Of course, its' possible that as the computational power of cameras increases, even a small sensor might be correctable to a level where flaws are hard to detect with the eye.
I read somewhere that the Q is selling well in Japan, i.e., made the top ten list. As long as it puts money in Pentax's pockets, I'm for it. On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, P. J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote: > Physics would argue against this. I looked at the sample images, they were > nice, much nicer than I expected from such a small sensor, but there's only > so much light that a tiny photosite can capture, and there's only so much > wizardry that software can accomplish. Most small sensor cameras, even the > most well respected such as the Canon G series have shown only tiny > incremental improvements in image quality in their last few incarnations. > Larger sensors have a lot more room for improvement and they started out > better to begin with. The Q is most probably already at the point where > diminishing returns on R&D investment are setting in. I'm not saying there > won't be improvements, just that they are likely to be small for more and > more heroic efforts. > > On 9/28/2011 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >> On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:13 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: >> >>> Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but >>> then I hadn't thought too much about it. >> >> I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from the Q, >> and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs. >> >> I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on par >> with at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5. By the time that >> they have a sensor that'll appeal to the fussier photographers, they'll >> have a lens selection that will appeal to those photographers as well. >> They'll also have a low end kit, selling for under $500. >> >> In the mean time, by starting with a higher price, they get a lot more >> profit from each camera. If at $800 they make $200 profit on each camera, >> at $700 they'd only make half the profit. Likewise, Pentax has a lot of >> teething problem issues with new technology, keeping the price high means >> fewer people to complain while they work the bugs out, and fewer things they >> may need to repair. Remember that people were complaining about the price >> of the K-5 when it came out, and several people on the list just picked them >> up at $1100. >> >> When Pentax came out with the 110, I wonder how many 35mm or 645 folks >> complained that there'd be no market because of the image quality. >> >>> On 9/28/2011 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >>>> >>>> Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the >>>> plastic ... >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/ >>>> >>>> What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least. >>>> >>>> -bmw >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to >>> avoid a lengthily search. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> -- >> Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid > a lengthily search. > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
