[pepperberry farm]

*** TROLL *** (and into the ignore list he goes...)

bingo.... always looking for volunteers for that list....

[normhead]

With all due respect, I'm not seeing any reason why your picture couldn't have been taken with a Q, and you didn't provide a comparison picture, so, you're being a pinhead and asking me to take your word for it, rather than showing me side by side images so I can make up my own mind.

One camera is bigger than the other. 50% heavier.

RX 100
114.8 x 66.2 x 55.0 mm/(4.52 x 2.61 x 2.17 inch)
393 g with Battery and SD Memory Card (0.86 lb)

Pentax Q
3.9 x 2.3 x 1.2 in. (98 x 58 x 31 mm)
8.5 oz (241 g) includes batteries, kit lens

My Pentax W90 12.1 MP
5.7 oz (161 g) includes batteries
4.2 x 2.3 x 1.0 in.(107 x 59 x 25 mm)












I'm not sure why I'd carry either of them when I can carry my Optio W90 in a pants pocket, and it's waterproof and shock proof. What you're saying is the heaviest camera with the biggest sensor is the best one? duh....

Why else would you even take on that extra weight. As in most of these discussion, you've dismissed the factor that doesn't favour the camera you champion as unimportant. You don't get to do that. The only reason anyone ever buys this type of camera is for the weight, not the IQ. If the IQ was important they'd buy something bigger.

SO the Q weighs 50% less. Weight is the biggest reason people buy these camera, end of discussion. The Q is for people who don't want to carry that extra, 150 grams.

If you're concerned about IQ, and want a small package how about a K-S2. Neither the RX 100 nor the K-S2 fits in your pocket of so size doesn't matter. It only weighs twice as much, and you get a bigger sensor with much better IQ? We can play this game forever.

[Blue]

You can get OK photos with the Q. But you can't get spectacular photos. The files just don't stand up to any kind of heavy editing. I haven't seen a single spectacular photo taken with the Q, on this forum or anywhere. The kind of photo that makes you want print it out 1m wide and hang it on the wall. I've seen a few good moon/astro photos though.

Maybe YOU can't, but some people can get "spectacular" photos from a Q. There are more than 1 model of Q btw. Now define "spectacular." That sounds like a qualitative term rather than a quantitative one.

[normhead]

This thread should not be in the Q section, it's essentially advertising the RX 100 to Q buyers. It should be in the non-Pentax camera section.

[Biro]

Well, if the OP is comparing shots taken with the original Q with a 1/2.3" sensor to those taken with the LX100 with a cropped four-thirds sensor, then I can understand why he sees differences in the results he gets - we're talking about entirely different classes of camera.

Output from the original Q was fine in good light at low ISOs. But it did tend to struggle a bit as the light went down and you hit ISO 800 - at least if you looked closely. That was a shame, really, because otherwise the original Q was a beautiful piece of kit with its magnesium body, etc. But output even with that small sensor was somehow better than you'd find in most compact digicams with the same chip. Chalk that up to great processing and optics from Pentax.

Now, the Q7 and Q-S1 are a whole 'nother smoke. Their 1/1.7" sensors are larger than the original (even if not dramatically larger) and they both punch well above their weight in the image quality department. I had the original Q and, as I said, it was fine in good light and at low ISOs. I skipped the Q7 with its plastic body but went for the aluminum-bodied Q-S1 when it went on sale. I also have the LX100 and most of the time I can't see much if any difference in output between the two. I'm sure if I looked hard and closely enough I could find it but that's my point: I'd really have to look hard and closely. Since I don't display my photos at 100% I see no reason to obsess with 100% views on my computer. The Q7 and Q-S1 are fine up to and including ISO 1600 and I have even carefully used ISO 3200 with good results.

So I understand why the OP is so pleased with output from the LX100 compared with the original Q. But if he hasn't tried the larger-sensored Q cameras then his statement that he doesn't think Pentax will continue with the Q system isn't based on any kind of first-hand experience. But I hope he enjoys his LX100, as I will mine. I'll also enjoy my Q-S1, especially when I use it with my DA 55-300 telephoto to get a 1400mm-plus field of view.

[reh321]

I had the Pentax Q and standard prime for a few months. I loved the cuteness factor, the appearance, and the controls. But the image quality just wasn't there. Resolution, colour, detail, and low-light ability were all horrendous. In my opinion, now that some micro 4/3 cameras are around the same size as the Q and have a plethora of affordable AF lenses to choose from, the Pentax Q only has credibility as an astronomical tool with telescopes, etc.
I sold the Pentax Q and bought the Panasonic LX100. It's not much bigger than the Q, and neither are pocketable. I was able to get the following photo with the LX100. I can guarantee you I wouldn't have been able to get a photo anywhere close to this quality with the Q. I don't think Pentax will continue with the Q system.

At half-time of a game when his team was doing poorly, legendary American football coach Frank Leahy {his lifetime winning percentage of .864 was bettered only by another Notre Dame coach named Knute Rockne} stood in front of his team and said "Lads, this is a football", and left the room; in his folksy way he had said it all, "We need to get back to basics" ... so what are the basics here?

(1) Your title for this thread "Panasonic LX100 much better than Pentax Q", is written in the third-person form loved by scientists {and hated by all literary artists}, because it takes all opinion out of the equation, but the post under that title was 100% opinion; thus, in some sense, the title itself is a lie.

(2) Parsing through your various words we discover a very strong opinion that only "artistic" photography is worth doing. That may be true in Australia, but in the US we have two equally strong traditions: the landscape photographer {such as Ansel Adams} who spent most of the time in the dark-room perfecting a few pictures, and the street photographer {such as "Weegee" Fellig} who spent most of the time in the field {as exemplified by Weegee's "F/8 and be there" motto}. You are entitled to prefer the former, but I am equally entitled to prefer the latter, and there is absolutely no point in arguing opinion. {so my intent is to say nothig more after this post unless you come up with something new}

(3) you yourself have said that your images are heavily PP'd. Once you get into that territory, skill at the PP tool is at least as important as is quality of the image you started with, so example final images provide absolutely nothing in comparing the cameras, and in fact taste, which is just another word for opinion, guides both the work in PP and evaluation of the result.

(4) Once you have decided that the Ansel Adams model is the better one, why stop at MFT-sized cameras? If image quality truly is the ultimate measure, then you should compare your LX100 to a Pentax K-3ii or even a Pentax 645Z; I'm guessing your LX100 would come in third when compared to a K-3ii {yes, I said "third" to emphasize that the images wouldn't even be in the same county}. You might have the preference to keep the cost and/or price to a lower level, but ultimately this falls into the category of opinion since you have already eliminated pocket-able as a characteristic.

[Blue]

This thread should not be in the Q section, it's essentially advertising the RX 100 to Q buyers. It should be in the non-Pentax camera section.

I agree! Moved to the off-brand forum.

[enoeske]

I know this is just a troll thread, but I can't help but defend the little Q.

As for the OP, I think its pretty obvious that you are not a good photographer. Photos are only as good as the photographer, and if you couldn't do anything with the Q, then you aren't going to magically do anything with the LX100. Practice and experience will get you there, so keep at it. I'm sure the LX100 is a great camera, and I've recommended them to people, but to dismiss other cameras because you aren't talented yet is just trolling.

Anyway, here's some proof that the Q is perfectly capable, not only of great shots, but professional work.

Here's a scan of a shot I took with the Q that had a full page shot in the Baseball Hall of Fame catalog (the real image looks much nicer than the scan). The rest of the catalog was shot with a 5dMii, and they didn't question the quality of this shot. If its good enough for a picky client like BHOF...


Or you can use it for travel


Or street photography


Why not portraiture?


It actually has pretty nice bokeh


Vibrant, sharp, clean images

[drypenn]

This thread should not be in the Q section, it's essentially advertising the RX 100 to Q buyers. It should be in the non-Pentax camera section.

Norm, OP's advertising the Panny LX100, you're advertising the Sony RX100

[normhead]

:

Norm, OP's advertising the Panny LX100, you're advertising the Sony RX100

That's about how much attention I pay to these threads once i figure out it's advertising. Insert your camera, it doesn't make any difference. Could be any GD thing.

It may as well say, if you want something to eat, Wonderbread is better than a Q. Glad you care what camera he's pimping.

I don't.

The five LOLs mean I think you are funnier than you think I'm funny.


Knowing how to use copy paste means I'm really smart.


Knowing what camera he's pimping means you got sucked in, there's two ways of looking at this.


Honestly, do those LOLs add anything to the conversation?

[surfar]

OP,the dxo iQ rating of 67 betters the 66 of the Pano GM1....so watch Blunty's YouTube where he compares the GM1 and Q7...

There's not much between the 3 cameras in terms of IQ.....however the Q7 and GM1 are very close in size and weight and that's a major reason for plenty of folk owning them.

As a price and weight comparison,the NX500 produces better stills and video than the LX100.

Enjoy what yr Lx100 does,its a great cam.

[mklives]

In paper, the LX100 is suppose to trash the Q line, maybe I'm biased, but if you look around, I can see some pretty Q images here, but I have (honestly) have yet to see an LX100 image that will beat some of the best here.

Didn't you see the photo I posted?

---------- Post added 03-02-16 at 12:55 PM ----------

OP,the dxo iQ rating of 67 betters the 66 of the Pano GM1....so watch Blunty's YouTube where he compares the GM1 and Q7...

There's not much between the 3 cameras in terms of IQ.....however the Q7 and GM1 are very close in size and weight and that's a major reason for plenty of folk owning them.

As a price and weight comparison,the NX500 produces better stills and video than the LX100.
.

Nx500 can't produce 4k video at 26mm. It crops massively to achieve 4k. Also no EVF. And doesn't have the nice manual controls.

On the LX100 I can take blindingly sharp 4k video at 26mm and f1.7, then zoom to 150mm while still maintaining better than 1080p quality. Can also shoot 4k video with about 20 different digital filters applied.

[surfar]

NX500 shoots cinematic 4K video at any mm lens I put on it, and yes it does crop which extends my lenses...


crop factor in video is 2.4, so my 10mm shoots at 24mm


it also has PLENTY of manual controls and PLENTY of filters


LX100 video is"only"UHD


my zooms take me to a bit further than a mere 150mm, and once some teleconverters get onto my big primes I'm going into the 1000s of mm


AS ive stated the Pano lx500 is very good for its limited capability

---------- Post added 03-03-16 at 07:28 AM ----------

sorry, EVF?.....my eyes are good enough to compose with the screen and if the suns bad i'll use a loupe which(imo)is better than a evf

---------- Post added 03-03-16 at 07:51 AM ----------

And yes I saw the photo of yours, its fine ....but the other images posted on the thread are exceptional.

[mklives]

And yes I saw the photo of yours, its fine ....but the other images posted on the thread are exceptional.

Are you serious??? Come on now, put aside your subjectivity. My photo is brilliant. The other photos posted on this thread are fine, but ordinary.

---------- Post added 03-02-16 at 02:38 PM ----------

Are you serious??? Come on now, put aside your subjectivity. My photo is brilliant. The other photos posted on this thread are fine, but ordinary.

Just asked my colleague (doesn't know who took the photos). Saw my photo, said "wow, that's magical!". Saw the other photos on this thread, said, "..ok, got any more magical ones?"

[surfar]

Better visit the optomertrist and take your mate with you !