Liked Posts - Search Results - PentaxForums.com

The Latest

Forum

Cameras

Showing results 1 to 5 of 5 Search: Liked Posts

Forum: General Photography 06-02-2015, 05:41 PM

What happened to Etiquette?
Posted By MadMathMind

Replies: 46
Views: 5,748

Right there with you. Then they will take a photo that will be out of focus, badly framed, and slanted. Is it entitled of me to think, "Please let the real photo takers have their turn before you take shots you'll delete in 10 minutes?

Forum: Pentax Q 09-27-2014, 07:40 PM

Pentax Q-S1 Review
Posted By goodnight

Replies: 16
Views: 4,353

After watching the whole thing, I don't think there's any feature I'm not aware of on the Q-S1! I really like the aesthetic of the Q-S1, but the premium over the Q7 right now gives me pause.

Question: Do you have to call Pentax (or a retailer) to order a Q-S1 with an 01 prime (and a matching finish)? I tried the color options on Ricoh Imaging but it always bundles it with the 02 zoom.

Pretty much everything is covered: a comparison with the original Q, (the Q-S1 is a little larger), how the Q's changed and been refined (especially in the improvement of JPEGs versus RAWs), the ergonomic features, like the aluminum knob and the very slight curve in the body next to it to accommodate one's fingers (something I hadn't seen in the photographs), size: "purseable, not pocketable," a one-by-one look at the menu options, including the handy magnification feature for focusing and the magical green button, neither of which I knew about. Video capabilities, (or lack thereof) including the continuous AF feature, electronic/lens shutters, the smart dial and the things that be assigned to it (smart effects, aspect ratio, AF mode, ND filter on/off...), another feature which lets you know which highlights are going to be killed (I think) by making those areas red, the strengths of smaller sensors (large DOF at large apertures, small lenses) their weaknesses, (noisier, lower dynamic range, less MP), and how to work with/around them: multiple exposures, HDR (auto's nice), stitching, the Brenizer method, a look at the lenses, including the newer 08 and the cool 06 (which twists past its zoom range to snap to a shorter length for storage) ...it's like a video manual, there's a lot in there, and a lot of new stuff for someone who hasn't explored all the features on the K-30, and doesn't own a Q, but is looking at buying one :p

Forum: Pentax Q 11-04-2011, 10:05 PM

Some Q shots with K and M42 lenses
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 14
Views: 5,174

Hi All,

This is getting interesting. . .

I've only had a few opportunities to shoot the Q with my SLR lenses. It's challenging to nail the focus, but I'm getting the hang of focusing with the LCD. MF is tricky, even with the MF Takumars and their long focus throw but it's possible, even for me. . . When I get a K>Q adapter with a tripod ring, it'll be a lot easier.

All of these were handheld, shot in jpeg, the D FA 100 and FA 50 shots were cropped to 8x10, the Takumar shots are all uncropped. All were PP'd to taste with Dnoise and Infocus only, and resized for posting.

The FA 50 f1.4 allows focusing to @ 1.5 ft, so as @ a 180mm EQ on APS-C, allows some available light close up capabilities.

FA 50/1.4, 1/100, f2, ISO 200

The D FA 100 f2.8 Macro is EQ to using a 360mm Macro on APS-C, so ultra close ups indoors are a possibility.

D FA 100/2.8, 1/100, f2.8, ISO 1250

D FA 100/2.8, 1/100, f2.8, ISO 800

D FA 100/2.8, 1/100, f2.8, ISO 640

Outside the slower M42 Takumars are small, so much more handy, the FLs are longer, and the MF feel is helpful for faster focusing. I used Pentax original M42 to K adapters. Both of the K mount lens adapters were loose on my camera's K adapter, so I stretched a small rubber band over the lens mount which added more friction so the lens doesn't rotate when focusing or adjusting the aperture ring.

The 135/3.5 Super Takumar is EQ to a 486mm on an APS-C. It wasn't long enough for the distance I was forced to shoot at, so I only took a couple of shots with it. It's rated @ 8.33 on the PF lens database.

135mm f3.5 Super Takumar, 1/200, f3.5, ISO 125

The 200mm f4 Super Multicoated Takumar is a very nice compact 200mm for use on the Q. It's EQ to a 720mm on a APS-C.

200mm f4 Super Multicoated Takumar, 1/320, f4, ISO 250

200mm f4 Super Multicoated Takumar, 1/125, f4, ISO 125

200mm f4 Super Multicoated Takumar, 1/400, f4, ISO 250

Just to give some perspective, here's a shot taken with the 47mm EQ prime from the same spot as the Takumar shots, about 15 ft away from the tree.

These shots are not as good as I can get with my DSLRs and 510mm and 714mm lens/TC combos, but, considering handheld with no SR at 490mm and 720mm EQ, MF using an LCD, and "consumer" grade tele primes that cost me less than $20 USD each 6 years ago, they're not too shabby with the Q. Shooting from a tripod would help considerably. Shooting the Q with super tele lenses, despite the very light weight is very challenging, but fun.

