Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-07-2013, 03:32 PM   #16
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
QuoteOriginally posted by M.Zein Quote
Stan,
one more hint, try turning the SR OFF while using tripod (in case you have forgotten to switch it off)
Lucky for me the 2 sec timer does that automagically as I'm sure I would forget otherwise.

05-07-2013, 03:38 PM   #17
Site Supporter
LaurenOE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,487
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
Lauren - I shoot 300+ lenses all the time - and do have 2 gimbal heads.
Oooops. I forgot about that.
05-07-2013, 03:40 PM   #18
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by M.Zein Quote
Stan,
one more hint, try turning the SR OFF while using tripod (in case you have forgotten to switch it off)
I did remember this time, plus as Larry said, it turns off with the 2 second timer. My biggest problem, also with my K-5, is to remember to turn the SR back on later. I actually did this when I put the M150 back on after the FA*300 - it didn't take me long to realize it was of though as I was missing the constant buzzing sound of the SR at work.
05-07-2013, 03:47 PM   #19
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Original Poster
Looking back at my two sets of images, I now need to figure out what the actual differences are. I am thrilled with the FA*300 pics, but not so with the M150's. Hard to make a fair comparison, but am going to try to narrow it down.

FA*300 pics - on a tripod using 2 second timer.
M150 pics hand held with SR on.

I need to know if I can push the M150 to get close to those images of the FA*300 - but I don't have a way to mount that set on a tripod to make a fair comparison.

I bought the M150 in hopes of hand holding, but it looks like that isn't going to work out. It is a little frustrating seeing the great pics I've seen here with the Q and long lenses hand held, but I have to remind myself that I can't hold anything steady anymore.

And Larry - thanks for your input on the genuine adapter. The one thing that still pulls me toward it is being able to use a tripod foot on it. I will see if I can somehow use my generic tripod ring from my FA*300 tomorrow.

05-07-2013, 03:49 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
Stan: If it is any consolation I've been pig-headedly determined to get a sharp shot with a K105/2.8 and the Pentax Converter hand-held but I'm just not good enough. I've never shot super-tele before (I had a Takumar 500/4.5 for about 6 months and just gave up on the idea), so in addition to learning Q, Leaf shutter in converter and peaking zoomed, I have to learn to brace and breathe.

I'm getting better with the tripod and ball head (I don't have a gimbal head). Heaven knows what will happen when I mount the 200.
05-07-2013, 03:55 PM   #21
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Stan: If it is any consolation I've been pig-headedly determined to get a sharp shot with a K105/2.8 and the Pentax Converter hand-held but I'm just not good enough. I've never shot super-tele before (I had a Takumar 500/4.5 for about 6 months and just gave up on the idea), so in addition to learning Q, Leaf shutter in converter and peaking zoomed, I have to learn to brace and breathe.

I'm getting better with the tripod and ball head (I don't have a gimbal head). Heaven knows what will happen when I mount the 200.
Thanks - I need a little consolation now - nice to know I'm not alone.

And I should know better - my disease (RA) is progressively getting worse but had a day today that I thought it wasn't there I guess. I actually do use a tripod 90% of the time with my K-5, so it's no wonder I need it trying to shoot @ 825mm equivalent. At least I got some good images with the tripod today so my hope in the Q isn't totally lost.
05-07-2013, 04:36 PM   #22
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
Stan I know Larry said it in a post above but in your response it seems you may have missed it, Paint the inside of the adapter it will eliminate the haze and tape up the holes.

I find that hand held the Pentax adapter really sharpened up my images. I believe at fast shutter speeds it's because the 1/13th of a second sensor scan time when using the electronic shutter. It does a scan time based microscopic miss-alignment of the image lines and causes some softness. I have no proof of this and no one else has come up with this in any other posts it's just my belief. From what I understand if you set a 1/500 shutter speed each line of the sensor is exposed for 1/500 sec. but it still takes 1/13th of a sec. to scan all of the sensor lines so a time gap between line scans must exist. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Also I agree with Lowell Goudge that the SR does perform better when a lower value is entered. When using all 3 of my 135's and my ST 150 I found them sharper at 105 and 135 respectively.

Hans

Last edited by hnikesch; 05-07-2013 at 05:26 PM. Reason: update
05-07-2013, 05:18 PM   #23
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hnikesch Quote
Stan I know Larry said it in a post above but in your response it seems you may have missed it, Paint the inside of the adapter it will eliminate the haze and tape up the holes.

