Q at ISO1600


johnriley

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 12:05
I have picked up a link to a Q image from the AP forum. ISO1600, f4 with standard f1.9 lens:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/JSimpson/FullSize-1600ASA-Q_IGP0090.jpg
Best regards, John

Hardgravity

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 12:43
Slightly good image that John, but why has the guy got Biro on his head?

I was a little concerned that the small sensor would struggle to produce good IQ, Seems I don't need to...
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.
Last Edited by Hardgravity on 29/08/2011 - 12:44

rparmar

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 14:06
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 already said.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

thoughton

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 15:00
Hmm, I must agree that image does seem particularly soft and 'glowing'.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

ambient housewife

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 15:00
I saw one of these at 250 ISO on Amatuer Photographer forums, more detail in that one and he has links to the full size images. Nice enough images (excluding the subject of course ) the botox effect has a certain charm, but I think the real injection might be cheaper? I have not seen a decent p&s output for a while, but I think it is better than the Canon compact I got rid of.
Last Edited by ambient housewife on 29/08/2011 - 15:01

johnriley

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 15:04
That's where I found this link. We need our own shots to judge properly of course, but it's a start.
Best regards, John

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 16:42
rparmar wrote:
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 already said.

Yup I agree.

That pic looks exactly like the output from my little Sony TX-5. Which it would as it's got the same sensor. The plastic smear is what lets it down.

Canon shooting mate of mine has just bought his first compact... a
Canon PowerShot G12, which outputs RAW. The pics are much much better, and it's sensor is only slightly larger

I think this pic and the one linked to by Ambient Housewife proves the concerns many of us had about the sensor being the let down of the Q.

It's a shame because from HQ pics of the Q I've seen, it looks a very well made camera. 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
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
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

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 16:44
johnriley wrote:
That's where I found this link. We need our own shots to judge properly of course, but it's a start.

As there's no doubt you'll be the first to buy one John I look forward to seeing them.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
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

johnriley

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 16:45
We haven't seen some proper low ISO images yet, so not so fast to condemn! This is only the beginning.
Best regards, John

johnriley

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 16:50
Smeggypants wrote:
johnriley wrote:
That's where I found this link. We need our own shots to judge properly of course, but it's a start.

As there's no doubt you'll be the first to buy one John I look forward to seeing them.

No, I'm never the first to buy. I will buy if the quality proves to be at a useful level and when the initial high price point has moved downwards. I'm afraid you will have to look for someone else to make those early purchases, which of course are essential in the lifespan of any new technology product.

After all, somebody had to pay 600 for an early pocket calculator. I can imagine the furore - it's too expensive, I can add up for myself, it will never catch on.....

Incidentally, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what a couple of posters have said above, and many times before, but I haven't decided yet. I'll decide when I have a Q in my hands, or someone else produces some relevant and actual data as opposed to speculation.
Best regards, John

Anvh

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 17:03
Smeggypants wrote:
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 customers don't find the current EVIL cameras that compact compared to some DSLR... so who knows what will happen.
As for the price of the lenses, the toy lenses are around the 80 to 90 pounds and the 5-15 is roughly double that so that isn't that expensive.
And the Q is around the 529 pounds.

Those are the current prices here though and they can change.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 29/08/2011 - 17:04

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 17:20
johnriley wrote:
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 the "Sensor and the Price"

And the Q been priced 'properly' I wouldn't be complaining/condemning
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
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

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 17:22
Anvh wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
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 customers don't find the current EVIL cameras that compact compared to some DSLR... so who knows what will happen.
As for the price of the lenses, the toy lenses are around the 80 to 90 pounds and the 5-15 is roughly double that so that isn't that expensive.
And the Q is around the 529 pounds.

Those are the current prices here though and they can change.

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 )
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
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

rparmar

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 17:30
johnriley wrote:
After all, somebody had to pay 600 for an early pocket calculator. I can imagine the furore - it's too expensive, I can add up for myself, it will never catch on.....

Well, you can imagine what you like, but as none of us said anything like this, you're resorting to a straw man argument.

FWIW my first calculator cost a small fortune. But it still works and is useful today. Can you imagine the same of any of these digital toy cameras in 30 years?
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

Anvh

Link Posted 29/08/2011 - 17:31
Smeggy i don't really think the price is that high, just compare it to other EVIL cameras in that range many don't have the build quality and the controls of the Q.
And the cameras to also compare it to are the Canon PowerShot G12 & Nikon Coolpix P7100.
Those are roughly 120 pounds cheaper.

If the price off 529 pounds is true i might buy it, i think it's a fair price.

Just curious how ISO400 and ISO800 will be, with the K5 and the DA* lenses i hardly go above the ISO200 and the ISO250 shots looks decent with the Q.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.