Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Started Dec 10, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
philzucker
philzucker Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses
7

Well, this comparison isn't scientific at all, but as I assembled a pano taken inside Cologne Cathedral today I found a quite comparable picture taken seven years ago, in July 2006 with my Ds. Back then I took three portrait oriented shots with my Ds and DA16-45@16mm at ISO 3.200, f4, shutter speed varying from 1/20s to 1/30s, and assembled them very clumsily and with glaring faults to a vertical pano.

Today I did almost the same scene, but with my Q and 01 prime, 1/60s, ISO ranging from 2.500 to 1000 (was set on auto), f1.9, using several more landscape oriented shots; also pano assembly was a bit more successful.

Have a look at the resulting panos, arranged more or less to the same size:

Of course the Q had the advantage of the f1.9 lens (vs. f4.0 for the Ds), but the Ds had an definitive advantage in sensor size (368.95 square mm against the Q's 28.46 - almost 13 times larger; for more figures see here: http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/pentax_q-vs-pentax_ist-ds/). Since the pictures are not scaled beyond the Ds sensor's resolution of 6MP here, I think the side by side comparison is - all taken into account - not too unfair. Especially since the shooting conditions were very similar.

My point here is: I was very happy with my Ds back then, and now - seven years later - I'm very pleased to have a system camera with comparable, in some situations even better qualities in my coat pocket.

So even if every modern APS-C Pentax like the K-01, K-30, K-5(xx)(-II)(s) and K-3 blows the Q away with their sensitivity and quality - the Q is definitely usable, as the Ds was back in 2006.

BTW: If you're interested in yet another rendition of that pano and some other very moody pictures inside and outside the cathedral - all taken with the fabulous, somewhat crazy, incredibly tiny 07 mount shield lens for the Q - take a look here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52687234.

Phil

-- hide signature --
Pentax K-01 Pentax K-3 Pentax K-30 Pentax K-5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Sinnettc
Sinnettc Veteran Member • Posts: 4,511
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Wow, that's pretty good considering the difference in sensors.  I'll have to see if I can find one of my old DL images and try a comparison shot with my Q10.

 Sinnettc's gear list:Sinnettc's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax Q10 Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM +2 more
Petroglyph
Petroglyph Senior Member • Posts: 5,091
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses
1

How many tiny system cameras have built in SR system?  They still want nearly 300$ for a used DS on auction sites.  One could probably get a new Q7 for close to that.  Definitely a worthwhile street camera IMO.

 Petroglyph's gear list:Petroglyph's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R II Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +4 more
ASR45
ASR45 Forum Pro • Posts: 35,056
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Nice demo.  

-- hide signature --

Alan.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain

 ASR45's gear list:ASR45's gear list
Canon PowerShot G16 Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon PowerShot G12 Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +7 more
miles green
miles green Veteran Member • Posts: 5,301
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Impressive little Q.

Mine keeps amazing me.

-- hide signature --

Miles Green
Pentaxian with chronic LBA
Corfu, Greece

 miles green's gear list:miles green's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +10 more
waxwaine
waxwaine Contributing Member • Posts: 981
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

I believe the most important development over the years are your learning abilities as a photographer. that´s why some takes fantastic shoot using "old" equipment than others with newer technology are not able to reproduce.

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 34,855
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Well Phil, its an neat comparison!

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Chris ...

Sinnettc wrote:

Wow, that's pretty good considering the difference in sensors. I'll have to see if I can find one of my old DL images and try a comparison shot with my Q10.

That sure would be interesting. Do so and share it here, Chris!

Phil

-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Isn't it, Alan? :-) Thanks for looking! [nt]
-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Petroglyph wrote:

How many tiny system cameras have built in SR system? They still want nearly 300$ for a used DS on auction sites. One could probably get a new Q7 for close to that. Definitely a worthwhile street camera IMO.

Indeed it is. Though I wouldn't shell out 300$ for a Ds right now, it had and does have it's capabilities as a fine K-Mount camera. But I find it intriguing how sensor technology has advanced in the field of high ISO. The Ds wasn't up to today's standards in that respect (and of course couldn't be), and it's very nice to have even better capabilities in current street cameras like the Q-series.

Phil

-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

miles green wrote:

Impressive little Q.

Yeah!

Mine keeps amazing me.

Great - keep using it then!

Phil

-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

waxwaine wrote:

I believe the most important development over the years are your learning abilities as a photographer. that´s why some takes fantastic shoot using "old" equipment than others with newer technology are not able to reproduce.

You got a point there of course. Nothing beats experience and honed abilities.

All the same better technology opens up new possibilities. A few years back I often wisely abstained from taking hand held pictures with my *ist DS and later with my K-10D in certain low light situations. But starting with the K-20D and of course with the K-5/K5-II bodies I got much better results in comparable situations, so I expanded my low lights limits considerably.

That doesn't mean that everything newer is better. I did some nice pano work with my K-10D at base ISO (also low light stuff, but then the K-10D was on a tripod of course). And some say to this day that at base ISO it outperformed its successor - the K-20D. Could well be true IMO.

