Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-19-2013, 04:07 PM   #1
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Is Q7 better than Q in adapted telephoto?

My hope was that the Q7's larger sensor would show less diffraction effect than the Q when used with slower lenses, primarily so that I could use a Bigma to get long reach and reasonable IQ.

The Bigma is sharpest at f8-f11 and on the Q diffraction is a problem.

For the test I set up a shot, then left the lens settings the same as I swapped bodies to try to minimize any focus changes.

The Pentax adapter was used, for the Bigma it was set to 1 (f8) and 2 (f11).

Shots were made in RAW and exported as resized JPG from Lightroom 4. Crop was done to approx 100% size, no other processing was done.

Only one shot was taken each time, I did not try a few shots and pick the best.

Maybe if I have more time I can try that later if folks think it is needed. The target was set about 75 feet away, the first shot is with 01 prime.

There is a little improvement with the Q7 that I can see, but not earth shattering. Let me know your thoughts.

Hope to try some live targets soon.



















09-19-2013, 04:20 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,118
At f8 you won't see much of a difference. Try shooting wide open or at 7.1 and I would think the q7 will have a bigger advantage. It did at least when I tested it at f5.6 with a prime.
09-19-2013, 04:34 PM   #3
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Original Poster
OK will try that, thanks.
09-19-2013, 05:00 PM   #4
Pentaxian
hnikesch's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,254
Does this mean you have added a Q7 to your kit

Hans

09-19-2013, 05:17 PM   #5
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Original Poster
Yes I sold one of my Q's last week so I could buy a Q7
09-19-2013, 05:28 PM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
Would also like to see some "equivalent" focal lengths so the subject is same size -- shoot Q7 at 350mm, the Q at 300mm, something like that. Also can the Q7 ISO be bumped up a little more than the Q with same quality?
09-19-2013, 05:29 PM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,323
Bigma is nice, but I am really interested in what happens with the DA*300? Also if you can live with the image quality at anything but base ISO?
thanks
barondla
09-19-2013, 06:12 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,649
good tests larry...looking forward to seeing more!!!!

09-19-2013, 11:32 PM - 1 Like   #9
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Original Poster
Good ideas. I will try higher ISO values next also.
I did run a comparison with the DA*300 at base ISO's -results were pretty similar.






09-20-2013, 07:11 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
Do I see less (almost no) PF with the DA*300 vs. the Bigma - edges of shadows around lower lip and at neckline - for both cameras?
09-20-2013, 07:43 AM   #11
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Original Poster
Yes - the Q7 shows less aberrations, I noticed it initially on the wing when viewed against the trees in the background.

The camera appears to be less demanding on the lenses to some degree.

So far the differences are only at the pixel peep level, at normal view there isn't a great difference to my eyes with these tests.

I would like to do some real life testing to see if these changes make it easier to create better looking pictures.
09-20-2013, 08:22 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
Nice test with that DA* 300, Larry! That looks like "the" long tele to have for the Q.

Yeah, the Q7 is somewhat more detailed with less CA at 100%, but when you're looking at the entire uncropped pic, the difference is subtle. On the flipside, you get a bit more tele reach out of the Q.

I think it's awesome that Pentax is continuing to refine the Q line with the new Q7. Someday I'll have one, but since I already have two Qs that I'm happy with, I think I'm good for awhile.
09-20-2013, 08:33 AM   #13
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Do I see less (almost no) PF with the DA*300 vs. the Bigma - edges of shadows around lower lip and at neckline - for both cameras?
Oh I think I missed your meaning there - Yes the DA*300 is really the best performing lens I have personally tested with the Q.

I have only recently tested the Sigma 70-200 OS and think it is going to be almost as good, but I need to do more testing.

Everything else I own does not hold a candle to the DA*300 on the Q.

I expect the Sigma 500 4.5 would be very good from what I have seen from @pearsaab.
09-21-2013, 03:11 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,364
Larry, thanks for this. Many of us are of course asking the same questions. We've already determined that the DA* 300/4 is best at f/5.6 on the original Q/Q10 sensor. So two questions I have are whether or not there's any improvement with the Q7 if the lens is stopped down a bit more (would need testing at third- and half-stops). And if there's any improvement with the DA* 300/4 on a 1.4x TC.

Just wondering and not asking you to do additional tests. But were you to do so, I'd enjoy seeing the results.
09-24-2013, 04:02 AM   #15
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Rochester, Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
Thanks for the sample photos, Larry. The Q7 pictures appear a bit better than the Q pictures, but I'll continue to enjoy the Q mounted with the Pentax Q-K adapter and the DA* 300 until the Q7 is available used for half of its current price.
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!
bigma, camera, diffraction, hope, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, shot, shots, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post Q7 shots in Q/Q10 adapted lens thread? barondla Pentax Q 2 09-19-2013 04:51 PM
Adapted Lenses - is faster better? stormtech Pentax Q 38 12-22-2012 06:02 AM
With HDMI out & 3.5mm stereo mic in the K-01 is better than the K-30 for video jogiba Pentax K-01 2 05-22-2012 01:52 PM
Fuji X10 Review - better than Q? Adam Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 23 12-18-2011 06:04 PM
DA35/2.4 is better than FA35/2 in serious tests ogl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 03-03-2011 02:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:59 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