|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-29-2015, 07:44 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-28-2015, 09:30 PM
|
| |
Oh, I agree with you. I have been carrying a camera in my pocket for roughly 40 years now (a decade or so later than the '60's in your experience), and my Q-7 is the best camera to ever fill that role. However, a side benefit to me is that my Q-7 is my first pocket-able camera to fill an additional role, namely as the camera that I take along on our (my wife and me) birding walks; the pictures I take with my less expensive lenses are not nearly as good as the pictures SteveNunez has taken with his more expensive lenses, but it is also the best birding camera I have ever had. Thus I was a tad surprised at his comment about how seldom he actually uses that camera. My decision to buy this Q-7 was largely made because I could potentially fill both roles at such a reasonable price. People like HeinrichLohmann have demonstrated the quality that can be coaxed out of a Q. Steve and Heinrich have shown me where I could be sometime, with the body I have already bought. It would be nice if Pentax would make it even better, but that is a business choice they will ultimately have to make.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-28-2015, 06:17 AM
|
| |
You have shown here some really nice "super zoom" pictures. Are you saying that you could get even better, but equivalent, pictures from cameras with larger sensors (and therefore less "effective magnification")?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-22-2015, 12:05 PM
|
| |
I'm not sure where you get that from. There is much excitement here about the upcoming FF camera, but that is because it is something new. Elsewhere, I see as much excitement about APS-C as about FF, and as much excitement about M43 as about APS-C, and as much excitement about cameras with even smaller sensors (namely the new bridge cameras) as about M43. There are various different needs out there, and Image Quality does not dominate all other measures. Cameras will ultimately succeed based on the complete package. The Q family, with controls very very similar to controls on the K family, has a good chance to succeed in its own little niches, where "succeed" is defined as bringing in more money and "good will" than it costs Ricoh.
---------- Post added 08-22-15 at 03:09 PM ----------
Are you sure about that??
I've heard many comments from users of smaller-sensored cameras who think they are getting too much DOF and want to get some bokeh.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-18-2015, 09:10 PM
|
| |
As I look at where the lower-tier APS-C Pentax cameras (like the K-S2) are, and the needs of typical Q users, I believe that there are several relatively low-cost things Pentax could do:
(1) a 00 lens, which would be just like the 01 lens in build and cost, but have a focal length of roughly half of the 01 lens. (people tend to photograph things close to them, but the price of the 08 is very off-putting)
(2) make a WR version of the body, and replace 00, 01, 06 lenses by 10, 11, 16 WR variants.
Neither of these advances would require anything new - they would build on technology Pentax is already using, so the engineering should have minimal cost, and manufacturing change should be straight-forward.
Frankly, I've been surprised by the quality of images from my Q-7; I'm not convinced that moving to a larger sensor is required.
Personally, looking at the costs of a 01 lens and of a generic adapter, I think the Pentax K-to-Q adapter is also too pricey. Adding electronics to the adapter, so KAF3 lenses would maintain full capability, but keeping cost the same, would also make sense, but I'm not sure the market is there to support it.
I bought my Q-7 used-like-new back in December because I had reached the conclusion that Pentax had their hands full, and had already done a cosmetic upgrade, so I couldn't expect a new Q in 2015. I still feel that way.
Incidentally, apart from details, I don't really disagree with the recent comments by CWRailman. |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-09-2015, 08:59 AM
|
| |
I totally agree with you. There are always tradeoffs in taking wildlife pictures, in both cost and in mobility. A major reason I went with the Q7 is that it forms the basis of a small, mobile birding system that I can take on walks with my wife (and my walking stick doubles as a monopod to provide a certain amount of stability).
---------- Post added 08-09-15 at 12:01 PM ----------
I looked into the Pentax lens, but I haven't been able to convince myself to buy a lens without an aperture ring (my adapter doesn't have one), so I've been using a Sigma 70-300mm APO lens, which scores almost as well,
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-07-2015, 07:16 PM
|
| |
Almost any pocket camera requires certain compromises. My Canon Elph was the only one that provided any zoom at all, at the cost of image quality; in particular, I always noticed that (Caucasian) faces were badly washed out for any picture taken under sunlight. I considered various other digital cameras with pancake zoom lenses, but there the compromises consisted of money and diminished other uses for the camera (my Q7 doubles as a birding camera because of the small sensor), so I am quite willing to "zoom with my feet" when I can, since that is basically what I am used to getting from my pocket camera.
---------- Post added 08-07-15 at 10:20 PM ----------
This is a very good picture; what lens were you using??
