[Altglas]

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

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Rimfiredude]

Thought I would see how much would be lost when giving a little straightening.

[savoche]

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!).

[EarlVonTapia]

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.

[crewl1]

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

[digital029art]

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.

[crewl1]

Here is a scene with Q7 and Q - let me know what section you would like to see a 100% crop of.
Q7


Q

[digital029art]

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.

[CWRailman]

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.

[crewl1]

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.)

[crewl1]

Here is the Q




Here is the Q7




The difference in image quality may be due to diffraction on the Q sensor.

[digital029art]

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 !

[EarlVonTapia]

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.

[crewl1]

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.

[Altglas]

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.