Re: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Christine Aguila]

I wonder if Huff is from the Chicago area.  The photo of the EL stops on the 
stairs is a Chicago photo.  Curious.  cheers, Christine


On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

> Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the plastic 
> ...
> 
> http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/
> 
> What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.
> 
> -bmw
> 
> -- 
> 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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[John Sessoms]

From: steve harley

on 2011-09-28 15:38 Darren Addy wrote

The Q should be marketed to backpackers/outdoors magazines. They try
to shave ounces everywhere they can. Pretty easy demographic to target
also.

Pentax is already a sponsor of the "Get Out More" tour; i attended at REI in
Denver; it was gear-heavy and overrehearsed, but somewhat interesting; they
demoed the cute WG-1 screwed to the end of a hiking pole (and gave one away);
they had someone wandering the room shooting a K5 without much finesse; they
use both on their trips and made a point about their weather resistance (an
attribute Q does not share -- maybe a Qw is next?)

(i got a pair of cordura socks and some Clif Bars, woohoo)






Maybe Pentax should have put some emphasis on Get the WORD out more.

They were here back in April. Too late now.

--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Steven Desjardins]

Unfortunately, it will be a Pentax MSC and a NEX 7  ;-)

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Dario Bonazza
 wrote:
> Steven Desjardins wrote:
>
>> An APS-C MSC, OTOH, will be compared with Sony.
>
> So we'll have an easy winner then. Just compare the A55 with the K-5 and the
> Nikon D7000: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page16.asp
>
> Dario
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Tom C]

> From: Steven Desjardins 

> The Q is probably a good photographic tool for many subjects
> and styles of shooting.  The only part that bothers me is the price.

I want to like it. The images, as displayed, look pretty good. It's
just that, compared to a NEX-7 or NEX-5N, or some of of the other
mirrorless systems I'm anecdotally familiar with, the only real thing
it has going for it is it's small size and cool looks.  If I have one
of the other small mirrorless systems that out spec and out perform
the Q at a lower or similar price, it's hard to justify, as funds are
not unlimited.

They definitely carved out a niche at for themselves. They're
obviously going after customers for who 1) size is a top priority, or
2) coolness is a top priority, and 3) disposable income is not a
problem, and 4) image quality for the price is not a top priority.

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.

Re: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[steve harley]

on 2011-09-28 15:38 Darren Addy wrote

The Q should be marketed to backpackers/outdoors magazines. They try
to shave ounces everywhere they can. Pretty easy demographic to target
also.


Pentax is already a sponsor of the "Get Out More" tour; i attended at REI in 
Denver; it was gear-heavy and overrehearsed, but somewhat interesting; they 
demoed the cute WG-1 screwed to the end of a hiking pole (and gave one away); 
they had someone wandering the room shooting a K5 without much finesse; they 
use both on their trips and made a point about their weather resistance (an 
attribute Q does not share -- maybe a Qw is next?)


(i got a pair of cordura socks and some Clif Bars, woohoo)



--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Darren Addy]

The Q should be marketed to backpackers/outdoors magazines. They try
to shave ounces everywhere they can. Pretty easy demographic to target
also.

Darren Addy
Kearney, Nebraska

-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Dario Bonazza]

Steven Desjardins wrote:


An APS-C MSC, OTOH, will be compared with Sony.


So we'll have an easy winner then. Just compare the A55 with the K-5 and the 
Nikon D7000: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page16.asp


Dario


--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[John Sessoms]

From: Bob Sullivan

Boris,
I kept my *ist DS although is is obsolete.
It's better for simple flash set-ups and quality is very good.
I know that my K-5 makes better pictures for resolution and noise and low light.
(Almost good enough to make me forget about Kodachrome.)
But we did make an expensive journey from the *istDS to K-10D to K-20D
to K-7 to K-5.
I suppose I paid a lot to support Pentax's digital camera development.
Regards,  Bob S.


I still have my *ist-D. I have used it within the last 2 months. It may 
be "obsolete", but it's not that obsolete.



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4524 - Release Date: 09/28/11


--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Steven Desjardins]

