Probably equivalent to ISO 400 APS.... I have a lot of complaints about the P9000, but the sensor noise is way down the list. The slow lens, slow operations, confounding menus, mutually exclusive options (like not being able to auto-bracket when shooting in raw mode) and useless features (barely functional gps, Ethernet port to nowhere) all bother me more than the small sensor size and attendent noise. It gets very detailed images and the noise has not proven to be a problem. A camera with better features and ergonomics that is even small might be just the thing. Not so sure about the $800 price tag on the Q though...
----- Original Message ---- From: John Francis <[email protected]> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, June 24, 2011 2:36:24 AM Subject: Re: Mind your Ps and Qs: the Q is not meant for you On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:18:36PM -0700, Mark Cassino wrote: > ? > The Q looks like a huge step up from the compact camera I'm used to using and > not as bulky as the micro 4/3rds, which are not all that small. If the image > quality proves to be good, I'll probably go for one. I'm pretty tolerant > about > what good means - if it is on par with a scan of ISO 400 print film, I can > probably make a print from it that does what I want. i ISO 400 print film in a 6x7, or ISO 400 print film in an Auto 110? I think a Micro 4/3 system is as small as I'd want to use seriously. The Q is just too small for mu to hold comfortably. And when an E-PL1 is selling for $400, it's hard to consider $800 for the Q -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
