The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

Pentax Q trial starts

raist3d

Well-known member
Yup, got one. For a week or for the next five years. We'll see.

Little tidbits as I am tired and haven't really had much time with it yet.

User interface is superb. Like Amazingly implemented. So many features yet it's all organized and makes sense.

Superb ergonomics- probably best ergonomics of any compact camera I have touched so far, imho.

Amazing leeway for creativity - from all the filters to combining in-camera the intervalometer shots into a movie

The F1.9 prime lens really makes a difference vs other compacts I have used in night shooting.

The biggest difference I am seeing between an Lx5 raw and a Q raw - and jpeg, is the Q can go all the way to ISO 6400 and still keep a resemblance of the colors. By ISO 3200 such aspect on the LX5 is overall, bye bye.

The firmware upgrade makes the Q autofocus in daylight almost as fast, (very very close) to the latest micro four thirds. I would have never guessed.

This is a "digital diana" with the capability to look with care like an entry level type DSLR. Overall, doing a pixel peep with this camera and decry it's not noiseless is to miss the point. More importantly is if overall tone and color are kept for a reasonable print or use on the web, and I think the camera does well on that aspect.

A test snap -



- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Ahhh Ricardo
Glad you've got this - I'll be fascinated as to how you get on with it.
this says it all for me:
Fuji vs Pentax
all the best
Well I can give you one quickie opinion on that for a start - if you want the best image quality/best JPEG quality out of the camera, go ahead and go for the Fuji. Fuji did a great job with their camera and the jpegs/image quality/lens are superb. Ironically rivaling and perhaps surpassing what micro four thirds can do on some models.

The Q isn't about ultimate image quality vs say, that Fuji. That said, the Q does do better than most people think from what I am seeing. The ability of keeping color as iso goes up, and the fact (if you shoot with the prime lens) you are always using an F1.9 makes a difference.

There are other aspects to the Q that are the ones that have attracted me tentatively over the X10. Your link suggests that maybe you see some of the same things I see. Since I plan to keep this camera, or the LX5, or whatever else I decide for pocket-street cam for the next five years, I am going to grill this camera for a week and see how I feel about it.

Anyhow, just saying this to get that aspect out of the way. I'll grill this tool and see if it's what I want.

- Ricardo
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Ricardo
Well I can give you one quickie opinion on that for a start - if you want the best image quality/best JPEG quality out of the camera, go ahead and go for the Fuji. Fuji did a great job with their camera and the jpegs/image quality/lens are superb. Ironically rivaling and perhaps surpassing what micro four thirds can do on some models.
Yes, But; Fuji vs Sony NEX

That cameras size comparator is sure going to save me some money! The Fuji may be better wrt IQ than the Q (clearly is) - but is it better than the NEX (clearly isn't). Once you're out of the realm of the pocketable (and for me the Fuji X10 is out of that realm) then there are lots of different options, and a 2/3 sensor isn't so different from a 1 / 2/3 as it is from an APSc sensor

The Q isn't about ultimate image quality vs say, that Fuji. That said, the Q does do better than most people think from what I am seeing. The ability of keeping color as iso goes up, and the fact (if you shoot with the prime lens) you are always using an F1.9 makes a difference.

There are other aspects to the Q that are the ones that have attracted me tentatively over the X10. Your link suggests that maybe you see some of the same things I see. Since I plan to keep this camera, or the LX5, or whatever else I decide for pocket-street cam for the next five years, I am going to grill this camera for a week and see how I feel about it.
Currently I have no cameras with a sensor smaller than APS/c, and I think it's likely to stay that way unless someone can offer a really compelling pocketable camera.

Incidentally - have you seen the leaks of the Fuji X:

Fuji X leak. Looks big to me - really big!
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Hi Ricardo


Yes, But; Fuji vs Sony NEX

That cameras size comparator is sure going to save me some money! The Fuji may be better wrt IQ than the Q (clearly is) - but is it better than the NEX (clearly isn't). Once you're out of the realm of the pocketable (and for me the Fuji X10 is out of that realm) then there are lots of different options, and a 2/3 sensor isn't so different from a 1 / 2/3 as it is from an APSc sensor
That's cool. I was just referring vs the Q. From my view though the Sony is not smaller than the Fuji at all because of the lenses. That's the problem of the Nex system (as far as compact). The bodies are small but the lenses are pretty big. Until sony comes out with high quality pancake primes, I don't view it as a smaller system than any of the interchangeable mirrorless around, except the Samsung system.

