Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2016, 03:46 PM   #76
Veteran Member
skankin_giant's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Deepest Darkest Cornwall
Posts: 513
Well this thread has cheered me up no end! Thanks for the laughs
Been tempted in the past by both the Q and the LX100 in the end I didn't go for either...
When I was looking at a compact I checked out the Q (the MX was also tempting) and was like yea thats the camera for me but couldn't find one at a price that I was willing to pay...... Then a wild Fuji X10 appeared in a 2nd hand camera store and fell in love with it, so that was that.
2 years on the LX100 is announced and I though "Oooo that would be a nice upgrade....." tried it and didn't like it! I hate power zooms! So stuck with Fuji and bought the X30, why has no one else implement a manual zoom, it feels so much better!
I'm slowly getting to my point..... I would still buy a Q now just for the fun factor given the spare funds and it's uniqueness; I have a Pentax Auto 110 it would go nice with! Where as I wouldn't buy the LX100 because I didn't like it....
Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it......

Cheers, Steve

03-06-2016, 03:46 PM   #77
Veteran Member
skankin_giant's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Deepest Darkest Cornwall
Posts: 513
Well this thread has cheered me up no end! Thanks for the laughs
Been tempted in the past by both the Q and the LX100 in the end I didn't go for either...
When I was looking at a compact I checked out the Q (the MX was also tempting) and was like yea thats the camera for me but couldn't find one at a price that I was willing to pay...... Then a wild Fuji X10 appeared in a 2nd hand camera store and fell in love with it, so that was that.
2 years on the LX100 is announced and I though "Oooo that would be a nice upgrade....." tried it and didn't like it! I hate power zooms! So stuck with Fuji and bought the X30, why has no one else implement a manual zoom, it feels so much better!
I'm slowly getting to my point..... I would still buy a Q now just for the fun factor given the spare funds and it's uniqueness; I have a Pentax Auto 110 it would go nice with! Where as I wouldn't buy the LX100 because I didn't like it....
Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it......

Cheers, Steve
03-07-2016, 02:40 AM   #78
Veteran Member
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,223
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Two completely different cameras offering different benefits (and compromises)... much like the OP's LX100 vs Q... apples and oranges.
with apples being almost oranges and vice versa
Hey! Pentax Q is impractical!

Last edited by Tom S.; 03-07-2016 at 05:32 AM. Reason: Rude comment removed.
03-07-2016, 06:04 AM   #79
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
with apples being almost oranges and vice versa
Hey! Pentax Q is impractical!
For you, it obviously is. I've yet to find much impractical about it. I'd have to be really... stupid... to use a camera I find impractical. Thank goodness I'm not

03-07-2016, 08:38 AM   #80
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 9,758
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
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.
Wow, conceit is alive and well!
03-08-2016, 04:12 AM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,185
I believe the LX100 is a very good camera but looking at the "Let's post shots of the Q!" thread, I can't exactly say it's rubbish.
03-16-2016, 08:11 PM   #82
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57430946/976c9ff687a94aefbd30209d3e0a0a39
03-17-2016, 06:51 AM   #83
Forum Member
rbelyell's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 95
so, as i read this, Q owners are saying there is simply and absolutely no IQ difference (resolution, clarity, contrast, noise, dynamic range, high iso) between the Q and its sensor and the lx100 and its m4/3 sensor. ok, so lets say that whether this can indeed be objectively true or whether i agree or not is not relevent. however, my curiosity is indeed peaked to know whether there is any point along the sensor spectrum--apsc, FF, medium format--where Q owners can all agree that the Q's IQ as defined above does not stand up? this is interesting to me, because as a photographer for over 30 years, and having shot pretty much every camera brand in every format, i do not see much difference between m4/3 and most (not all) apsc. and though i differ, many in the photographic community whom i respect see very little difference between some apsc and FF. so, the way the conversation here is going, that means in some peoples eyes, since the Q is the equal of m4/3, m4/3 is the equal of apsc, and apsc may be the equal of FF, the Q IQ is that bloody good! so thus my question for Q elevators: is this true, and if not, at what point beyond m4/3 does it cease being true?
thanks!

03-17-2016, 06:55 AM   #84
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,924
QuoteOriginally posted by rbelyell Quote
so, as i read this, Q owners are saying there is simply and absolutely no IQ difference (resolution, clarity, contrast, noise, dynamic range, high iso) between the Q and its sensor and the lx100 and its m4/3 sensor.
I wouldn't say that at all. I *would* say that they are totally different cameras with different benefits and limitations. Whether one is better than the other depends entirely on the shooting situation and the photographer's requirements / priorities...

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-17-2016 at 07:20 AM.
03-17-2016, 07:08 AM   #85
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,133
QuoteOriginally posted by rbelyell Quote
so, as i read this, Q owners are saying there is simply and absolutely no IQ difference (resolution, clarity, contrast, noise, dynamic range, high iso) between the Q and its sensor and the lx100 and its m4/3 sensor.
I don't think anyone said that.
03-17-2016, 10:30 AM   #86
Forum Member
rbelyell's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 95
well, ive just re-read all six pages, and i respectfully disagree, a lot. that is exactly what many said, so many that it would take way too much time to physically quote them all. in fact, the OT shows just that: here was a fellow who used the Q and lx100 and had the temerity to opine that the IQ of the lx100 was superior. if you read just the first page, he was challenged factually, virtually called a troll, and generally lambasted.

i found the replies to the OP so inhospitable that i conciously chose in my post to not take issue with the Q, but to merely ask Q lovers at what point along the sensor quality curve--from tiny 1", to m4/3, to apsc, to ff to medium format--do they feel the Q IQ as i defined that term, cannot keep up. so, instead of answering that seemingly valid question, the replies choose to take issue my reading comprehension ability. i guess there is no way in six pages of back and forth to actually define what Q lovers think this camera can and cannot do vis a vis the competition. but it is clear there will be heck to pay for anyone to state their opinion that it cannot keep up with another fomat, such as the OP did when comparing it to the lx100s m4/3 sensor. ok, i understand now. much the same happens on leica forums, though in fairness, on those forums they are dealing with leica products.