I still have many *ist DS shots on CD that I consider some of my best
stuff.  The Q is probably a good photographic tool for many subjects
and styles of shooting.  The only part that bothers me is the price.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Bob Sullivan  wrote:
> Boris,
> I kept my *ist DS although is is obsolete.
> It's better for simple flash set-ups and quality is very good.
> I know that my K-5 makes better pictures for resolution and noise and low 
> light.
> (Almost good enough to make me forget about Kodachrome.)
> But we did make an expensive journey from the *istDS to K-10D to K-20D
> to K-7 to K-5.
> I suppose I paid a lot to support Pentax's digital camera development.
> Regards,  Bob S.
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Boris Liberman  wrote:
>> On 9/28/2011 21:08, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from
>>> the Q, and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.
>>
>> I am in the midst of putting my photo collection in a bit more order as
>> Galia's photos are growing in numbers and we share the LR catalog and the
>> HDDs of course. So I recently looked at some photos I made with *istD. I
>> kind of wonder why on earth I spent so much money for the cameras that came
>> after it... Of course there is justification and improvement, but sometimes
>> having a look with your own eyes has a sobering effect, in a manner of
>> speaking.
>>
>>> I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on
>>> par with at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the
>>> time that they have a sensor that'll appeal to the fussier
>>> photographers,  they'll have a lens selection that will appeal to
>>> those photographers as well.  They'll also have a low end kit,
>>> selling for under $500.
>>
>> With all due respect, Larry, I expect you to be proven wrong, let's say in
>> 3-5 years.
>>
>> By the way TOP by Mike Johnston had an interesting article recently where he
>> showed (albeit pixel peeping 100% thumbnails) that D90 is just a tad worse
>> than D700 and that V1 or J1 or whatever is just a tad worse than D90, but
>> boy, does V1 or J1 or whatever really suck compared to D700...
>>
>> By the way, judging from early samples, new 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony
>> takes quite a step back in high ISO noise department, and all... Presently,
>> K-5 appears like the best choice for all-round kind of photography, without
>> super high resolution specialization such as in fashion, landscapes or
>> building-size enlargement...
>>
>> Your mileage may and probably will vary...
>>
>> Boris
>>
>> P.S This year tenset (actually dozenset) will boast photos chosen by Galia
>> and processed by Galia. Although I will still supervise.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Steven Desjardins]

I hear you, but I think the Q won't suck up a bunch of R&D money.
It's appeal is not in a high end sensor.  An APS-C MSC, OTOH, will be
compared with Sony.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, steve harley  wrote:
> on 2011-09-28 12:59 Steven Desjardins wrote
>>
>> As long as it puts money in Pentax's pockets, I'm for
>> it.
>
> there's a danger in that; if it puts too much money in Pentax's pockets,
> Pentax will think it is the best direction for future camera development;
> Pentax has to put efforts in multiple directions to hedge its bets, but i'd
> hate to see the Q siphon off potential investment in an APS-C mirrorless
> system
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[steve harley]

on 2011-09-28 12:59 Steven Desjardins wrote

As long as it puts money in Pentax's pockets, I'm for
it.


there's a danger in that; if it puts too much money in Pentax's pockets, Pentax 
will think it is the best direction for future camera development; Pentax has 
to put efforts in multiple directions to hedge its bets, but i'd hate to see 
the Q siphon off potential investment in an APS-C mirrorless system


--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[DagT]

I agree with you regarding the physics, but sometimes I have to remind myself 
that many of us where able to take pretty good pictures with ISO100, 200 and 
400 film. So even if you are right someone should be able to use this camera 
for something good.

DagT

Den 28. sep. 2011 kl. 20:30 skrev P. J. Alling:

> Physics would argue against this.  I looked at the sample images, they were 
> nice, much nicer than I expected from such a small sensor, but there's only 
> so much light that a tiny photosite can capture, and there's only so much 
> wizardry that software can accomplish.  Most small sensor cameras, even the 
> most well respected such as the Canon G series have shown only tiny 
> incremental improvements in image quality in their last few incarnations.  
> Larger sensors have a lot more room for improvement and they started out 
> better to begin with.  The Q is most probably already at the point where 
> diminishing returns on R&D investment are setting in.  I'm not saying there 
> won't be improvements, just that they are likely to be small for more and 
> more heroic efforts.
> 
> On 9/28/2011 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:13 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>> 
>>> Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but then 
>>> I hadn't  thought too much about it.
>> I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from the Q, 
>> and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.
>> 
>> I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on par 
>> with at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the time that 
>> they have a sensor that'll appeal to the fussier photographers,  they'll 
>> have a lens selection that will appeal to those photographers as well.  
>> They'll also have a low end kit, selling for under $500.
>> 
>> In the mean time, by starting with a higher price, they get a lot more 
>> profit from each camera.  If at $800 they make $200 profit on each camera, 
>> at $700 they'd only make half the profit.  Likewise, Pentax has a lot of 
>> teething problem issues with new technology, keeping the price high means 
>> fewer people to complain while they work the bugs out, and fewer things they 
>> may need to repair.Remember that people were complaining about the price 
>> of the K-5 when it came out, and several people on the list just picked them 
>> up at $1100.
>> 
>> When Pentax came out with the 110, I wonder how many 35mm or 645 folks 
>> complained that there'd be no market because of the image quality.
>> 
>>> On 9/28/2011 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
 Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the 
 plastic ...
 
 http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/
 
 What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.
 
