[luftfluss]

I just pulled the trigger on a Q7 + 5-15 lens. Beside native Q lenses, I intend to use a Tak 200/4 and 300/4 with the Q7, so naturally I'm considering the adapter choices. Since I also use those Taks with my K-01, I have el-cheapo K-mount adapters affixed semi-permanently on them, making them de facto K-mount lenses. Since I'll use the aperture rings to control the aperture, and I intend to do most of my shooting at 1/500s or faster (daytime wildlife), is there much of a benefit using the genuine Pentax adapter vs the Fotodiox (or whatever) version? I currently have no intention of ever using any DA lenses with the Q.

[vonBaloney]

With the non-Pentax adapter, you will be using the electronic shutter, which is a so-called "rolling shutter". No matter what you set the shutter speed to, it still takes 1/13s to take the image (it takes it row-by-row, so each row will be "exposed" for what you set, but it takes 1/13s to get through the rows no matter what), so you can get weird effects if the subject is moving or your hands are not steady. (Look up "rolling shutter" to see that.) However, the Pentax adapter has a mechanical shutter built-in (the non-toy Q lenses all have their own shutters as well) and so avoids the rolling shutter effect. It also has the option of a tripod mount. The interior on the Pentax is also painted better -- you can improve the Fotodiox adapter by putting some black non-reflective fabric/felt in the interior or repainting it a matte black.

Basically, the Pentax is much superior in every way. If you plan to be doing a lot of this, you'll want it eventually, but it is smart to start with the $20ish cheap adapter to see how well you actually like it using the adapted lenses and if you are going to be doing enough on it to upgrade to the Pentax later. Another thing with the screw mounts: the cheaper adapter doesn't always play nice with the m42 adapter (even if you take the spring off). I got an m42 adapter stuck on the Fotodiox adapter almost immediately and then ended up buying another cheap m42-Q adapter for those lenses. Some people said they had the same trouble, some others said they didn't.

No such problems with the real Pentax adapter though. (I started out with the cheap ones, then upgraded.)

[hnikesch]

I started with the fotodiox then moved to the Pentax, the Pentax provides a sharper image even at the fastest shutter speeds the rolling shutter will slightly distort images. I didn't regret the purchase.

[luftfluss]

Thanks, guys. I had (hastily, it turns out) disregarded the rolling shutter issue because I assumed (heh) that it impacted primarily video.

I'll go for the genuine Pentax adapter, pricey as it is.

[vonBaloney]

The rolling shutter isn't that bad and won't be an issue for most images with a static scene, and if you ever use any other adapted lenses (110 lenses, C-mount, D-mount, etc) you'll be stuck with it in any case for those lenses. (The sharpness vs the Pentax adapter is mostly because of the better black interior on the Pentax rather than the rolling shutter, and that can be be fixed on the cheap one.) If you want to do serious ultra-telephoto work with K lenses, the Pentax adapter is a must, but doing serious ultra-telephoto work with K lenses also presents several other challenges (and probably more accessories -- red dot finder, LCD viewer, etc) that you may or may not enjoy. Starting with the cheap adapter for little more than the price of a pizza isn't a bad idea...

[reh321]

The rolling shutter isn't that bad and won't be an issue for most images with a static scene, and if you ever use any other adapted lenses (110 lenses, C-mount, D-mount, etc) you'll be stuck with it in any case for those lenses. (The sharpness vs the Pentax adapter is mostly because of the better black interior on the Pentax rather than the rolling shutter, and that can be be fixed on the cheap one.) If you want to do serious ultra-telephoto work with K lenses, the Pentax adapter is a must, but doing serious ultra-telephoto work with K lenses also presents several other challenges (and probably more accessories -- red dot finder, LCD viewer, etc) that you may or may not enjoy. Starting with the cheap adapter for little more than the price of a pizza isn't a bad idea...

I went with cheaper Chinese adapters so I could try out the various lenses I have. It turns out that my best lenses are the ones I got for the Canon Rebel, which is currently my "primary" camera (some day I expect to replace it with a K-50 or K-S2, or whatever comes next, but that is then and this is now), so I guess I'll stick with that adapter for now.

[luftfluss]

The rolling shutter isn't that bad and won't be an issue for most images with a static scene, and if you ever use any other adapted lenses (110 lenses, C-mount, D-mount, etc) you'll be stuck with it in any case for those lenses. (The sharpness vs the Pentax adapter is mostly because of the better black interior on the Pentax rather than the rolling shutter, and that can be be fixed on the cheap one.) If you want to do serious ultra-telephoto work with K lenses, the Pentax adapter is a must, but doing serious ultra-telephoto work with K lenses also presents several other challenges (and probably more accessories -- red dot finder, LCD viewer, etc) that you may or may not enjoy. Starting with the cheap adapter for little more than the price of a pizza isn't a bad idea...

I have an LCD viewer for my K-01 that I'll share with Q. I think I'm OK with focusing with even the extreme reach that tele lenses offer on the Q - I don't even own an AF tele in K-mount, and MF a 550mm mirror lens on the K-01. We'll see. If I find I don't really enjoy the Q in that fashion, I'll sell the Q adapter and will probably lose as much money as the cost of a Fotodiox Q-K adapter, anyway.

[crewl1]

I started with the Fotodiox and it did fine with stationary subjects.
If you decide you like the adapted Q process and feel it would improve your experience you can then move up to the OEM adapter.

Too often I see folks jump in and buy a bunch of stuff to adapt to their Q and then decide it's not for them.
I takes some patience to learn how to get good results.

[luftfluss]

My targets will often not be stationary, so it really does seem that the Pentax adapter is for me. If I don't like it, I'll simply sell it, lose a few dollars, not the end of the world. The education has value.

I might get both adapters, just to satisfy my curiosity.

[vonBaloney]

My targets will often not be stationary, so it really does seem that the Pentax adapter is for me. If I don't like it, I'll simply sell it, lose a few dollars, not the end of the world. The education has value.

I might get both adapters, just to satisfy my curiosity.

Keep in mind the mechanical shutter also has its limits -- it does not go faster then 1/1000s. Anything faster will use electronic shutter (if the have it set to allow it), which goes to 1/2000s I think. If you do get the Pentax adapter, the Fanotec tripod foot/arca plate is highly recommended (if they still have some, I think so) if you will use lenses that do not have a collar. Better than the Pentax foot, by most accounts. I haven't compared them, but I got the Fanotec with plate, it's great.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/218882-fanotec-tripod-foot-p...da-lenses.html

The Xtend-a-Sight hotshoe mount for red dot sights is also very useful. They had stopped making it, but it looks like they are about to launch a new version. Or was that last year? Does it exist?

Photosolve Home > Products > Xtend-a-Sight

[hnikesch]

It is true that static images are fine with the shutterless adapters. My Q shooting style is hand held with long lenses my 135, or my 55-300 zoom. What I found is that my camera (hand) shake will create distortion when using the rolling shutter and that distortion is gone when I hand hold with the Pentax adapter. So what I am saying is that shooting static subjects using a tripod is fine with shutterless adapters but introduce subject or camera motion and you will need a shutter.

The following image was shot with a SMC-M 135mm f3.5 lens hand held on a Q with a Pentax adapter at 1/800 sec. shutter speed




This image was shot with a Q and the same 135mm lens using a Fotodiox shutterless adapter at 1/2000 sec. shutter speed, look at the tail front and rear edges they are not straight also the bottom of the airframe is not straight and the propeller



This same distortion is present on all images shot without a shutter but may not be as easy to see, for me the overall image using the Pentax adapter is sharper. I am not saying that I didn't do a better job focusing the upper image, I did but poor focus will not bend straight lines. Same camera, same lens, same aircraft only the adapter has changed (and operator focus) different year

[luftfluss]

Wow, that's a definitive example! Thanks for posting it.