Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-25-2017, 02:17 PM - 1 Like   #106
Senior Member
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 215
My final word on the "Adapters....don't work" thread (click through for exif and enlarged view):



08-25-2017, 04:23 PM - 1 Like   #107
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,241
Bro ... that's mean ...
08-25-2017, 06:46 PM - 3 Likes   #108
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,117
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.
Non sequitur.
Of course, I would prefer a 55-300mm Q-mount lens - but Pentax has never shown any interest in doing that.
My point is that K-mount 70-300 lens + Q-7 body has given me better birding pictures than any other combination in my price range,
This combination was not competing with some combination involving a mythical q-mount lens.
This combination is competing with bridge cameras and other things which do exist.
'Best" {theoretical system} should not prevent us from using the "good" {that which does exist}
08-27-2017, 03:25 PM - 1 Like   #109
kwb
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pacific North West
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Lens Rentals | Blog

No one tests more optics than this guy.
Aristophanes, thank you very much, seriously interesting blog.

His results quantitatively show that the use of good adapters is unlikely to be problematic for Q system.

The height of 1/1.7" sensor in landscape is (-4.7, +4.7) degrees and the full image circle (-7.8, 7.8) on his plots. For 1/2.3" sensor they're (-3.7, +3.7) and (-6.3, +6.3).

The data is only measured at 0, +-4, +-8 and +-12 degrees but I don't see any indication that the image quality becomes unacceptable inside (-4, +4) degrees, and even at +-8 degrees some example don't show much degradation.

And this is a 35mm lens. In general the larger the focal length, the less you're affected by the relative tilt between the image and the sensor plane. (That's not to say that it doesn't matter for longer lenses at all, though, it all depends on what you want to get.)

I have a great respect for people like this guy who perform meaningful tests AND publish the results. Just like Sandy Hancock who took moon pictures with DA* 300, one with Q and the other with K-5 IIs and put them on flickr, or just like reh321 who did Q7 and K-30 comparison in this forum post (though it seems like his pictures are gone). And of course the great thing is that these results are consistent with each other.

Because of these people we can ask meaningful questions and answer them, without making sweeping statements like "adapters don't work", "Of course they work. but they all degrade IQ.":
  • Is the degradation due to supposedly non-parallel flange surfaces or other imperfection of adapters measurable within Q image circle using some equipment?
    • Yes.
  • Is the degradation due to adapter perceptible when you take a picture using Q?
    • Looking at his data as well as tests done by people like Sandy and reh321, and many pictures made using adapters including many of mine, I'd say "probably not" for majority of cases.
    • But it's possible (not impossible) that it's perceptible for certain type of pictures, e.g. stars and test charts and whatnot where everything in the picture is supposed to be on the same image plane, corner to corner. I'd like to see such an example.
  • Does it matter as far as pictures taken by Q and adapters are concerned?
    • No if not perceptible.
    • Depends if perceptible.
      • Yes if you value perfect corner to corner sharpness, e.g. star pictures. Does anybody have an example?
      • No otherwise, maybe?


08-28-2017, 11:44 PM   #110
Pentaxian
Abbazz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 559
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
Is this a viable platform moving forward? Will there be new lenses and new bodies to buy? I've got two original Q cameras with the 01 prime and 02 zoom, as well as the fisheye. I'd like like to have a newer body, with the larger sensor and wider FOV... but I'm a little hesitant. The original Q was fun, but the IQ is so much less than that of my K-01 (or K30), especially in low light, that I find myself rarely taking the Q with me anywhere. My assumption is that the bodies will get better and better... but if the Q is finished, I'm not sure I want to keep investing. Thoughts?
Just found this: Pentax Q discontinued? - PentaxForums.com (it's from 2012...)


Cheers!

Abbazz

Last edited by Abbazz; 10-16-2017 at 05:46 PM.
09-06-2017, 07:29 PM   #111
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,117
Apparently at least one outsider is willing to bet some of its own funds on the Q-mount
Metabones 0.5x Speed Booster for Pentax Q cameras - PentaxForums.com
09-18-2017, 08:59 AM   #112
Pentaxian
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Remains to be seen, I guess. They've definitely withdrawn it from international markets for now, but who knows about the future.
Yes and the same can be said of Ford's Model A.
10-14-2017, 01:56 AM - 1 Like   #113
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3
QuoteOriginally posted by kwb Quote
You sound as if RX series can always take long tele shots that Q series cannot compete quality-wise. If that's really what you mean, that's physics-defying and incorrect.

