Originally posted by kwb Dear reh321,
I hate to add more off-topic posts to here, but I feel as if I need to do it once.
This APSC crop thing is about the only claim that was sort of interesting to me in Nicolas06's posts. His math is good for his claim. Yours is not.
That claim is that, when you (reh321) used 24MP APSC sensor interchangeable lens camera with the same lens as you used for your telephoto shot with Q7, the resulting image quality wouldn't be that different from what you get now as far as resolving power is concerned, and that one way to test it is to scale your image by a factor of 2.1 or 2.2. Therefore he made a 546x364 image out of your 1201x800 image.
My issue is with the relevance of the arithmetic. I started off with a 4000x2664 image which was down-scaled by a factor of 3.3 to be displayed here. I don't see the point to down-scaling it again to "prove" anything. And, yes, both his choice of words and his presentation of arithmetic leave a lot to be desired.
---------- Post added 10-29-15 at 03:57 PM ----------
Originally posted by Nicolas06 The issue with the theory that you get more with you Q due to higher pixel density is that the lense that are good enough for that are more in the 16mm-135mm range than in the 200mm-600mm range. Oh maybe we could try the DA560, but the price is to take into consideration. If we look at DxO resolutions figures even a DA*300 is visibly less sharp than a DA35 macro on a K3 or K5-II meaning we are already facing the limits of DA*300 with a 24MP sensor. Sure a TC give a bit more, but apparently it is not at good as the 150-450 @ 420mm. 24MP maybe doesn't outresolve the DA*300 fully, but we are not far.
So yes, take a 100mm macro f/2.8, put it on a Q and get 2.1 time more details on the Q than K3. The framing would be like a 300mm lens. and the setup would be smaller than what you'd need on your DSLR. Not with an old 300mm prime full of CA.
I never claimed that mine was a great image; I said from the beginning that it was taken using a lens which had been found wanting as a result of this image. There is no point to whipping this dead horse.
BTW - one of the lenses I left home on this trip - to be honest I have very little experience with it in this setting - is a Sigma lens which looks very good to me in Croneberg's testing
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ml#post2337784.
One lesson from his testing, and comments by others, is that I should probably be more aggressive in closing down the lens (he is not the first to say that, despite diffraction, going to f/8 or even f/11 improves sharpness); I believe that my much-attacked image was taken at f/5.6.
I still claim, though, that a lens which does not fully resolve on the Q gives me better images than one which does fully resolve on the K but requires 3-fold (in each dimension) cropping.
Anyone who wants to continue beating this dead horse may continue to waste electrons.
I have long since tired of this, so I will not be a participant.
---------- Post added 10-29-15 at 04:10 PM ----------
Originally posted by eyeswideshut Yes I know and that is the (potential) beauty of the Q. It is a very small q-ilc that could also be morphed into Pentax' answer to all those bridge cameras => a bridge camera with an interchangeable mount. I'm sure that is a concept many people will immediately understand. Particularly as Pentax has discontinued the XG-1 after only about one year.
Nikon has done a far better job of diversifying the basic sensor/mount combination of the 1 by giving it superior auto focus, evf and a 300mm lens. Pentax should learn if they want to grow the Q beyond small and qute.
To develop such a cam would cost little as it simply recycles the Q's innards in another package to attract a broader audience.
But why recycle the Q's body? Why not simply provide an additional lens option? A 100mm-300mm Q lens would be great! The Canon SX-60 currently costs $479; the Nikon P900 currently costs $597 ... or would cost that if B&H had any in stock. Each of them has a 1/2.3" sensor, but each has created a certain amount of excitement in the market. The market is there. I am not willing to buy the 08 lens, because it doesn't add any real utility for me, but a "birding lens" for the Q, that would provide even better pictures than an adapted lens, would easily separate me from some money (once we got past the inevitable Pentax surcharge on early adopters).