[kb244]

I recently discovered yet another perk of my Q10 over either my Olympus E-M5 or my Panasonic GH-1.

It seems to pretty clean with the R72 than either camera (Definitely more sensitive than the GH1, about the same sensitivity as the E-M5, but with the added ability to drop down to ISO 100). The GH1 has a stronger high pass filter, so exposure time is so slow that you can't do video with it, where as the E-M5 can do video with the ISO cranked up and still do 1/30th f/1.4 in broad daylight, but lacks some of the subtle details, whereas the Q10 seems to be a stop more sensitive than my E-M5 exposure, but gives a cleaner result to my eye at ISO 100. (This might simply be because the Q10 has slightly higher dynamic range than the E-M5).

Plus it seems like the 01 Standard Prime is just pretty well suited for it, but I'm waiting for a super bright sun-all-out day so I can test against things like hot spots and internal reflections, but if the outside shot with the sun to my back is any indication there seems to be very little hot spot for the 01 prime (the equivalent-ish Olympus 17/2.8 definitely has a hot spot right in the center, as does the Oly 12/2.0)

Inside before noon, tabletop tripod, 20 seconds, f/2.0, ISO 100



Outside, about half past noon (sun off to my right)
1/30th, f/2.8, ISO 100



Indoor just after midnight, only lighting being off a 23W (100W equiv) Sylvania 6500K daylight balanced CFL, which was my first test since I wasn't sure how clean it would be with the R72 filter (usually if it's insensitive but still shows an image, it tends to end up not so clean/crisp).

30 seconds, f/1.9, ISO 400



So I'm hoping to get out on Wends next week which is the next day that it's mostly sunny (it's storming or overcast round the clock until then).

[bobbotron]

Very cool!

[kb244]

For comparison purposes, a single frame shot off my E-M5 : (1/4th, ISO 400, f/3.2, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7)



An HDR of 12 exposures from 60 seconds to 1/30th of a second, ISO 400, f/5.6 Panasonic 20mm f/1.7



The same one above, but also with 12 additional exposures in color, HDR-Merged, and then placed on top to retain back some color (focus was not updated, so the color portion is 'softer' than the infrared it layers upon).



So I'm curious to see what I can do with the Q10 and if a single or fewer-frame result will give me more pleasing result, especially with the extra stop of sensitivity.

But basically in comparison, I'm not seeing the same level of longer exposure 'noise' from the R72 filter on the Q10, especially when looking back at some of the ISO 200 shots off my E-M5 (the lowest iso the camera can do), I also noticed that for exposures longer than 2 seconds, the Q10 doesn't have a dark frame subtraction period, its immediately available to shoot after the exposure, I'm wondering if the back lit sensor helps in this area.

[barondla]

Impressive. You have excellent vision and technique. Ready to see your Q IR results.

In early DSLRs, the Pentax ist DS had at least 1 step more sensitivity than any of my other cameras. Have 3 different 40.5 IR filters to fit the Q. Now I have 02 and 06 lenses to use them with.

Thanks for sharing
barondla

[kb244]

Impressive. You have excellent vision and technique. Ready to see your Q IR results.

In early DSLRs, the Pentax ist DS had at least 1 step more sensitivity than any of my other cameras. Have 3 different 40.5 IR filters to fit the Q. Now I have 02 and 06 lenses to use them with.

Thanks for sharing
barondla

That's one of the nice things I like, the 01, 02 and eventually 06 (if it arrives safely next week, and if the seller didn't embellish' on its condition) all will take the same filter size. Though on my 01 right now I'm using a 40.5 to 37mm step down ring, which does not seem to vignette the 01, so kind of acts like a very small lens shade allowing me to use my existing 37mm circular polarizer that I already had for my Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and 17/2.8. For the R72 filter which is a 52mm thread I use a step up ring from 37 to 46, to 52, some (a 37->52, 40.5->52, and 49->52 step up rings are inbound, the last one for my MX so I can go straight to the 52mm contrast filters).

[barondla]

I also use a 40.5>37 adapter. It allows use of Lensbaby closeup filters and wide/tele optics ( haven't tried these). IR filters are in the 600, 700, and 800 range.

It is interesting about the hot spot. Haven't ever found a rhyme or reason for it. The Pentax PKA 18-55 kit lens has none. Move up to the 16-45 f4 or 12-24 f4 constant aperture lenses and major hot spot. Weird that the cheapest lens performs best. Don't remember any major hot spot with the Q 01 lens.

