[kwb]

This is the best birding combination I have ever had. Others, who have even better lenses, do even better. Yes, a native Q-mount lens would be great, but this is better than any other available alternative, better than what people are getting with Canon SX-50/60 or Nikon P900.

Hi reh321, your lens was Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG, right?

I gave up the idea of that lens on Q7 quickly (mine is for my Canon dslr and no aperture control on Q7). But anyway your bird picture looks pretty good, better than anything I got with the same lens and Q7, hat's off to you sir!

[Sandy Hancock]

Adapters can only degrade IQ, not increase it.
Adapters. Don't. Work.

Seriously, you have no idea.

Q system adaptors need no glass, so they do not degrade IQ at all. The Pentax adaptor, with its built-in leaf shutter, even improves things. Q adaptors will, however, highlight the deficiencies of the primary objective.

If a K-mount lens is rubbish, it will be even worse on the Q. If it has excellent central sharpness wide open you will get excellent images from it on the Q system. The DA35/2.8 macro, DFA100WR and DA*300 are amazing, for example.

[Bophoto]

Does the "success" of K-01 proved that APS mirrorless cameras don´t sell in the market? ...
If the Japanese company´s have made compact cameras with phone and internet, would they have lost the compact camera market?
I had bought a compact camera with phone and internet instead of a smartphone with camera function if there was one.
Back to the discussion, Q lacks a external electronic viewfinder and the LCD is too dark.
The software lacks learning information (easy to use) in the camera as K series does.
So it's not user friendly. The Adapter Q for K-Mount Lens don´t have autofocus.
And it has no real fast lenses as 3,5mm f2 and 5mm f1,4, there the sweet spot of the sensor is.
They would be small and bright, one of the benefits of the format, A 50mm on K1 corresponds to 9mm on Q7. ...
It can be a very nice system for low iso situaton.
But it's not just releasing something that's half-finished like K.01.
Reviews do not take into account opportunities for the future.

[normhead]

Since I got my XG-1 I've barely used the Q. I enjoy life without lens changes. But the XG-1 is also discontinued.

Does the "success" of K-01 proved that APS mirrorless cameras don´t sell in the market? ...
If the Japanese company´s have made compact cameras with phone and internet, would they have lost the compact camera market?
I had bought a compact camera with phone and internet instead of a smartphone with camera function if there was one.
Back to the discussion, Q lacks a external electronic viewfinder and the LCD is too dark.
The software lacks learning information (easy to use) in the camera as K series does.
So it's not user friendly. The Adapter Q for K-Mount Lens don´t have autofocus.
And it has no real fast lenses as 3,5mm f2 and 5mm f1,4, there the sweet spot of the sensor is.
They would be small and bright, one of the benefits of the format, A 50mm on K1 corresponds to 9mm on Q7. ...
It can be a very nice system for low iso situaton.
But it's not just releasing something that's half-finished like K.01.
Reviews do not take into account opportunities for the future.

OK, one more time…

"success" of K-01… I don't see what the K-01 has to do with the Q: different format, different lenses, different size and weight.

If the Japanese company´s have made compact cameras with phone and internet, would they have lost the compact camera market?… Those would be very klunky phones.

Q lacks a external electronic viewfinder and the LCD is too dark… Correct, however Pentax just doesn't do EVF. A quality EVF would be as expensive as the body. A better LCD is always nice, but that too comes at a cost.

The software lacks learning information (easy to use) in the camera as K series does so it's not user friendly… The Q is very easy to use if you are familiar with the K system DSLRs—it's almost exactly the same menu!

The Adapter Q for K-Mount Lens don´t have autofocus. Agreed, but that would be even bigger and more complicated than the current adapter, not a good fit for a subcompact system.

And it has no real fast lenses as 3,5mm f2 and 5mm f1,4, there the sweet spot of the sensor is… They would be small and bright, one of the benefits of the format, A 50mm on K1 corresponds to 9mm on Q7. ... The Q does have the 8.5mm f1.9 and other, manual lenses are available that are much faster than their equivalent in APS-C or FF. Fujinon makes a 1.8mm f1.4 (!) as well as others in the sub 5mm range. Kowa offers a 6mm f1.8. The Pentax 06 is a very fast constant aperture medium tele-zoom.

