Q vs PEN Mini (E-PM1)

Sensor size is the difference. Different class cameras and it isn't close at all.

The Q can't top the XZ-1 which is much cheaper. I would expect the new Canon S100 to also be equal to or better than the Q.

The Q will be fun but it isn't in the M4/3 or NEX class of camera and look at the prices for the little system.

il_alexk said:

Raist3d said:

No, it's not wrong. All the new pens use the same sensor, the Pen mini is not different.

Click to expand...

Check this study Q vs E-PL3 at technical radar before you make your claims (by the way, they use DXO SW for their measurements).

Click to expand...

I don't need to. I checked the source itself DxO. You would think that the scientist and engineers that make the very DxO software know best how to use it?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Olympus-PEN-EP3-Image-Quality-Review

"Olympus PEN EP3, a good micro 4/3 sensor already familiar to us

Tests show the new Olympus EP3 provides similar measurements as the previous Olympus model."

il_alexk said:

Alternatively, back up your claims with links to reasonable study of E-PL3/mini-PEN camera;

Click to expand...

Just did

il_alexk said:

I am not interested in study of older Oly's cameras, sorry. Anyway, here are the results for you:

Click to expand...

You may not be interested but it is precisely that experience with older Olympus RAW files and playing with the new Pen RAW files that also led me to conclude the DR/tonal range and ISO of the new sensor is ball park same of the old. Of course, we also have the Dxo guys themselves corroborating all this, but I also like to see for myself. You can do the same checking raws from the cameras yourself to.

As for your links below, DxoMark knows better. They make the software. This also obviously means that to me I need to be suspect of the Pentax Q review they did and wait for Dxo to use their software. I don't buy the Pen 3 has better noise ratio than the Sony or being "so superior to the GF3."

But again, you can play with RAWS directly from these cameras yourself and see for yourself too.

il_alexk said:

http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/PhotoRadar/SNR_DR_Charts/Olympus/OlympusE-PL3_RAW_SNR-420-90.JPG

http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/PhotoRadar/SNR_DR_Charts/Pentax/PentaxQ_SNR_RAW2-420-90.JPG

The first charts shows E-PL3 to be better than Sony's NEX-C3. The second one shows that Q is no match to NEX-C3 which is inferior to E-PL3. This allows to safely assume that Q is not in the same league as the PEN mini. The techradar site also shows E-PL3 sensor to have a better DR as well.

Click to expand...

Seems bizarre given their other graph too.

[]

il_alexk said:

il_alexk said:

There is one reason: the Q is truly pocketable. Very small. Smaller than the Pen Mini. For street life this is indeed a plus. I will say though, I think the Q would have an easier time at $600 than $800, but the build quality and ergonomics (ironically) of the Q are superior to the Pen mini.

Click to expand...

You could get similarly performing pocketable compacts at a fraction of Q price.

Click to expand...

Not with the ergonomics of the Q.

il_alexk said:

For example, I can buy a F550EXR and if things go wrong with its built quality I will be able to buy another 2 replacement f550EXRs before reaching the price of Q .

Click to expand...

The F550EXR has its own set of issues and its lenses are not anywhere near the Pentax Q's.

il_alexk said:

--
Cheers,
Alex

Click to expand...

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Did you bother trying to examine Pentax Q raws yourself like he did? Or you are just again going by theory and more theory?

As for the XZ-1 I have seen shots with sharper detail from the Q, so it could be unoptimal aperture or focus or something else. At high ISO even in his test, the Q does pull ahead by a bit.

mcshan said:

Sensor size is the difference. Different class cameras and it isn't close at all.

The Q can't top the XZ-1 which is much cheaper. I would expect the new Canon S100 to also be equal to or better than the Q.

The Q will be fun but it isn't in the M4/3 or NEX class of camera and look at the prices for the little system.

Click to expand...

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Just shows something must be massively wrong the way they tested then. In fact, I am going to completely ignore their review also on the Q.

From Dxo on their EP-3 test:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Olympus-PEN-EP3-Image-Quality-Review

"In spite of its good results we still encountered some old problems:

In high ISO (Lowlight ISO score of 536 which is a bit low in comparison with the results of the latest APS-C sensors (the score is 1083 for the Sony NEX C3 on Lowlight ISO, for example).

The Olympus PEN EP3 has still the same behavior in low ISO for the dynamic range and the score at the minimum ISO is not increasing as expected (+1 EV in comparison with the next IS0)."

You can have the Nex C3 scoring double the ISO score in high ISO quality and have more SNR noise than the Pen -3. I consider their results invalid. And yes, DxO would know better than them since they make the software they are using.

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Just go and buy the bloody camera at $800. It absolutely is worth every penny you spend on it.

I can help you with the reasoning:

1. Technical radar guys are imbeciles that know little about testing cameras. DxO has established that as a proven fact

2. There is a one terrible shot made in complete darkness that obviously proves to you how great the camera is

3. Q is the only pocketable camera at that price. There are better, similar and worse pocketable cameras significantly cheaper, so you will stand out with your exclusive camera (as long as you stay far away from Leica shooters)

You've got my blessings

--
Cheers,
Alex

il_alexk said:

Just go and buy the bloody camera at $800. It absolutely is worth every penny you spend on it.

Click to expand...

Let's use our brain here…

il_alexk said:

I can help you with the reasoning:

1. Technical radar guys are imbeciles that know little about testing cameras. DxO has established that as a proven fact

Click to expand...

