Pentax Q trial starts

[raist3d]

Yup, got one. For a week or for the next five years. We'll see.

Little tidbits as I am tired and haven't really had much time with it yet.

User interface is superb. Like Amazingly implemented. So many features yet it's all organized and makes sense.

Superb ergonomics- probably best ergonomics of any compact camera I have touched so far, imho.

Amazing leeway for creativity - from all the filters to combining in-camera the intervalometer shots into a movie

The F1.9 prime lens really makes a difference vs other compacts I have used in night shooting.

The biggest difference I am seeing between an Lx5 raw and a Q raw - and jpeg, is the Q can go all the way to ISO 6400 and still keep a resemblance of the colors. By ISO 3200 such aspect on the LX5 is overall, bye bye.

The firmware upgrade makes the Q autofocus in daylight almost as fast, (very very close) to the latest micro four thirds. I would have never guessed.

This is a "digital diana" with the capability to look with care like an entry level type DSLR. Overall, doing a pixel peep with this camera and decry it's not noiseless is to miss the point. More importantly is if overall tone and color are kept for a reasonable print or use on the web, and I think the camera does well on that aspect.

A test snap -



- Raist

[jonoslack]

Ahhh Ricardo
Glad you've got this - I'll be fascinated as to how you get on with it.
this says it all for me:
Fuji vs Pentax
all the best

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Ahhh Ricardo
Glad you've got this - I'll be fascinated as to how you get on with it.
this says it all for me:
Fuji vs Pentax
all the best

Well I can give you one quickie opinion on that for a start - if you want the best image quality/best JPEG quality out of the camera, go ahead and go for the Fuji. Fuji did a great job with their camera and the jpegs/image quality/lens are superb. Ironically rivaling and perhaps surpassing what micro four thirds can do on some models.

The Q isn't about ultimate image quality vs say, that Fuji. That said, the Q does do better than most people think from what I am seeing. The ability of keeping color as iso goes up, and the fact (if you shoot with the prime lens) you are always using an F1.9 makes a difference.

There are other aspects to the Q that are the ones that have attracted me tentatively over the X10. Your link suggests that maybe you see some of the same things I see. Since I plan to keep this camera, or the LX5, or whatever else I decide for pocket-street cam for the next five years, I am going to grill this camera for a week and see how I feel about it.

Anyhow, just saying this to get that aspect out of the way. I'll grill this tool and see if it's what I want.

- Ricardo

[kit laughlin]

Joining in, for the fun!

[jonoslack]

Hi Ricardo

Originally Posted by raist3d

Well I can give you one quickie opinion on that for a start - if you want the best image quality/best JPEG quality out of the camera, go ahead and go for the Fuji. Fuji did a great job with their camera and the jpegs/image quality/lens are superb. Ironically rivaling and perhaps surpassing what micro four thirds can do on some models.

Yes, But; Fuji vs Sony NEX

That cameras size comparator is sure going to save me some money! The Fuji may be better wrt IQ than the Q (clearly is) - but is it better than the NEX (clearly isn't). Once you're out of the realm of the pocketable (and for me the Fuji X10 is out of that realm) then there are lots of different options, and a 2/3 sensor isn't so different from a 1 / 2/3 as it is from an APSc sensor

Originally Posted by raist3d

The Q isn't about ultimate image quality vs say, that Fuji. That said, the Q does do better than most people think from what I am seeing. The ability of keeping color as iso goes up, and the fact (if you shoot with the prime lens) you are always using an F1.9 makes a difference.

There are other aspects to the Q that are the ones that have attracted me tentatively over the X10. Your link suggests that maybe you see some of the same things I see. Since I plan to keep this camera, or the LX5, or whatever else I decide for pocket-street cam for the next five years, I am going to grill this camera for a week and see how I feel about it.

Currently I have no cameras with a sensor smaller than APS/c, and I think it's likely to stay that way unless someone can offer a really compelling pocketable camera.

Incidentally - have you seen the leaks of the Fuji X:

Fuji X leak. Looks big to me - really big!

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Hi Ricardo


Yes, But; Fuji vs Sony NEX

That cameras size comparator is sure going to save me some money! The Fuji may be better wrt IQ than the Q (clearly is) - but is it better than the NEX (clearly isn't). Once you're out of the realm of the pocketable (and for me the Fuji X10 is out of that realm) then there are lots of different options, and a 2/3 sensor isn't so different from a 1 / 2/3 as it is from an APSc sensor

That's cool. I was just referring vs the Q. From my view though the Sony is not smaller than the Fuji at all because of the lenses. That's the problem of the Nex system (as far as compact). The bodies are small but the lenses are pretty big. Until sony comes out with high quality pancake primes, I don't view it as a smaller system than any of the interchangeable mirrorless around, except the Samsung system.

Currently I have no cameras with a sensor smaller than APS/c, and I think it's likely to stay that way unless someone can offer a really compelling pocketable camera.

Incidentally - have you seen the leaks of the Fuji X:

Fuji X leak. Looks big to me - really big!

Nope, haven't seen the leaks of the X, but since Fuji said they were promising image quality better than *anything else on earth* this side of $8,000 USd and down-DSLR's, I would imagine it can't be small. :-)

- Ricardo

Update: The Fuji (and the way I view the Sony) are more of a "smaller camera to go around with" replacement. I bet the Fuji will do better controls, vastly better JPEG and would not be surprised if their sensor is better. But yeah, I don't see that as pocketable (neither the X100). I can say though the X10 did pass my 'does it fit in my front jeans pocket' test. If the Q doesn't work for me, I am not ruling out an X10 for me yet.

I have been a fan of Fuji when they do things right. The X10 does a lot of things right. But yeah, I rather have a bit smaller if I can get away with it. One thing that makes me think here- if Pentax could come out with the same focal length prime they have in F1.2 (or say 35mm equivalent), it automatically upgrades the camera in bokeh and iso performance. That F1.9 really makes a big difference. F1.2 would make a huge difference.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

But yeah, I don't see that as pocketable (neither the X100). I can say though the X10 did pass my 'does it fit in my front jeans pocket' test. If the Q doesn't work for me, I am not ruling out an X10 for me yet.

I obviously wear different jeans - the XZ-1 didn't anything like fit in my jeans pocket. . . . and the X10 is noticeably bigger than the Fuji.On the other hand the NEX 5n with the 16 does fit in my jacket pocket. . . . easily. It does with a 35 summarit attached as well

As I say, that camera size website is going to save me a bomb!

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

I obviously wear different jeans - the XZ-1 didn't anything like fit in my jeans pocket. . . . and the X10 is noticeably bigger than the Fuji.On the other hand the NEX 5n with the 16 does fit in my jacket pocket. . . . easily. It does with a 35 summarit attached as well

As I say, that camera size website is going to save me a bomb!

Well then, why don't you just go for the Sony and call it done? If you want size and image quality the Sony does it. Unless I am missing something you want on the Q system. I wouldn't count the 16 lens you mentioned (if that's any of the early nex Sony pancakes, those lenses don't impress me one bit). Same for the 35 (unless that's a Carl Zeiss). The only two lenses I know of that Sony put out recently for their Nex system that are good, are the two newly announced ones + the new Macro I think (ok that's three). But those three lenses are not small.

The rest of the lens line up from Sony on the Nex, not only I find it big, but I don't find the lenses very good- keeping in mind this is relative. I never found for example the Olympus mciro four thirds lenses very good until they came out with the latest two primes.

- Ricardo

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

Well then, why don't you just go for the Sony and call it done? If you want size and image quality the Sony does it. Unless I am missing something you want on the Q system. I wouldn't count the 16 lens you mentioned (if that's any of the early nex Sony pancakes, those lenses don't impress me one bit). Same for the 35 (unless that's a Carl Zeiss).

