August 14th, 2012, 02:05 PM
I so want this camera. It is the modern Pentax 110. I have like 5 of those. But I just can't bring myself to pay $400 for it. If it was $200.... I'm still waiting for it to be cleared out.
August 14th, 2012, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by kyteflyer
Originally Posted by bilzmale
Originally Posted by Luke
Originally Posted by pictogramax
Originally Posted by krugorg
Originally Posted by snkenai
Thanks guys for the kind comments.
Originally Posted by christilou
I feel that all cameras in general are at a point of time where they are all pretty good for making images for normal usage.
The Q is an interesting concept, too bad its not caught on.
But I'm happy that a camera maker dared to venture out from 'me too' cameras by making it.
August 14th, 2012, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by Boid
Indeed I have missed to cover low light, mainly due to the fact that I only have family photos at this point of time for low light shots and I usually don't post those.
I'll probably get to it and add them to the review once I have the chance to do some personal shooting in such conditions.
At this point though, I don't find that the IQ at low light is the main weakness of the Q, though its a small sensor camera at the end of the day.
The f1.9 Prime 01 lens does keep ISO to 800-1000 in many cases.
Grain/Noise is pretty acceptable too and very film like w/o being jpeg artifact looking. Esp, so when I shoot non-color in low light.
Not to mention many good NR programs out there nowadays.
My main low light gripe (as mentioned as a Con in the conclusion) is rather pedestrian AF in low light, much like cheaper pns cameras, which I feel needs to improved as we saw huge leaps in AF speed for some CDAF cameras circa 2011-2012 (eg. Panasonic G series; Oly EP3 and up; RX100)
I typically only use x2 mag, but I do have a LCD loupe which to me helps heaps.
Originally Posted by drd1135
August 14th, 2012, 11:33 PM
Here is another macro with the Q+100mm macro, but its a stack of 2 frames done in CombineZP.
A setup on a APS-C would have required more frames with the risk of the subject moving significantly within the sequence of frames.
Only cropping was for 8x10 format (a bit off the sides).
August 15th, 2012, 12:22 PM
I just wanted to thank you for a post you made on the Pentax Forums. It was a post that made me look at the Pentax Q in a serious way, for the first time. It was not this excellent review (although I found that shortly afterwards) but instead it was a post that was rebutting a poster's assertion that a Full Frame camera was useful for (among other things) macro and wildlife. Your images were taken with a Pentax Q.
K5 replacement - Page 4 - PentaxForums.com
Before that post I had considered the small sensor in the Q a liability, but your post made me see it as a "feature" that provided greater DOF for macro shots and the 5.6x crop factor benefited both macro and super-telephoto work. It also makes a great "stealth" camera for those places where you can't get a DSLR in the building, or for an unobtrusive from-the-hip street shooter camera.
I own a K-5 and a Pentax-F 100mm f2.8 and I now see the Pentax Q as a terrific "accessory". I'm purchasing a used Q kit with the f1.9 prime and two adapters that will allow me to mount K lenses and C-mount cine lenses to the Q. Should be tons of FUN - as seriouscompacts.com member "official tomoduch" demonstrated very will with his multiple posts on this page:
Pentax Q samples
I believe that the Pentax Q may be the worst-marketed, Best Camera in the history of the universe.
Can't wait until mine gets here.
August 15th, 2012, 12:31 PM
A f1.9 kit returned to Amazon (next-to-new) sold on Amazon Warehouse Deals yesterday for $335 (quickly). I personally think it is a BUY NOW at anything close to that. And frankly, it is much more than a modern Pentax 110. A film 110 could not produce images rivaling the 35mm film cameras of the day. The Q can. In fact, its small sensor is an advantage in giving you more DOF for macro and super-telephoto focal lengths (such as for birding or wildlife) if you get an adapter and don't mind manual focus. Put a 100mm macro on it and you can do amazing things at both ends (as demonstrated by our own Pinholecam)
Originally Posted by lenshoarder
Also, check out this image of the moon taken with the same lens on a Q and a K-5 (with image cropped to the same composition). The Q's actually looks better. Amazing.
August 15th, 2012, 12:57 PM
And... I think I'll just toss out my gear and quit photography.
What you do with that tiny sensor is amazing, and shows what a real passion and eye can do. Bravo and great review.
Please do, though, post a pic of the Q mounted to that 300mm lens :)
August 15th, 2012, 12:59 PM
Now, I know, I should not ask this. But, I will anyway. And I am not expecting a technical answer, in fact no answer at all. Just wondering out loud.
If Pentax can get that much from such a small sensor, how much can be gotten from a 4/3, or even larger, and why not now? Except maybe, the cost?
August 15th, 2012, 05:53 PM
I don't know the answer to your question, specifically, but Pentax has something figured out. The Sony Exmor backlit sensor in the K-5 is in other cameras (for example), yet the K-5 is regarded by many to have the best IQ of any APS-C camera out there. This is all the more impressive to me when the camera was introduced almost two years ago (one would think that someone would have come along and surpassed it). Pentax has chosen not to ride the 4/3 bus, for some reason. They've gone bigger than full frame (with the 645D), they've gone APS-C with all their DSLRs (and the K-01) they developed a whole new lens line to work with the smaller Exmor-R for the Q. Its partly choosing great sensors, but its clearly more than that, in what they do with the data it records.
Originally Posted by snkenai
August 16th, 2012, 11:16 AM
This site uses affiliate programs and referral links for monetization.