 -bmw
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid 
>>> a lengthily search.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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.
>> --
>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
> lengthily search.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[John Francis]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:08:14AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
> 
> On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:13 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> 
> > Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but then 
> > I hadn't  thought too much about it.
> 
> I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from the Q, 
> and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.

Judging by the example pictures in that review, I'd say the Q is significantly
better.  There are a couple of shots shown taken at ISO 3200 which are much
cleaner than anything I could get from my *ist-D (perhaps comparable to what
I could achieve at ISO 800).

Of course with the D I could put my f/1.4 lens on the front, which gave me
a bit more light-gathering capability. There again, though, just that lens
alone was probably bulkier and heavier than the Q.


-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Bob Sullivan]

Boris,
I kept my *ist DS although is is obsolete.
It's better for simple flash set-ups and quality is very good.
I know that my K-5 makes better pictures for resolution and noise and low light.
(Almost good enough to make me forget about Kodachrome.)
But we did make an expensive journey from the *istDS to K-10D to K-20D
to K-7 to K-5.
I suppose I paid a lot to support Pentax's digital camera development.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Boris Liberman  wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 21:08, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from
>> the Q, and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.
>
> I am in the midst of putting my photo collection in a bit more order as
> Galia's photos are growing in numbers and we share the LR catalog and the
> HDDs of course. So I recently looked at some photos I made with *istD. I
> kind of wonder why on earth I spent so much money for the cameras that came
> after it... Of course there is justification and improvement, but sometimes
> having a look with your own eyes has a sobering effect, in a manner of
> speaking.
>
>> I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on
>> par with at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the
>> time that they have a sensor that'll appeal to the fussier
>> photographers,  they'll have a lens selection that will appeal to
>> those photographers as well.  They'll also have a low end kit,
>> selling for under $500.
>
> With all due respect, Larry, I expect you to be proven wrong, let's say in
> 3-5 years.
>
> By the way TOP by Mike Johnston had an interesting article recently where he
> showed (albeit pixel peeping 100% thumbnails) that D90 is just a tad worse
> than D700 and that V1 or J1 or whatever is just a tad worse than D90, but
> boy, does V1 or J1 or whatever really suck compared to D700...
>
> By the way, judging from early samples, new 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony
> takes quite a step back in high ISO noise department, and all... Presently,
> K-5 appears like the best choice for all-round kind of photography, without
> super high resolution specialization such as in fashion, landscapes or
> building-size enlargement...
>
> Your mileage may and probably will vary...
>
> Boris
>
> P.S This year tenset (actually dozenset) will boast photos chosen by Galia
> and processed by Galia. Although I will still supervise.
>
> --
> 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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Steven Desjardins]

Of course, its' possible that as the computational power of cameras
increases, even a small sensor might be correctable to a level where
flaws are hard to detect with the eye.

I read somewhere that the Q is selling well in Japan, i.e., made the
top ten list.  As long as it puts money in Pentax's pockets, I'm for
it.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, P. J. Alling
 wrote:
> Physics would argue against this.  I looked at the sample images, they were
> nice, much nicer than I expected from such a small sensor, but there's only
> so much light that a tiny photosite can capture, and there's only so much
> wizardry that software can accomplish.  Most small sensor cameras, even the
> most well respected such as the Canon G series have shown only tiny
> incremental improvements in image quality in their last few incarnations.
>  Larger sensors have a lot more room for improvement and they started out
> better to begin with.  The Q is most probably already at the point where
> diminishing returns on R&D investment are setting in.  I'm not saying there
> won't be improvements, just that they are likely to be small for more and
> more heroic efforts.
>
> On 9/28/2011 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:13 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>>
>>> Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but
>>> then I hadn't  thought too much about it.
>>
>> I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from the Q,
>> and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.
>>
>> I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on par
>> with at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the time that
>> they have a sensor that'll appeal to the fussier photographers,  they'll
>> have a lens selection that will appeal to those photographers as well.
>>  They'll also have a low end kit, selling for under $500.
>>
>> In the mean time, by starting with a higher price, they get a lot more
>> profit from each camera.  If at $800 they make $200 profit on each camera,
>> at $700 they'd only make half the profit.  Likewise, Pentax has a lot of
>> teething problem issues with new technology, keeping the price high means
>> fewer people to complain while they work the bugs out, and fewer things they
>> may need to repair.    Remember that people were complaining about the price
>> of the K-5 when it came out, and several people on the list just picked them
>> up at $1100.
>>
>> When Pentax came out with the 110, I wonder how many 35mm or 645 folks
>> complained that there'd be no market because of the image quality.
>>
>>> On 9/28/2011 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

 Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the
 plastic ...


 http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/

 What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.

 -bmw

>>>
>>> --
>>> Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to
>>> avoid a lengthily search.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid
> a lengthily search.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Boris Liberman]

On 9/28/2011 21:08, Larry Colen wrote:

I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from
the Q, and pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.


