Why I might want the Pentax Q

twitch · 06-27-2011, 04:06 PM

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.

**barondla** · 06-27-2011, 08:39 PM

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

legacyb4 · 06-27-2011, 09:20 PM

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.

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I'm far more likely to buy a Canon G12 and just live with the limitations of a built-in lens.

EricT · 06-28-2011, 01:39 AM

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.

EricT · 06-28-2011, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Clinton

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).

Unsinkable II · 06-28-2011, 10:14 PM

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.

twitch · 06-28-2011, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

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.

EricT · 06-29-2011, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

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.

Cinders · 06-29-2011, 10:08 PM

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.

**Clinton** · 06-30-2011, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by EricT

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.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-30-2011, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Cinders

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.

brh · 06-30-2011, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Cinders

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…

Unsinkable II · 07-01-2011, 09:12 AM

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"

Laurentiu Cristofor · 07-01-2011, 11:47 AM

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*.

EricT · 07-04-2011, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Clinton

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

06-27-2011, 04:06 PM	#31
twitch Veteran Member 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
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,713	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
legacyb4 Inactive Account 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. Originally posted by TaoMaas 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
EricT 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
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by Clinton 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
Unsinkable II 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
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Unsinkable II 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
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by Unsinkable II 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
Cinders 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
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910 Original Poster	Originally posted by EricT 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2011, 04:50 PM	#41
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Cinders 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	Originally posted by Cinders 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
Unsinkable II 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
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	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
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by Clinton 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