|
Forum: Pentax Q
11-08-2011, 02:58 AM
|
| |
It's a more positive review than what I can remember from the one on this site, and it's actually made me think twice about the Q. ISO 1000 looks better to me than what I've seen from the LX5/S95 group, and the kit lens DOES look really sharp wide open.
All things considered, and despite the very positive review, Huff is clearly not sure the Q is worth its asking price to most people. He mentions the prices issue three or four times, says "I really wish this came in at $599 or even $699...", and in the conclusion he even goes as far as to say "If I were a wealthy man I would own one...".
Which is still pretty much what I think: the price is not going to do the Q any favors. However, like I said, this review has made me reconsider the Q's image quality, so who knows, I might go for one if/when the price hits the $500-600 range.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-31-2011, 11:39 PM
|
| |
Well, knightzerox, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
None of the other features you mention in your last post (interchangeable lenses, small size, etc) mean anything to me, since the IQ seems to be average at best, and not just compared to other "premium" products (assuming that the Q is in that category for anything other than its price), but also compared to much cheaper ones. I'm not even persuaded it's significantly better than what the LX5/S95/G12 category offers.
Again, to me it makes no sense to pay that much for such an unimpressive IQ, no matter what other unique features the system may offer. Small size and interchangeable lenses to achieve that kind of results, I'd pay $400 tops. I don't think it's silly of me to criticize the price, either. It seems overpriced for my requirements, specially compared to a number of different options in the market.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-31-2011, 12:43 AM
|
| |
The only reason why you would compare the Q with a Leica is that they're both massively overpriced (in my view). But at least most Leicas deliver excellent IQ, which, no matter which way you want to look at it, is one of THE essential features of a piece of equipment that's made to capture, well, images. And maybe it's just me, but I expect a premium product (if that's really what the Q is, other than by its price), to be vastly superior to anything else in some departments, and to be at least the equal to other cheaper options in all of the essential performance departments, such as IQ in what we're discussing here. To follow your nice restaurant analogy, I'm ready to pay more for sophisticated food that it's well presented and served in a luxurious environment. But the food has to taste better than average, otherwise yes, I'll think it's overpriced. Substitute IQ for food taste here and you'll see what I mean.
I agree that the market still doesn't offer exactly the camera I want, but will it ever? I have not compared at any stage the Q with a regular DSLR, entry-level or not (though, to be fair, the Photography blog review did), because clearly, to me, the size/convenience factor is lost there. We're talking about small-ish cameras able to offer good IQ.
And what I'm saying is that if you want manual controls with pocketable size and IQ similar to what the Q offers (or so it seems), you have the LX5, the S95/100, and other for a lot less money than the Q.
If you want to go one step up in IQ at the expense of size, but still in a compact package, you have the m4/3 offerings, or even the NEX series with a far superior sensor and IQ than the Q, which again cost as much or considerably less (except for the NEX-7).
Oh, and may I just add that I've no interest wahtsoever in talking down the Q, so I'll just leave the discussion here. All I'm saying is, it appears that the Q's image quality is not what I expect from a premium-priced camera, and so it makes no sense at all to me. The market will tell, I guess ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-31-2011, 12:18 AM
|
| |
I agree, and that's actually what I said: good photographers can make pretty much any camera sing. If I understand you correctly, the Q's small size and purpose would make up for the so-so image quality and justify its price point. Maybe for you and other people. But not too many, that's my guess. These days less money will get you cameras with similar ease of use, handling and construction quality, which are only slightly bigger and allow for a similar "stealthiness", with the added "bonus" that their IQ is miles above what the Q offers. As much as I was unfair to compair the NEX-7 with the Q (after all, the former costs $400-$500 more), the comparison with the NEX-5N ($700 with kit lens) is more than warranted to me, and more accurate, at any rate, than comparing an M9 with a MF camera. Whole different beasts. If the NEX-5N is too large, you can still go smaller and pay less for slighlty worse IQ (but still, it would appear, much better than the Q image quality).
LIke I said, maybe for some users small size and good handling can redeem what seems to be average or even sub-par IQ. Not for me. If I want to simply have fun and take average quality pictures using an unintrusive small sensor camera with big DoF, there are countless much cheaper options than the Q, including mid-range smartphones (and I actually take a lot of snapshots with my iPhone). With any of these options, the convenience/size/handling factors far outweigh what's lost in IQ, and this is certainly true with basic P&S, and in many cases even with smartphones. Again, if you still want better IQ and more manual controls without losing pocketability/good handling, there are plenty of options out there not much larger than the Q, but much cheaper.
