Q7 and the Big Sig Try a Dance

Kath · 01-16-2016, 08:35 PM - **3 Likes**

Just picked up a Q7 from a member here. A K mount adapter arrived and today finally had a chance to try it out. Wanted to see how far I could see. Well! It turns out you can see pretty far!

My houseboat is maybe 350 feet (? someday I'm going to measure it) from the far shore. It drives me crazy that all manner of wildlife are on that shore (coyote, ducks, geese, heron, eagles, osprey, you name it) and even my longest lenses can't reach it for a decent shot. I thought for a while about the Nikon... um... the one with the ridiculous reach, but discounted it because no raw (and not Pentax!). And the Q just seemed like fun. So I popped the Q7 onto the Sigma 150-500 and had some fun.

Below are a few photos of my tryout today. VERY boring pictures, but I just wanted to get an idea of the reach at various focal lengths. One conclusion I reached is that I definitely need one of those scopes all the Q folks have on their cameras/lenses. Because you really can't rely on the Live View fooling you into believing you have this in perfect focus... I absolutely did not. Neither did I do my regular camera check in (eg: terrible sensor dust, now gone). To be fair, it was pouring rain today and dark as heck. But the little Q held its own, though forcing some pretty slow shutter speeds for most of it.

So, for what's it's worth, here's a little photo journal of the adventure:

The first shot is with the great little Q01, standard prime, just to show the distance we're talking about:

At 150mm:

At 210mm:

At 250mm:

At 300mm:

At 400:

At 500mm:

And a few geese at 500mm, same distance:

bertwert · 01-16-2016, 08:37 PM

Not bad...
Now with the 560?

Kath · 01-16-2016, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by bertwert

Not bad...
Now with the 560?

Yep, next project!

**UncleVanya** · 01-16-2016, 10:16 PM

Wow! That is some reach!

skogpingvin · 01-16-2016, 11:28 PM

Great reach isn't it? I love my Sigma 150-500, (on a K-3 II) but my rule is that if the bird isn't in direct sunlight and I can't stop it down to f/8, whatever photo you get is going to be crap.

Kath · 01-17-2016, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Wow! That is some reach!

It sure is!
---------- Post added 01-16-16 at 11:13 PM ----------

Originally posted by skogpingvin

Great reach isn't it? I love my Sigma 150-500, (on a K-3 II) but my rule is that if the bird isn't in direct sunlight and I can't stop it down to f/8, whatever photo you get is going to be crap.

Yes, and the Q to K-mount adapter makes it even wilder. I have to go back and read the Q manual and posts on this forum to help me get a handle on how the aperture works. When adapted to K-mount, it goes manual and you lose your f-stop gauge. So, no real idea what aperture these were shot at, just "2" or "3" for Q folks in the know.

The Q7 camera review page seems to indicate that a factor of 3, relative to APSC, would apply. So a 500mm lens has a reach of about 1500mm?!? Crazy!

mikdyb · 01-17-2016, 02:20 AM

Actually the 500mm is a 35mm film equivalent of 750mm on your apsc (factor 1.5), so on the q7 it becomes 2300mm (factor 4.6) and not 1500mm. Even more crazy :-)
EDIT: You are, of course, right if your basis for getting to grips with reach is apsc. But for me, having used film cameras for 30 years, the only way I can understand reach is relative to 35mm film.

Last edited by mikdyb; 01-17-2016 at 02:54 AM.

biz-engineer · 01-17-2016, 02:47 AM

IQ is not there, even at web size. I bet a Nikon P900 can delivery better IQ, while being more compact, cheaper, lighter and retaining AF.

mikdyb · 01-17-2016, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

IQ is not there, even at web size. I bet a Nikon P900 can delivery better IQ, while being more compact, cheaper, lighter and retaining AF.

You are probably right, but trying to get acceptable IQ playing with extreme tele and macro with lenses you already own is more fun!

biz-engineer · 01-17-2016, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by mikdyb

You are probably right, but trying to get acceptable IQ playing with extreme tele and macro with lenses you already own is more fun!

Yeah , sure it costs nothing to use what you already have :-) !!!

mikdyb · 01-17-2016, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Yeah , sure it costs nothing to use what you already have :-) !!!

