|
Forum: Pentax Mirrorless Cameras
12-20-2015, 09:25 AM
|
| |
I have a Mitsuki 135mm f2.8 lens with FD mount and adapter for my QS1. The lens weighs about three times the camera, though it's a pretty compact lens. The quality is impressive, with no discernible issues even at f2.8. The hardest thing with this setup is keeping steady, but a lens brace helps loads. I just use a simple leather strap around the lens for handheld shots. Just don't expect to do fast action with the ease of a modern AF stabilised telephoto on a heavier DSLR.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-17-2012, 05:09 PM
|
| |
I recharged the battery and updated the firmware, so hopefully it won't re-occur. Will put it through some heavy usage and see what happens
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-17-2012, 11:26 AM
|
| |
Thanks for your reply. Battery was probably below half full, certainly was still showing with one green bar, but it could be a battery issue. My initial thoughts after it happened were to upgrade the firmware and see how it goes. I have only had it about 3 months, so still plenty of warranty time on it if it does go caput.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-17-2012, 11:04 AM
|
| |
I was out today and after taking an image (Jpg) using the Toy wide, the Q locked on the image review, it wouldn't turn off, or respond to any other buttons.
I ended up having to release the battery to turn it off, but it then wouldn't switch on again once I put the battery back in.
I tried it again half an hour later, the camera came on, although I did notice that the LCD came on with a white screen before the settings bring it to a normal live view image display (can't remember if it did this before), anyway it then functioned normally. I am currently recharging the battery. Its still on firmware 1 as I haven't bothered updating it yet, and only taken around 700 images.
Anyone else had freezing/lock up issues with their Q? Should I return it for repair?
cheers
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-27-2012, 02:50 PM
|
| |
I got one for £49 (ex-display) and I think its a lovely lens, I like the manual focussing range and it seems to produce very sharp images, and focusses very close as well. I want the Fisheye next.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-08-2012, 05:20 AM
|
| |
I'm a K-5 owner, and also own a Q, along with a similarly sized Olympus E-PM1.
Of the two mirrorless cameras, the Olympus E-PM1 has (by a long margin) the better image quality at all ISO's, it has a lightning quick focus speed, and with a 14mm Panasonic pancake lens, by far the most pocketable camera. But......It is let down by a poor LCD screen if not shooting 16:9, and some of the functions are a little buried, as it lacks many external controls.
The Q is however, a much more fun camera to use, with better layout, controls, looks, and is designed more for photographers than snapshooters than the E-PM1.......and you will be familiar with all its functions, as they work the same way as your K-5.
Since getting the Q, I am finding I am ending up taking it out more often than either my K-5 or my E-PM1. It's just something about it, and a bit like some of the mobile camera apps out there, when using the Q, I find I'm photographing things in a way I would never consider with my K-5. I guess due to it's small size and easy to access/handle features it frees up a lot of creativity.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-14-2012, 12:05 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-11-2012, 07:38 AM
|
| |
I have both the Q and an Olympus EPM-1. Both are small, and I do not prefer one over the other. Prices in the UK are now comparable, the Q only being about £10 more. I bought the Panasonic 14mm pancake lens for the E-PM1, and it is a joy to use, especially set up for aperture priority and RAW. With the Q, I have just the standard 8.5mm lens, and a wide angle conversion lens, which brings it to around 32mm if comparing to a 35mm camera. With this set up, the Q is a lot bulkier than the E-PM1, but it feels better to handle, and I tend to shoot JPG with it and use the digital filters & colour mode settings more frequently. If I had to choose, the Q is much better looking, the screen is better, it feels right. The E-PM1 is better in low light, faster and more accurate focussing, but not easy to hold. Image quality in normal lighting is comparable. I see no reasons not to get a Q once prices in your area fall to similar levels, which they inevitably will.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
02-26-2012, 01:35 PM
|
| |
Mine are all a way off being integrated, but are probably inevitable eventually as the market changes
1. That when shooting RAW+JPG you could set up the JPG's to independently use the filters & CP and aspect ratio's etc (my Olympus PEN cameras all can do this, so no idea why Pentax chose not to, and made the RAW+ setting pretty useless)
2. The ability to create customised settings in external software that can be uploaded to the camera (like the presets in Lightroom)
3. Independent camera app's such as those available on my phone (Vignette/Little Photo etc) that could be installed on the camera
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
02-18-2012, 04:44 AM
|
| |
There's too much sensor snobbery surrounding the Q. I have one, I also have a K-5, and an Olympus E-PM1. The Q holds it's own very nicely, it is a joy to use, I like it a lot, it is easy to always have around, and because it is so tiny, it gives me instant photo opportunity gratification. It functions like a camera, not a compact, and I don't care one bit that is has a tiny sensor. So, it's not a failure for me anyway.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
01-02-2012, 04:09 AM
|
| |
Sorry, that's not what I advocated, I don't see where I said jpg was better than RAW, or that I would advocate not shooting in RAW. All I said is that in my own personal work, I shoot in RAW less often than shooting with JPG. It's my personal choice to work that way......and I also will make the choice to sometimes take images on my mobile phone, or even use a $20 plastic Holga lens on my DSLR, or even take images with my homemade cardboard box pinhole lens camera. Maybe that makes me a heretic eh. Actually, the suggestion I made to the OP in my first reply was that he/she should experiment with the settings on their camera, which obviously means they won't be shooting in RAW. It was intended to be helpful. I don't know his/her level of skill, and jumping straight into the digital darkroom might not be the best starting place for them to learn how to operate their camera. Think about it!
