Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: My Pentax Q Vs NEX-3 Measurbation: ISO 125-3200 (My Standard "Bird" Shot Test)

Saturday, December 08, 2012

My Pentax Q Vs NEX-3 Measurbation: ISO 125-3200 (My Standard "Bird" Shot Test)



Test Conditions:-

1. Pentax Q with 01 8.5mm prime lens, effective 135 focal ~47mm; NEX-3 with E 30mm Macro lens, effective 135 focal ~46mm.

2. Both cameras set in Av mode for best performing f-stop so as to avoid diffraction while stopped down for just more than 1 stop, namely, Pentax Q at f/2.8 and the NEX at f/5.6. Multi-point single autofocus set for both cameras.

3. 2 second timer was used for both cameras, each of which was mounted on a sturdy tripod during shooting.

4. Auto White Balance and colour mode of Pentax Q was Portrait (all in default settings) and that of the NEX was Landscape (with Contrast -1, others at defaults).

5. NR settings of both cameras were left at their factory defaults.

Okay, let's go! Note the captions of the image files for what are them. EXIF is also preserved:-

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/Pentax_Q/Q_Vs_NEX/

Please feel free to tell us what you've measurbated and found! Btw, I found it is really amazing for the PQ of this little toy which is also called as P-Q! ;-D

Comments (22)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
The Q looks very good here. Its still not getting the levels of detail the nex sensor is picking up. A small sensor is only going to resolve so much due to physics, which is why I find it odd that pentax picked such a small sensor to begin with. m4/3 still has a ways to go before they max out resolving power, but I imagine that will be a limiting factor with the Q down the road. Sensor size matters. That said I want one. This would be perfect for street.
20 replies · active 642 weeks ago
Anonimity is great's avatar

Anonimity is great · 643 weeks ago

I second your opinion on the sensor size problem. It seems for standard photo paper size, even A4 paper sized prints, or for posting pics online, which is what most people do anyway, the Q should be good enough up to iso800, but it would've been better if the sensor is just a bit bigger, say 1/1.7", and has lower pixel count, say 8~10MP. That kind of sensor would not reduce the actual picture resolution yet reduce the amount of noise, and would be my dream Q.

Boy is it hard to please everyone :P
For what its worth, I've gotten some very nice prints from a panasonic fz-28 and a fz-35 I also had. So it is possible to get "good enough" IQ from a small sensor, but really lack of resolution and clarity bother me. Most of these systems are resolving 10MP at best, and then when you factor in detail loss to noise that figure goes down further. That's not to say that going to say 20MP is impossible, but lets face it, with bayer filter sensors, these ludicrous 16mp compacts look incredibly soft at the pixel level (and noisy too) due to them packing more pixels. Never mind the optical challenges of actually resolving 16mp with lenses that small.....
I have verified that the Q should have no AA filter. So, its resolution should be higher than most 12MP compact. But of course, false colour and moire are more easy to appear.
It means that 1/2.3" BSI CMOS rules. No need CCD sensor 1/1,7".
Michael A.'s avatar

Michael A. · 643 weeks ago

Above all, Q's color doesn't have the Nex's ugly "algae" cast. NICE! Again, Pentax color RULES! Thanks for documenting what matters....
Frankly, I have never liked the colour reproduction of my NEX, no matter how I fiddled around with the colour profiles and settings of it! :-(
The nex colors have a green cast to them. Pentax has great color I think.
The Q has pretty strong AA filter actually...
Where did you learn this from? Imagination again?
Please post your links again as I have accidentally deleted your last two "correct" posts but cannot recover them here.
Alright, so again: http://www.optyczne.pl/171.4-Test_aparatu-Pentax_... (original in Polish) http://tinyurl.com/d2aart2 (Google translated to English)
Let's omit a sentence about who imagined what this time.
Isn't it states that the AA filter of the Q is weak?
Quite the opposite. They say that AA filter is typical to strong. Look at the Nyquist frequency response on graphs.
Low response beyond the Nyquist frequency tells you nothing. Theoretically, nothing should pass beyond the Nyquist, with AA filter or not.
High response in Nyquist frequency is typical for cameras with weak or no AA filter.
Agreed. The aa filter looks strong. Also I think the review you linked had a bad copy of the 9mm lens. It looks far softer than any other q samples I've seen.
You need to know, they always use the lowest sharpness settings (and turn the NR off if possible) for JPEG samples and use unsharpened TIFF files (dcraw converted) for RAW measurements, so their sample photos/crops always look too soft. Of course, a bad copy is possible as well...
oh I forgot about them.....yeah, I never liked their reviews. I want to see what a camera is capable of, not what it looks like with sharpness at the minimum. They could at least use default settings......
didnt knew the nex only starts @ 200isos oO

Post a new comment

Comments by