Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Started Jul 15, 2011 | Discussions
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 42,356
Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesabesde.com%2Fnoticias%2Fpentax-q-analisis-fotos-video%2C1_7779&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

That's the google link translation. In short:

  • They are impressed with the size

  • They find the AF adequate

  • They are impressed with the build quality and

  • Superb ergonomics, particularly for its size

They wonder if the sensor will be "good enough" to not make it a fail at the price (sort of implied).

  • Raist

-- hide signature --

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

Dirk Jan New Member • Posts: 8
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Really love the look of that body. Everything comes down on image quality though and I can understand the skepticism of everyone in the know about digital photography and their mothers in regard to the sensor size.

But who knows, they might yet surprise us. We wouldn't have believed how small memory chips would turn out fifteen years ago either. As technology advances we might see smaller and smaller imaging sensors with still very solid IQ.

Myari Regular Member • Posts: 441
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Dirk Jan wrote:

But who knows, they might yet surprise us. We wouldn't have believed how small memory chips would turn out fifteen years ago either. As technology advances we might see smaller and smaller imaging sensors with still very solid IQ.

Even if true, that also applies to cellphones and p&s cameras with similar size sensor. The problem is why buy ILC models when you can buy cheaper cameras with fixed lenses (no dust on sensor issues, easier to use, smaller, cheaper).

OP Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 42,356
My take is.
  • high quality glass

  • super ergonomics

  • make camera very fast / responsive (not talking about AF, but dial switches, mode switches, manual focus)

  • provide for accurate easy way to manual focus

  • sensor noise/DR say at least 1/2 a stop over the LX5

  • no AA filter (confirmed)

To me this can work. But they have to hit all those points.

-- hide signature --

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

OP Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 42,356
Two things.
  • Versatility - I am looking forward to see for example that fish eye lens

  • Ergonomics for photography.

Looks like Pentax is embracing the JPEG engine filter simulations too which is music to my ears.. selecting films with that dial.

Also the glass should be much better.

-- hide signature --

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

Dirk Jan New Member • Posts: 8
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Myari wrote:

Dirk Jan wrote:

But who knows, they might yet surprise us. We wouldn't have believed how small memory chips would turn out fifteen years ago either. As technology advances we might see smaller and smaller imaging sensors with still very solid IQ.

Even if true, that also applies to cellphones and p&s cameras with similar size sensor. The problem is why buy ILC models when you can buy cheaper cameras with fixed lenses (no dust on sensor issues, easier to use, smaller, cheaper).

Yeah, there will always be a big crowd opting for the smallest possible, reasonably priced package. Yet there will be a lot of people wanting the flexibility of an ILC system and make some concessions in size, weight and price for it. The rapidly growing 4/3's market is ample proof of that.

I love my K5 but I wouldn't mind having the same IQ and functionality in a smaller (and lighter!) camera, personally. (Not saying that the Q will be that camera though).

miles green
miles green Veteran Member • Posts: 7,587
Re: My take is.

I like what I see!

Pictures look sharp corner to corner, adequate shallow dof for most cases (see berries). Some pictures look washed out, but that might be a question of exposure / post-processing, as others are fine.

No AA filter, eh?

I get a weird feeling that I might have to get the K3 when it comes out!

-- hide signature --

Miles Green
Corfu

 miles green's gear list:miles green's gear list
Pentax K-1 Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +7 more
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,457
Re: Two things.

Raist3d wrote:

  • Versatility - I am looking forward to see for example that fish eye lens

same here, want to see IQ with fisheye that would decide for me, whether i want one or not.

  • Ergonomics for photography.

Looks like Pentax is embracing the JPEG engine filter simulations too which is music to my ears.. selecting films with that dial.

Also the glass should be much better.

-- hide signature --

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

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Myari Regular Member • Posts: 441
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Dirk Jan wrote:

Myari wrote:

Dirk Jan wrote:

But who knows, they might yet surprise us. We wouldn't have believed how small memory chips would turn out fifteen years ago either. As technology advances we might see smaller and smaller imaging sensors with still very solid IQ.

