Details, details...
As you might expect, the camera struggles at the higher ISO settings reducing in detail and saturation and increasing in noise the higher you go. Noise reduction can’t be turned off entirely, but selecting the low level NR option brings back some detail even at ISO 6400. Pixel-peeping aside, and given adequate lighting, the Q can deliver very pleasing results despite these shortcomings.
RAW shooting is on-board along with quite a few in-camera processes
Indeed, it’s capable of all manner of thrilling photographic stunts, enabling creativity far exceeding that of any other camera its size. It’s jam-packed with features that I haven’t been able to touch on in detail here, including sophisticated in-camera RAW image processing, sensor-shift image stabilisation, automatic HDR and the ability to tweak and adjust just about everything everywhere.
Being a self-respecting compact system camera, accessories abound
Verdict
Due to its size and sensor format, the Pentax Q is fighting at a big disadvantage from the start when it comes to image quality. However, it presents itself so well and offers so many enthusiast-friendly features that it’s one underdog that’s really hard not to root for. Despite its limitations, I find myself really wanting to own one. ®
More Camera Reviews… |
||||
 Samsung
NX200 |
 Fujifilm
Finepix X10 |
 Olympus
PEN Mini E-PM1 |
 Sony
NEX-C3 |
 Nikon
1 V1 |
Pentax Q compact system camera
COMMENTS
Bokeh?
Can I just pedantically point out the misunderstanding of the term 'bokeh' in the article, as misused by ignorant forum commenters everywhere but, ideally, not in proper reviews themselves.
It's a horrible-looking work, but 'bokeh' refers to the visual *quality* of the out of focus areas - ie. the shape of the artefacts, the smoothness or otherwise of the effect. It's not the fact in itself that a low depth of field has been used to produce these de-focussed areas.
You can't say "The aperture opens wide enough to allow some degree of bokeh" because it's like saying it "allows some degree of nice". You mean it allows a shallow depth of field, or background de-focussing or whatever. You can then go on to discuss the quality of the bokeh if you like :)
Err - Am I the only one
who thinks those sample images look pretty terrible? I wouldn't give you £40 for a camera that captures images like that, never mind £400. Interchangeable lenses is a nice gimmick, but if the body has such a tiny and slow sensor as those shots seem to indicate you might as well just by a pocketful of glass beads and a standard cheap compact.
Thank you for not making me act on my own pedantic urges. I strongly agree with you, good sir.
Good to see.
As a long, long term Pentax user (the lenses for my old ME Super now grace my k-5), I'm loving seeing Pentax come out with such a wide variety of new cameras, and fitting them into the niches they made 30+ years ago (my dad had the Auto110 at my recommendation and still mourns it's passing).
OTOH, it means that I might not have the distinctive name on my camera - Nikons and Canons are now so standard I get asked if Pentax are a new company when I'm being a tourist - a bit of a change from my youth when only grown ups and pros had either, and there were far more Pentax, Minolta, Practika, Ricoh, Zenith, Cosina SLRs on show.
Viewfinder
One of the photos in this review shows a remarkable-looking add-on viewfinder that isn't mentioned at all in the text. Optical viewfinders are of great interest to many people who, like me, feel drawn to these new retro cameras: couldn't you give the reviewer a couple more paras to discuss this (assuming they received the viewfinder)? Or drop the nonsense about the "toy" lenses to make room?