Don't think Dxo would know how to use their software better than them?

il_alexk said:

2. There is a one terrible shot made in complete darkness that obviously proves to you how great the camera is

Click to expand...

Nope, I think it proves it can do better than expected. Again that shot is really hard tough light.

il_alexk said:

3. Q is the only pocketable camera at that price. There are better, similar and worse pocketable cameras significantly cheaper, so you will stand out with your exclusive camera (as long as you stay far away from Leica shooters)

Click to expand...

Hmm you are missing the point.

il_alexk said:

You've got my blessings

Click to expand...

There's no need to act childish

il_alexk said:

--
Cheers,
Alex

Click to expand...

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Raist3d said:

il_alexk said:

Just go and buy the bloody camera at $800. It absolutely is worth every penny you spend on it.

Click to expand...

Let's use our brain here…

Click to expand...

I don't follow you. The post that started this thread only stated that the current price tag is too high for such a camera and you enthusiastically argued the validity of this point.

So what do you mean by that? Say, if you use your brain, do you think it is worth for you to buy it at the current price or not? I do remember you saying that you are almost ready to pull the trigger

Member said:

Don't think Dxo would know how to use their software better than them?

Click to expand...

Could it be a different FW for the EP3 and EPL3? Could it be a slightly different electronics in the measurement tract?

Additionally, techradar gays simply measured SNR. DXO on their side performe some normalization for their metrics. I do recall that the DxO normalization technique being questioned in the past, but then again the sensor size is too close here to make a significant difference.

Member said:

Member said:

3. Q is the only pocketable camera at that price. There are better, similar and worse pocketable cameras significantly cheaper, so you will stand out with your exclusive camera (as long as you stay far away from Leica shooters)

Click to expand...

Hmm you are missing the point.

Click to expand...

Like wise .

Member said:

There's no need to act childish

Click to expand...

I don't know... At my age, I do see advantages of growing childish than as an old fart. At least this helps to talk to my kids .

--
Cheers,
Alex

il_alexk said:

Raist3d said:

il_alexk said:

Just go and buy the bloody camera at $800. It absolutely is worth every penny you spend on it.

Click to expand...

Let's use our brain here…

Click to expand...

I don't follow you. The post that started this thread only stated that the current price tag is too high for such a camera and you enthusiastically argued the validity of this point.

Click to expand...

It's very easy. Look at the reply I did, the subject under which I was replying and to who. Then you asked.

il_alexk said:

So what do you mean by that? Say, if you use your brain, do you think it is worth for you to buy it at the current price or not? I do remember you saying that you are almost ready to pull the trigger

Click to expand...

I was talking about the claims on image quality. The Q still brings something to the table: super small size and ergonomics. For street life, I don't think it should be just brushed away. Of course, this doesn't work for everyone, that's understandable.

il_alexk said:

il_alexk said:

Don't think Dxo would know how to use their software better than them?

Click to expand...

Could it be a different FW for the EP3 and EPL3? Could it be a slightly different electronics in the measurement tract?

Click to expand...

Hold on. So you are suggesting the EPL3 does better than the EP3? Doesn't seem like the tests of the EPL3 reveal such thing though.

il_alexk said:

Additionally, techradar gays simply measured SNR. DXO on their side performe some normalization for their metrics. I do recall that the DxO normalization technique being questioned in the past, but then again the sensor size is too close here to make a significant difference.

Click to expand...

Dxo not only says SNR, but also ISO and many other things. Much more than tech radar says. As far as normalizing, this doesn't change anything. It doesn't make a camera with a worse SNR become better.

il_alexk said:

il_alexk said:

il_alexk said:

3. Q is the only pocketable camera at that price. There are better, similar and worse pocketable cameras significantly cheaper, so you will stand out with your exclusive camera (as long as you stay far away from Leica shooters)

Click to expand...

Hmm you are missing the point.

Click to expand...

Like wise .

Click to expand...

Sorry kid but read what I was replying to.

il_alexk said:

il_alexk said:

There's no need to act childish

Click to expand...

I don't know... At my age, I do see advantages of growing childish than as an old fart. At least this helps to talk to my kids .

Click to expand...

Congrats then But I think you know what I mean

il_alexk said:

--
Cheers,
Alex

Click to expand...

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Raist3d said:

il_alexk said:

Raist3d said:

il_alexk wrote:

Click to expand...

So what do you mean by that? Say, if you use your brain, do you think it is worth for you to buy it at the current price or not? I do remember you saying that you are almost ready to pull the trigger

Click to expand...

I was talking about the claims on image quality. The Q still brings something to the table: super small size and ergonomics. For street life, I don't think it should be just brushed away. Of course, this doesn't work for everyone, that's understandable.

Click to expand...

No direct answer to a simple Yes or No question. Yep, I know what you mean

--
Cheers,
Alex

And why should I answer you? You change the subject for discussion and not acknowledge the points raised in a logical fashion...

But still, I'll answer you: if I didn't have my LX5 I would probably get it because to me a small "invisible" camera is essential to some if my street/people type photography. I would like to see more reviews but what I am seeing so far is encouraging.

If I can't fit the Q in my pocket (jeans pocket) with it's prime lens then I would most likely pass.

You will mote my answer is very photographer centered instead of specs centered.
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo