Search results for 'sensor cleaning' - page 398
Q at ISO1600
No detail anywhere, soft and plastic looking -- even at a small web size. In other words it's exactly as one would expect of aggressive in-camera NR applied to a small sensor. Summary: Not a camera for photographers but a nice toy for gadget-lovers with money to burn. Exactly as I . Yup I agree. ...
Posted by Smeggypants on 29/08/2011 - 16:42
Q at ISO1600
It's ridiculously high price of itself and it's accessories versus it's sensor kills what otherwise would have been an excellent camera IMO Just talked to a local photostore owner about the Q and he actually like it and is going to get it for in the store. It's because of the size, many of the cust...
Posted by Anvh on 29/08/2011 - 17:03
Q at ISO1600
We haven't seen some proper low ISO images yet, so not so fast to condemn! This is only the beginning. I have a camera with the same sensor. Low ISO images in good light can be quite acceptable. I fully expect this with the Q My problem with the Q has never been just "The Sensor", it's been with ...
Posted by Smeggypants on 29/08/2011 - 17:20
Q at ISO1600
It's ridiculously high price of itself and it's accessories versus it's sensor kills what otherwise would have been an excellent camera IMO Just talked to a local photostore owner about the Q and he actually like it and is going to get it for in the store. It's because of the size, many of the cust...
Posted by Smeggypants on 29/08/2011 - 17:22
Q at ISO1600
That pic looks exactly like the output from my little Sony TX-5. Does the TX-5 do raw? I had my brother's Sony compact (a bit old and a lower model too) but I was impressed with its results at his outdoor night wedding and the reason I love the current Pentax's is partly down to the tasty Sony sens...
Posted by ambient housewife on 29/08/2011 - 17:32
Q at ISO1600
It's not a biro, its a single black hair or is it a sensor stain?
Posted by dougf8 on 29/08/2011 - 22:25
Q at ISO1600
That pic looks exactly like the output from my little Sony TX-5. Does the TX-5 do raw? I had my brother's Sony compact (a bit old and a lower model too) but I was impressed with its results at his outdoor night wedding and the reason I love the current Pentax's is partly down to the tasty Sony sens...
Posted by Smeggypants on 30/08/2011 - 04:13
Q at ISO1600
Isn't that expensive? you're kidding of course. :) It's About £600 for the camera. The viewfinder is £240. Even the toy lenses are £130each ( fish eye toy £140 ) uhmmm haven't you read my post! The local store offered me the Pentax Q for €599 that's roughly 529 pounds I've seen the prices of t...
Posted by Smeggypants on 30/08/2011 - 04:19
Q at ISO1600
Small photos? Look like full sized versions to me. Even John's OP link says 'FULL SIZE' At least i can do math... 2660 x 1995 pixels = 5306700 pixels The Q has a 12.4MP so where are the rest of the pixels??? It's not even taken with the normal firmware but with some beta firmware as you can s...
Posted by Smeggypants on 31/08/2011 - 00:29
Q at ISO1600
Stefan you're going to huge lengths to excuse the Q. Whenever something is pointed out, even a the flaws in a real picture you dig deep for some possible excuse as an apology for it. Oh, where do i do that? I only say it's to early to say anything about the camera when there aren't any reviews abou...
Posted by Anvh on 31/08/2011 - 07:17
Q at ISO1600
Hey i'm just saying what i feel, just like you did as well at that point. You always start talking about these points when the Q is mentioned and it's getting old. And when is ask for more details you point at other cameras or say that you've read the specifications so you base all your facts on...
Posted by Smeggypants on 01/09/2011 - 17:27
Q at ISO1600
Indeed, you actually need to read several to have a fair idea but most of the time the review on imaging resource are always quite good. Like similar sites the Imaging Resources reviews consist of enumerating and comparing features. The writers treat cameras like gadgets and rarely say a single word...
Posted by Pentaxophile on 02/09/2011 - 17:29
Q at ISO1600
It's a great testament to Pentax engineers that they have got such a fantastic result from that sensor. The dynamic range is particularly eye opening. Its much closer to the Sony NEX than the Panasonic GF3. Pretty amazing.
Posted by Pentaxophile on 03/09/2011 - 17:07
Q at ISO1600
It's a great testament to Pentax engineers that they have got such a fantastic result from that sensor. The dynamic range is particularly eye opening. Its much closer to the Sony NEX than the Panasonic GF3. Pretty amazing. The sensor isn't rubbish at all. I get pretty good results from it in optimal...
Posted by Smeggypants on 03/09/2011 - 19:43
Q at ISO1600
Sony seem to have an aggressive stance on noise, banishing it at the expense of detail, whether it's in their DSLRs or compacts. I think there's something else going on other than the sensor itself. The Q in those tests very nearly equals the dynamic range of the Sony NEX C3. The NEX-C3 has the ...
Posted by Pentaxophile on 03/09/2011 - 20:09
Q at ISO1600
I expect much better quality from a camera that costs £600. Better than 'pretty good' :) The only thing they have in common is the sensor. It's the same with cars that share the same engine. (Pentax 645D and Hassleblad H4-40 is the same thing as well) Beside that you'll be able to shoot at lowe...
Posted by Anvh on 03/09/2011 - 20:14
Q at ISO1600
[quote:3496ace15f="Pentaxophile"Looks to me like Pentax engineers have done a great job with the imaging pipeline. Sony... not so good considering how much better the K5 is, using the same sensor.[/quote] Same is almost true for Nikon with the D7000.
Posted by Anvh on 03/09/2011 - 20:16
Q at ISO1600
I expect much better quality from a camera that costs £600. Better than 'pretty good' :) The only thing they have in common is the sensor. It's the same with cars that share the same engine. (Pentax 645D and Hassleblad H4-40 is the same thing as well) Beside that you'll be able to shoot at lowe...
Posted by Smeggypants on 06/09/2011 - 20:10
Q at ISO1600
My concerns with the Q are still the price versus the sensor size. had the Q been £300 instead of £600 it would ave made some value for money sense They might be able to make it for that price but instead of magnesium they should use plastic and maybe ditch the SR. Who knows maybe they will make an...
Posted by Anvh on 06/09/2011 - 20:16
Q at ISO1600
According to the new AP hands-on, the sensor in the Q is a new one, not used in any other camera.
Posted by johnriley on 06/09/2011 - 20:26
