Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2011, 04:06 PM   #31
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
True, for the first 5 years owning a digital P&S I never PP'ed or even deleted any of the images. Then for a couple of years my PP was confined to cropping and I did delete the really bad pics.

I think most people in middle class living in developed nations do have PC's, but their "PP" involves nothing more than downloading the images from their P&S camera once every few months.

On the bokeh filter, I'll be open minded. I'm sceptical it will any better than a simple vingette blur, but let's see how it goes once we see some images with this effect.


Last edited by twitch; 06-27-2011 at 08:52 PM.
06-27-2011, 08:39 PM   #32
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,327
I am also heavily considering the Q. Love small cameras. Have a Minox submini film, two Pentax A110, Pana LX2, and an Olympus EPL1. The Olympus is a nice camera but not as small as hoped for. The Pana is a beautiful camera but the controls are nowhere as easy to work as an slr.

Many say they will buy the Pana, Canon, etc highend P&S instead of the Q. I much prefer the ergonomics of a dslr type camera. Real focus rings, etc. If it costs more so be it. The Q has to have as good of image quality as the Pentax A110! If its close to the Pana I will be happy. For high ISO will pick another camera. Being able to shoot raw is a plus, along with the fast flash sync speed, and of course interchangeable lenses.

A few questions about the Q.
1. Why is the mount so big? There isn't near this extra room around our aps-c or even the 4/3 cameras. Looks like Pentax could have shrunk the lenses and camera even further.

2. Why does the fisheye only cover ~160"? Most do 180. Is there the possibility of a larger sensor later?

3. Why didn't they add connections for an external EVF (like the Pen)?

4. Will the lack of a true shutter in the body hamper our adapting other lenses too the camera? The 4/3 cameras have a shutter in the body.

5. Is the sensor size the same as the new Pentax WG-1? Playing with one of those now.

Hate it when people bash cameras based on specs! The original Kodak DSLR was $30,000 and 1mp. Pros bought it. Bet the Q can take it in a contest of image quality!

thanks
barondla
06-27-2011, 09:20 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,784
Yuck; I had a G9 that got ruined by dust intrusion on the sensor that Canon wouldn't deal with even under warranty. Feature-wise, great camera but in actual real world terms, less than ideal.

QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I'm far more likely to buy a Canon G12 and just live with the limitations of a built-in lens.
06-28-2011, 01:39 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
About the bokeh filter, do a search for Sony defocus, it is a similar feature they have in some of their compacts. It is decent, but there is just no way to get that nice, 3D look with graduation from in-focus to out-of-focus areas by post processing a 2D image.

06-28-2011, 01:49 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
However the mount is much larger than the sensor, and the registration distance of the lens to the sensor is very shallow.

I'm hopeful that this combination will vastly increase my depth of field control, so that it's not f11.
How does that matter? Aperture is still aperture, you still have to apply the crop factor. Maybe what you say will allow faster lenses to be made, like f/0.95, but that would still only give you about f/5.6 in terms of depth-of-field (on full frame).
06-28-2011, 10:14 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
Why I might not want the Pentax Q (photo comparison of S95/Q/NEX5):

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg

It IS very good for 1/2.33. Credit where it's due. And the system will only get better with time, but so will the competition.
06-28-2011, 10:34 PM   #37
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
Why I might not want the Pentax Q (photo comparison of S95/Q/NEX5):

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg

It IS very good for 1/2.33. Credit where it's due. And the system will only get better with time, but so will the competition.
Yeah, it's worse even than a S95 and not even in the same ballpark as the NEX. The idea that this Q will be competing with entry level DSLRs is laughable.
06-29-2011, 01:14 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
Why I might not want the Pentax Q (photo comparison of S95/Q/NEX5):

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/97E964C949B14EF8887FB4E03F3437EC.jpg

It IS very good for 1/2.33. Credit where it's due. And the system will only get better with time, but so will the competition.
That's ISO3200 though! Not many years ago, top DSLRs only went to 1600. You just can't expect this to be a low light monster.

What I would love to see for the Q is an ultra wide angle lens. Most compacts only go to 28mm on the wide end, a few to 24. It would be nice to have a tiny camera to bring for longer hikes. UWA lenses could be made extremely small, just look at the 9-18mm for m4/3.

06-29-2011, 10:08 PM   #39
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 118
Am I the only one that prefers the Q to the S95? Sure it might be a tiny bit less sharp, but it looks quite a bit less noisy to me. I like the way the Q image looks.
06-30-2011, 06:12 AM   #40
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by EricT Quote
How does that matter? Aperture is still aperture, you still have to apply the crop factor. Maybe what you say will allow faster lenses to be made, like f/0.95, but that would still only give you about f/5.6 in terms of depth-of-field (on full frame).
I don't have to apply the crop factor to my APS-C. F1.2 is still F1.2 full frame or APS-C. I just end up with a different focal length.
06-30-2011, 04:50 PM   #41
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Cinders Quote
Am I the only one that prefers the Q to the S95? Sure it might be a tiny bit less sharp, but it looks quite a bit less noisy to me. I like the way the Q image looks.
+1. Maybe they didn't realize that the Q shot is the one in the middle, not the one to the left.

On the Muscat bottle to the right of the bottle neck, the Q looks distinctly better than the S95 which is muddy in that area. Even on the oil bottle, the writing seems to be better captured - the 250ml part for example. Given that the S95 has a larger sensor and better high ISO rating on dxomark than anything else, the Q sensor seems to be a big leap in its class.

That the NEX comes visibly better than the compacts is no surprise.
06-30-2011, 05:13 PM   #42
brh
New Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: MD
Posts: 20
QuoteOriginally posted by Cinders Quote
Am I the only one that prefers the Q to the S95? Sure it might be a tiny bit less sharp, but it looks quite a bit less noisy to me. I like the way the Q image looks.
Definitely. The NEX, of course, blows both out of the water, but here's another vote for the Q over the S95
07-01-2011, 09:12 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
Q and S95 are toe to toe. One better here, the other better there.

But the Q is supposedly to sell for MORE THAN TWICE the price of the S95. AND you'll need to buy another (slower) lens if you want to zoom (as many people are prone to do).

"aye, there's the rub"
07-01-2011, 11:47 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Price is irrelevant. It is all about perceived value, which depends on individual needs. If one person gets the same value from the S95 as from the Q, the price of the Q will seem outrageous *to that person*. If another person thinks they get more value from the Q, it's going to sound like a good deal *to that another person*.
07-04-2011, 10:19 AM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
I don't have to apply the crop factor to my APS-C. F1.2 is still F1.2 full frame or APS-C. I just end up with a different focal length.
You end up with a different angle of view, not focal length, but that's another discussion. The point is that you also end up with a different depth of field. You WILL get a DOF similar to f/11 on full frame using f/1.9 on the Q, there's just no way around it (except for the post-processing bokeh filter part).

Here's a helpful link to understand this: Equivalence - f/2 = f/2 = f/2
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!
bokeh, camera, digital camera, love, pentax, pentax cameras, point and shoot, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 PM. | 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