Thanks
barondla

[kb244]

I also use a 40.5>37 adapter. It allows use of Lensbaby closeup filters and wide/tele optics ( haven't tried these). IR filters are in the 600, 700, and 800 range.

It is interesting about the hot spot. Haven't ever found a rhyme or reason for it. The Pentax PKA 18-55 kit lens has none. Move up to the 16-45 f4 or 12-24 f4 constant aperture lenses and major hot spot. Weird that the cheapest lens performs best. Don't remember any major hot spot with the Q 01 lens.

Thanks
barondla

Yea, there appears to be none with the 01, I haven't tried the 02 yet, waiting for that bright day again.

But I think I remembered it wrong. My Olympus 12/2.0 has one, a little noticeable but not too bad in a shaded area, the Pentax-M 50/1.4 has a soft one constantly in the center where it changes the color slightly, the Tamron 90/2.8 1:1 has none (though there's a huge distance between the front of the glass and any filter that goes on front). And the olympus 17/2.8 doesn't seem to have one, however I rarely ever use the 17/2.8 anymore ( I might actually sell my older EP-3+17/2.8 kit because of the Q10 ).

So in that order these are older samples, Oly 12/2.0, Pentax-M 50/1.4, Tamron 90/2.8 1:1, Oly 17/2.8









I don't have any others than the Hoya R72 (720nm+), mainly cuz they're not cheap. I do want to get lower one like 590nm for more color tweaking (which if you invert the red/blue channels, you'll get gold foliage, and blue skies) lifepixel sells external versions of theirs, like the Super Blue IR (cuts out everything above blue, and below red), but it's like $85.

[UncleVanya]

Very nice work.

[ebk]

amazing photo's.
the Pentax q is still a big wonder.
shame on Ricoh Pentax that new one's
not coming

[kb244]

amazing photo's.
the Pentax q is still a big wonder.
shame on Ricoh Pentax that new one's
not coming

Though they claim the Q series is still in development. (they need to hurry up with that macro)

[UncleVanya]

Though they claim the Q series is still in development. (they need to hurry up with that macro)

Do the Raynox lenses offer good macro on the Q's?

[kb244]

Do the Raynox lenses offer good macro on the Q's?

usually add-on lenses don't do nearly as well as a natively made macro lens. And I'm talking bout the natively made one they had planned in the lens lineup since 2014.

[UncleVanya]

usually add-on lenses don't do nearly as well as a natively made macro lens. And I'm talking bout the natively made one they had planned in the lens lineup since 2014.

Yes I'm aware. I have shot a lot of macro over the years.

[kb244]

Yes I'm aware. I have shot a lot of macro over the years.

Then you would know the answer to your own question

I get a rather good macro with my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 adapted, but that of course is a ~500mm equivalent FoV even if it does give me 1:1 lifesize macro. It would just be nice if there was something of a shorter focal length native to the camera , which even 1:2 would be rather nice given the sensor size, something like 60mm equiv. As it would be smaller and capable of autofocusing (plus no rolling shutter if they make the 09 with a built in shutter like the other four).

In regards to the old 90 adaptall adapted :





And at 1:1 lifesize

[kb244]

Since one of my hosting clients paid their yearly, I went ahead and pre-funded all the related hosting accounts, but then I also used some of the left-over to get a B+W 092 (Deep Red) filter ordered along with some rolls of Ilford SFX 200 for my Pentax MX.

From what I've seen in other [old old] threads a 092 should work on a Q and I imagine a Q10 shares a similar high pass filter on the sensor. The reason the B+W 092 might work better than say the Hoya R72 is because the B+W 092 at just under 700nm it allows in 50% of the light, where at 730nm up to 2,000nm it passes >= 90% of the light. Where as the Hoya R72 seems to peak around 720nm at 95% and drops off before 850nm (more controlled cut), with no passing of light below 720nm. The 50% pass around 690-720nm will allow for a slight near-IR light to reach the sensor.

So... yea we'll see when it gets here, I want to compare it to my Olympus as well, as well as the results I get off the SFX 200 which wouldn't require as much light.

At least with the 092 with normal panchromatic film, the filter factor will be more predictable around 20 to 40.