That's why, to me, the Q is pointless at its current price range, or even at $200 cheaper. Nice toy? Yes! I briefly held a Q a few weeks ago, and yes, it's small and it feels extremely well built and seems to handle really well. But that's just part of the equation. And the more expensive any piece of equipment is, the more I expect it to be a good all-rounder, at least in all of the essential departments. If the IQ is just not there, from what it seems, I cannot justify the high price point. If I were a spy, I might consider it ;)Otherwise, no.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-30-2011, 02:53 AM
|
| |
Well, of course you have hands on experience with it, which I don't, so I'm not going to argue with you.
However, I have been reading camera reviews at the Photography blog for several years now, and I'd say they know what they're doing and mostly tend to get it right. I'm sure there are tons of good pics taken with the Q in flickr, since any modern camera is able to turn out nice images in good light and/or in capable hands.
But at that price point, you need to provide at least as good IQ as the top of the range enthusiast/pro compacts, and that's where the Q doesn't seem to deliver, far from it. As garyk mentions, just compare it with the similarly priced NEX-7 (or even the NEX-5N, or some of the latest m4/3 offerings), both with an APS-C sensor which I'm sure blows out of the water anything the Q can produce. The jury is still out, so let's see what other reputable review sites have to say. But it's not looking good...
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
10-29-2011, 05:06 AM
|
| |
I love the pose and compositionin the first shot. I don't fancy the PP much, though.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
10-29-2011, 05:03 AM
|
| |
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree with each and every point builttospill made.
Portrait photography is not easy, it takes a while to get the hang of it (I still haven't)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
10-29-2011, 04:58 AM
|
| |
Unfortunately, unlike its handling, the Q's image quality doesn't come anywhere near a DSLR, or the new breed of compact system cameras either. It may have DSLR pretensions and an ISO range to match, but in reality the compact camera sensor at the heart of the Q seriously restricts its appeal. Prospective buyers of an interchangeable lens camera expect significant improvements in both features and image quality, and while the Q's photos certainly aren't bad by compact camera standards, they don't match up to even the new Nikon One system, which has the smallest sensor of any CSC range.
Bearing that harsh reality in mind, it's extremely hard to fathom the pricing strategy that Pentax have decided on for the Q. £600 / $800 is a lot of money for a compact system camera and even an entry-level DSLR, and is surely commercial suicide for a camera with such a tiny sensor. No amount of DSLR-like features or proven handling can make up the fact that the Q costs a lot more than most of its principal rivals which all offer much better image quality. With a more sensible price, the Q could carve itself out a niche as an alternative to a high-end compact, but at current prices it stands little chance of success.
Which is a real shame, as in many ways we really liked the Pentax Q. It's small enough to slip inside a coat pocket, yet flexible enough to offer a DSLR-like take on the world. Ultimately though we just can't recommend that you spend DSLR money on compact camera image quality.
Ouch!
I was underwhelmed after reading the Pentaxforums review, but it seems that our worst fears are being confirmed as new reviews come out. Don't know what Pentax was thinking. The Q could have been SO much better with a slightly larger/higher IQ sensor
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
08-02-2011, 06:27 AM
|
| |
I have the 35 f2.4 and an old M 50 f1.7. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much difference in IQ between them. Both are very to razor-sharp across the aperture range, and the bokeh is probably nicer with the 50, but not by much. If anything, my 35mm seems more prone to purple fringing wide open, but I haven't made proper head to head comparisons to confirm this.
As mentioned, my 35 also had focus issues on the K-x, but ever since I got the K-5, the 35mm is my go-to prime lens for walk-around shooting. Whatever little I lose in IQ compared to the M 50mm is more than made up by the convenience of having AF and fast automatic exposure metering for shooting in Av mode.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-14-2011, 08:17 AM
|
| |
Yes, that's my experience too. I had huge FF issues in EV 4-5 artificial light that were solved by fw 1.03, but it didn't change a thing at lower light levels. I seriously considered returning my K-5, but owing to several reasons I decided to keep it. I'm still not happy knowing that I'll HAVE to use LV focus in low light, but these shooting situations are few and far between for me, and the K-5 is a great camera otherwise.