It can be a very nice system for low iso situation… I use low ISO in bright sunlight or for time exposures where any lens or camera will work. If you mean low light situations (needing a high ISO), the inherent nature of a small sensor will be limiting, although the Q does impart a nice film-like grain to its high ISO images.

The Q system was designed to be small, using small sensors, to be compatible with Pentax products (every Pentax lens ever made!) as well as nearly any other lens, it is the best body for using adapted C-mount lenses. In that respect it was a success, its niche is unique. Smart phones have all but destroyed the compact camera market, not just for the Q but for everyone. The Q was introduced in 2011. In digital, six years is a long time for any product line to exist.

[Bophoto]

OK, one more time…

"success" of K-01… I don't see what the K-01 has to do with the Q: different format, different lenses, different size and weight.

If the Japanese company´s have made compact cameras with phone and internet, would they have lost the compact camera market?… Those would be very klunky phones.

Q lacks a external electronic viewfinder and the LCD is too dark… Correct, however Pentax just doesn't do EVF. A quality EVF would be as expensive as the body. A better LCD is always nice, but that too comes at a cost.

The software lacks learning information (easy to use) in the camera as K series does so it's not user friendly… The Q is very easy to use if you are familiar with the K system DSLRs—it's almost exactly the same menu!

The Adapter Q for K-Mount Lens don´t have autofocus. Agreed, but that would be even bigger and more complicated than the current adapter, not a good fit for a subcompact system.

And it has no real fast lenses as 3,5mm f2 and 5mm f1,4, there the sweet spot of the sensor is… They would be small and bright, one of the benefits of the format, A 50mm on K1 corresponds to 9mm on Q7. ... The Q does have the 8.5mm f1.9 and other, manual lenses are available that are much faster than their equivalent in APS-C or FF. Fujinon makes a 1.8mm f1.4 (!) as well as others in the sub 5mm range. Kowa offers a 6mm f1.8. The Pentax 06 is a very fast constant aperture medium tele-zoom.

It can be a very nice system for low iso situation… I use low ISO in bright sunlight or for time exposures where any lens or camera will work. If you mean low light situations (needing a high ISO), the inherent nature of a small sensor will be limiting, although the Q does impart a nice film-like grain to its high ISO images.

The Q system was designed to be small, using small sensors, to be compatible with Pentax products (every Pentax lens ever made!) as well as nearly any other lens, it is the best body for using adapted C-mount lenses. In that respect it was a success, its niche is unique. Smart phones have all but destroyed the compact camera market, not just for the Q but for everyone. The Q was introduced in 2011. In digital, six years is a long time for any product line to exist.

It is alleged that Q was not an accessible route. ...
Pentax Q was unsuccessful and it rinses on the sensor format.
But was K-01 also a dead end (APS and mirrorless)?
But what about Fuji's success with APS?

But hopefully there will be a new Q later.

"Those would be very klunky phones."
No because it would be a compact camera with phone function, not a phone.
If I go out and do not want to bring K1 because I will not have time to photograph, a compact camera is good to have in my pocket. But it's also good to have a phone also, which means that ~ 95% does not bring the compact camera because the phone has a camera function.
However, if you are interested in photo, you probably buy a compact camera with phone function than a phone with camera function.
One of the points with a compact camera is that you can have it in one pocket and do not take your DLSR, but you can´t phone with it.
But now that you have camera function on your phone, ~ 95% think it's enough with your phone.
But if there were compact cameras with phone and internet.

[normhead]

But if there were compact cameras with phone and internet.

And a coffee maker?

[surfar]

It is alleged that Q was not an accessible route. ...
Pentax Q was unsuccessful and it rinses on the sensor format.
But was K-01 also a dead end (APS and mirrorless)?
But what about Fuji's success with APS?

But hopefully there will be a new Q later.

