Reading mode: Light Dark

Pentax Q-S1, does it make sense?

Go to last post
M

Marconi63

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reaction score
54
ok, it's a Pentax forum, but i try to get an honest answer anyway :-) at the moment i am using fuji x10 and samsung nx mini, most of the time for street photography...lately, i've been thinking to buy q-s1?? i don't know why, but something is intriguing me about it, i can't tell exactly why but i think there is something ( besides the good price at the moment, at least with kit zoom 02) about q-s1 which deserves attention...

on paper, mine samsung ( i have 9mm and 17mm/1.8 primes) is clearly better camera, larger sensor, flip touchscreen, 17mm is awesome, has wifi, 20mp etc...but, i am still contemplating about q-s1...and fuji x10 is no slouch either...

is something wrong with me? :-) if i went to q-s1 route i have to buy probably 8mm prime, and at the end it is not so small investment for 1.7" camera with no practical features like wifi, flip screen and such...maybe i am imagining virtues which simply aren't there?

what did you guys think? is it just an average camera and i shouldnt bother, or it makes sense? for a little more money i can buy for example panasonic gf6 with kit lens, which looks like much 'better' camera as well?

btw, i am a little bit confused about kind of shutter which q-s1 does have...is it completely silent or what? if it is not totally silent like samsung nx mini and fuji x10 i am not interested because i am mostly doing candid shots and don't want any shutter sound...
 
Marconi63 said:
ok, it's a Pentax forum, but i try to get an honest answer anyway :-) at the moment i am using fuji x10 and samsung nx mini, most of the time for street photography...lately, i've been thinking to buy q-s1?? i don't know why, but something is intriguing me about it, i can't tell exactly why but i think there is something ( besides the good price at the moment, at least with kit zoom 02) about q-s1 which deserves attention...

on paper, mine samsung ( i have 9mm and 17mm/1.8 primes) is clearly better camera, larger sensor, flip touchscreen, 17mm is awesome, has wifi, 20mp etc...but, i am still contemplating about q-s1...and fuji x10 is no slouch either...

is something wrong with me? :-) if i went to q-s1 route i have to buy probably 8mm prime, and at the end it is not so small investment for 1.7" camera with no practical features like wifi, flip screen and such...maybe i am imagining virtues which simply aren't there?

what did you guys think? is it just an average camera and i shouldnt bother, or it makes sense? for a little more money i can buy for example panasonic gf6 with kit lens, which looks like much 'better' camera as well?

btw, i am a little bit confused about kind of shutter which q-s1 does have...is it completely silent or what? if it is not totally silent like samsung nx mini and fuji x10 i am not interested because i am mostly doing candid shots and don't want any shutter sound...
Click to expand...
The simple answer is no, you don't ned a Q.

The Q cameras are the best camera for solar system bodies and microscopy (eccept for dedicated CCD-cameras) due to the high density pixel sensor and interchangable optics.

The Q is also very light, you hardly know you have it with you.

The shutter can be either mechanic or electronic. You can choose this in the menu. And it depends on the lens you use. There is an audible click with the mechanical shutter if the lens is fitted with one.

I don't know if your other cameras has interval setting, but with, say, the 03 fisheye lens and interval timer you can walk around with the Q around your neck and nobody will know you are shoting.

So, unless you need one of the features this camera gives you, it's not going to improve on your street candid shooting.
 
If you're only interested in street photography, then. . . The Q-S1 can do perfectly OK at that, but it's not going to offer any special advantages (aside from, possibly, bemusing your subjects with its unusual appearance). Actually the Ricoh GR II might be the one to check out, as it has a great reputation in this area.

If you do a wider range of shooting, then the versatility of the Q system might pay off. I think the 01, 06 and 08 lenses are the real must-haves, and the 02 and 03 are also worthwhile. You can put the camera and all your lenses into a small, grab-and-go bag and never have to stop and think about what lenses to take with you. You've got them all!

Incidentally, the Q7 and Q-S1 are nearly identical in performance. The main difference is styling, and I personally think the Q7 is the better looking of the two. These cameras are starting to seem a bit dated, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a new model before the year is out. (I suspect it might have happened before now if Ricoh-Pentax hadn't been preoccupied with the whole huge K-1 rollout.)
 
I did some street candid shooting with Q-S1 and 06 lens, shown here:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Not sure if it's same sort of pictures you are after, but I think Q series is great when you don't need to squeeze every ounce of IQ from the camera, but just focus on the process of taking pictures.

Joey
 
If that is what you want, then you won't be disappointed.

I was on the fence too, with my other two cameras, I was having a hard time justifying it. Image-quality-wise, it cannot be done. But when you consider that it is just a fun little camera and accept that it doesn't ALWAYS have to be about maximum image quality, it is much easier to justify.

