Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-23-2017, 08:03 PM - 1 Like   #91
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
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.
Lens Rentals | Blog

No one tests more optics than this guy.

Testing multiple adapter and lens combos of the highest optical quality, not a single combo passed the litmus test.

Not one. This included top Leica glass an pd other systems with high-end M-adapters.

His quote:

"I won’t bore you with another 20 graphs that look pretty much like these. We tried Leica to NEX and Leica to Micro 4/3 adapters, Canon to NEX, etc. We tried different lenses on one adapter. It didn’t really matter. None of them would be acceptable for testing. Not one."

DxO and other testers like Thom Hogan find likewise. Optics or pass through extensions, it makes no difference. Lenses are now designed for specific sensors across all measures, and throwing even a few micron of extra metal in there degrades optical performance, and digital interpretation with the RAW decoders.

To defend adapters is to misunderstand how modern optics, sensors, and software work together. Using an adapter is the equivalent of throwing out capture data.

08-23-2017, 08:19 PM   #92
Senior Member
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 217
The Q sensor will out-resolve any full frame or APS-C sensor when used with an adapted lens, numerous real-world tests on this forum have shown this over and over. The birders and the macro shooters realized this right away. You don't need a battleship when a dinghy will do.
08-23-2017, 08:36 PM   #93
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 270
with the sizes of cameras shrinking, I think m4/3rds has to some extent filled the niche for small ILCs. also premium p&s now offers 1" sensor's with fast zooms (f/1.8-2.8), which the small ILC's like samsung nx mini, nikon 1 and pentax Q systems do not offer.
08-23-2017, 09:57 PM - 3 Likes   #94
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,893
All I can say is that using the Pentax K-Q adaptor with a Pentax lens on the Q/Q7 yields very pleasing results in my experience.
No amount of testing by others on different systems with different adaptors is going to change that.

With the FA31:



With the DA*300



DA*300 + 1.4x teleconverter



08-24-2017, 02:11 AM   #95
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
I think we should all ignore Aristophanes, he has only selectively quoted his source. Funny that he uses a dramatists' name rather than a scientists'.
08-24-2017, 05:50 PM   #96
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,368
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Lens Rentals | Blog

No one tests more optics than this guy.

Testing multiple adapter and lens combos of the highest optical quality, not a single combo passed the litmus test.

Not one. This included top Leica glass an pd other systems with high-end M-adapters.
How many he tests is irrelevant.
His standards are what do matter.

How many of the systems he's tested "pass" when taking a picture of a bird from n00 feet away? {"n" to be filled in}
How many of those systems retail for less than $1000?
Those of the types of questions you need to be asking.
08-24-2017, 07:02 PM   #97
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,925
QuoteOriginally posted by richard0170 Quote
I think we should all ignore Aristophanes, he has only selectively quoted his source. Funny that he uses a dramatists' name rather than a scientists'.
In his 2017 analysis revisiting the topic he agains stands by his assertion that native lenses work best in all circumstances.

And they STILL cannot do lab tests with adapters because they don't measure up to the basic MTF specs.

I should point out that almost all manufacturers of optics say the same. The who adapter thing is a fad and new lens tech is going to give grief.
08-24-2017, 08:37 PM   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,224
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The who adapter thing is a fad and
Hes on First!

08-24-2017, 09:19 PM   #99
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
twilhelm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,643
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
In his 2017 analysis revisiting the topic he agains stands by his assertion that native lenses work best in all circumstances.

And they STILL cannot do lab tests with adapters because they don't measure up to the basic MTF specs.

I should point out that almost all manufacturers of optics say the same. The who adapter thing is a fad and new lens tech is going to give grief.
I'm going to agree with your assessment that adapted lenses will never match up to a lens which is designed for a particular system. There's all kinds of research and programming that goes into today's systems.

On the other hand, photography is an art form and the cameras and lenses are the tools and medium we use to achieve our vision. On that note, if an adapted lens meets that vision and is fun, then kudos to those that enjoy it. I've seen some great images from adapted lenses.
08-24-2017, 10:30 PM   #100
Pentaxian
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 700
For a "fad", lens adapters seems to be doing quite the last few decades, eh?
08-25-2017, 08:00 AM   #101
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,925
QuoteOriginally posted by disconnekt Quote
For a "fad", lens adapters seems to be doing quite the last few decades, eh?
They were ALWAYS in the back page, cheap ad, gimmick sections of Pop Photo etc.

They still are.

Fun, sometimes. But realistically, they don't deliver equivalence. Not a single test system finds they keep or improve IQ. All find they degrade IQ from initial, native design spec.
08-25-2017, 08:23 AM - 2 Likes   #102
Senior Member
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 217
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
In his 2017 analysis revisiting the topic he agains stands by his assertion that native lenses work best in all circumstances.

And they STILL cannot do lab tests with adapters because they don't measure up to the basic MTF specs.

I should point out that almost all manufacturers of optics say the same. The who adapter thing is a fad and new lens tech is going to give grief.
I'm beginning to think that Aristophanes didn't read the article he referred to.

Aristophanes: "In his 2017 analysis revisiting the topic he agains stands by his assertion that native lenses work best in all circumstances."

This is what Roger Cicala in the Lensrentals blog article actually wrote (bold face emphasis mine):

… Lens adapters can be useful things sometimes, letting you mount one brand of lens on another brand of camera…

… Generally, they’re acceptable or people wouldn’t use them…

… What does it mean in the real world? Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn’t all stink or people wouldn’t use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world

… In the examples above, though, center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it’s only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image…

… Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens

Considering that the Q always uses the center resolution, It appears that Aristophanes is somewhat confused about the issue of using adapted lenses on the Q. He certainly has valid points about achieving optimum performance in the laboratory but his blanket statement that "Adapters don't work" doesn’t belong in the Q discussion.

