Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-02-2015, 08:31 PM   #16
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 351
would be cool. but i doubt a 3rd line will happen... they should first try to build a decent retractable superzoom for the q... with lens stabilizer and f:4 throughout.
50-250mm would do the trick...
would be a comparable reach to this one:
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM Lens Review

ah yes, and EVF on the next Q... dont forget...) and focus peaking should visualize better like on magic lantern hack with stripes... not with noisy dots flying around... :P

11-03-2015, 11:03 AM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 240
I know all this is speculation but I agree with a lot of the comments, an EVF is really needed, preferably built in but clip-on would do for me plus a longer autofocus zoom and if we are really lucky weather-resistance as well.

Hope does spring eternal.

CD
11-03-2015, 11:07 AM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 221
QuoteOriginally posted by PenPusher Quote
I know all this is speculation but I agree with a lot of the comments, an EVF is really needed, preferably built in but clip-on would do for me plus a longer autofocus zoom and if we are really lucky weather-resistance as well.

Hope does spring eternal.

CD
EVF's are only ever mentioned as "needed" by enthusiast like yourself. To average public this just isn't likely to be true, and they probably make up over 99% of the sales. Average public are used to smartphone screens, not viewfinders.

J
11-03-2015, 01:49 PM   #19
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by jethro10 Quote
EVF's are only ever mentioned as "needed" by enthusiast like yourself. To average public this just isn't likely to be true, and they probably make up over 99% of the sales. Average public are used to smartphone screens, not viewfinders.
Maybe yes, maybe no.

Recently Canon finally released a clip-on EVF to use with relevant cameras.
They must have had some reason for producing and selling it.

---------- Post added 11-03-15 at 03:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
would be cool. but i doubt a 3rd line will happen... they should first try to build a decent retractable superzoom for the q... with lens stabilizer and f:4 throughout.
IMHO, you're asking for too much.
Most birders don't expect a constant f-stop - that is more of a sports thing, and I can't see using a Q for that purpose.
Why have in-lens stabilization when the body already provides stabilization??

11-03-2015, 02:59 PM - 1 Like   #20
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 351
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Why have in-lens stabilization when the body already provides stabilization??
Because having both is a really big thing. Believe me. I had a "Sigma 150-500 HSM OS" mounted on my K-3. i switched on both stabilizers and man, it worked like a charm.

I guess this is the reason, that sigma still puts the OS in the Pentax-mount lenses.


They would not build the pentax lenses with OS, if this would deliver bad results or would be a problem.
And if you somehow solve the very difficult task to freak out the combo-Stabilization by shivering like having a latent parkinson or something alike, your are allowed to switch it off.


IMHO COMBO-OS or COMBO-SR if you wish so, is a very big thing. Some Bridge-Cameras with a very long zoom range also have both. And I really would not go so far to say, those Bridge-Cam-Engineers did wrong(and studied for ZIP), rather i would say having both is very innovative and desirable. Like i pointed out already, its really a magnificent feeling to have a K-3 with Sigmas stabilized "long gun" and speaking for my self it not only stabilzes the lens.

If you see how calm and still the picture is when you look through your K-3's viewfinder with the stabilized long Sigma lens mounted plus SR switched ON; I swear you will feel as cool as captain cold.
Ice cold.


I mean this is not only cool. It is really awesome.

1st) the OS does a really good job
2nd) having in camera SR in addition that already stabilizes a bit makes you feel much more calm
3rd) when you look through the viewfinder you can feel the stillness and this not only stabilizes the picture.

I swear to GOD: It stabilzes yourself!!! I felt solid like f...... Mount Everest with this combo in my hands, but i just couldnt effort it so i had to send it back.
(Car Repairs and such... this is always a big ouch...)


It would be progress that does not hurt anybody. Because you could switch of the stabilizer you dont like. If you have some kind of "Superhero-Feeling" you could turn of both stabilizers... I dont see a problem in this.
And if the 150-450 would have had an ILS or OS or "whatsoever" built in, i would consider to buy it.

But as it seems i will rather buy a 150-500 Sigma or a 150-600 HSM OS Sigma Sports(which i am pretty sure they will build when PENTAX FF sales start to roll... :P ) somewhen in the near future...

But if there would be a Q-S2 with EVF and such a stabilized "Superzoom Q-Lens" i would rather buy that solution, because it would be:
1st) cheaper
2nd) lighter
3rd) smaller
etc.
And i really prefer the Q solution, because i dont have the feeling that i will ever have my wildlife photography published in some magazine or so. Nope. This is only for my private joy, and considering that, a used sigma will have to do or like i explained such a superzoom solution for the Q System.

And even if some paper or mag would show interest in my wildlife-photography, the resolution and IQ of the images that for instance the Q-S1 delivers would be sufficient for that.

Just look at the following picture. Crisp clear awesome pix without the slightest photoshopping...straight out of your Q with a Q standard zoom...
I only imagine how good such a dedicated Q-Superzoom for 400-600 bucks would deliver... WOW.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q-S1  Photo 
11-05-2015, 02:08 PM   #21
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
Because having both is a really big thing. Believe me. I had a "Sigma 150-500 HSM OS" mounted on my K-3. i switched on both stabilizers and man, it worked like a charm.

I guess this is the reason, that sigma still puts the OS in the Pentax-mount lenses.


They would not build the pentax lenses with OS, if this would deliver bad results or would be a problem.
And if you somehow solve the very difficult task to freak out the combo-Stabilization by shivering like having a latent parkinson or something alike, your are allowed to switch it off.


IMHO COMBO-OS or COMBO-SR if you wish so, is a very big thing. Some Bridge-Cameras with a very long zoom range also have both. And I really would not go so far to say, those Bridge-Cam-Engineers did wrong(and studied for ZIP), rather i would say having both is very innovative and desirable. Like i pointed out already, its really a magnificent feeling to have a K-3 with Sigmas stabilized "long gun" and speaking for my self it not only stabilzes the lens.

If you see how calm and still the picture is when you look through your K-3's viewfinder with the stabilized long Sigma lens mounted plus SR switched ON; I swear you will feel as cool as captain cold.
Ice cold.
My Sigma 70-300mm lens isn't stabilized ... I guess they've determined that IBIS is sufficient until you get to really long reach.


QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
I mean this is not only cool. It is really awesome.

1st) the OS does a really good job
2nd) having in camera SR in addition that already stabilizes a bit makes you feel much more calm
3rd) when you look through the viewfinder you can feel the stillness and this not only stabilizes the picture.

I swear to GOD: It stabilzes yourself!!! I felt solid like f...... Mount Everest with this combo in my hands, but i just couldnt effort it so i had to send it back.
(Car Repairs and such... this is always a big ouch...)


It would be progress that does not hurt anybody. Because you could switch of the stabilizer you dont like. If you have some kind of "Superhero-Feeling" you could turn of both stabilizers... I dont see a problem in this.
And if the 150-450 would have had an ILS or OS or "whatsoever" built in, i would consider to buy it.

But as it seems i will rather buy a 150-500 Sigma or a 150-600 HSM OS Sigma Sports(which i am pretty sure they will build when PENTAX FF sales start to roll... :P ) somewhen in the near future...

But if there would be a Q-S2 with EVF and such a stabilized "Superzoom Q-Lens" i would rather buy that solution, because it would be:
1st) cheaper
2nd) lighter
3rd) smaller
etcc
We know that stabilization is supposed to be turned off when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I've heard people who left it turned on say that you can see the image jumping around in the viewfinder - apparently stabilization gets antsy when it has absolutely no motion to deal with. I was thinking that the same thing might happen under double stabilization ... but if you say this works better, I'm willing to believe that it would work. Now all we need is a lens to demonstrate the concept with...

