Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2011, 08:31 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
Very nice results! I cannot wait to use my FA* 80-200 on the Q (and I consider the FA* a very sharp lens; it is sharp down to the pixel level). But this has to wait for a while because my Q is acting up (doing all sorts of strange things such as showing a mirrored upsude-down picture on the back lcd).

11-27-2011, 10:29 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by snostorm Quote
Hi Clavius,

No, I guess you don't understand. . .

Scott
Ok, if you're gonna be that way... Then I can be honest.

The pictures are OK, considering this, considering that, etc.. etc... But it all boils down to the fact that these examples are not useable at all. I would even discard the ones that are sharpened up.
11-27-2011, 11:07 AM   #18
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I would even discard the ones that are sharpened up.
AH AH AH !!!!

i guess you have never tried to focus a 15-20 cm birds with a 1600mm lense (135 EQ), with a LCD screen.

i admit that the basic jpeg lacks of crisps, but the sharpened one are really good. Color are not flashy, and the framing either. But still, it's a good start, spceially when the lenses used are just basic consumer grade.
11-27-2011, 11:29 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
i guess you have never tried to focus a 15-20 cm birds with a 1600mm lense (135 EQ), with a LCD screen.
Also very true... Still doesn't make the images any better though.

11-27-2011, 12:43 PM   #20
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,917
Do you realize that the sensor require good lense that open more than F5.6 to be at it's best, that picture were done at "low speed" considering the FL ?

In fact do you just realize that the sensor of the Q can be put around 12 time in an APS-C sensor before covering it completely ?

You seem to compare the result of the tiny Q sensor to the APS-C sensor of the Kx/r/7/5.

And do you realize that the downsizing is 5x times (from 4000*3000 to 800*600) and thus you loose lots of fine details ?

i'd love to see what is for you a "usable" picture for you specialy from a compact camera !
11-27-2011, 12:56 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
Not sharp? The photos look great for 300mm * crop factor...
11-27-2011, 02:17 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Ok, if you're gonna be that way... Then I can be honest.

The pictures are OK, considering this, considering that, etc.. etc... But it all boils down to the fact that these examples are not useable at all. I would even discard the ones that are sharpened up.
Hi Clavius,

. . .and you weren't being honest in previous posts?

Are these great bird shots?. . . no they are not, and I never claimed them to be -- they are quick snaps taken to see what these lenses could do on the Q. I shot the birds as they appeared, ant took what I could get in the very short time allotted.

Is this an illustration of the ultimate potential of the Q as a birding tool?. . . hardly -- these are 6x and 14x zooms, good lenses that can shoot with the best in their respective classes, but clearly not even close to the best lenses for the purpose. I assumed that members here would understand that, and this is precisely what you apparently can't seem to understand, even after I explained that I have yet to try some of my premium tele lenses.

Usability is really subjective. You may not find these combos useful, but I do, and that's really all that matters. I wanted to see if I could rely on either of these lenses for a long alternative in a very lightweight everyday carrying kit, and it appears that I can. The Q + 01 Prime, 02 Zoom, 03 FE, and the DA55-300 and adapter all can be carried in a very small bag, and total weight is a little more than the K-5 body alone. I could cover everything from 160 FE to 80mm EQ then from around 200mm EQ -1650 EQ with the 55-300. I'd have a gap between 80-200mm, but I haven't found that much use for this range in my everyday shooting anyway. If I do in the future, I know that I can substitute the DA 18-250 and cover up to 1375 EQ, which really should be enough, and then there would only be a gap between 83 and 99 mm EQ..

Will there be some compromises to IQ compared to the DSLR?. . . Sure, but some IQ compromise is infinitely better than the alternative -- not having the camera and an appropriate lens with me at all.

There is no correct answer to matters of perception of quality. If you can't see my point in this post, or any point to owning the Q for that matter, then so be it. . . I'll not lose any sleep over this.

Scott
11-27-2011, 08:31 PM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,843
Thanks for sharing the very well thought out display of the results.
I really appreciate the way you showed the non-sharpened results then went on to the sharpened ones, to show base result, and then possible end result.
Quite impressive considering its from a slow and commercial zoom like the 55-300 and at such a distance.
I can imagine it will be much better with a DA/FA*200/2.8; FA/F*300/4.5 or FA*80-200/2.8 stopped down 1 stop, since they have much better resolution than the DA55-300 as measured by Photozone.


I eagerly await more results from you on other lenses.
Likely going to get a Q once prices drop to about $540 for the reach and macro potential as well as for street photography.

11-28-2011, 02:14 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
You seem to compare the result of the tiny Q sensor to the APS-C sensor of the Kx/r/7/5.
Of course I am comparing the Q sensor to the APS-C sensor, because there's a APS-C lens in front of it! The DA 55-300 is a perfectly good APS-C lens... Why not just put a APS-C body behind it and have sharp pictures?

And I know and understand there's lots of reasons that explain why the pictures are very soft. I just don't see the point why one would attach a lens from a foreign mount if it makes the IQ worse.
11-28-2011, 02:26 AM   #25
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,917
maybe because the one want a 1000 mm or more setup that weight less than a kilogram
11-28-2011, 05:16 AM   #26
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,987
The fact is weight/focal ratio in my opinion, hence the best compromise will be found on reasonnable "star" lenses for K (or Limited / macro D-FA), as with high end lenses in other mounts.

Last edited by Zygonyx; 11-28-2011 at 10:47 AM.
12-01-2011, 06:23 PM   #27
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,287
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Of course I am comparing the Q sensor to the APS-C sensor, because there's a APS-C lens in front of it! The DA 55-300 is a perfectly good APS-C lens... Why not just put a APS-C body behind it and have sharp pictures?
Because the equivalent lens for APS-C would be this. I mean really, if you want sharp photos of distant or shy birds, it's silly not to have one of those lenses in your bag!

Oh wait, that's a 135-format lens... can't see why you'd use that on an APS-C sensor...
12-02-2011, 05:35 PM   #28
Senior Member
stevbike's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Newbury, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 268
Nice bird pictures. It is nice to see the older Pentax lenses can be used on the newest Q compact camera. Given all the factors involved in creating these bird pictures they look great. It is nice to see one get very long lens work in a compact package.

They may lack the "Pro" quality of a larger sensor sized camera but would make great reference for bird watchers needing quick pictures not needing the bulky camera package. This would be great for airshow pictures as well depending how well one can make use this camera body/ lens combo.

I look forward to seing more examples from others using this combo of the Q and K mount lens.
12-03-2011, 03:22 AM   #29
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,917
someone should send its Q to Clinton, and ask him to mount its recently acquired A 1200/8 (transforming it into a 6600mm !)
12-06-2011, 12:41 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I just don't see the point why one would attach a lens from a foreign mount if it makes the IQ worse.
To see how much worse exactly it can get. I'm surprised the DA 55-300 can even produce these results. At f/5.6 or higher you run into diffraction issues with the Q sensor. But these results suggest that a faster higher quality lens might fare quite well on the Q.

Also note that the 300mm on Q is equivalent to a 1650mm fov, while the 800mm mirror on an APS camera "just" gives you a 1200mm equivalent fov. There's quite a bit of difference there - I'd be happy to have a good lens covering just that difference.


Thanks for sharing, snostorm!
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!
300mm, aperture, camera, control, da, lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, tripod
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA50 f1.4/F50 f1.7/DA55-300/Asanuma 200mm f3.5 M42(Worldwide) elpolodiablo Sold Items 18 06-01-2011 09:45 AM
For Sale - Sold: Trade my DA*60-250 for a DA*300 (or maybe an F/FA*300) (Worldwide) dgaies Sold Items 6 02-08-2011 07:46 PM
DA40 + DA55-300 The best KX Combo Eagle_Friends Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 10-18-2010 06:11 PM
Sale dates for DA55-300 and DA*300 Japan Peter Zack Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-30-2008 05:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM. | 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