What a boring lot...

It's not what I was hoping for but so what? On the other hand I could see myself getting this if the price where around $600. Afterall I paid about $900 for a P.S. in 2004 (P.S. with a 1:1.7 sensor but only F2.8 :)) I suspect that without an AA filter and with 1080p this thing may surprise us. I already see the silver LTD edition version selling out.
Forget the Silver Limited Edit... I want the pink and purple one.

--
'Nothing is worse than active ignorance'

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
I guess I just don't understand. A bunch of you folks are attacking the image quality (IQ) of the Pentax Q without having seen the IQ of the Pentax Q yet.
You don't have to try something like that to know what its essential limitations must be. Combine that with a startlingly high price for what you get, and I think most of us see that there's really no need to wait. It isn't just that we don't expect much, it's that for it to exceed those low expectations would take an epoch-making jaw-dropping miracle.

And personally, I cannot imagine dealing with frequent lens changes when dust specks are suddenly eight times as big.
 
I guess I just don't understand. A bunch of you folks are attacking the image quality (IQ) of the Pentax Q without having seen the IQ of the Pentax Q yet. Man, what a boring lot you are.....and I am talking about the same folks that do this type of thing over and over again. Hmmmm...maybe I do understand. Boring folks need recognition too. Perhaps they also need an IQ (the other kind) test also. :-)
I agree with you completely.

Some folks just lack the flexibility of mind to 1) imagine other use cases and 2) to understand that other people have different needs that this camera will satisfy.

I, for one, need a small high quality camera when I go mountain hiking. In my case this would seem to be the answer to a maiden's prayer.
 
I guess I just don't understand. A bunch of you folks are attacking the image quality (IQ) of the Pentax Q without having seen the IQ of the Pentax Q yet.
You don't have to try something like that to know what its essential limitations must be. Combine that with a startlingly high price for what you get, and I think most of us see that there's really no need to wait. It isn't just that we don't expect much, it's that for it to exceed those low expectations would take an epoch-making jaw-dropping miracle.

And personally, I cannot imagine dealing with frequent lens changes when dust specks are suddenly eight times as big.
.

Well stated.

Couple things I find 'boring' :
  • No real chance of anything rectilinear wider than maybe 24-28mm equiv
  • No subject isolation at all at normal focus distances. Like shooting at hyperfocal all day.
  • ISO 800 will probably be the 'good IQ' ceiling. After that - hello detail-smudging NR, or hello 2006 low-light look!
  • Sluggish AF-lock with contrast detect
Taking a big leap backward photographically is, simply, pretty boring.

I see where the 'fun' starts, but IMO it ends pretty quickly after the novelty wears off and the limitations (and price you paid to be so limited) start to hit home.

Couple recent examples of shots you'd have no real hope of making with the Q, due to limitations in FOV and/or DOF and/or ISO-noise :

.

















--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/
 
Well moving_comfort that's a relief.

There will still be a market for dlsr's after the Q......I was really worried there seeing all the literature that states its a dlsr replacement.

No wait there isn't .... its a interchangeable lens compact with some very unique features and probably IQ to boot.

In short it looks a lot of fun.
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
In short it looks a lot of fun.
.

$800 bucks worth of fun? :) There's a lot of alternative photographic fun you can have with what this kit would cost. And like I said, if a lot of the fun is embedded in novelty , well, that wears off.

(I take it you'll be buying one then? Let's see if it's as good as one of your 16-45's was, I know you loved that lens :) )

.
--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/
 
Is there really any need to wait for IQ tests?

Just suppose Pentax can get a Foveon into this Q, and let's disregard the $$$$ of doing that. Even calculated at 3 times the pixel count, it is still pretty small to be able to produce enough quality to be worth the trouble of carrying and changing lenses. Besides image quality , as someone pointed out, other intrinsic problems with picture quality, like DOF, enlargement or cropping limitations cannot be fixed.

And of course cost cannot be eliminated in judging this system. IQ tests may be found to be excellent for a tiny sensor (I am sure all reviewers will be saying that), but not for what it costs. Even with the the best lenses, firmware, or design, the result will not be worth the cost and the trouble, or investment in lenses for the most. Serious photographers will find its IQ inadequate and beginners or casual shooters will find it too expensive. So, very few will buy it, meaning the investment in Q lenses look very unwise, being hard to resell even if the Q mount does not fail, and also that there will be very little new lenses or accessories and very expensive ones if so. If Pentax cannot make K mount lenses, with so many existing K mount users, what hope is there for reasonably priced Q mount lenses. There is also no way that you can have faster lenses or long zooms of quality, without them dwarfing the camera, defeating the purpose of a small camera and making it difficult to use.

Sorry if this is also boring to you, but I don't think posts complaining about Pentax not putting its limited resources behind more mainstream needs were made to entertain die-hard Pentax supporters. Many of them actually care about Pentax as much as the defenders and want to see Pentax innovate in other than coloured bodies, or cameras that only 1 in 1000 enthusiasts will buy. More can be done, for example, to attend to existing issues, e.g. fix the tungsten AF accuracy problem, or to release badly needed lenses in K-mount, ... than to pursue some whim like this.
 
Couple recent examples of shots you'd have no real hope of making with the Q, due to limitations in FOV and/or DOF and/or ISO-noise :
Did you see this video, made with the same "no-hoper" 1/2.3" sensor, albeit in a Sony HX9 camera?
http://vimeo.com/25396445

I'm guessing you did not.

