Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-30-2015, 05:23 PM   #31
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
It is not a collar but rather the adapter has a couple of slots that you attach the foot via a clamp.

The one sold for the Adapter is the same as the one for DA*300.
Pentax Tripod Mount 38100 from Japan New | eBay

If you use an Arca Swiss System then the one made by Fanotec is perfect as the Arca Plate is integrated.
Initially it was priced specially for us in a combo with plate but now is available from his website at a little higher price
Lens Foot 1 - Replacement foot for Pentax DA* 60-250mm and DA* 300mm (F6238) - Nodal Ninja

02-15-2015, 03:45 PM   #32

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
Original Poster
This whole time, I've been using my older (Pentax) lenses because
(1) I wanted precise control over aperture
(2) I thought it would be easier to focus a lens made for MF.
(3) I wanted the option of going to the expensive Pentax adapter

However, several weeks ago I ordered a reasonably inexpensive Chinese-made adapter (complete with tripod foot) to use my current Canon AF lenses. It arrived yesterday, and so I spent a few minutes out in the cold today (high was something like ten degrees F) to try it out. I took just two pictures. The first (House Finch) was with my Canon 75-300mm lens (I forgot to re-set the focal length, so the SR and EXIF were wrong) and the second (Junco carrying seed) with my Tamron 18-270mm lens. Much to my surprise, once I got used to what I was doing, they were actually easier to focus than the older lenses were, and the pictures (here with a little PP work) are definitely the best I've done so far. Some day I will undoubtedly replace my current Canon Rebel with a Pentax K-S2, or some such thing, so I guess someday I should also look for a reasonably priced modern K-mount lens.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
02-15-2015, 04:28 PM   #33
Forum Member

Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
I think with some sharpening these would look even better. Nice progress!
But in both you can clearly see the sun was incident. I don't think that was the case with the others, and it's surely a lot of help.
02-01-2016, 03:03 PM - 1 Like   #34

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
Original Poster
I have been doing more research recently. Having a choice of starting a completely new thread or using an old one, I didn't see much point to starting a new one, and I figured I might as well resurrect this one.

When I started this adventure, my original intention was to create a nice birding system by using a Q-7 with lenses I already had, or that could be purchased inexpensively. The pictures I've already posted show that this was more easily said than done. Over the past six months I bought several more lenses, but I never had a good opportunity to test them, mainly because the birds just haven't been attracted to my "bribe" as they were initially. In addition, comparisons are hard to make, because by the time I've made a major change to my setup, the birds have gone and come, and I have a completely different scene. So, last night I downloaded a target from the Internet, and today I attached it to a deck chair at one end of our backyard, and photographed it from the other end, roughly 50 feet away. A picture taken with my K-30 shows the arrangement:

All of these pictures were taken using my Q-7 with a Pentax K-to-Q adapter. After Inspecting several images, I decided that the right middle of the target would show clear differences, so I cropped each picture, leaving only that part remaining, and then because of how pictures show here, I scaled them to be a common height to make comparisons easier (but I did no other processing, such as white balance or unsharp filter, because I wanted to emphasize what the lens/camera system is doing).

One criticism I've heard is that the whole thing is a waste of time, that I'd be better off just taking a picture with my K-30 and cropping it, because everyone knows about the limitations of a small-sensored camera.
So, after taking several of these pictures with the K-30, I cropped each one and then compared it to a comparable image taken with the Q-7.
(the one on the left is from the K-30, the one on the right from the Q-7)

I could pick any pair - the Q-7 always does much better, because once I've cropped the K-30 image, it just doesn't have much to work with.

Now, moving on to the important part of this comparison. One of the lenses I picked up specifically for this purpose was a Tamron 23 A, which is known for its sharpness. Mine is a very good representative of this lens, because I bought it from someone who had babied it and "hated to let it go". When I got back inside and looked at my results, I couldn't believe it, so I went back out and tried again, this time using a generic adapter. I thought that perhaps I had just done a lousy job of focusing it in the first place; if that is true, then of the five times I set up a lens for testing, somehow I got it right 3 out of 5 times - the Tamron being the other two times. I don't believe that. Instead, I believe that this is another older lens which was wonderful in its day, but just can't quite keep up with lenses having the advantage of modern engineering
(Tamron on the left, Sigma on the right)

At the end of the winter birding season I had purchased a Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens, which seemed like a good choice for this purpose, because it has an aperture ring. Later, during one of the summer sales, I purchased a Pentax DA 55-300 ED WR lens, mainly because its being WR meant that it would be good for the K-30 regardless of which telephoto lens I used with the Q-7; I knew that I would need the Pentax adapter to make optimal use of this lens, since it doesn't have an aperture ring. The Pentax lens does better as long as I use both at f/5.6 (in other words, not using the adapter to close down the aperture at all)
(Pentax on the left, Sigma on the right)

However, that seems to be the best setting for the Pentax, while the Sigma gets better as I use its aperture ring to close it down to f/8

and then down to f/11 (this is the one I was using in all the earlier comparisons, because I believe it is ultimately the best I saw today)

So, today's take-home lesson seems to be that the Sigma is currently my best birding lens, and at f/11 the improvement from using just the center of the lens offsets the loss from diffraction. I still believe that the best setup would involve a native Q lens, but clearly my best birding setup right now is the Q-7 (which cost me roughly $300) and the Sigma lens (which I got on sale for $179). I took a few pictures using a generic adapter, but I haven't had time to look at them yet; even if they turn out to be just as good as the ones taken with the Pentax adapter, I will probably still use the Pentax one, because real birds do move, and on occasion I had concerns that rolling shutter was reducing the quality of my image.

Last edited by reh321; 02-01-2016 at 08:35 PM.
02-02-2016, 10:31 AM   #35
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I was replying to SteveNunez's "Osprey Again" thread, envying his weather, when my wife shouted, "There is a female cardinal at our bird feeder"; this was the opportunity I'd been waiting for, so I dashed into the living room with my Q7 (I already had my legacy 75mm-205mm K-mount lens mounted on it via a Fotodiox adapter). There are some things I haven't done yet; I haven't bought a walking-stick/monopod to provide stability, so this was entirely hand-held; I haven't bought a hood/magnifier so I can see well enough to focus well. I haven't decided whether my sharpest legacy lens is this one or the FD-mount 70mm-210mm f/4.5 that my mother left behind when she moved to a retirement center. But I thought it was worth a try.

The lens was zoomed to about 170mm, which gives a view equivalent to about 800mm on a 35mm camera. This picture was taken at ISO=1600; even then, with the maximum f-stop f/3.5 of that lens, the shutter speed was just 1/125 (manually set to a speed higher than what the camera had chosen under Av mode), so the SR was working overtime. Snow was falling, I was shooting through two layers of glass, and the EXIF data shows that the picture was taken at 5:25 (Weather Channel says sunset, if we could see the sun, was at 5:28).

Obviously, I need to improve my technique; manual focusing will be a challenge even when I'm able to provide more stability for the camera. I'll need to decide which zoom lens to use. But even this baby step is ahead of where I've been in photographing wildlife. My wife is a bird-watcher (which is why I'm not planning on using a tripod - most of her "watching" consists of wandering down meandering paths), and this is the best I've done. This is one of the major reasons I bought the Q7, instead of getting a camera with a larger sensor. Hopefully I can provide better pictures in the future.
I read this again after watching a Damien Lovegrove video in which he states that in most natural lighting situations he likes to use a shutter speed of 4 times the focal length when taking hand held shots. While he's photographing birds of a different feather, in this case with that 800mm focal length, that would require a shutter speed around 1/3200. WOW!! That is a bit beyond the Q7's capabilities.
02-02-2016, 01:47 PM   #36

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
I read this again after watching a Damien Lovegrove video in which he states that in most natural lighting situations he likes to use a shutter speed of 4 times the focal length when taking hand held shots. While he's photographing birds of a different feather, in this case with that 800mm focal length, that would require a shutter speed around 1/3200. WOW!! That is a bit beyond the Q7's capabilities.
Yes, hand-held is tough with a long lens. However, I would point out that he says "he likes to" do that - sometimes we have what mathematicians call an "overly constrained problem", we either don't do the problem or we relax one of the limitations; I have exchanged messages with people who tell me they have successfully hand-held a Canon SX50 or a Nikon P900, and I kind of doubt that those cameras are more capable than the Q is (apart from auto-focus, which brings me back to my pet hope for a long native Q-mount lens). Also, I would note that I usually use a monopod, and restricting movement in just one dimension makes the problem so much easier (especially since I have to hand-focus before I shoot).

  • 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!
baby, camera, extremetelephoto, glass, iso, legacy, lens, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, picture, q-s1, q10, q7, shot, shutter, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baby steps: LENR jeffkrol General Talk 15 11-23-2012 11:49 AM
baby steps jeffkrol General Talk 0 11-12-2012 12:45 PM
Linking ISO steps with EV steps kiwibird Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 01-03-2011 08:51 AM
Baby steps in flash - one photo fine, next black? paddy567 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 11-22-2010 07:46 AM
Streets Baby Steps Into Street Photography Tamia Post Your Photos! 9 10-07-2010 08:51 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:06 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]