"Those would be very klunky phones."
No because it would be a compact camera with phone function, not a phone.
If I go out and do not want to bring K1 because I will not have time to photograph, a compact camera is good to have in my pocket. But it's also good to have a phone also, which means that ~ 95% does not bring the compact camera because the phone has a camera function.
However, if you are interested in photo, you probably buy a compact camera with phone function than a phone with camera function.
One of the points with a compact camera is that you can have it in one pocket and do not take your DLSR, but you can´t phone with it.
But now that you have camera function on your phone, ~ 95% think it's enough with your phone.
But if there were compact cameras with phone and internet.

Google Samsung S4 zoom....or Samsung K zoom.....both are compact cameras with phn and internet capability,neither is still in production but can still be acquired Bophoto.

Neither make coffee!

[caliscouser]

Since the OP abandoned on page 1, the summary seems to be:

Is it supported? Not really.
Is it alive? No signs of life for a while.
Is it dead then? Not officially, but if it is, so what.
Is it a flop/failure? No one here has access to the data to know.
Should it have been 1", m43, phone, toaster? Mildly interesting, but academic.
Should I buy one? If you want.

[disconnekt]

No and yes. They pulled it fron intercontinental markets (US, UK, etc.) and not releasing any new lenses (saw something not that long ago about a photogeapher "testing" a macro lens for the Q but haven't heard that much though), though they are still selling it in Japan.

[reh321]

Hi reh321, your lens was Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG, right?

I gave up the idea of that lens on Q7 quickly (mine is for my Canon dslr and no aperture control on Q7). But anyway your bird picture looks pretty good, better than anything I got with the same lens and Q7, hat's off to you sir!

Which Canon lens are you using? I have several left {but I gave up on them quickly because of lack of aperture control - I think I saw an adapter giving control, so that could be a big deal} I've always said Canon makes good lenses.

Yes, that is the Sigma I'm using. Since I was doing all my testing before I did any analyzing, I took a shot at each aperture from wide open to f/11. I was expecting each lens to be best around f/5.6, but for this lens, best was at the f/8-f/11 endpoint. I guess this means using central core of the lens overrides whatever diffraction is going on/

[Bophoto]

Google Samsung S4 zoom....or Samsung K zoom.....both are compact cameras with phn and internet capability,neither is still in production but can still be acquired Bophoto.

Neither make coffee!

Yes, I would have looked at Samsung then, but now i have GRII and Sony Experia XA.
I'm not a coffee drinker. ...
I also do not think it's going to be a Q5, but hope.

[Alayos92]

Pentax Q Nº 09 Telephoto macro lens rumors... For Q7 and Q-S1


Photo of the Day


PENTAX Q用の試作品マクロレンズ ━━ その1

リコー・PENTAX Q7＋smc PENTAX MACRO 20mmF2.8（09 TELEPHOTO MACRO）

　六本木の真っ昼間の街中で、こんな鳥を腕の上に乗せている人がいました。ツツかれないかと恐る恐る近づいて撮影させてもらいました。威嚇して目を見開いているのか、それとも元々そういう顔をしてるのか、鳥に不如意なぼくには不明。




　この試作レンズについては少し前にtwitterで、リコーに内緒で使っている「09 TELEPHOTO MACRO」レンズだということを紹介した ━━ もったいぶってチラ見せしたのではなく、そのあとにすぐ、ここのブログでじっくりと紹介するつもりだったのだがついつい時間がたってしまった。すまんでした。
　あの後、リコーからナニかクレームでも来るかと身構えていたのだが、だれからも、なーんにも言ってこない。やや肩すかし、完全無視。

　レンズ名は「smc PENTAX MACRO 20mmF2.8」である（と、レンズに刻印してある）。
　とにかく、このレンズについての詳細はぼくはわからない。はっきりわかっているのはレンズ名ぐらいだ。
　これから述べることは、すべてぼくが使ってみての感想というか想像でしかない（リコーに聞いたってなにも教えてくれないにきまってる）。

　焦点距離20mmだから、Q-S1やQ7で使うと92mm相当の中望遠マクロレンズとなる。最大マクロ倍率は、35mm判換算で等倍（もうちょっとクローズアップできると良かったかなあ）。
　そのときの最短撮影距離は約14～15センチ。ワーキングディスタンス（レンズ先端から被写体まで）は約8センチ。最短撮影時の撮影範囲はおおよそ36×25ミリ。
　レンズ全長はマウント後端部からレンズ先端部まで実測で約50ミリ。重さはちょうど70グラムで、見た目よりもだいぶ軽く感じる。ちなみに「02 STANDARD ZOOM」がレンズ全長は48ミリ、重さは96グラムである。

