Do I really "need" a Q :-)

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Q as a telephoto camera

SRT201 wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

SRT201 wrote:

Will that small appeal wear off when the sacrifice in IQ becomes more apparent?

For people who DO just treat it as a point and shoot, in a lot of cases, probably.

I gather the output looks decent in good light but gets into P&S territory when indoors.

It is a LOT better at low light than most give it credit for.....and especially if you put good fast lenses on it.

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.

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.

The Q can have postive advantages for telephoto.

While it is just plain fun to stick just about any lens on it for telephoto shots, most lenses give you something that you can do better for not THAT much money with larger sensors.

The area it shines in, in my opinion, is in providing angle of view of longer lenses at apertures that are simply not made.

As an example, a 85mm 1.4 (or my 85 1.2) will give aprox 480mm angle of view.   If the Q was 2 stops behind current apsc dslrs for low light, at 480mm 1.4 you would have 4 stops shutter speed over most lenses that could get that reach.   ISO 1600 on the Q is very useable (and higher can be ok too) if you are at iso 1600, 1/100, 85mm and 1.4 on the Q....what are you going to be using on other camera/lens combinations?

It would be interesting to see what people would use instead.

Even $10,000 super teles are not near 1.2 in terms of shutter speeds.    It will not be the absolute IQ of larger sensor cameras and much more expensive lenses but it is not bad...and also those lenses on the Q will focus to their minimum focus distance (much shorter than the same angle of view on larger).

Then of course you can put those $10,000 super teles on the Q if you want!

Lenses that i think the Q would be great with include

Canon Fd 85 1.2L

any fast 50 1.2 or 1.4 (to a lesser extent)...would love to try a FD 50 1.2L

Nikon 105 f2 DC and 135 f2 DC

Canon FD 200 1.8 or Nikon 200 f2 AIS

Some of the longer leica aspherical lenses.

If you have some of those, a Q for its current price would be a no barainer to me.

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.  

-- hide signature --

Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow