[snostorm]

Like 900 mm or like 600 mm? Only at f4.5?

It's rather strange way to get picture with 600 (900) mm lens resolution:
To buy Pentax Q for USD800 + Q-K adapter for some USD (I think USD200) and then buy DA*300/4 for USD1300....
Wow...it's outstanding. To spend more than USD2000 for make some shots at 1680 mm (without AF!!!) at f4.5 in very good sunny weather at ISO125 with exposure limit 1/2000 .


Don't forget about ISO and exposure (1/2000 only), please. I doubt that It will give any good IQ at ISO above 200.

Oh please! $2K is cheap when you're talking reach of over 600mm (ever priced even a used FA* 600/4 or an FA* 250-600/5.6?), and the whole Q, K>Q adapter, plus a 300/4 lens would weigh about 3 lbs and fit in a relatively normal bag. Anyway, I already have all the long glass that I need, and I assume that most who would want to use a Q for the crop factor advantage would also, so the price is back at $800 RRP, or maybe $1K with the adapter. Considering that I already have more than the whole Q system invested in a number of individual lenses each, not to mention the gear needed to support them, I find the Q offers the potential to expand my ability to shoot long to an extent that the cost is easily justifiable. Even if it doesn't work as well as anticipated, I still have a tiny quality camera that I can carry on a day to day basis, and it has the versatility with interchangeable lenses that has previously stopped me from buying any of the existing advanced compacts.

A Q with a K>Q adapter would be a pocketable 3.6x TC (compared to APS-C) that doesn't cost 3.6 stops in exposure. Before you start quoting the DOF EQ conversions, I actually welcome the deeper DOF since I usually shoot at relatively short subject distances, and the DOF of fast ultra teles at short distances is very narrow -- too narrow actually. Also, DR is not much of a concern for me since I shoot jpegs with my DSLRs, and my output medium is normally prints, so this has never been a priority consideration for me.

The DA* would cause some difficulty with controlling the aperture since it doesn't have an aperture ring, but perhaps that's what the scale engraved on the prototype K>Q adapter are for -- controlling the aperture in DA lenses, or any A capable lens for that matter -- not too much of a stretch since it would only have to be a mechanical linkage, and 7 steps would be adequate for just about any lens. I don't think that the scale indicates an aperture diaphragm in the adapter since I doubt if it could be placed to accurately block the same amount of light for every FL at a given setting since the light path is narrower at a given distance behind the lens for teles vs wide angles. This is irrelevant to me since I'd use an FA* 300/4.5 or FA* 300/2.8, and they have aperture rings.

IQ when shooting long is always a trade off. Shooting very long (600mm or longer) at f4-5,6 is only possible in APS-C with 13 lb + lenses that cost in the neighborhood of $6K and have MFDs of 4m or more. Use anything shorter, and you'd need to:
1. Get closer, which is not always possible,
2. Crop, which robs resolution, or
3. Use a TC, which robs light.
Higher shutter speeds are obviously an important component of this type of shooting as camera shake (even when tripod mounted) is exaggerated by the narrow AOV and relative subject magnification (there are always subject motion concerns also), so being able to use a wider aperture is a definite virtue to keep shutter speeds up.

At longer distances, support becomes increasingly important. With the light weight of the Q body, and the ability to use the more convenient f4 class lenses, a 3 lb CF tripod and a ball head can suffice where a 7-9 lb CF tripod and a gimbal are really needed to conveniently use the fastest long glass. These would not only be lighter, but would cost significantly less. Another possible plus for the Q tele shooter.

The only possible downside that I see with the Q + K>Q adapter (other than possible performance quirks) is the electronic shutter, but we don't really know how it will perform, and even this might be a trade-off -- zero vibration vs some degree of IQ degradation. For me, it's worth a try. . .

I'd personally choose to shoot faster apertures and higher shutter speeds and sacrifice whatever degree of IQ is lost from using the smaller sensor. Judging from the samples I've seen, the IQ differential between the small sensor and any of my DLSR bodies is not nearly as detracting as a blurred capture. For bird shoots, I'd still primarily use the DSLR for the OVF, and the Q would be an accessory that I'd use like a TC for extra reach if needed. I would also anticipate using it for lightweight walk around birding handheld, as well as macros where the Q would also offer some significant advantages.

Scott

[Zygonyx]

I think it could, if the 0 setting is wide open, and assuming the numbers correspond to full stops, then a f/1.4 lens (fastest of DA) can stop down all the way to f/16.
However, isn't it odd to allow the adapter to stop down so much if the camera is diffraction limited at f/8, or am I missing something?
We'll have to wait for some more information I guess, maybe find some engrish article.

Exactly.
It would be odd to stop down too much, but this is my guess re. justification of the numbered markings after this picture.

Actually, I personally consider the tele converter effect to be the most interesting option offered by the Q.
.

Agreed too.
At least for long range focal use, hoping such an adaptor will exist as well for telescopes.
But i am affraid the Q/K adaptors will not take/transmit Auto Focus.

...I'd personally choose to shoot faster apertures and higher shutter speeds and sacrifice whatever degree of IQ is lost from using the smaller sensor. Judging from the samples I've seen, the IQ differential between the small sensor and any of my DLSR bodies is not nearly as detracting as a blurred capture. For bird shoots, I'd still primarily use the DSLR for the OVF, and the Q would be an accessory that I'd use like a TC for extra reach if needed. I would also anticipate using it for lightweight walk around birding handheld, as well as macros where the Q would also offer some significant advantages.

