I agree with you regarding the physics, but sometimes I have to remind myself that many of us where able to take pretty good pictures with ISO100, 200 and 400 film. So even if you are right someone should be able to use this camera for something good.
DagT Den 28. sep. 2011 kl. 20:30 skrev P. J. Alling: > 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. -- 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.