Currently I have no cameras with a sensor smaller than APS/c, and I think it's likely to stay that way unless someone can offer a really compelling pocketable camera.

Incidentally - have you seen the leaks of the Fuji X:

Fuji X leak. Looks big to me - really big!
Nope, haven't seen the leaks of the X, but since Fuji said they were promising image quality better than *anything else on earth* this side of $8,000 USd and down-DSLR's, I would imagine it can't be small. :)

- Ricardo

Update: The Fuji (and the way I view the Sony) are more of a "smaller camera to go around with" replacement. I bet the Fuji will do better controls, vastly better JPEG and would not be surprised if their sensor is better. But yeah, I don't see that as pocketable (neither the X100). I can say though the X10 did pass my 'does it fit in my front jeans pocket' test. If the Q doesn't work for me, I am not ruling out an X10 for me yet.

I have been a fan of Fuji when they do things right. The X10 does a lot of things right. But yeah, I rather have a bit smaller if I can get away with it. One thing that makes me think here- if Pentax could come out with the same focal length prime they have in F1.2 (or say 35mm equivalent), it automatically upgrades the camera in bokeh and iso performance. That F1.9 really makes a big difference. F1.2 would make a huge difference.
 

jonoslack

Active member
But yeah, I don't see that as pocketable (neither the X100). I can say though the X10 did pass my 'does it fit in my front jeans pocket' test. If the Q doesn't work for me, I am not ruling out an X10 for me yet.
I obviously wear different jeans - the XZ-1 didn't anything like fit in my jeans pocket. . . . and the X10 is noticeably bigger than the Fuji.On the other hand the NEX 5n with the 16 does fit in my jacket pocket. . . . easily. It does with a 35 summarit attached as well :)

As I say, that camera size website is going to save me a bomb!
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I obviously wear different jeans - the XZ-1 didn't anything like fit in my jeans pocket. . . . and the X10 is noticeably bigger than the Fuji.On the other hand the NEX 5n with the 16 does fit in my jacket pocket. . . . easily. It does with a 35 summarit attached as well :)

As I say, that camera size website is going to save me a bomb!
Well then, why don't you just go for the Sony and call it done? If you want size and image quality the Sony does it. Unless I am missing something you want on the Q system. I wouldn't count the 16 lens you mentioned (if that's any of the early nex Sony pancakes, those lenses don't impress me one bit). Same for the 35 (unless that's a Carl Zeiss). The only two lenses I know of that Sony put out recently for their Nex system that are good, are the two newly announced ones + the new Macro I think (ok that's three). But those three lenses are not small.

The rest of the lens line up from Sony on the Nex, not only I find it big, but I don't find the lenses very good- keeping in mind this is relative. I never found for example the Olympus mciro four thirds lenses very good until they came out with the latest two primes.

- Ricardo
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well then, why don't you just go for the Sony and call it done? If you want size and image quality the Sony does it. Unless I am missing something you want on the Q system. I wouldn't count the 16 lens you mentioned (if that's any of the early nex Sony pancakes, those lenses don't impress me one bit). Same for the 35 (unless that's a Carl Zeiss).
Well, the 35 summarit is a Leica, not a Zeiss (it's fine on the NEX, and with a helicoid adapter it focuses down to about 6").
The Sony 16mm is interesting - it's one of those lenses which has been universally derided - I find it quite good if you stop down a little and fine in the middle even wide open. Compared, for instance, with the Pentax 15 limited, I'd say it was much much better (not that that's saying a great deal - and apart from the build quality - it costs about 1/4 of what the Pentax costs too.).

The only two lenses I know of that Sony put out recently for their Nex system that are good, are the two newly announced ones + the new Macro I think (ok that's three). But those three lenses are not small.

The rest of the lens line up from Sony on the Nex, not only I find it big, but I don't find the lenses very good- keeping in mind this is relative. I never found for example the Olympus mciro four thirds lenses very good until they came out with the latest two primes.