You could have quite a nice camera fleet, if you had the following:

a) A Pentax Q system for everyday-type stuff.

b) Something with a larger sensor (Micro 4/3 minimum)when you really need good low-light performance or great bokeh and depth of focus control.

another way to look at it: Would you use wide angles wider than 24mm or longer than 110mm? (35mm equiv.) If so, the Q would give you an advantage over anything of roughly the same size. If not, it's a waste of money.
 
Smaug01 said:
If that is what you want, then you won't be disappointed.

I was on the fence too, with my other two cameras, I was having a hard time justifying it. Image-quality-wise, it cannot be done. But when you consider that it is just a fun little camera and accept that it doesn't ALWAYS have to be about maximum image quality, it is much easier to justify.

You could have quite a nice camera fleet, if you had the following:

a) A Pentax Q system for everyday-type stuff.

b) Something with a larger sensor (Micro 4/3 minimum)when you really need good low-light performance or great bokeh and depth of focus control.

another way to look at it: Would you use wide angles wider than 24mm or longer than 110mm? (35mm equiv.) If so, the Q would give you an advantage over anything of roughly the same size. If not, it's a waste of money.
Click to expand...
 
Marconi63 said:
Smaug01 said:
If that is what you want, then you won't be disappointed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
+1

That is kinda how I came to the Pentax Q.

I had suggested a Canon G12 to a friend when he was looking for something smaller than his Canon XT. And it ended up being one of his favourite go-to cameras.

I was kinda looking at that camera or one of the nikon P7x00 series cameras at the time . . . but the Pentax Q came out.

A small camera, but with the ability to swap lenses.

My buddy knew I was looking at the Canon G12 and he asked me why I never got around to getting one, I point out that I did manage to pick up a Canon S90 along the way for cheap and that's the little brother to the G12, but I point to my Q and say this is really what I got instead of the G12.
Marconi63 said:
Marconi63 said:
I was on the fence too, with my other two cameras, I was having a hard time justifying it. Image-quality-wise, it cannot be done. But when you consider that it is just a fun little camera and accept that it doesn't ALWAYS have to be about maximum image quality, it is much easier to justify.

You could have quite a nice camera fleet, if you had the following:

a) A Pentax Q system for everyday-type stuff.

b) Something with a larger sensor (Micro 4/3 minimum)when you really need good low-light performance or great bokeh and depth of focus control.

another way to look at it: Would you use wide angles wider than 24mm or longer than 110mm? (35mm equiv.) If so, the Q would give you an advantage over anything of roughly the same size. If not, it's a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
you are correct, 17mm is about 46.5mm...yeah, it can be tight sometimes, but after awhile you learn where to stand and it saves me from zoom optics...i am into primes for street not because it is fancy or some golden rule, but using zoom can be tired and wearying...especially without ovf/evf, it's a pain in the ass :-)

i am thinking about ricoh gr2 or fuji x100, but some things are bothering me, as far as i can tell both are not AF champions as well...and fuji x100 is to big...i have to check size of the fuji x70, it looks smaller and lighter...
 
The only thing they're NOT strong at is professional work.

The other cameras being discussed here, with fixed prime lenses will easily beat a Q at the one thing they do: high image quality with a wide angle prime lens. But when you're out on the street, snapping away, and you see an architectural detail you want to capture that is half way up the outside of a building, you'll have to just pass on the shot. Or if 28mm (equiv) is not wide enough and you can't move back, you'll have to pass on that shot too. Or if you want a macro flower or bug shot without barrel distortion from a wide angle lens? Too bad, you'll miss that one too. Wildlife shot? Yep, you'll have to skip that too.

The fixed prime lens, APS-C or m4/3 cameras are one trick ponies. The Q's are loads more versatile.

If you're considering something like a Fuji X100T with its fixed 35mm lens, one might also consider a Panasonic LX100, which also has an APS-C sensor, and a bright, high-quality lens, but it has a bit of zoom too. (24-70) Then, at least you'd have a 3-trick pony. ;) (if not as much character or great looks)
 
Marconi63 said:
you are correct, 17mm is about 46.5mm...yeah, it can be tight sometimes, but after awhile you learn where to stand and it saves me from zoom optics...i am into primes for street not because it is fancy or some golden rule, but using zoom can be tired and wearying...especially without ovf/evf, it's a pain in the ass :-)
Click to expand...
I don't know street photography.

I've been looking at the Ricoh GR/II and the Fujifilm X70 and wondering if it would make a good vacation camera for me.

I've been taking my Pentax Q out lately and trying to get a feel for the focal lengths I like to shoot at while on vacation. And I find the Pentax 01 lens (the normal lens) often too narrow. So I use the 02 zoom a lot for vacation. I appreciate that it is f2.8 at its widest.