Completely free, well........... have to buy one of the Qs and an adapter; probably not terribly much more than buying a new P900 :-)

**Heinrich Lohmann** · 01-17-2016, 09:16 AM

Kath, the results at 500mm aren't bad at all. With a little PP of the raw file things could be improved quiet a bit. Also, on the last image focus seems to be on the background instead of on the geese. Hope that you don't mind but I gave that last one a quick makeover:
Adjusted shadows and highlights and sharpened it at 60%. You could do much better working from the raw file.

take care

Kath · 01-17-2016, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by mikdyb

You are probably right, but trying to get acceptable IQ playing with extreme tele and macro with lenses you already own is more fun!

@mikdyb , that's exactly what I thought. The prospect of messing around with the Q and the lenses I already have, for a pretty small monetary outlay for used equipment, was what I was after. For high IQ wildlife shots, one is best off getting a bit closer than 350 feet.

**UncleVanya** · 01-17-2016, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

IQ is not there, even at web size. I bet a Nikon P900 can delivery better IQ, while being more compact, cheaper, lighter and retaining AF.

Are we looking at the Same pics?

Phenix jc · 01-17-2016, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Heinrich Lohmann

Kath, the results at 500mm aren't bad at all. With a little PP of the raw file things could be improved quiet a bit. Also, on the last image focus seems to be on the background instead of on the geese. Hope that you don't mind but I gave that last one a quick makeover:
Adjusted shadows and highlights and sharpened it at 60%. You could do much better working from the raw file.

take care

+1
But anyway it seems the Sigma 150-500mm isn't a good choice for the Q7...

01-16-2016, 08:35 PM - 3 Likes	#1
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737	Q7 and the Big Sig Try a Dance Just picked up a Q7 from a member here. A K mount adapter arrived and today finally had a chance to try it out. Wanted to see how far I could see. Well! It turns out you can see pretty far! My houseboat is maybe 350 feet (? someday I'm going to measure it) from the far shore. It drives me crazy that all manner of wildlife are on that shore (coyote, ducks, geese, heron, eagles, osprey, you name it) and even my longest lenses can't reach it for a decent shot. I thought for a while about the Nikon... um... the one with the ridiculous reach, but discounted it because no raw (and not Pentax!). And the Q just seemed like fun. So I popped the Q7 onto the Sigma 150-500 and had some fun. Below are a few photos of my tryout today. VERY boring pictures, but I just wanted to get an idea of the reach at various focal lengths. One conclusion I reached is that I definitely need one of those scopes all the Q folks have on their cameras/lenses. Because you really can't rely on the Live View fooling you into believing you have this in perfect focus... I absolutely did not. Neither did I do my regular camera check in (eg: terrible sensor dust, now gone). To be fair, it was pouring rain today and dark as heck. But the little Q held its own, though forcing some pretty slow shutter speeds for most of it. So, for what's it's worth, here's a little photo journal of the adventure: The first shot is with the great little Q01, standard prime, just to show the distance we're talking about: At 150mm: At 210mm: At 250mm: At 300mm: At 400: At 500mm: And a few geese at 500mm, same distance:

01-17-2016, 12:08 AM	#6
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleVanya Wow! That is some reach! It sure is! ---------- Post added 01-16-16 at 11:13 PM ---------- Originally posted by skogpingvin Great reach isn't it? I love my Sigma 150-500, (on a K-3 II) but my rule is that if the bird isn't in direct sunlight and I can't stop it down to f/8, whatever photo you get is going to be crap. Yes, and the Q to K-mount adapter makes it even wilder. I have to go back and read the Q manual and posts on this forum to help me get a handle on how the aperture works. When adapted to K-mount, it goes manual and you lose your f-stop gauge. So, no real idea what aperture these were shot at, just "2" or "3" for Q folks in the know. The Q7 camera review page seems to indicate that a factor of 3, relative to APSC, would apply. So a 500mm lens has a reach of about 1500mm?!? Crazy! Last edited by Kath; 01-17-2016 at 12:30 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Comparing the 01 Prime on Q and Q7 and the 02 lens at F:3.5	Altglas	Pentax Q	8	02-27-2015 11:38 AM
Comparison of the 03 fisheye on Q and Q7 and Q7 with third party raw converter	Altglas	Pentax Q	14	02-02-2015 10:59 PM
Do the Q10 and Q7 have a Magnesium Body like the Original Q?	seventhdr	Pentax Q	3	08-06-2013 12:13 AM
Big Sig on a K-x	ajuett	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-27-2010 03:17 PM
Is My Sig Tag Too Big?	MJB DIGITAL	General Talk	8	04-10-2008 04:33 AM

01-16-2016, 08:37 PM	#2
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Not bad... Now with the 560?

