself well to interesting, stylized typography options?


Oh, and by the way, I am VERY excited to see real-world image samples. I am particularly enthusiastic about high speed sync options, especially if they use more leaf shutters in future lens releases. I could fit this camera and several lenses in the same space as a Nikon D70 body (my current high speed sync option), and obviously I need to bring at least one lens along with that body. This would save space in my regular bag, and I could bring a real camera with real controls on family trips without bringing a full size camera bag. I would happily pay $800 (to start...) for those options.


- Jon
06-26-2011, 08:36 AM   #115
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
I wonder if "bokeh control" uses composition of two shots, one with SR on, and one with a special mode where SR causes blur. That could be an interesting implementation.
06-26-2011, 11:29 AM   #116
brh
New Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: MD
Posts: 20
QuoteOriginally posted by icywindow Quote
I wonder if "bokeh control" uses composition of two shots, one with SR on, and one with a special mode where SR causes blur. That could be an interesting implementation.
I hope not, lens blur looks nothing like motion blur…

But it's similar to a thought I've had —*though there's no way this is the current implementation. But, at a time in the future when digital sensors are less dependent on light hitting them relatively straight on, couldn't shallow DOF be achieved by considerably tilting the sensor? Like using a tilt/shift lens or a body with camera movements, except that you're adjusting the sensor plane rather than the lens. This could be interesting…!

EDIT - or were you thinking it could shift the sensor forward or backward to create an OOF area? That might be possible, though I bet the sensor would need to move considerably, and lens designs would have to take that into consideration…
06-26-2011, 12:58 PM   #117
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by intjonmiller Quote
Speaking of which, has anyone heard anything about their choice of "Q" as the label for the mount? Is it supposed to stand for anything? Quick and Quality are the most obvious choices. "Q" doesn't exist in Japanese. Maybe they just liked it because it lends itself well to interesting, stylized typography options?
It stands for Queen. The K-mount of old stands for King. That being said, I think Pentax plans on having the Queen around for a long time considering they spent 5 years on development.
06-26-2011, 01:20 PM   #118
Senior Member
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 242
QuoteOriginally posted by brh Quote
EDIT - or were you thinking it could shift the sensor forward or backward to create an OOF area? That might be possible, though I bet the sensor would need to move considerably, and lens designs would have to take that into consideration…
I also wonder what's behind this.

But why not just the AF let do this work? It definitely is the part designed for de/focussing?
Focus bracket with face recognition and 3-d estimation of scene - why not?
06-26-2011, 04:28 PM   #119
brh
New Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: MD
Posts: 20
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
But why not just the AF let do this work? It definitely is the part designed for de/focussing?
Ahhh yes, I forgot about that part

Actually, while I sort of did forget about it at that moment in time, I had thought about this earlier…*When does the inevitably deep, deep, deep DOF start to intrude on your ability to have anything out of focus , period? I bet even a stack of one in-focus subject and two completely out-of-focus (one to each extreme for fg and bg) would still end up being sharper than a shot at 50/1.7 on 35mm…? There's a good chance I'm totally wrong on that, I haven't spent much time on small sensors. What time I have spent, however, has me somewhat convinced that getting the focus really, really off is tricky…
06-26-2011, 05:12 PM   #120
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
So I get superior size image quality, pay half the price and perhaps get better ergonomics, and the only "bad" thing with it is that it is slightly bigger?
If you're happy with what you can get for a smaller price, then why are you still unhappy? You should be happy. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy something you don't need.

I have all the IQ I need in my DSLR, with excellent ergonomics, and it's paid for already - but I just can't carry it with me all the time. As for the other mirrorless cameras, they're still too large to carry casually and they all provide only compromises: average IQ, average ergonomy, average controls, average size. I like the idea of the Q because at least it does not compromise in the size area.

But a more important aspect of the introduction of the Q is that the technology they've designed for it may start trickling down into other compact models. And I'm pretty sure we'll see a cheaper version of the Q in the future, just like Olympus did with the E-PL line.
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!
camera, database, digital camera, lens, pentax, pentax cameras, pentax-q, point and shoot, primes, q-mount, reviews, toy
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Come up with a mirrorless lens kit kevinschoenmakers Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 06-27-2011 03:22 PM
Pentax Japan full K-5 Specifications jogiba Pentax News and Rumors 2 09-21-2010 08:08 PM
Pentax K-5 and KR Specifications Adam Pentax News and Rumors 52 09-14-2010 04:46 PM
Suggestion How about adding Focus Throw to lens details in the Lens database? brecklundin Site Suggestions and Help 2 12-08-2009 05:49 PM
Looking for vintage Pentax lens Specifications pentaxographer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 08-26-2008 06:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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