Well, the 35 summarit is a Leica, not a Zeiss (it's fine on the NEX, and with a helicoid adapter it focuses down to about 6").
The Sony 16mm is interesting - it's one of those lenses which has been universally derided - I find it quite good if you stop down a little and fine in the middle even wide open. Compared, for instance, with the Pentax 15 limited, I'd say it was much much better (not that that's saying a great deal - and apart from the build quality - it costs about 1/4 of what the Pentax costs too.).

Originally Posted by raist3d

The only two lenses I know of that Sony put out recently for their Nex system that are good, are the two newly announced ones + the new Macro I think (ok that's three). But those three lenses are not small.

The rest of the lens line up from Sony on the Nex, not only I find it big, but I don't find the lenses very good- keeping in mind this is relative. I never found for example the Olympus mciro four thirds lenses very good until they came out with the latest two primes.

- Ricardo

I agree, most of the other lenses are big - but at least you do have the option of some small lenses - but, as you say, I already have chosen the sony and called it 'done'.
But the Q interests me because it really is small - and it is also flexible.

all the best

[raist3d]

Wow, wow wow.... This is from a bar. ISO 3200, F1.9, 1/20th. You can tell this is low light if you have been around shooting street night life. This is a snap test.

First JPEG out of camera. It's not even half bad.

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/iso..._oneover20.jpg

Now from RAW:

http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/fro..._oneover20.jpg

I didn't even bother tweaking much of noise redux/sharp/whatever. It could end up better. I could even recover color if I wanted. Even in this light to some degree. Crazy!

This shot is singlehandedly making me think about keeping this guy as my street night life cam...

- Raist

[raist3d]

Faceless people… (taken with Contrasty BTW smart filter):



- Raist

[raist3d]

I agree, most of the other lenses are big - but at least you do have the option of some small lenses - but, as you say, I already have chosen the sony and called it 'done'.

Well I want to make clear that just because something doesn't work for me it doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. I am not impressed with the current Sony pancakes. The two good lenses in my eyes are the two new ones but those are big. The most important thing is that they work for you.

Calling it done is good. It's necessary to focus then on photography.

- Raist

[raist3d]

Zipping car (jpeg out of cam):




- Raist

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

Well I want to make clear that just because something doesn't work for me it doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. I am not impressed with the current Sony pancakes. The two good lenses in my eyes are the two new ones but those are big. The most important thing is that they work for you.

Calling it done is good. It's necessary to focus then on photography.

- Raist

LOL - I always focus on the photography when I'm out taking photographs - the problems arise when I get back here again and start lurking on the internet.

I think that maybe, I've used so many different cameras over the last few years, that it just doesn't take long to settle down with another one - I don't really do much more than APSM ISO WB and AEL lock - and that's pretty easy to figure out whatever you're using. In camera jpg settings and scene modes etc. - blah - not really interested, I can see that they can be fun, but for me THAT's what the distraction is when I'm out shooting, I'd rather they just weren't there! I guess, in the final analysis, that was the second biggest reason I didn't like the X100. With the Sony - once you've set up your defaults for buttons, there's not much reason to delve into the menus, so what you see is what you want to see - nothing else; which is good.

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

LOL - I always focus on the photography when I'm out taking photographs - the problems arise when I get back here again and start lurking on the internet.

I think that maybe, I've used so many different cameras over the last few years, that it just doesn't take long to settle down with another one - I don't really do much more than APSM ISO WB and AEL lock - and that's pretty easy to figure out whatever you're using. In camera jpg settings and scene modes etc. - blah - not really interested, I can see that they can be fun, but for me THAT's what the distraction is when I'm out shooting, I'd rather they just weren't there! I guess, in the final analysis, that was the second biggest reason I didn't like the X100. With the Sony - once you've set up your defaults for buttons, there's not much reason to delve into the menus, so what you see is what you want to see - nothing else; which is good.

