Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-01-2016, 09:34 PM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Panasonic LX100 much better than Pentax Q

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

03-01-2016, 09:41 PM - 1 Like   #2
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,989
Pardon my ignorance....what are the attributes I can see from that photo you posted which the LX100 can do better than the Q? Is it sharpness, contrast, AF, colour or ?
03-01-2016, 09:52 PM   #3
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Pardon my ignorance....what are the attributes I can see from that photo you posted which the LX100 can do better than the Q? Is it sharpness, contrast, AF, colour or ?
Everything.
I also got all these photos with the LX100 (all JPEGS) : Japan Travel Diary
In comparison, photos taken with the Q are a complete joke. The Q still has its place (astronomy or fun).
03-01-2016, 10:04 PM - 1 Like   #4
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
I find the (original) Q w/ the toy 04 lens, fits in a moderate size shirt pocket and easily in a sport jacket pocket, and provides very satisfying pictures. The 01 lens would do similarly. It is my (now) primary camera on canoe and backpacking (and every day). As an example the following.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
03-01-2016, 10:13 PM - 1 Like   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
So, where are the Q photos to compare to your shots taken with LX100 (nice series btw), or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
03-01-2016, 10:13 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 1,047
so you make this post just to bash the Q. Well I've gotten amazing images with the Q (I had a Q7), some that if you weren't told before hand you would think it was from a DSLR. the Q system is quite sharp and loads more useful than what you're claiming. I've even used it for professional real estate/interior photos. So its nice you have your opinion but they're not quite in accordance with reality.

Btw Q system is amazing for macro especially when the make that telephoto macro lens they got in the works
03-01-2016, 10:20 PM - 1 Like   #7
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,989
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
Everything.
I also got all these photos with the LX100 (all JPEGS) : Japan Travel Diary
In comparison, photos taken with the Q are a complete joke. The Q still has its place (astronomy or fun).
Well...I am really struggling to see where the LX100 photos (from your travel diary) shine where my Q-S1 fell down. Don't get me wrong. These are nice travel photos. But I don't know which are the ones that you reckon the Q series cannot do as well that deemed to be labelled as rubbish?

I must admit the thought of getting an M43 camera crosses my mind more than once but the fact that I can get an ultra wide angle compact lens for the Q-S1 which is not available on the M43 platform makes me think again.

03-01-2016, 10:25 PM   #8
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Well...I am really struggling to see where the LX100 photos (from your travel diary) shine where my Q-S1 fell down. Don't get me wrong. These are nice travel photos. But I don't know which are the ones that you reckon the Q series cannot do as well that deemed to be labelled as rubbish?
I guess it's mainly the effective resolution, lack of noise, and dynamic range which enables me to get a much nice HDR effect. 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.
03-01-2016, 10:27 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 1,047
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Well...I am really struggling to see where the LX100 photos (from your travel diary) shine where my Q-S1 fell down. Don't get me wrong. These are nice travel photos. But I don't know which are the ones that you reckon the Q series cannot do as well that deemed to be labelled as rubbish?

I must admit the thought of getting an M43 camera crosses my mind more than once but the fact that I can get an ultra wide angle compact lens for the Q-S1 which is not available on the M43 platform makes me think again.
I think he might have been saying the travel diary photos were from Q and the photo in his first link is the m43? Not sure
03-01-2016, 10:28 PM   #10
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
I guess it's mainly the effective resolution, lack of noise, and dynamic range which enables me to get a much nice HDR effect. 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.
The first image I linked to was taken at dawn, with next to no light. The larger sensor of the LX100 was ok with this.

---------- Post added 03-01-16 at 10:28 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by shaolen Quote
I think he might have been saying the travel diary photos were from Q and the photo in his first link is the m43? Not sure
No. All LX100
03-01-2016, 10:29 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 1,047
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
I guess it's mainly the effective resolution, lack of noise, and dynamic range which enables me to get a much nice HDR effect. 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.
The Q7/Q-s1 has 1/1.7" sensor and its quite excellent

---------- Post added 03-01-16 at 09:32 PM ----------

oh. If they're all taken with it then I'm with the other guy. I really don't see anything that the Q7 couldn't at least come extremely close to.
03-01-2016, 10:33 PM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,989
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
The first image I linked to was taken at dawn, with next to no light. The larger sensor of the LX100 was ok with this.
Ok. I downloaded the image and had a closer look. There is no EXIF info. What is the shutter speed, ISO, aperture for this shot?

Are u also on a tripod?
03-01-2016, 10:37 PM   #13
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Ok. I downloaded the image and had a closer look. There is no EXIF info. What is the shutter speed, ISO, aperture for this shot?

Are u also on a tripod?
Shot handheld at 1/30 sec, ISO 200, f2.8. Edited from RAW.
03-01-2016, 10:41 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 1,047
here's just a few of my shots from Q system

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/293582-abstract-power-q7-lenses.html
03-01-2016, 10:45 PM   #15
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,989
QuoteOriginally posted by mklives Quote
Shot handheld at 1/30 sec, ISO 200, f2.8. Edited from RAW.
Thanks. Care to send the RAW file to dropbox or somewhere so we can take a closer look?
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 09:41 PM. | 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