Scott

Yes, i agree as well.

[Mock]

Actually, I personally consider the tele converter effect to be the most interesting option offered by the Q.

Absolutely, I bought an Auto 110 just recently to use the lenses with Q. The 24mm and 50mm lenses make for a pocket-able 137 and 275mm equivalent at f/2.8. Add in the Q fisheye and 01 prime and it's a complete system which will fit in a small bag/large pocket.

It will also be fun to throw some bigger glass on there for birding...I'm picturing my 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/5.6 mounted to get some little shorebirds from very long distance. As long as it's a bright day, the Q should make a decent image. Greater DOF is also welcome in this regard.

[Blue]

Absolutely, I bought an Auto 110 just recently to use the lenses with Q. The 24mm and 50mm lenses make for a pocket-able 137 and 275mm equivalent at f/2.8. Add in the Q fisheye and 01 prime and it's a complete system which will fit in a small bag/large pocket.

It will also be fun to throw some bigger glass on there for birding...I'm picturing my 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/5.6 mounted to get some little shorebirds from very long distance. As long as it's a bright day, the Q should make a decent image. Greater DOF is also welcome in this regard.

The 70mm is probably the best 110 optically.

[Mock]

The 70mm is probably the best 110 optically.

Good to know, should get my mitts on one of those too.

[barondla]

Mock, how are you going to mount the 110 lenses to the Q? Does someone make an adapter? Could possibly do the body cap trick that many Olympus Pen users employ. Ordered my Q today - very excited.

Talked to a person in the know. Said K>Q adapter prototype was to gauge demand. Pentax hasn't decided to build it yet. They are a little concerned it would conflict with the man Q trait - ultra small size. We need to let them know how we feel.
thanks
barondla

[Mock]

Mock, how are you going to mount the 110 lenses to the Q? Does someone make an adapter? Could possibly do the body cap trick that many Olympus Pen users employ. Ordered my Q today - very excited.

Talked to a person in the know. Said K>Q adapter prototype was to gauge demand. Pentax hasn't decided to build it yet. They are a little concerned it would conflict with the man Q trait - ultra small size. We need to let them know how we feel.
thanks
barondla

110 lenses will need a bit of extension in the adapter to work, the registration distance is much shorter for the Q, I don't think a body cap trick can work...
I am hoping one of the chinese companies will make an adapter to mount 110 lenses to a Q. I will scour ebay until the day it is available, then buy the first one!! I hope they're reading this.

Pentax better build the K-Q adapter...they can't just float a prototype and post delicious images of a 1000mm lens and a DA40 mounted to a Q...it's torture!

[Zygonyx]

Mock...Talked to a person in the know. Said K>Q adapter prototype was to gauge demand. Pentax hasn't decided to build it yet. They are a little concerned it would conflict with the man Q trait - ultra small size. We need to let them know how we feel.
thanks
barondla

As already expressed including to Pentax France, in my opinion, this adapter is just an excellent idea, providing they include an automatic aperture ring and shutter inside, i.o. to be able to use any K lens at any aperture.

[barondla]

A tube could be mounted on the body cap for proper extension. You are likely correct that some Chinese company ill make one. I should have bought the 70mm. Have the 18, 24, and 50.

Person in the know has been shooting a Q. Hasn't seen a focal length menu for IS. This could be because a non Pentax Q lens has not been fitted yet. Said the main menu is very similar to K-5.
thanks
barondla

Pentax had better build the K-Q adapter.

[Zygonyx]

They will surely do it as i am convinced they could earn a lot of money with it, keeping the codes.

[barondla]

Pentax is also crazy if they don't bring out a Q /spotting scope package for the birders! Pentax makes some beautiful spotting scopes. They used to make a P&S adapter (still might).

thanks
barondla

[falconeye]

Pentax is also crazy if they don't bring out a Q /spotting scope package for the birders! Pentax makes some beautiful spotting scopes. They used to make a P&S adapter (still might).

Yes, the adapter is called:

Pentax DA-1

(Don't know about an English-language link.) It was announced at Photokina and is available for purchase at some selected vendors.

BTW, Novoflex is known for their many and good adapters. Their K-mount adapters have an aperture ring to control aperture an DA lenses.

Currently, Novoflex offers the following K-mount adapters:

• Sony NEX
• µFT
• Leica M
• FourThirds
• Canon XL
• Samsung NX

[Novoflex - Adapterfinder]
They may make a Q/K adapter anyway. But only if the Q sells, i.e., if its price goes down.

[zxaar]

This weekend 3-4 sept. , if you are in osaka japan then you can walk in and try the k-q adapter. Pentax said you can try the adapter but can not take pictures with you if taken with adapter.

So it does exist. And I might try if i am in mood to go to osaka that day.

[ogl]

Yes, the adapter is called:

Pentax DA-1

200 EURO....Hmmmm

It seems to me - such adapter is more interesting for video.

[barondla]

Think a few adapters exist to measure interest. Don't think they are being mass produced yet. Zxaar, would love to know if Image stabilization works with non-chipped lens. Does the focal length input menu pop up like
Pentax dslrs?

Wonder why they restrict people keeping pics taken with adapter?
thanks
barondla