The one thing that's a bother though is that these 60's vintage lenses don't have the ED glass to control PF and CA, and with the very high pixel density of the Q, color aberrations that are barely noticeable on larger sensors are very evident on Q shots, especially when super accurate critical focus is hard to achieve. I've got a good method of eliminating these aberrations, and don't mind them, but more modern lenses with better color aberration correction would probably be better for the Q.

All in all, so far the Q is living up to my expectations as a digital TC. I think that when I get the K>Q adapter with the tripod ring, the A*200/2.8 and FA* 300/4.5 will do even better.

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 10-23-2011, 09:04 PM

Pentax Q Review by PentaxForums.com (w/ micro 4/3 comparison)
Posted By FenderP

Replies: 43
Views: 18,919

As the owner of both an E-PL1 (with the kit lens, 20mm Panasonic, and the new 12mm Olympus) and the Q, I think I have a bit of perspective on value for my money. If you look at the Q on paper - yes, it is expensive for what you get given the sensor compared to some of its other competitors in the price range. However, they are not all perfect, either. As I see it in the $600 - $1000ish category:

Sony NEX - Yes, you get APS-C in a small body, but the lenses are the weak link by a long shot.

Ricoh GXR - APS-C, interchangeable lens modules, but supposedly good usability. The lens modules are all $600+ give or take.

Fuji X100 - Again, APS-C but like the Leica X1 (which I owned and old), the fixed focal length either does or does not work for you.

Micro 4/3 - Good lens support with a wide range, major differences between Olympus and Panasonic in what you like and how images are/are not processed.

Nikon 1 system - Larger sensor than the Q, good looking lineup of lenses to start, but usability seems to be a general concern and IQ doesn't seem to knock people out even with a larger sensor than the Q (but not quite Micro 4/3).

Since everyone is different in terms of their photographic needs, what you want/need will steer you in a direction. None of these systems are perfect.

So why, after owning the E-PL1 and the lenses for close to a year did I get the Q? One major reason: portability with good (enough) IQ. Good IQ? Yes I said it. Is it perfect? No - but again, what camera is? For its sensor, it's good and I have yet to compare it to another smaller cam, but it holds well against even some stuff I've taken with my E-PL1. I have to get more mileage on it to see. I've traveled with the E-PL1 with both the 20mm and the 12mm, so it's not like I stay at home. What I really was looking for was the flexibility of changing lenses with something more portable. It's a compromise and tradeoff to go slightly smaller.

Yes, I could have purchased another 'enthusiast' compact like the XZ-1 or LX5. I had the D-Lux4 (now on permanent loan to someone) which I liked. Didn't like the LX5, and am not thrilled with how the XZ-1 handles JPG and its general processing of images. I don't like Canon cameras (I've tried a few). I had a so-so Nikon experience which ruled the 1 series out. Well, you get the picture. I didn't go in blindly. I knew exactly what I was getting.

Don't get me wrong - lenses like the 12mm are killer and give the u4/3 system nice advantages. I've taken some nice shots with it as well as the 20mm. The Q has other things going for it. It is very well built and the size I was looking for. It feels solid. The menus are easy to use and navigate - better than the E-PL1.

My only real gripes with the Q at the moment:

Write speeds when doing JPG + RAW. Come on, Pentax.

I wish I could use manual focus even with auto mode. Auto is auto everything. On my E-PL1 I'm used to being able even in auto picture mode to be able to manual focus.

Lack of EVF. I've loved the Olympus one on the E-PL1.

Battery life could be better, but then again, I also carried two batteries with the E-PL1, too.

I wish there was a good wide angle prime a la the 12mm for the Q.

Different strokes for different folks. The Q is not for everyone.

Forum: Pentax Q 10-23-2011, 06:42 AM

Pentax Q Review by PentaxForums.com (w/ micro 4/3 comparison)
Posted By Uluru

Replies: 43
Views: 18,919

Why one more ME TOO review? Everyone does that — comparisons till death.
Or better to say, "death by comparisons".
That's how much 'reviewers' get to understand about the photography; scrutinising size of the sensor, and all obvious conclusions based on paper specs compared to the price of the ideal — an invisible mind camera — which costs just below the asked price for the reviewed product (it's always like that, no matter what the camera, its price "should be lower").

And the photography experience and nuances that make subject matter unique in its entirety, goes in the bin.

Compare Q with a camera with a sensor 8 times the size, 6 times the size, 16 times the size, and so forth.
Why not a comparison with a FF camera and a 645D? Would that be too stupid? Well, it goes with the spirit of the review, and the image quality of the Q would be just pathetic. Instead of 4, the mark would be nought.
It would then entirely match quality of the comprehension of a reviewer, and the quality of this 'review'.

Yawn.

Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 5 of 5

Forum Jump

Search Results for Liked Posts