Last edited by reh321; 11-05-2015 at 02:12 PM. Reason: added thought
11-05-2015, 03:45 PM   #22
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 351
I f... swear. I also was very curious. But just rent a BIGMA with OS and mount it on your K-3, K-5 or K-7...
(I took a try with a K-3 + OSed BigMA)

---------- Post added 11-05-15 at 03:49 PM ----------

and remember... there are 2 Stabilizer modes...


One for panning(I guess this one wont be affected when the combo is mounted on a tripod - because i think it only corrects to the sides and adds a bit more inertia.)

and the other one for handheld shots...(this will also correct up and down)
11-05-2015, 10:03 PM   #23
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
Because having both is a really big thing. Believe me. I had a "Sigma 150-500 HSM OS" mounted on my K-3. i switched on both stabilizers and man, it worked like a charm.

I guess this is the reason, that sigma still puts the OS in the Pentax-mount lenses.
Actually this is exactly opposite what Olympus users have found with their cameras when using a Panasonic lens. The Olympus bodies have either three or five direction image stabilization. The Panasonic lenses have stabilization. When used in conjunction with one another they run counter productively causing slightly blurred images. The problem is mitigated by shutting off the lens stabilization when the lens is used on an Olympus body. No stabilization exists when using an Olympus lens on a Panasonic body.

It's difficult to believe that the same negative results would not be true of the Pentax system unless it senses a stabilized lens is being used and compensates for it. I should point out that going back to the beginning of the Pentax DSLR line, not all Pentax bodies have image stabilization and that may be the reason some Pentax mount lenses have stabilization. .

11-06-2015, 02:26 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Actually this is exactly opposite what Olympus users have found with their cameras when using a Panasonic lens. The Olympus bodies have either three or five direction image stabilization. The Panasonic lenses have stabilization. When used in conjunction with one another they run counter productively causing slightly blurred images. The problem is mitigated by shutting off the lens stabilization when the lens is used on an Olympus body. No stabilization exists when using an Olympus lens on a Panasonic body.

It's difficult to believe that the same negative results would not be true of the Pentax system unless it senses a stabilized lens is being used and compensates for it. I should point out that going back to the beginning of the Pentax DSLR line, not all Pentax bodies have image stabilization and that may be the reason some Pentax mount lenses have stabilization. .
OIS and IBIS/SR working hand in hand without communication between them somehow sounds too good to be true. Panasonic is doing it in m4/3 but for it to work, both stabilization systems need to "talk" to each other.
11-06-2015, 04:57 AM   #25
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 351
As I said: If it doesnt work for you shut ah.. off.. one System. You dont believe it, you have to try it.
there is a German sprichwort, loosely translated:"Believing is something for the church. and for trainstations..(be leaving, Carl! *poke*)

Again:
Normal OS
Panning OS
no OS
it is yours to choose. At least on Sigmas big ones..


And it is yours to consider, if an in-body SR is sufficient for getting a calm hold on your motive at focal lengths equal to app. 1000mm(to 24x36)
But plz, be so kind and let all the others switch it on.

And if you do switch off in-Body SR, i am pretty sure you dont have to fear Chuck Norris drives by and beats you for putting shame on the "PENTAX-idea".
(SR... man, fine words butter no parsnips...)

And yes communication between both would be ideal but not essential because one has to accept,
that in-Lens stabilization is way superior to in Body-SR at very long focal lengths.

There is no Vogel-Strauss tactics that helps you out here wiping out that fact.
You may find "wise" sounding sophistic words to wipe that away just in front of your(and a few other forum readers) eyes, but in the end you'll latently hear it in your head: "How i would wish, for OS right now. Godd..."

