Original Pentax Q>PK adapter arrives! Mini review.

**blackcloudbrew** · 12-18-2012, 03:07 PM

@snostorm - I'm just at the learning stage with the adapter but what you just said makes a very good case for it and it's use, and I think it's cost too. My general impression is that there is a lot going on inside that thing and I had no idea about the limitations of other converters. I picked up a generic one for Minolta MD mount and have been playing with that but I really hadn't gotten in to it as you've detailed. Excellent post.

Docrwm · 12-18-2012, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by snostorm

Hi SonDA5,

It really depends on what you want to do with your Q and adapted lenses.

Here's where I stand -- I want to use the Q mostly for super telephoto and handheld macro shooting with flash (and secondarily as a high quality pocket compact). The very significant advantage of the Pentax adapter with the integral shutter is for the macro stuff.

With a 3rd party adapter, the Q defaults to 1/13 sec shutter speed with flash. This is because it can only use the electronic shutter in the sensor since only Q Quality Line lenses have mechanical shutters (leaf shutters in each lens). When shooting outdoors during daylight, the ambient light overpowers the flash at 1/13 sec, so using flash to freeze either camera shake, subject motion, or both in macro shooting is ineffective. The Q, with adapted dedicated macro lenses has a lot of potential, because the crop factor adds almost 4x perceived magnifcation, and the camera and lens combination is comparatively small and light -- macro shooting is often done in very awkward positions so the light weight is very convenient.

The Pentax adapter helps this situation, which I had tried to work around for the better part of a year. The shutter in the adapter allows me to use external P-TTL flashes with adapted lenses at up to 1/250 sec, which effectively can eliminate ambient light for outdoor daylight handheld macro shooting, and it seems that i can use external manual or auto thyristor flashes at 1/160 sec, which will also accomplish the same effect.

For super telephoto shooting, flash is not often a requirement, so the advantages of a mechanical shutter are a bit more esoteric. Electronic shutters are prone to "rolling shutter effect". This is visible as essentially a bending distortion of a subject that moves laterally in relation to the camera while the shutter is "open". It isn't really evident in most situations because shutter speed is usually pretty high during daylight, but I've seen it as a very subtle rippling in what should be a dead straight line on some shots taken with 3rd party adapters, even at relatively high shutter speeds. Granted, I had to really look for it at very high image magnifications, and it really didn't effect the viewing of the image at normal sizes -- but digital photographers, especially on forums like this can be a particularly picky lot when we choose to be. . .

If this were the only advantage, I'd stick with the 3rd party ones and be satisfied.

Bottom line, to realize the Q's potential for getting very high perceived magnifications in handheld macros with flash, the high price of the Pentax adapter is worth it to me. I've got over 6x the price of this adapter already sunk into dedicated macro lenses, and though I'm not pleased to have to spend a lot more money to use them as I had originally envisioned, I'm happy that Pentax came up with a solution. Putting a precision shutter mechanism into an adapter is not an easy proposition, and the cost is justified IMO. Also, the aperture adjustment mechanism is easily the most precise and easiest to use of all the adapters that can adjust apertures so far, and the anti internal reflection treatment is also the best I've seen, so it appears they didn't spare much expense in building this adapter. I'm happy they didn't price it higher. . .

Bottom line, extrapolate your possible uses for this camera and adapter. It's better to buy the one that will meet all of your projected needs than to get the less expensive one, then find that it falls short, and have to buy the more expensive one in addition. YMMV of course.

Scott

Scott,
Absolutely clear, to the point, and instructive. Thank you. Tried to give you a +1 but the system would not let me.
-Robert

**barondla** · 12-18-2012, 07:43 PM

The Pentax adapter is worth the price to me, for all the reasons snostorm mentioned. The ease that in between apertures can be set, needs to be stressed more. The other adapters just use a stick to couple to the aperture lever in a lens. The Pentax uses a complicated moving system. Huge difference.

I also tried to give snostorm a like and the system said to "spread it around". Bummer.

unixrevolution · 12-18-2012, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by barondla

The Pentax adapter is worth the price to me, for all the reasons snostorm mentioned. The ease that in between apertures can be set, needs to be stressed more. The other adapters just use a stick to couple to the aperture lever in a lens. The Pentax uses a complicated moving system. Huge difference.

I also tried to give snostorm a like and the system said to "spread it around". Bummer.

I would think given the expense of the Pentax adapter that full electronic aperture control would be supported. I'm kind of disappointed that it isn't.

**crewl1** · 12-19-2012, 12:22 AM

I think the little battery is taxed as it is, adding the strain of aperture movement on a K lens would probably kill it quick.

unixrevolution · 12-19-2012, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

I think the little battery is taxed as it is, adding the strain of aperture movement on a K lens would probably kill it quick.

That's a very good point, all things considered. I guess I just expected it to be like the official adapters from Sony and Olympus for their mirrorless cameras to their own SLRs. Full AF and aperture control in those.

**barondla** · 12-19-2012, 07:36 AM

Also Sony and Olympus are mating same format components on each end of their adapter tubes. There is a huge difference between Pentax aps-c and Q. Throw in a shutter built into the adapter and things get complicated fast. AF would be nice. Not sure what the aperture control would really give us. It is no harder to adjust from aperture ring vs thumb wheel on camera. With stop down viewing lcd gains up any way, and we don't close the Q down very far to reduce diffraction.
thanks
barondla

unixrevolution · 12-19-2012, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Also Sony and Olympus are mating same format components on each end of their adapter tubes. There is a huge difference between Pentax aps-c and Q. Throw in a shutter built into the adapter and things get complicated fast. AF would be nice. Not sure what the aperture control would really give us. It is no harder to adjust from aperture ring vs thumb wheel on camera. With stop down viewing lcd gains up any way, and we don't close the Q down very far to reduce diffraction.
thanks
barondla

Shutter priority mode, for starters. I just thought since Pentax knew what it would take to do it, they'd be able to, since they know the protocols and what not between camera and lens.

Not a big deal, just suprised they didn't implement it. Battery life definitely has something to do with it. And putting the entire mechanical aperture control setup from a K-mount camera in the adapter probably would have doubled its cost.

PentaxScott · 12-19-2012, 10:40 AM

In my opinion, the battery life is easily the worst part of my Q experience thus far. After going through the menu and setting up the camera how I wanted, I was only left with enough battery for about 100 shots and a couple small test videos. If Pentax sacrificed AF on the adapter to preserve what little battery life was available, they made a smart choice. Focus peaking makes MF rather pleasant on the Q, so no AF on the adapter isnt a big deal to me.

Now if they do the same thing on the forthcoming K mount teleconverter (non-Q) Ill be rather disappointed...

**crewl1** · 12-19-2012, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by PentaxScott

In my opinion, the battery life is easily the worst part of my Q experience thus far.

Yes first thing to buy with a Q is two more batteries. Good thing is they are cheap. I've had good luck with this set.Amazon.com: 2 Pack Battery And Charger Kit For Pentax Q, Q10 Digital Camera Includes 2 Extended Replacement (1100Mah) D-LI68 Batteries + Ac/Dc Rapid Travel Charger + LCD Screen Protectors + MicroFiber Cleaning Cloth: Camera & Photo

Docrwm · 12-19-2012, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by PentaxScott

In my opinion, the battery life is easily the worst part of my Q experience thus far. After going through the menu and setting up the camera how I wanted, I was only left with enough battery for about 100 shots and a couple small test videos. If Pentax sacrificed AF on the adapter to preserve what little battery life was available, they made a smart choice. Focus peaking makes MF rather pleasant on the Q, so no AF on the adapter isnt a big deal to me.

Now if they do the same thing on the forthcoming K mount teleconverter (non-Q) Ill be rather disappointed...

AF would be a HUGE power drain on the little battery. The battery life is the biggest weakness of the little camera. As Larry says, the first accessory for the Q is not optional - it's at least 2 additional batteries.

SonDa5 · 12-19-2012, 01:52 PM

@snostorm

For macro photos I always like to use a constant lighting source and I never use flash for macro photos. I do like to play around with macro photos as well and I never get a very good result using a flash. The adapter will mainly benefit me for photos of objects too far away for a flash to effect anyways.

I think the Pentax adapter is grossly over priced for what it does.

snostorm · 12-19-2012, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by SonDa5

@snostorm

For macro photos I always like to use a constant lighting source and I never use flash for macro photos. I do like to play around with macro photos as well and I never get a very good result using a flash. The adapter will mainly benefit me for photos of objects too far away for a flash to effect anyways.

I think the Pentax adapter is grossly over priced for what it does.

Hi SonDa5,

Our experiences are different -- we probably like different subjects in different situations. I did say YMMV.

We'll just disagree on this.

Scott

**barondla** · 12-19-2012, 06:50 PM

I like to shoot macro with constant light also. Unfortunately, there often isn't enough light to get the shot I want. Following moving insects around with a hand held macro kit often requires flash to freeze the action and get enough dof. A 3rd party adapter limited to 1/13 flash sync makes it almost impossible with the Q.

Have both 3rd party and Pentax adapters. The 3rd party PK adapter now stays in my backup bag. Still use 3rd party adapters for other lens mounts ( Canon FD, EOS, and Olympus Om at the moment). Love my Pentax made adapter. Haven't had to JB Weld the tripod foot nor paint the inside to fight reflections. The shutter sp0eed on the Pentax adapter is a true 1/1000 - no jello effect.

With good technique, and proper flash diffusion, it is possible to take images that appear very natural. I often use an 8X10" softbox. Ymmv.
thanks
barondla

PentaxScott · 12-20-2012, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

Yes first thing to buy with a Q is two more batteries. Good thing is they are cheap. I've had good luck with this set.Amazon.com: 2 Pack Battery And Charger Kit For Pentax Q, Q10 Digital Camera Includes 2 Extended Replacement (1100Mah) D-LI68 Batteries + Ac/Dc Rapid Travel Charger + LCD Screen Protectors + MicroFiber Cleaning Cloth: Camera & Photo

Originally posted by Docrwm

AF would be a HUGE power drain on the little battery. The battery life is the biggest weakness of the little camera. As Larry says, the first accessory for the Q is not optional - it's at least 2 additional batteries.

Agreed! Already got two 3rd party batteries in transit to me!

I think its pretty much standard practice to have a pair of spares on standby for every camera I own.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Received my PK to Q adapter (3rd party of course)	ve2vfd	Pentax Q	12	11-15-2012 08:34 AM
Q Mini Review - Hoping for a Q2	deanm3	Pentax Q	38	09-21-2011 09:30 PM
6x7 > PK Adapter reliability issues...	JohnBee	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	5	07-05-2010 01:54 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Original Asahi Pentax M42 adapter to PK	barbosas	Sold Items	3	08-29-2007 04:50 PM

12-18-2012, 03:07 PM	#121
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	@snostorm - I'm just at the learning stage with the adapter but what you just said makes a very good case for it and it's use, and I think it's cost too. My general impression is that there is a lot going on inside that thing and I had no idea about the limitations of other converters. I picked up a generic one for Minolta MD mount and have been playing with that but I really hadn't gotten in to it as you've detailed. Excellent post.

12-18-2012, 07:26 PM	#122
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by snostorm Hi SonDA5, It really depends on what you want to do with your Q and adapted lenses. Here's where I stand -- I want to use the Q mostly for super telephoto and handheld macro shooting with flash (and secondarily as a high quality pocket compact). The very significant advantage of the Pentax adapter with the integral shutter is for the macro stuff. With a 3rd party adapter, the Q defaults to 1/13 sec shutter speed with flash. This is because it can only use the electronic shutter in the sensor since only Q Quality Line lenses have mechanical shutters (leaf shutters in each lens). When shooting outdoors during daylight, the ambient light overpowers the flash at 1/13 sec, so using flash to freeze either camera shake, subject motion, or both in macro shooting is ineffective. The Q, with adapted dedicated macro lenses has a lot of potential, because the crop factor adds almost 4x perceived magnifcation, and the camera and lens combination is comparatively small and light -- macro shooting is often done in very awkward positions so the light weight is very convenient. The Pentax adapter helps this situation, which I had tried to work around for the better part of a year. The shutter in the adapter allows me to use external P-TTL flashes with adapted lenses at up to 1/250 sec, which effectively can eliminate ambient light for outdoor daylight handheld macro shooting, and it seems that i can use external manual or auto thyristor flashes at 1/160 sec, which will also accomplish the same effect. For super telephoto shooting, flash is not often a requirement, so the advantages of a mechanical shutter are a bit more esoteric. Electronic shutters are prone to "rolling shutter effect". This is visible as essentially a bending distortion of a subject that moves laterally in relation to the camera while the shutter is "open". It isn't really evident in most situations because shutter speed is usually pretty high during daylight, but I've seen it as a very subtle rippling in what should be a dead straight line on some shots taken with 3rd party adapters, even at relatively high shutter speeds. Granted, I had to really look for it at very high image magnifications, and it really didn't effect the viewing of the image at normal sizes -- but digital photographers, especially on forums like this can be a particularly picky lot when we choose to be. . . If this were the only advantage, I'd stick with the 3rd party ones and be satisfied. Bottom line, to realize the Q's potential for getting very high perceived magnifications in handheld macros with flash, the high price of the Pentax adapter is worth it to me. I've got over 6x the price of this adapter already sunk into dedicated macro lenses, and though I'm not pleased to have to spend a lot more money to use them as I had originally envisioned, I'm happy that Pentax came up with a solution. Putting a precision shutter mechanism into an adapter is not an easy proposition, and the cost is justified IMO. Also, the aperture adjustment mechanism is easily the most precise and easiest to use of all the adapters that can adjust apertures so far, and the anti internal reflection treatment is also the best I've seen, so it appears they didn't spare much expense in building this adapter. I'm happy they didn't price it higher. . . Bottom line, extrapolate your possible uses for this camera and adapter. It's better to buy the one that will meet all of your projected needs than to get the less expensive one, then find that it falls short, and have to buy the more expensive one in addition. YMMV of course. Scott Scott, Absolutely clear, to the point, and instructive. Thank you. Tried to give you a +1 but the system would not let me. -Robert

12-18-2012, 07:43 PM	#123
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	The Pentax adapter is worth the price to me, for all the reasons snostorm mentioned. The ease that in between apertures can be set, needs to be stressed more. The other adapters just use a stick to couple to the aperture lever in a lens. The Pentax uses a complicated moving system. Huge difference. I also tried to give snostorm a like and the system said to "spread it around". Bummer.

12-18-2012, 11:10 PM	#124
unixrevolution Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Waldorf, MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,861	Originally posted by barondla The Pentax adapter is worth the price to me, for all the reasons snostorm mentioned. The ease that in between apertures can be set, needs to be stressed more. The other adapters just use a stick to couple to the aperture lever in a lens. The Pentax uses a complicated moving system. Huge difference. I also tried to give snostorm a like and the system said to "spread it around". Bummer. I would think given the expense of the Pentax adapter that full electronic aperture control would be supported. I'm kind of disappointed that it isn't.

12-19-2012, 12:22 AM	#125
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	I think the little battery is taxed as it is, adding the strain of aperture movement on a K lens would probably kill it quick.

12-19-2012, 06:55 AM	#126
unixrevolution Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Waldorf, MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,861	Originally posted by crewl1 I think the little battery is taxed as it is, adding the strain of aperture movement on a K lens would probably kill it quick. That's a very good point, all things considered. I guess I just expected it to be like the official adapters from Sony and Olympus for their mirrorless cameras to their own SLRs. Full AF and aperture control in those.

12-19-2012, 07:36 AM	#127
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	Also Sony and Olympus are mating same format components on each end of their adapter tubes. There is a huge difference between Pentax aps-c and Q. Throw in a shutter built into the adapter and things get complicated fast. AF would be nice. Not sure what the aperture control would really give us. It is no harder to adjust from aperture ring vs thumb wheel on camera. With stop down viewing lcd gains up any way, and we don't close the Q down very far to reduce diffraction. thanks barondla

12-19-2012, 08:47 AM	#128
unixrevolution Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Waldorf, MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,861	Originally posted by barondla Also Sony and Olympus are mating same format components on each end of their adapter tubes. There is a huge difference between Pentax aps-c and Q. Throw in a shutter built into the adapter and things get complicated fast. AF would be nice. Not sure what the aperture control would really give us. It is no harder to adjust from aperture ring vs thumb wheel on camera. With stop down viewing lcd gains up any way, and we don't close the Q down very far to reduce diffraction. thanks barondla Shutter priority mode, for starters. I just thought since Pentax knew what it would take to do it, they'd be able to, since they know the protocols and what not between camera and lens. Not a big deal, just suprised they didn't implement it. Battery life definitely has something to do with it. And putting the entire mechanical aperture control setup from a K-mount camera in the adapter probably would have doubled its cost.

12-19-2012, 10:40 AM	#129
PentaxScott Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Salt Lake City UT Photos: Albums Posts: 182	In my opinion, the battery life is easily the worst part of my Q experience thus far. After going through the menu and setting up the camera how I wanted, I was only left with enough battery for about 100 shots and a couple small test videos. If Pentax sacrificed AF on the adapter to preserve what little battery life was available, they made a smart choice. Focus peaking makes MF rather pleasant on the Q, so no AF on the adapter isnt a big deal to me. Now if they do the same thing on the forthcoming K mount teleconverter (non-Q) Ill be rather disappointed...

12-19-2012, 10:56 AM	#130
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by PentaxScott In my opinion, the battery life is easily the worst part of my Q experience thus far. Yes first thing to buy with a Q is two more batteries. Good thing is they are cheap. I've had good luck with this set.Amazon.com: 2 Pack Battery And Charger Kit For Pentax Q, Q10 Digital Camera Includes 2 Extended Replacement (1100Mah) D-LI68 Batteries + Ac/Dc Rapid Travel Charger + LCD Screen Protectors + MicroFiber Cleaning Cloth: Camera & Photo

12-19-2012, 01:29 PM	#131
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by PentaxScott In my opinion, the battery life is easily the worst part of my Q experience thus far. After going through the menu and setting up the camera how I wanted, I was only left with enough battery for about 100 shots and a couple small test videos. If Pentax sacrificed AF on the adapter to preserve what little battery life was available, they made a smart choice. Focus peaking makes MF rather pleasant on the Q, so no AF on the adapter isnt a big deal to me. Now if they do the same thing on the forthcoming K mount teleconverter (non-Q) Ill be rather disappointed... AF would be a HUGE power drain on the little battery. The battery life is the biggest weakness of the little camera. As Larry says, the first accessory for the Q is not optional - it's at least 2 additional batteries.

12-19-2012, 01:52 PM	#132
SonDa5 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 70	@snostorm For macro photos I always like to use a constant lighting source and I never use flash for macro photos. I do like to play around with macro photos as well and I never get a very good result using a flash. The adapter will mainly benefit me for photos of objects too far away for a flash to effect anyways. I think the Pentax adapter is grossly over priced for what it does.

12-19-2012, 03:19 PM	#133
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by SonDa5 @snostorm For macro photos I always like to use a constant lighting source and I never use flash for macro photos. I do like to play around with macro photos as well and I never get a very good result using a flash. The adapter will mainly benefit me for photos of objects too far away for a flash to effect anyways. I think the Pentax adapter is grossly over priced for what it does. Hi SonDa5, Our experiences are different -- we probably like different subjects in different situations. I did say YMMV. We'll just disagree on this. Scott

12-19-2012, 06:50 PM	#134
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	I like to shoot macro with constant light also. Unfortunately, there often isn't enough light to get the shot I want. Following moving insects around with a hand held macro kit often requires flash to freeze the action and get enough dof. A 3rd party adapter limited to 1/13 flash sync makes it almost impossible with the Q. Have both 3rd party and Pentax adapters. The 3rd party PK adapter now stays in my backup bag. Still use 3rd party adapters for other lens mounts ( Canon FD, EOS, and Olympus Om at the moment). Love my Pentax made adapter. Haven't had to JB Weld the tripod foot nor paint the inside to fight reflections. The shutter sp0eed on the Pentax adapter is a true 1/1000 - no jello effect. With good technique, and proper flash diffusion, it is possible to take images that appear very natural. I often use an 8X10" softbox. Ymmv. thanks barondla

12-20-2012, 08:04 AM	#135
PentaxScott Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Salt Lake City UT Photos: Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by crewl1 Yes first thing to buy with a Q is two more batteries. Good thing is they are cheap. I've had good luck with this set.Amazon.com: 2 Pack Battery And Charger Kit For Pentax Q, Q10 Digital Camera Includes 2 Extended Replacement (1100Mah) D-LI68 Batteries + Ac/Dc Rapid Travel Charger + LCD Screen Protectors + MicroFiber Cleaning Cloth: Camera & Photo Originally posted by Docrwm AF would be a HUGE power drain on the little battery. The battery life is the biggest weakness of the little camera. As Larry says, the first accessory for the Q is not optional - it's at least 2 additional batteries. Agreed! Already got two 3rd party batteries in transit to me! I think its pretty much standard practice to have a pair of spares on standby for every camera I own.