Pentax launch the Q
Posted 25/06/2011 - 02:21
Link
johnriley wrote:
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Why not be a bit more open minded, wait until the Q appears and then see what it can actually do?
As for small sensors, they are terrific for macro shots and indeed I use an X90 for all my eBay images. Diffraction limited? Yes, all lenses are. I can quite happily use my DSLR lenses at f22 though, when that is what's required. They don't become useless simply because performance is being limited at that point by diffraction.
In fact, a high class lens will show a definite rise and fall pattern from open aperture to optimum aperture to smallest aperture. Theory tells us that the lens performs best wide open. We know it doesn't. That's because our lenses are not perfect lenses.
A while back... on this very forum... a Pentax Canada rep asked for help with images for marketing... he got a less than friendly response as many, myself included doubted the veracity of his claims. Once established, he was who he said he was, he privately messaged me about some of the images he saw on my website. 8 of the ten images he enquired about had been shot on a small sensor compact, not Pentax. My ds2 was brand new and I hadn't updated my website so about two thirds of the images on there had been shot (both on digital and also on film with my mz5) with a canon g5. since the g5 was so good I never bothered scanning the mz5 pics, where I had used the g5 for proofing. the g5 was capable of matching the *ist d under good light then, and I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Why not be a bit more open minded, wait until the Q appears and then see what it can actually do?
As for small sensors, they are terrific for macro shots and indeed I use an X90 for all my eBay images. Diffraction limited? Yes, all lenses are. I can quite happily use my DSLR lenses at f22 though, when that is what's required. They don't become useless simply because performance is being limited at that point by diffraction.
In fact, a high class lens will show a definite rise and fall pattern from open aperture to optimum aperture to smallest aperture. Theory tells us that the lens performs best wide open. We know it doesn't. That's because our lenses are not perfect lenses.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 02:44
Link
Don wrote:
I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Not for the pixel-peepers it won't! But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Can I quote Imaging Resource, which sums up nicely what I think about the Q:
Quote:
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 03:00
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
Can I quote Imaging Resource, which sums up nicely what I think about the Q:
My point is it is a tool. In the right hands.... it will produce images that shame some of the crap I've seen made by imbeciles with top name, top quality gear. At the end of the day... the final images count more than anything else.
Don wrote:
I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Not for the pixel-peepers it won't! But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Can I quote Imaging Resource, which sums up nicely what I think about the Q:
Quote:
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 03:03
Link
johnriley wrote:
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Things that depend on physics do not need testing. And you missed the positive things I said, apparently.
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 03:09
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.
You can say the same about your phone. So why spend $800 if your image quality standards are that low? That's the whole point of what Smeggy and I are trying to make. It's not that everyone needs a whizz-bang delicious camera, certainly not for web images. But a minuscule sensor with a maximal price is a rip-off no matter what else is thrown into the mix.But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.
Hoya seems to be intent on carving a path of high profit margins ever since they took over Pentax. Gone are the days when I could recommend the brand as good value for money. Now it's just one of many. And, personally, I find that rather sad.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 03:20
Link
rparmar wrote:
Hoya seems to be intent on carving a path of high profit margins ever since they took over Pentax. Gone are the days when I could recommend the brand as good value for money. Now it's just one of many. And, personally, I find that rather sad.
possible you mean gone are the days of lost profitability, and losing market share?
Pentaxophile wrote:
But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.
You can say the same about your phone. So why spend $800 if your image quality standards are that low? That's the whole point of what Smeggy and I are trying to make. It's not that everyone needs a whizz-bang delicious camera, certainly not for web images. But a minuscule sensor with a maximal price is a rip-off no matter what else is thrown into the mix.But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.
Hoya seems to be intent on carving a path of high profit margins ever since they took over Pentax. Gone are the days when I could recommend the brand as good value for money. Now it's just one of many. And, personally, I find that rather sad.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 04:29
Link
Don wrote:
possible you mean gone are the days of lost profitability, and losing market share?
Maybe not gone. The recent issues with the K5 may have revived the lost market share situation.possible you mean gone are the days of lost profitability, and losing market share?
The Q may end up being a great success. What with Nikon and Sony about to release new 32Mp FF DSLR's and 24Mp APS-C DSLR's with the new Sony sensors, its good to see that Pentax are keeping up the rear with their miniature offering. Maybe the K4 will use the new 24Mp Sony sensor and the FF K3 the 32Mp Sony sensor?
Best regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 08:41
Link
Sometimes the negative opinions seem to come across as being quite bitter, as though Pentax have done something that deeply offends. However, that's fine, people are, after all, entitled to their opinions.
As regards the web images, my two most successful EPZ uploads in this past week have been shot on a Pentax W90, with the direct inbuilt flash. Not the most auspicious technique, but the reason is of course the content. Apart from that, the images are as sharp as the DSLR ones, at least at 1000 pixels wide.
