Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2015, 01:38 PM   #31
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,995
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
Not much smaller at all I think. At least it is my understanding that for focal lengths significantly longer than the image circle diameter you get coverage (or at least illumination) nearly automatically.
Are you sure? Because the 06 zoom is much smaller than my DA*50-135 even though they are both F2.8 and both cover similar focal ranges.

02-13-2015, 02:44 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Are you sure? Because the 06 zoom is much smaller than my DA*50-135 even though they are both F2.8 and both cover similar focal ranges.
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant same specs. Not equivalent, same.

Obviously an optically shorter lens with a smaller (absolute) aperture will be smaller physically (until we start talking about wide angle lenses).
02-13-2015, 03:15 PM   #33
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,995
QuoteOriginally posted by drougge Quote
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant same specs. Not equivalent, same.

Obviously an optically shorter lens with a smaller (absolute) aperture will be smaller physically (until we start talking about wide angle lenses).
I guess you're right, just looking at this comparison: Compact Camera Meter

But still, if Pentax makes a 70-300 for the Q it will reach out to 1410mm EQ, which is a lot of reach in a small package. I do that now with the DA 55-300 WR but I wish I had AF.
02-13-2015, 05:48 PM   #34
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,429
FWIW I have several thick, black, 12" microfiber cloths. I wear a wide-brimmed hat (Gilley) anyway, so I drape the cloth over the hatbrim and the top of the camera and hold it near my face. Works great.

02-15-2015, 04:37 PM   #35
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
The Q is no match for an SLR, but we take our Q10 everywhere and it's a heck more fun to shoot than a cell phone. With an EVF it would be about perfect.
02-16-2015, 10:02 PM   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
I am reminded of the Pentax 110.
That was a complete system with the lenses and not a never ending stream of new lenses.
Kind of makes sense too.

I guess at one point, we have to call it a day wrt how many lenses they will make for the Q.
To be fair, general uses would need
1. UWA - 08 zoom
2. General zoom - 02 zoom
3. Fast normal prime - 01 prime
4. Short-moderate tele - 06 zoom
Perhaps a fun Fisheye too.
02-17-2015, 11:29 AM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,848
My own comparison goes back to the late '60's when I carried the compact Olympus Pen-F kit. The Q-series reviews repeat every pro and con argument of that 1/2-frame 35mm system -- and it WAS a system. If the 02 was upgraded a bit and a true macro was added it would be hard to dismiss the Q's as a viable, briefcase sized system on any basis other than the sensor size.

If it does eventually satisfy a compact systems niche I'd happily accommodate a 15% increase in size to encompass a hi-res, tilting LCD screen and a little more finger-room for the controls.
02-18-2015, 02:59 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia
Posts: 357
A top notch 01-style wide prime rather than the toy wide. Especially since i still use the original Q. The zooms havent really appealed to me in the q system, it seems to me to be ideal for prime lenses.

Something around 24mm equiv ( 5mm 2.8 doable?) and maybe one around 85-90mm (15mm 1.8?) out the other side. Actually, a fast 85mm on the bigger Q7 sensor could make an outstanding small scale portrait outfit?

I dont expect them to happen though. I should probably just buy a GR for the WA bee in my bonnet, lol.


Last edited by saladin; 02-18-2015 at 03:33 AM.
02-18-2015, 09:11 AM   #39
Senior Member
sapporodan's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by saladin Quote
A top notch 01-style wide prime rather than the toy wide. Especially since i still use the original Q. The zooms havent really appealed to me in the q system, it seems to me to be ideal for prime lenses.

Something around 24mm equiv ( 5mm 2.8 doable?) and maybe one around 85-90mm (15mm 1.8?) out the other side. Actually, a fast 85mm on the bigger Q7 sensor could make an outstanding small scale portrait outfit?

I dont expect them to happen though. I should probably just buy a GR for the WA bee in my bonnet, lol.
If only they remade the 03 04 & 05 lenses to the quality of the 01. Although I am not really a prime shooter, I agree the Q system needs more small primes. Even the Samsung NX mini has 2 primes compared to the Q's 1! ( I am not counting the toy lenses).
03-02-2015, 07:03 PM   #40
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,722
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
I guess you're right, just looking at this comparison: Compact Camera Meter

But still, if Pentax makes a 70-300 for the Q it will reach out to 1410mm EQ, which is a lot of reach in a small package. I do that now with the DA 55-300 WR but I wish I had AF.
I wonder how much would be added to the price of the Pentax K-to-Q adapter if they added contacts to it so that the Q could use the auto-focus and aperture-control functions already built into KAF3-mount lenses. I guess I should also wonder how many of us would buy one at that price, but having that capability would really add to to the utility of the adapter and greatly increase the advantage it already has over other adapters..

This wondering is a result of my discovering that the Canon 75mm-300mm lens I use with my Canon Rebel is about the best long lens (despite its not having manual aperture control) I have for my Q7, so when we visit our daughter in San Diego, I will probably take that lens with us (room under the airplane seat limiting how much stuff I can take with me), planning to switch it between cameras depending on exactly how much "reach" I need. Some day, I plan to replace that Rebel with a K-something, and being able to switch a lens like that back and forth between the two cameras, not losing auto-anything, would be really neat!!
03-02-2015, 08:13 PM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,705
The Nikon 1 cameras have the Nikon FT-1 adapter, which allows users to use F-mount lenses... and the FT-1 supports autofocus on AF-S lenses. The FT-1 costs about the same as the Pentax K-Q adapter.

I think trying to have the little Q autofocus the screw-drive Pentax lenses wouldn't work, that's a lot of torque and would kill the battery pretty quickly, I think, plus possibly necessitate Pentax beefing up some of the electronics of the Q.

Ricoh does have some patents for Q lenses, though: inch1/1.7??????????So-net???

7.5-120mm f/1.6-1.9 (hard to believe about the apertures)
4.4mm f/1.4
45mm f/1.8

And the upcoming 18mm f/2.8 macro.

Last edited by luftfluss; 03-02-2015 at 08:18 PM.
03-02-2015, 08:33 PM   #42
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,722
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I wonder how much would be added to the price of the Pentax K-to-Q adapter if they added contacts to it so that the Q could use the auto-focus and aperture-control functions already built into KAF3-mount lenses. I guess I should also wonder how many of us would buy one at that price, but having that capability would really add to to the utility of the adapter and greatly increase the advantage it already has over other adapters.
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
The Nikon 1 cameras have the Nikon FT-1 adapter, which allows users to use F-mount lenses... and the FT-1 supports autofocus on AF-S lenses. The FT-1 costs about the same as the Pentax K-Q adapter.
The adapters provided by both Nikon and Canon to allow their mirror-less cameras to use some existing APS-C lenses in native mode are exactly where i got my inspiration.

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
I think trying to have the little Q autofocus the screw-drive Pentax lenses wouldn't work, that's a lot of torque and would kill the battery pretty quickly, I think, plus possibly necessitate Pentax beefing up some of the electronics of the Q.
That is precisely why I specified KAF3 lenses, since that wouldn't require supporting screw-drive AF.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/173828-kaf3-mount.html
03-02-2015, 09:14 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
The adapters provided by both Nikon and Canon to allow their mirror-less cameras to use some existing APS-C lenses in native mode are exactly where i got my inspiration.

That is precisely why I specified KAF3 lenses, since that wouldn't require supporting screw-drive AF.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/173828-kaf3-mount.html
Oops, I missed the KAF3 mention in your post.

Most of the SDM lenses look to have large enough apertures that the Q's AF system should be able to acquire focus easily. Is the Pentax K-Q merely a bone tossed out to us K-mount enthusiasts? If so, then I doubt we'd see further development. But if Ricoh considers that adapter to be a core part of the Q's mission, perhaps we will see a KAF3-compatible version, especially since Pentax's latest lenses have in-body motors.

I do wonder, though, if the 1" sensor revolution has caught Ricoh flat-footed. It seems like most of the latest (and rumored future) premium compact P&S cameras have 1" sensors, and Panasonic stuffed a m/43 sensor in the LX100. Will Sony (or somebody) further develop the 1/1.7" sensor?
03-03-2015, 02:49 AM   #44
Senior Member
sapporodan's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 123
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I wonder how much would be added to the price of the Pentax K-to-Q adapter if they added contacts to it so that the Q could use the auto-focus and aperture-control functions already built into KAF3-mount lenses. I guess I should also wonder how many of us would buy one at that price, but having that capability would really add to to the utility of the adapter and greatly increase the advantage it already has over other adapters..

This wondering is a result of my discovering that the Canon 75mm-300mm lens I use with my Canon Rebel is about the best long lens (despite its not having manual aperture control) I have for my Q7, so when we visit our daughter in San Diego, I will probably take that lens with us (room under the airplane seat limiting how much stuff I can take with me), planning to switch it between cameras depending on exactly how much "reach" I need. Some day, I plan to replace that Rebel with a K-something, and being able to switch a lens like that back and forth between the two cameras, not losing auto-anything, would be really neat!!
I doubt it would cost much at all, most likely the lenses from the K and Q mounts work the same way, all they would be doing is connecting the contacts from one side to the other. Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Samsung and Sony all have adaptor mounts that can do this, and give full control, so there is no reason not to.
03-03-2015, 06:13 AM   #45
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,995
QuoteOriginally posted by sapporodan Quote
I doubt it would cost much at all, most likely the lenses from the K and Q mounts work the same way, all they would be doing is connecting the contacts from one side to the other. Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Samsung and Sony all have adaptor mounts that can do this, and give full control, so there is no reason not to.
Battery life. The Q's battery is feeble enough as it is that I always carry a bag of spare "potato chips" with me.
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, canon, lcd, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, screen, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More full-frame smoke, but still no fire, this time from photographyblog bobdobbs Pentax News and Rumors 845 11-04-2014 03:18 PM
Pentax K3 still has no competitor ? 7dmk2 inc. G.E.Zekai Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 24 10-03-2014 03:35 PM
Still no external manual flash triggering with adapted lenses? Doundounba Pentax Q 19 07-29-2014 12:01 PM
Still no flash for the mirrorless? climit Pentax Mirrorless Cameras 5 10-14-2013 03:33 AM
Nature Still no snow ... zman Post Your Photos! 6 11-28-2011 05:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 AM. | 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