The Q - Ultimate Stress Test
Posted 13/09/2011 - 17:45
Link
Good to see the the author has finally adjusted the comment re: sensor size.
On a side note John, I'm surprised that you of all people would post something so far off-topic in the Pentax Digital SLR forum.
Unless the spec has changed I wasn't aware the Q was an SLR.
Perhaps a new sub-forum for Interchangeable Lens Compacts is required?
On a side note John, I'm surprised that you of all people would post something so far off-topic in the Pentax Digital SLR forum.
Unless the spec has changed I wasn't aware the Q was an SLR.
Perhaps a new sub-forum for Interchangeable Lens Compacts is required?
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 13/09/2011 - 18:14
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
No need to be snarky I'm sure PP was referring to this dodgy marketing trick the manufacturers use where they use not mere fractions (which would be fine), but fractions of a decimal! Talk about mixed metaphors ... Pentaxophile wrote:
To be honest I can sympathise with the Adorama photographer's confusion. All these sizes given in fractions of inches are very confusing - why can't manufacturer's stick to quoting areas in square millimetres?
I'm sure they covered fractions at my primary school. Although it could have been middle school..To be honest I can sympathise with the Adorama photographer's confusion. All these sizes given in fractions of inches are very confusing - why can't manufacturer's stick to quoting areas in square millimetres?
I mean c'mon, who uses made-up numbers like 1/2.3 inches for anything? Why not say 3/7 of an inch, or 0.43 inches instead? That would be much too clear for the poor old consumer
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!
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!
Posted 13/09/2011 - 21:30
Link
thoughton wrote:
Yeah sorry Pentaxophile. No offence meant Smeggypants wrote:
No need to be snarky Pentaxophile wrote:
To be honest I can sympathise with the Adorama photographer's confusion. All these sizes given in fractions of inches are very confusing - why can't manufacturer's stick to quoting areas in square millimetres?
I'm sure they covered fractions at my primary school. Although it could have been middle school..To be honest I can sympathise with the Adorama photographer's confusion. All these sizes given in fractions of inches are very confusing - why can't manufacturer's stick to quoting areas in square millimetres?
Quote:
I'm sure PP was referring to this dodgy marketing trick the manufacturers use where they use not mere fractions (which would be fine), but fractions of a decimal! Talk about mixed metaphors ...
I mean c'mon, who uses made-up numbers like 1/2.3 inches for anything? Why not say 3/7 of an inch, or 0.43 inches instead? That would be much too clear for the poor old consumer
Actually I dunno why they've chosen to do it that way.Could be marketing. or some traditional thing.
I'm sure PP was referring to this dodgy marketing trick the manufacturers use where they use not mere fractions (which would be fine), but fractions of a decimal! Talk about mixed metaphors ...
I mean c'mon, who uses made-up numbers like 1/2.3 inches for anything? Why not say 3/7 of an inch, or 0.43 inches instead? That would be much too clear for the poor old consumer
[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 13/09/2011 - 21:34
Link
robbie_d wrote:
Good to see the the author has finally adjusted the comment re: sensor size.
And removed all the previous comments from the article. I would have had some respect had he left the comments, acknowledged his mistake and moved onGood to see the the author has finally adjusted the comment re: sensor size.
Quote:
On a side note John, I'm surprised that you of all people would post something so far off-topic in the Pentax Digital SLR forum.
Unless the spec has changed I wasn't aware the Q was an SLR.
Perhaps a new sub-forum for Interchangeable Lens Compacts is required?
You mean "Pentax Interchangeable Lens Compacts" - On a side note John, I'm surprised that you of all people would post something so far off-topic in the Pentax Digital SLR forum.
Unless the spec has changed I wasn't aware the Q was an SLR.
Perhaps a new sub-forum for Interchangeable Lens Compacts is required?
Someone might post something about another manufacturer and get off on a technicality
[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 13/09/2011 - 23:14
Link
Quote:
I mean c'mon, who uses made-up numbers like 1/2.3 inches for anything? Why not say 3/7 of an inch, or 0.43 inches instead? That would be much too clear for the poor old consumer
Why not 1 inch + 3.1mm then everyone can take part.I mean c'mon, who uses made-up numbers like 1/2.3 inches for anything? Why not say 3/7 of an inch, or 0.43 inches instead? That would be much too clear for the poor old consumer
Bernard
Posted 14/09/2011 - 18:29
Link
Interesting video on the Q! http://youtu.be/rDIUY8e_TKI
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
10412 posts
18 years
Dordrecht,
the Netherlands
why can't manufacturer's stick to quoting areas in square millimetres?
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