> She is writing a lot about the Q's image quality. Have she tried it? If not, > I don't think she is much to rely on. > > A few comments I saw about the Nikon: > "I handled the J1 today, and did a review for Adorama of the Q. To be honest > Steve, the Q is light years ahead in usability, and feels as solid as a brick > thanks to it?s construction. The J1 felt literally like a plastic toy in my > hand and gave me zero confidence in handling it" > http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/21/nikon-enters-the-game-with-the-new-mirrorless-j1-and-v1-cameras/ > > > Stig Vidar Hovland > > ________________________________________ > Fra: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Tom C > [caka...@gmail.com] > Sendt: 21. september 2011 18:06 > Til: pdml@pdml.net > Emne: Re: Q design "validated" by Nikon's entry? > > This zdnet article (link below) pretty much sums up my thoughts on the > Q > > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/digitalcameras/pentax-q-smallest-compact-interchangeable-lens-camera-sports-biggest-price-tag/5084?tag=mantle_skin;content > > Tom C.
No doubt she hasn't, but one can infer to some degree from the specs. Really, just about any modern digital camera on the market has *acceptable* image quality within a certain set of parameters. My Canon S90 and G10 which have small sensors have excellent image quality for the shooting circumstances and purposes for which I use them. Compared to my NEX-5 their limitations easily become evident. I'm sure the Q will also produce excellent images within a defined set of parameters. The issue to now was how an $800 camera with such a small sensor would fair against similar 4/3 and APS-C offerings that have similar or even lower price points. The answer will no doubt be that it's a nice camera, but not alot of bang for the buck (at $800) compared to some of the competition. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