On vacation, I will often try to take a wide picture of the vista as the . . . "here's where we were" picture. And if I take a picture of my girls, I like to include a lot of the background to help tell the story. That and . . . when indoors, I often don't have the space (or time) to back up. Often . . . I am standing right next to the girls. :)

But when not on vacation and just going for a walk I'll often take my Pentax Q with just the 01 lens.

I actually did this goofy exercise where I aimed to post 47 pictures taken with my 47mm (equivalent) lens back in 2013/2014.

Loading…

www.flickr.com

LOL.
Marconi63 said:
i am thinking about ricoh gr2 or fuji x100, but some things are bothering me, as far as i can tell both are not AF champions as well...and fuji x100 is to big...i have to check size of the fuji x70, it looks smaller and lighter...
Click to expand...
Yeah. From what I have been reading about the Ricoh GR/II or Fujifilm X70, they are not speed demons as far as AF is concerned.

But I've stumbled across some posts for those cameras where the users are pre-focusing their cameras? Snap Focus?

Loading…

olivierduong.com


Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
TacticDesigns said:
Yeah. From what I have been reading about the Ricoh GR/II or Fujifilm X70, they are not speed demons as far as AF is concerned.

But I've stumbled across some posts for those cameras where the users are pre-focusing their cameras? Snap Focus?
Click to expand...
We used to do this back in the film/manual focus days. Believe it or not, it can be incredibly fast, and it is especially practical outdoors, with a wide angle lens:

1) Set to manual focus

2) Set the focus so that it will be in focus in a range one is likely to shoot, so for street photography, maybe 1-3 m. (smaller aperture or sensor helps here)

3) There's no zoom to complicate things. Auto ISO also simplifies it further.

4) When something comes up you'd like to capture within that focus range, just raise the camera and trip the shutter. It only takes as long as it takes the photographer to compose the image in the viewfinder, maybe 1 second total. Much faster than using autofocus.
 
Smaug01 said:
The only thing they're NOT strong at is professional work.

The other cameras being discussed here, with fixed prime lenses will easily beat a Q at the one thing they do: high image quality with a wide angle prime lens. But when you're out on the street, snapping away, and you see an architectural detail you want to capture that is half way up the outside of a building, you'll have to just pass on the shot. Or if 28mm (equiv) is not wide enough and you can't move back, you'll have to pass on that shot too. Or if you want a macro flower or bug shot without barrel distortion from a wide angle lens? Too bad, you'll miss that one too. Wildlife shot? Yep, you'll have to skip that too.

The fixed prime lens, APS-C or m4/3 cameras are one trick ponies. The Q's are loads more versatile.

If you're considering something like a Fuji X100T with its fixed 35mm lens, one might also consider a Panasonic LX100, which also has an APS-C sensor, and a bright, high-quality lens, but it has a bit of zoom too. (24-70) Then, at least you'd have a 3-trick pony. ;) (if not as much character or great looks)
Click to expand...
 
Smaug01 said:
TacticDesigns said:
Yeah. From what I have been reading about the Ricoh GR/II or Fujifilm X70, they are not speed demons as far as AF is concerned.

But I've stumbled across some posts for those cameras where the users are pre-focusing their cameras? Snap Focus?
Click to expand...
We used to do this back in the film/manual focus days. Believe it or not, it can be incredibly fast, and it is especially practical outdoors, with a wide angle lens:

1) Set to manual focus

2) Set the focus so that it will be in focus in a range one is likely to shoot, so for street photography, maybe 1-3 m. (smaller aperture or sensor helps here)

3) There's no zoom to complicate things. Auto ISO also simplifies it further.

4) When something comes up you'd like to capture within that focus range, just raise the camera and trip the shutter. It only takes as long as it takes the photographer to compose the image in the viewfinder, maybe 1 second total. Much faster than using autofocus.
Click to expand...
 
TacticDesigns said:
Smaug01 said:
TacticDesigns said:
Yeah. From what I have been reading about the Ricoh GR/II or Fujifilm X70, they are not speed demons as far as AF is concerned.

But I've stumbled across some posts for those cameras where the users are pre-focusing their cameras? Snap Focus?
Click to expand...
We used to do this back in the film/manual focus days. Believe it or not, it can be incredibly fast, and it is especially practical outdoors, with a wide angle lens:

1) Set to manual focus

2) Set the focus so that it will be in focus in a range one is likely to shoot, so for street photography, maybe 1-3 m. (smaller aperture or sensor helps here)

3) There's no zoom to complicate things. Auto ISO also simplifies it further.

4) When something comes up you'd like to capture within that focus range, just raise the camera and trip the shutter. It only takes as long as it takes the photographer to compose the image in the viewfinder, maybe 1 second total. Much faster than using autofocus.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Smaug01 said:
TacticDesigns said:
Smaug01 said:
TacticDesigns said:
Yeah. From what I have been reading about the Ricoh GR/II or Fujifilm X70, they are not speed demons as far as AF is concerned.

