[VisualDarkness]

I'm pretty sure that I will get a Q but I got one big question mark, what about wide angle options? The fisheye is there and so is the toy wide but no real options beside that and the zoom. None of the lenses is a true "corrected" wide-angle. Have anybody found a good solution? Not many lenses in other mounts goes even close to 3mm wide and the cheap ones on ebay seems brutal.

[barondla]

The Q system is a little thin on wideangles at the moment. The zoom isn't bad at 5mm (~28 on FF) and it is corrected. Someone was using the 01 prime with wideangle adapter on the front for ~ 20mm equivalent lens. This might have a some pincushion/barrel distortion but this can be taken out by software.

Pentax shows a wider than 28 eq lens on their road map. There are some C mount lenses in the 3-5mm range. Maybe others will chime in with the best ones. You could also defish the fisheye. It is so inexpensive to buy.

Get a Q - it is fun.
thanks
barondla

[bluefoam]

The roadmap shows a new wide angle lens to be released this year or next...

[pinholecam]

The best one now is the 02 zoom.
Personally, I'd just stick with the 01 prime with pano-stitch.
The fish-eye is great fun though...

[VisualDarkness]

As I thought then. Did anybody found a decent way to go wider anyway? C-mount, D-mount or other mounts? WA-adapter (even though it will be uncorrected)?

[Michaelina2]

WA-adapter (even though it will be uncorrected)?

Forget going the adapter route for precision WA.

If you are willing to go "uncorrected," just get the 03 fisheye, or 02 Zoom. Accept them for what they are and use them to their limits until something better comes along. Keep in mind, the Q is NOT a substitute for a DSLR. It's NOT a miniature K-5, or D800E... it's a Q and it's different. You'll only meet frustration and disappointment if you try to make it something its not. There's a learning curve. Using a Q requires a mindset that can't be correctly modeled in advance. In no way does it work the way I thought it would before I got one (a good thing).

So... you'll only know if it really works for you is to use it. The world will not end if you decide to move on (which you will eventually, anyway).

Cheers... M

[pinholecam]

Forget going the adapter route for precision WA.

If you are willing to go "uncorrected," just get the 03 fisheye, or 02 Zoom. Accept them for what they are and use them to their limits until something better comes along. Keep in mind, the Q is NOT a substitute for a DSLR. It's NOT a miniature K-5, or D800E... it's a Q and it's different. You'll only meet frustration and disappointment if you try to make it something its not. There's a learning curve. Using a Q requires a mindset that can't be correctly modeled in advance. In no way does it work the way I thought it would before I got one (a good thing).

So... you'll know if it really works for you is to use it. The world will not end if you decide to move on (which you will eventually, anyway).

Cheers... M

Well said and good advice

[VisualDarkness]

Forget going the adapter route for precision WA.

If you are willing to go "uncorrected," just get the 03 fisheye, or 02 Zoom. Accept them for what they are and use them to their limits until something better comes along. Keep in mind, the Q is NOT a substitute for a DSLR. It's NOT a miniature K-5, or D800E... it's a Q and it's different. You'll only meet frustration and disappointment if you try to make it something its not. There's a learning curve. Using a Q requires a mindset that can't be correctly modeled in advance. In no way does it work the way I thought it would before I got one (a good thing).

So... you'll know if it really works for you is to use it. The world will not end if you decide to move on (which you will eventually, anyway).

Cheers... M

Good post and very informative. Yeah, I see it more as a quirky possibly more fun way to shoot when I don't want to drag my K-5 with me. I just want to see how far you can experiment with it.

[Michaelina2]

...I just want to see how far you can experiment with it.

Hey... I want to see how far YOU can take it. Like others who post here from time to time, I bet you can do some surprising things with it, too. Of course, no one will know until you give the little critter a run.

Cheers... M

[ndjedinak]

Forget going the adapter route for precision WA.

If you are willing to go "uncorrected," just get the 03 fisheye, or 02 Zoom. Accept them for what they are and use them to their limits until something better comes along. Keep in mind, the Q is NOT a substitute for a DSLR. It's NOT a miniature K-5, or D800E... it's a Q and it's different. You'll only meet frustration and disappointment if you try to make it something its not.

This! I love the fisheye, and have had a blast shooting with it, but its not really a WA... A fish of a different animal.

The zoom is my other option, and its got weaknesses, also; IQ with it is more akin to any old small-sensor compact, the long end shows significantly reduced contrast due to spherical aberration, and its not really fast enough... And it doesn't show all the fine detail the Q sensor can resolve. But you know what? It can still produce lovely photos... And it includes the built in shutter and ND filter which is useful.

I'm going to test a theory here. My wife and I took two very similar photos; her with her Q and 02 zoom:



Me with my X-Pro and 60mm:



Notwithstanding the slight differences in approach or color, how big do you think I can print them before the X-Pro image becomes noticeably higher in IQ? I have a theory, and it revolves around the 02 being "good enough" so I'm going to put it to the test.

[mamethot]

ndjedinak, I think that it's good enough too.

Here is an interesting article concerning printing, and image quality. Even though this article focuses more about megapixels, I believe the bottom line is that once printed, differences are so subtile you won't be able to tell. I would certainly be comfortable to print 16x20 inch.

[ndjedinak]

Ok, so my little experiment was to print both of those photos at 12x18 and 16x20. For the 12x18, I used the 3:2 res photo you see above for the Q (I always have the Q set to 3:2 as I like the proportions better). For the 16x20, I re-developed the RAW to give a native 4:3 image with the same settings, and used that for the 16x20 instead of re-cropping the 3:2. The net result is the 12x18 was 10 mp and the 16x20 was about 11.3 mp. Obviously the Fuji only had a 16 mp 3:2 file to work with, so the 16x20 was about 13.3 mp.

Obviously the images were slightly different in terms of exposure and color, but I wanted to print SooC to see what I was working with.

12x18 was truly excellent quality from both cameras. Even with my nose to the print, I couldn't see evidence of pixels from the Fuji. I could see softness that close with the Q's print, but backed out just a few inches it looked sharp. At arms length or so, they both looked equally excellent, and I preferred the Q's rendering partially because my wife had more favorable light when she took the shot.

The 16x20's showed more differentiation. The Q's print looked softer at arms length, and there was easy evidence of individual pixels and some noise when looking for it. The Fuji required a nose pressed to the print to just begin to see a slight bit of softness. About 5 feet away, a fairly close viewing distance if on a wall, you no longer saw any evidence of softness, per se, but the Fuji print started to come into its own. There was just more there--more detail, more fascination in color variance, smoother tones. At this size the Fuji print provided more depth and interest. That said--without them side by side, looking at the Q's print was satisfying. It wouldn't hold interest quite the same way the Fuji's print would, but it was still quite satisfying. "Good Enough" for real world use, and I honestly think you'd need to go even bigger (20x30+) to really see what the Fuji can do.

Comparing to 35mm prints I've made over the years, the Q isn't far behind average color negative film. I think the newer stuff, like ektar, would have a comfortable lead. But the little Q asserts itself well, and to get the best out of 35mm requires a very sizable investment in scanning.

So, think about that next time you pick up the Q; if you don't print bigger than 12x18, and differences in rendering and DoF aside, there's not much in it for a fairly expensive camera like the X-Pro 1. And that's comparing the Q's zoom vs. the Fujinon 60mm; one of the sharpest, most even primes around. In good light, you don't really get what you pay for until you print big, think 20x30, where all that extra resolution and color depth are visible by the naked eye. Of course, the Fuji can get this level of quality across more circumstances and light levels, but still...

Pretty neat.

[DDoram]

I also find that larges 12 by 16 prints from the Q are way better than expected.

Dale