[audiobomber]

I got the same disappointing results as Stormtech, but I was using a genuine Pentax adapter. With longer lenses, on tripod with remote or 12s timer and VF3, results varied from OK to atrocious (softness, fringing, CA). Of the shorter lenses I tried without tripod, none looked very good, Handling and ergonomics were horrible. I exchanged the Pentax adapter for an 06 lens. A few days later I ordered an inexpensive RJ adapter with aperture ring and tripod mount. I haven't received it yet.

I would also mention that I looked at many Q to K photos posted, before and after I tried for myself. Many of the photos looked bad, and many that looked very bad to me received praise, so clearly not all of us have the same standards.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 05-09-2013 at 10:53 AM.

[lacro]

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.

Actually the "amount of bite" (thread engagement) looks about right. It only needs to be the same amount as the diameter of the screw. However, I do agree it looks wimpy and would be better if the screw was a larger diameter. I have the same foot on may Photodiox Q/OLY adapter. I tried to stress it to see if I could break it. I think it's stronger than it looks, but I wont be hanging any heavy glass off of it. Has anyone actually broke one in use? The typical 1/4-20 tripod screw is also pretty wimpy too.

[bacondesign]

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

As far as I can tell you are right about th electronic shutter. You can notice a jello effect (or 'rolling shutter' despite the lack of an actual shutter). Some of my shots with a 135mm or even 50mm produces very noticable 'leaning buildings' if I can't hold it well enough. This shouldn't be a problem with normal FOVs but we are dealing with extreme tele FOVs where the projected image moves very fast relative to the image sensor. I haven't had the oportunity to try the Pentax adapter with built in shutter unfortunately but it would definitely help with this issue. For me however the high price is not justified. With practice I can produce decent shots with a 50-70mm handheld but I'll always use a tripod for 135 or longer lenses.

[audiobomber]

As far as I can tell you are right about th electronic shutter. You can notice a jello effect (or 'rolling shutter' despite the lack of an actual shutter). Some of my shots with a 135mm or even 50mm produces very noticable 'leaning buildings' if I can't hold it well enough.

Would you have an example to post?

[bacondesign]

Would you have an example to post?

This was shot with a Auto Chinon Multicoated 135mm f/2.8 with ISO 125 1/320s and unknown aperture and fully handheld without any support. I cranked up the contrast and played with the curves in PS for demonstrational purposes becasue it was early morning and very foggy. Otherwise it is uncropped straight out of the camera. This is an extreme example that shows the jello effect and can be avoided with practice and a tripod or a monopod.

[audiobomber]

Holy crap, that is ugly. I never saw anything like that with the Pentax adapter.

[bacondesign]

Holy crap, that is ugly. I never saw anything like that with the Pentax adapter.

But one also have to keep in mind that for the price of the Pentax adapter you can buy a pretty decent Manfrotto tripod and for the fraction of a price a very good monopod (which I found most useful) I bought my Q with 02 for a little more than what the adapter would cost alone.

[barondla]

One also has to keep in mind that a tripod and monopod do very little for a moving subject, when using the electronic shutter. Refer to crewl1's fan photos for incredible examples.

The oem Q-PK adapter is a very small production run item vs the mass produced Q/Q10. This sets the price of the two units. Still with both together, you have a very inexpensive "long reach" system.
thanks
barondla
enjoying the Q. Getting shots I never got before it arrived.

[hnikesch]

Here is a shot with my Fotodiox adapter trying to pan action, this is the main reason I got the Pentax adapter. Shot with my SMC-M 135 f3.5, check out the background tilt

Hans

[monochrome]

One also has to keep in mind that a tripod and monopod do very little for a moving subject, when using the electronic shutter. Refer to crewl1's fan photos for incredible examples.

The oem Q-PK adapter is a very small production run item vs the mass produced Q/Q10. This sets the price of the two units. Still with both together, you have a very inexpensive "long reach" system.
thanks
barondla
enjoying the Q. Getting shots I never got before it arrived.

The postscript says it all.