Originally posted by reh321 From my experiments, I believe this is basically true. Various guys here have gotten some really good pictures with a Q-something, but they've typically used a $$$$ Sigma. My own backyard experiments showed me getting slightly better images with my Sigma 70-300 APO than with my DA 55-300; part of the difference there may be the aperture ring on the Sigma {which I'm guessing works better than the aperture constrictor on the Pentax adapter}; basically "consumer grade" K-mount lenses may not resolve to level of tiny Q sensor pixels. I am absolutely convinced that a native Q-mount 70-300 lens would do the best of any of the contenders listed here, but Pentax doesn't seem to have any interest in entering that market.
If I followed the example of those upset by how the K-1 handles lenses built 1975~83, I would say "sad" every sentence above and then promise to drop Pentax and go to Nikon, but I think there has been too much of that so far as it is {which is why I adopted the Green Button as my new avatar}. I am willing to own two up-to-date cameras at a time. Oct 2014 I briefly considered buying a Canon SX-50, but I couldn't figure out how to meet my other needs with just one other camera. So, right now, my two-camera solution consists of a Q-7 and and K-30; I will continue to experiment to see how the Q-7 can provide better birding pictures for me.
---------- Post added 03-05-16 at 09:41 PM ----------
A long time ago, back when we had to hand-focus every shot, I learned to hold the barrel of a long lens with my left hand; with that type of grip, I'm not sure a Q is much less stable than a super-zoom is because I basically end up with a camera on the end of a lens ... except that taking a picture requires a longer time on target because of hand-focusing. I solved the problem for me by getting a monopod / walking-stick from MeFoto {actually, at my age of 68, I may have solved two problems at once}
I'm glad someone experimented! My little "rule of thumb" was just based on feeling, and I did not take into consideration the handling and convenience aspects.
I agree with you that a native 70-300 lens for the Q - similar to what Nikon makes for their Nikon 1 system - would be terrific. I think a couple years ago I stated that such a lens would make the Q system tremendously interesting to the birding community.
Originally posted by reh321 Don't sell Pentax IBIS short. I've never had an issue that I could reasonably attribute to stabilization issues.
To me the basic question there is "How many cameras are you going to carry around?" If you're comfortable having a super-zoom in your bag with everything else, then you might as well use it.
Super-zooms are clearly a successful market right now. I still can't undertand why Ricoh-Pentax ignores it, and I still belief that the hard part would be developing appropriate optics, and once they've developed it they might as well market a Q+lens as a birding package.
Originally posted by Biro But you're right. Ricoh-Pentax should really come with up thier own superzoom - not the OEM-derived XG series but a real camera of their own with optics of their own. And a birding-specific Q model would be even better.
I had the Fuji S1 for a while, and it is very "Pentax". Small, very well-built - better than the Nikon and Canon superzooms I've tried - and weather sealed. Alas, even though the lens was advertised as 1200mm (equivalent), it felt short compared to the other 1200mm superzooms I've used... and it was! Imaging-Resource tested it and foudn the focal length was actually closer to 1000mm than 1200mm.
A couple of pics I took in a steady rain with the S1, ISO 800: