fakuryu
Senior Member
I see, then lets do hope so that Pentax would release a good wide for the Q even if not a UW
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 5-15mm is very good at 5mm, so it is a pretty decent wide, something like an 18mm on APS-C. A good prime lens 3 to 4mm would be nice though, say with 1.9 or larger aperture too.fakuryu wrote:
I see, then lets do hope so that Pentax would release a good wide for the Q even if not a UW
--
There is no such thing a "Pro" level gear, just Pro level work.
SRT201 wrote:
Trying to figure out what to do with a BestBuy gift card and the Q (not the Q10) seemed an option.
I have the K-01 and really like it. Sure the Q is VERY small but will it essentially just be a replacement for a P&S?
Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
Opinions?
Thanks
... and yes I know... I certainly don't actually NEED one by any means.![]()
Yes, but try one first. Taking pics on it is quite addictive (to me).SRT201 wrote:
Trying to figure out what to do with a BestBuy gift card and the Q (not the Q10) seemed an option.
I have the K-01 and really like it. Sure the Q is VERY small but will it essentially just be a replacement for a P&S?
it depends on what sort of shooter you are; nobody can answer that better than you.Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
the prime lens (f1.9) makes all the difference in low light, but it's not wide enough and can be considered inflexible compared to something like the Panasonic DMC-LX7 or similar cams, which can do low light well with a zoom lens.I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
Depends on HOW you use it. It can just be a decent fairly high end (in terms of IQ) but bulky if you leave the kit lens on point and shootnow at avery good price.SRT201 wrote:
Trying to figure out what to do with a BestBuy gift card and the Q (not the Q10) seemed an option.
I have the K-01 and really like it. Sure the Q is VERY small but will it essentially just be a replacement for a P&S?
For people who DO just treat it as a point and shoot, in a lot of cases, probably.Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
It is a LOT better at low light than most give it credit for.....and especially if you put good fast lenses on it.I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
The most fun camera ever.Opinions?
Thanks
... and yes I know... I certainly don't actually NEED one by any means.
--
Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.
viking79 wrote:
SRT201 wrote:
Trying to figure out what to do with a BestBuy gift card and the Q (not the Q10) seemed an option.
I have the K-01 and really like it. Sure the Q is VERY small but will it essentially just be a replacement for a P&S?
Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
Opinions?
Thanks
... and yes I know... I certainly don't actually NEED one by any means.![]()
That's the issue then really. If I am tempted by the "the lens is basically free" pricing and pick it up for "when I need a really small camera" which I can't say is often, then it may be a waste. I usually go for the best IQ I can get so I imagine myself getting disenchanted comparing it to the K-5 or K-01.neil holmes wrote:
SRT201 wrote:For people who DO just treat it as a point and shoot, in a lot of cases, probably.Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
It is a LOT better at low light than most give it credit for.....and especially if you put good fast lenses on it.I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
SRT201 wrote:
That's the issue then really. If I am tempted by the "the lens is basically free" pricing and pick it up for "when I need a really small camera" which I can't say is often, then it may be a waste. I usually go for the best IQ I can get so I imagine myself getting disenchanted comparing it to the K-5 or K-01.neil holmes wrote:
SRT201 wrote:For people who DO just treat it as a point and shoot, in a lot of cases, probably.Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
It is a LOT better at low light than most give it credit for.....and especially if you put good fast lenses on it.I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
I suppose for unique long tele work or extreme macro with an adapter it would indeed be cool but again the sacrifice in IQ might eventually cause my enthusiasm wear off.
I don't do street photography so the unobtrusive angle isn't really important to me.
I don't know that I want to invest in a whole little system and the fast prime is all but impossible to find now.