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

 
Couple recent examples of shots you'd have no real hope of making with the Q, due to limitations in FOV and/or DOF and/or ISO-noise :
Did you see this video, made with the same "no-hoper" 1/2.3" sensor, albeit in a Sony HX9 camera?
http://vimeo.com/25396445

I'm guessing you did not.
The filmer's own words when answering a question regarding low light conditions.

"Not very good. The small sensor and auto-exposure makes it all grainy."

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Couple recent examples of shots you'd have no real hope of making with the Q, due to limitations in FOV and/or DOF and/or ISO-noise :
Did you see this video, made with the same "no-hoper" 1/2.3" sensor, albeit in a Sony HX9 camera?
http://vimeo.com/25396445

I'm guessing you did not.
The filmer's own words when answering a question regarding low light conditions.

"Not very good. The small sensor and auto-exposure makes it all grainy."
How very selective. Ignore the DOF, why don't you?

Here's a couple more comments:

"I'm amazed of the image quality of this little camera. Puts my GH2 to shame in some shots ..."

"Wow, that little sensor can get some great DOF. most shallow shots on the longest end of the zoom im guessing?"

See, I can be selective too.
--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

 
At least 90% + negative responses on all forums..basically it's getting hammered big time more than any camera I have ever seen.

That pretty much guarantees it's going to flop and probably lose money for Hoya/Pentax.

Right at a time when they really needed to juice things up significantly and sort themselves out K mount wise. Wasting resources on this is more indicative of the decision makers at Hoya than anything else. They just don't understand the photographic market properly that is beyond doubt.

The posts are not boring (give it a week and nobody will even mention the Q)
The camera certainly is..
 
WOW! A totally new camera system from all or favourite brand Pentax! And its small!! Yihaaaa! How fun! I can hardly wait to see what it can do! And I want one! And those cute lenses. I hope they make many of those so I can get micro-LBA fewer! Too small sensor? Nahhh ... its a new back lit Sony sensor - it is probably just outstanding. High price? Nahhhhh -- its the first camera - the price will eventually come down. I hope DPReview will test this ASAP! This is truly revolutionary stuff.

Better? :)

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
How very selective. Ignore the DOF, why don't you?
:)
Here's a couple more comments:

"I'm amazed of the image quality of this little camera. Puts my GH2 to shame in some shots ..."

"Wow, that little sensor can get some great DOF. most shallow shots on the longest end of the zoom im guessing?"
I did see it. He zoomed out to max focal length and used max aperture to get that shallow DOF. He said so in an answer. When making that video he tried to selectively make it look as interesting as possible. Not a bad idea - its a good plan to use your equipment where it looks best. You gett better results then.
See, I can be selective too.
:)

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
How very selective. Ignore the DOF, why don't you?
:)
Here's a couple more comments:

"I'm amazed of the image quality of this little camera. Puts my GH2 to shame in some shots ..."

"Wow, that little sensor can get some great DOF. most shallow shots on the longest end of the zoom im guessing?"
I did see it. He zoomed out to max focal length and used max aperture to get that shallow DOF. He said so in an answer. When making that video he tried to selectively make it look as interesting as possible. Not a bad idea - its a good plan to use your equipment where it looks best. You gett better results then.
Well, to be fair, I suppose Pentax will have to develop a similar 12x zoom lens to get similar results from that sensor. But, they now have the mount, and the engineers, so all it should take is time ...

Actually the IQ from that Sony camera looks good to me (I am really not that fussed for razor-thin DOF all the time). The biggest downside to the Pentax Q IMO is the price (assuming street price is going to be close to MSRP). If I didn't already have a Sigma DP1 I might even be quite interested ...

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

 
I agree with you completely.
Add another.

With the (optional) optical viewfinder and 43 mm lens, it will make the ulimate street cam, thanks to its high DoF. No need to focus.

The ultimate Flickr camera, and said without a hint of irony.

As for IQ, I do wonder how many of those who yack on about IQ ever print above 6x4 (and for that they'll already be using their 645D's).

Let's reserve judgement.
--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar
 
Well, to be fair, I suppose Pentax will have to develop a similar 12x zoom lens to get similar results from that sensor. But, they now have the mount, and the engineers, so all it should take is time ...
A camera system with interchangeable lenses is a trap. Yes - eventually this lens will be there ... and it will cost 5 times as much as the Sony compact camera. And you will buy it! :)
Actually the IQ from that Sony camera looks good to me (I am really not that fussed for razor-thin DOF all the time).
In good light a 16 MP small sensor camera can be very good. It has been shown that a small sensor camera at 12 MP is way better than a large sensor camera at 6 MP if the light is good. But when light gets more sparse ...
The biggest downside to the Pentax Q IMO is the price (assuming street price is going to be close to MSRP). If I didn't already have a Sigma DP1 I might even be quite interested ...
I am not really all that disturbed by the price. The camera is more complex than a compact and its the first one. It actually looks to be rather high quality. Future cameras will be cheaper ... maybe also lower quality. We will see.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
I notice that the majority of the negative posters are from males.
Now the K system actually means King system.
The Q system means the Queen system.

I really like the Q, but then I don't have problem with my female side despite me being a male. We all have female - male energies or qualities in ourselves.
As a non-normative cross gender statement, the new Q works well.

--
Take care
Raphael
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo/
 
If Ferrai releases their next vehicle with a Ford Focus engine, should the Ferrari folks wait until they drive it to ***** about it...can't we use the IQ (yes, the other kind indeed) to make some inferences ? :)
--

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=2323984&subSubSection=0&language=EN]MY PPG[ url]
K10D, K-7


Pentax: DA15/4, DA21/3.2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8, FA*28-70/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 100-300 F4

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top