But this AF issue is real and I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy a K-5 without proper consideration of their low light shooting needs.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
03-10-2011, 04:45 AM
|
| |
Sure, no big deal. ALL my photos in tungsten light are front- focused, but I guess that's unimportant.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this firmware will fix it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
03-04-2011, 09:08 AM
|
| |
Nope. And yet we were assured by unofficial sources it'd be coming out SHORTLY.
That was three months ago...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
02-25-2011, 04:21 AM
|
| |
Yes, well. At this stage I would take this source's statements on this issue with a big grain of salt. I'm not saying he's acting in bad faith at all, but he's been assuring us for 3 months already that the firmware to solve this was coming out "shortly". I echo the sentiment expressed by others in this thread. If Pentax does not fix this in the next few weeks, this is the last money they will be getting from me ever. The way they're handling this serious fault in a €1100 semi-pro camera is outrageous and unacceptable. Right now, I can only be glad I'm not too invested in Pentax gear to afford to jump ships, cause the possibility is looking more likely to me with every day that goes by without Pentax solving this issue or even officially acknowledging it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
01-07-2011, 01:26 AM
|
| |
Well, I tried v1.02 and no improvement whatsoever. I still can't believe that Pentax has released a new firmware version that doesn't fix this huge issue they've known about for at least two months. To me, this suggests that it cannot be fixed or that it's so hard to fix that only a partial solution will be achieved.
At this point, I really have a good mind to return my camera and forget all about it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-25-2010, 03:36 PM
|
| |
Good news, I had missed that post, thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-25-2010, 03:32 PM
|
| |
Whatever floats your boat, pal. May I suggest you stop referring to what I think, say, or need? Thank you
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-25-2010, 11:38 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
12-25-2010, 03:31 AM
|
| |
Your findings mirror exactly what some of us have been reporting at the K5 forum. The FF in tungsten is so strong that even a -10 AF adjustment isn't enough to correct it. I've also found (like you've shown here with K20d) that an older model (K-x in my case) performs flawlessly where the newer model doesn't.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-25-2010, 03:20 AM
|
| |
Ok, so this is basically how this thread has evolved:
1. There's no issue with AF, works perfectly fine. You guys post some samples showing the supposed problem
2. Those samples show a problem indeed, but I have found no such thing with any of my lenses
3. Care to quantify the problem in EV terms? I'm just saying, but you guys are probably trying to use your K5 in pitch dark in a medieval cave (which btw shouldn't matter that much, since the AF is confirming focus anyway; if light is below what the AF can handle, why would the camera confirm focus without even hunting for a second?)
(4. Wait, I might have these problems too. Not too serious, though)
5. Yep, those EV values are a little on the verge of what the AF can handle, based on K5 specs
6. Wait, they aren't
7. Alright, so I have the problem too, and it's probably serious, but I trust Pentax to fix it, even though they have not shown the basic decency to tell their customers that they know about the issue and are working on it (which even as we speak, we cannot be 100% sure of)
I find it a little disappointing that some people get so defensive and need over 200 posts in the thread to grudglingy admit that there is a problem. No one here is out to put Pentax or the K5 down for spurious reasons.
Other than this, the K5 is a great camera, and I really want to keep it, but I won't unless this serious problem is fixed. It's not a mere bug, and it's not minor.
Above all, I'd like Pentax to treat me as their partner (as Wheatfield suggested), and change their stupid policy of not communicating at all with their customers whenever there is a problem. I've already shown my willingness to be their partner by shelling out the cash to buy their product above others from competitors, so let's see some reciprocity here.
I don't know which business/marketing school these guys got their MBAs or whatever qualifications in, it's disrespectful for your customers and awful business practice, no matter how you view it. And please, enough with the "it's the way they do things in Japan, we must accept it". I don't care if a company is headqueartered in Japan, Albania or Minnesota, they need to understand that we are now living in a globalized world, so they have to manage their clients' expectations everywhere.
And it is fair to say that, generally speaking, most of us don't care that much that there is a problem (after all, it's a fact of life), as long as we're kept informed in due time of the steps the company/service provider is taking to sort it out. I don't understand the kind of complacency that goes: "that's just the way they are, I don't care that they have not made an announcement, because traditionally they fix the issues anyway". Well, of course they do, otherwise they would be out of business. It doesn't change the fact that they should grow up as company and start communicating with their clients in a mature way.
End of rant, sorry if I got too carried away.