In my teaching experience, which started way before digital, it was much easier for beginners to spot and understand mistakes that had occurred 'at the shooting stage', because it is obvious on a negative or transparency where exposure has gone wrong. In my opinion students I taught back then had more awareness and were more curious about getting the image exposures right. In the last few years, an increasing number of students have said to me that they read 'on the net and elsewhere' that it doesn't matter so much about getting the exposures right because 'it can all be fixed in Lightroom anyway'. Thats the lessening of the craft I'm referring to. I know its anecdotal, but around 400 students pass through the college doors every year, and its the kind of comment that occurs across a range of creative subjects. In other areas, such as 3D, learners get really frustrated that they can't turn out Pixar quality 3D animation in the first month of using Maya for instance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
01-01-2012, 05:21 PM
|
| |
No, it doesn't make you a bad photographer at all. I think that there is a misconception amongst a lot of DSLR owners that shooting RAW will always save the day, which can lead to some lessening of the craft, and lack of real skills and knowledge. If you work hard to get your exposures and compositions spot on during a photoshoot, then RAW gives you that little bit of extra personal control over your own imagery. Personally, I mostly shoot jpg, but choose RAW when the lighting is really tricky or I'm unsure my camera will cope if I shoot jpg
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
01-01-2012, 11:30 AM
|
| |
The settings are there to help you get the most from any particular shooting situation. You really need to get as familiar with them as you can, as different lighting and situations require adapting the settings and making adjustments. A lot of photographers shoot RAW because it minimises errors of judgement, but you can achieve exactly the results you want on a shoot by knowing how to operate your camera effectively. Personally, I rarely shoot in RAW, preferring to get the processing done in camera whilst out on a shoot. Knowing just what you want from a shot is a big step. A lot of the photographers I teach in my day job mistakenly leave that bit to the PP stage, and never really spend the time learning how to fully operate their cameras. I say, turn on and muck about with those settings and see what happens, but also turn them off and see what happens; above all have fun and learn how your camera responds in as many situations as you can.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
12-27-2011, 12:00 PM
|
| |
Thankyou iTod for your quick reply. Downloaded both, and they both work fine. I really like the real film simulations in RPP, and Rawker is really quick.
No idea what's up with UFRaw, it opens everything except my PEF files, but despite a search on the web, no one else seems to be having problems. Maybe it's specific to my Mac, who knows.
Anyway, thankyou for your help :)
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
12-27-2011, 11:03 AM
|
| |
I am used to using UFRaw & Gimp to edit my images, but my recent purchase of a new K-5 has thrown up a loading error for PEF files.
According to the list of compatible camera's the K-5 is listed, so I guessed it should open my PEF files but I get this message
/..../Pictures/IMGP0127.PEF: Corrupt data near 0x1af22
and the file opens completely corrupted. I can open DNG files fine from the K-5.
Should this happen? I'm using the latest version of Gimp with UFRaw built in, but also downloaded the standalone version, but still have the same issue.
I'm on a Mac with Snow Leopard by the way, and I can view the PEF files in Xee, in the Finder and open them in Pixelmator, so the files are ok.
I also have Pentax DCU4 installed, but it's unbelievably slow to the point it is not worth using, so I'm currently unable to develop PEF files
If there is no workaround, anyone recommend any useful, free RAW dev tools that could replace UFRaw
thanks
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
12-19-2011, 02:45 PM
|
| |
Hello. I just ordered a K-5 which I should get later this week. Can't wait to use it over Xmas. Its my first Pentax DSLR, so I'm dead excited. I'm looking forward to also contributing on this forum.
|