Phil

-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Glad you like it, Mike! [nt]
-- hide signature --
DrugaRunda Senior Member • Posts: 2,741
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Yes - lovely comparison, in my mind Q is about on par with K100D, which was great for me then, as is Q for me now.

I just wish that they make more primes for it, ideally with wide apertures, cost would not be an issue for me.

They actually need three - 24mm, 35mm, 85mm equivalent... ok + one more which is f1 or so 01 refresh.

-- hide signature --

common sense is anything but common

Peter Lacus
Peter Lacus Regular Member • Posts: 149
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Quite the contrary to the common beliefs (small sensor is bad in low light), this is the area in which Q actually excels, i.e. providing deep DOF of a small sensor camera while enabling (hand holdable) available darkness shooting due to the fast glass and a very low noise sensor (for its size). Well done!

 Peter Lacus's gear list:Peter Lacus's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Nikon 1 J1 Pentax K-01 Pentax Q Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +4 more
JNR
JNR Senior Member • Posts: 2,589
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Thanks, Phil, for confirming what my gut sense of it is compared to my *istD - without resorting to an actual comparison test. As I don't have a 01 Prime (just an 02 and 03), my best results in getting the most out of the Q sensor have been by using adapted fast primes to avoid diffusion softness.

So, at comparable ISOs I see the two sensors as fairly close to even in most shooting situations. In very good light with fast lenses, I do find the Q can yield sharper images than the *istD (keep in mind the Q is ISO 125 and 10mp vs. 200 on all the early 6mp bodies). In poor light - and high ISO - you tend to get a lot of smoothing and greater loss of detail from the Q sensor. Where the line crosses probably depends on the EV of the scene, and speed of lens used. All of these observations are based on RAW images - and I haven't taken into account the improvements in RAW converters (especially LR which was terrible in v.1-2, and very good since then).

I love the idea of taking the Q and a few adapted primes on mountain hikes - shooting wildlife at 275mm and 475mm equiv. at f-stops that can open to 1.4 - and toting under three pounds to accomplish the task.

-- hide signature --

JNR
www.jamesrobins.com

 JNR's gear list:JNR's gear list
Pentax K-3 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +7 more
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

DrugaRunda wrote:

Yes - lovely comparison

Thanks.

, in my mind Q is about on par with K100D, which was great for me then, as is Q for me now.

Ah, got a K100D for my daughter, and she likes it very much - IIRC the first entry level one with shake reduction ...

I just wish that they make more primes for it, ideally with wide apertures, cost would not be an issue for me.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of your sentence!

They actually need three - 24mm, 35mm, 85mm equivalent... ok + one more which is f1 or so 01 refresh.

That would be really nice - second that.

Phil

-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Peter Lacus wrote:

Quite the contrary to the common beliefs (small sensor is bad in low light), this is the area in which Q actually excels, i.e. providing deep DOF of a small sensor camera while enabling (hand holdable) available darkness shooting due to the fast glass and a very low noise sensor (for its size).

Interesting point you make there. The results speak for themselves, I think!

Well done!

Thanks, Peter!

Phil

-- hide signature --
philzucker
philzucker OP Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

JNR wrote:

Thanks, Phil, for confirming what my gut sense of it is compared to my *istD - without resorting to an actual comparison test. As I don't have a 01 Prime (just an 02 and 03), my best results in getting the most out of the Q sensor have been by using adapted fast primes to avoid diffusion softness.

I haven't the 02, but get excellent results with the 01 (sharp wide open) and good enough with the 03 (needs some robust capture sharpening in my experience, but sharpens up nicely).

So, at comparable ISOs I see the two sensors as fairly close to even in most shooting situations. In very good light with fast lenses, I do find the Q can yield sharper images than the *istD (keep in mind the Q is ISO 125 and 10mp vs. 200 on all the early 6mp bodies).

Agree ...

In poor light - and high ISO - you tend to get a lot of smoothing and greater loss of detail from the Q sensor.

I also agree. But I find it tolerable up to ISO 2500 with the original Q - that's why I limit auto ISO to that value. YMMV.

Where the line crosses probably depends on the EV of the scene, and speed of lens used. All of these observations are based on RAW images - and I haven't taken into account the improvements in RAW converters (especially LR which was terrible in v.1-2, and very good since then).

Got a point there. Maybe I should take a look at those Ds RAWs from 2006 and give them a reprocessing try ...

I love the idea of taking the Q and a few adapted primes on mountain hikes - shooting wildlife at 275mm and 475mm equiv. at f-stops that can open to 1.4 - and toting under three pounds to accomplish the task.

Great, isn't it?

Thanks for looking!

Phil

-- hide signature --
Jack Simpson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,341
Re: Pitching a Q against a Ds: How technology progresses

Vell done Herr Zucker  Excellent pics and the one thing I noticed, straight off, was the somewat cooler (more realistic) WB in the Q

Cheers,

Iack

-- hide signature --

STREET PHOTOGRAPHY DOCUMENTARY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kkHKP4Gnd0
(*UPDATED NOV 16th*)MY BLOG.... www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
****MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'****
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing

 Jack Simpson's gear list:Jack Simpson's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Canon PowerShot G2 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-r Pentax K-50 +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads