Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-14-2014, 09:48 AM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I still don't really understand how the Q works with adapted lenses that, by definition, don't have a shutter built in.
Well, there are Q-mount lenses and everything else. (Everything else is "adapted" if used on the Q.) But some non-adapted lenses do not have a shutter (the toy lenses) and if you use the official Pentax K->Q adapter for all your K (and m42) lenses, then you will get a shutter for those since that adapter has one. All other adapted lenses with different mounts or using the cheap K adapter will not have a shutter.


QuoteQuote:
What are the implications of using an "electronic shutter" only??
It reads the sensor line at a time in this mode, which takes 1/13s to do. EVEN if the shutter speed is set to 1/2000 it still takes 1/13s to read the sensor, but each LINE will be "exposed" for only 1/2000s. Whereas with the real shutter it exposes all at once and then reads the data afterward (which still takes 1/13s I suppose, but it occurs after the shot and the data is latent in the sensor waiting to be read into memory). With electronic shutter you get the "jello" effect or weird results from moving objects or camera movement.


QuoteQuote:
Presumably a pancake lens could be built using this "electronic shutter".
What would be the downside of that?
As above. It would be a "toy" lens. (Don't we already have the body cap lens?) A real prime with a shutter would have to be a little bigger, although I think they could do it -- I've seen some pretty thin rangefinder lenses with a shutter that are over 50 years old...

11-14-2014, 10:37 AM   #62
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
It reads the sensor line at a time in this mode, which takes 1/13s to do. EVEN if the shutter speed is set to 1/2000 it still takes 1/13s to read the sensor, but each LINE will be "exposed" for only 1/2000s. Whereas with the real shutter it exposes all at once and then reads the data afterward (which still takes 1/13s I suppose, but it occurs after the shot and the data is latent in the sensor waiting to be read into memory). With electronic shutter you get the "jello" effect or weird results from moving objects or camera movement.
I took a picture of a moving train with my iPhone4, the type of picture for which I would normally use a shutter speed of 1/250 or better. I can't believe that an iPhone has anything other than an electronic shutter. If the Q comes even close to that, I would be more than satisfied.
11-14-2014, 02:25 PM   #63
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
It reads the sensor line at a time in this mode, which takes 1/13s to do. EVEN if the shutter speed is set to 1/2000 it still takes 1/13s to read the sensor, but each LINE will be "exposed" for only 1/2000s. Whereas with the real shutter it exposes all at once and then reads the data afterward (which still takes 1/13s I suppose, but it occurs after the shot and the data is latent in the sensor waiting to be read into memory). With electronic shutter you get the "jello" effect or weird results from moving objects or camera movement
During my walk this afternoon, I saw the flags at a local school flapping in the wind because the bottom rope had broken. I took a picture with my Canon Elph set at "Kids&Pets" to get a reasonably fast shutter speed. The camera reported a speed of 1/160, and looking at the actual picture, I have no reason to believe that it was not actually giving that speed. I don't have any practical knowledge about the Q yet, I am still looking at the possibility of getting one to replace this Elph, but I will be disappointed if the electronic shutter works as you say it does; the Q is usually listed as being a camera for "enthusiasts" (like me), while the Elph meets a lower standard of being a "consumer" camera. Having good performance with the 02 lens is important, but it would also be good if a modern Q's electronic shutter could work as well as the shutter on a several-year-old Elph.
11-14-2014, 05:00 PM   #64
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
During my walk this afternoon, I saw the flags at a local school flapping in the wind because the bottom rope had broken. I took a picture with my Canon Elph set at "Kids&Pets" to get a reasonably fast shutter speed. The camera reported a speed of 1/160, and looking at the actual picture, I have no reason to believe that it was not actually giving that speed. I don't have any practical knowledge about the Q yet, I am still looking at the possibility of getting one to replace this Elph, but I will be disappointed if the electronic shutter works as you say it does; the Q is usually listed as being a camera for "enthusiasts" (like me), while the Elph meets a lower standard of being a "consumer" camera. Having good performance with the 02 lens is important, but it would also be good if a modern Q's electronic shutter could work as well as the shutter on a several-year-old Elph.
Again, that's only with shutterless lenses -- the 01, 02, 06, & 08 all have shutters, as does the official K-Q adapter. Anything else is electronic shutter only.

11-14-2014, 05:17 PM   #65
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Again, that's only with shutterless lenses -- the 01, 02, 06, & 08 all have shutters, as does the official K-Q adapter. Anything else is electronic shutter only.
Right ... and that is the system I would be using if I attempted to use one with the Canon FD lenses I inherited from my mother or the Canon EF lenses I already had myself. In the discussions at another photo forum, the constant refrain is that a major benefit of mirror-less cameras is that the nature of their geometry enables you to use legacy lenses in a straight-forward manner. I'm not saying that this is a deal-breaker, just that it will force me to rethink my strategy. Part of my thinking is that I've never found a good combination of camera and lenses for birding walks with my wife. I had considered the Canon SX-50, but then I realized that the Pentax Q7 has a better sensor, and a reasonably small investment in adaptor(s) would allow me to leverage it's hefty crop factor to get some serious telephoto with the lenses I already have in my closet. I'm merely saying that I will have to rethink this whole issue, because the difference between types of shutter available on the Q-family is not something that I had taken into account.
11-14-2014, 06:15 PM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Right ... and that is the system I would be using if I attempted to use one with the Canon FD lenses I inherited from my mother or the Canon EF lenses I already had myself. In the discussions at another photo forum, the constant refrain is that a major benefit of mirror-less cameras is that the nature of their geometry enables you to use legacy lenses in a straight-forward manner. I'm not saying that this is a deal-breaker, just that it will force me to rethink my strategy. Part of my thinking is that I've never found a good combination of camera and lenses for birding walks with my wife. I had considered the Canon SX-50, but then I realized that the Pentax Q7 has a better sensor, and a reasonably small investment in adaptor(s) would allow me to leverage it's hefty crop factor to get some serious telephoto with the lenses I already have in my closet. I'm merely saying that I will have to rethink this whole issue, because the difference between types of shutter available on the Q-family is not something that I had taken into account.
Yes, you're better off with a K lens and the official adapter (and the adapter costs nearly as much as the body). Also keep in mind even you lose auto focus, auto aperture, etc -- manual only with K lenses (although the body can be in Av mode). I have heard of people converting FD lenses to K mount, by the way. But as soon as you start using a K lens that is more than say 100mm, "walking" starts to become problematic as you are entering tripod territory. (But I must say, the shake reduction on the Q is very impressive -- probably because it is a small sensor it can react faster or something -- if considering "equivalent" focal lengths I think it reduces blur more than the SR on K-5...
11-14-2014, 06:32 PM   #67
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Yes, you're better off with a K lens and the official adapter (and the adapter costs nearly as much as the body). Also keep in mind even you lose auto focus, auto aperture, etc -- manual only with K lenses (although the body can be in Av mode). I have heard of people converting FD lenses to K mount, by the way. But as soon as you start using a K lens that is more than say 100mm, "walking" starts to become problematic as you are entering tripod territory. (But I must say, the shake reduction on the Q is very impressive -- probably because it is a small sensor it can react faster or something -- if considering "equivalent" focal lengths I think it reduces blur more than the SR on K-5...
Right now I'm taking pictures using a 270mm + 2X on a 1.6 crop sensor camera.
Once you're done the math, that comes out to almost 200mm on a Q7.
I always assume that I'm going to have to use manual focusing, since even at lower telephoto, my camera sometimes ends up focusing on a nearby branch instead of the bird I'm actually interested in.
Some people have gotten really nice pictures with SX-50 cameras; I don't know for certain whether they are using tripods on not.
When the SX-50 first came out, reviewers were saying that no one needed more than 40X anyway, and now the SX-50 has been such a success that there is an "arms race" beyond 60X.
The bottom line is that this is something I want to try; all kinds of things are possible with the higher shutter speeds and higher ISO settings that come with new cameras.
11-14-2014, 08:41 PM   #68
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Yes, you're better off with a K lens and the official adapter (and the adapter costs nearly as much as the body). Also keep in mind even you lose auto focus, auto aperture, etc -- manual only with K lenses (although the body can be in Av mode). I have heard of people converting FD lenses to K mount, by the way. But as soon as you start using a K lens that is more than say 100mm, "walking" starts to become problematic as you are entering tripod territory. (But I must say, the shake reduction on the Q is very impressive -- probably because it is a small sensor it can react faster or something -- if considering "equivalent" focal lengths I think it reduces blur more than the SR on K-5...
To add to my earlier comments: I may be very close right now to what I can do, but I'll always wonder, so I'm interested in pushing the telephoto as much as I can. I don't know whether a much smaller camera will make non-tripod shooting easier or harder, but I want to try.

11-14-2014, 09:17 PM   #69
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
Holding/aiming the Q with a big lens on it not on a tripod is extremely tough. (Like any mirrorless, but with a big heavy lens on the front with only a tiny speck of a faraway spot in the view, forget it.) If you added an LCD viewer so you could put it to your eye it would help that substantially. (Which is what I've done on my K-01, but not yet on my Q because you have to modify a viewer for a different camera as there isn't one that will go straight on a Q, at least last I checked.) It also makes you look like a dork if there are people around, which bothers some people...
11-14-2014, 10:01 PM   #70
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,966
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Holding/aiming the Q with a big lens on it not on a tripod is extremely tough. (Like any mirrorless, but with a big heavy lens on the front with only a tiny speck of a faraway spot in the view, forget it.) If you added an LCD viewer so you could put it to your eye it would help that substantially. (Which is what I've done on my K-01, but not yet on my Q because you have to modify a viewer for a different camera as there isn't one that will go straight on a Q, at least last I checked.) It also makes you look like a dork if there are people around, which bothers some people...
Man, I don't care what others think; in fact, one of the advantages of the current Pentax line is that they look like toys, so no one would take me too seriously, so perhaps I could do my thing without much "supervision".

I was under the impression that several viewers, including one by Hoodman, would fit on the Q because it has a "standard" 3" LCD, but as I have said, all of this is theoretical for me, and I keep hoping that the next variant (Q-S2 perhaps) will have a built-in EVF or an EVF option.

Yes, in the case of a Q, you almost would have a camera body mounted on a lens, instead of the normal lens mounted on a camera body. Have you tried the old-fashioned pose of holding the lens with your left hand and body with your right hand? (we've kind of gotten away from that because of not wanting to interfere with the focusing mechanism). As I said before, I'd be interested in playing with various options if I decide to actually buy a Q; of course, if I stick with buying a K-mount lens to use with it, I haven't necessarily lost anything since I could always use the lens on the K-50 that I haven't bought either.
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!
camera, lens, lenses, lot, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, quality, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pets Well, what is it? What do you want from me? I am just a mere kat. rrstuff Post Your Photos! 6 02-17-2014 08:37 PM
Do M39 adapted lenses focus to infinity on the Q? GibbyTheMole Pentax Q 14 10-16-2013 07:49 AM
Pets You want me to do what???????????? eaglem Post Your Photos! 9 02-19-2013 03:25 PM
People What do you want? vikingo Photo Critique 3 02-03-2013 05:05 AM
What do you want Pentax will come up with the Kx successor? rustynail925 Pentax News and Rumors 31 07-29-2010 05:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:26 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