　外観などの完成度は極めて高い。試作品とはとても思えないほどの仕上がりだ。
　AFは高速。最短から無限まで、無限遠からマクロ域まで素早くピントが合う。描写性能は大変に良い。量産前の試作品レンズはおおむねどのメーカーのものも良いのだけど、それにしても良く写るレンズだ。1/1.7型の小さなセンサーのカメラで撮影したとは見抜けないほどの優れた描写だった。しいて欠点をいえば、撮影条件によっては逆光で少しフレアっぽくなることがあるぐらい。

　参考までにぼくの手製の解像力チェックチャートを撮影して、その部分アップ（ピクセル等倍）をここに置いておきますから興味のあるかたはどうぞ。
　部分アップの画像は画面の周辺部と中心部をピクセル等倍にして同じサイズでトリミングキャプチャ。これ、F2.8の開放絞り値、感度はISO160で撮影したものです。部分切り出しをしたピクセル等倍の画像を見てもらえばわかることだが、周辺の写りは画面中心部の描写とまったく変わらないじつに優秀でありました。

　このマクロレンズ、現在、リコーはどうしようと考えているのか ━━ 取材したわけでなく、ぼくの想像だけど ━━ そのへんのことは次回のブログで。

Tweet

• 2017-05-13

| ホーム |

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

プロフィール

thisistanaka

最近の記事

• 入ると脱出するのが困難だぞ「TG沼」 (07/28)
• 制約の多い中、チカラを込めて作ったコンパクトカメラ (07/27)
• ちょいとわがままなDX対応のAF-Pレンズ (07/20)
• 安い軽い小さい手ぶれ補正内蔵超広角ズームレンズ (07/18)
• 一眼レフカメラとミラーレスカメラ (07/04)
• やや平凡な感じのするミラーレスカメラ (07/01)

リンク

• Photo of the Day（旧版）

カレンダー

04 | 2017/05 | 06 日 月 火 水 木 金 土 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 - - -

Powered by FC2 Blog
Co

[kwb]

Which Canon lens are you using? I have several left {but I gave up on them quickly because of lack of aperture control - I think I saw an adapter giving control, so that could be a big deal} I've always said Canon makes good lenses.

As far as Canon EF mount on Q7, I use none as of now because of no aperture control, though I own a few for my Canon and have access to some others at my work place. I have a cheap plastic Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (linked to adapted lens thread) which I like very much, and Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 which is way better than kit zoom (which I have but don't use at all on Canon body). At my work place we have Canon 50mm f/1.4 (I actually prefer my f/1.8) and Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (linked to adapted lens thread) which is as sharp as anything I've tested so far, doesn't have much color fringe wide open even on Q7 as you can see from my test, and has gorgeous bokeh. This lens is not to be confused with Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L, which is L-designated and is supposed to be better but I don't know how.

Yes, that is the Sigma I'm using. Since I was doing all my testing before I did any analyzing, I took a shot at each aperture from wide open to f/11. I was expecting each lens to be best around f/5.6, but for this lens, best was at the f/8-f/11 endpoint. I guess this means using central core of the lens overrides whatever diffraction is going on/

I still remember your post where you made all these tests, it was an interesting one. Some people have this big scare of diffraction and it's sort of funny, it's not like all lenses are diffraction-limited from wide open, actually most camera lenses aren't.

[reh321]

I still remember your post where you made all these tests, it was an interesting one. Some people have this big scare of diffraction and it's sort of funny, it's not like all lenses are diffraction-limited from wide open, actually most camera lenses aren't.

Looking just at theoretical optics, the ideal situation is a very small diameter aperture relative to the surface of the lens; the closest we will ever come to that ideal is a large lens mounted on a small sensor using a small aperture. I believe that testing was showing a situation where diffraction was overcome by this "approaching sweet spot phenomenon" for a much longer time than anyone had expected.