Adapted Lenses & Shake Reduction Settings

littledrawe · 03-18-2014, 02:33 PM

I'm wondering if anyone has done any experimenting with shake reduction settings and lenses originally intended for other mounts? Also is the focal length for all lenses multiplied by the 5.5X factor or is it less for lenses that started small to begin with like a 110 lens?

Adam · 03-18-2014, 02:39 PM

You simply need to enter the focal length that's indicated on the lens. No need for multiplying or anything like that

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-18-2014, 02:49 PM

While Adam is correct, and focal length is focal length, irrespective of format, while not documented, I personally have noted and reported that at least for the Q, that the SR seems over active and performance and IQ are improved if you enter about 70% of the true focal length. I think this is because you hold the lens differently than you would hold a Q with a small Q lens

hnikesch · 03-19-2014, 03:11 PM

+1 to the 70% - 80% of focal length for adapted lenses I did some trial and error testing and some of the info is in the adapted lens thread

robtcorl · 03-20-2014, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by hnikesch

+1 to the 70% - 80% of focal length for adapted lenses I did some trial and error testing and some of the info is in the adapted lens thread

+2
I believe it was after Hans posted his test that I tried it, and my images improved.

littledrawe · 03-20-2014, 07:42 AM

Thank you for the replies folks! I'll try this out and see what I get.

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-20-2014, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by littledrawe

Thank you for the replies folks! I'll try this out and see what I get.

Have fun. It is a great little camera. I am still playing, but have not tried beyond 200mm seriously yet. When the snow finally melts (yes in toronto hell has frozen over) I plan to put this on my tamron 200-500/5.6 and see what I can do

snostorm · 03-20-2014, 05:01 PM

I have found the FL settings for SR in the Q just about right up to and including 300mm. I probably just accidentally fit the default shake profile for Pentax SR. . . I found early on that Pentax SR works best for me when I hold my cameras more casually than I would think appropriate for a given FL. For me, relaxation is the key.

Scott

**baro-nite** · 03-21-2014, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

I have found the FL settings for SR in the Q just about right up to and including 300mm.

I have found this also -- after reading about Lowell's experiences I did some experimenting with different settings and found that the actual focal length worked best.

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-21-2014, 04:17 AM

As a curious point, how are people using the camera with K mount lenses.

I use he Q with an eye level adaptor / screen shield, holding the camera like an SLR. If you hold it using only the LCD at arms length the experience might be different

**baro-nite** · 03-21-2014, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

As a curious point, how are people using the camera with K mount lenses.

Both methods -- with a sensor loupe and without. You might be onto something -- holding the camera at arms length might result in more rotational movement and perhaps the SR is better at some types of motion than others.

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-21-2014, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by baro-nite

Both methods -- with a sensor loupe and without. You might be onto something -- holding the camera at arms length might result in more rotational movement and perhaps the SR is better at some types of motion than others.

This is what I thought about with respect to the use of the k adaptor. I support the body and lens about this point, which is different than supporting everything from the body. This causes rotation around the adaptor, as opposed to perhaps rotation about the body, as it would be on an SLR, or with small light weight lenses

snostorm · 03-21-2014, 12:37 PM

Hi Lowell,

I always use a loupe and hold the camera like a DSLR when using anything over about 50mm.

With the shorter lenses, without a loupe, I usually hold a lot closer than arm's length -- as close as I can while still being able to reasonably see the LCD image and the focus peaking artifacts. My eyes don't focus that close, even with my trifocals, so the LCD image is blurry, but I can see it well enough to frame the shot and i trust the peaking will give me a reasonably focused shot. I usually can brace my elbows against my body when shooting like this, so the hold is pretty stable. It's a very strange way to shoot, not really seeing a focused image, but it works reasonably well for me.

Scott

**crewl1** · 03-26-2014, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

It's a very strange way to shoot, not really seeing a focused image, but it works reasonably well for me.

Dang, much respect because your shots are dead on, didn't know you were having trouble seeing the screen !

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-26-2014, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by snostorm

Hi Lowell,

I always use a loupe and hold the camera like a DSLR when using anything over about 50mm.

With the shorter lenses, without a loupe, I usually hold a lot closer than arm's length -- as close as I can while still being able to reasonably see the LCD image and the focus peaking artifacts. My eyes don't focus that close, even with my trifocals, so the LCD image is blurry, but I can see it well enough to frame the shot and i trust the peaking will give me a reasonably focused shot. I usually can brace my elbows against my body when shooting like this, so the hold is pretty stable. It's a very strange way to shoot, not really seeing a focused image, but it works reasonably well for me.

Scott

You mean I should be shooting with a blurry display to get sharp images

Maybe when you see clearly you concentrate too much on the wrong place in the image? I'll have to try this

03-18-2014, 02:33 PM	#1
littledrawe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Red Rock Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,514	Adapted Lenses & Shake Reduction Settings I'm wondering if anyone has done any experimenting with shake reduction settings and lenses originally intended for other mounts? Also is the focal length for all lenses multiplied by the 5.5X factor or is it less for lenses that started small to begin with like a 110 lens?

