[Mountain Vision]

DFA can be slow to focus due to the long focus throw. It is noisy as well. DA* 50-135 is probably the best option to compare against the 90 - but the 50-135 can be slow to focus but the image quality is pretty amazing.

The focus on the 100m is either fast or slow. No in between. If it misses focus and has to recycle through the range, it's slow. If it nails it first try, it's fast.

The 50-135 definitely isn't a fast performer but it's a great lens. Though a lot bigger than a 100mm DFA of 70mm DA.



---------- Post added 06-15-2016 at 01:24 PM ----------

If size is your primary concern, the Pentax Q7/Q-S1 rules the roost. Sensible menus, dependable autofocus and DNG format are some other advantages it holds over Olympus.

Granted, my Q7 struggles in dim light (unless I use flash), and it can be difficult to use in bright sunlight (unless I use a loupe), and achieving "subject isolation" requires some dubious tricks. Even so, I've enjoyed learning how to squeeze the maximum out of it, and it's the last camera I'd consider giving up.

The Q series is simply too small in my opinion. For me, any usable camera has to work with gloves on. Also, it has to give better IQ than a good compact. I really don't care about interchangeable lenses on something that small. I find cameras like the Fuji X10 or Samsung EX1 perfectly adequate for most places a DSLR is too bulky. The appeal of 4/3 is a slight IQ boost over a compact, and perhaps the smallest usable camera size. The GH4 has a nice grip and plenty of external controls.

I do appreciate in camera DNG format, but it's pretty easy to run your raw files through adobe DNG converter, which is what I always did with my Samsung raw files. You can even do it during import, which saves a step.

[Tony Belding]

The Q series is simply too small in my opinion. For me, any usable camera has to work with gloves on.

erm. . . Where I live gloves are not a priority, so I don't have any experience with that. I think the Q handles better than the E-M5, though my problems with the E-M5 were more with the user interface than with the physical controls.

Also, it has to give better IQ than a good compact. I really don't care about interchangeable lenses on something that small. I find cameras like the Fuji X10 or Samsung EX1 perfectly adequate for most places a DSLR is too bulky.

IMHO comparing a Q to a compact camera isn't valid, it's apples and oranges. To me, the purpose of a compact camera is to fit in my vest pocket, which my Fuji FX1 does well, and my Fuji W3 does very well, but the Q7 does very poorly. The purpose of the Q7 is to fit a body and five lenses (01, 02, 03, 06 and 08) into a tiny bag that I can take anywhere easily, which no compact camera can do at all, and no other system camera can do it like the Q system does.

I find the W3, FX1 and Q7 complement each other nicely, since they all accept the same batteries, but they all perform different functions. They don't compete with one another at all.

The appeal of 4/3 is a slight IQ boost over a compact, and perhaps the smallest usable camera size.

M4/3 image quality is quite good. There's not that much difference in image quality between M4/3, APS-C and Full Frame -- because there's that that much difference in size. They're minor variations on the same thing. When it comes to sensor size (or film size!), my rule of thumb is that you have to double the size for an improvement in image quality to be just about noticeable. Full frame is right at twice the size of M4/3, therefore the image quality is just about noticeably better -- other things being equal. If you want a really obvious and satisfying step up, you better save your pennies for medium format.

---------- Post added 06-15-16 at 04:03 PM ----------

I forgot to mention last time that I did also take test shots comparing the Fuji 16mm and Pentax 10-17mm Fisheye. Well, that's another eccentric comparison since they aren't the same types of lenses. . . but at least the 10-17mm isn't a budget lens. It did perform well, but the Fuji performed a little better. (One cool thing about the 10-17mm. . . Lightroom has a profile for this lens, so de-fishing is just one click!)

Today I found a couple of items I was missing yesterday, and I tried for a more fair-and-balanced telephoto comparison with a Pentax-A 100mm F2.8 on the K-S2. Obviously this is manual focus, so the entire question of the K-S2's autofocus was set aside for another day. With its own fast prime lens, slightly longer focal length and slightly more megapixels, the K-S2 should have had an an edge in this test. And. . . It's close. The output from both is very good. I still give the Fuji the edge, but this time it's more down at the pixel-peeping level, not something anyone will really notice.