- Ricardo
I agree, most of the other lenses are big - but at least you do have the option of some small lenses - but, as you say, I already have chosen the sony and called it 'done'.
But the Q interests me because it really is small - and it is also flexible.

all the best
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Wow, wow wow.... This is from a bar. ISO 3200, F1.9, 1/20th. You can tell this is low light if you have been around shooting street night life. This is a snap test.

First JPEG out of camera. It's not even half bad.

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/iso3200_f1.9_oneover20.jpg

Now from RAW:

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/fromraw_lr_iso3200_f1.9_oneover20.jpg

I didn't even bother tweaking much of noise redux/sharp/whatever. It could end up better. I could even recover color if I wanted. Even in this light to some degree. Crazy!

This shot is singlehandedly making me think about keeping this guy as my street night life cam...

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I agree, most of the other lenses are big - but at least you do have the option of some small lenses - but, as you say, I already have chosen the sony and called it 'done'.
Well I want to make clear that just because something doesn't work for me it doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. I am not impressed with the current Sony pancakes. The two good lenses in my eyes are the two new ones but those are big. The most important thing is that they work for you.

Calling it done is good. It's necessary to focus then on photography.

- Raist
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well I want to make clear that just because something doesn't work for me it doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. I am not impressed with the current Sony pancakes. The two good lenses in my eyes are the two new ones but those are big. The most important thing is that they work for you.

Calling it done is good. It's necessary to focus then on photography.

- Raist
LOL - I always focus on the photography when I'm out taking photographs - the problems arise when I get back here again and start lurking on the internet.

I think that maybe, I've used so many different cameras over the last few years, that it just doesn't take long to settle down with another one - I don't really do much more than APSM ISO WB and AEL lock - and that's pretty easy to figure out whatever you're using. In camera jpg settings and scene modes etc. - blah - not really interested, I can see that they can be fun, but for me THAT's what the distraction is when I'm out shooting, I'd rather they just weren't there! I guess, in the final analysis, that was the second biggest reason I didn't like the X100. With the Sony - once you've set up your defaults for buttons, there's not much reason to delve into the menus, so what you see is what you want to see - nothing else; which is good.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
LOL - I always focus on the photography when I'm out taking photographs - the problems arise when I get back here again and start lurking on the internet.

I think that maybe, I've used so many different cameras over the last few years, that it just doesn't take long to settle down with another one - I don't really do much more than APSM ISO WB and AEL lock - and that's pretty easy to figure out whatever you're using. In camera jpg settings and scene modes etc. - blah - not really interested, I can see that they can be fun, but for me THAT's what the distraction is when I'm out shooting, I'd rather they just weren't there! I guess, in the final analysis, that was the second biggest reason I didn't like the X100. With the Sony - once you've set up your defaults for buttons, there's not much reason to delve into the menus, so what you see is what you want to see - nothing else; which is good.
You know by now I don't buy that on the multiple equipment side of things, but cool. Whatever works for you :) It goes way beyond just knowing what AEL Lock, ISO, etc. do, but also getting at a very intuitive level the lenses, how the sensor (canvas) reacts to light under what situations, etc.

Anyway, have a few other shots but no time to upload tonight. Gotta sleep! I would like to shift focus back to what the thread is on my Q trial. We can continue the other subject on another thread or PM.

Going back to the Q, it looks like it is exceeding my expectations and if I had to answer whether I would keep it today, I would.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I am at this point 80-85% convinced I am keeping the Q as my street life camera for the next five years, and sell the LX5 (also a great camera).

I really think the Q has been truly underestimated by most reviews and people who have never really used it (I don't mean touch it a little bit and do some snaps one afternoon, but really use it photographically and see what its canvas can do with that prime).

It can go from funky filtered mini diana to entry level DSLR.

- Ricardo
 

jonoslack

Active member
I really think the Q has been truly underestimated by most reviews and people who have never really used it (I don't mean touch it a little bit and do some snaps one afternoon, but really use it photographically and see what its canvas can do with that prime).

It can go from funky filtered mini diana to entry level DSLR.

- Ricardo
I'm really glad to hear it - enjoy!
 

raist3d

Well-known member
ISO 800 real world shots. Bokeh seen is as is from the lens, not using the special fake bokeh mode.

ISO 800, 1/58sec, F1.9. Lights are a mix of tungsten, sodium, fluorescent + cars.

JPEG out of camera first:



Same shot from Light room:




comparison 100% crop. JPEG left, raw right:



- Raist
 
Top