[baro-nite]

And the night shot, improved a lot considering sharpness and contrast.

Excellent!

[EricR]

Excellent!

Thanks, the Q is a little miracle camera. The focus aid at 4x helps a lot to get the last bit of sharpness.

[ryan s]

I could use some other opinions here regarding the Q and telephoto lens use. After a severely disappointing outing with the FA* 300 and Vivitar 1.4x shooting the migrating Tundra Swans on Easter Sunday, I gave it a go yesterday without the TC.

It was tripod mounted, though the ballhead was loose allowing for free movement. I tried SR on and off, and the pictures were clearly better with it enabled. While composing, the images looked amazing on the screen...hit the shutter...instant softness, low contrast, almost out of focus. The inside of the Fotodiox adapter is not yet painted--it's such crap anyway, it's not worth the effort.

These are the only two even worth showing...

Mallard at 1/200s ISO 125 (he wasn't moving, and let's ignore the exposure error for now). Bokeh is weird due to a hill 20 feet behind him. Cropped to vertical, some processing. Adapter wide open.




Woodpecker at 1/400 ISO 400, cropped maybe 30%, minimal processing. Adapter closed "one click," effectively f/6.3-7.1 from visual comparison of using the aperture ring on the lens.



They're just...not as sharp as I expect. Any motion in the subject, even with 1/400 shutter speed, means a blurry photo. How much, if anything, would the real Pentax adapter help? I would almost rather skip the adapter and keep saving for the K mount TC Pentax may or may not ever release. Or are my expectations too high?

This was the best I could muster with the Q and 1.4x. Naturally, the closer the subject, the better...they didn't allow me to get within 70 feet.

[EricR]

First two shots with the Q + Sigma 300mm f4 + 1.4X and 2x Sigma TC

last one without the 1.4x TC

[crewl1]

I could use some other opinions here regarding the Q and telephoto lens use. After a severely disappointing outing with the FA* 300 and Vivitar 1.4x shooting the migrating Tundra Swans on Easter Sunday, I gave it a go yesterday without the TC.

It was tripod mounted, though the ballhead was loose allowing for free movement. I tried SR on and off, and the pictures were clearly better with it enabled. While composing, the images looked amazing on the screen...hit the shutter...instant softness, low contrast, almost out of focus. The inside of the Fotodiox adapter is not yet painted--it's such crap anyway, it's not worth the effort.

These are the only two even worth showing...

Mallard at 1/200s ISO 125 (he wasn't moving, and let's ignore the exposure error for now). Bokeh is weird due to a hill 20 feet behind him. Cropped to vertical, some processing. Adapter wide open.




Woodpecker at 1/400 ISO 400, cropped maybe 30%, minimal processing. Adapter closed "one click," effectively f/6.3-7.1 from visual comparison of using the aperture ring on the lens.



They're just...not as sharp as I expect. Any motion in the subject, even with 1/400 shutter speed, means a blurry photo. How much, if anything, would the real Pentax adapter help? I would almost rather skip the adapter and keep saving for the K mount TC Pentax may or may not ever release. Or are my expectations too high?

This was the best I could muster with the Q and 1.4x. Naturally, the closer the subject, the better...they didn't allow me to get within 70 feet.

The woodpecker shot looks very good.
I get better results without SR but with a very solid mount. Any kit movement at all will be exaggerated and end up as blur.
Also I use the 2 sec delay, some use the ir remote to trigger to keep vibration down.
The other thing to watch out for is diffraction.
The further from 2.8 you get the more diffraction will come into play.
I find 5.6 about the best setting for compromise to get close to the sweet spot of the lens.
With the fotodiox I don't recall the clicks being that accurate so perhaps just use the aperture ring on your FA lens instead.
I think adding a TC takes you deeper into diffraction territory.
Better to shoot without it and crop.
Pearsaab seems to get good output from her Sigma 500 with TCs so it could also have to do with the combination just working well together.

[crewl1]

First two shots with the Q + Sigma 300mm f4 + 1.4X and 2x Sigma TC

last one without the 1.4x TC

Great moon shots Eric!

[EricR]

Great moon shots Eric!

Thanks, using the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter stacked is really pushing the limit of the Q. I hope I will get my 120-300mm f2.8 back soon, should leave more room to use those teleconverters stacked.

Getting a short enough exposure time is also challenging. When I use the focus aid at 4x I can see details of the moon jumping on the LCD-screen. Maybe next time I will try to extend my tripod a little bit less to get more stability, won't change anything about the movement of the moon it self off course.

[steve1307]

Thanks, using the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter stacked is really pushing the limit of the Q. I hope I will get my 120-300mm f2.8 back soon, should leave more room to use those teleconverters stacked.

Getting a short enough exposure time is also challenging. When I use the focus aid at 4x I can see details of the moon jumping on the LCD-screen. Maybe next time I will try to extend my tripod a little bit less to get more stability, won't change anything about the movement of the moon it self off course.

Well they look great Eric, even with the extreme stacking.

I picked up a Q-K this week and tried it out on the weekend for the first time.

Shooting over long distances especially over land you really notice the heat haze. I was shooting planes taking pictures of planes on the runways from across the bay in Sydney and was a little disappointed but then realised the planes were 9km away ! (5.5km over water, 3.5km over the tarmac).

Tried out the moon tonight there is still some atomospheric blur (haze) which is evident especially in video.

I used focus peaking but without the 4x mag. I found it difficult to get the focus mainly because the live-view screen kept adjusting the LCD brightness depending on the scene. If the moon wasn't right in the centre filling the frame it was blown out to white in the LCD could only just make out the edges.
I had difficulty adjusting the ever changing alignment with my cheap flexible tripod with 3way pan head.

This one is with the AFA1.7x and the DA*300. 300 x 1.7 x 5.643 crop = 2878 mm "equiv" field of view.




It only just doesn't quite fit in the frame.


@Eric your moon is UPSIDE DOWN

[EricR]

Steve, I know. It's quite hard to get the moon in focus at these focal lenghts. You really need a significant part of the moon in your frame otherwise the moon will get blown out on the screen. It helps if you use the timer at 10 seconds. Less control over the framing but if you time it right you can get the shortest exposure time (I got to 1/320 and 1/250) and also the best sharpness because the tripod will be the most stable after 10 seconds. After 2 seconds is too short beyond an equivalent of 3000mm. At 4700mm (300mm + 1.4x and 2x) the moon is very jumpy on the screen at even the slightest touch of the camera.

Nice to see the moon the other way around.

[drougge]

I found it difficult to get the focus mainly because the live-view screen kept adjusting the LCD brightness depending on the scene. If the moon wasn't right in the centre filling the frame it was blown out to white in the LCD could only just make out the edges.

It would be lovely if the screen would show the set exposure. (That is, in manual mode.) Last time I mentioned wanting this there was no understanding at all of how this would be useful, but here's a good example from someone who is not me.

[steve1307]

Steve, I know. It's quite hard to get the moon in focus at these focal lenghts. You really need a significant part of the moon in your frame otherwise the moon will get blown out on the screen. It helps if you use the timer at 10 seconds. Less control over the framing but if you time it right you can get the shortest exposure time (I got to 1/320 and 1/250) and also the best sharpness because the tripod will be the most stable after 10 seconds. After 2 seconds is too short beyond an equivalent of 3000mm. At 4700mm (300mm + 1.4x and 2x) the moon is very jumpy on the screen at even the slightest touch of the camera.

Nice to see the moon the other way around.

I got the Pentax remote F precisely for that reason.
My light overloaded tripod ( SLIK CORPORATION - The most copied line of tripods today ) wasnt so good with the oscillations when adjusting so I ended up on the ground on my knees with it partly lowered.

It would be lovely if the screen would show the set exposure. (That is, in manual mode.) Last time I mentioned wanting this there was no understanding at all of how this would be useful, but here's a good example from someone who is not me.

Yes, exactly. I hadnt read the manual but figured there wasnt a way to change it in the menus.
I just tried to get it in the centre and look for the "peaking" on the edge.
Focus was really touchy, I cant imaging how Eric managed to do it with stacked teles.

I know the K-30 (a friend has one) does the same and for normal shooting thats fine.

I never used liveview on my K-5 yet but If i recall correctly my K-7 didn't adjust the liveview LCD brightness automatically like this.

FW 1.13 ??

[barondla]

Drougge, I totally agree with your point about manual showing correct exposure on lcd. Liveview moon photography is hard without this feature. All 3 of my mirrorless cameras have this defect. Q, K-01, and Olympus EPL-1.

When I first got the Oly, hooked it to big OM tele and marvelled at the bright image in the add on electronic viewfinder. Would never go back to optical viewfinder. Brightness helped manual focus so much. Then I panned to the sky, following geese in flight, and the view was so dark I could hardly focus. Much worse than optical viewfinder. Bah. Don't remember If I tried the Oly in manual exposure mode. Will check it out.

Heard that viewing dynamic range is so small companies adjust the screen brightness like cruise control on a car. Only thing that helps on the moon is set camera to spot metering and keep moon in center of frame. Shooting butterflies one day also showed the Q10 was faster making these viewing corrections and less bothered by changes in conrast vs the Q.
thanks
barondla

[Steve.Ledger]

With these shots I have shown the originals taken with the Q and 300mm DA* and with the Sigma 150-500 (at 440mm because I didn't notice it creep!).

Sigma Original
Redshanks Sigma 440 final orig.jpg

The EXIF appears to suggest this was shot using the K-30 an not the Q?

[steve1307]

.

Heard that viewing dynamic range is so small companies adjust the screen brightness like cruise control on a car. Only thing that helps on the moon is set camera to spot metering and keep moon in center of frame. Shooting butterflies one day also showed the Q10 was faster making these viewing corrections and less bothered by changes in conrast vs the Q.
thanks
barondla

Setting to spot metering works with the 01 + 02 (& i guess 06) lenses and the LCD adjusts to correct at the centre spot.

I'm pretty sure we are stuck with centre weighted metering with the Q-K adapter, so we have to get it right across the centre and it seems covering a significant portion of the frame.

The difference between moon & sky is not a problem in daytime of course but then theres the noticable atmospheric haze from the hot ground. Even, my shot was taken after a warm-ish day at just after 8pm and into the west and I still noticed some "wavy" atmosphere.

[VisualDarkness]

At least the brightness of the moon is pretty easy to guess, there are harder subjects out there like birds against a bright sky.