And in the end, i have to admit, i have no idea why the h.. we are talking about olys and panis stabil. when i all i was said, that the
Sigma OS worked really fine in conjunction with my K-3 i got clean and clear results at 1/5s at 500mm ! without a tripod...
11-06-2015, 07:44 AM   #26
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
As I said: If it doesnt work for you shut ah.. off.. one System. You dont believe it, you have to try it.
there is a German sprichwort, loosely translated:"Believing is something for the church. and for trainstations..(be leaving, Carl! *poke*)

Again:
Normal OS
Panning OS
no OS
it is yours to choose. At least on Sigmas big ones..


And it is yours to consider, if an in-body SR is sufficient for getting a calm hold on your motive at focal lengths equal to app. 1000mm(to 24x36)
But plz, be so kind and let all the others switch it on.

And if you do switch off in-Body SR, i am pretty sure you dont have to fear Chuck Norris drives by and beats you for putting shame on the "PENTAX-idea".
(SR... man, fine words butter no parsnips...)

And yes communication between both would be ideal but not essential because one has to accept,
that in-Lens stabilization is way superior to in Body-SR at very long focal lengths.

There is no Vogel-Strauss tactics that helps you out here wiping out that fact.
You may find "wise" sounding sophistic words to wipe that away just in front of your(and a few other forum readers) eyes, but in the end you'll latently hear it in your head: "How i would wish, for OS right now. Godd..."

And in the end, i have to admit, i have no idea why the h.. we are talking about olys and panis stabil. when i all i was said, that the
Sigma OS worked really fine in conjunction with my K-3 i got clean and clear results at 1/5s at 500mm ! without a tripod...
Your words would gain some validity if you posted photo's along with the exif data attached to demonstrate the point you are trying to make. Without such demonstration of concept there will always be doubters as well as those who oppose your position. I see you do not have an album on this board. Where are your images and exif data displayed?
11-06-2015, 08:09 AM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 221
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Maybe yes, maybe no.

Recently Canon finally released a clip-on EVF to use with relevant cameras.
They must have had some reason for producing and selling it.
Because even a small amount is users may be big enough if you have a bigger sales base.

Evf is minority, however much you hope
11-06-2015, 08:12 AM   #28
Veteran Member
patarok's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 351
Nothing will be displayed anywhere...
...that leads to nowhere, because: The next f.. troll comes up and says : nananaaaa, you could have edited the EXIF Data... nananaaana... anybody's able to edit EXIF data today....yadayada...yeggedy....sh...

Such childish comments will end here and now.

I am done explaining the sense, purpose and also the superiority of Optical In-Lens Stabilization here. To me it seems only a few are interested in nice progressive suggestions here and only answer with sophistic arguments, because theyr craving for recognition.
My efforts end here...

It would cost me time to cram out those test pictures... and people(especially the most in here) wouldnt cherish it.
I am done wasting my time with this forum.

p.s:If you want an album, you can have a look on my Pinhole Album on facebook.

EOL
11-06-2015, 08:43 AM   #29
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
p.s:If you want an album, you can have a look on my Pinhole Album on facebook.

EOL
Well, I tried but apparently you did not provide a hyperlink to your Pinhole Album on facebook.
11-06-2015, 08:43 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by jethro10 Quote
Because even a small amount is users may be big enough if you have a bigger sales base.

Evf is minority, however much you hope
"I don't need it so Ricoh shouldn't make it"

An EVF is one of the most persistently mentioned non-features of the Q and Ricoh already have one in the old parts bin left over from the GXR... Now how tough could it be to give the Q the necessary data port?
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!
bigma, camera, focus, high-iso, k-3, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pentax rumors, phase, phase detection, pixels, profile, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumor: Pentax FF new Limited lenses coming soon? Stavri Pentax News and Rumors 253 09-27-2015 10:40 AM
New Pentax leaf shutter 645 medium format lenses coming soon i83N Pentax News and Rumors 73 10-03-2014 08:03 AM
New soon-to-be Q owner Soul_Est Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-05-2013 12:21 AM
First signs of upcoming Pentax K-3 appearing... JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 183 09-06-2012 08:20 AM
K20D will be replaced very soon? (Signs of..) RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 127 09-17-2008 01:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 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