You know by now I don't buy that on the multiple equipment side of things, but cool. Whatever works for you :-) It goes way beyond just knowing what AEL Lock, ISO, etc. do, but also getting at a very intuitive level the lenses, how the sensor (canvas) reacts to light under what situations, etc.

Anyway, have a few other shots but no time to upload tonight. Gotta sleep! I would like to shift focus back to what the thread is on my Q trial. We can continue the other subject on another thread or PM.

Going back to the Q, it looks like it is exceeding my expectations and if I had to answer whether I would keep it today, I would.

- Raist

[raist3d]

I am at this point 80-85% convinced I am keeping the Q as my street life camera for the next five years, and sell the LX5 (also a great camera).

I really think the Q has been truly underestimated by most reviews and people who have never really used it (I don't mean touch it a little bit and do some snaps one afternoon, but really use it photographically and see what its canvas can do with that prime).

It can go from funky filtered mini diana to entry level DSLR.

- Ricardo

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

I really think the Q has been truly underestimated by most reviews and people who have never really used it (I don't mean touch it a little bit and do some snaps one afternoon, but really use it photographically and see what its canvas can do with that prime).

It can go from funky filtered mini diana to entry level DSLR.

- Ricardo

I'm really glad to hear it - enjoy!

[raist3d]

ISO 800 real world shots. Bokeh seen is as is from the lens, not using the special fake bokeh mode.

ISO 800, 1/58sec, F1.9. Lights are a mix of tungsten, sodium, fluorescent + cars.

JPEG out of camera first:



Same shot from Light room:




comparison 100% crop. JPEG left, raw right:



- Raist

[raist3d]

Car lines-



Pointy…



- Raist

[VladimirYo]

Wow, raist3d!
Q in a right hand. Very nice shots. Looks like a lot of fun to shoot on the streets even at night.

[raist3d]

@VladimirYo - thanks! More shots very soon.. like right now:

These from yesterday/today. JPEGS out of camera, raws, high ISO's, fish eye stuff. Test and hopefully a photo or two.



(sorry for the car license plate. Could have removed it better if put more time to it):







Love the detail of the prime/bird/colors. Could be much better composed with better background...








San Francisco city hall/upper dome:



- Raist

[raist3d]

A few more surprises.

Bird pixel peep - please note that the contrast, saturation and level of noise/shadows has been adjusted a little by me to my taste of the original shot. Out of the camera JPEG looks really good already for a start, and areas like the eye/shadow/head do have data and detail, but I increased the contrast.

Just want to show the kind of detail the Prime 01 can get:



Next is a shot showing what I suspected: the flash can actually outpower the sun! The buildings you see behind the portrait in this shot are lit by morning light on clear sky at 9 am in San Francisco. It's not "a little light" - you can see the sun is behind the head and acts as a bit of a rimming light.

I am surprised the little flash is powerful enough to do it, but I suspected maybe it could due to the 1/2000th of a second flash sync.

No complaints about the little flash, it can do a lot of things. This could work for portraits in daylight, photos of objects like flowers, etc.



- Raist

[Terry]

Looking good. Glad you are enjoying it.

[raist3d]

Believe it or not, not sold (read: not sure) on keeping it yet. :-) The LX5 is up for a round of street night life tonight for reference purposes… and also…. I think you got mail.

- Ricardo

[raist3d]

Crazy, ISO 6400 on red light.

Jpeg out of camera (could look brighter even in-camera):



From Raw (light room 3.6 RC):



- Raist

[ptomsu]

@raist3d

completely confused why you shoot now Pentax Q, when all the prior cameras like E3, Olympus DSLS xyz and Pentax K5 are (were) such great cameras.

Could you please explain? What should I think as I thought nothing else can top K5 ???

I am lost ....

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

@raist3d

completely confused why you shoot now Pentax Q, when all the prior cameras like E3, Olympus DSLS xyz and Pentax K5 are (were) such great cameras.

