[Clinton]

Remember that due to the crop factor, the 8.5mm f/1.9 behaves roughly like 50mm f/11 on full frame in terms of DOF. Therefore, you will struggle to get nice bokeh with this camera.

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.

---

Last edited by Clinton; 06-26-2011 at 08:18 AM.

[WJW]

You sound like me. I carry my K10D with me to work everyday and I really dislike how conspicuous it is. I'd love to have something small and pocketable, but with good image quality. The Q would work for me, but not at this price. I'm far more likely to buy a Canon G12 and just live with the limitations of a built-in lens.

Exactly why I bought an Oly E-PL2. With the 17mm (35mm equiv.) mounted it will fit in a pocket, although I tend to carry my full kit in a Lowepro S&F Utility bag tucked in my messenger bag. I also picked up a Lowepro ILC 50 that holds the 17mm in the bottom and the camera with 14-42mm mounted and is light enough I forget it's there.

Personally, the Oly is as small a camera I would want to go with just because of the size of the cameras and controls. The Q could have better image quality than the K-5 and I wouldn't buy it just be cause of the size. For those with smaller hands and less stiffness, this would make a great choice for a really compact, always there system.

[turbosaturn]

If this Pentax Q shows up with this technology A camera that couldn't care less about focus: Introducing Lytro - USATODAY.com then it would be on the top of my list of cameras to buy.

[eurostar]

I would like it for digiscoping, but I would prefer its Kenko sister much more (if it's not vaporware).

[Aristophanes]

Remember that due to the crop factor, the 8.5mm f/1.9 behaves roughly like 50mm f/11 on full frame in terms of DOF. Therefore, you will struggle to get nice bokeh with this camera.

Apparently there's an in-camera app for nice bokeh.

[twitch]

I'm very doubtful the bokeh filter will be much good. If you've ever tried to add additional blur by hand to a photo you know how difficult it is to make it look like it was captured that way, and that's even with the benefit of a human being able to tell what/who the subject of the photo was, something a camera can't do.

[eurostar]

I'm very doubtful the bokeh filter will be much good. If you've ever tried to add additional blur by hand to a photo you know how difficult it is to make it look like it was captured that way, and that's even with the benefit of a human being able to tell what/who the subject of the photo was, something a camera can't do.

That's true, but remain to see if to post pics on facebook it will not suffice.

[Brangdon]

I'm very doubtful the bokeh filter will be much good. If you've ever tried to add additional blur by hand to a photo you know how difficult it is to make it look like it was captured that way, and that's even with the benefit of a human being able to tell what/who the subject of the photo was, something a camera can't do.

The Pentax site says:

With this function, the camera will automatically judge the focused subject as well as relative distance of each object from the camera in the field of view to apply optimal defocus effect to each object to stand out the main subject(s).

To me that sounds like it captures extra distance information when the image is taken, so it can potentially get better results than you could in post-processing when all you have are pixels.

Of course it may not work well, but it seems to me as though we are talking about something new here. I don't want to dismiss it until we have samples, any more than I'd dismiss image quality.

[eddie1960]

The Pentax site says:

With this function, the camera will automatically judge the focused subject as well as relative distance of each object from the camera in the field of view to apply optimal defocus effect to each object to stand out the main subject(s).

To me that sounds like it captures extra distance information when the image is taken, so it can potentially get better results than you could in post-processing when all you have are pixels.

Of course it may not work well, but it seems to me as though we are talking about something new here. I don't want to dismiss it until we have samples, any more than I'd dismiss image quality.

Well Put

there has been quite a lot of slagging of (potential) Image quality of a camera we've yet to see an image from (other than briefly seeing half size images from a prototype that focused primarily on iso performance - which was better than i expected BTW
It's obvious this camera is not aimed at an enthusiast market for the most part so I fial to see the need to slag the camera so badly just because it isn't a camera targeted at you. and the FF hijacking of course which has to come up in any thread about any camera release

[hawk1500]

I would get a XZ-1 or a S95 before I get the Q. It's not like the lenses for the Q are super awesome or anything. But I am still hoping the Pen Mini will be affordable (probably cheaper than the Q).

[Aristophanes]

Well Put

there has been quite a lot of slagging of (potential) Image quality of a camera we've yet to see an image from (other than briefly seeing half size images from a prototype that focused primarily on iso performance - which was better than i expected BTW
It's obvious this camera is not aimed at an enthusiast market for the most part so I fial to see the need to slag the camera so badly just because it isn't a camera targeted at you. and the FF hijacking of course which has to come up in any thread about any camera release

Everyone does realize that the majority of the world's camera buyers--even of DSLR's--do NOT own a PC for PP. I am speaking of large part of the developing world and even Japan and Europe.

PP is a limited sub-specialty of the DSLR world. that is why most cameras have considerable functions now in software in the system. Those who do PP are in a very small minority.

[eddie1960]

Everyone does realize that the majority of the world's camera buyers--even of DSLR's--do NOT own a PC for PP. I am speaking of large part of the developing world and even Japan and Europe.

PP is a limited sub-specialty of the DSLR world. that is why most cameras have considerable functions now in software in the system. Those who do PP are in a very small minority.

not sure everyone does realise this sir
i agree though
for any mass market camera the KISS principle needs o apply (hence all the picture modes on entry level cameras that disappear on enthusiast and up models)

[devorama]

Everyone does realize that the majority of the world's camera buyers--even of DSLR's--do NOT own a PC for PP. I am speaking of large part of the developing world and even Japan and Europe.

PP is a limited sub-specialty of the DSLR world. that is why most cameras have considerable functions now in software in the system. Those who do PP are in a very small minority.

This surprises me. I assume that those that PP are in a minority. But if you don't even *own* a PC, what are you doing with all these digital images? Printing them all? How would you store your images? I can't begin to imagine digital photography without PP. Back in my film days, I had more fun in the darkroom than while shooting.

[Northern Soul]

This surprises me. I assume that those that PP are in a minority. But if you don't even *own* a PC, what are you doing with all these digital images? Printing them all? How would you store your images? I can't begin to imagine digital photography without PP. Back in my film days, I had more fun in the darkroom than while shooting.

I know many people who only view their pictures on their camera, or phone. Occasionally they will print some off at one of those booths using the card from the camera.

[eddie1960]

Now that memory cards are cheap i know people who just buy another card
Even the ones with computers largely never pp ( just look at the mass facebook posts with no editing whatsover really its the norm i think)