Merry Christmas everybody! :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-24-2010, 03:24 AM
|
| |
Wheatfield, I really don't want to argue because this is getting rather silly. The issue is there for ayone who wants to see it, an online dealer in Spain (who also happens to be a pro Pentax shooter) says he's seen it with all of the 20+ K5 units he had in stock, and Pentax support in Europe has acknowledged it. I think you should follow your own advice and read what you are writing (and taking a moment to read carefully what I and others are writing in this thread wouldn't hurt either).
It has been shown repeatedly in this thread that the K5 does not focus in fairly normal intensity tungsten lighting, as well as candlelight. This is the kind of light many of us have in our living room, or may find in a bar, club, etc So no need to go to "a medieval cave under 24 hours of perpetual darkness" to find the issue, and that sort of snide remark is uncalled for.
It just so happens that we live half our lives under tungsten light, even more so in the winter when nights are much longer. So a DSLR that does not AF in this kind of light is pretty bad in my book. If you're happy to overcome this severe limitation by shooting at f8 (because the FF is so bad that it's visible even at f5.6 at the 0-5 m range) and loose all of your DOF control, go ahead but I don't. Or using, you say, LV/manual focus for an entire dinner/evening? If I wanted to LV shoot I'd stick to my LX3, thank you very much.
Bottom line is, we're all having Christmas dinner tonight and I know I won't dare using my K5, that I just payed €1100 for because I know for sure that the photos will be out of focus. So I'll have to fall back on my Kx instead, which I bought over a year ago for half the money.
So yes, no matter how you want to spin it, I think it's pretty bad and I definitely would have liked the company I payed €1100 to, to come out and officially say "there's this problem and we're trying to fix it in a firmware update soon" (btw, this is what Nikon did recently with the hotpixel issue in D7000).
I am ready to accept that nowadays most companies have dropped the ball in the QC side of things, and most new releases are laden with issues. What I am not ready to accept is that they remain silent while I basically have a DSLR that only works 70% of the time as it should (and I'm probably being generous). You say you prefer to be a partner to your camera company rather than an adversary, and don't want to shove whatever issue arises down their throats, and I'm all for that. What I want is for them to be more of a partner to me and speaking the truth rather than remain tight-lipped. Since they don't acknowledge the issue, we don't even know if they're aware of it, so our duty as partners is to make sure they are on top of things.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-23-2010, 03:00 PM
|
| |
Reports like this are starting to trickle in. I wonder how much longer it will be before all those who have not noticed this issue have their epiphany... Since we're in Christmas, maybe they're waiting till January 6th :lol:
Sorry, I could not resist the bad joke... Jan 6 is an important religious holiday here in Spain. Seriously, though, other than this big AF issue, I love my K5, and nothing would p*ss me off more than having to return it because Pentax fails to fix it soon.
So Pentax, remain silent if you wish, but bring on the darned firmware already!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-23-2010, 01:32 PM
|
| |
Seems alright, assuming you were focusing on the Orange-Miso Glaze line.
The color temperature of that tungsten light source seems much cooler than the ones I'm having problems with, though, assuming you took these with AWB or non-adjusted Tungsten WB.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-23-2010, 01:22 PM
|
| |
Yes, I don't think those conditions would show the problem. In the test I showed a few pages back, the assist light would never come on, so in principle your test was not conducted in the same lighting conditions. I have no doubt that the K5 focuses perfectly well in any light if the assist light is helping.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-23-2010, 01:16 PM
|
| |
Well, if that were the case, then the K5 AF system has a less useful range than the Kx.
That doesn't make sense, and I think there's enough data, information and samples in this thread to conclude there is a genuine issue, and a major one at that. Maybe it hasn't been "quantified" enough for your taste, but the problem occurs in fairly normal lighting conditions and I can't see why anyone would insist on looking for alternative explanations that would mean the K5 is a lesser camera than we all think it is.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-23-2010, 12:43 PM
|
| |
As far as I'm concerned, I'm sorry, it is very much a sky is falling issue, and if it's not resolved by firmware (fingers crossed) enough of a deal breaker for me to return my K5 as defective. I cannot for the life of me take a properly focused shot in my living room with my K5, whereas I have no problems at all in the same light with my Kx. I don't even have such AF problems with my LX3 wide open (I know, smaller sensor, but still)
Sounds pretty serious to me, and that's before even considering the price gap between the K5 and the other two. The thing cannot focus, it does not get much worse than that for a semi-pro DSLR, or does it?
|
