Could Pentax sell you on the Q if they had better lenses?

devorama · 06-23-2011, 08:41 AM

The Q could be more interesting to enthusiasts if it had some crazy fast lenses that were compact. I'm not talking for DoF control, but for keeping the ISO low and hence, lower noise. Someone pointed out that the Olympus XZ-1, which has a 1/1.7 sensor, is about 2 stops worse for noise than m4/3 cameras. But the lens is 2 stops faster than the m4/3 kit lenses. So sure the ISO performance may be worse, but you can shoot ISO 200 instead of ISO 800 on your m4/3. People say the Q should have used a 1/1.7 sensor for better noise. Well what if we had lenses that were a stop faster instead?

The Q lenses look interesting, but I'm surprised they're not even smaller or faster. I mean, the Olympus XZ-1 has a larger, 1/1.7 sensor to cover and has a 6-24mm F/1.8-2.5 lens that covers it. And the lens retracts into the body of the camera! I guess the focus motor, ND filter, and leaf shutter are what take up all the space?

I'd be much more interested in the Q if I could buy a wide F/1.0 lens for it.

joe.penn · 06-23-2011, 08:46 AM

Be better if you would move this to the main thread Adam just posted:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-compact-digital-film-cameras/14933...iscussion.html

To answer your question, I am sold from the lightness, the size, the sr, and the available fish eye for it...

Can't wait to see some images captured with it!

---

paperbag846 · 06-23-2011, 08:55 AM - **1 Like**

No. DOF control with that sensor size is abysmal, non existent. I can understand it as a digital holga-type thing, but the body price is just too much for that sort of toy.

I don't understand... same technology in a large EVIL (the size of those good old film SLRs) with a k-mount would be phenomenal...

That paired with the DA ltds would be unstoppable... the perfect compromise on low-DOF, quality, and size. WHY THIS????

normhead · 06-23-2011, 08:59 AM

No DoF control?

Quote:

Bokeh Control Filter
Enjoy effortless bokeh control with the Q’s bokeh control filter. Traditionally controlled through a DSLR lens’s aperture, bokeh is the out of focus part of the background that helps to emphasize the subject, drawing the viewer’s eyes to the most important part of the photo. The Q assists the experienced and casual photographer alike by offering a fine degree of extra control over image bokeh via an in-camera filter operation.

You didn't read the splurb. The question is, what are the results like, not if it's there.

paperbag846 · 06-23-2011, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by normhead

fine degree of extra control over image bokeh via an in-camera filter operation.

This might be good, but considering what a piss-poor job photoshop (on a powerful computer) does in this regard, I suspect that it's not going to look anything like the real deal.

The normal lens wide open is the same DOF as a 50mm lens on film at f12. Whoops.

jogiba · 06-23-2011, 09:14 AM

Pentax 1/2" C Mount 8-48mm F1.0 Manual Zoom Lens C60812 B&H

Turn that into a Q lens and it would sell like hotcakes.

Spotmatic · 06-23-2011, 09:15 AM

No EVF is a deal breaker...period.

Parallax · 06-23-2011, 09:16 AM

Not news or rumor;
moving

jogiba · 06-23-2011, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Spotmatic

No EVF is a deal breaker...period.

K-5 has no EVF so I chose the GH2.

Adam · 06-23-2011, 09:29 AM

2 more "high performance" lenses would be nice (once for each extreme)- but I doubt Pentax will be releasing more, for some reason. And yup, let's try to keep everything in as few threads as possible here, as I'm already seeing several on the same subject

macTak · 06-23-2011, 09:39 AM

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if we see (probably third party) mount adaptors. That would open things up a lot more. A C-mount to Q-mount adaptor would make a lot of sense. The only question is functionality.

Blue · 06-23-2011, 12:40 PM

How about a bigger sensor?

hcarvalhoalves · 06-23-2011, 04:44 PM

The lenses on the roadmap look all fine for the proposal. The main gripes about the Q are:

1. The sensor sucks
Why do you even have Av mode on the dial with a sensor that size? Forget about DoF. While you are at it, forget about IQ too, and get used to strong NR starting at ISO 800.

2. The price is insane
$ 800 for a body with a P&S sensor is too much even on a parallel universe where Pentax is Leica.

3. The lens prices are insane
$ 300 for a zoom to put in front of that sensor must be a bad joke.

Everything else about the Q (it's size, design, construction, ergonomics, shooting modes, concept) look amazing. But they skipped the beat with the sensor choice and price.

jct us101 · 06-23-2011, 05:31 PM

They could sell it to me if they sold it for about $400 less.

magkelly · 06-23-2011, 06:17 PM

Nope. It's cute for what it is, and I am sure it will have it's admirers and justly so, but it's too small for my taste and the sensor, lenses are way too limited for me to go and spend $800 for one. If I was going to use a camera that small I'd just get a Pentax Optio and leave it at that.