01-16-2016, 09:11 PM	#3
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737 Original Poster	Originally posted by bertwert Not bad... Now with the 560? Yep, next project!

01-16-2016, 10:16 PM	#4
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Wow! That is some reach!

01-16-2016, 11:28 PM	#5
skogpingvin Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 30	Great reach isn't it? I love my Sigma 150-500, (on a K-3 II) but my rule is that if the bird isn't in direct sunlight and I can't stop it down to f/8, whatever photo you get is going to be crap.

01-17-2016, 02:20 AM	#7
mikdyb Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 40	Actually the 500mm is a 35mm film equivalent of 750mm on your apsc (factor 1.5), so on the q7 it becomes 2300mm (factor 4.6) and not 1500mm. Even more crazy :-) EDIT: You are, of course, right if your basis for getting to grips with reach is apsc. But for me, having used film cameras for 30 years, the only way I can understand reach is relative to 35mm film. Last edited by mikdyb; 01-17-2016 at 02:54 AM.

01-17-2016, 02:47 AM	#8
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	IQ is not there, even at web size. I bet a Nikon P900 can delivery better IQ, while being more compact, cheaper, lighter and retaining AF.

01-17-2016, 03:20 AM	#9
mikdyb Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 40	Originally posted by biz-engineer IQ is not there, even at web size. I bet a Nikon P900 can delivery better IQ, while being more compact, cheaper, lighter and retaining AF. You are probably right, but trying to get acceptable IQ playing with extreme tele and macro with lenses you already own is more fun!

01-17-2016, 03:52 AM	#10
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by mikdyb You are probably right, but trying to get acceptable IQ playing with extreme tele and macro with lenses you already own is more fun! Yeah , sure it costs nothing to use what you already have :-) !!!

01-17-2016, 04:26 AM	#11
mikdyb Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 40	Originally posted by biz-engineer Yeah , sure it costs nothing to use what you already have :-) !!! Completely free, well........... have to buy one of the Qs and an adapter; probably not terribly much more than buying a new P900 :-)

01-17-2016, 09:16 AM	#12
Heinrich Lohmann Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Airdrie, Alberta Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,097	Kath, the results at 500mm aren't bad at all. With a little PP of the raw file things could be improved quiet a bit. Also, on the last image focus seems to be on the background instead of on the geese. Hope that you don't mind but I gave that last one a quick makeover: Adjusted shadows and highlights and sharpened it at 60%. You could do much better working from the raw file. take care

01-17-2016, 09:17 AM	#13
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737 Original Poster	Originally posted by mikdyb You are probably right, but trying to get acceptable IQ playing with extreme tele and macro with lenses you already own is more fun! @mikdyb , that's exactly what I thought. The prospect of messing around with the Q and the lenses I already have, for a pretty small monetary outlay for used equipment, was what I was after. For high IQ wildlife shots, one is best off getting a bit closer than 350 feet.

01-17-2016, 09:24 AM	#14
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by biz-engineer IQ is not there, even at web size. I bet a Nikon P900 can delivery better IQ, while being more compact, cheaper, lighter and retaining AF. Are we looking at the Same pics?

01-17-2016, 09:32 AM	#15
Phenix jc Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 105	Originally posted by Heinrich Lohmann Kath, the results at 500mm aren't bad at all. With a little PP of the raw file things could be improved quiet a bit. Also, on the last image focus seems to be on the background instead of on the geese. Hope that you don't mind but I gave that last one a quick makeover: Adjusted shadows and highlights and sharpened it at 60%. You could do much better working from the raw file. take care +1 But anyway it seems the Sigma 150-500mm isn't a good choice for the Q7...