Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-30-2013, 09:12 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Genuine Pentax K to Q adapter

I am starting to believe it's impossible to capture a sharp image with an aftermarket K to Q adapter and a long telephoto lens. Camera shake, subject movements coupled with dismally slow shutter speed make the odds for capturing a sharp image poor at best. The genuine adapter with it's own built-in shutter is supposed to overcome this hurdle.

Before I plunk down 250 bucks for a genuine adapter, can any member post some pictures that effectively demonstrate the genuine K to Q adapter's capability? It doesn't have to be BIF (which is hard enough to do with a DSLR) - something like a hovering helicopter with the rotor frozen or even a computer fan with the fan blades frozen - anything that shows freezing of rapid motion will do.

03-30-2013, 09:18 PM   #2
Site Supporter
colonel00's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 468
I think these two links should help:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested-q-r...ce-thread.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html

You will have to read the posts to see which images are from the genuine adapter though.

I am in the same boat as you. I have the cheap fotodiox adapter and it is a bit frustrating. Even mounted on a tripod the images are less than thrilling. The one thing I haven't tried yet is painting the inside of the adapter flat black but I think that will only marginally help. Personally, I am even debating whether it is even worth it for that potential extra bit of reach for $250 when I could just crop an image from my K-30 and get just about the same.
03-30-2013, 09:28 PM   #3
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,144
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
I am starting to believe it's impossible to capture a sharp image with an aftermarket K to Q adapter and a long telephoto lens. Camera shake, subject movements coupled with dismally slow shutter speed make the odds for capturing a sharp image poor at best. The genuine adapter with it's own built-in shutter is supposed to overcome this hurdle.

Before I plunk down 250 bucks for a genuine adapter, can any member post some pictures that effectively demonstrate the genuine K to Q adapter's capability? It doesn't have to be BIF (which is hard enough to do with a DSLR) - something like a hovering helicopter with the rotor frozen or even a computer fan with the fan blades frozen - anything that shows freezing of rapid motion will do.
QuoteOriginally posted by colonel00 Quote
when I could just crop an image from my K-30 and get just about the same
Technically-speaking the Q should be able to out-resolve the K-30 with a long-enough lens, but that's off-topic.

It's definitely hard to get the setup to be stable at long focal lengths, but I did succeed at getting some pretty sharp shots with the genuine adapter. The leaf shutter is even nicer to have when you do long exposures, IMO!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-31-2013, 02:10 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by colonel00 Quote
I think these two links should help:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested-q-r...ce-thread.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html

You will have to read the posts to see which images are from the genuine adapter though.

I am in the same boat as you. I have the cheap fotodiox adapter and it is a bit frustrating. Even mounted on a tripod the images are less than thrilling. The one thing I haven't tried yet is painting the inside of the adapter flat black but I think that will only marginally help. Personally, I am even debating whether it is even worth it for that potential extra bit of reach for $250 when I could just crop an image from my K-30 and get just about the same.
Whenever I buy one of these third party adapters (K to Q, K to M43 or P67 to K), I sand the inside, blow off the dust, wipe down with naptha laden cloth then spray paint with flat black paint. I have have browsed through the images in those threads but I don't think I have seen any images that qualifies as action shots, hence the thread I have started. I am having the same doubts as you about the worthiness of investing in a genuine K to Q adapter. If I get one, it's a special order item (no returns, no exchange and no refund). It's a hard pill to swallow if the adapter do not live up to it's potential. I just wish somebody who owns a genuine adapter, take some shots of a spinning fan or propeller and post it to this thread.

03-31-2013, 04:08 AM   #5
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
Like you I have never had a shot from the cheap shutterless adapters that I would want to keep, the Q takes 1/13th of a second to scan the sensor, the sensor is active during this time. The only one which was good is this Moon shot taken with a 300mm lens and a cheap adapter.

[IMG] [/IMG]

The Moon is moving, albeit slowly, it moves it's own diameter every 5 minutes. When I put my Q onto my telescope to get even more magnification I got this

[IMG] [/IMG]

The more you magnify the more you magnify movement and this shot shows signs of blur due to subject movement, though it has to be noted that it could also be due to aperture diffraction (the scope is a 1500mm f12).

I don't think recording revolving rotor blades would be possible with the cheap adapters.

The genuine Pentax adapter does get around this problem as the sensor is only seeing light for the set shutter speed duration, the shutter cuts off the light from the sensor til the camera has finished scanning the sensor. It is overpriced, and they don't include the tripod foot that you will also need (another 50 if you can find one). But at least now I get shots I can keep.

Chris
03-31-2013, 04:24 AM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
Also keep in mind that the small sensor probably out resolves most tele lenses (except maybe the best). So getting a super crisp shoot with a 5.5 crop might not be that easy no matter what adapter is used.
03-31-2013, 07:54 AM - 1 Like   #7
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
I have move up to the Pentax adapter from a Fotodiox adapter, my reasoning is I shoot mostly hand held with my Q using a 135 and my DAL 55-300. My camera movement at those focal lengths will create the jello effect and the Pentax adapter should remove that. I may have to get a spare Q just to protect my investment in adapters. Here are the first few shots with the Pentax Adapter hand held.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 

Last edited by hnikesch; 03-31-2013 at 10:02 AM.
03-31-2013, 11:14 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisJ Quote
Like you I have never had a shot from the cheap shutterless adapters that I would want to keep, the Q takes 1/13th of a second to scan the sensor, the sensor is active during this time. The only one which was good is this Moon shot taken with a 300mm lens and a cheap adapter.

[/IMG]

The Moon is moving, albeit slowly, it moves it's own diameter every 5 minutes. When I put my Q onto my telescope to get even more magnification I got this

[[/IMG]

The more you magnify the more you magnify movement and this shot shows signs of blur due to subject movement, though it has to be noted that it could also be due to aperture diffraction (the scope is a 1500mm f12).

I don't think recording revolving rotor blades would be possible with the cheap adapters.

The genuine Pentax adapter does get around this problem as the sensor is only seeing light for the set shutter speed duration, the shutter cuts off the light from the sensor til the camera has finished scanning the sensor. It is overpriced, and they don't include the tripod foot that you will also need (another 50 if you can find one). But at least now I get shots I can keep.

Chris
I haven't tried to shooting the moon yet, I was trying to shoot waterfowls at a local duck pond without much success. Anyways, don't you think 1/13 sec shutter speed too slow even for the moon? The shots I've taken of the moon with a K20D, I was shooting at shutter speed upwards of 1/125 and higher. Shooting much slower than this, the resulting image seemed blurry to me.

I've tried shooting the computer fan with lights blazing with absolutely no success. Shooting with the onboard flash will stop the motion but the flash will be useless for any distant subjects. Hopefully, someone will post an image which can demonstrate the genuine adapter stopping the motion soon.

03-31-2013, 11:26 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
I have move up to the Pentax adapter from a Fotodiox adapter, my reasoning is I shoot mostly hand held with my Q using a 135 and my DAL 55-300. My camera movement at those focal lengths will create the jello effect and the Pentax adapter should remove that. I may have to get a spare Q just to protect my investment in adapters. Here are the first few shots with the Pentax Adapter hand held.
These are beautiful looking shots that does demonstrate the genuine adapter's capability somewhat - that of nullifying camera movement/vibration - I know I cannot get shots like yours with a third party adapter. Still, I would like to see some action shots stopping motion.
03-31-2013, 03:02 PM   #10
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
I have move up to the Pentax adapter from a Fotodiox adapter, my reasoning is I shoot mostly hand held with my Q using a 135 and my DAL 55-300. My camera movement at those focal lengths will create the jello effect and the Pentax adapter should remove that. I may have to get a spare Q just to protect my investment in adapters. Here are the first few shots with the Pentax Adapter hand held.
Hans those are awesome! Lol on the second Q comment
03-31-2013, 04:40 PM   #11
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
Still, I would like to see some action shots stopping motion.
Here are a few with my Fotodiox adapter and my SMC-M 135 f3.5, not what you are looking for but the Pentax adapter would just have made them better.

Hans

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-122.html#post2308104
03-31-2013, 04:58 PM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
@Hans: IMHO those qualify as stop-motion! Great action shots!
03-31-2013, 08:58 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
Here are a few with my Fotodiox adapter and my SMC-M 135 f3.5, not what you are looking for but the Pentax adapter would just have made them better.

Hans

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/172196-lets-share-shots-q-122.html#post2308104
They definitely are action shots even if they are not all that sharp. The 3rd shot of the horse with it's nostril flaring is the sharpest. I do understand the point you are making - the genuine adapter with built-in shutter can only improve upon the image making process.

Here are a couple of happy accidents taken from a local duck pond 3 weeks ago:

Shot with Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 63B, 180/2.5 @f5.6 with an eBay adapter, Zacuto Z-Pro3 LCD viewfinder, hand held.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
04-01-2013, 03:07 AM   #14
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
I haven't tried to shooting the moon yet, I was trying to shoot waterfowls at a local duck pond without much success. Anyways, don't you think 1/13 sec shutter speed too slow even for the moon? The shots I've taken of the moon with a K20D, I was shooting at shutter speed upwards of 1/125 and higher. Shooting much slower than this, the resulting image seemed blurry to me.

I've tried shooting the computer fan with lights blazing with absolutely no success. Shooting with the onboard flash will stop the motion but the flash will be useless for any distant subjects. Hopefully, someone will post an image which can demonstrate the genuine adapter stopping the motion soon.
Just to clarify, the scan time of 1/13th of a second isn't the shutter time, the shutter settings alter the sensitivity of the sensor, so the shutter time might well be 1/125th of a second, but the sensor is active for the scan time and any alterations to the image due to camera shake and/or subject movement will be recorded during the 1/13th of a second scan time.

For Moon shots it's nearly always 1/100th of a second @ f8 @ 125 ISO, it's pretty much a constant for exposure, this applies even to a crescent Moon if you want detail in the brightly lit parts.

Chris
04-01-2013, 03:13 AM   #15
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
Also keep in mind that the small sensor probably out resolves most tele lenses (except maybe the best). So getting a super crisp shoot with a 5.5 crop might not be that easy no matter what adapter is used.
That's also true Gimbal.

Chris
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!
adapter, camera, fan, image, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, shutter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Genuine Pentax Mount Adapter B or M42 To K adapter SANDY1977 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 9 06-22-2013 02:41 PM
Pentax Q / adapter K to Q / DA 35mm f2.4 AL wax Pentax Q 4 11-06-2012 02:55 AM
For Sale - Sold: GEnuine Pentax m42 to K adapter 30120 dcshooter Sold Items 3 11-01-2012 09:20 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Genuine m42 to K adapter dcshooter Sold Items 3 05-31-2012 07:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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