Could you please explain? What should I think as I thought nothing else can top K5 ???

I am lost ....

I think I understand your confusion given you were very confused once about me shooting a couple of 4/3rds shots while having a K-5, so I am more than happy to explain.

First shooting with a Pentax Q does not mean the other cameras are bad. It also doesn't mean that I dumped the K-5. It seems to me from what I read above- and please correct me as I want to make no assumptions- that it seems to you I have dumped the K-5.

Second, I did not realize you thought nothing could top the K-5. It seems very confusing to me that you dumped it for an E-5 then (which now is going to get dumped for something else). Not sure why you let the K-5 go then if that's what you thought.

Basically over the last years I have two categories of camera- the pocketable street/invisible camera and the high end one. In the ideal world both would be one and the same but that camera hasn't quite materialized the way I would want and need. If I could be happy say shooting a weeding/doing paid work withe a pocketable one, then I would have only that type.

So I decided that since I have bought over the last few years too many cameras and things are at a point that they are pretty good, to lock the latest cameras for the next five years. For the pro category that's the K-5, and for the street category I have not decided yet, but once I do, I will also keep for five years. This is a conscious attempt to focus on photography and not gear, plus save cash along the way.

I ordered a Pentax Q to try it, as that could be my category pocket street camera. I have a fantastic camera- the LX5, and if the Q doesn't cut it, I could very well keep the LX5.

Please, let me know if you have other questions though I would prefer you use either the private message system or start another thread about it (either works for me), as to not derail this Pentax Q trial thread with another subject.

Thanks.

- Ricardo

[raist3d]

Golden Gate photo shoot with the fish eye lens today-

This is an attempt to learn how to shoot with a fish eye lens, and how to shoot the Golden Gate in a way that doesn't end up being just another post card shot. A friend came along to do similar. We both trying to push ourselves to shoot with ultra wide (him) or fish eye (me).





















Some shots shot with the prime 01 today next post. I think I understand the fish eye, and if I hadn't pushed myself to understand a while back the Olympus 7-14 SGH 4/3rds I would have been probably a bit lost today. I find the key is to make those distortions work composition wise and create something out of it.

- Raist

[raist3d]

Ugh, cut a foot. Bad! (B/W with high contrast filter):











Another iSO 6400:



- Ricardo

[ptomsu]

The results from the Q look pretty good, at least what you can tell from such a small web image.

WRT other cameras - I fully second your thoughts in principal, as also I had far too many cameras over the last years - Nikon, Canon, Sony, Nikon again, Pentax (only short) and then Olympus (already gone) ....

I was not quite happy with either of those, but thinking back and looking at my images I must say at least most happy with Nikon and Canon. So what I am going to do here is to wait till I see which one brings the better next high resolution DSLR (want that because I still think it might replace my Hasselblad MFD) and then have at least only one high end, high resolution DSLR system. Plus one compact system - Nikon V1 looks pretty tempting and a small P&S, which currently is the XZ1 which I currently really love.

Good point to try to choose once and then stay for some years. Might try to do the same

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

The results from the Q look pretty good, at least what you can tell from such a small web image.

I can definitively say the Q does much better than the majority of people expected and at full size too. I have posted 100% crops already above, I could do a few more. ISO 6400 sure has noise and looks grainy but what surprises me about the Q on that regard is that it can actually do it without banding, keeping still deep rich blacks and a surprising ability to still keep color. Also of course the fact it can even do it at all! I mean this is a first.

Looking at a pure raw file there's indeed a lot of noise but somehow Pentax figured out a JPEG engine to do this reasonably well and Lightroom can deal with it pretty well.

This is not to say it's going to look like a full frame DSLR, but it's not meant to, and it puts the question of how "good enough" it needs to look to do some real work. To me pixel peeping on the Q is besides its point because if the camera can keep tonality and color so you can do say an 8'' x 10'' at reasonable ISO's (and ditto for web/internet), that's imho good enough. This is not pretending to replace a full frame camera.

