Thread: The Pentax Q - a real World user review

Originally Posted by pixelsmithy

Pinholecam,
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.

pixelsmithy, thanks for your kind comments. :)

Yes, I think the Q may be the worst marketed camera in recent history.
IMO, even those selling Pentax had very little idea what the camera was about, which was why it got compared to larger sensors and to DSLRs.

Originally Posted by wt21

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 :)

Ha...ha...
Thanks.
Its a nice little camera with some very Quirky uses.

Originally Posted by snkenai

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?

But a larger sensor will mean all the nice macro and telephoto stuff takes a hit, so I think Pentax made a conscious choice of it. (...and the market laughed at them because they did not try to rationalize on the unique possibilities.......)

I'd be happy to settle with a 4x or even 3x crop sensor though it there ever is one, but certainly going as large as 1" or m4/3 is a no-no imho.

Originally Posted by Juergen

Thanks for the review!

Thanks :)

Another showcase of what this little camera can do.
My brother who was with me and using a K5 with Sigma 100-300/4 was left speechless.
The K5 shots at 300mm was still more than full body.


Q+FA*200/2.8 @f4 (1100mm equivalent)
only cropped for 8x10 format (perhaps only cropped off 1/10th of the frame)

Originally Posted by pinholecam

Another showcase of what this little camera can do.
My brother who was with me and using a K5 with Sigma 100-300/4 was left speechless.
The K5 shots at 300mm was still more than full body.


Q+FA*200/2.8 @f4 (1100mm equivalent)
only cropped for 8x10 format (perhaps only cropped off 1/10th of the frame)

Brilliant shot. Amazing. The more you post, the more I think about buying one. God save me from GAS.

Superb. I remember hearing that Pentax was going tot release an adapter that would allow the Q to AF the DA lenses with SDM.

Originally Posted by drd1135

Superb. I remember hearing that Pentax was going tot release an adapter that would allow the Q to AF the DA lenses with SDM.

*starts thinking about her DA limiteds* hmmmmm. Wonder if they will really do it. The adapter would have to be really deep, I guess...

Okay, Pinholecam, you can get more out of that Q than I could with a mythical Pentax full frame, a bag full of Limited lenses, and 6 years of photography classes.

I am struggling, though, to figure out why a Q would be better than a K-01, for example? Yeah, I get the telephoto reach thing and the increased DoF, but also know there are tradeoffs on diffraction, noise, color, tonal/dynamic range, etc.

Originally Posted by krugorg

I am struggling, though, to figure out why a Q would be better than a K-01, for example? Yeah, I get the telephoto reach thing and the increased DoF, but also know there are tradeoffs on diffraction, noise, color, tonal/dynamic range, etc.

I don't think the Q is going to be better in overall performance or iq (especially when you get into higher ISOs). AF glass on a k-o1 is still going to be AF glass ( not so on the Q). And the Q reportedly requires Good Glass to avoid CA as the smaller high MP sensor is sensitive to that.

We also don't know which of the Q's settings Pinholecam is using to create the jpegs. The Q (like its bigger Pentax brethren) has oodles of options that you can customize to your liking ( and save as a setting with that front dial).

Originally Posted by krugorg

Okay, Pinholecam, you can get more out of that Q than I could with a mythical Pentax full frame, a bag full of Limited lenses, and 6 years of photography classes.

I am struggling, though, to figure out why a Q would be better than a K-01, for example? Yeah, I get the telephoto reach thing and the increased DoF, but also know there are tradeoffs on diffraction, noise, color, tonal/dynamic range, etc.

Ha..ha.. krugorg, you are too kind. :)


The Q is unique for precisely the thing that it was derided for (ie. its small sensor).
I'm merely using it to its strengths; more DOF for streets and macro; 5.5X crop/magnification for tele and macro; better working distance due to crop factor.

Of course if an APS-C sensor like that of a K01 gets to the same (or even near similar) FOV as what I have gotten from the Q, it would beat it for detail retention and IQ, but in real world use, that may entail great expense in lenses; extreme pain in usage (get very near or v.heavy gear).

IMHO, we again head into the 'theory' part of camera usage vs 'real world' usage when we over analyze on the technicals/theories.
Something that the Q fares badly, but isn't that bad in real use.

Diffraction
Diffraction is there, but its not a cliff where sharpness falls off instantly.
Personally, at this point of experimentation/usage, I think f8 is pretty fine, though diffraction probably occurs past f4.5 in theory.
f11 it gets more obvious esp. on fine details like hairs, but can still be ok for an overall picture to give enough DOF.
f16 is beyond my tolerance and where I'd not go.
I stick to good lenses with high center resolution and resistance to CA (the high pixel density of the Q shows up CA strongly)


Noise
Its good enough in most cases, but I stick to base ISO if I can afford it.
A NR program will help of course.
To me a compact camera is not for 100% pixel peeping anyway, so long as the photo is good for normal viewing and perhaps up to 50% crop, I'm happy enough with it.


DR
Not a strength, but pretty decent, esp. with RAW.
Its also largely dependent on preference and subject matter.
Personally, I don't think its that large a contributor to a photos success, though having more info to play around is better than less of course. (In fact, I like contrasty photos :D )
I'd just not try to use it to its weakness.


This post on DPR probably sums up the difference quite well.
50mm f1:1.4 Q/K20D macro/close up comparison: Pentax Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The uncropped (and I'd add 40%-70% crop ) on the Q will be better than an APS-C cropped to match the Q FOV.
The Q 100% will be worse than the APS-C 100%, but the "diving into of the pixels" is pretty different since Q 100% is not APS-C 100%.
There are also the advantages of a 12mp file size for the Q for larger prints and for post processing vs a highly cropped APS-C file.


Up till this point, I find that the tradeoffs are 'ok' for the ease of achieving the results.
I'd stick to my APS-C for better DR, noise handling and less DOF when I need it, but leave the Q to do the easy and quirky stuff. :)
Just my few cents.