[UncleVanya]

Just to be clear - APSC to full frame is 2x (1.5x crop but full frame is about 2.25x the APSC sensor area. m43 to FF is 2x crop and close to 4x smaller area than Full frame.
.

[Jonathan Mac]

Ever since I got a Fujifilm X-M1 (the lowest-end model with the x-trans sensor) I've been disappointed with the image quality in my K3. The Fuji is much better - colours and white balance are perfect. I don't know if it's due to the jpeg engine or the sensor. It's not the lenses because I don't have any Fuji lenses - I use my K-mount, M42 and Minolta lenses.

The K3 does what a DSLR does well - it's ergonomic, responsive has good AF, a real viewfinder and I can find all the switches and move between modes and adjust settings very quickly. But the images from the Fuji are much better.

[BigMackCam]

Ever since I got a Fujifilm X-M1 (the lowest-end model with the x-trans sensor) I've been disappointed with the image quality in my K3. The Fuji is much better - colours and white balance are perfect.

The K3 does what a DSLR does well, it's ergonomic, responsive has good AF, a real viewfinder and I can find all the switches and move between modes and adjust settings very quickly. But the images from the Fuji are much better.

When you say images from the Fuji are better, are you talking about straight out of camera JPEGs, or raw? I just find it very hard to believe that a well-processed raw file from the X-M1 would be any better than a well-processed K-3 raw... But JPEGs, I can believe it.

[Tony Belding]

When you say images from the Fuji are better, are you talking about straight out of camera JPEGs, or raw? I just find it very hard to believe that a well-processed raw file from the X-M1 would be any better than a well-processed K-3 raw... But JPEGs, I can believe it.

I don't have enough experience with the Fuji yet to properly answer this, but when I looked at my first Fuji photos that I shot down at the lake, my first impression was: "The colors! They look real!" Foliage in particular. . . Trees and grass look like the true green that my eye sees. Those were shot with the default Provia film setting.

The X-T1 has several film emulations built in: Provia, Velvia, Astia, and Classic Chrome (which I think is a euphemism for Kodachrome). To my surprise, Lightroom also has camera profiles that correspond to each of these, and the results look (to me) exactly like the camera's JPEG output. But, Lightroom only offers these profiles when editing a Fuji image! It makes me wonder what corporate shenanigans are behind that.

[BigMackCam]

I don't have enough experience with the Fuji yet to properly answer this, but when I looked at my first Fuji photos that I shot down at the lake, my first impression was: "The colors! They look real!" Foliage in particular. . . Trees and grass look like the true green that my eye sees. Those were shot with the default Provia film setting.

The X-T1 has several film emulations built in: Provia, Velvia, Astia, and Classic Chrome (which I think is a euphemism for Kodachrome). To my surprise, Lightroom also has camera profiles that correspond to each of these, and the results look (to me) exactly like the camera's JPEG output. But, Lightroom only offers these profiles when editing a Fuji image! It makes me wonder what corporate shenanigans are behind that.

OK, understood. I agree, it's unfortunate that Lightroom doesn't have profiles for the various custom image settings in Penax DSLRs (with the exception, I believe, of the new K-1). That said... my own method of working (when I'm not bothered about getting an absolutely exact colour profile for a situation, which is most of the time ) is to shoot with the camera's custom image setting as "Natural" (I always leave it set at that) and white balance either at "AWB" (or I may set a custom white balance if I have time), then when I import the images into Lightroom I select the "Embedded" camera profile, add a little vibrance (+15 to +17) and a bit of clarity (+12 or thereabouts) as a starting point (before I do any further image processing I might deem necessary). I have that as a default for all of my K-3 images that are imported. I also have several other default settings regarding sharpening and noise reduction, perhaps others too (I just can't recall off-hand)...

[clackers]

Ever since I got a Fujifilm X-M1 (the lowest-end model with the x-trans sensor) I've been disappointed with the image quality in my K3. The Fuji is much better - colours and white balance are perfect. I don't know if it's due to the jpeg engine or the sensor.

