I think it's indicative that the Q has suddenly garnered interest when the price dropped below $400. It's a very nice small camera alternative to a full sized DSLR. If it was just as good as a traditional DSLR like a K5 then the DSLR would be in big trouble. Realistically, it's mission is to be an easily carried camera with manual controls and really good IQ for a small sensor. If you can't live with the drop in IQ, then you have your K5. Moving beyond the specific case of the Q, the high end compact is a very serious camera market because there are obviously a lot of folks with an interest in photography and money to spend that are sick of toting around a large camera and lenses. Given that many of these same folks don't make large prints (or even prints at all) they have discovered they can get by with a lower level of IQ and be perfectly happy with their results. There is nothing "wrong" with any side of this. It's "the K5 takes better pictures" vs. "no pictures at all if you don't take the camera"; it's a just a matter of personal choice.
To me, the really interesting question is Pentax/Ricoh's approach to the small camera market. They have produced a really nice small camera with a really small sensor (Q) and an EVIL brick with very high IQ (K01). Something in the middle might have been better, but the K01 was cheap to develop since it's the K mount and the Q system can't really use a bigger sensor (although I'm not completely sure of this latter point.) The Q will have a hard go in the long run against the 2/3, 1", or 4/3 sensors in terms absolute IQ, and these will be it's biggest competitors (not APS-C). I won't be devastated if PR moves away from the Q format as a I doubt I will make a big lens investment. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Darren Addy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:40 PM, William Robb > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Imagewise, the Q gives theK20 a run. > > First of all, note that Willam said "gives it a run". He didn't say > "is equal to or beats it". Regardless of what a pixel-peeper look at > side-by-side images between the two shows, I believe the significance > of William's statement is that this is his impression (and that is > impressive, in itself). I have never owned a K20D, but I owned a K200D > and my impression is that the Q is a much better camera. > > I have to temper that with the fact that: > a) I've only had the Q a week > b) Have only worked with in-camera JPEGs > c) Have only worked at screen resolutions > > If you simply look at the specs... if you ignore the Pixel Pitch, the > important stuff is not that far apart. Keep in mind that the K20D is a > Samsung sensor and the Q is a backlit Exmor-R (apples and oranges, > technology-wise). > The Dynamic Range (as measured by Dx0Mark is identical to the K20D: 11.1 > All 3 (Q, K200D, K20D) are 12-bit per pixel > The Q blows the doors off the other two in FPS (5, 2.8, 3) > The K200D didn't have Live View, while the K20D did. > The Q has an electronic shutter to the other two's mechanical. > My impression is that the Q can hold its own if the ISO is under 200, > which I think is quite a feat for a camera/sensor this small. > > -- > 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.
