Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-06-2011, 07:40 PM   #61
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: calgary
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 39
I am pretty new over here. I can feel the excite atmosphere on different topics and really learned alot. But I can see some strong words over here as well. I wish members of this site can freely express their technique ideas but not take (make) it personally. I wish a friendly pentaxforums.

09-07-2011, 05:29 AM   #62
Veteran Member
Christopher M.W.T's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,689
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
You're all so funny!!!

I suppose that shooting long tele is a bit beyond you. . .

Here's how it would work -- The Q + K-Q adapter could be used as a virtual 3.6x TC without the 3.6x stop loss of light that rear converter TCs normally cost. This means that a $600 100mm f2.8 which can be carried in a jacket pocket and weighs only 13 oz (add the Q body and the total is @ 20 oz) can be shot as as if it were a 361mm f2.8 lens on an APS-C or a 553mm f2.8 lens on a 36x24 sensored body. If your not aware of the size, weight, and cost of these lenses, the FA* 300 f2.8 uses a 112mm front filter (that's about 4.4 inches in diameter) and weighs in at @ 6 lbs 10 oz ready to shoot (and note that it offers 61mm less reach) -- and it would probably cost in the neighborhood of at least $5000 USD if available new now (figure @ $3000+ used). A lower cost alternative would be the Sigma EX 300 f2.8 APO which is maybe a lb lighter and costs a bit over $3000, but it's not quite as good as the FA*.

Compared to the closest thing for a 36x24 sensored body, the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 zoom weighs in at 35 lbs and costs @ $26,000 USD, and is big enough that you'd need something like a golf bag and cart to protect/transport it . The Sigma EX 500 f4 is a slower option, but still costs @ $4000 USD and weighs over 7 lbs.

The 300/2.8 class of lens is heavy enough that it's not really easily handholdable (take a gallon jug of water and hold it up to your eye like a camera to get an idea of what it's like), so good tripod support is necessary for any extended shooting. To do the job right, add a heavy duty CF tripod and a gimbal head @ something like $1000 if you get one of the cheaper tripods (plus it's about 10-12 lbs more gear to carry). For the Q, you could get comparable support with a CF tripod and quality ballhead in the 3-5 lb range total and probably a cost of $300-400.

Before you go back to the "but IQ would be better with APS-C" argument, I'll concede that you would be correct, I'll counter that by saying that saving about 13 lbs of system carrying weight (camera body, lens, and tripod/head) and about $5000 can be worth more of a tradeoff in IQ than the Q presents vs APS-C. For me, an investment of @ $1000 for the Q kit and K-Q adapter is really not a whole lot for the potential benefit it might bring. I can get out to 1020mm (1530mm EQ) with stacked TCs on a 300/2.8 (2 ea 1.4x TCs and a 1.7x AFA), but I have a max aperture of f9.3. With the Q + adapter and a 300/2.8, I'd have a 1659mm EQ lens that I can shoot at f2.8. Over three and a half stops advantage is nothing to sneeze at when shooting extreme tele (and the inevitable camera shake) at living creatures that don't listen when you ask them to stand still. Shooting at 1/1000 instead of something around 1/100 will make a bigger difference in final IQ than the IQ differences between the sensors, and that doesn't even take into account the optical resolution lost with the stacked TCs (which is actually not as extreme as most people think, but it's noticeable)

Even if it doesn't work as well as I hope --though zxaar's assessment of the IQ potential is pretty positive -- I'd still have a compact camera that seems to be at the top of the class for IQ, handling, and build quality for a compact. I've played around with the high ISO sample images that have been posted, and they are more than acceptable to me for the class of camera -- and I'd still have my K-5 for more serious work.

And then there are the potential benefits for macro shooting. . . I won't waste my time.

Laugh all you want. The Q has some serious potential as a photographic tool for me regardless if you can see the possibilities or not. It's possible that it can get me images that I wouldn't get with my present gear, and that's really what this is all about, isn't it?

Scott

Dude take a chill pill, or how about just smoke some green and relax!

No I was actually saying that the size/ratio of the camera to lens is hilarious, but no doubt the results are pretty impressive.

Definitely would be a great tool for macro shooting, I am seriously considering the Q to play with as I can see its uses.

Finally in regards to being funny, I am actually one of the funniest people on this forum, I have little regards for many things on here and a PARTICULARLY HIGH disdain for camera nerds who care more about the wanky light collecting properties, difftractions physics, megapixel wank and all that....my view on photography is that you camera great images the (how to) behind the scenes of what the camera does and how it does it is the domain of the engineers, if my camera can capture pretty girls (preferably without clothes) and I'm happy.

Last edited by Christopher M.W.T; 09-07-2011 at 06:37 AM.
09-07-2011, 05:30 AM   #63
Veteran Member
Christopher M.W.T's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,689
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
Q's sensor features a higher pixel density (for a premium), but consider, for instance, the effects of diffraction and purple fringing. Even dust spots can be a nightmare in a sensor that size. I have my doubts if featuring an uncropped 12MP makes it automatically better IQ-wise for tele work.
I guess the proof is in the quality of the released images so far, argue you it all you want the little camera is certainly punching above its weight.
09-07-2011, 06:28 AM   #64
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,073
Well, i am just getting to catch mine i.o. to test and try it in real conditions.
Hope the adapter will soon be released as well...

09-08-2011, 09:13 AM   #65
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
A user in another thread posted this link to a Q with some lens adapters. Google translation seems to indicate they may be producing these in 10 days!

BORG WORLD
09-08-2011, 11:04 AM - 2 Likes   #66
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
Diffraction and the Q

What has been said here about the diffraction limits is not accurate.

I tried to make a more accurate statements here:
Basically, the Q is "influenced" by diffraction between f/2 and f/4 (loosing contrast in a recoverable way using sharpening tools as MTF doesn't become zero at Nyquist) and then looses resolution when going beyond (e.g., at f/8, 100% crops look visibly soft).

Therefore, shooting a DA*300 or DA*60-250 with a Q at their sharpest aperture (about f/5.0) will still deliver plenty of detail a K-5 won't render.

But the additional reach will not be that of the crop factor. It will be only roughly be 2-2.5 vs. a K-5 (because you can crop a K-5 image more). And only about 1.8x vs. a 24MP K-5mkII or NEX7, i.e., not more than what a 1.7x TC provides. OTOH, the * lenses do resolve enough detail to exploit this ~2x factor near the center.

Last edited by falconeye; 09-08-2011 at 11:19 AM.
09-08-2011, 11:18 AM   #67
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Basically, the Q is "influenced" by diffraction between f/2 and f/4 (loosing contrast in a recoverable way using sharpening tools as MTF doesn't become zero at Nyquist) and then looses resolution when going beyond (e.g., at f/8, it is visibly soft).
I'm a little confused here. Isn't the amount of the diffraction dependent on the actual aperture size rather than the F-stop? F/4 is a pretty tiny opening on an 8.5mm lens, but is not so tiny an a 300mm lens. So would we need to worry as much about diffraction limits when adapting K mount lenses on the Q?
09-08-2011, 11:22 AM   #68
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Christopher M.W.T Quote
a PARTICULARLY HIGH disdain for [...] difftractions physics [...] my camera can capture pretty girls (preferably without clothes) and I'm happy.
Let me assure you that the girls uncloth irrespective of the knowledge about diffraction physics behind the camera

09-08-2011, 11:29 AM - 1 Like   #69
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by devorama Quote
Isn't the amount of the diffraction dependent on the actual aperture size rather than the F-stop? F/4 is a pretty tiny opening on an 8.5mm lens, but is not so tiny an a 300mm lens.
Girl unclothed, so I can answer this

No.

Diffraction is caused by interference and is due to the angular difference of light rays hitting a pixel (actually, path length differences between all the rays coming from within the lens aperture). And that difference is indeed proportional to the angle theta and aperture diameter a. Destructive interference happens where this difference becomes half the wavelength, lambda/2 ~ theta * a/2.

The point is that for any given focal length, you want to keep theta * f < eps smaller than a given limit eps, say a pixel.

Substituting theta, this means: lamda * f / a < eps. And f/a is called the f-stop N: N < eps / lambda .


You have to care more about diffraction in a Q because its pixels are smaller (eps is smaller). The effect of the smaller aperture diameter in mm is offset by a shorter path towards the sensor.

Last edited by falconeye; 09-08-2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason: reformulated
09-08-2011, 12:49 PM   #70
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
I cant wait to strap my 2000mm onto this thing and have a 11200mm/13.5 lens
09-08-2011, 12:56 PM   #71
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Diffraction is caused by interference and is due to the angular difference of light rays hitting a pixel (actually, path length differences between all the rays coming from within the lens aperture). And that difference is indeed proportional to the angle theta and aperture diameter a. Destructive interference happens where this difference becomes half the wavelength, lambda/2 ~ theta * a/2.
Thanks for that. After I started to draw a picture of things, I could see how the focal length and aperture scaled together. Looking at these formulas also made me realize I can shoot maybe a stop slower without diffraction effects by shooting only violet light images. I could bring the Q to my upcoming black light party, but then that's a low light event. ;-)
09-08-2011, 01:01 PM   #72
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
I cant wait to strap my 2000mm onto this thing and have a 11200mm/13.5 lens


09-08-2011, 01:56 PM   #73
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,685
Jogiba, can you explain what you're showing here? What are the scopes, what sort of focal lengths do you end up with? What is the cost for a decent scope and adapter? Post some photos, I'm very curious about this.
09-08-2011, 11:01 PM   #74
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 64
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
What has been said here about the diffraction limits is not accurate.

I tried to make a more accurate statements here:
Basically, the Q is "influenced" by diffraction between f/2 and f/4 (loosing contrast in a recoverable way using sharpening tools as MTF doesn't become zero at Nyquist) and then looses resolution when going beyond (e.g., at f/8, 100% crops look visibly soft).

Therefore, shooting a DA*300 or DA*60-250 with a Q at their sharpest aperture (about f/5.0) will still deliver plenty of detail a K-5 won't render.

But the additional reach will not be that of the crop factor. It will be only roughly be 2-2.5 vs. a K-5 (because you can crop a K-5 image more). And only about 1.8x vs. a 24MP K-5mkII or NEX7, i.e., not more than what a 1.7x TC provides. OTOH, the * lenses do resolve enough detail to exploit this ~2x factor near the center.
Thanks for the great post - this is exactly what I was wondering about. I just pulled the trigger on the 60-250 and am thinking the Q would make a great "accessory" (once the price drops to something more reasonable anyway) even if it means my 60-250 would "only" become a 500mm F4 lens when mounted to the Q.

The 60-250 is about the biggest lens I could imagine lugging around on a mountain hike although often wish I had something longer when spotting wildlife...looks like the Q will make a good comprimise although it would be even better with autofocus!!! Now I just have to convince my wife how nice it will be for her to have a high quality compact camera that I won't mind carrying around for her!
09-08-2011, 11:59 PM   #75
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
I'd like to try one on my longer glass as well (just out of interest as it's obvious it doesn't have capabilities beyond the K-5). Falk, longer glass starts at f8...so if I understand your previous post, for longer lenses, we are limited to glass that is sharp wide open at F5.6?
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 09:09 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