Q at ISO1600

Already seen this one?
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-pentax-...

Looking at the charts it looks like it preforms quite decent actually.
Not as good as the Sony NEX-C3 but better then the Panasonic Lumix GF3 at some points.

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.

Little hands on review
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=nl&rurl=translate.google.n...

The sensor isn't rubbish at all. I get pretty good results from it in optimal conditions. And it's much better than the Sony sensor that my previous compact had. but we're talking cameras that cost £200.

I expect much better quality from a camera that costs £600. Better than 'pretty good'

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 same APSC sensor as the K5. On signal to noise ratio, the Q seems on a par with the Panasonic GF3, somewhere between the Canon G12 and the Sony.

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.

However when the others discover whatever voodoo the Pentax engineers are performing on that little sensor, and apply it to their bigger sensors, they will outstrip the Q again.

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 lower ISO with the Q for longer then with the TX5 so the IQ will be better in lower light

[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.

Funny hands on reviewtje
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKX1gDdsmgo

Strob-bo pop-up-tje

Lol, I love the noise (a sound of glee and amazement) he makes at 0.02...

The TX5 has a neat low light mode called "hand held twiight"which takes 6 pictures in succession and stacks them to reduce noise. It works pretty well. Even when there's some movement as the processor only stacks what it can align. Taqke about 5 seconds to process.

It's also got a mode called "Backlight Correction HDR" which the manukl says:

You can shoot two images having different exposures to create a single image with a greater range of gradation by combining the dark parts of an image taken with a bright exposure setting and the bright parts of an image taken with a dark exposure setting.

Quite neat really.


But sure, I'm not trying to say the features of the Q are comparable to the Sony TX-5.

The Q has interchangable lenses and a few other things the TX-5 doesn't have. In it's favour however the TX-5 is discrete. You could never take pics with the Q I take with the TX-5 simply because even though it's small it still looks like a camera and has a sticky out lens. The TX-5 at first glance looks like a mobile phone, and I've developed a knack of holding it in such a way I can shoot by squeezing the camera and the muscle between my thumb and forefinger operates the shutter.

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 entry model Q.

According to the new AP hands-on, the sensor in the Q is a new one, not used in any other camera.

Very misleading.

The sensor is not a new sensor in terms of technology, it's still an Exmor R™ CMOS backlit sensor. The only thing different is the die size. It's a 12MP @ 1/2.3" compared to the 10.2MP @ 1/2.4" used in the Sony compacts.

IOW same pixel dimensions and technology, but slighter larger chip with slightly more pixels.

So no it's not a new sensor, just a new implementation of the same thing.

My Sony TX-5 is made of steel and has SR and cost £180 new. There's no reason why a model Costing £300 would have to ditch a metal body and ditch SR in order to cost less than £600.

The Q is vastly overpriced.

You and John are both refusing to face up to the reality of this camera in terms of the marketplace. John is a legendary, but lovable, Pentax fanboy and I wouldn't expect anything less [
], but I'm surprised that you Stefan are being so defensive of the Q.

The sony use SR in the lens i believe so that point they are not the same and steel is something else then magnesium.
The TX-5 is probably pressed but you can't do that with magnesium i believe.

I'm just saying that i can understand the price and that we need to wait for some real tests before judging the Q.
So far it seems i've been right with the later.