For a more nuanced discussion of using modern lenses from different formats, and how some adapters can actually improve lens performance, see this Lensrental blog post:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks...dapted-lenses/

Last edited by Cipher; 08-25-2017 at 09:03 AM. Reason: typo, added links
08-25-2017, 09:08 AM - 1 Like   #103
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,241
I won't pretend to be an optical expert here or anything ... but, I've always imagined lens designers designing for a particular focal flange distance. How the camera gets to that distance is open. The distance could be native to the mount or it could be gotten by a cylindrical tube that adds length to whatever mount already exists.

A bad adapter that doesn't mount the lens straight and centered could potentially degrade the image quality. Maybe that's the difference between a $10 adapter and a $50 adapter. One is machined to resemble a lump of clay and the other is machined perfectly flat. Adding an adapter adds a seam, or a break, in the continuity of the focal flange distance. The K-mount has a continuous unbroken distance of 45.46mm. The Q-K adapter adds distance to the native Q mount and adds another seam. This extra seem could be a source of light leaks and an opportunity for uneven metal.

The 1/1.7" Q sensor discussed here is 12 MP and has a a surface area of 43mm^2. A FF lens designed to cover a FF sensor would have a surface area of 864mm^2. I got these numbers from Wikipedia. What would would the theoretical resolution of a FF sensor be if it used the Bayer array density of the Q sensor? Does it scale linearly? 864 / 43 = ~20. So, 20 * 12 MP = ~240? I don't know ... I'm asking - not saying. However, if it does work like this then any 240 MP sensor will bring out abnormalities and defects in today's lenses. That doesn't make for a bad lens. It just means we have greater visibility into things we wouldn't see otherwise. A lens designed for 240 MP resolution would be a completely different animal than one made for 36 MP. Adapting any lens to the Q is pixel peeping like never before!

Just my thoughts.
08-25-2017, 12:06 PM   #104
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Cipher Quote
I'm beginning to think that Aristophanes didn't read the article he referred to.

Aristophanes: "In his 2017 analysis revisiting the topic he agains stands by his assertion that native lenses work best in all circumstances."

This is what Roger Cicala in the Lensrentals blog article actually wrote (bold face emphasis mine):

… Lens adapters can be useful things sometimes, letting you mount one brand of lens on another brand of camera…
The whole point of this discussion was that Pentax ounce use adapters poach consumers.

Except Lensrentals won't even test the adapters because they all fail on MFT quality on the bench or lab right out of the box.

Of course they work. but they all degrade IQ.

And he's not the only one to prove it.

"Useful" and "sometimes" is NOT a marketing strategy for Pentax. It certainly did zip for the Q.

And the blunt thing is, adapters are very, very fringe photographic tool. They actually detract for native lens purchases and therefore money going back into native lens selections and R&D.

That's why very few core optical manufacturers go down that pat. Olympus did a half-hearted MFT to 43 covers. Sony same for its mounts. And Leica dabbles, but with no expressions of optimum performance. And that's about it.

Ad it's about to get worse what with native lens profiles being built into even RAW data and other specifics that an adapter will never be capable of accessing, nor even adequately reverse engineering.

As a marketing and engineering tactic for brand continuance, adapters are a dead-end.
08-25-2017, 12:16 PM   #105
Pentaxian
Abbazz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 559
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
In his 2017 analysis revisiting the topic he agains stands by his assertion that native lenses work best in all circumstances.

And they STILL cannot do lab tests with adapters because they don't measure up to the basic MTF specs.

I should point out that almost all manufacturers of optics say the same. The who adapter thing is a fad and new lens tech is going to give grief.
Manufacturers of optics usually do not encourage users to buy adapters because they prefer to sell more new lenses rather than having the users recycling their old lenses.

Please note than many photographers use adapted lenses for professional work requiring high image quality and perfect reliability. I personally know quite a few guys doing paid work with Canon pro lenses on Sony full-frame cameras, because they need the better Sony sensors but cannot find the lens they need in the somewhat limited range Sony offers. Professional photographers are not masochistic: if they do so, it's because they get better results with their adapted lenses on a Sony camera that they would get with a native Canon body and can sell more of their pictures!

Quite a few manufacturers of high quality camera equipment are presently offering adapters or have offered them in the past in order to allow compatibility between different range of products or between different formats: Leica, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and many others come to mind. People also have been using extension tubes and other contraptions sitting between the lens and camera body for decades for quality work.

So please stop your trolling about adapters not working. ADAPTERS.DO.WORK and pretty well in fact!

Cheers!

Abbazz
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!
adapter, bodies, bridge, camera, cameras, evf, k-mount, lens, market, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pm, q-s1, q10, q7, ricoh, sales, sensor, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lightroom 4 K-50 not supported ps1984 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 23 06-30-2016 08:29 AM
New Pentax 24-70 lens already supported by Lightroom DeadJohn Pentax News and Rumors 26 10-11-2015 05:56 PM
Is the pentax K5 still supported? eliris Pentax K-5 4 05-22-2013 08:01 AM
Nature So so tall, small, so beautiful newmikey Post Your Photos! 3 06-03-2011 03:11 AM
supported browser versions? foxglove Site Suggestions and Help 9 09-20-2006 07:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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