The vast majority of cameras nowadays have enough to provide a decent canvas of light. The photographer is by far the determining factor on whether the work is a good photograph or not. The smaller differences tend to be a matter of convenience and preferences, except maybe one or two very specialized things but those are rare, and those looking for them usually know exactly what they want already.

- Raist

[raist3d]

Pentax Q Castro Tuesday

Some crops, some contrast adjusts, the super grainy B&W is out of camera, and has that aura which is a lens flare (guy sort of bending a bit).















- Raist

[VladimirYo]

Hi raist3d
Where you learn how to shoot on a streen so good? )))

[Knorp]

The results are certainly looking pretty good, Ricardo.
Will you keep your Q ? Or is the jury still out ?

Kind regards.

[raist3d]

Jury is still out but I will make my mind within the week.

Some snaps processed from Light Room to see how color can be punchier/richier. These are snaps and I don't consider them photographs.











The getDPI Mural ShotTM



This last one is a .PNG to avoid compression, showing 100% crops from a portrait taken after sunset. It is ISO 125 (lowest of the Q) but it was possible because of the fast F1.9. The light is not as intense as the shot may lead you to think. It was kind of dim- like it gets after sun set and a bit dark.

- Raist

[raist3d]

What high contrast BW smart filter looks like at max on metal (this is out of the camera other than a crop):



- Raist

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by VladimirYo

Hi raist3d
Where you learn how to shoot on a streen so good? )))

hi Vladimir. I'll be honest and say I am not sure what the sentence means. I don't know what streen means :-) English is not my first language.

But if you mean "shoot well", I did take private photography classes with two fine art photographers and then just shoot , get out and shoot shoot shoot. I also have a photographer as a best friend and we exchange feedback on what we do.

It's been also 6 years now since I started to take photography more seriously, so that's some time too. That said most shots I am posting at the moment are snaps more on the techside than photos with a few photos (hopefully! :-) ) in.

- Raist

[raist3d]

Portrait of a friend just tonight. ISO 3200, F1.9, 1/25th of a sec.



- Raist3d

[raist3d]

High contrast filter. These shots are out of the camera other than the resize.

"Crane tree" (the trunk is a crane)



Pentax Funky Ad:



- Raist

[raist3d]

Portraits of a friend:









- Raist

[raist3d]

More Q



- Raist

[VladimirYo]

Nice pic's. Still too much money Q to get.

[raist3d]

More Q

Last night:



Today:



Shoes:



Chairs in red:



- Raist

[raist3d]

Skipping the Fuji X10. Mulling Olympus Pen + Panny 1.7 pancake as last "vs" comparison.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

Portraits of a friend:
. . . and other stuff

Well Ricardo - I'm pretty impressed, mostly by your photography, but the camera seems to be performing better than one could reasonably expect (the 6400 ISO doesn't turn me on, but then).

excellent - you're doing a grand job!

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Well Ricardo - I'm pretty impressed, mostly by your photography, but the camera seems to be performing better than one could reasonably expect (the 6400 ISO doesn't turn me on, but then).

excellent - you're doing a grand job!

Thanks for the words. Yeah, I am afraid that the Q is being by passed by a few due to false preconceptions (in addition to price). I am still mulling considering a Pen mini + Panasonic F1.7 pancake, but ironically I was checking an ISO 3200 shot of a pen mini and it's a bit funny how impossibly close the Q comes to it in some ways… oh and the Pen had a little banding. I have yet to see *any banding* even when doing ISO 6400 on the Q and pushing it up even one more stop (just for kicks). Oh and the Pen mini has that wheel in the interface I have grown to hate oh so much.

Now, Pentax I think needs to come out with a lower price. I read somewhere that the initial Q is "so small/cute" splash has been a bit eroded by the price, something that a part of me is inclined to agree with. While I do think part of the price goes into the camera build and what it can do, seeing that Jessops had it for the equivalent of $548 USD including VAT(!) in the UK makes me think that if Pentax had released this at the $600 MSRP USD mark with a street of $550 more cameras would have sold, and in a system camera you make cash on lenses too.

