To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for all that is good. :-)
locke_fc: Sorry, but a 1/1.7" sensor is no longer acceptable. Might as well use your smartphone instead.
Barnet- given the Q7 / Q-S1 is an 1/1.7'' sensor, and given it has an F1.9 lens option I don't understand how you think it is comparable. And the ultra wide lens of the Q is much better that what you have available in that other realm.
NoRules: I did this with my Q7. I think it's good enough.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3672812
@Everyone - watch NoRules and his Q work! I see he does some good work!
waxwaine: As Q is a "she camera", now have 2 propper nipples.
And you twist the left nipple and you get different effects... ok I'll stop now :-)
locke- well if you consider saying "a volkswagen rabbit can run as fast as a Porsche 911" an opinion, then I would have to agree with you. ;-)
Locke- that's fair but there's a difference in stating it categorically or stating that it doesn't work for you, because there are other people that are obviously making it work for them. But if that's what you meant, sure. Not every tool works for everyone needs and wants.
There's much more to a camera than simply a sensor. And if you are going to say "may as well use a smartphone" just shows that there's a lack of understanding of photographic opportunities a Q system presents over a phone- not saying you can't create good work with either.
Eugene232: don't understand success of Q system in Asia,perhaps because it is very small?
The price of the V3 (in USA) makes everything else look cheap :-)
locke- that's fine but keep in mind what you are doing is citing some paper conclusion and not the real experience of many customers. I am not saying you should buy it, but look at your very first statement where you started the thread and it's a bit silly.
The sensor is acceptable for many.
larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?
It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.
But, since apparently you have quite the misconception when it comes to professional photography, look at someone like Eugene Jarvis, or Giulio Sciorio and many other pros- they all seem to say the same thing- it's not the equipment. You think they are not pros then? Do you think that's a confidence they all say the same thing in one way or another?
Yes, except that some of us have portfolios that sort of show perhaps that we know some photography. Basically It's a bit like the guy out of shape, that keeps out of shape, telling the guy at the gym in much better shape how he is supposed to work out properly :-)
Your opinion is hardly smart if you can't show that you know what you are saying. Like I said, a quick look at your gallery doesn't seem to yield truth to your claims, unless you have some awesome gallery somewhere.
As for shame the only person who should be ashamed of themselves is the one who thinks they know what they are saying yet have no real skill int he field they are saying they know how it's done. (refers back to gym example).
In any case, photography isn't a sport. It's art, a bit different. "Better equipment" depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
peevee1: There is exactly one 1/1.7" sensor produced, so Pentax is stuck with it on this joke of a system. At least they could try to make it half-useful by producing native supertele and macro lenses instead of essentially renaming Q7 into Q-S1.
"Since when are sales number an indicator of quality? Especially what sells in Japan."
I didn't say it was an indicator of quality in by itself as much as simply that the "joke of a system" is a viable system that is selling and people are buying it.
Of course you wouldn't know any better if the Q system is a quality system or not. I bet you haven't even tried it and you have no photos to show, so doesn't look like you know what you are talking about.
"In Japan, they buy used panties from vending machines. Just saying."
Sounds like a racist remark to me. Not that they sell that but what you are implying with sales of a camera then. Moreover, that doesn't have to do anything with it. :-)
Revenant: The naming scheme really makes sense. First the Q, then the Q10, then the Q7, and now the Q-S1. Anyone dare to guess what they'll call the next one?
Joe Ogiba: If you want the smallest system camera look at the smaller Panasonic GM1 with much larger MFT sensor .https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3882/14648806550_a17da78c6f_b.jpg
What that picture doesn't show you is that using a GM1 is a PITA. I looked into it no less than four times and every single time I ended up hating it. It has a great sensor. Pitty, Panasonic should have designed it after their LX5.
