Reading mode: Light Dark

Q vs K10d

Go to last post
Wallace Ross

Wallace Ross

Senior Member
Messages
2,290
Solutions
1
Reaction score
643
Location
CA
I'm curious just what I will find so I'm going to set up a little scene and shoot both cameras at their best. The 01 prime and the DA35ltd. Im guessing that each one will be better at different settings. Any thoughts before I get started.
 
K10 with DA 35 will be better.
 
Wallace Ross said:
Wallace Ross wrote:

I'm curious just what I will find so I'm going to set up a little scene and shoot both cameras at their best. The 01 prime and the DA35ltd. Im guessing that each one will be better at different settings. Any thoughts before I get started.
Click to expand...
 
My Guess is the K will be better at low ISO and the Q will pull ahead at higher ISO's :-D
 
I second John's opinion. Above about ISO 800 I expect you will find the Q performs better than the K10D. I also expect that the Q's performance will be worse than the K10 at small apertures, e.g. F5.6 to F22, but it will be interesting to see what you find in your testing. Will you use JPEG, or RAW?

Or perhaps both, for a complete comparison?

Cheers, Geoff.
 
GeoffNS said:
GeoffNS wrote:

I second John's opinion. Above about ISO 800 I expect you will find the Q performs better than the K10D. I also expect that the Q's performance will be worse than the K10 at small apertures, e.g. F5.6 to F22, but it will be interesting to see what you find in your testing. Will you use JPEG, or RAW?

Or perhaps both, for a complete comparison?

Cheers, Geoff.
Click to expand...
It's not a full test what I've done is shoot at the best aperture for each at base ISO and 1600 ISO and using RAW my purpose is to test the Q as I would use it. I didn't use my K-7 because frankly there wouldn't be a hope of the Q winning at any setting.
 
Looking forward to see the results Wallace.
 
Here is a 100% crop from the comparison. I welcome peoples comments and opinions on this. I find the results interesting. Im still looking at some other images and writing a blog post but can easily redo some based on feedback.

Q Vs K10D at base ISO and illuminated using P-TTL with two af540fgz flashes

Q Vs K10D at base ISO and illuminated using P-TTL with two af540fgz flashes




--
 
Q is far more usable for general purpose photography than K10, because:

- it's much smaller

- it has a better ISO stretch and better HiISO than K10

- it's always one stop faster than DA35 ltd. I mean in capturing available light and aachieving better shutter speed, and I'm not talking about bohkeh.

- in smaller no normal sized prints, one is often hard pressed to discern Q from a DSLR output. The difference becomes visible on screen in full resolution and under 100%, but when images are scaled down for web use, all difference is gone.

DA35 ltd advantage: it has macro capability, which Q doesn't have. That is the reason I like MX-1 concept even better than Q, it's truly "all in one, take anywhere camera".
 
Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Q is far more usable for general purpose photography than K10, because:

- it's much smaller

- it has a better ISO stretch and better HiISO than K10

- it's always one stop faster than DA35 ltd. I mean in capturing available light and aachieving better shutter speed, and I'm not talking about bohkeh.

- in smaller no normal sized prints, one is often hard pressed to discern Q from a DSLR output. The difference becomes visible on screen in full resolution and under 100%, but when images are scaled down for web use, all difference is gone.

DA35 ltd advantage: it has macro capability, which Q doesn't have. That is the reason I like MX-1 concept even better than Q, it's truly "all in one, take anywhere camera".
Click to expand...
The Q actually has excellent macro ability, the reason is to get the same field of view you use a shorter focal length. Shorter focal lengths need less extension, so you can get much higher effective magnifications without as much extension in the lens. Granted, you need a very sharp lens to get good results.

I.e. I have a manual focus 16mm f/1.4 lens for Q, this is pretty equivalent in field of view to 55mm on an APS-C camera, 85mm on full frame or a typical portrait lens. Well, the DA 55mm f/1.4 has a minimum focusing distance of about 1.5 feet and the FA 85mm f/1.4 has a minimum focusing distance of 2.8 feet. The 16mm lens I have has a minimum focus distance of about 10 inches, and is the same field of view as the other 2 lenses used on APS and Full Frame respectively.

I really hope they release a good macro lens for the Q, like a 16mm Macro, would be a great system for it.

Eric
 
viking79 said:
viking79 wrote:
I really hope they release a good macro lens for the Q, like a 16mm Macro, would be a great system for it.

Eric
Click to expand...
 
viking79 said:
viking79 wrote:
The only thing I notice about using my Spacecom lens is the Q cannot fire flash (besides built in) with manual lenses, which is a bit annoying. If you plan on using off camera flash you have to use native lenses. Must have something to do with the electronic shutter.

Eric
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting that you say that. My first Q with FW 1.10 installed was fatally unstable (quirky with frequent shut downs and then finally - after just over 100 shots - giving up the ghost and booting for 1 second then shutting down). With the Fotodiox adapter and a pTTL flash it worked fine with my various k-mount lenses. Of course, you are stuck with the 1/13th electronic shutter as a maximum unless you get the Pentax adapter.