Of course, being such a small system, Pentax has to make some cash on the body, which, is understandable. More so considering they pack in a nice lens/prime.

Here's a few other tid bits that are missed in some comparisons (these are just examples):

- The X10 has ISO 6400 that is kinda nice, but it's 6 megapixels. 12800 at 3 megapixels (I believe). The Q has ISO 6400 at 12 megapixels. For a valid comparison, the Q image needs to be down sampled, which closes the ISO gap.

- As I mentioned in the X10 thread, shooting wide open on the X10 at full daylight may require an ND filter. That's about at least $150 USD more with the custom Fuji adapter + good quality ND filter. And now the X10 doesn't fit in the pocket (I can corroborate the X10 could fit in my jeans pocket) while the X10 now sits at $750 USD….

- I examined the X10 files again today and they are nice, but the Q really isn't that far off at all overall. I didn't examine say ISO 1600 shots, possibly the X10 pulls ahead in a more notable way particularly in the low noise EXR mode.

- Many people don't realize the Q can shoot at 1/8000th of a sec (with the 'premium' lenses) and sync with external flash to 1/250th of a sec. These two numbers are mid-semi pro DSLR class numbers(!).

- The vast majority of the reviews of the Q were done previous to the firmware upgrade that Pentax released for the premium lenses and camera (like 4/3rds, m4/3rds, the lenses apparently have a micro controller too).

Pentax should have made a bigger fanfare about it, because the firmware upgrades not only brought stability of operation as they said, but also increased auto focus speed, and shortened startup time to the point that it now feels zippy (I did test it before the firmware upgrade).

So if you read some of the "downs" to the Q in the reviews, they complain about startup time and AF speed… something that got addressed at least in a big part.

I honestly can't being to describe how much fun is to have such a little, well built, photographer centric-ergonomically simple yet feature rich camera. What I want here to see is what Pentax Ricoh does from here - if they re-released say the same lens but F1.2 instead of F1.9 that would completely change the camera even further to be a really apt low light shooter and have a rather decent bokeh control at least for the portraits (it does to some degree already anyway).

- Raist

[raist3d]

A friend of mine sort of slammed down on my last round of photos- basically the processing could be better. After some back and forth I re-processed three of them. Here's an example of the changes for one of them:

(left shot is before, right shot is after):



If you still see the old shots, clear the browser cache and reload this page. I think SHIFT + RELOAD should do it also.

- Raist

[raist3d]

Special cameo in Q:




- Raist

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

Special cameo in Q:




- Raist

Wow - I know that expression . . . . She is saying.
You will NOW order that Pentax Q from Jessops and send it to me in the States . . .
IMMEDIATELY




I just looked at this . . .Wow!

[raist3d]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Wow - I know that expression . . . . She is saying.
You will NOW order that Pentax Q from Jessops and send it to me in the States . . .
IMMEDIATELY

Ok, now, that *is* scary… scary for how accurate :-)

I just looked at this . . .Wow!

Well… yeah… the Q makes the X10 look too big. I can tell you the difference is even bigger in real life.

- Raist

PS: Interface rant- I am so surprised how well thought out Pentax got the interface of the Q. You would think that the buttons on the side where you hold the camera since they end up being underneath your thumb and palm will be accidentally enacted. Not so- the buttons are receded enough with enough pressure so that does not happen.

In turn the X10 with the fantastic wonder Canon PowerShot UI WHEELtm, I accidentally went to the wrong picture three times when reviewing shots I was taking, and moreover, at one point don't know how, the "do you want to delete this picture" showed up on a shot I didn't take (don't tell Terry). I think that sort of made me lean to pass on the X10 as a final thing.

It's just little details like these that make you go hmmm… To the X10 credit, the bokeh it has is beautiful.

- Ricardo