The "reach" of the Q - images

Rimfiredude · 11-19-2014, 11:47 AM

A comparison shot. Original jpeg from 600 Sigma Mirror Lens on a K10D. I did a simple HRD and sharpened in Photoshop. Not too terrible for a crappy lens.

Attached Images

**pacerr** · 11-19-2014, 11:51 AM

First exploratory shoot with Q + Adaptall-2 SP 500/8 (55B). IQ OOC.

Target distance approximately 22 ft/7 M.

Motion blur is a real issue at 2800mm mag -- even indoors with no wind.

Mini-tripod convenient but needs mass for stabilization.

* Hole (mentioned in another thread) to remind me to turn off the camera when hood is shut.

**crewl1** · 11-19-2014, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by pacerr

First exploratory shoot with Q + Adaptall-2 SP 500/8 (55B). IQ OOC.

Target distance approximately 22 ft/7 M.

Motion blur is a real issue at 2800mm mag -- even indoors with no wind.

Mini-tripod convenient but needs mass for stabilization.

* Hole (mentioned in another thread) to remind me to turn off the camera when hood is shut.

Looks very good, as I thought the f8 would cause diffraction. Look forward to the long shots.

**pacerr** · 11-19-2014, 01:06 PM

Quote:

the f8 would cause diffraction

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the F-stop in a cat/mirror lens is solely related to EV and has nothing to do with the size of a physical aperture so diffraction should not be a factor. Same applies to lack of prismatic refraction/fringing.

Corrections are welcome here.

vonBaloney · 11-20-2014, 07:44 PM

That's much better than anything I could get out of the 55BB w/ the Q. (I was probably using the cheapo adapter at the time which may have had something to do with it.) I did shoot a bird with the Russian 500/8 the other day that looked ok, haven't made a serious effort yet. I just received a Q7 and will be having fun with all that...

**pacerr** · 11-20-2014, 09:30 PM

I find it ironic that I acquired the Q just to explore a cheap, light weight path to extreme tele FLs and within 3 days I'm already considering tying the whole kit to a 5-pound block of lead with a 'pod head to eliminate camera motion blur . . . fortunately, I'm not interested in BIFs.

An' that WAS with the cheap adapter.

However, I'm beginning to re-think it as the 1/2-frame Oly Pen-F system I once used when a Spotty wasn't an option. I suspect that would call for a Q7 upgrade though.

**crewl1** · 11-21-2014, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by pacerr

I find it ironic that I acquired the Q just to explore a cheap, light weight path to extreme tele FLs and within 3 days I'm already considering tying the whole kit to a 5-pound block of lead with a 'pod head to eliminate camera motion blur . . . fortunately, I'm not interested in BIFs.

An' that WAS with the cheap adapter.

However, I'm beginning to re-think it as the 1/2-frame Oly Pen-F system I once used when a Spotty wasn't an option. I suspect that would call for a Q7 upgrade though.

It's all downhill from here. Eventually you will buy a $1200 lens to make your Q telephoto shots look just right

**Mikesul** · 11-23-2014, 02:29 PM

I had forgotten about this photo. Moon photos are somewhat new to me but the top of the moon does not seem as sharp as the lower half. Is this avoidable? Hard to believe that DOF makes much difference at that difference but maybe. Since it was on the adapter I do not remember the aperture.

LensBeginner · 11-24-2014, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

I had forgotten about this photo. Moon photos are somewhat new to me but the top of the moon does not seem as sharp as the lower half. Is this avoidable? Hard to believe that DOF makes much difference at that difference but maybe. Since it was on the adapter I do not remember the aperture.

I bet it's only the way the light of the sun hits the surface... in the lower part you have stronger shadows hence more contrast...

**alfa75ts** · 11-29-2014, 04:32 AM - **1 Like**

A better shot tonight, probably as good as I'll get:

Those from the k-x are still sharper.

**woodywesty** · 11-29-2014, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by alfa75ts

A better shot tonight, probably as good as I'll get:

Those from the k-x are still sharper.

That's pretty darn better! ;-)

**Mikesul** · 11-29-2014, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by alfa75ts

A better shot tonight, probably as good as I'll get:

Those from the k-x are still sharper.

What lens were you using? That is scary close to the craters!

**Weevil** · 11-29-2014, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

What lens were you using? That is scary close to the craters!

That's pretty good indeed !

**alfa75ts** · 11-29-2014, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Mikesul

What lens were you using? That is scary close to the craters!

See posts 1060 and 1062, two pages back.

Link to full size image : here.

K-x full size image: here.

**Mikesul** · 11-29-2014, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by alfa75ts

See posts 1060 and 1062, two pages back.

Link to full size image : here.

K-x full size image: here.

Thanks. Should have been following the thread closer

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2199	2 Days Ago 10:28 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
"Focus Adjustment Washer" replacement...(with images)	Catalana	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	18	11-04-2012 03:40 PM
"Real Life" K5 AF.C images yet?	jpzk	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	69	02-02-2011 03:48 AM
How do I turn this so-called "film" into images?	Todd Adamson	Pentax Medium Format	12	01-07-2011 03:33 PM

11-19-2014, 11:47 AM	#1081
Rimfiredude Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,176	A comparison shot. Original jpeg from 600 Sigma Mirror Lens on a K10D. I did a simple HRD and sharpened in Photoshop. Not too terrible for a crappy lens. Attached Images

11-19-2014, 12:18 PM	#1083
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by pacerr First exploratory shoot with Q + Adaptall-2 SP 500/8 (55B). IQ OOC. Target distance approximately 22 ft/7 M. Motion blur is a real issue at 2800mm mag -- even indoors with no wind. Mini-tripod convenient but needs mass for stabilization. * Hole (mentioned in another thread) to remind me to turn off the camera when hood is shut. Looks very good, as I thought the f8 would cause diffraction. Look forward to the long shots.

11-19-2014, 01:06 PM	#1084
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Quote: the f8 would cause diffraction I could be wrong about this, but I believe the F-stop in a cat/mirror lens is solely related to EV and has nothing to do with the size of a physical aperture so diffraction should not be a factor. Same applies to lack of prismatic refraction/fringing. Corrections are welcome here.

11-20-2014, 07:44 PM	#1085
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	That's much better than anything I could get out of the 55BB w/ the Q. (I was probably using the cheapo adapter at the time which may have had something to do with it.) I did shoot a bird with the Russian 500/8 the other day that looked ok, haven't made a serious effort yet. I just received a Q7 and will be having fun with all that...

11-20-2014, 09:30 PM	#1086
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	I find it ironic that I acquired the Q just to explore a cheap, light weight path to extreme tele FLs and within 3 days I'm already considering tying the whole kit to a 5-pound block of lead with a 'pod head to eliminate camera motion blur . . . fortunately, I'm not interested in BIFs. An' that WAS with the cheap adapter. However, I'm beginning to re-think it as the 1/2-frame Oly Pen-F system I once used when a Spotty wasn't an option. I suspect that would call for a Q7 upgrade though.

11-21-2014, 10:19 AM	#1087
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by pacerr I find it ironic that I acquired the Q just to explore a cheap, light weight path to extreme tele FLs and within 3 days I'm already considering tying the whole kit to a 5-pound block of lead with a 'pod head to eliminate camera motion blur . . . fortunately, I'm not interested in BIFs. An' that WAS with the cheap adapter. However, I'm beginning to re-think it as the 1/2-frame Oly Pen-F system I once used when a Spotty wasn't an option. I suspect that would call for a Q7 upgrade though. It's all downhill from here. Eventually you will buy a $1200 lens to make your Q telephoto shots look just right

11-24-2014, 04:15 AM	#1089
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Mikesul I had forgotten about this photo. Moon photos are somewhat new to me but the top of the moon does not seem as sharp as the lower half. Is this avoidable? Hard to believe that DOF makes much difference at that difference but maybe. Since it was on the adapter I do not remember the aperture. I bet it's only the way the light of the sun hits the surface... in the lower part you have stronger shadows hence more contrast...

11-29-2014, 04:32 AM - 1 Like	#1090
alfa75ts Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,356	A better shot tonight, probably as good as I'll get: Those from the k-x are still sharper.

11-29-2014, 06:15 AM	#1091
woodywesty Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Northern Wisconsin Posts: 725	Originally posted by alfa75ts A better shot tonight, probably as good as I'll get: Those from the k-x are still sharper. That's pretty darn better! ;-)

11-29-2014, 07:19 AM	#1092
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by alfa75ts A better shot tonight, probably as good as I'll get: Those from the k-x are still sharper. What lens were you using? That is scary close to the craters!

11-29-2014, 11:19 AM	#1093
Weevil Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Near Montréal, Québec Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,444	Originally posted by Mikesul What lens were you using? That is scary close to the craters! That's pretty good indeed !

11-29-2014, 12:05 PM	#1094
alfa75ts Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by Mikesul What lens were you using? That is scary close to the craters! See posts 1060 and 1062, two pages back. Link to full size image : here. K-x full size image: here.

11-29-2014, 12:11 PM	#1095
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by alfa75ts See posts 1060 and 1062, two pages back. Link to full size image : here. K-x full size image: here. Thanks. Should have been following the thread closer