But those JPEGs by default get rendered as if they're Fuji Provia film, right?


You just do that in post yourself ... the free Nik Color Efex Pro even has it as a preset.

[Mountain Vision]

I don't know if DXO supports fuji or not, but you can actually select camera profiles for color rendering. Sometimes I'll choose Leica (I like Leica for people shuts under neon lighting, for instance) or even canon, but for the most part I use Pentax default.

I have no issues with Pentax colors, but the beauty of raw is you can adjust them as you want losslessly.

I really don't care what the cameras jpeg engine does. I shoot less than 1% of my images in jpeg, and then only sports under constant outdoor light on a cloudy day. Yes, I shoot that little in jpeg.

To me, starting out with a clipped file that has little latitude for correction is a step backwards. And this is coming from a guy that only shot slide film in color. So, I'm not averse to getting it correct in camera. But nothing is worse than losing a shot because it's a jpeg.

Also, DXO lens profiles are probably better than pentax and they offer more options. For instance pentax doesn't correct Sigma lenses. So, the whole idea that you gain corrections in jpeg mode is kind of moot.

All that said, I have fuji x10 and the jpeg are nice, I expect ilc to be even better.

[luftfluss]

I don't know if DXO supports fuji or not, but you can actually select camera profiles for color rendering. Sometimes I'll choose Leica (I like Leica for people shuts under neon lighting, for instance) or even canon, but for the most part I use Pentax default.

I have no issues with Pentax colors, but the beauty of raw is you can adjust them as you want losslessly.

I really don't care what the cameras jpeg engine does. I shoot less than 1% of my images in jpeg, and then only sports under constant outdoor light on a cloudy day. Yes, I shoot that little in jpeg.

To me, starting out with a clipped file that has little latitude for correction is a step backwards. And this is coming from a guy that only shot slide film in color. So, I'm not averse to getting it correct in camera. But nothing is worse than losing a shot because it's a jpeg.

Also, DXO lens profiles are probably better than pentax and they offer more options. For instance pentax doesn't correct Sigma lenses. So, the whole idea that you gain corrections in jpeg mode is kind of moot.

All that said, I have fuji x10 and the jpeg are nice, I expect ilc to be even better.

DXO doesn't support Fuji's X-Trans sensor, and I don't think they bother much even with Fujis that have the Bayer sensor.

I probably waste too much time playing with all of DXO's camera and film profiles, but it's so fun!

[Rondec]

I don't know if DXO supports fuji or not, but you can actually select camera profiles for color rendering. Sometimes I'll choose Leica (I like Leica for people shuts under neon lighting, for instance) or even canon, but for the most part I use Pentax default.

I have no issues with Pentax colors, but the beauty of raw is you can adjust them as you want losslessly.

I really don't care what the cameras jpeg engine does. I shoot less than 1% of my images in jpeg, and then only sports under constant outdoor light on a cloudy day. Yes, I shoot that little in jpeg.

To me, starting out with a clipped file that has little latitude for correction is a step backwards. And this is coming from a guy that only shot slide film in color. So, I'm not averse to getting it correct in camera. But nothing is worse than losing a shot because it's a jpeg.

Also, DXO lens profiles are probably better than pentax and they offer more options. For instance pentax doesn't correct Sigma lenses. So, the whole idea that you gain corrections in jpeg mode is kind of moot.

All that said, I have fuji x10 and the jpeg are nice, I expect ilc to be even better.

I have to agree. There are a few places, like snap shots of my kids in good light, where jpegs are more than adequate. But hard drive space is not at a premium these days and the flexibility you get from shooting RAW is amazing. There is just no comparison to taking a DNG file into Lightroom (or whatever editing software) and adding two stops of exposure, bumping the shadows and then dropping a digital GND on the sky. Beautiful. But do the same thing to a jpeg file and you are seeing clipping and weird artifacts all over the place.

I have experimented with jpeg shooting, particularly when on vacation with my family, and Pentax jpegs are fine. I usually just shoot natural setting and have most of the bells and whistles turned off. But it doesn't take that long to edit RAWs and it is more than worth it. And with the latitude we have with RAW files these days, you don't even have a reason to shoot HDR for most situations.

