Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-05-2011, 01:36 PM - 1 Like   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Thank you


here is real photos of Pentax Q + FA400/5.6

All sizes | IMGP0137 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
All sizes | IMGP0268 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

real trash. worse than any P&S hyperzoom.
Hi ogl,

I agree that these are not that good, but your assessment that they are trash is being a bit harsh. Consider them in this light:

1. They were taken at a FOV EQ of 2212mm!
2. If these are not crops, then I'm guessing that they had to be taken at something like 100 feet or greater distance.
3. The photographer could not be familiar with this setup since the Q has just recently been released for sale and the K-Q adapter is still in prototype stage.
4. From the other shots in his collection, Birding is not a concentration for this photographer.
5. We have no idea what support gear and long lens technique were used, if any, and these become critical at much wider FOV EQ and much shorter distances.
5. These were evidently shot in jpeg at default settings. From what I've seen so far from Q samples, the Q benefits more from RAW than any of the DSLRs I've shot, and all of my Pentax DSLRs' jpegs have benefited greatly from some image setting tweakings .

Now look at the positive side (this will be difficult. . . I understand. . .) There is actually some relatively fine feather detail evident in both shots -- this is actually pretty remarkable considering the 2212mm FOV since the dove is a species that usually shoots very smooth, even at much closer distances with noticeably better optics. I don't know the 645 FA* 400/5.6, but the 35mm model is probably the least respected of the FA* ultra teles. It's a very good lens, but not really in the same class as any of the other FA* lenses from 200mm and up.

Consider this against the arguments that have been posted against the Q's potential with the K-Q adapter:

Lenses will not have enough resolution for the small sensor with such high pixel density. . . . As I stated above, I'm guessing that the 645 FA* 400/5.6 probably isn't the best lens to judge the potential of the Q with K lenses. I'd be using better optics, shorter lenses, and at closer distances.

Diffraction will be evident at f2 and above and all the images will be mush. . . These couldn't be taken at anything wider than f5.6, so 3 stops over the diffraction limit as stated. The heads of the birds look reasonably good to me, the beaks are sharp, and there's actually evidence of some feather discrimination on the breasts of both birds (and both the dove and at least Belted Kingfishers [we don't have this particular species in my country] both shoot very smooth on the breast feathers). With a sharper lens and a shorter subject to camera distance, these would be considerably better, and I rarely shoot at over 30 feet, even at 710mm, with what I'd consider better optics, Plus I'd be able to shoot a wider apertures, so theoretically, less diffraction, and I could do better. . . or perhaps diffraction isn't as much of an issue as has been theorized. . .

The electronic shutter will degrade IQ. . . I'm not convinced by these shots. 2212mm FOV is a very extreme test (really totally new ground) of both the gear and technique -- certainly considerably further than I've pushed my APS-C DSLRs and support gear, and the Q's electronic shutter will have no mirror slap and shutter vibration. I''m pleasantly surprised by the electronic shutter's performance here.

PF and color aberrations will be multiplied by the crop factor and pixel density. . . Doesn't look like it from the perching branch in Kingfisher shot or the blown areas above the dove's beak. . .

Just looking at these pics from a birder's perspective. . .

Scott


Last edited by snostorm; 09-05-2011 at 01:47 PM.
09-05-2011, 02:22 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I think the joke may be on you then. That photo was taken with:

"K-5+Astro-Berlin 640mm f5"

trimming from IMGP1152 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I think people are too quick to rush to judgement sometimes, especially on the Q.


yes thats the point. It is possible to take bad picture from any camera not just Q. may be the photog was not interested in perfect picture in this case, he is not aware that someone will put his pictures to such scrutiny.
09-05-2011, 02:34 PM   #48
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
(...)
I don't know the 645 FA* 400/5.6, but the 35mm model is probably the least respected of the FA* ultra teles. It's a very good lens, but not really in the same class as any of the other FA* lenses from 200mm and up.

(...)

As I stated above, I'm guessing that the 645 FA* 400/5.6 probably isn't the best lens to judge the potential of the Q with K lenses. I'd be using better optics, shorter lenses, and at closer distances.

(...)
Pentax FA 645 400mm f/5.6 is plain FA, not FA*.
09-05-2011, 02:38 PM   #49
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,003
QuoteOriginally posted by Ailuropoda Quote
Somebody take the next step and slip a medium format to K-mount adapter on top of that K-Q adapter. That should look really amusing.
Actually, somebody already has. The lens ogl calls FA400/5.6

QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
is the Pentax FA 645 400mm f/5.6

IMGP0137 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

"2011/09/03
Pentax Q+smc PENTAX FA645 400mm f5.6
"

IMGP0268 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

"2011/09/04 Ikezima
Kingfisher
(Kawasemi)
Pentax Q+smc PENTAX FA645 400mm f5.6
"

09-05-2011, 02:50 PM   #50
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Salford, Manchester UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7
I can use my super wide as a telephoto for sports !
09-05-2011, 03:27 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
Pentax FA 645 400mm f/5.6 is plain FA, not FA*.
Hi Mistral,

My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

As I said, I don't know the lens, and haven't really bothered to look into MF lenses since I'd never use them (I long ago decided to limit myself to "A" capable lenses to standardize my shooting workflow as much as is reasonable). The fact that it's not a * designated lens probably reinforces my points concerning the lens compared to some of the best ultra teles in the Pentax stable.

