All Forum Comments
ISO 51200 banding? As a K-7 owner, my heart bleeds for you, Vince!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on K5 High ISO banding? at 25/06/2011 - 14:47
I am guessing it's going to work like the 'backfground defocus' in Sony compacts. Two shots are taken quickly with one focused on the subject and one out of focus, and then merged together.
Without "background defocus": link
With: link
Without "background defocus": link
With: link
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Pentax launch the Q at 25/06/2011 - 12:22
MrCynical wrote:
If Photozone's tests are to be believed (I know some here, and particularly on the Other Forum, distrust PZ since the 18-135 review ), the f3.5 version is inferior in sharpness/resolution to the older version. For what it's worth, I have the older (f4-5.6) version and love it.
Only in the extreme borders at 10mm. I wonder if they're gone at 12mm? You do also get simpler distortion at 10mm and 7 rounded aperture blades, which is quite classy .If Photozone's tests are to be believed (I know some here, and particularly on the Other Forum, distrust PZ since the 18-135 review ), the f3.5 version is inferior in sharpness/resolution to the older version. For what it's worth, I have the older (f4-5.6) version and love it.
I went for the f4-5.6 version too though!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Sigma 10-20 at 25/06/2011 - 02:57
Don wrote:
I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Not for the pixel-peepers it won't! But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Can I quote Imaging Resource, which sums up nicely what I think about the Q:
Quote:
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Pentax launch the Q at 25/06/2011 - 02:44
Professional frames are great but you can always find a cheap way of getting cheap frames, and print to fit the mounts. One of the cheapest ways is to buy ready framed prints from a bargain store and replace the print with your own.
We have enough electronic screens in our homes already in my opinion! A print is also nicer to look at than an illuminated electronic screen.
We have enough electronic screens in our homes already in my opinion! A print is also nicer to look at than an illuminated electronic screen.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Digital photo frames- novelty or good? at 25/06/2011 - 02:17
My preference would be to get some new cartridges and some nice photo paper (Hahnnemule?) and get printing
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Digital photo frames- novelty or good? at 25/06/2011 - 01:54
Dodge69 wrote:
If you prefer a small kit, e.g walking around with a 16-45 (which is quite light) and a 55-300 or 50-200, then picking up one of these may give you a dilemma as you will may not want to leave it at home!
I know exactly what you mean! I hate heavy lenses, but can rarely resist taking the Sigma out with me. It's worth it. But if only there was a lighter, smaller, 10mm prime available.If you prefer a small kit, e.g walking around with a 16-45 (which is quite light) and a 55-300 or 50-200, then picking up one of these may give you a dilemma as you will may not want to leave it at home!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Sigma 10-20 at 25/06/2011 - 00:21
I had a cursory look at Smeggy's place. To be honest apart from your good self, I found the denizens a bit scary in an EDLish way!
The other Pentax forum has an off topic section which is excellent. Many discussions had with birthers, zionists, jehovas witnesses etc. Somehow it doesn't destroy the good natured thrust of the forum and people are grown up enough to put their differences of opinion aside. The real arguments and hurt feelings are in the photography related sections!
I thing the key to the success over there is you can turn off the visibility of the political/religious discussion threads. Sensitive souls can therefore opt out entirely.
The other Pentax forum has an off topic section which is excellent. Many discussions had with birthers, zionists, jehovas witnesses etc. Somehow it doesn't destroy the good natured thrust of the forum and people are grown up enough to put their differences of opinion aside. The real arguments and hurt feelings are in the photography related sections!
I thing the key to the success over there is you can turn off the visibility of the political/religious discussion threads. Sensitive souls can therefore opt out entirely.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Any Subject at 24/06/2011 - 17:46
- Looks fabulous IQ-wise.
- A bit big though.
I think this might be a case where I'd forego optical superiority for the convenience of a smaller lens (Sigma 30mm f1.4), or speed for a tiny lens (Pentax DA35mm f2.4).
- A bit big though.
I think this might be a case where I'd forego optical superiority for the convenience of a smaller lens (Sigma 30mm f1.4), or speed for a tiny lens (Pentax DA35mm f2.4).
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Samyang 35mm f/1.4 anyone? at 24/06/2011 - 17:13
SkyRider wrote:
I wonder whether you could use this for focus stacking...?
It'll make focus stacking look quaint and clunky! You can have as much or as little in focus as you want, if it does what I think it does.I wonder whether you could use this for focus stacking...?
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Focus after you take the shot at 24/06/2011 - 14:09