Last edited by rbelyell; 03-17-2016 at 10:42 AM.
03-17-2016, 10:38 AM   #87
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,133
QuoteOriginally posted by rbelyell Quote
well, ive just re-read all six pages, and i respectfully disagree, a lot. that is exactly what many said, so many that it would take way too much time to physically quote them all. .
I respectfully disagree with you. OP said " I can guarantee you I wouldn't have been able to get a photo anywhere close to this quality with the Q" which is what the following 6 pages argued against. There are plenty of examples to show that not only can we get close, but better, than the provided image. No one argued that there was "no IQ difference (resolution, clarity, contrast, noise, dynamic range, high iso) between the Q and its sensor and the lx100 and its m4/3 sensor" as you said.
03-17-2016, 11:00 AM   #88
Forum Member
rbelyell's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 95
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
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.

http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57352751/9b34e4e9bdce4a4e845484a67d6cdd85
this is the OP. what you quoted was after the OP was already under attack, and i use that word after careful consideration.

people use a huge variety of different cameras for a huge variety of reasons. every one of them are valid. photography, like most art, is extremely subjective. having said that, there are some things that are objectively true. i have a fuji x10. it has a tiny sensor, but i love the results. i choose to use it at times over much 'better' cameras in my arsenal. but i know the cameras i'm leaving behind are indeed better, better in terms of IQ as that is commonly understood. i would have no problem if OP had substituted my loved x10 for the Q in his original post. why? because m4/3 has objectively better IQ than my 1" sensored x10. the fact that i love it, the fact that i make lovely images with it, are entirely irrelevent to that objective reality.

look, i'm new here. but i felt compelled to post because i saw OP being beaten up for stating what is as close to an objective reality as we have in a subjective art: a tiny sensor does not have the same IQ as a much bigger one. he did not deserve the lambasting he received and i personally dont enjoy seeing people bullied and ganged up on.

at the end of the day, the question i posed remains, and i'd love to understand Q lovers thoughts on when along the sensor format curve does the Q IQ falter in comparison? i, and OP, think its with m4/3. what do you think? if you are not arguing there is an IQ difference between the Q and m4/3, why not clarify at what point it cannot compete? why insist OP is wrong to say there are situations where the Q cannot keep up with an m4/3 sensor? sure seems the general statements and tone is exactly what you say it isnt.

Last edited by rbelyell; 03-17-2016 at 11:08 AM.
03-17-2016, 11:10 AM   #89
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,133
QuoteOriginally posted by rbelyell Quote
this is the OP. what you quoted was after the OP was already under attack, and i use that word after careful consideration.

people use a huge variety of different cameras for a huge variety of reasons. every one of them are valid. photography, like most art, is extremely subjective. having said that, there are some things that are objectively true. i have a fuji x10. it has a tiny sensor, but i love the results. i choose to use it at times over much 'better' cameras in my arsenal. but i know the cameras i'm leaving behind are indeed better, better in terms of IQ as that is commonly understood. i would have no problem if OP had substituted my loved x10 for the Q in his original post. why? because m4/3 has objectively better IQ than my 1" sensored x10. the fact that i love it, the fact that i make lovely images with it, are entirely irrelevent to that objective reality.

look, i'm new here. but i felt compelled to post because i saw OP being beaten up for stating what is as close to an objective reality as we have in a subjective art: a tiny sensor does not have the same IQ as a much bigger one. he did not deserve the lambasting he received.

at the end of the day, the question i posed remains, and i'd love to understand Q lovers thoughts on when along the sensor format curve does the Q IQ falter in comparison? i, and OP, think its with m4/3. what do you think?
The quote is contained in the OP that you quoted as well. He was not "under attack". It was the first post. Again, no one is arguing that the LX100 has the potential to take better images than the Q, its just that his examples doesn't show it as he stated it does and his continuous attack that the Q cannot take serious images is unfounded. That is the argument here.

Originally posted by mklives Quote
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.
03-17-2016, 11:16 AM   #90
Forum Member
rbelyell's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 95
thank you, i appreciate your replies. we must i think agree to disagree on the 'hospitability' of the thread to the idea that the tiny sensored Q (as well as my loved tiny sensored x10) simply cannot keep up with larger sensored offerings.
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!
26mm, 4k, 4k video, brilliant, camera, crop, gm1, image, lack, light, lx100, mirrorless, mm, mm lens, ordinary, panasonic, panasonic lx100, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, photo, photos, plenty, q-s1, q10, q7, quality, rofl wtf, video, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon F100 - much better than Pentax AF film cameras? Jonathan Mac Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 8 03-23-2017 04:00 PM
Is the older Pentax FA* 80-200 f2.8 that much better than... sholtzma Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 04-15-2015 02:25 PM
Panasonic LX100 announced stormtech Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 108 12-26-2014 12:20 PM
It doesn't get much better than this! Dewman General Talk 10 12-03-2014 02:58 PM
How much better is K5iiS AF than the K5? Fat Albert Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 10-31-2014 05:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 AM. | 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