Scott
09-05-2011, 06:39 PM   #52
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by yipchunyu Quote
how about we mount it with a marco len like DA 35 2.8?
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Was this taken with the DA 35 Ltd? Even at 3MP, the photo is a mess. The bird's head is blurry, the back is burned out, there's lots of CA along the head. If this is representative of the Q to K-mount, I'm out.
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I think the joke may be on you then. That photo was taken with:

"K-5+Astro-Berlin 640mm f5"

trimming from IMGP1152 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I think people are too quick to rush to judgement sometimes, especially on the Q.
If you review the above progression you will see why I thought the photo was taken with the DA 35. If you had added some explanation for the poor quality of the photo, i.e. 100% crop from a very long and maybe not too impressive lens, I would not have commented as I did. I'm trying to evaluate the Q to K adapter. This was a waste of time.
09-05-2011, 07:15 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
If you review the above progression you will see why I thought the photo was taken with the DA 35. If you had added some explanation for the poor quality of the photo, i.e. 100% crop from a very long and maybe not too impressive lens, I would not have commented as I did. I'm trying to evaluate the Q to K adapter. This was a waste of time.
I am sorry if it was waste of time for you. OGL has been dissing the camera based on whatever bad photos he could grab, so I thought i will show that it is possible to take something bad from one of the best APC camera at the moment in market. Just trying to make a point that every camera can take a photo that look bad.

09-05-2011, 07:43 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
Hi ogl,

I agree that these are not that good, but your assessment that they are trash is being a bit harsh. Consider them in this light:

1. They were taken at a FOV EQ of 2212mm!
2. If these are not crops, then I'm guessing that they had to be taken at something like 100 feet or greater distance.
3. The photographer could not be familiar with this setup since the Q has just recently been released for sale and the K-Q adapter is still in prototype stage.
4. From the other shots in his collection, Birding is not a concentration for this photographer.
5. We have no idea what support gear and long lens technique were used, if any, and these become critical at much wider FOV EQ and much shorter distances.
5. These were evidently shot in jpeg at default settings. From what I've seen so far from Q samples, the Q benefits more from RAW than any of the DSLRs I've shot, and all of my Pentax DSLRs' jpegs have benefited greatly from some image setting tweakings .

Now look at the positive side (this will be difficult. . . I understand. . .) There is actually some relatively fine feather detail evident in both shots -- this is actually pretty remarkable considering the 2212mm FOV since the dove is a species that usually shoots very smooth, even at much closer distances with noticeably better optics. I don't know the 645 FA* 400/5.6, but the 35mm model is probably the least respected of the FA* ultra teles. It's a very good lens, but not really in the same class as any of the other FA* lenses from 200mm and up.

Consider this against the arguments that have been posted against the Q's potential with the K-Q adapter:

Lenses will not have enough resolution for the small sensor with such high pixel density
Diffraction will be evident at f2 and above and all the images will be mush
The electronic shutter will degrade IQ
PF and color aberrations will be multiplied by the crop factor and pixel density

Scott
I didn't know there was such a technically informed Pentaxian in my area. We should start a club or something.
09-05-2011, 08:07 PM   #55
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,327
electronic shutter

How does an electronic shutter work and how does it hurt image quality? Think our big flashes will ever work above 250th second?
thanks
barondla
09-05-2011, 08:25 PM   #56
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
I am sorry if it was waste of time for you. OGL has been dissing the camera based on whatever bad photos he could grab, so I thought i will show that it is possible to take something bad from one of the best APC camera at the moment in market. Just trying to make a point that every camera can take a photo that look bad.
OK, but posting a crop is unfair, don't you think?

I can post some uncropped bad photos from my K20D and K-x if you need them.
09-05-2011, 09:01 PM   #57
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
OK, but posting a crop is unfair, don't you think?
Off course it is unfair. But being reasonable is last thing to do with trolls (NOT you).

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I can post some uncropped bad photos from my K20D and K-x if you need them.
I do not think all this would have much impact on ogl's trolling. But if you can fiddle the exif and replace k-x by Q then he will sing here about how his superzoom is better than this and all that.
09-05-2011, 09:51 PM   #58
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Off course it is unfair. But being reasonable is last thing to do with trolls (NOT you).



I do not think all this would have much impact on ogl's trolling. But if you can fiddle the exif and replace k-x by Q then he will sing here about how his superzoom is better than this and all that.
I think You should apologize to me. I'm no troll and never been. Remember it, dear sir.
09-06-2011, 05:26 AM - 1 Like   #59
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by paulbw Quote
I can use my super wide as a telephoto for sports !
I could use my 85mm F1.4 (467mm F1.4 FF eqiv) for sports with the Q's SR system for low light 1080p HD video of night football games.
09-06-2011, 10:09 AM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
I could use my 85mm F1.4 (467mm F1.4 FF eqiv) for sports with the Q's SR system for low light 1080p HD video of night football games.
I'd love to see a photo where it has the classic group of photographers standing together.... with one guy holding a Q + 85mm f1.4. Then I'd like to see the resulting photos from all of them.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, k-mount adapter, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Q to K mount adapter ? jogiba Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 23 12-08-2012 12:47 AM
Can I use PK mount M42 adapter on Pentax K-r vass Pentax K-r 6 12-28-2010 07:08 AM
For Sale - Sold: Genuine Pentax Mount Adapter K (M42 to K-mount) zx-m Sold Items 6 01-30-2009 01:22 AM
Pentax Mount Adapter K vs Chinese Mount Adapter Vylen Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-23-2009 01:03 AM
For Sale - Sold: *New* Pentax Mount Adapter-K M42 to K-Mount X Man Sold Items 4 12-31-2008 04:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top