The electronic level was never a problem on film cameras! Pentax would have done better not to have included it at all until they can guarantee it works 100% correctly and then David wouldn't have had need to send his camera back to get it fixed.
Mine was not level so I just turned it off. I thought that sending the camera back may get fresh problems introduced that were not there to begin with.

John

That's excellent, congratulations. Obviously the judge has good taste!
We'll be more than pleased to see more of your photos here if the taster you've given us already is anything to go by.

Just a note for future reference, the mods (that's Mr Riley) normally only accepts the showing of Pentax originated photos unless there is good reason to do otherwise.

John

Thanks for confirming it was a Q shot. Really good.

I've tried a (cheap) scope on mine and seem to suffer fronm some colour fringing; big scale chromatic aberration! I've not tried adding another lens into the mix.

I guess it must be tricky photographing through the spaceship window!

John

On my monitor #3 looks just fine and what you'd expect for a bright sunny day. It's very good and my personal preference of the three. I too have had similar comments about my Q pictures so it may just be down to monitor brightness.

The other two are OK, albeit #2 is a bit soft. Which DSLR and lens combo do you use?

John

I can't see any EXIF data. Was it actually taken with the Q and if so, with which lens?
Cheers,

John

Facebook link doesn't work for me.

John

Thanks for the comments on the images.

They were from raw images so the highlight detail is there OK. The images do not look too bright on my monitor and they print just fine so it could be a monitor calibration difference or personal preference. When previewing the images in the camera in bright sunshine the tendency is to brighten the images up a bit so one can see them!


[quote="aliengrove"]For macro, why not get a PK converter, and use either tubes or a macro lens?[/quote]

I've got one of those and a macro lens but the whole idea was to have a camera to take out hiking/cycling when I wasn't taking the whole kit along so didn't have those with me.
A K mount macro lens (even the 35mm limited) mounted on the Q ends up with a very long comparable focal length so I'd need a tripod too and probably the ringflash. If I'm taking those I may as well have taken the K-5 as well but probably ended up not taking any of them as the whole purpose of getting the Q in the first place was to have a camera with me just in case when I might not have done otherwise, as was the case here!
Given the constraints of the Q I got the images. They might well have been (should have been) better on the K-5 but if you haven't got it with you that's no help at all. As I said earlier, a dedicated macro lens with a Q mount would be the ideal. The Q is supposed to be a system camera and has a new sibling about to be launched so why not a few more dedicated lenses to use on them? Another hint hint!

In any event I was reasonably pleased with the results and I have the photos I wouldn't have had otherwise.

John

14mm - 1/500sec @ f7.1 ISO 160




15mm - 1/800sec @ f7.1 ISO 160



Both K-5 jpeg's reduced to 800 pixels wide in Irfanview. No other processing.

John

The buildings on the sides give some sort of balance and scale to me so I like it as it is.

John

Does that mean 15% of users do complain but really couldn't care less!?

It's easy to make a mistake like 'a lot' / 'alot' then realize later when it's too late to correct it. I doubt anyone misunderstands the meaning as a result though.

John