The basic problem with a 1" sensor is that you'll get much less "telephoto effect" from a particular lens than you get from the 1/1.7" sensor.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-06-2015, 01:45 PM
|
| |
I guess this is a case of YMMV.
Once I spent extra money to import a 01 lens from Japan, I find the Q7 to be reasonably pocket-able, and thus my Canon Elph has been unofficially moved to the "in case of 'emergency' only", collection.
added:
My last film pocket camera was an Olympus "clam shell" camera. It was sleeker than the Q7, but the Q7 is very slightly smaller in width and height, and only in depth is the Q7 larger (by about 3/4"). Neither camera has any zoom, and I can adjust ISO in the Olympus only by changing film. The Olympus has very limited controls as compared to the Q7, whose controls are virtually the same as my K30 DSLR. The Canon Elph also has very limited controls. The Q7 is by far the best camera I've ever carried around in my pocket.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
07-25-2015, 12:55 PM
|
| |
Ricoh-Pentax will do what they want with the Q.
My questions in December were determining whether I could use it to fill an otherwise empty niche -
namely a camera which could mate with my K-mount zoom lenses to create a serious birding camera.
The sensors on the m43 cameras are too big for that.
Eventually I did assemble the tools I needed to accomplish my mission.
My comments since then have reflected my personal beliefs of what
Pentax could do to expand the Q's market. Maybe Ricoh-Pentax isn't
interested in going down that path. Since I've bought my camera,
I'm fine with that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
07-20-2015, 01:49 PM
|
| |
A week ago I was taking a picture with my K-30, when I lurched sideways just as I pressed the shutter button. I was surprised at how long it took for the shutter to actually respond, but the picture showed no sign of my lurch. Then I remembered that I had checked the "automatic horizon correction" box - and the logic had worked perfectly to correct the effect of my lurch (and the extra work explained the extra delay). That is a great feature of my K-30, and I would really really like to have it on my Q also.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-12-2015, 03:28 PM
|
| |
I agree. With the 01 lens, my Q7 is a fine pocket-able camera. A pancake version of the 01 would be very nice; so would a similar wide-angle lens.
The problem with weather-sealing the camera is that they would also have to introduce several weather-sealed lenses. I don't know how much work would have to go into 10,11, and 16 lenses (my names for a weather-sealed wide-angle prime lens, and weather-sealed versions of the 01 and 06 lenses)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-12-2015, 08:05 AM
|
| |
I'm sorry that you feel that way. With a camera like my Super Program, I had a total of three lenses - a prime standard, a prime wide-angle, and a zoom telephoto. With the 01 and 06, I'm 2/3 of the way to what I expect from a primary camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-14-2015, 11:39 AM
|
| |
Cause it to become damp, which then allows the innards to become damp. We were on the way to a family reunion, and the camera stopped working just about the time we arrived there. Fortunately I had another camera with me, but that is another story.
When I got home, I sent in in for repairs. Some amount of $$$ later, they got it working, but it never did work quite right after that, and the longer I used it the worse it got. There is a reason I have my second Pentax in my signature and not my first - the first has been in the Marion IN landfill for some years now.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-14-2015, 07:51 AM
|
| |
My first Pentax camera was an ME that I bought in 1979. It definitely was not WR; if fact, I ruined that camera when I took it to Niagara Falls in 1981, and apparently some spray got into it. Some time between 1984 (when I finally replaced the ME with the Super Program I use in my signature) and today Pentax started selling WR cameras. At that point in time they faced exactly the same issue with K-mount that they would face with Q-mount today - a certain base of users who had lenses that were not WR ... but they made the switch anyway. I still have a few old non-WR K-mount lenses. When I look at the K-50 on display at the Super Target near my home, and compare it to the Canon T5i nearby, I don't see that I lose anything by having a WR camera. Whether I would buy new lenses, or use my old lenses on a new WR K-50 camera and simply view it as the latest update to my ancient Super Program, is my decision to make, but that is not Pentax's concern. Likewise, if Pentax would release a WR Q-mount camera, you could always buy the new WR Q-S2 and use your old lenses; having it WR wouldn't reduce the utility to you of its other new features.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-10-2015, 09:48 PM
|
| |
The truth probably is that they don't hang out here listening to what we say. Most likely we're trying to guess what they are thinking and trying to see how we can make good use of a tool that is not actually intended for us. That is why I bought a Q7 and an enlarging hood - because my reading of their goals led me to believe that I'll need to cope without an EVF.
