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
...
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
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 bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Huff's unbridled enthusiasm for the Q almost has me reaching for the plastic
...
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 ...
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.
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,
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
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
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I kept my *ist DS although is is obsolete.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
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
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.
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
I hear you, but I think the Q won't suck up a bunch of RD 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 p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
on 2011-09-28 12:59 Steven Desjardins wrote
As long as it puts
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 rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,
I
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
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
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
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
From: Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com
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
Unfortunately, it will be a Pentax MSC and a NEX 7 ;-)
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Dario Bonazza
dario.bona...@virgilio.it 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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
