Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
DPreview gave the MX-1 a good score. The write times can be a bit slow, but the reviewer really liked everything else. I'm thinking of the MX-1 myself at some point. I'd give it a serious look, Marnie! Cheers, Christine On Sep 22, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > You might be interested to look at this short thread on GetDPI.com: > http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/43010-new-pentax-mx-1-a.html > > G > > On Sep 22, 2013, at 1:15 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: > >> I am not sold on any bridge camera, but if I get Pentax, I think I will go >> for the MX-1. >> >> Mainly because it supports RAW files. There are tons of nicer compact >> cameras out there, some pretty pricey, some not. Many of the ones people >> have >> suggested to me. But I am coming from a specialized place of starting from >> another brand of DSLR to begin with and wanting a Pentax to get in the PUG >> occasionally and the annual. It looks like the MX-1 is doable. OR... Heh, I >> just found it on ebay, the K-01. (Think I was off list when that debuted.) >> The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. >> >> Marnie aka Doe :-) > > > -- > 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
Not much (re how much). I was actually serious about maybe getting one. So weird, so fun. Marnie aka Doe :-) In a message dated 9/23/2013 12:30:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, shark50...@gmail.com writes: Aw Marnie do not mock my beloved K-01. It is my carry-around back-up and often main camera. Never fails to take good photos and with a small or pancake prime is very compact & light. One feature I think is overlooked is the shape has flat surfaces -instant tripod horizonal & vertical. I used it just last week when the light went away to take some 1-15 sec time exposures by setting it on a flat surface. Works even with a short tele. How much was it on ebay? No no I can't afford another camera. -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
Kirk Tuck (nice guy and photographer from Austin) recently acquired a K-01 and seems to really like it. I've been curious about one, would like the yellow body and an FA43 Ltd combo, but have other obsessions to consume my discretionary income. Godfrey > On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Don Guthrie wrote: > > Aw Marnie do not mock my beloved K-01. It is my carry-around back-up and > often main camera. Never fails to take good photos and with a small or > pancake prime is very compact & light. One feature I think is overlooked is > the shape has flat surfaces -instant tripod horizonal & vertical. I used it > just last week when the light went away to take some 1-15 sec time exposures > by setting it on a flat surface. Works even with a short tele. How much was > it on ebay? No no I can't afford another camera. > > > pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: >> Message: 7 >> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:15:06 -0400 (EDT) >> From:eactiv...@aol.com >> To:pdml@pdml.net >> Subject: Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7? >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >> >> I am not sold on any bridge camera, but if I get Pentax, I think I will go >> for the MX-1. >> >> Mainly because it supports RAW files. There are tons of nicer compact >> cameras out there, some pretty pricey, some not. Many of the ones people >> have >> suggested to me. But I am coming from a specialized place of starting from >> another brand of DSLR to begin with and wanting a Pentax to get in the PUG >> occasionally and the annual. It looks like the MX-1 is doable. OR... Heh, I >> just found it on ebay, the K-01. (Think I was off list when that debuted.) >> The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. >> -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
Aw Marnie do not mock my beloved K-01. It is my carry-around back-up and often main camera. Never fails to take good photos and with a small or pancake prime is very compact & light. One feature I think is overlooked is the shape has flat surfaces -instant tripod horizonal & vertical. I used it just last week when the light went away to take some 1-15 sec time exposures by setting it on a flat surface. Works even with a short tele. How much was it on ebay? No no I can't afford another camera. pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: Message: 7 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:15:06 -0400 (EDT) From:eactiv...@aol.com To:pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I am not sold on any bridge camera, but if I get Pentax, I think I will go for the MX-1. Mainly because it supports RAW files. There are tons of nicer compact cameras out there, some pretty pricey, some not. Many of the ones people have suggested to me. But I am coming from a specialized place of starting from another brand of DSLR to begin with and wanting a Pentax to get in the PUG occasionally and the annual. It looks like the MX-1 is doable. OR... Heh, I just found it on ebay, the K-01. (Think I was off list when that debuted.) The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. Marnie aka Doe:-) -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
On 9/22/2013 4:15 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. I understand the odor goes away with time. On 9/22/2013 4:15 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: I am not sold on any bridge camera, but if I get Pentax, I think I will go for the MX-1. Mainly because it supports RAW files. There are tons of nicer compact cameras out there, some pretty pricey, some not. Many of the ones people have suggested to me. But I am coming from a specialized place of starting from another brand of DSLR to begin with and wanting a Pentax to get in the PUG occasionally and the annual. It looks like the MX-1 is doable. OR... Heh, I just found it on ebay, the K-01. (Think I was off list when that debuted.) The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. Marnie aka Doe :-) In a message dated 9/22/2013 10:02:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, zosxav...@gmail.com writes: 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,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. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
Thanks. Not a bad review, at all. M aka D In a message dated 9/22/2013 1:19:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, godd...@me.com writes: You might be interested to look at this short thread on GetDPI.com: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/43010-new-pentax-mx-1-a.html G -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
You might be interested to look at this short thread on GetDPI.com: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/43010-new-pentax-mx-1-a.html G On Sep 22, 2013, at 1:15 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: > I am not sold on any bridge camera, but if I get Pentax, I think I will go > for the MX-1. > > Mainly because it supports RAW files. There are tons of nicer compact > cameras out there, some pretty pricey, some not. Many of the ones people > have > suggested to me. But I am coming from a specialized place of starting from > another brand of DSLR to begin with and wanting a Pentax to get in the PUG > occasionally and the annual. It looks like the MX-1 is doable. OR... Heh, I > just found it on ebay, the K-01. (Think I was off list when that debuted.) > The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. > > Marnie aka Doe :-) -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
I am not sold on any bridge camera, but if I get Pentax, I think I will go for the MX-1. Mainly because it supports RAW files. There are tons of nicer compact cameras out there, some pretty pricey, some not. Many of the ones people have suggested to me. But I am coming from a specialized place of starting from another brand of DSLR to begin with and wanting a Pentax to get in the PUG occasionally and the annual. It looks like the MX-1 is doable. OR... Heh, I just found it on ebay, the K-01. (Think I was off list when that debuted.) The MX-1 is cute and retro, and K-01 is downright funky. Marnie aka Doe :-) In a message dated 9/22/2013 10:02:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, zosxav...@gmail.com writes: 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,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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
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, 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
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. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
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). Nice shots. Especially like the brick reflection in window. You've raised my hopes, I will look into it. I wouldn't mind owning a Pentax again. A small Pentax. Later, Marnie aka Doe :-) In a message dated 9/22/2013 6:31:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pdml-m...@charter.net writes: I like the Q and expect that I'll like the Q-7 even more, though I have no plans on buying one immediately. I travel a lot for work and the Q is a perfect travel kit - the Q, 2 zooms, normal prime and fisheye fit in a case that is about the size of lens case for a normal 35mm zoom. WHen I was in Chicaco a while back I carried a film kit, but had the entire Q kit in one compartment of the bag. Nice to have a 12MP digital and lenses covering the 35mm equivalent of 17 - 280 mm in one little pack. I I want to go all out I carry a small SLR bag with the whole Q kit plus macro ring light, K-to Q apter and 50mm macro - which gives me an uber macro setup. However - those aforementioned items take up about 2x the space of the whole Q system. The camera has its limits but for me that advantages outweigh those. The disadvantages are that the Q with lens is not completely pocketable - jacket pocket, OK, jeans, not so much; the IQ is high end P&S quality, no viewfinder... The Q7 has improvements in IQ and autofocus. Some sample shots - http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/PentaxQ/ http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/blog6.php/PQ/ http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/2012/09/01/first-shots-with -pentax-q?blog=9 http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/2013/03/01/pentax-q-06-tele photo-zoom?blog=9 On 9/21/2013 1:41 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: > Should have put Q7 also in subject line. > > In a message dated 9/21/2013 10:01:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > eactiv...@aol.com writes: > Sort of narrowing down my choices for my main camera system. > > But been looking at having a little fixed lens camera for travel > situations (like Disneyland where you don't want to lug around a big > camera). > > The Pentax X-5 seems a lot of value for a little camera. Does have a > smaller sensor, but supposed to take good pics. If I my back-up camera is > Pentax, I can get in the PUG now and then too. Heh. > > Anyway, anyone have one? Like it? > > The Pentax Q might be an option too, although I have my doubts (yes, know > it takes interchangeable lenses), but has the X-5 is a little cheaper. > Heck, it's downright cheap. > > Marnie aka Doe :-) > -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