03-18-2014, 02:39 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	You simply need to enter the focal length that's indicated on the lens. No need for multiplying or anything like that Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sensor & Shake Reduction	Wingincamera	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	10	05-14-2013 12:11 AM
M42 lens' & shake reduction	Big Bob	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	06-14-2009 06:49 AM
Using long telephotos & Shake reduction	mr.voigtlander	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	06-04-2009 11:56 PM
K10D, Shake Reduction & Tripod	switch79	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	04-19-2007 06:18 PM
Shake reduction & camera life	Brew1brew	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	09-27-2006 05:58 AM

03-18-2014, 02:49 PM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	While Adam is correct, and focal length is focal length, irrespective of format, while not documented, I personally have noted and reported that at least for the Q, that the SR seems over active and performance and IQ are improved if you enter about 70% of the true focal length. I think this is because you hold the lens differently than you would hold a Q with a small Q lens

03-19-2014, 03:11 PM	#4
hnikesch Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,316	+1 to the 70% - 80% of focal length for adapted lenses I did some trial and error testing and some of the info is in the adapted lens thread

03-20-2014, 06:25 AM	#5
robtcorl Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: St Louis, MO Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,606	Originally posted by hnikesch +1 to the 70% - 80% of focal length for adapted lenses I did some trial and error testing and some of the info is in the adapted lens thread +2 I believe it was after Hans posted his test that I tried it, and my images improved.

03-20-2014, 07:42 AM	#6
littledrawe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Red Rock Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,514 Original Poster	Thank you for the replies folks! I'll try this out and see what I get.

03-20-2014, 04:09 PM	#7
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by littledrawe Thank you for the replies folks! I'll try this out and see what I get. Have fun. It is a great little camera. I am still playing, but have not tried beyond 200mm seriously yet. When the snow finally melts (yes in toronto hell has frozen over) I plan to put this on my tamron 200-500/5.6 and see what I can do

03-20-2014, 05:01 PM	#8
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	I have found the FL settings for SR in the Q just about right up to and including 300mm. I probably just accidentally fit the default shake profile for Pentax SR. . . I found early on that Pentax SR works best for me when I hold my cameras more casually than I would think appropriate for a given FL. For me, relaxation is the key. Scott

03-21-2014, 03:13 AM	#9
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,294	Originally posted by snostorm I have found the FL settings for SR in the Q just about right up to and including 300mm. I have found this also -- after reading about Lowell's experiences I did some experimenting with different settings and found that the actual focal length worked best.

03-21-2014, 04:17 AM	#10
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	As a curious point, how are people using the camera with K mount lenses. I use he Q with an eye level adaptor / screen shield, holding the camera like an SLR. If you hold it using only the LCD at arms length the experience might be different

03-21-2014, 04:57 AM	#11
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,294	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge As a curious point, how are people using the camera with K mount lenses. Both methods -- with a sensor loupe and without. You might be onto something -- holding the camera at arms length might result in more rotational movement and perhaps the SR is better at some types of motion than others.

03-21-2014, 09:29 AM	#12
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by baro-nite Both methods -- with a sensor loupe and without. You might be onto something -- holding the camera at arms length might result in more rotational movement and perhaps the SR is better at some types of motion than others. This is what I thought about with respect to the use of the k adaptor. I support the body and lens about this point, which is different than supporting everything from the body. This causes rotation around the adaptor, as opposed to perhaps rotation about the body, as it would be on an SLR, or with small light weight lenses

03-21-2014, 12:37 PM	#13
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Hi Lowell, I always use a loupe and hold the camera like a DSLR when using anything over about 50mm. With the shorter lenses, without a loupe, I usually hold a lot closer than arm's length -- as close as I can while still being able to reasonably see the LCD image and the focus peaking artifacts. My eyes don't focus that close, even with my trifocals, so the LCD image is blurry, but I can see it well enough to frame the shot and i trust the peaking will give me a reasonably focused shot. I usually can brace my elbows against my body when shooting like this, so the hold is pretty stable. It's a very strange way to shoot, not really seeing a focused image, but it works reasonably well for me. Scott

03-26-2014, 10:22 AM	#14
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by snostorm It's a very strange way to shoot, not really seeing a focused image, but it works reasonably well for me. Dang, much respect because your shots are dead on, didn't know you were having trouble seeing the screen !

03-26-2014, 01:24 PM	#15
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by snostorm Hi Lowell, I always use a loupe and hold the camera like a DSLR when using anything over about 50mm. With the shorter lenses, without a loupe, I usually hold a lot closer than arm's length -- as close as I can while still being able to reasonably see the LCD image and the focus peaking artifacts. My eyes don't focus that close, even with my trifocals, so the LCD image is blurry, but I can see it well enough to frame the shot and i trust the peaking will give me a reasonably focused shot. I usually can brace my elbows against my body when shooting like this, so the hold is pretty stable. It's a very strange way to shoot, not really seeing a focused image, but it works reasonably well for me. Scott You mean I should be shooting with a blurry display to get sharp images Maybe when you see clearly you concentrate too much on the wrong place in the image? I'll have to try this