Even if true, that also applies to cellphones and p&s cameras with similar size sensor. The problem is why buy ILC models when you can buy cheaper cameras with fixed lenses (no dust on sensor issues, easier to use, smaller, cheaper).

Yeah, there will always be a big crowd opting for the smallest possible, reasonably priced package. Yet there will be a lot of people wanting the flexibility of an ILC system and make some concessions in size, weight and price for it.

What flexibility? You can't get DOF control on small sensor anyway, so what's the point of changing lenses? A super-zoom p&s is more flexible. It can do anything from macro to telephoto.

The rapidly growing 4/3's market is ample proof of that.

Are you serious? M4/3 has a huge sensor just slightly smaller than APSC. The size difference between APSC and FF is much larger than between APSC and 4/3.

Zvonimir Tosic
Zvonimir Tosic Veteran Member • Posts: 3,085
Well, I concur, but also ...

Raist3d wrote:

  • high quality glass

  • super ergonomics

  • make camera very fast / responsive (not talking about AF, but dial switches, mode switches, manual focus)

  • provide for accurate easy way to manual focus

  • sensor noise/DR say at least 1/2 a stop over the LX5

  • no AA filter (confirmed)

To me this can work. But they have to hit all those points.

I think we are those who have to acknowledge the whole Q concept had caught us off guard.

Many of those bullets you have mentioned are (it seems) already positive, even from the official photographs (finish, dials, position of buttons) and first testimonials (handling, feel, construction, responsiveness, etc.).

And yet if the noise/DR just equals the LX5, would that be a reason for overall thumbs down?

Zvonimir Tosic
--
http://www.pixart.com.au

 Zvonimir Tosic's gear list:Zvonimir Tosic's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 +3 more
Dirk Jan New Member • Posts: 8
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Myari wrote:

What flexibility? You can't get DOF control on small sensor anyway, so what's the point of changing lenses? A super-zoom p&s is more flexible. It can do anything from macro to telephoto.

This would quickly end up in a discussion based on personal preferences. In my humble opinion there's more advantages to having the option to use different lenses than just DOF.

The rapidly growing 4/3's market is ample proof of that.

Are you serious? M4/3 has a huge sensor just slightly smaller than APSC. The size difference between APSC and FF is much larger than between APSC and 4/3.

I wasn't talking about sensor size in regards to the 4/3's market. But about people who want a more flexible, yet small and light camera.

awaldram
awaldram Forum Pro • Posts: 13,271
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Myari wrote:

Dirk Jan wrote:

But who knows, they might yet surprise us. We wouldn't have believed how small memory chips would turn out fifteen years ago either. As technology advances we might see smaller and smaller imaging sensors with still very solid IQ.

Even if true, that also applies to cellphones and p&s cameras with similar size sensor. The problem is why buy ILC models when you can buy cheaper cameras with fixed lenses (no dust on sensor issues, easier to use, smaller, cheaper).

Because analogue is subject to the law of physics

This

will never match this

Pretty much irrespective of the sensor behind it.

 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax K-x Pentax Q Olympus PEN E-PM2 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-3 +17 more
ogl
ogl Senior Member • Posts: 1,749
Re: My take is.

Raist3d wrote:

  • high quality glass

  • super ergonomics

  • make camera very fast / responsive (not talking about AF, but dial switches, mode switches, manual focus)

  • provide for accurate easy way to manual focus

  • sensor noise/DR say at least 1/2 a stop over the LX5

  • no AA filter (confirmed)

No AA - almost 90% of P&S cameras has no AA filter.
Ergonomics is a bit mixed for different hands.
Only slow zoom and prime are maybe not bad as lenses..
The rest are TOY lenses.
AF is rather slow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRbi_zEK5GI

 ogl's gear list:ogl's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited
Couscousdelight Regular Member • Posts: 436
Re: My take is.

More i see images of the Q, more i want it.

It really looks a a very well build & fun to use camera. And, if the sensor was bigger, it would be a day one buying for me.

