lenshoarder
Veteran
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!
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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?
Thanks for the review!
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)
*starts thinking about her DA limiteds* hmmmmm. Wonder if they will really do it. The adapter would have to be really deep, I guess...Superb. I remember hearing that Pentax was going tot release an adapter that would allow the Q to AF the DA lenses with SDM.
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.
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.