Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-01-2016, 10:48 PM - 2 Likes   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mike.hiran's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: portland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,491
What kind of person goes to the trouble of going to a website focused on a brand and tells everyone that their stuff is crap? You must be great at parties...

03-01-2016, 10:55 PM   #17
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Thanks. Care to send the RAW file to dropbox or somewhere so we can take a closer look?
Ok, but I opened it in Raw Therapee to avoid the automatic lens distortion correction, so unless you do the same, you'll get a slightly different image. The image is heavily processed by the way (using snapseed).
03-01-2016, 11:12 PM - 1 Like   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 963
The LX100 with its m43 sensor, right? I'm sure it must be better vs the Q's puny and archaic sensor.

I don't have an LX100, but I'm pretty sure that my K3 will beat the living daylight out of that Panasonic, even literally. Heck, even my M9 will totally annihilate that LX100!
03-01-2016, 11:19 PM - 3 Likes   #19
Veteran Member
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,361
I've had photos published using cameras with the following sensor sizes:

1/2.3
1/1.7
1"
Micro 4/3
APS-C

My last story had 8 photos, 3 taken with my K-3, 3 taken with my friend's LX100, and 3 taken with my Q7, including 1 full page photo. I actually had to go back and look at the EXIF because I could not identify the camera from the shot.

Not once has my publisher asked what sensor size I was using.


Last edited by johnmflores; 03-02-2016 at 05:56 AM.
03-01-2016, 11:34 PM   #20
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,122
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.
You are entitled to your opinion, but "horrendous" and "joke" are loaded words which you have never gotten around to justifying, despite several questions to be more specific, to provide evidence showing the camera to have been badly over-matched. When my Canon Rebel unexpectedly died, I used my Q7 as my only camera {including at the ceremony where my youngest daughter received her Masters Degree} until I got around to buying my K-30. In the days of film, I always used my previous camera as my backup, but after having two Rebels die before I bought a replacement, for the past eight years the only backup to my digital camera had been a film camera. Your Q may have been rejected by you {I hope it found a better home, BTW}, but my Q7 has earned a place as my secondary camera / backup.

Incidentally, I have told this story before, but I don't think you were around for it: this past December I took my Q7 when my wife and I went to a local Madrigal Dinner. Unfortunately, this year we had second-row seats, but I was able to get some nice pictures anyway. On the way out, I encountered the woman who had been sitting almost directly in front of us {so I was taking pictures around her most of the evening}, and I asked her why she used so much flash, pointing out that the flash washed out the candle-light ambiance which the designers had worked so hard to establish. After she showed me the noisy images her five-year-old Nikon had provided using natural light, I showed her one of the natural light images my Q7 provided; she got very excited and asked me to email images to her - it turned out that the one I had chosen to show her was of her daughter's solo, and it was much better than anything she had been able to achieve. Please note, I am not claiming parity with anyone's current DSLR, but this is just one example of a time when my Q7 clearly proved itself.
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
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.
You need to get larger pockets. I carry my Q7+01 around in my pocket on a regular basis

Last edited by reh321; 03-01-2016 at 11:47 PM.
03-02-2016, 12:26 AM   #21
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
You are entitled to your opinion, but "horrendous" and "joke" are loaded words which you have never gotten around to justifying, despite several questions to be more specific, to provide evidence showing the camera to have been badly over-matched. When my Canon Rebel unexpectedly died, I used my Q7 as my only camera {including at the ceremony where my youngest daughter received her Masters Degree} until I got around to buying my K-30. In the days of film, I always used my previous camera as my backup, but after having two Rebels die before I bought a replacement, for the past eight years the only backup to my digital camera had been a film camera. Your Q may have been rejected by you {I hope it found a better home, BTW}, but my Q7 has earned a place as my secondary camera / backup.

Incidentally, I have told this story before, but I don't think you were around for it: this past December I took my Q7 when my wife and I went to a local Madrigal Dinner. Unfortunately, this year we had second-row seats, but I was able to get some nice pictures anyway. On the way out, I encountered the woman who had been sitting almost directly in front of us {so I was taking pictures around her most of the evening}, and I asked her why she used so much flash, pointing out that the flash washed out the candle-light ambiance which the designers had worked so hard to establish. After she showed me the noisy images her five-year-old Nikon had provided using natural light, I showed her one of the natural light images my Q7 provided; she got very excited and asked me to email images to her - it turned out that the one I had chosen to show her was of her daughter's solo, and it was much better than anything she had been able to achieve. Please note, I am not claiming parity with anyone's current DSLR, but this is just one example of a time when my Q7 clearly proved itself.
You need to get larger pockets. I carry my Q7+01 around in my pocket on a regular basis
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.
03-02-2016, 01:13 AM - 1 Like   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 963
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. 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.
I'm under the impression that if you have to do a lot of "heavy editing" on a photograph, then that means you've messed up the fundamentals i.e., composition, exposure, etc. If such is the case I don't think that it's the camera's/lens' fault.

