Q7 Review up...
Posted 30/07/2013 - 03:57
Link
I think anyone expecting stunning shadow detail from a camera of the ilk of the Q series is deluding themselves.
The Q series cameras IMO are a fun quirky strain of shooting device and chance to have features like lens interchangeability in such a compact form is what gives the series the edge.
The Q has a small sensor, and yes the Q7 sensor is bigger than previous but it's still small.
I was heavily critical of the Q when it first appeared becuase it was way overpriced, but now the original Q has reached a sensible price point I think it's great.
You don't buy a Q for the flexibility of IQ like you get with bigger sensor cameras, you buy it for the other things.
I've seen some fantastic pictures taken with even the original Q. Yes the shadow detail invited abuse by the pixel peepers, but who cares, no one notices shadow detail in an artistically charismatic pic
The Q series cameras IMO are a fun quirky strain of shooting device and chance to have features like lens interchangeability in such a compact form is what gives the series the edge.
The Q has a small sensor, and yes the Q7 sensor is bigger than previous but it's still small.
I was heavily critical of the Q when it first appeared becuase it was way overpriced, but now the original Q has reached a sensible price point I think it's great.
You don't buy a Q for the flexibility of IQ like you get with bigger sensor cameras, you buy it for the other things.
I've seen some fantastic pictures taken with even the original Q. Yes the shadow detail invited abuse by the pixel peepers, but who cares, no one notices shadow detail in an artistically charismatic pic
[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
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
Posted 30/07/2013 - 10:49
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
I think anyone expecting stunning shadow detail from a camera of the ilk of the Q series is deluding themselves.
The Q series cameras IMO are a fun quirky strain of shooting device and chance to have features like lens interchangeability in such a compact form is what gives the series the edge.
The Q has a small sensor, and yes the Q7 sensor is bigger than previous but it's still small.
I was heavily critical of the Q when it first appeared becuase it was way overpriced, but now the original Q has reached a sensible price point I think it's great.
You don't buy a Q for the flexibility of IQ like you get with bigger sensor cameras, you buy it for the other things.
I've seen some fantastic pictures taken with even the original Q. Yes the shadow detail invited abuse by the pixel peepers, but who cares, no one notices shadow detail in an artistically charismatic pic
Well put. Exactly right in my opinion.
I think anyone expecting stunning shadow detail from a camera of the ilk of the Q series is deluding themselves.
The Q series cameras IMO are a fun quirky strain of shooting device and chance to have features like lens interchangeability in such a compact form is what gives the series the edge.
The Q has a small sensor, and yes the Q7 sensor is bigger than previous but it's still small.
I was heavily critical of the Q when it first appeared becuase it was way overpriced, but now the original Q has reached a sensible price point I think it's great.
You don't buy a Q for the flexibility of IQ like you get with bigger sensor cameras, you buy it for the other things.
I've seen some fantastic pictures taken with even the original Q. Yes the shadow detail invited abuse by the pixel peepers, but who cares, no one notices shadow detail in an artistically charismatic pic
Posted 30/07/2013 - 16:59
Link
Available September and body-only price of £369 looks OK.
Best regards, John
Posted 01/08/2013 - 12:02
Link
The difference in sensor size has an impact on the lens line up. I wanted a normal prime and a wide prime combination for the Q but I suspect it will now not be wide enough as it will be developed for the larger sensor. That's if it ever arrives. So I have pixel peeped the samples so I can consider my options. I have compared the RAW images against the images from Q and Q7 reviews and against my own Q images.
The Q7 certainly seems to be a decent step up in terms of detail - it is pretty evident from the detail on the building with the clocktower and also on the leaves and stones on the path of the park shots. But the noise levels are still poor in low light even at low ISO. I don't think there has been any significant improvement in noise. The sky in the top left corner of the park shot is surprisingly noisy at ISO100 and that is good light. At ISO400 then darker areas are pretty horrible. That's too limiting for me as image quality for landscape is simply not good enough to make it a serious DSLR back-up. I suspect that the Q7 + wide angle price will rival the GR's but the difference in image quality looks vast.
It looks like a very good performer indeed for other purposes where iq is less critical. But the original Q still wins for me for its better build quality and classic design too. Good luck to the Q7, I suspect it will start selling well at the same price point the Q did.
The Q7 certainly seems to be a decent step up in terms of detail - it is pretty evident from the detail on the building with the clocktower and also on the leaves and stones on the path of the park shots. But the noise levels are still poor in low light even at low ISO. I don't think there has been any significant improvement in noise. The sky in the top left corner of the park shot is surprisingly noisy at ISO100 and that is good light. At ISO400 then darker areas are pretty horrible. That's too limiting for me as image quality for landscape is simply not good enough to make it a serious DSLR back-up. I suspect that the Q7 + wide angle price will rival the GR's but the difference in image quality looks vast.
It looks like a very good performer indeed for other purposes where iq is less critical. But the original Q still wins for me for its better build quality and classic design too. Good luck to the Q7, I suspect it will start selling well at the same price point the Q did.
Posted 02/08/2013 - 15:16
Link
From a good friend in Singapore who did a review of the Q7 in Tokyo, Japan:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/reviews/1292695-tokyo-story-pentax-q7-real-world-...
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/reviews/1292695-tokyo-story-pentax-q7-real-world-...
K1/K3, DA*16-50mm F2.8, FA 31mm F1.8, FA43mm F1.9 Limited, FA77mm F1.8 Limited, SMC Pentax K 85mm F1.8, DA18-135mm F3.5-5.6, FA*28-70mm F1.8, FA*200mm F1.8
Posted 09/08/2013 - 08:09
Link
Not too much love for the new Q here!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-q7/13
I just don't think they get it do they?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-q7/13
I just don't think they get it do they?
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 09/08/2013 - 08:40
Link
Despite their misgivings, a bit of reluctant love shines through. After the review was written I wonder which one of them sneaked the camera home for a weekend of fun shooting?
Best regards, John
Posted 09/08/2013 - 09:49
Link
I don't think that's a negative review at all. I think it highlights the strengths and weaknesses rather well. It is just reviewed from the viewpoint of the enthusiast photographer, which is the point of that site. Reviews from other sites will highlight the appeal of the colour combinations.
It's a great product. I just wish they had put that size sensor in the original Q and put together a more sensible lens lineup from the outset.
It's a great product. I just wish they had put that size sensor in the original Q and put together a more sensible lens lineup from the outset.
Posted 09/08/2013 - 11:22
Link
It makes me wonder why they didn't since clearly the lenses are designed with an image circle to suit the larger sensor
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 09/08/2013 - 11:40
Link
It might be something as simple as unavailability of sensors. Or a problem with the miniaturisation of the electronics that needed more work. Or maybe even the SR system needing development to handle a larger mass.
Best regards, John
Posted 09/08/2013 - 11:47
Link
My understanding of the Q is the engineers were ahead of a competitively priced sensor at the time of design. Clever they allowed for it once available.
Shame they can't retrofit the enlarged sensor for a fee. Leica have done this before I believe but at astronomical cost! Ricoh of course do play with a modular sensor system but with lens attached.
Shame they can't retrofit the enlarged sensor for a fee. Leica have done this before I believe but at astronomical cost! Ricoh of course do play with a modular sensor system but with lens attached.
Posted 09/08/2013 - 11:53
Link
I have to say I much prefer the shape of the original Q but wonder if we will ever see the wide prime that was on the roadmap.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 09/08/2013 - 11:55
Link
I still need the 15-45mm and it all costs money, money, money...
A wide angle would be nice as well.
A wide angle would be nice as well.
Best regards, John
Posted 09/08/2013 - 12:03
Link
Trouble with the wide angle is that it will be now designed with the new crop factor in mind and is likely to be not so wide angle on the Q.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2342 posts
16 years
Storbritannia
The one big negative seems to be the shadow detail, anyone care to comment? Is the old one the same? Anyone even seen the new one yet?
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com