Q Image Quality? (Image heavy)

I've been after a go everywhere compact and I figured that the recent Q deal was too good not to try one out. If I didn't like it I could sell it in France for no loss. Here are the first results and no doubt I'll get better results when I shoot RAW. See what you think, if anyone is interested in my opinion of teh Q then please ask. Images are taken in Folkestone and Dungeness:

Most of my supermarket job wages when I was at school ended up here:




Young Gull, Folkestone harbour:




Harbour boat 1:




Harbour boat 2:




Different angle:




Fish market:




Just popped in for a quick one:




Leas lift:




Admirable topiary skills:




Nuclear power station:




Boardwalk:




Fishing Hut:




Wreck:




One For The Family Album:




Two For The Family Album:




Three For The Family Album:

Look pretty good to me, fishing hut is my favorite.
What lens did you use?

Looks like it(you) does a pretty good job

They look pretty good on here! I find the second one (the gull)interesting, as the background is out of focus. I didn't think with such a small sensor that limited DOF would be much of an option.

I love the pic of the wreck, also the fishing hut. I have to say from these that the camera looks a lot more capable than I thought it would be, though it would be nice to see some 100% crops from processed Raw files to get a better idea.

How's the handling of the camera? It looks so small as to be perhaps a bit fiddly to change settings etc? Have you tried any high ISO shots yet? I was considering the Q when I decided to get a compact as a carry-anywhere camera, before I bought the Fuji X-10. In the end I went for the bigger sensor and the fast zoom of the Fuji, though it's not quite as pocketable methinks.

Thanks. Those shots were taken with the 47mm equivalent prime lens. Limited dof is perfectly possible, but it depends on how you use it. This was taken at f4 and ISO500 for example, I didn't want it any shallower:




Because of the f1.9 lens (I'm not interested in the zoom or telephoto lengths), the large depth of field and the image stabilisation I will be able to do pretty much everything I want to at lower ISO, so I'm not really bothered about high ISO noise. Plus the vast majority of my output with the Q will be black and white which can take some noise.

I didn't take those RAW. At this stage I'm only really interested in real world results rather than pixel peeping. I have been very pleasantly surprised by the quality so far, I think it will do the job that I want it for.

I find the handling just brilliant except I keep on banging my forehead with it. I'll go into further details another time.

It does look good from these; I am more impressed by these shots than most others I have seen on the net. Maybe some of the naysayers will stop whinging about the Q...

The only reason I was wondering about "pixel peeping" was what size prints you can realistically get from it, should you want to. In mono of course you can get away with more noise so therefore larger prints.

The IQ on the scenic shots looks similar to my little Canon 220HS (which also has a 12MP Exmor sensor), except I can see less compression and sharpening artefacts on the Q, and the lens is obviously a bit better towards the edges than a fixed wide angle zoom. I imagine the Q blows highlights a lot less too.

The portrait results are where the Q seems to perform significantly better. The shot of the boy looks great.

The current version of my Canon costs about the same as the Q, so I think if I as to choose between the two, I think I would go for the better IQ and much better manual control (and video/timelapse) on the Q. Plus the ability to mount a fisheye lens! The Q just looks more enjoyable.

If I was happy to spend a bit more, and have a slightly larger camera, I would go for one of the MFT or NEX compact system cameras though. But to me they don't make much sense alongside an already fairly compact Pentax DSLR system.

I think flickr mucks around with the sharpening as well.

I paid £250 with a toy lens thrown in. I don't think there's much to rival it at that price. For me the image quality was important but not crucially so. It is a big bonus really.

Hmmm - I suspected this may be a decent little camera - I have not really looked into it as my better half is not for being talked into having an interchangeable lens camera.

She has a Canon 35mm Z135 compact, well she will have once she finds it again

Nice shots Dr O

Fantastic, I'm really impressed. I was suggesting the Q to a pal who is looking for a camera and it will be great to show him these.

Good image quality and also quality images, if you know what I mean. I'm impressed by the flexibility you have managed to coax from this camera.

Regards
David

nice shots and Dungeness looks a good place to take photies

Nice shots. I wonder if DrOrloff agrees, but I've found that Q images need to be sharpened a bit more than the other cameras I have. It may be a characteristic of the new backlit sensor.

Dungeness is a weird and wonderful place. Definitely high up on the list of photogenic locations.

I've only taken JPEGs so far with the default sharpening. I'm not sure how much that is but I actually find it a little too much. I'll report back once I've some raw files to play with.

An impressive set.
I love Fish Market, and the Dungeness ones. One of my favourite places in the UK, beautifully captured.
I hope to get there again in August.

At that price the Q is a tempting proposition.