I am in the midst of putting my photo collection in a bit more order as 
Galia's photos are growing in numbers and we share the LR catalog and 
the HDDs of course. So I recently looked at some photos I made with 
*istD. I kind of wonder why on earth I spent so much money for the 
cameras that came after it... Of course there is justification and 
improvement, but sometimes having a look with your own eyes has a 
sobering effect, in a manner of speaking.



I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on
par with at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the
time that they have a sensor that'll appeal to the fussier
photographers,  they'll have a lens selection that will appeal to
those photographers as well.  They'll also have a low end kit,
selling for under $500.


With all due respect, Larry, I expect you to be proven wrong, let's say 
in 3-5 years.


By the way TOP by Mike Johnston had an interesting article recently 
where he showed (albeit pixel peeping 100% thumbnails) that D90 is just 
a tad worse than D700 and that V1 or J1 or whatever is just a tad worse 
than D90, but boy, does V1 or J1 or whatever really suck compared to D700...


By the way, judging from early samples, new 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony 
takes quite a step back in high ISO noise department, and all... 
Presently, K-5 appears like the best choice for all-round kind of 
photography, without super high resolution specialization such as in 
fashion, landscapes or building-size enlargement...


Your mileage may and probably will vary...

Boris

P.S This year tenset (actually dozenset) will boast photos chosen by 
Galia and processed by Galia. Although I will still supervise.


--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[P. J. Alling]

Physics would argue against this.  I looked at the sample images, they 
were nice, much nicer than I expected from such a small sensor, but 
there's only so much light that a tiny photosite can capture, and 
there's only so much wizardry that software can accomplish.  Most small 
sensor cameras, even the most well respected such as the Canon G series 
have shown only tiny incremental improvements in image quality in their 
last few incarnations.  Larger sensors have a lot more room for 
improvement and they started out better to begin with.  The Q is most 
probably already at the point where diminishing returns on R&D 
investment are setting in.  I'm not saying there won't be improvements, 
just that they are likely to be small for more and more heroic efforts.


On 9/28/2011 2:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:13 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:


Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but then I 
hadn't  thought too much about it.

I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from the Q, and 
pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.

I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on par with 
at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the time that they have a 
sensor that'll appeal to the fussier photographers,  they'll have a lens 
selection that will appeal to those photographers as well.  They'll also have a 
low end kit, selling for under $500.

In the mean time, by starting with a higher price, they get a lot more profit 
from each camera.  If at $800 they make $200 profit on each camera, at $700 
they'd only make half the profit.  Likewise, Pentax has a lot of teething 
problem issues with new technology, keeping the price high means fewer people 
to complain while they work the bugs out, and fewer things they may need to 
repair.Remember that people were complaining about the price of the K-5 
when it came out, and several people on the list just picked them up at $1100.

When Pentax came out with the 110, I wonder how many 35mm or 645 folks 
complained that there'd be no market because of the image quality.


On 9/28/2011 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the plastic ...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/

What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.

-bmw



--
Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
lengthily search.


--
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.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est








--
Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
lengthily search.


--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Larry Colen]

On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:13 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

> Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but then I 
> hadn't  thought too much about it.

I would be very interested to see comparisons between pictures from the Q, and 
pictures from some of Pentax's early APS DSLRs.

I expect that in 3-5 years, the Q-format will be capable of photos on par with 
at least the K-7, if not the K-x or even the K-5.  By the time that they have a 
sensor that'll appeal to the fussier photographers,  they'll have a lens 
selection that will appeal to those photographers as well.  They'll also have a 
low end kit, selling for under $500.

In the mean time, by starting with a higher price, they get a lot more profit 
from each camera.  If at $800 they make $200 profit on each camera, at $700 
they'd only make half the profit.  Likewise, Pentax has a lot of teething 
problem issues with new technology, keeping the price high means fewer people 
to complain while they work the bugs out, and fewer things they may need to 
repair.Remember that people were complaining about the price of the K-5 
when it came out, and several people on the list just picked them up at $1100.  

When Pentax came out with the 110, I wonder how many 35mm or 645 folks 
complained that there'd be no market because of the image quality.

> 
> On 9/28/2011 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>> Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the plastic 
>> ...
>> 
>> http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/
>>  
>> 
>> What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.
>> 
>> -bmw
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
> lengthily search.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[P. J. Alling]

Read the review, the camera looks to be better than I had thought, but 
then I hadn't  thought too much about it.


On 9/28/2011 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the 
plastic ...


http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/ 



What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.

-bmw




--
Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
lengthily search.


--
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: Steve Huff likes the Q, big time

[Steven Desjardins]

"What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least."

Mark.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the plastic
> ...
>
> http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/27/the-pentax-q-digital-camera-review-a-pocket-full-of-pixels/
>
> What I will do is go and fondle one. I owe myself that at least.
>
> -bmw
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
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.