However, please forgive me if I borrow your words shamelessly. "I have yet to see a single spectacular photo taken with the LX100, on this forum or anywhere. The kind of photo that makes you want print it out 1m wide and hang it on the wall."

But seriously, I like how it looks though, a lot better than the GR, and typical to Panasonic, built impeccably. But as to ergonomics, and IQ, the GR will easily beat it hands-down, blindfolded, and all.

03-02-2016, 01:54 AM   #23
Forum Member
sfkazimierczak's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 56
Ohh c'mon people!
Guy just likes his LX100 more than Q. In my opinion that sample photo he uploaded is so damn highly edited that it can't be considered as a true example of sensor capabilities.
Everyone has its own taste, and I just don't like highly edited photos. So on that basis I wont say LX100 is better than Q.

But on logic basis I will say that LX100 is better than Q, because of a bigger sensor. m4/3 do better at 800 iso than Q. As APS-C do better at 800 iso than m4/3. Simple is that.

Still, nowhere near to say Q is useless, stupid, joke or anything like that. Super little camera!
03-02-2016, 02:43 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,129
Lx100, a point and shoot with m43 sensor....very capable camera for what it is...dxo rating 67 on IQ
03-02-2016, 04:17 AM   #25
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by drypenn Quote
I'm under the impression that if you have to do a lot of "heavy editing" on a photograph, then that means you've messed up the fundamentals i.e., composition, exposure, etc. If such is the case I don't think that it's the camera's/lens' fault.

However, please forgive me if I borrow your words shamelessly. "I have yet to see a single spectacular photo taken with the LX100, on this forum or anywhere. The kind of photo that makes you want print it out 1m wide and hang it on the wall." .
Did you see the photo I posted?

---------- Post added 03-02-16 at 04:20 AM ----------

If you don't like editing, this means you don't see photography as an artform. You just see it as a documentary tool, and you just trust the camera's JPEG engine to edit the photo for you.
03-02-2016, 04:39 AM - 2 Likes   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
So now, in addition to insulting the camera, he's turned to insulting the commenters whose Forum he's joined.

Drive by shooter. He won't be around long.
03-02-2016, 05:03 AM - 3 Likes   #27
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
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
With all due respect, you're not going to get very far on a Pentax forum by bashing the Q, particularly when the issues you've mentioned - horrendous resolution, colour, detail and low-light ability - don't tally with the results so many forum members here (me included) are getting. Maybe there was a problem with your Q or the 01 lens - but, more likely, you haven't been using it effectively. It's not a point-and-shoot camera - it requires technique to get great results from it. Have a look at the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q.html thread for plenty of examples of what the Q, Q7, Q10 and Q-S1 can do.

I'm glad you're happy with your new LX100 - it's a fine camera, and it obviously suits you better than the Q.


Scratch all that.

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

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-02-2016 at 05:10 AM.
03-02-2016, 05:05 AM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,182
I thought about getting an LX100 as a walk-around camera, but it's an expensive proposition just for that. If you don't think the Q series is capable of producing photos that you would want to blow and put on a wall, then you really need to have a look at some of the threads here. In particular, Michaelina2 has some stunning work done with a Q – we were on the same cruise a couple of years ago, and his work put mine in the shade. Definitely not a joke camera.
03-02-2016, 06:28 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
Panasonic LX100 much better than Pentax Q
"Better" for what purpose?
03-02-2016, 06:29 AM - 1 Like   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 963
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
Did you see the photo I posted?

---------- Post added 03-02-16 at 04:20 AM ----------

If you don't like editing, this means you don't see photography as an artform. You just see it as a documentary tool, and you just trust the camera's JPEG engine to edit the photo for you.
No, I do edit my pictures, lift some shadows, crop here and there, reduce some highlights, and I sometimes even do cloning. And no, I rarely shoot JPEG, even when I'm using the Q. I'm an irrational die-hard RAW shooter.

And I'd like to think that I'm not just doing documentary as you'd make me want to believe, I still imagine I'm creating some "art", it's subjective, but it's still art.

I'm not attacking the LX100 you so dearly praised, in fact I once considered it, but Q is well-respected product line in a (Pentax)forum dedicated to learning, trying to understand everything (about Pentax), and most people will appreciate if you'll simply ask why your Q's IQ is lagging behind the LX100. I'm pretty sure that you'll get a lot of helpful replies. But if you come in here and simply say that the Q is rubbish and the LX100 is manna from heaven, then my Pentax K3, K30, Kx, GR and even that forlorn M9 will be tempted to say that your LX100 is garbage too.

They're not even comparable if you look at the specs. 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.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong forum, or maybe, just maybe, you're at the wrong forum.

Last edited by drypenn; 03-02-2016 at 07:04 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 Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 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 Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 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 01:39 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