Look at some 100% samples from the X-5. I've owned some bridge cameras and the panny ones were always the best IMO with support for RAW and great lenses. The X-5 samples look pretty awful full size. Everything looks like watercolors in a bad way. You could do a whole lot better for the price. I don't even think Pentax manufactured the X-5 so don't feel too bad about being unsupportive. The MX-1 on the other hand looks pretty nice for a compact and arguable better than the Q for a lot of general shooting. Same sensor size and a really sharp lens.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM, <eactiv...@aol.com> wrote: > I understand all that, but it also allows for the PUG and annual. Unless > the rules have changed. ? > > Marnie aka Doe :-) > > In a message dated 9/22/2013 6:57:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > a...@pobox.com writes: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: >> >> Thanks!, Mark. I've really wondered about the Q. Seems sort of like >> Pentax's answer to micro3/4 /compact cameras (well, I see it that way). > > Yes, it is, but even the Q7 only has 1/1.7" sensor (same size as the > P7100/P7800/DMC-LF1 I've been pushing), so you're limited to about ISO > 800 for good quality. And there's no viewfinder, no articulated display. > You do gain some low-light performance with the Q's 15-45/2.8 or a > honking big K-mount lens, but that's also quite a bit larger than the > compacts. > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
