Pentax Q10 gets DxOmarked and is on par with the Panasonic GF5!
The likely most “exotic” of all mirrorless and interchangeable lens cameras just got DxOamrked (Click here). And the sensor performance is actually surprising! The Q10 matches the quality of the 12 Megapixel Micro Four Thirds cameras! That0s a huge surprise considering the big sensor size difference. Chapeau Pentax! The once again proved that they are capable of squeezing out all the quality they can from their (Sony) sensors.
P.S.: Good for MFT that their latest generation sensors marked a huge leap forward. Otherwise this would be very embarrassing for them 
cosinaphile
4 months ago |these odd proclamations seem to dismiss low light perf or underweight it … i like the pentax concept but wish they went with a 1\1.7 sensor at least ….dxo .., i still dont get you , and ive been tryin for yrs
what about using a 200 2.8 canon fd on this camera with a custom adapter?
[they are beyond easy to make}.... do the math... a 5,6 crop what a safari lens!!!
all you need is a bodycap ,some shims ,and some crazy glue [or epoxy]
[diy call here ] ive made several successful custom jobs for my ep1 before a single adapter was a gleam in a chinese startups eyes ,….
my 50 mm f 2 nikon h on an oly ep1 was the first in north america with a modified body cap, some automotive gaskets, cyanoacrylate and a jury rigged lock pin device
wheres someone creative
that is what im waiting to see
Fants
4 months ago |I’d actually be very intrigued to see what kind of IQ improvement you’d get with a Q10 and a high-quality tele prime vs simply buying one of those 30x zoom compacts. I’ll bet the results would be better with the Q10, but with the other you’d at least have AF and a much smaller package.
Raist3d
4 months ago |You should realize that the Q with its 1/2.3” sensor, matches or even exceeds many 1/1.7” sensors. Just a thought, don’t go by the paper spec.
Eric Tastad
4 months ago |I agree, I have no trouble using Q up to ISO 1600 or 3200 (it will be grainy of course, reminds me a bit of ISO 400 film). It definitely isn’t an APS-C sensor, but that doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with it
A. Non
4 months ago |The GF5 has the same sensor as the original GF1… that alone is shameful.
catnip
4 months ago |… Sincerily it is this kind of BS the reason I don’t trust any of the stuff DXO mark posts…
And I will leave here a lovely meme in Icanhazcheezburguer for them:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7059383296/h6B6CE5E3/
stan
4 months ago |DXO..is that the same kind of sauce the put in my favortie Sechuan noodle dish?
jevfp
4 months ago |Can we trust DXO Mark,.now ?
jevfp
4 months ago |or probably,.we have to accept this result as this will slap,.panasonic to make a serious camera
catnip
4 months ago |They have one the DMC-GX1
Raist3d
4 months ago |Yes, because the Q does better than people think. That includes the Q10.
Raist3d
4 months ago |Keep in mind the ISO score. Don’t go by the “total score.” The headline is misleading, imho. That said, the Q/Q10 do better than people think.
spam
4 months ago |Agree, “ISO” score is much worse on the Q10 and huge differences there is not reflected in the total score. IMO we can trust DxO’s measurements, maybe more than any other test site, but the interpretation of the results (particulary the numeric scores) just don’t match the differences in IQ the user will see between many cameras.
catnip
4 months ago |The problem of Dx0mark is that their way to meausure is how good the output is per area of sensor, so the score is for the size of the sensor being measure, they slap a score to it and call it a day, but it isn’t the same an APS-C sensor to a MF back, nor it is a Full Frame sensor to an 1/1.7″ sensor, thus the problem is that they let people interpret data in the wrong way (out of convinience to live off the raging fanboyism of the net) and let the people make the assumption that data is comparable when it isn’t because they aren’t giving accurate data regarding sensor sizes equivalences, we are talking about apples and oranges.
In fact while it is a good advanced point and pray camera, it isn’t as good as bigger sensor cameras, I own Pentax Q10 a GF3 and Nikon J1: the J1 and the GF3 smoke the Q in almost every aspect of image quality period, the only 2 reasons to have a Pentax Q is because they are super small and easily carried and of course because it is almost like a toy camera (slap CCTV lenses and you will have tons of fun) but not for its stellar IQ.
Raist3d
4 months ago |I am sorry but I don’t believe DXo does the thing you said by area of sensor. Keeping mind and look again at the individual measurements. And yes, it’s true the Q does have a pretty decent DR that compares well with some of the other options around.
Also I wouldn’t call the Q a “point and pray” camera when it has imho better controls and ergonomics than some of the cameras you mention (GF3 or J1 actually). Of course if you use it as a “point and pray” that’s entirely another matter, but the Q does have semi-pro DSLR class controls.
You can certainly get good IQ out of a Q if you know what you are doing and dare I say, even at higher ISO you don’t get any banding, something that can’t be said for many Panasonic-sensored cameras. I am not saying it’s the best thing ever but it does better than people think and if you compare say a kit Q with the 01 prime lens, it can actually match some of the things you can do with the kit lens on the other cameras.
Then you get stuff like the 06 lens – 84 to 249mm F2.8 constant… and very small, high quality lens.
catnip
4 months ago |Edgar’s answer is the correct one, my comment stands as it is. Sorry if we can agree.
Thus the problem remains what you read as score isn’t really comparable if they zre of different size.
I love my Q10 but it isn’t better than an m4/3 or an APS-C in fact IQ is really inferior a con I’m glad to pay for the portability against my 5D MKII or my GF3 when I am just shooting snapshots.
Edgar Matias
4 months ago |catnip6 wrote…
“The problem of Dx0mark is that their way to meausure is how good the output is per area of sensor, so the score is for the size of the sensor being measure…”
That is a completely FALSE statement.
DxO normalizes for resolution, not sensor size. DxO is all about measuring noise, regardless of sensor size or resolution. All cameras can be compared by their DxOMark score. That’s the whole point.
If you *were* to account for sensor size, you’d get this…
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/PvdH3/Fig6a_183.png
The orange line shows that the sensor in the Pentax Q is the current top performer per unit area of sensor. If you scaled it up to FF, it would beat all others.
If you want to understand how DxO works, you should take the time to read this…
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml
What I really want to see DxOMarked is the Q-mount lenses — especially the 01 Standard Prime and the 06 Telephoto Zoom. The sensors are already good enough.
Edgar Matias
4 months ago |“DxO normalizes for resolution, not sensor size” <– Sorry, that should be "DxO is independent of resolution and sensor size".
Miroslav
4 months ago |ISO score says it all… Their overall score is something you should skip when reading the results.
LensIsAll
4 months ago |If you are blind-folded night time shooter then perhaps you can skip everything else. Otherwise, if you shoot in a daytime or with light – you can skip ISO and move to important ratings.
narutogrey
4 months ago |ISO ratings are important even for daytime. You can not always use base ISO during the daytime depending on your lens (i.e. if you are indoors without good lighting or if you are using a slower telephoto lens). In those cases, you might have to bump up the ISO to 400-800. If you do that, not only does noise start becoming an issue, so will dynamic range. Considering the high contrast situations that occur during daytime, and a limited dynamic range due to higher ISO can ruin a picture.
Carlston
4 months ago |Its a sad day on earth when so many noobs are arguing over this thing called dxo.
true homer
4 months ago |sure, lets ignore the stop and a half of worse noise performance
truer homer
4 months ago |Yes, lets believe that a half stop better and half better dynamic range makes your picture better.
MJr
4 months ago |Doesn’t make it worse. Like things being worse do.