|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
12-16-2013, 05:06 AM
|
| |
Hello all,
I just wanted to share my personal experience upgrading from K-5 to K-3.
While I've always been very fond of the image quality of my K-5, the PDAF has been constantly plaguing my experience. I have a few lenses (all the *, all the DA Limiteds, plus the FishEye zoom), I did a maniac tuning of the individual AF adjustment settings, but nonetheless I never could get consistent focusing under different lighting conditions (and I'm not talking about pitch black, just tungsten vs daylight) for all of my lenses at the same time. I mean that I have the feeling that many of my lenses would require more than +10 or less tha -10 adjustment.
So, after long delaying, I decided to upgrade to the K-3. So far (one week testing) I am totally satisfied. PD focusing is always consistent, and only a couple of my lenses required an adjustment in the range of -2/+3, including the DA*55, which at ƒ1.4 is notoriously difficult to focus.
This single factor makes me a happy upgrader.
Cheers,
-P.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-24-2013, 04:51 AM
|
| |
Thank you VisualDarkness!
Yes, that's the official Pentax adapter with embedded leaf shutter. And yes, it is really hard to get a steady shot. I have pretty steady hands (can rather reliably get down to 1/10s with the k-5) but nonetheless I got about 1/4 still and on-focus shots. That's actually part of the fun: it is like playing a sniper videogame...
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-24-2013, 12:35 AM
|
| |
Hello guys,
I wanted to share with you some of the macro shots I took with my Q. I just bought the Pentax k-Q adapter, and first tests were done with the DA* 60-250, but I must say I am not that happy with the results. All in all, I can get very comparable results (if not better) with the same lens attached to my K-5, then cropping to 1/5.5 and rescaling.
Then I went out with the Limited 35 mm Macro to look into the microcosmos in the backyard, and I am attaching here some results. This time I think it is a different story: colors are more pleasant and the definition higher. It's a matter of lens of course. And shooting with such a big magnification and still a reasonably compact setup is real fun. But not that easy: focusing and trying to avoid shake (yes: I go handheld) is a real challenge. You better be sure to have plenty of light.
Cheers, and have fun!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
01-23-2013, 03:34 PM
|
| |
Nope: it's still broken. Don't miss too much MF though, so I dunno if I'll try to get it fixed.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-14-2012, 12:06 PM
|
| |
Shawn, thanks for the suggestion, I'm impatient to have time for some tests in real world.
About ISO performance, I think that the Q does well up to 600 ISO, above that it is still acceptable up to 1600 in some situations (BW conversion, low key). Happy to hear that the OM-D can do better.
Your comment points out something I forgot to mention, though: the OM-D IBIS appears to be better than Pentax SR. Do you agree?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-14-2012, 10:43 AM
|
| |
Hi guys,
In an attack of compulsive desire I just bought an Oly OM-D E-M5 with 12-50 kit lens. I already have a K5 and--obviously--the Q, but I wanted something in the middle: better than the Q in terms of IQ, lighter and more fast/reliable than the K5 in terms of focus.
The OM-D has the arguable reputation of the best MFT on the market now, and for street photography its swivelling display and reportedly super-quick focus was tempting.
Now, bad weather and other impediments are playing against me, so for now I'm only getting acquainted with its ergonomics and doing some IQ tests, and I wanted to share with you Q-lovers my first impressions.
Ergonomics: I try to be as objective as I can: I still haven't found a camera with better ergonomics than Pentax. In this field, my little Q beats the Oly, no doubt, despite its mini-buttons. BUT, I have to admit, a swivelling, touch screen display has its advantages...
Focus: It is true: OM-D AF is really super fast and 100% reliable, even in the dull light of interiors during these rainy days. The Q comes not even close to its quickness, BUT, I must note, Q AF reliability is pretty damn good.
Image quality: I took two test shots (100% crop), which I attach here after. Ambient light, same ISO for both cameras, aperture on the sweet spot for both lenses (01 for the Q). The Q picture is the second one. OK, the Oly quality is better, BUT not that much, right? I mean: all that "too small sensor" fuss, and the unprocessed result (from raw) does not come too far from one of the best MFT sensors, to my eyes. Oh, one more thing: white balance. I'm pretty convinced that Pentax must have some secret recipe for auto WB, because avery other brand I tested, including my new Oly, often provide significantly worst results in this field.
Conclusion: I'm quite happy with my new camera and it definitely has some killer points (did I mention AF?), but I don't think that my Q will start catching powder, yet.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-29-2012, 02:16 PM
|
| |
snostorm, then I'll let mine sit on the desk for 24 hours... just for curiosity, was it sitting with front lens upside, or downside?
Just kidding, of course!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
05-22-2012, 01:40 PM
|
| |
Best question in a while.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-21-2012, 11:41 AM
|
| |
Thanks snowstorm. Actually, now I remember that few weeks ago the camera got a hit flat on the lens cap (not too hard, though). At that time I did not check the focus ring, so I cannot relate for sure cause and effect.
So I suppose we can advice the fellows Q owners to be careful about hitting the lens along the axial direction.
I know, this sounds like a silly advice... but I am the kind of guy known to maintain things in an almost new state for years, and I assure you, that hit was nothing serious: just dropped the camera flat on the lens cap on a rug from no more than 30 cm...