But I've stumbled across some posts for those cameras where the users are pre-focusing their cameras? Snap Focus?
Click to expand...
We used to do this back in the film/manual focus days. Believe it or not, it can be incredibly fast, and it is especially practical outdoors, with a wide angle lens:

1) Set to manual focus

2) Set the focus so that it will be in focus in a range one is likely to shoot, so for street photography, maybe 1-3 m. (smaller aperture or sensor helps here)

3) There's no zoom to complicate things. Auto ISO also simplifies it further.

4) When something comes up you'd like to capture within that focus range, just raise the camera and trip the shutter. It only takes as long as it takes the photographer to compose the image in the viewfinder, maybe 1 second total. Much faster than using autofocus.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TacticDesigns said:
TacticDesigns said:
But I'm thinking going from my original Q to a newer Q would only be an incremental upgrade at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The review here said that going from the 1/2.3" to 1/1.7" sensors is a big improvement. Plus, you get some free wide angle out of the same lenses, if that's your thing.

TacticDesigns said:
If not . . . I'm wondering if I'd get a bigger bang for the buck going for an external flash unit for my Q . . . and triggering it with the wireless P-TTL triggers I was asking about here . . .
Click to expand...
I always get a bounce flash for any camera that'll take one that I ever use to take pix inside. Being able to keep ISO to 800 or below makes a big difference in noise in the Q's, and the bounce flash would make that happen.
 
Smaug01 said:
TacticDesigns said:
Smaug01 said:
But I'm thinking going from my original Q to a newer Q would only be an incremental upgrade at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The review here said that going from the 1/2.3" to 1/1.7" sensors is a big improvement. Plus, you get some free wide angle out of the same lenses, if that's your thing.
Click to expand...
Yes. Probably is a big improvement.

But since this is my vacation camera . . . ultimate IQ is not the top priority. Actually, somewhere mixed in there is the priority of . . . not spending too much more money. LOL. :)

For day shots the Q is way more than sufficient for what I am using it for.

For night shots it falls down a bit. But the nice out there is the 01 prime lens. :)

But what I don't have for it is an external flash. I use the built in flash and it is pretty darn good.
Smaug01 said:
Smaug01 said:
If not . . . I'm wondering if I'd get a bigger bang for the buck going for an external flash unit for my Q . . . and triggering it with the wireless P-TTL triggers I was asking about here . . .
Click to expand...
I always get a bounce flash for any camera that'll take one that I ever use to take pix inside. Being able to keep ISO to 800 or below makes a big difference in noise in the Q's, and the bounce flash would make that happen.
Click to expand...
When I got my Q . . . the AF201fg (with its bounce capability) wasn't out yet. Only the AF200fg which didn't bounce. :(

And neither the Q or the AF200fg was set-up to work wirelessly.

I do actually have a Pentax flash though . . . a Pentax AF540fgz which I use with my Pentax dSLR cameras . . . but a bit big for Q.

Here's a picture of someone putting their Pentax AF540fgz on their Q LOL . . . scroll down . . .

Loading…

www.pentaxforums.com

But just below that . . . someone has put an AF200fg on a bracket with a cable. If that could have been made to bounce and swivel . . . it'd be doubly good.

But the wireless flash triggers that just came out . . . would be even beyond good.

You could bounce, swivel to your hearts content . . . and get the flash really off camera and get into directional lighting. :)

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
TacticDesigns said:
I do actually have a Pentax flash though . . . a Pentax AF540fgz which I use with my Pentax dSLR cameras . . . but a bit big for Q.

Here's a picture of someone putting their Pentax AF540fgz on their Q LOL . . . scroll down . . .
Click to expand...
I just sold my AF540 flash with my old K100D. Even on that APS-C DSLR, it was a monster of a flash. I found myself holding the rig by the edge/side of the flash, rather than the camera, so as not to put too much torque on the hot shoe. In retrospect, I should have mounted it on a table in the room somewhere and triggered it remotely.
TacticDesigns said:
But just below that . . . someone has put an AF200fg on a bracket with a cable. If that could have been made to bounce and swivel . . . it'd be doubly good.
Click to expand...
Ah, I don't know. By the time the compact camera set-up gets that clunky, one might as well just use his SLR.
TacticDesigns said:
But the wireless flash triggers that just came out . . . would be even beyond good.

You could bounce, swivel to your hearts content . . . and get the flash really off camera and get into directional lighting. :)
Click to expand...
I like to keep it simpler than that. Esp. with a Q system. I'm even on the fence as to whether investing in a flash is too much for the rare number of times I would use it....
 
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