Pentax The Pentax Q - a real World user review

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.
 
Thanks for this, pinholecam :) I've been one of the naysayers from the outset. I've poked fun at the Q, swore blind I would never have one, and tbh I havent ever been very impressed with Pentax's small sensor cameras overall. However.. its now possible I could change my mind :)

A very enjoyable review with some fine images - thanks.

*stands and applauds*

"Bravo!"

The real world user review is fantastic. I love your sense of humor, too. Many thanks for a job well done.

Thanks for this detailed and very interesting review! I confess being also one of those who considered Q as a rather bizarre offering; your writing and images made me stand corrected:)

Great review and images - thanks for sharing!

I was also one of the Q naysayers when it first came out, mostly due to the original price tag. Picked one up for my wife during an Amazon one day sale and she is getting good shots with the camera and it leaves the house with her more than the E-PL3 did.

More than little bit surprised, at the capability of this little machine, after the negative "press".

Thanks, for the review.

I really enjoyed reading your review. I played with one in a shop and it feels very nice and well made. The camera has really nice output as your pics have shown. I'm hoping that the more new cameras that come out, the more they will drive the price of the Q downwards!

Thanks guys for the kind comments.
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.
 
Firstly, you really know how to work that camera! A really nice review covering a wide range of focal lengths. By far the best 'real world' review on this camera I've seen till date. Though I doubt an average user would be able to get as much out of this camera as you have.

The only thing this review leaves me wondering about is the Q's performance in average to poor lighting conditions, which is the one reason that most people haven't opted for this system or given it a serious thought.


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)



Thanks for all that work, writing and great shots. The insect/spider shots are great. I tried some Q macros and really appreciate your ability to focus manually with only 4x magnification.

I typically only use x2 mag, but I do have a LCD loupe which to me helps heaps.
 
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).


7756234010_7b1a8ee0a1_c.jpg
 
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:
https://www.photographerslounge.org/f90/pentax-q-samples-4129/index2.html

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.
 
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.

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)

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.
 
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 :)
 
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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:
https://www.photographerslounge.org/f90/pentax-q-samples-4129/index2.html

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.
 
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. ;)



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.


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)
7812326958_b7b6bb51f1_c.jpg

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