06-23-2011, 08:41 AM	#1
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	Could Pentax sell you on the Q if they had better lenses? The Q could be more interesting to enthusiasts if it had some crazy fast lenses that were compact. I'm not talking for DoF control, but for keeping the ISO low and hence, lower noise. Someone pointed out that the Olympus XZ-1, which has a 1/1.7 sensor, is about 2 stops worse for noise than m4/3 cameras. But the lens is 2 stops faster than the m4/3 kit lenses. So sure the ISO performance may be worse, but you can shoot ISO 200 instead of ISO 800 on your m4/3. People say the Q should have used a 1/1.7 sensor for better noise. Well what if we had lenses that were a stop faster instead? The Q lenses look interesting, but I'm surprised they're not even smaller or faster. I mean, the Olympus XZ-1 has a larger, 1/1.7 sensor to cover and has a 6-24mm F/1.8-2.5 lens that covers it. And the lens retracts into the body of the camera! I guess the focus motor, ND filter, and leaf shutter are what take up all the space? I'd be much more interested in the Q if I could buy a wide F/1.0 lens for it.

06-23-2011, 09:14 AM	#6
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Pentax 1/2" C Mount 8-48mm F1.0 Manual Zoom Lens Pentax 1/2" C Mount 8-48mm F1.0 Manual Zoom Lens C60812 B&H Turn that into a Q lens and it would sell like hotcakes.

06-23-2011, 09:29 AM	#10
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	2 more "high performance" lenses would be nice (once for each extreme)- but I doubt Pentax will be releasing more, for some reason. And yup, let's try to keep everything in as few threads as possible here, as I'm already seeing several on the same subject Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-23-2011, 04:44 PM	#13
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	The lenses on the roadmap look all fine for the proposal. The main gripes about the Q are: 1. The sensor sucks Why do you even have Av mode on the dial with a sensor that size? Forget about DoF. While you are at it, forget about IQ too, and get used to strong NR starting at ISO 800. 2. The price is insane $ 800 for a body with a P&S sensor is too much even on a parallel universe where Pentax is Leica. 3. The lens prices are insane $ 300 for a zoom to put in front of that sensor must be a bad joke. Everything else about the Q (it's size, design, construction, ergonomics, shooting modes, concept) look amazing. But they skipped the beat with the sensor choice and price. Last edited by hcarvalhoalves; 06-23-2011 at 04:55 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best way to sell some SLR cameras and lenses	Colbyt	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	04-11-2011 07:58 AM
Should I sell these lenses to fund a DA70mm?	Chillibones	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	10-03-2010 09:22 AM
For Sale - Sold: Three Pentax 645 lenses - priced to sell	stp	Sold Items	6	07-10-2010 02:21 PM

06-23-2011, 08:46 AM	#2
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Be better if you would move this to the main thread Adam just posted: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-compact-digital-film-cameras/14933...iscussion.html To answer your question, I am sold from the lightness, the size, the sr, and the available fish eye for it... Can't wait to see some images captured with it! ---

06-23-2011, 08:55 AM - 1 Like	#3
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	No. DOF control with that sensor size is abysmal, non existent. I can understand it as a digital holga-type thing, but the body price is just too much for that sort of toy. I don't understand... same technology in a large EVIL (the size of those good old film SLRs) with a k-mount would be phenomenal... That paired with the DA ltds would be unstoppable... the perfect compromise on low-DOF, quality, and size. WHY THIS????

06-23-2011, 08:59 AM	#4
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	No DoF control? Quote: Bokeh Control Filter Enjoy effortless bokeh control with the Q’s bokeh control filter. Traditionally controlled through a DSLR lens’s aperture, bokeh is the out of focus part of the background that helps to emphasize the subject, drawing the viewer’s eyes to the most important part of the photo. The Q assists the experienced and casual photographer alike by offering a fine degree of extra control over image bokeh via an in-camera filter operation. You didn't read the splurb. The question is, what are the results like, not if it's there.

06-23-2011, 09:01 AM	#5
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by normhead fine degree of extra control over image bokeh via an in-camera filter operation. This might be good, but considering what a piss-poor job photoshop (on a powerful computer) does in this regard, I suspect that it's not going to look anything like the real deal. The normal lens wide open is the same DOF as a 50mm lens on film at f12. Whoops.

06-23-2011, 09:15 AM	#7
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	No EVF is a deal breaker...period.

06-23-2011, 09:16 AM	#8
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Not news or rumor;

06-23-2011, 09:26 AM	#9
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Spotmatic No EVF is a deal breaker...period. K-5 has no EVF so I chose the GH2.

06-23-2011, 09:39 AM	#11
macTak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 759	Well, it wouldn't surprise me if we see (probably third party) mount adaptors. That would open things up a lot more. A C-mount to Q-mount adaptor would make a lot of sense. The only question is functionality.

06-23-2011, 12:40 PM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	How about a bigger sensor?

06-23-2011, 05:31 PM	#14
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	They could sell it to me if they sold it for about $400 less.

06-23-2011, 06:17 PM	#15
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Nope. It's cute for what it is, and I am sure it will have it's admirers and justly so, but it's too small for my taste and the sensor, lenses are way too limited for me to go and spend $800 for one. If I was going to use a camera that small I'd just get a Pentax Optio and leave it at that.