I like the Q and expect that I'll like the Q-7 even more, though I have no plans on buying one immediately. I travel a lot for work and the Q is a perfect travel kit - the Q, 2 zooms, normal prime and fisheye fit in a case that is about the size of lens case for a normal 35mm zoom. WHen I was in Chicaco a while back I carried a film kit, but had the entire Q kit in one compartment of the bag. Nice to have a 12MP digital and lenses covering the 35mm equivalent of 17 - 280 mm in one little pack. I I want to go all out I carry a small SLR bag with the whole Q kit plus macro ring light, K-to Q apter and 50mm macro - which gives me an uber macro setup. However - those aforementioned items take up about 2x the space of the whole Q system. The camera has its limits but for me that advantages outweigh those. The disadvantages are that the Q with lens is not completely pocketable - jacket pocket, OK, jeans, not so much; the IQ is high end P&S quality, no viewfinder... The Q7 has improvements in IQ and autofocus. Some sample shots - http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/PentaxQ/ http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/blog6.php/PQ/ http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/2012/09/01/first-shots-with-pentax-q?blog=9 http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/2013/03/01/pentax-q-06-telephoto-zoom?blog=9 On 9/21/2013 1:41 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: Should have put Q7 also in subject line. In a message dated 9/21/2013 10:01:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eactiv...@aol.com writes: Sort of narrowing down my choices for my main camera system. But been looking at having a little fixed lens camera for travel situations (like Disneyland where you don't want to lug around a big camera). The Pentax X-5 seems a lot of value for a little camera. Does have a smaller sensor, but supposed to take good pics. If I my back-up camera is Pentax, I can get in the PUG now and then too. Heh. Anyway, anyone have one? Like it? The Pentax Q might be an option too, although I have my doubts (yes, know it takes interchangeable lenses), but has the X-5 is a little cheaper. Heck, it's downright cheap. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
I don't own one but I did research a while ago, for pretty much the reasons you've got. The bottom line appears that the Pentax X-5 is really just another bridge camera pretty much like all other bridge cameras. It's a small sensor, though quality is supposed to pretty good up to ISO 400. When it was first released the zoom range on the lens was pretty special and it had sensor based anti shake, but since then there are a number of cameras in that class with amazing zoom ranges and anti shake systems either sensor based or optical. About the only thing it's got going for it is it looks a little like a small K-5, and the only thing it's got over the Q is it has an eye level EVF. On 9/21/2013 1:41 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: Should have put Q7 also in subject line. In a message dated 9/21/2013 10:01:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eactiv...@aol.com writes: Sort of narrowing down my choices for my main camera system. But been looking at having a little fixed lens camera for travel situations (like Disneyland where you don't want to lug around a big camera). The Pentax X-5 seems a lot of value for a little camera. Does have a smaller sensor, but supposed to take good pics. If I my back-up camera is Pentax, I can get in the PUG now and then too. Heh. Anyway, anyone have one? Like it? The Pentax Q might be an option too, although I have my doubts (yes, know it takes interchangeable lenses), but has the X-5 is a little cheaper. Heck, it's downright cheap. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- 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.
Re: Anyone have the Pentax X-5? or Q7?
Should have put Q7 also in subject line. In a message dated 9/21/2013 10:01:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eactiv...@aol.com writes: Sort of narrowing down my choices for my main camera system. But been looking at having a little fixed lens camera for travel situations (like Disneyland where you don't want to lug around a big camera). The Pentax X-5 seems a lot of value for a little camera. Does have a smaller sensor, but supposed to take good pics. If I my back-up camera is Pentax, I can get in the PUG now and then too. Heh. Anyway, anyone have one? Like it? The Pentax Q might be an option too, although I have my doubts (yes, know it takes interchangeable lenses), but has the X-5 is a little cheaper. Heck, it's downright cheap. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- 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.
