Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2013, 09:18 AM   #256
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,988
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
I have not had any problems using the Pentax M42 to K adapter on my fotodiox K adapter??? might be because I removed the spring in the 42mm adapter back in the 70's and keep it permanently on my 42mm mount lens.

Hans
I had one m42 that has a springless adapter in it, and it just kept spinning around in the fotodiox -- round and round with no stopping point. So then I put in the genuine one -- which does have a spring (and works fine in a camera body), and that seemed to mount ok at first, but when I screwed in a lens, again it moved to some weird position and wouldn't lock down. And then I spent half an hour trying to get it out...

02-10-2013, 09:56 AM   #257
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,246
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
I had one m42 that has a springless adapter in it, and it just kept spinning around in the fotodiox -- round and round with no stopping point. So then I put in the genuine one -- which does have a spring (and works fine in a camera body), and that seemed to mount ok at first, but when I screwed in a lens, again it moved to some weird position and wouldn't lock down. And then I spent half an hour trying to get it out...
The other thing I did was to drill a small hole in the lens base for the lens locking pin in the camera body (or adapter) to protrude into.

Hans
02-10-2013, 10:47 AM   #258
Pentaxian
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,439
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
I had one m42 that has a springless adapter in it, and it just kept spinning around in the fotodiox -- round and round with no stopping point. So then I put in the genuine one -- which does have a spring (and works fine in a camera body), and that seemed to mount ok at first, but when I screwed in a lens, again it moved to some weird position and wouldn't lock down. And then I spent half an hour trying to get it out...
Same here with the original K to M42 and the KIWI K to Q adapter and also my brother's NX to K. The M42 adapter never locks.
02-10-2013, 11:44 AM   #259
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
Just FYI

I'd always assumed that the Fotodiox and Kiwi adapters were essentially rebranded RJ adapters since they are cosmetically similar, but now I'm beginning to think that though the body seems to be the same, the K mount plate may very well be different. My RJ adapter works correctly with an assortment of M42 infinity focus flangeless K mount adapters -- original Pentax, Bower, and RJ -- they all achieve a friction lock with the lenses indexed correctly (focus scale to the top). My guess is that Fotodiox and Kiwi sourced the main adapter body from the same place, then added a different (less expensive) K mount plate to meet their cheaper price point. Apparently there is no free lunch.

Scott

02-10-2013, 12:50 PM   #260
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,988
Hey -- why does the "input focal length" on the Q have a decimal point?
02-10-2013, 02:38 PM   #261
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Hey -- why does the "input focal length" on the Q have a decimal point?
Why wouldn't it? Would you consider 20mm and 24mm on FF to be close enough not to matter? (3.6mm and 4.3mm on the Q. Or 4mm and 4mm without decimals.)
02-10-2013, 02:45 PM   #262
Pentaxian
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,439
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Hey -- why does the "input focal length" on the Q have a decimal point?
Its for my 11,5mm.
02-10-2013, 03:38 PM   #263
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,625
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Wow those are looking good. What aperture setting?
The red dot looks like it is blocked by the hood?
larry i typically try to set apeture around 1-1.5 but i might have screwed up and set it to zero (when i don't have alot of light i may turn it dowm and forget to change later)...plus these were shot through the glass window...didn't want to scare the birds away by opening it

02-10-2013, 03:51 PM   #264
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,625
none of these pictures are steller in any way but may give you a feel of the differences between the lens by themselves and on the q


setup-- the heron is to the left of the white marker, apeture set about 1.5 for the q shots


_IGP9510
by pearsaab, on Flickr
_IGP9510 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with k5


300-2
by pearsaab, on Flickr
300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



sigma 500 with k5


500-3
by pearsaab, on Flickr
500-3 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with q


Q300-2
by pearsaab, on Flickr
Q300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!




sigma 500 with q








Q500-1

Q500-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
02-10-2013, 03:52 PM   #265
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,625
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Wow those are looking good. What aperture setting?
The red dot looks like it is blocked by the hood?
larry i forgot to mention that when i had the scope on i usually have a piece of foli to raise scope up and i just didn't put it there when i took the picture...it does line up well whe i put it on right
02-10-2013, 05:03 PM   #266
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,988
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
Why wouldn't it? Would you consider 20mm and 24mm on FF to be close enough not to matter? (3.6mm and 4.3mm on the Q. Or 4mm and 4mm without decimals.)
Didn't know there were such lenses -- never seen one that wasn't an even number of mm...
02-10-2013, 05:06 PM   #267
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by pearsaab Quote
none of these pictures are steller in any way but may give you a feel of the differences between the lens by themselves and on the q
setup-- the heron is to the left of the white marker, apeture set about 1.5 for the q shots
This is great Amy - thanks for taking the time to share this. I really like to see the comparison of view from the different gear.
02-10-2013, 08:55 PM   #268
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pearsaab Quote
none of these pictures are steller in any way but may give you a feel of the differences between the lens by themselves and on the q


setup-- the heron is to the left of the white marker, apeture set about 1.5 for the q shots


_IGP9510
by pearsaab, on Flickr
_IGP9510 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with k5


300-2
by pearsaab, on Flickr
300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



sigma 500 with k5


500-3
by pearsaab, on Flickr
500-3 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



da300 with q


Q300-2
by pearsaab, on Flickr
Q300-2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!




sigma 500 with q








Q500-1

Q500-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Wow that is far away - thanks for the shots, good work.
02-11-2013, 07:25 AM   #269
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tsing Yi
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16
Tried the M*300/4 on the Pentax Q.The first one was captured by Samsung Phone (cropped) for comparison. The family was near the circle in the photo but moved away when I took the comparison photo.
Attached Images
   
02-11-2013, 10:17 AM   #270
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,625
cool shot!!
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!
200mm, 50mm, adapter, auto, camera, f1.8, f2.8, flickr, focus, hawk, infinity, lens, macro, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, shot, shots, smc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has anyone tried Canon lenses on the Q/Q10? NeilGratton Pentax Q 14 05-31-2013 09:03 AM
Ideas on diffusing the onboard flash of the Q? Tonto Pentax Q 28 05-19-2013 11:46 AM
Pentax Q lenses tested by Photozone Mistral75 Pentax Q 9 11-16-2011 12:11 PM
Dumb Question: Adapted Leica lenses on film bodies? Why not??? DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-26-2011 12:05 AM
Could Pentax sell you on the Q if they had better lenses? devorama Pentax Compact Cameras 17 06-29-2011 09:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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