[rparmar]

Christine... good info there.

But you do know the Pentax Q sensor is absolutely tiny? It will be no match in any way for MFT. A crashing disappointment.

[rustynail925]

rparmar- Where you able to download the firmware for EP1 faster focusing? If so how does it compare to the K20D? Thanks in advance

[Christine Tham]

Christine... good info there.

But you do know the Pentax Q sensor is absolutely tiny? It will be no match in any way for MFT. A crashing disappointment.

I not fussed about sensor size, or ultimate image quality. Personally I think there's too much angst over the sensor size, which I see as irrelevant (except in terms of enabling the lens focal length to be reduced). Pentax have said they chose the sensor specifically because of it's excellent performance. I trust they made the right choice.

I'm not expecting K-5 performance, I'm hoping for image quality similar to K10D (with better high ISO).

So far, the sample images I saw (before they were removed) and the image quality comparison on the Japanese site give me a lot of hope that the image quality will satisfy my needs.

I guess at this point I'm swaying towards the Q. For around $1000 I'm hoping to get a very compact camera and 4 lenses (standard prime, plus 2 toy lenses and fish eye) assuming I get a discount from RRP.

The equivalent from Panasonic (GF3, 14mm, 25mm, maybe 45mm) is just way too expensive for a second system - I'm better off buying a new K mount lens for the primary system.

Having said that though, I haven't ruled out either the GF3 or the new Olympus E-PL3 or E-PM1.

It's certainly a very interesting time to invest in a micro system.

[rparmar]

I not fussed about sensor size, or ultimate image quality. Personally I think there's too much angst over the sensor size, which I see as irrelevant (except in terms of enabling the lens focal length to be reduced). Pentax have said they chose the sensor specifically because of it's excellent performance. I trust they made the right choice.

I trust the laws of physics a lot more than Pentax marketing! This is not a matter of angst but basic optics. If all you want is web images then a point and shoot sized sensor will be fine. If you ever print larger than standard 4x6 photos then you will notice the difference. Also, the small sensors do not have the same leeway for cropping or extensive PP.

I'm not expecting K-5 performance, I'm hoping for image quality similar to K10D (with better high ISO).

The Q will not have anything like the performance from the K10D.

The lenses are diffraction-limited at all apertures. This means that they are soft and there is nothing you can do about it. The K10D would suffer only when stopped down past f/5 or so. I have an article on this that explains.

The 8.5/1.9 prime is FOV/DOF equivalent to a 47/10.5. This means that you will have no depth of field control at all, so the subject-isolation techniques possible with an MFT or APS-C system are impossible. Likewise the only way to get a wide shot is with a toy lens.

The light-gathering properties are also physically limited by the sensor size, so no low-light shots worth mentioning.

None of these are opinions but facts. If you are satisfied with these limitations and rather rich, the Q looks to be a well-specified camera. It is, however, a toy, designed by a marketing department rather than engineers and photographers. The shots will be similar to those from a $200 point'n'shoot.

Read my full article for reference.

[Christine Tham]

The Q will not have anything like the performance from the K10D.

The sample images looked pretty good to me. That's on beta firmware. If the production version is at least as good, I will be pretty happy with it.

My main concern at this point is usability/ergonomics, since I didn't get a chance to play with it and take some shots.

No point arguing physics (by the way, I have a minor in physics and received High Distinction at the honours level) - at the end of the day, it's the results that count, not someone's interpretation of the laws of physics.

[rparmar]

No point arguing physics (by the way, I have a minor in physics and received High Distinction at the honours level) - at the end of the day, it's the results that count, not someone's interpretation of the laws of physics.

I can't believe you just wrote "High Distinction at the honours level" and "interpretation of the laws of physics" in the same sentence. One doesn't interpret physical laws like some sort of poetry; one simply applies them. No subjectivity is involved. The Theory of Flight applies to everyone equally. That's the whole point.

Until, that is, a new theory comes along that fits the facts better. If you have a better theory of light, including diffraction effects, etc. I am sure there are journals who would love to hear from you. Until your work is peer reviewed however, I'll stick with the current consensus.

But it seems you "want to believe", in the X-Files sense. So have fun with the Q! Really!

[juu]

I guess at this point I'm swaying towards the Q. For around $1000 I'm hoping to get a very compact camera and 4 lenses (standard prime, plus 2 toy lenses and fish eye) assuming I get a discount from RRP.

The equivalent from Panasonic (GF3, 14mm, 25mm, maybe 45mm) is just way too expensive for a second system - I'm better off buying a new K mount lens for the primary system.

Then again you could get a EPL-1 with 14-42mm kit lens for $400 or a NEX-3 with the 16mm prime and invest the remaining $600 into a boatload of high quality used legacy lenses and adapters. They would be manual focus, but the Q toy lenses are all manual focus AND fixed aperture AND (I think) have plastic lens elements.

I'm just thinking that comparing a set of high quality most expensive m43 primes in price to a set of toy lenses covering a 1/2.3'' sensor is an unequal comparison.

[Christine Tham]

I can't believe you just wrote "High Distinction at the honours level" and "interpretation of the laws of physics" in the same sentence. One doesn't interpret physical laws like some sort of poetry; one simply applies them. No subjectivity is involved. The Theory of Flight applies to everyone equally. That's the whole point.