[reh321]

I probably waste too much time playing with all of DXO's camera and film profiles, but it's so fun!

And ultimately, that is the difference between us!

I enjoy wandering around taking pictures.

I am in the middle of a multi-year project of scanning my slides {1967-2007}. I have good scanners, and scanning itself takes little time, but sometimes I have to remove tilt, and I always have to adjust WB, brightness, and contrast. Then I inspect the slide at 100% and almost always find scratches or other physical artifacts {often fungus, I suspect} which needs to be corrected. I don't particularly enjoy that, but I like the result. After putting in that effort {using gimp} almost every day, "fixing" my digital efforts {which almost always start off looking better than the best of my scans} just isn't very high on my list - especially since my wife very reasonably wants to see something of me also.

One of the things about this hobby is that there is something in it for each of us; the problem is when we judge someone else by standards that are best applied only to ourselves.

[Tony Belding]

Just to be clear - APSC to full frame is 2x (1.5x crop but full frame is about 2.25x the APSC sensor area. m43 to FF is 2x crop and close to 4x smaller area than Full frame.
.

Just to be clear -- when I say "size" I mean linear size, and when I say "area" I mean surface area. FF is about twice the size and four times the area of M4/3, and that's just about enough for a noticeable (not dramatic) increase in image quality, going by several different ways (which are all inter-related) of measuring image quality.

But it's all about human perceptions. Our senses, and the way our minds interpret them, are usually not linear. Small differences in image characteristics can be easily measured on a test bench, or in side-by-side, pixel-peeping comparisons, they don't mean anything to a person looking at "real world" images under normal viewing conditions.

[jpzk]

Ever since I got a Fujifilm X-M1 (the lowest-end model with the x-trans sensor) I've been disappointed with the image quality in my K3. The Fuji is much better - colours and white balance are perfect. I don't know if it's due to the jpeg engine or the sensor. It's not the lenses because I don't have any Fuji lenses - I use my K-mount, M42 and Minolta lenses.

The K3 does what a DSLR does well - it's ergonomic, responsive has good AF, a real viewfinder and I can find all the switches and move between modes and adjust settings very quickly. But the images from the Fuji are much better.

When you say images from the Fuji are better, are you talking about straight out of camera JPEGs, or raw? I just find it very hard to believe that a well-processed raw file from the X-M1 would be any better than a well-processed K-3 raw... But JPEGs, I can believe it.

Well, for what it's worth, I'll give my opinion on Fuji:

I acquired a Fuji XE-2 a while back as a smaller/more portable "companion" for my K5.
Interesting to note that it has fairly recently received a firmware update that makes much like a "higher model" such as the X-T1.

The resulting OOC (JPEG) files sure are NOT what I expected: nothing close to what I have been used to with the K5 and K7 (and K10D/K20D before that).
I mean: the results, especially for landscapes/foliage, do not impress me one bit.
The Fuji does, however, a great job at portraits ... my personal opinion; nothing scientific.
So, now that I also got the K3 for birding (to "replace" the K5) I am using the K5 for such things as landscapes/outdoor stuff besides birding. Great results as I am used to with the Pentax family!

That, the XE-2, is what I call the camera that saves the day when nothing else is available.
Ergonomics suck and the menus are a PITA.
Of course, I have not yet used the Fuji in RAW mode, and I don't think I will. Not really interested to spend more time with PP .... enough of that already with my Pentax cameras.

Anyway, I will likely put it on the market and keep only one brand: Pentax (Ricoh).

[luftfluss]

And ultimately, that is the difference between us!

I enjoy wandering around taking pictures.

I was speaking solely in the context of the processing process. It's something I do late at night. I much prefer being out in the field making photos, but for me that is a crepuscular and daytime activity (as responsibilities allow). But late at night, playing my tunes, partaking of a favorite beverage and maybe a snack, sorting and adjusting photos is a good time.... except for when I drive myself a little crazy because of the processing possibilities.