Q m50 f/1.4 - possibly at f/4 - generic adapter
Q m50 f/1.4 - possibly at f/4 - generic adapter

The 2nd Q (I'm an optimist when it comes to Pentax) is on the way and should arrive today.




--

JNR
www.jamesrobins.com
 
I am experiencing similar shutdown problems with my Q. It can just shutdown while I shoot. I turn it back on. It works again. Sometimes just fine. Other times shuts down again. I wonder how common it is. Thinking of sending mine for warranty repairs but wanted to check to see if there might be some easy fix. Maybe a flaw in firmware?
 
JNR said:
JNR wrote:
JNR said:
viking79 wrote:
The only thing I notice about using my Spacecom lens is the Q cannot fire flash (besides built in) with manual lenses, which is a bit annoying. If you plan on using off camera flash you have to use native lenses. Must have something to do with the electronic shutter.

Eric
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting that you say that. My first Q with FW 1.10 installed was fatally unstable (quirky with frequent shut downs and then finally - after just over 100 shots - giving up the ghost and booting for 1 second then shutting down). With the Fotodiox adapter and a pTTL flash it worked fine with my various k-mount lenses. Of course, you are stuck with the 1/13th electronic shutter as a maximum unless you get the Pentax adapter.
Click to expand...
I think pTTL works, but generic flash trigger does not. I am just trying to use a Cactus V2 with remote manual strobes. I searched around a bit and this seemed to be a limitation, I imagine because it is using an electronic rolling shutter for manual lenses.

Eric
 
viking79 said:
viking79 wrote:
I think pTTL works, but generic flash trigger does not. I am just trying to use a Cactus V2 with remote manual strobes. I searched around a bit and this seemed to be a limitation, I imagine because it is using an electronic rolling shutter for manual lenses.

Eric
Click to expand...
Preliminary testing indicates that the Vivitar 3700 with the old TTL module works on a generic adapter (it has the extra connector to communicate electronically, but I am sure you are right that the Cactus would be useless). Just got a properly working Q this afternoon, so I'm not ready to say what works best. Right now, I would say a small pTTL unit, and better yet the camera flash with the Metz in wireless servo mode will be my mainstays when using the adapter and needing flash (a truly rare need for me). If I was depending on consistent pTTL flash for a living, I would have left Pentax a long time ago...

With Q system lenses and flash, it looks much better except A flash (auto) is beyond useless even by Pentax standards; forced flash works OK. I need to get away from testing flash so I can feel much, much better about the camera itself.
 
Wallace Ross said:
Wallace Ross wrote:

Here is a 100% crop from the comparison. I welcome peoples comments and opinions on this. I find the results interesting. Im still looking at some other images and writing a blog post but can easily redo some based on feedback.

Q Vs K10D at base ISO and illuminated using P-TTL with two af540fgz flashes

Q Vs K10D at base ISO and illuminated using P-TTL with two af540fgz flashes

--
http://wkoopmans.ca/notebook/
Click to expand...
In such a controlled environment K10d looks better to me, but just slightly better. Point being is that Q is in the ballpark, probably as good as old 6MP sensor DSLR's, which is good enough in my opinion, and very impressive for such a small device.




It would be interesting to see a garden shot at the same time of the day, with approximately the same light level, also higher ISO assuming your K10D with one of the "faulty" ones with the infamous sensors, as if I recall correctly later batches of K10D's were quite OK at higher ISO levels.





--
common sense is anything but common
 
JNR said:
JNR wrote:
JNR said:
viking79 wrote:
I think pTTL works, but generic flash trigger does not. I am just trying to use a Cactus V2 with remote manual strobes. I searched around a bit and this seemed to be a limitation, I imagine because it is using an electronic rolling shutter for manual lenses.

Eric
Click to expand...
Preliminary testing indicates that the Vivitar 3700 with the old TTL module works on a generic adapter (it has the extra connector to communicate electronically, but I am sure you are right that the Cactus would be useless). Just got a properly working Q this afternoon, so I'm not ready to say what works best. Right now, I would say a small pTTL unit, and better yet the camera flash with the Metz in wireless servo mode will be my mainstays when using the adapter and needing flash (a truly rare need for me). If I was depending on consistent pTTL flash for a living, I would have left Pentax a long time ago...

With Q system lenses and flash, it looks much better except A flash (auto) is beyond useless even by Pentax standards; forced flash works OK. I need to get away from testing flash so I can feel much, much better about the camera itself.
Click to expand...
I am not worried about it at all on the Q, but was hoping to be able to use it for the manual focus lenses. I think the best thing to do would just be buy the 15-45mm f/2.8 since it would work fine with off camera flash, and would be a nice studio focal length :)

PS, I have no plans to use the Q for serious photo work, but it is for fun. Just seeing what it will do.

Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top