It looks really cool but I don't want to waste money - even BestBuy money. My kids would love it to be sure.![]()
So then we're back to the perceived size advantage which is valid if you ACTUALLY find yourself having to go without a camera often because the K-5, K-01, etc. are too large. In any other case the size advantage comes down to liking a cool tiny camera and that doesn't really justify it for me.viking79 wrote:
So you really don't gain any telephoto ability (because the lenses aren't good enough). Until they make a super high resolution telephoto lens for the Q you won't see a lot of advantage with it for tele. What you do gain is if you take say a C mount lens, you can get much more compact than an SLR at telephoto focal lengths.
Eric
If you plan on just shooting normal focal lengths get a enthusiast point and shoot/compact. Pentax MX1, Fuji X20, Panasonic LX7, Sony RX100, Samsung EX2f, etc. The Q is right up with these in image quality in many ways, even with its smaller sensor, but if you just stick the 5-15mm on it you don't take use of its interchangeable lens advantage.SRT201 wrote:
So then we're back to the perceived size advantage which is valid if you ACTUALLY find yourself having to go without a camera often because the K-5, K-01, etc. are too large. In any other case the size advantage comes down to liking a cool tiny camera and that doesn't really justify it for me.viking79 wrote:
So you really don't gain any telephoto ability (because the lenses aren't good enough). Until they make a super high resolution telephoto lens for the Q you won't see a lot of advantage with it for tele. What you do gain is if you take say a C mount lens, you can get much more compact than an SLR at telephoto focal lengths.
Eric
IQ is not the same as sharpness. This is a easy trigger camera.SRT201 wrote:
That's the issue then really. If I am tempted by the "the lens is basically free" pricing and pick it up for "when I need a really small camera" which I can't say is often, then it may be a waste. I usually go for the best IQ I can get so I imagine myself getting disenchanted comparing it to the K-5 or K-01.neil holmes wrote:
SRT201 wrote:For people who DO just treat it as a point and shoot, in a lot of cases, probably.Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?
It is a LOT better at low light than most give it credit for.....and especially if you put good fast lenses on it.I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.
I suppose for unique long tele work or extreme macro with an adapter it would indeed be cool but again the sacrifice in IQ might eventually cause my enthusiasm wear off.


I looked long and hard at Q vs. K-01 vs. advanced compacts and bought a K-01. That didn't quite kill my interest in a Q, and as late as last night I had a Q with 01 prime in my shopping cart. I didn't close the deal, and I think I have it beat now.SRT201 wrote:
So then we're back to the perceived size advantage which is valid if you ACTUALLY find yourself having to go without a camera often because the K-5, K-01, etc. are too large. In any other case the size advantage comes down to liking a cool tiny camera and that doesn't really justify it for me.viking79 wrote:
So you really don't gain any telephoto ability (because the lenses aren't good enough). Until they make a super high resolution telephoto lens for the Q you won't see a lot of advantage with it for tele. What you do gain is if you take say a C mount lens, you can get much more compact than an SLR at telephoto focal lengths.
Eric
I concur.audiobomber wrote:
- I don't want to start collecting lenses for another mount
WISH I had that lens. Nice!- Supertele results with the Q are not better than adding a TC, or even two, to my K-01 and DA*300. I bought a Carry Speed VF-3 yesterday to improve usability of the K-01.
Totally agree. Gear paralysis is problem that grows with your collection.- I don't need more choices of which camera to bring, which lenses to pack, second guess, change my mind at the last minute, forget something I need.
I love my K-01 as well and with the DA 40 it is very compact.- Size is the only real advantage of the Q, the K-01 beats it in every other way. Best use what I already have. I have a fanny pack that will fit the K-01 with DA 40 mounted. I have a small shoulder bag that will carry a K-01 with lens mounted and a small prime. I will look for a small belt case today that will carry the K-01 with FA 35, because that's my main lens. Then I won't have any reason not to pack a camera, and no further reason to buy a small sensored camera.
No two ways about it but the 8.5 is pretty much ruled out unless I want to pay $800 for the two lens kit! :-OBut damn, that Q with 8.5mm is cool. ;-)