Until, that is, a new theory comes along that fits the facts better. If you have a better theory of light, including diffraction effects, etc. I am sure there are journals who would love to hear from you. Until your work is peer reviewed however, I'll stick with the current consensus.

But it seems you "want to believe", in the X-Files sense. So have fun with the Q! Really!

Robin, I don't think I was ever suggesting that the laws (actually, theories) themselves were open to interpretation, I was commenting more on the way you are applying them, to a camera not yet released for which (presumably) you do not have access to the design parameters.

As an example, we both know (or should know) DOF is not directly dependent on sensor size - it's actually dependent on focal length, subject distance, aperture and circle of confusion. Circle of confusion itself is dependent on many things, not necessarily sensor size.

And the typical DOF formulae quoted on the Internet are based on assumptions on lens design, specifically lens symmetry which may not be true for the Q lenses.

In other words, you were dressing up conjectures based on unverified assumptions as "facts", which is why I prefer not to debate them but to rely on comparison of actual images from a production camera as my yardstick.

And can I suggest, given that you took exception to John's comment earlier in this thread "Congratulations! You feel superior to a stranger on the Internet!" ... You may want to review the tone and attitude in your reply - after all you would not want to be guilty of resembling that remark.

[Christine Tham]

I'm just thinking that comparing a set of high quality most expensive m43 primes in price to a set of toy lenses covering a 1/2.3'' sensor is an unequal comparison.

Life's unfair, there is no such thing as an equal comparison, it depends on the comparison criteria.

My specific requirement is: the smallest possible camera with a "standard" prime lens. The Q comes with that as a standard kit, the others don't - advantage Pentax. The other lenses are all optional, but I like the idea of a relatively inexpensive set of toy lenses to complement the standard prime.

The closest alternative would be Panasonic GF3 or the new Olympus E-PM1 together with the Leica 25mm. Which is close to double the Q kit price.

If there was a cheaper 25mm lens option I am happy to buy that, but my understanding is that if I want a "standard" focal length, that is my only option. I could consider the 20mm, but it's not that much cheaper.

[juu]

GF1 + 20mm kits used to be widely available. I don't remember for how much exactly, perhaps $700? I think one of the next Panasonics may come with the 25mm as a kit lens, but that will probably be towards August if not later.

[Christine Tham]

GF1 + 20mm kits used to be widely available. I don't remember for how much exactly, perhaps $700? I think one of the next Panasonics may come with the 25mm as a kit lens, but that will probably be towards August if not later.

GF1 - way too large and obsolete. And $700 doesn't sound like good value compared to the Q.

I don't think the GF3 will come with the 25mm as kit, more likely G3.

Problem is, the 25mm is quite large, so the Q wins on overall size.

I've been watching the u4/3 market with interest for some time now, but I have been very disappointed that no one has addressed my specific need (standard prime as a kit). The X100 was a huge disappointment - I would have considered buying it if the built in lens was the equivalent of a standard prime.

[juu]

$700 was back when GF1 was fresh out; now I think it is only available used.

I meant the next Panasonic models (GH3 and whatever the real GF1 replacement is). I think G3 and GF3 may only have 25mm f/1.4 bundled "unofficially" (by resellers).

[rparmar]

And can I suggest, given that you took exception to John's comment earlier in this thread "Congratulations! You feel superior to a stranger on the Internet!" ... You may want to review the tone and attitude in your reply - after all you would not want to be guilty of resembling that remark.

Please look in the mirror. You are the one who pulled rank with your physics degree -- not me. And now you recycle an old insult delivered to me for your own benefit. Which is just as pathetic now as it was then.

That is sad. I will not correspond with you further.

P.S. You need to do some serious reading about sensors. This is not me feeling superior. This is me making a simple observation based on the mistakes and errors you keep making.

[johnmflores]

If the Pentax Q can outperform my long lost Ricoh GX100 then I may be interested as well...







I'm currently traveling with the GH1/GH2 with 14-140, 100-300, 20 1.7 and a netbook slung across my back all day. (GH1&2 hit the road - Micro Four Thirds User Forum). The kit is smaller than an equivalent APS-C setup, but I do wish it were smaller still. A pair of G3s may help, but the lenses are still the same size. I often hang the camera off the bike for action shots. In these settings, every ounce counts.

[Christine Tham]

john - some great shots there, thanks!

I think you and I are similar in what we want to use the camera for.

I want a camera that is light enough for me to take cycling. I currently mount the Sony Bloggie on the handlebar, but the quality of the pictures is not good enough for me.

I want to take pictures of the mist curling up the river at 6.30am on Bobbin Head, dawn over West Head and the yachts at Akuna Bay in the fog.

Size and weight is extremely important, every g counts. Picture quality I can sacrifice to an extent. Camera control is important.

The Q seems to be better at meeting my needs, based on specs. I reserve judgement on quality and ergonomics until I get an opportunity to test a production camera.

If the Q is not good enough, I will go GF3 or E-PM1 or E-PL3. I like the articulating screen on the E-PL3 - that alone may be enough to convince me to accept the bigger size and weight of u4/3.

The great thing about choosing a secondary system is that I am not wedded to brand loyalty. The first manufacturer that meets my needs will get the sale.