Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Q

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 10, 2011, 6:44 PM   #1
Senior Member
snostorm's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default Latest Q production image samples and some thoughts. . .

Hi All,

This forum needs some input since the Q has been officially released for sale.

Ned Bunnell, President of Pentax Imaging, USA, has posted some of his Q photos on his blog:


There are some extensive samples showing the whole ISO range, effects of NR settings, filters, etc here (use Google Translate to get a good idea of the settings used):


Most seem to feel that the IQ is better than they expected. Personally, I'm impressed, and have played with the high ISO jpeg samples in PP and find I can get very good images up to @ ISO 800, and acceptable results (for me) considering lighting conditions, all the way up to 6400. Of course, the Q wouldn't be my first choice for shooting really low light or highest resolution, and that's what I have the K-5 for. . . but for a camera that I can have with me all the time, it's looking pretty good. Other compact cameras can do pretty much as well, or even better, at lower prices and in more compact packages, but there are significant things that they can't do that really only the Q can, at least at this time.

There's also been talk about K-Q adapters. Pentax showed a prototype with an aperture control ring (which would be needed to use DA lenses effectively), and Rayqual, a Japanese adapter mfg has announced plans to produce >Q adapters for a wide range of lenses (some with tripod mounts) which will apparently be available sometime this month.

The possibility of using a K>Q adapter with my K lenses is the primary reason for my interest in the Q, now that IQ potential is not much of an issue for me.

With a K>Q adapter, my D FA 100 f2.8 macro will become a FOV equivalent of a 368mm f2.8 lens on my K-5 (563mm EQ on 35mm), and will give me about a 3.81:1 macro at MFD, all in a 20 oz package that will easily fit in a couple of large pockets (jacket or cargo pants).

The Std 01 (47mmEQ) f1.9 and/or the Std 02 (28-80 EQ) f2.8-4.5 zoom are both tiny, and could be easily carried in the same pocket as the Q body. Neither the APS-C nor the 4/3 MILC could offer the same FL/speed capabilities at anywhere near the size and weight, and for me, that's why they aren't comparable, despite the small size of some of the bodies. The super zoom bridge cameras or travel zooms won't match the lens quality. Add some utility as a relatively high magnification/no light loss TC for my big glass (which the larger sensored MILCs also can't do), and the Q seems to be a very good addition to my gear, regardless of price.

The math has already been done by others, and it indicates that premium K lenses can resolve well enough for excellent performance with the Q's sensor at up to about f4, and very good, but a bit soft images at f5.6, and the camera can apparently do its part to contribute to IQ for final output. Add to that ability to enhance images in PP and my intention of using a smaller tablet or a computer monitor as my usual output medium, and the Q should do just fine.

It would take quite a few advantages to offset the loss of a real-time OVF, AF and AE for the majority of my shooting, and the Q is the first EVF camera that seems to offer enough for me to seriously consider. It's also the first still camera that has gotten my interest up for shooting video. . .

For those who only shoot wide to short tele, and require narrow DOF, there are other cameras and bodies that offer more convenience, utility, or quality at either higher or lower prices ranges. Realistically, if IQ is the holy grail, they should be looking at larger sensors, not smaller. The Q is pretty obviously not for them.

I think that the Q will offer something unique for many others though, and despite the early dismissal to failure by many, I think that it will do pretty well.

snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 10, 2011, 8:26 PM   #2
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,087

I'm going to be interested to see how this camera does. I sometimes wish I had an f64 lens because I keep running into dof issues.

Ned's pictures are very cool - wish I could take casual snaps as well as he does! I've been thinking of a small compact of some sort and have never quite gotten around the loss in quality/giving up performance and controls. But I might change my mind with this camera, especially with a K-Q adaptor. Now that I've changed my prescription for my contacts/glasses and adjusted the dioper, manual focus has gone back to being a non-issue for me. I won't be an early adopter since I have 3 cameras already and don't need this one, but maybe next year...
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2011, 7:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076

Thanks for posting the link to the Q pictures. I'm quite impressed with the quality that Ned B. produced with that little Q.

I bought a Canon G 12 with a 430 flash within the past year as I wanted a small camera that can take quality pix as a daily carry around.

I'm happy with both the G and the 430...but after seeing the Q's size, pix quality and the fact that it has interchangeable lenses....I'm wondering if I should of waited for the Q.

If Pentax- Ricoh market this camera (Q) in an aggressive manner, I think this camera could well bring many into the Pentax fold...at first glance...small sensor and all...it seems to be an excellent camera.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.