Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-25-2015, 08:45 AM - 1 Like   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 38
Comparison of the 03 fisheye on Q and Q7 and Q7 with third party raw converter

I very much like stong wide angles and I like my 03 lens a lot. It offers a great field of view and good image quality in a small package. For my Pentax K-30 I have a Sigma 8-16mm. A great lens that I seldom use because of its bulk.

What I wanted to find out was how much angle of view the 03 has on the bigger sensor of the Q7.

Results see below. The Q7 offers quite a bit more field of view than the Q. I also developed a raw file with raw therapee and you can see that there is still a lot of coverage to gain if cut corners are accepted. When removing the cut corners by hand quit a bit more image is left than in the jpg.

The image qualty on my 03 is really good right to the edges. It also doesn't decay much when using the very corners of the field of view with the third party raw converter. A very astonishing piece of plastic!

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
01-25-2015, 09:32 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,175
Thought I would see how much would be lost when giving a little straightening.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q7  Photo 
01-25-2015, 10:15 AM   #3
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,727
Nice comparison, and interesting that the raw file has that much more info.

Reminds me I should use my Samyang 8mm more - since I'm Q-less (ba-da-tish!).
01-25-2015, 11:48 AM   #4
Pentaxian
EarlVonTapia's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,150
Great job OP!

I've always wanted to see an example of how the 03 renders on the Q7. I have the original Q, and the only Q-mount lens I have is the 03. Now I'm going to keep my eye out for a cheapo Q7 to squeeze a little more juice out of the 03.

01-26-2015, 11:47 PM   #5
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
When I got my 03 I sold my DA10-17 because I didn't use it that much and the 03 had IQ that was very close to the DA10-17.
It is a competent lens indeed for the price and size.
Biggest issue with the toy lenses is the focus is easily bumped, so a member printed some 3D focus keepers which do the trick of keeping the lens in focus.

---------- Post added 01-26-15 at 10:48 PM ----------

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/246173-03-lens-focus-lock-helper.html
01-27-2015, 10:12 AM   #6
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
Great to see the FOV comparison, thanks!

The 03 lens is a very decent performer, but I do wish it had the built in shutter for higher flash synch (i.e. more than 1/13).

I use these settings to get best IQ (jpeg):
saturation +1, key -2, contrast +4, sharp +2

Also the focus needs to be set to the first bold mark, left of center for the best hyperfocal distance. I keep mine gorilla-taped like that!

Any chance of seeing at 100% to compare the IQ of Q vs Q7 ? I only have original flavor Q, would like to see IQ of the Q7 in comparison.
01-27-2015, 10:23 AM   #7
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Here is a scene with Q7 and Q - let me know what section you would like to see a 100% crop of.
Q7


Q
01-27-2015, 11:11 AM   #8
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
Thx crewl1 - well the center detail and extreme right (telephone pole area).
If the mx-1 is any indication, i find little difference between the two sensors at normal iso's 125-400. At 800 or more both sensors start "loosing it", although the mx-1 lens is super sharp, much better than even the 1.7 sensor can handle.

01-27-2015, 11:56 AM   #9
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Here is a scene with Q7 and Q - let me know what section you would like to see a 100% crop of.
Q7
Q
When I was doing similar tests, for our type of photography we set the camera up about three feet from a set of books on a shelf and using the 01 lens we took shots at most F stops using ambient lighting which produced an image with a minimal amount of contrast. Then we replaced the Q10 with the Q7 and did the same. All shots produced JPG files. On the puter screen we noticed a significant increase in the amount of detail captured by the Q7. The grain on the book case was sharper and the textures of the books seemed more developed.

We then took both cameras on an excursion to a model railroad club and again did the same shooting some HO scale models and that is where it really showed a difference in detail. On puter screen we were blowing the images up about 12 times their actual size and the detail held remarkably well. Zooms about half that amount were what the images from the Q10 could tolerate.

Having said that, I should point out that while the Q and the Q10 have the same sensor, in doing similar tests a few weeks earlier, again producing JPG files, we found the Q10 produced sharper images than the Q. However I suspect that had less to do with the sensor than with the algorithm that was doing the processing and compression down to JPG format. I often suspected some variations in processing between the Q and the Q10 or maybe our Q was not the best example of that series. Since there is no relationship between the firmware of the various series it is difficult to see what changes have been made in the processing algorithums from one series to another.

01-27-2015, 12:07 PM   #10
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
QuoteOriginally posted by digital029art Quote
Thx crewl1 - well the center detail and extreme right (telephone pole area).
If the mx-1 is any indication, i find little difference between the two sensors at normal iso's 125-400. At 800 or more both sensors start "loosing it", although the mx-1 lens is super sharp, much better than even the 1.7 sensor can handle.
Oops now that I offered I just realized I deleted the originals. I will get some this afternoon for ya.
(I delete test shots from the drive once I post them online to share.)
01-27-2015, 03:57 PM   #11
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Here is the Q




Here is the Q7




The difference in image quality may be due to diffraction on the Q sensor.
01-27-2015, 08:01 PM   #12
Veteran Member
digital029art's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
The edge performance on my Q/03 looks more like your Q7 edge. Maybe I just got a really good copy or the settings I'm using. The slight extra FOV is nice though.
Thanks for digging these up crewl1 !
01-29-2015, 12:07 PM   #13
Pentaxian
EarlVonTapia's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,150
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
When I got my 03 I sold my DA10-17 because I didn't use it that much and the 03 had IQ that was very close to the DA10-17.
Hmm interesting . . . I'd love to see a comparison of the same shot between the 03 + Q7 and the DA 10-17.
01-29-2015, 12:32 PM   #14
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
QuoteOriginally posted by EarlVonTapia Quote
Hmm interesting . . . I'd love to see a comparison of the same shot between the 03 + Q7 and the DA 10-17.
I no longer own the 10-17 so my comparison was done with the Q since the Q7 came later for me.
The 10-17 was tested with K-5, K-3 might improve it some.

My use of the fisheye is sporadic and for non critical work so for me it was an easy choice.
02-02-2015, 10:59 PM   #15
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 38
Original Poster
Here I show left upper corner and center crops of Q+03 lens vs. Q7+03 lens, both from the JPEGS staight out of cam. The Q7 image looks contrastier and has more resolution. For general use I always found the Q images to lack a little bit of clarity. So I'm quite happy with the improvement offered by the Q7.

When using the third party raw converter the image quality stays on a perfectly usable level right to the border of the image circle - amazing.
Attached Images
 
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, converter, corners, cut, da10-17, field, focus, lens, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, q7 and q7, q7 with third, third party
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Q7, Generic Q to K and Q to MD minolta converter transam879 Sold Items 3 01-09-2015 06:44 AM
Behaviour of the Q7 and Q-S1 with external flashes NeilGratton Pentax Q 16 12-31-2014 07:09 AM
Fisheye 03 lens on Q vs. Q7 6BQ5 Pentax Q 4 07-09-2014 02:08 PM
Comparison Q/Q7 with 01/02/03/04/05/06/07 at base ISO philzucker Pentax Q 15 03-11-2014 11:05 AM
Q7 vs Q ISO comparison RAW crewl1 Pentax Q 21 10-02-2013 05:03 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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