I find that hand held the Pentax adapter really sharpened up my images. I believe at fast shutter speeds it's because the 1/13th of a second sensor scan time when using the electronic shutter. It does a scan time based microscopic miss-alignment of the image lines and causes some softness. I have no proof of this any none else has come up with this in any other posts it's just my belief. From what I understand if you set a 1/500 shutter speed each line of the sensor is exposed for 1/500 sec. but it still takes 1/13th of a sec to scan all of the sensor lines so a time gap between line scans must exist. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Also I agree with Lowell Goudge that the SR does perform better when a lower value is entered. When using all 3 of my 135's and my ST 150 I found them sharper at 105 and 135 respectively.

Hans
Thank you for that Hans - this is exactly what I am trying to figure out. I will admit to not knowing how the electronic shutter works or how any difference affects our images. What you say about it is making sense to me.

Just from my quick testing today, it looks like being mounted on a tripod helps a lot. This makes your explanation of how the electronic shutter works valid in that the camera is rock steady while the shutter scan takes place. Now the wanna-be scientist in me wants to get a genuine adapter and do some side by side testing.

05-07-2013, 06:31 PM   #24
Site Supporter
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,671
Stan,
Thanks for starting this thread, and thanks to all for the helpful responses.

I've been like you, trying to get near the results others have achieved.
And, like you, have a tough time parting with the money for an OEM, and then trying to run down a tripod foot.
For now I'll stick with my Fotodiox adapter, and plug along with you.
05-07-2013, 07:55 PM   #25
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by robtcorl Quote
Stan,
Thanks for starting this thread, and thanks to all for the helpful responses.

I've been like you, trying to get near the results others have achieved.
And, like you, have a tough time parting with the money for an OEM, and then trying to run down a tripod foot.
For now I'll stick with my Fotodiox adapter, and plug along with you.
I've decided the same Bob - just going to stick with the generic adapter. I do need to paint it and plug the holes. If nothing else, it presents a challenge that I certainly embrace. I am on a mission of sorts now to get some good images with that M150!
05-07-2013, 09:11 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
I've decided the same Bob - just going to stick with the generic adapter. I do need to paint it and plug the holes. If nothing else, it presents a challenge that I certainly embrace. I am on a mission of sorts now to get some good images with that M150!
I'll see your M150 and raise you an M75~150 (with the OEM and Foot).
05-09-2013, 05:54 AM   #27
Forum Member
M.Zein's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote

And Larry - thanks for your input on the genuine adapter. The one thing that still pulls me toward it is being able to use a tripod foot on it. I will see if I can somehow use my generic tripod ring from my FA*300 tomorrow.
The photodiox adapter has a removable tripod foot... I ordered one two days ago for 25.97

Good luck with your mission guys
05-09-2013, 06:30 AM   #28
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by M.Zein Quote
The photodiox adapter has a removable tripod foot...
Yes it does. But once I saw how fragile that mount is, I removed it. Take a look at how much bite the attaching tiny screws have - would never trust anything on it.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-17-2016 at 02:37 AM. Reason: Removed link to parked URL
05-09-2013, 06:41 AM   #29
Forum Member
M.Zein's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 55
Hopefully the one with aperture dial will be a better built
Attached Images
 
05-09-2013, 07:20 AM   #30
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
QuoteOriginally posted by M.Zein Quote
Hopefully the one with aperture dial will be a better built
Nope, Stan's is the same one.
Someone has modified this unit by replacing with longer screws and jbweld on the inside.
Can't recall who that was.
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, focus, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, shutter, tree
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adapted lenses tested on the Q : the reference thread crewl1 Pentax Q 1080 09-11-2017 08:09 AM
Do M39 adapted lenses focus to infinity on the Q? GibbyTheMole Pentax Q 14 10-16-2013 07:49 AM
Q with Adapted Lens : Overheat? dualie Pentax Q 16 01-24-2013 07:38 AM
Help a noob relate the reach of a spotting scope to that of an adapted Q colonel00 Pentax Q 8 01-18-2013 03:48 PM
Adapted macro with the Q NeilGratton Pentax Q 4 01-15-2013 06:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 AM. | 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