Raist3d: The following photos were taken with the original Q body. The original Q did not have an 1/1.7'' sensor, but 1/2.3'' sensor which is even smaller.
http://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp7492.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/patricktakingmyshot.jpgMandatory cat shot in all equipment discussionhttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6249.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6968.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/godsave.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4768.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp4981.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp5372.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp6122.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3782.jpghttp://raist3d.typepad.com/files/imgp3887.jpg
If one thing I have learned over the years at dpreview is that a lot of people that are vociferous armchair critics have no clue what they are talking about and they can't demonstrate much photographic competency at all.
I am not saying you are necessarily one of them- but if you can't show anything then it's hard to take your assessment seriously.
Oh and btw, I never suggested I an a descendant of Henri Cartier Bresson. I never insulted but you seemed insecure enough to attempt that. Stick to the facts, and let's see what you are capable of then if you hare going to suggest that's what I think I am. Because you are moving into barking territory with no bite to show.
@halfwaythere- "I don't have to prove anything to you because I didn't ask for anyone's photos. Maybe I haven't reached that level yet where everything in b&w must be artistic but at least I don't act like a pretentious little man every time someone critiques my beloved equipment or photos."
If you are going to make claims all the photos above I posted are ordinary, then I say yes, post your photos. It's good to know what kind of skill you have so I can apply the proper weight to that comment because otherwise you could just be someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.
Also if you are referring to me as acting like a "pretentious little man" please explain how I have acted so?
I have no problem with photo critique. The problem is that since I don't know who you are and you have no photos posted, it's hard to tell your skill level to take your critique seriously or not.
"1. I wouldn't call your photos great." - that's fine. I am going to disagree in that assessment with some of them. Given I don't see any photos from you, I can't really apply too much weight to your assessment. If you have a gallery of your own photos that shows photographic competency please post.
2. Ergonomics and usability are very subjective matters. - Up to a point. There are things that are not. A little wheel on the GM1 that is so small with not enough pressure to stand getting turned so you hit the wrong thing accidentally is not subjective, but a fact.
Zvonimir Tosic: I still have the original Q and I think it is an amazing camera; I have used it to publish photographs and for documentary and research work.I find it more user friendly than a smartphone, and with handling that exceeds many DSLRs. There are many excellent photographers who sell large prints made from images taken with an iPhone. So what is wrong with a Q and its 1/1.7" sensor and an array of very good lenses? Sensor size only matters in DPR forums brawl — nowhere else.
i.e. I am not bound by brands or camera models. And I can say, using a Nikon 1 J4 as my current camera the Q ergonomics and usability runs rings around the GM1.
Also halfway- did you miss he said the Pen 5 is a nice m4/3rds camera? Or are you only reading up to what you want to read?
This isn't about Q fanboys per se. I tried to like the GM-1 quite hard. VERY HARD. I took it out for a spin no less than four times including a reasonably long night photo walk. The image quality of the sensor is pretty great- Panasonic finally solved their banding problem with that family of sensors.
But the ergonomics are simply horrible. The command wheel is definitively the worst I haver ever used. If you think my photographic assessment comes from being just a Q fanboy, tell that to Luminous Landscape Michael Reichman which thought the same thing:
"The World's Worst Control RingThe GM1's rear control ring is simply a disaster. "
And as far as lens sizes, no, the GM1 is not smaller. There is no 06 lens equivalent that small nor 01 prime. Had Panasonic designed the GM1 around their LX3/LX5/LX7 ethos, things would be very different.
I am using at the moment a Nikon 1 J4. I care about my photography.
Mostly what Badi said. The other part is that *in the context I posted the photos* reading the comments about these news you would think you could never take great photographs with a Q which is false.
My point was never about "you can take pictures with a Q you can't quite take with anything else" though I would say you cannot take one of the portraits shots with a phone camera due to DOF, but that's besides the point.
Photos are created by the photographer is the point and showing the Q has enough canvas of light for good quality photos for web and reasonable print sizes. The ergonomics of the Q and usability though are a different story. It's even better than several cameras that are supposed to be "better".
I think the post speaks for itself, in the context in which I am posting this. I feel if I have to explain it, the point will be missed anyway.