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-17-2012, 02:33 PM
|
| |
Hi guys,
I found that the focusing ring of my 01 lens suddenly started showing a very high friction and particularly it gets pretty stuck when I stop rotating it. Of course this makes it almost unusable.
Luckily, the by-wire focus is unaffected, and since the Q AF is darn good, I actually rarely, if ever, use the focusing ring.
I wonder if any one of you ever had similar issues. Also, did anyone tried to disassemble it? Mine is still covered by warranty, but I am currently traveling around the world, I wouldn't like to send it away for repair for weeks. Additionally, there is always the possibility that they will state that this is due to misuse/dirt.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-16-2012, 12:22 AM
|
| |
I am a huge fan of B&W. But I think that the choices of taking a good B&W shot are much higher with a color sensor + post processing than with a B&W sensor + optical filtering. And I am pretty sure that without optical filtering, there is simply no way that you can get consistently better shots, not even with a M9M, for purely technical reasons.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-15-2012, 01:03 PM
|
| |
Jeez... I thought I read the whole thread before posting, but apparently I missed exactly your comment! sorry about that!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-15-2012, 12:53 PM
|
| |
I am not exactly thrilled about a monochrome sensor. I think that, in order to really get striking images, you ought to do a careful use of color filters (as with BW films), which can be fun, but surely isn't so sensible as post-processing RGB images coming from a color sensor.
In other words, if you look at the M9M images (for example in DPreview) they are certainly good in terms of resolution and details, but they look pretty dull to me. Good BW images are rarely that because of brute IQ, rather thanks to careful contrast and tonal balance (some grain often helps too), which require skillful filtering if done the optical way, and is much more flexible and easy if done in PP (SilverFX does a great job, for example).
Leica M9M files (or any monochrome RAW) simply don't give you so much freedom in post-processing. Not to talk about highlights headroom, which simply does not exist in images coming from BW sensor (even in RAW).
This is of course a matter of taste (as almost everything when talking about photography), and I wonder if I am the only one thinking so...
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-05-2012, 09:45 PM
|
| |
Next time I'll hear someone telling that "such a small sensor" story, I think I'll find it really hard to keep my temper :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-02-2012, 08:47 AM
|
| |
Congrats!
I find a pol filter useful, especially when used in combo with the Q digital filters.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-29-2012, 11:24 AM
|
| |
Yep, gorgeous portrait.
As KevinR points out, I got the conclusion that a big part of what I like in the Q's IQ is the grain. Grain was not necessarily a defect in the film era, but it became so with early digital sensors because they used to have awful chroma noise, banding, etc. But the Q sensor has a really nice grain, look for example at the bricks on the right side of the picture.
Heinrich, I'm curious: does it come form RAW of is it an ooc JPEG?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-23-2012, 10:40 PM
|
| |
I do agree with you comments, baronial, and I also love the first picture!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-22-2012, 10:44 AM
|
| |
That was exactly my point...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-21-2012, 10:11 PM
|
| |
Well, Adam, you are probably right, but your answer supposes that the possible non-K mount FF would be worst than Nikon or Canon ones, either in absolute terms or quality/price wise. And I think that Pentax would be absolutely foolish coming out with an announced failure like that. And this is perhaps the reason why we still miss a Pentax FF, isn't it?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-17-2012, 08:43 AM
|
| |
Good to know, thanks for the link!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-16-2012, 09:52 PM
|
| |
Interesting.
I wonder WHO is actually doing this bag, though: BARTON 1972 (the prices also the same).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-11-2012, 05:55 PM
|
| |
I have the full (for the moment) set. The prime is indubitably the the best, IQ wise. The 02 (zoom) is practical: gorgeous build, good IQ, autofocus, and a convenient focal range. At wider range is reasonably fast also. Good for walk-around, although you probably get a lighter config with the prime + the wide or the fish eye in your pocket.
The fish-eye is really fun to use: good IQ (IMHO better than the Pentax fish-eye zoom that I have on my k-5, at least in the fringe/aberration department), and even though it is manual focus, the DoF is so huge that you can safely forget focusing, unless subjects are really close (<10cm). Highly recommended (additionally, I'm pretty sure it makes the Q the only compact camera with such a wide focal, and also the most affordable fish-eye out there).
Despide of what people say here I also like the wide toy lens: coupled with some effects can give good results, and it's not too tricky to focus.
Finally, I only rarely use the tele toy: it's a bit harder to focus and the IQ is not that impressing. It is cheap, though. By the way, I found that enabling the SR to stay always on really helps manual focussing with this lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-10-2012, 06:21 PM
|
| |
Smallness, you said?
Nope! it is a GREAT camera! No one of my past cameras ever changed my photograph that much! ;-)
Happy shooting!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-10-2012, 08:50 AM
|
| |
Thanks MEXK (grazie!)
I didn't know that SanDisk was rebranding the EyeFi products (maybe they acquired it?). Funny enough, the SanDisk PRO is class 4, while the original EyeFi is class 6....
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-09-2012, 03:11 PM
|
| |
I suppose that at lower speeds there's no reason to use the electronic shutter if you have a leaf one available, for the latter not suffers from rolling shutter artifacts. Conversely, above 1/2000s those artifacts become less evident, and of course leaf shutters cannot go that fast.
|