But if I were going to make a presentation to them, I would tell them that hitting two market segments with just one feature is a good move. I would point out that cell phones are going to better and better LCDs, so they should think in that direction also if they want to remain more than competitive with cell phone cameras (and, ps, that would be good for serious photographers also). I would point out that most images taken by kids are intended for the Internet, so wireless connectivity would enable the camera to remain more than competitive with cell phone cameras (and, ps, build it right and that would be good for serious photographers also). I would point out that a flippy screen on a camera makes it much easier to take a good selfie with the camera than the features cell phones usually stick their users with (and, ps, it would make the camera better for street photographers also). I would point our that kids don't have the sense to come in out of the rain, they just keep having fun and would like to keep taking pictures without ruining their equipment, so extending WR to the Q-family would enable it to remain more than competitive with (wimpy) cell phone cameras (and, ps, serious photographers sometimes don't have the option of working in nice weather also).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-10-2015, 08:37 PM
|
| |
I'm not convinced that we're always talking about two different sets of "wants" here; for example
(1) An EVF may not fit in, but cell phone manufacturers often compete on the quality of their screens - and one of the purposes seems to be so that kids can display their pictures better - so a tilting LCD with higher pixel count would help us to focus/compose better and would fit into the wants of fun-loving kids.
(2) IR may not fit in, but some kind of wireless control /tethering would help us, and would help fun-loving kids to get their photos onto the Internet faster.
Thus, many features that would make the camera more attractive to people like us would also help it to compete in the mass market.
It does not always have to be one or the other.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-09-2015, 09:11 PM
|
| |
Perhaps not for you, but those of us who use a Q for Street Photography, or something similar, a flippy screen would make it much much easier to be discrete (looking down at the camera, and seeming to fiddle while actually taking the picture). Give it enough flip, and it also becomes more useable for the teenagers who are so much into pictures of their selfies.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-15-2015, 11:54 AM
|
| |
I never claimed that the Q-family is directly competitive with the more expensive cameras, but I do claim that it is a reasonable replacement for those of us who choose not to spend that kind of money or to lug that kind of mass around with us. Maybe your eyes can see that kind of difference; without a direct comparison I don't miss the "depth" you miss (a result of # bits of color, perhaps), but I would definitely miss the dollars from my wallet and the space from my carry-on luggage.
That is a potentially misleading statement. Canon and Nikon may not be using 1/1.7 sensors, but they are using even smaller sensors. Both of them recently introduced new cameras with 1/2.3 sensors (Canon SX-60 and Nikon P-900).
Furthermore, most importantly, I stand by my comment relevant to this thread. I don't believe that Pentax will abandon the Q-family, nor redefine it, as long as it has a clientele, and I don't believe that a larger sensor is consistent with the Q-family as currently defined.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-15-2015, 09:35 AM
|
| |
You miss the important of my comments in the context of this thread. Having now looked at my pictures on my home computer, rather than on the laptop I was traveling with, I am more convinced than ever that only a pixel-peaker, or someone who prints poster-size prints, would see any advantage to the larger m43 sensor. The 1/1.7 sensor is just fine for the rest of us. I have possession of two older 70ist-200ist Vivitar zoom lenses purchased in the early 1980's; the Canon FD mount that my mother purchased has been obsolete for twenty years now, but the Pentax K mount that I bought would work with any Pentax camera for sale today. In light of that Pentax tradition, and since I see no over-riding problem with the sensor currently used by the Q-family, I see no reason for the future of the Q-family to include a different sensor. It is just fine as it is.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-12-2015, 10:51 PM
|
| |
At another discussion board, every-so-often someone will ask "How can I take pictures in an old church, where the lighting is dim and they don't allow tripods or flash?" The answer usually involves buying a camera for $1000+ and then adding on an f/2.8 (or better) lens for at least another $1000. I have "just" a Q-7 kit that cost me just over $400, including the extra 01 lens I bought. Attached here is a picture I took using that Q7+01 in an old mission church, where they didn't allow tripods, didn't allow flash, and they keep the church quite dark. This is not a perfect picture; I could fix it up some in post-processing, but I think looking at the original is more instructive. Perhaps a more expensive kit would be needed if I were producing a picture for a poster, but for display on my computer, this will be just fine. A Pentax Q-7 has nothing to apologize for.
---------- Post added 03-13-15 at 01:57 AM ----------
I believe that the primary audience for the Q-family is, and (in the minds of Pentax) will continue to be, the average teen-aged Japanese girl. Under that supposition, and in looking at what was done with the K-S2, I believe that the following are the most likely upgrades to show up in the Q-S2:
(1) flippy screen (just tilt, not articulated) - to make taking "selfies" easier.
(2) WiFi - to enable quick posting of "selfies" and other pictures to the Internet
(3) possibly weather resistance - so taking and posting these pictures can be done under any conditions
|
