Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-17-2016, 11:29 AM - 1 Like   #91
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,108
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
I had the Pentax Q ...But the image quality just wasn't there. Resolution, colour, detail, and low-light ability were all horrendous. ...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
We did. And subjectively surpassed it in many cases.

QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
...photos taken with the Q are a complete joke...
factually wrong

QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
...1/2.33" sensors seem to fill a lot of the image up with junk (due to the lack of light and small opening in the lens), which results in a degraded image.
??? Small opening in the lens? This statement makes no sense.

QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
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. ...
Factually wrong.

QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
Did you see the photo I posted?
We did. We weren't impressed. The LX100 is certainly capable of better images than this. Nothing about it shows any advantage over the Q.

QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
...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?"
Brilliant? Subjective. Ordinary? Subjective.

QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
...The photo has blown away everyone I've showed it to (except people on this thread).
Again, not stating anything about the superiority of the LX100, just that his photo is better than what the Q can do.

QuoteOriginally posted by rbelyell Quote
...here was a fellow who used the Q and lx100 and had the temerity to opine that the IQ of the lx100 was superior. ...
He never once stated that the image quality of the LX100 was superior, only that his image with it was superior to what the Q was capable of. I know you want to turn this into a "the larger the format, the better the image quality" argument, but thats not what this is.

03-17-2016, 12:40 PM   #92
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,289
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. 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!
Any photo downsized to fit on this forum has no measurable advantage over photos captured with the Q. If all you intend to do is sling images around the net then anything over a Q is arguably a waste of time. The Q provides all the resolution, clarity and contrast you will need.

Dynamic range and iso is certainly where things begin to get a little muddy. With my original Q, ISO 200 is probably the best it will ever be and if I really want the level of dynamic range possible through M43 then I will have to go with HDR. In my opinion, this is where things begin to come apart with the Q in comparison to other formats.

Now, if your intent is to actually print...then I think we can all agree that is a whole different ball of wax.

Of course, even in print, there is certainly undeniable advantages to a camera like the Q that combines the easy adaptation of telephoto lenses with a small sensor. But that of course brings us to horses for courses, which I don't believe was the intent of your question.
03-17-2016, 03:39 PM - 1 Like   #93
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,295
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. 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!
I have a Q7 and a Panasonic GM1, which has a sensor similar if not identical to the LX100. I've also traveled with a friend (a professional photog) who shot with an LX100 while I shot with the Q7 and K-3 on a motorcycle trip and I've pixel peeped his shots.

Regarding the Q7 and GM1 - in good light there is practically no difference. The GM1 has 16MP vs 12MP for the Q7, but clarity, contrast, noise, and dynamic range in good light at low/base ISO will be virtually identical. It's only when the ISO starts to rise does the GM1 begin to separate itself from the Q7. And even there, the SR of the Q7 will permit it to hold the ISO down longer than the GM1.

DxO Mark scores (the individual scores for color and dynamic range, not the composite score) support my assertion. Yes, there's a difference in color and dynamic range between the Q7 and GM1, but it's much smaller than you might expect considering the difference in sensor size.

That said, I'm not a super mega ultra pixel peeper. I get the photos ready for my publisher and send them in. My stories typically have photos from 2-3 different cameras, and there's not much in it.
03-17-2016, 03:41 PM - 1 Like   #94
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
How about my latest photos? A lot of noise in the sky due to the bizarre processing, but I quite like the final result (when not pixel-peeped).

http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57430946/976c9ff687a94aefbd30209d3e0a0a39

03-17-2016, 04:22 PM   #95
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,289
The photo is quite nice. Thanks for sharing.
03-18-2016, 06:07 AM - 1 Like   #96
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,223
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
How about my latest photos? A lot of noise in the sky due to the bizarre processing, but I quite like the final result (when not pixel-peeped).
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/57430946/976c9ff687a94aefbd30209d3e0a0a39
You started this thread with some stark non-negotiable statements - you lost me there with statements such as "neither are pocketable". In fact, my Q7+01 regularly sits in my pocket, so I immediately discounted everything else you had to say since one untrue statement makes all others questionable {maybe you just need larger pockets?}

The bottom line is very simple: you enjoy doing lots of processing. That is great! Enjoy it! But that is a measure of the time and talent you're willing to put into PP, and totally irrelevant to your original claims. I know from my own experiences that I can "fix" an image one pixel at a time; my goal is a pocket-able camera that delivers a good {in my eyes} image when I transfer it from my camera to my computer, and my Q-7 regularly does that. Apparently your LX-100 doesn't. You have my sympathy.

Last edited by reh321; 03-18-2016 at 06:26 AM.
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 08:28 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