I'm very curious about the image quality. If i can use it with a relatively proper 1600 iso, why not ? (i don't make a lot of shots above 1600iso with my K-5. For tele & macro, it could be a fantastic tool.
--
http://www.labellelumiere.fr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lepimento
http://picasaweb.google.com/Couscousdelight/Misc

 Couscousdelight's gear list:Couscousdelight's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Pentax K-5 Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +1 more
DrugaRunda Senior Member • Posts: 2,741
Re: My take is.

I am not really sure what is with all the concern about ISO 1600+ ... for this tiny camera

clearly this camera with the tiny sensor cannot be good at it, and if you buy it for high ISO, you buy it for a wrong reason.

On the other hand, if this camera has good ISO 125-400, clear and crisp with the resolution it provides, it is a clear winner already, as it means that the lenses are good enough, and it has the controls as good as you can get in such a tiny body. That speed is enough under normal shooting conditions... if you want to shoot in the dark, get K-5 out of the closet.

From where I am looking, I hope, but am not sure that even base ISO is really clear... so if it is not, I will most likely not buy it, but I do hope that it is good. Quite a few digicams are not exactly good at base ISO either, but I hope this one will be, especially given the body constructed around this sensor, and the fact it shoots RAW.

edit: I also have Sigma DP1s and shoot it only at ISO 50... reading the forums it looks like it is impossible to use a camera in that way, and get great results with it. For such cams to be my "only" camera, that may present an issue (and the fixed lens too in case of DP1s), but this camera does not seem to be marketed towards people who will have it as an "only" camera... but more towards enthusiasts, who already have a system for more "serious" activities.

-- hide signature --

common sense is anything but common

Bokeh_freak Regular Member • Posts: 335
Re: My take is.

DrugaRunda wrote:

From where I am looking, I hope, but am not sure that even base ISO is really clear... so if it is not, I will most likely not buy it, but I do hope that it is good. Quite a few digicams are not exactly good at base ISO either, but I hope this one will be, especially given the body constructed around this sensor, and the fact it shoots RAW.

If compact digicams do not provide crisp photos at 100% crop at base ISOs, why would the Q be different? I want to be proven wrong but I don't think it's gonna happen.

Also what is the point of high quality prime glass without a sensor that can resolve enough detail out of it?

Bokeh_freak Regular Member • Posts: 335
Re: My take is.

Raist3d wrote:

  • high quality glass

  • super ergonomics

  • make camera very fast / responsive (not talking about AF, but dial switches, mode switches, manual focus)

  • provide for accurate easy way to manual focus

  • sensor noise/DR say at least 1/2 a stop over the LX5

  • no AA filter (confirmed)

To me this can work. But they have to hit all those points.

Since when does an anti-Large DSLR get ergonomics as its selling point? You are too funny and a wishful thinker.

ET2 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,110
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

awaldram wrote:

Pretty much irrespective of the sensor behind it.

What's is wrong with this lens?

HX9V

16x zoom
1080/60p AVCHD
10fps at Full 16.2MP Resolution

Cost, 1/2 the price of Q

Winder Senior Member • Posts: 1,545
Re: My take is.

I see no real use for a "Q". I have not read any reviews, but I don't see this camera as having much success. IF IQ is important I will take a better camera. IF IQ is not important I will use my cell phone. K-7 is smaller than I like. I see the "Q" as a novelty camera.

-- hide signature --

Contax 645, Canon 5D, Olympus E-3 (sold), Playing with a K-7

 Winder's gear list:Winder's gear list
Sony a9 Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro +3 more
Yamin Tedja Contributing Member • Posts: 542
Re: Pentax Q at quesabesde - "first impressions"

Q is too expensive at $800 price that pentax set on the release for such camera. It doesn't matter how good is the performance , the price is too high and I don't think Q performance can beat aps-c camera. Pentax is like a car company trying to make a 600 horsepower car using a lawnmover engine and priced it the same as rolls royce, its just doesn't work.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads