Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-12-2013, 11:57 AM - 1 Like   #16
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
finally had a chance to show the issue with overactive shake reduction

both shots cropped down to the same size and area, taken only moments apart.

here is the Q with the K135/2.5 and focal length set to 135mm


here is the Q with the K135/2.5 and focal length set to 105mm


04-12-2013, 12:01 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 486
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
finally had a chance to show the issue with overactive shake reduction

both shots cropped down to the same size and area, taken only moments apart.

here is the Q with the K135/2.5 and focal length set to 135mm


here is the Q with the K135/2.5 and focal length set to 105mm
Wow. How did you arrive at the 105mm setting- trial and error? Is your result repeatable?
04-12-2013, 12:14 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cfraz Quote
Wow. How did you arrive at the 105mm setting- trial and error? Is your result repeatable?
it was a WAG. ( Wild A$$*& Guess) but what got me thinking was I could not remember if when I tried with my K300, whether when shooting I had upped the focal length from when I tried using my 70-210/3.5 series 1 lens. I kept thinking the K300 looked sharper than the zoom, so i simply went into the SR menu and dialed back from 135 to 105 (I was too lazy to go to the single digits column).

I have not tried to tune it better or tune other lenses as I have been travelling all week and had not had time to play but this is really something that needs to be explored.

I think I have noted it could be because I am using the tripod mount on the adapter as a handle, or in some cases a monopod support point, but the phyiscs is the same, using that point as a main support, it introduces a different location for the center of the pitch and yaw , than when simply holding the camera by the camera body as you would with a light weight lens of a Q lens
04-12-2013, 01:40 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 486
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
it was a WAG. ( Wild A$$*& Guess) but what got me thinking was I could not remember if when I tried with my K300, whether when shooting I had upped the focal length from when I tried using my 70-210/3.5 series 1 lens. I kept thinking the K300 looked sharper than the zoom, so i simply went into the SR menu and dialed back from 135 to 105 (I was too lazy to go to the single digits column).

I have not tried to tune it better or tune other lenses as I have been travelling all week and had not had time to play but this is really something that needs to be explored.

I think I have noted it could be because I am using the tripod mount on the adapter as a handle, or in some cases a monopod support point, but the phyiscs is the same, using that point as a main support, it introduces a different location for the center of the pitch and yaw , than when simply holding the camera by the camera body as you would with a light weight lens of a Q lens
Thanks. Your suggestion that it might be due to supporting the camera by the lens mount seems a plausible explanation. Yet recommended practice is to support a long lens near its balance point when shooting a Pentax DSLR, I think, so wouldn't we observe the same behavior? An area worthy of more testing in any case. I'd like to hear of results if you pursue the issue.

04-12-2013, 01:53 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cfraz Quote
Thanks. Your suggestion that it might be due to supporting the camera by the lens mount seems a plausible explanation. Yet recommended practice is to support a long lens near its balance point when shooting a Pentax DSLR, I think, so wouldn't we observe the same behavior? An area worthy of more testing in any case. I'd like to hear of results if you pursue the issue.
part of my plan when testing the Q and writing the learning curve is to document observations as I go, and as I have 55 lenses in my collection i intend to try a goodly collection of them. I was disapointed by the results I have had with a couple of lenses, but now that I have seen some promising results, I am going to try this a little more systematically.

Note however, the purpose of me getting a Q is really a light weight birding solution, using one of my manual focus lenses (fine focus control plus focus peaking makes this a great combo) and will likely consider hand held/monopod mounted and not tripod mounted. I agree ideal mounting is to mount at the balance point, and I do that also with my 200-500/5.6 on the gimbal mount, and plan to test that lens also, but many tripod shooters may have SR off, and for flash SR is also off, and birders do like flash to nail the details, so we may not have enough real hard data yet.

watch this space because I will do more
04-12-2013, 03:37 PM   #21
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,679
a little test

Lowell, I think you're onto something.
After seeing your photos, I had to do a little test myself.
I'm not good at analyzing IQ, but sure think I can tell a fair amount of difference.

Fotodiox adapter, Pentax M 135/3.5.
Handheld using a cheap loupe.
jpegs, straight OOC, no PP.
3 shot set of each at 135 and 105, best of each set chosen.

ISO: 250
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: f5.6
Focal Length: 135mm


same, but with 105mm setting, and 1/250 sec


A hairy woodpecker showed up.
I went to f3.5, and 400 ISO.
Probably would dress up a bit in PP. (for me, PP = Picasa processing)


I hope others will give this a try.
Maybe there's a sweet spot setting.
04-12-2013, 04:22 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by robtcorl Quote
Lowell, I think you're onto something.
After seeing your photos, I had to do a little test myself.
I'm not good at analyzing IQ, but sure think I can tell a fair amount of difference.
Wow... HUGE difference! I have that same 3.5 / M-135 & Fotodiox adapter. I've noticed the same soft results as in the first pic, but just thought it was the lens/camera combo. I'll have to try it with the SR at 105mm & see what kinda results I get.
04-12-2013, 05:16 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,649
QuoteOriginally posted by robtcorl Quote
Lowell, I think you're onto something.
After seeing your photos, I had to do a little test myself.
I'm not good at analyzing IQ, but sure think I can tell a fair amount of difference.

Fotodiox adapter, Pentax M 135/3.5.
Handheld using a cheap loupe.
jpegs, straight OOC, no PP.
3 shot set of each at 135 and 105, best of each set chosen.

ISO: 250
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: f5.6
Focal Length: 135mm


same, but with 105mm setting, and 1/250 sec


A hairy woodpecker showed up.
I went to f3.5, and 400 ISO.
Probably would dress up a bit in PP. (for me, PP = Picasa processing)


I hope others will give this a try.
Maybe there's a sweet spot setting.
hey rob, just curious but you sure that is hairy woodpecker...it looks like a yellow bellied sapsucker but i live in va

lowell great work...i need to do some playing this weekend too...

04-12-2013, 05:35 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,409
Great, Lowell--I'm on the curve myself so having an expert guide will be a great help.
04-12-2013, 05:39 PM   #25
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,679
QuoteOriginally posted by pearsaab Quote
hey rob, just curious but you sure that is hairy woodpecker...it looks like a yellow bellied sapsucker but i live in va
Dang you Amy, thought I'd nailed this one.
This peckerwood was feeding on dripping sap from our river birch.
at least I knew it was a woodpecker
04-12-2013, 05:41 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
I'll try it at 105 on the 135/3.5 m42 and try the 250 Vivitar lower as well. Thanks for the tip Lowell.
04-12-2013, 07:17 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,649
QuoteOriginally posted by robtcorl Quote
Dang you Amy, thought I'd nailed this one.
This peckerwood was feeding on dripping sap from our river birch.
at least I knew it was a woodpecker
bob it's a much cooler woodpecker though
04-13-2013, 12:09 PM   #28
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
I did some testing but the weather here is dark and cloudy so I had some exposure limitations. The tombstone were shot at about 1/60 sec, the dish @ 1/125 sec. All shot at ISO 125 First with my SMC-M 135 f3.5 @ f5.6 first I shot a base image on a tripod using a 12 sec. timer no SR, then shot several hand held shots with the only change being SR @ 135 & SR @ 105 on an image requiring me to focus. I then did the same on a scene requiring infinity focus. I then repeated the exercise with my Super-Takumar 150 f4 @ f5.6 with SR @ 150 & SR @ 135

I see a slight improvement with the lower SR when I had to focus the image on the tombstone, SR is really working 750mm & 825mm hand held @ 1/60. On the Dish images shot @ infinity I didn't see much difference.

Hans
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 

Last edited by hnikesch; 04-14-2013 at 10:23 AM.
04-13-2013, 06:21 PM   #29
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,679
Another down and dirty test with the M 135/3.5.
Each is a best of a set of 3: focus, shoot, de-focus and re-focus, shoot, etc.
First shot with FL at 135mm, second at 100mm.
Handheld, f5.6, 200 ISO.




I'll try this with another lens or two soon.
04-14-2013, 04:54 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
To all those playing with the M135/3.5 and focal length , I thank you for your efforts, and I should try mine as well but remember the K135/2.5 is much longer physically, and much heavier both of which may lather the effect somewhat
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!
batteries, camera, focus, foot, lcd, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, software
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Learning Curve FA 43mm Lens Driline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 03-26-2013 09:53 PM
K-5 in my stable, let the learning curve begin cmohr Pentax K-5 8 02-19-2012 07:00 PM
Let the learning curve commence!! BugsAunt Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 04-24-2011 09:36 AM
My new K2000: impressions and struggles up the learning curve shuttervox Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 07-12-2009 09:16 PM
What is the learning curve of the K20d? roverlr3 Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 09-13-2008 08:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 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