Compact users have a lot of fun and take a lot of pictures, more than some DSLR kit owners do, and if the Q brings out the joy in sonmeone's photography that's fantastic.
As regards the web images, my two most successful EPZ uploads in this past week have been shot on a Pentax W90, with the direct inbuilt flash. Not the most auspicious technique, but the reason is of course the content. Apart from that, the images are as sharp as the DSLR ones, at least at 1000 pixels wide.
Compact users have a lot of fun and take a lot of pictures, more than some DSLR kit owners do, and if the Q brings out the joy in sonmeone's photography that's fantastic.
Best regards, John
Posted 25/06/2011 - 09:02
Link
johnriley wrote:
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
I fear you're wasting your breath John, the Flat Earth Society has already decided that the sky is falling and I don't think you'll convince them otherwise. I shall now leave this thread as there doesn't seem to be anything constructive to be found in it.Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
K10D wrote:
The Q may end up being a great success. What with Nikon and Sony about to release new 32Mp FF DSLR's and 24Mp APS-C DSLR's with the new Sony sensors, its good to see that Pentax are keeping up the rear with their miniature offering. Maybe the K4 will use the new 24Mp Sony sensor and the FF K3 the 32Mp Sony sensor?
Come now, you're normally so good at having sly digs at Pentax but your quality has slipped well below your regular high standards in this thread. Your point about Nikon and Sony about to release cameras with sensors smaller than an existing Pentax offering proves what exactly? And is relevant to the Q how?The Q may end up being a great success. What with Nikon and Sony about to release new 32Mp FF DSLR's and 24Mp APS-C DSLR's with the new Sony sensors, its good to see that Pentax are keeping up the rear with their miniature offering. Maybe the K4 will use the new 24Mp Sony sensor and the FF K3 the 32Mp Sony sensor?
It's interesting to note that the same rumour sites that leaked details of the Q months ago (and were pretty much spot-on) also seem to think the new Nikon mirrorless system is based on the same size sensor as the Q. Anyone prepared to bet against the new Canon (if and when it ever hits the market) treading the same path?
It seems not everybody is backward looking after all
Joining the Q
Posted 25/06/2011 - 09:45
Link
hefty1 wrote:
Your point about Nikon and Sony about to release cameras with sensors smaller than an existing Pentax offering proves what exactly? And is relevant to the Q how?
OK I give up. How is a FF and APS-C sensor smaller than an existing Pentax offering or are you referring to the 645D?Your point about Nikon and Sony about to release cameras with sensors smaller than an existing Pentax offering proves what exactly? And is relevant to the Q how?
Only relevance is the different directions that the various manufacturers are going.
Have a look at the other forums, for some reason the majority of comments about the Q are negative. Why?
Any criticism's I make of Pentax are fair comments, IMO. You'll have to excuse me if I don't show any sense of remorse.
Best regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 10:25
Link
I think the Q is going to be a tough sell for Pentax, at least in the UK. 'Serious' photographers, who sometimes take themselves far too seriously (but do spend decent money on kit) will mostly see it as underspecced. The casual user will be put off by the price and even the prosumer is likely to overlook it for an all-in-one solution or budget DSLR. The Q is in danger of disappearing into the very niche it's trying to carve out.
Two things will make or break or break this system - street price and marketing. It needs to compete strongly with M4/3 offerings on price and be backed up by some clever ads and positioning. With mainstream retailers really struggling at present and Pentax UK's marketing record I'm not particularly optimistic, though the quirkiness means it may do well in other markets.
All just IMO of course and I still look forward to trying it out, though I won't part with my hard-earned for one.
Two things will make or break or break this system - street price and marketing. It needs to compete strongly with M4/3 offerings on price and be backed up by some clever ads and positioning. With mainstream retailers really struggling at present and Pentax UK's marketing record I'm not particularly optimistic, though the quirkiness means it may do well in other markets.
All just IMO of course and I still look forward to trying it out, though I won't part with my hard-earned for one.
Posted 25/06/2011 - 10:38
Link
Comet are not a main supplier of Pentax, so their plight isn't really related. In fact their photographic section is really pretty insignificant.
Cameras are selling, so better perhaps to look at overall camera shipment numbers.
Cameras are selling, so better perhaps to look at overall camera shipment numbers.
Best regards, John
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
7671 posts
16 years
Smegland
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Why not be a bit more open minded, wait until the Q appears and then see what it can actually do?
I've already said I'm more than happy to proved wrong, and regardless of the pros and cons of the Q, I hope Pentax sell bucket loads as that means there's more shekels to develop their whole range of products.
I was in London a couple of weeks ago where there were hundreds if not thousands of people with cameras. I saw ONE Pentax camera. Yes, just one.
I saw hundreds of Canons, and a lot of Nikons
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283