Please find me the best moon picture taken with the best of the best super bridge camera, RX 10 III (or II or the original RX 10). You can google some, find some more on flickr, probably some more elsewhere. Stacking is welcome. Take time to choose the best one and post the link.

Then look at my moon pictures taken with Q7 with various optics on flickr. As an example you might want to see this one taken with a 3" reflector (700mm, F/9.2) that costed me 100 USD shipped new, this is the cheapest of telescopes that snobs stay away with 10 foot pole paired with the lowliest, dud-from-the-start of a camera.

Moon by k kwb, on Flickr (I've posted this specific picture multiple times, sorry if this bothers people.)

Compare mine with yours. You can magnify mine on flickr to scrutinize. Is your best RX10 picture greater than anything my Q7 has ever produced?

If you're finding what I'm finding, there is a reason for that. It might be obvious but I can explain if needed.

BTW RX10 III is a fantastic technology marvel which produces great, great pictures. Some capable people use it for birding and their results are nothing less than stunning!
After checking your flickr album, I'm really looking forward to trying out a Pentax Q.

04-11-2018, 04:29 PM - 1 Like   #114
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,117
Latest word from Pentax

QuoteOriginally posted by Ricoh Spokesman:
Our resources for research and development are limited and we are more focused on the development of K-series bodies and lenses. This is our first priority, and why we are currently not too involved in the development of other cameras.
Ricoh interview: "The development of the K-series is our first priority": Digital Photography Review


Typical non-answer. Didn't quite say "no".
04-11-2018, 04:34 PM   #115
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,199
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Typical non-answer. Didn't quite say "no".
Same answer as last year and the year before,even though the wording may differ.

They have saved on funeral costs,same as Samsung!
04-11-2018, 04:56 PM   #116
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,117
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Same answer as last year and the year before,even though the wording may differ.

They have saved on funeral costs,same as Samsung!
Still leaves me wondering why Metabones would invest in a Q-mount product.
04-11-2018, 05:03 PM   #117
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,199
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Still leaves me wondering why Metabones would invest in a Q-mount product.
The only reason might be is that its so diminuitive a mount that its the easiest to do??? So that they have the bragging rights amongst that genre???...When you ponder the ecconomic returns,its a waste.
04-12-2018, 04:46 PM   #118
Pentaxian
Abbazz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 559
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Still leaves me wondering why Metabones would invest in a Q-mount product.
Brian Caldwell of Metabones fame has explained that this particular Speed Booster was made just to prove that it was possible to make it. A 0.5x focal reducer can only be built for the Pentax Q mount, because such a device needs to be physically very close to the focus plane, which is made possible by the very short the registration of the Q mount and lack of a focal plane shutter. Also, the small size of the Q sensor mitigates the problems caused by marginal rays bending and the fact it is back-illuminated minimizes pixel vignetting effects.

I don't think Metabones will earn any money from it. Basically, it's just a kind of prototype assembled in a very small batch mainly from existing parts and that's the reason why it is only available in Nikon F/G mount.

Cheers!

Abbazz

Last edited by Abbazz; 04-12-2018 at 04:53 PM.
04-12-2018, 07:02 PM   #119
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,117
QuoteOriginally posted by Abbazz Quote
Brian Caldwell of Metabones fame has explained that this particular Speed Booster was made just to prove that it was possible to make it. A 0.5x focal reducer can only be built for the Pentax Q mount, because such a device needs to be physically very close to the focus plane, which is made possible by the very short the registration of the Q mount and lack of a focal plane shutter. Also, the small size of the Q sensor mitigates the problems caused by marginal rays bending and the fact it is back-illuminated minimizes pixel vignetting effects.

I don't think Metabones will earn any money from it. Basically, it's just a kind of prototype assembled in a very small batch mainly from existing parts and that's the reason why it is only available in Nikon F/G mount.

Cheers!

Abbazz
At one time, they were promising K-mount and M42-mount variants. The F-mount variant is of no interest to me because I have no F-mount lenses. I guess I'm disappointed.
04-12-2018, 09:18 PM - 1 Like   #120
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
Ah the thread has revived. Not going to go into old arguments about about adapted lenses and so on, but would like to say that I hope Ricoh do keep the concept alive. My original Q died and could not be resurrected some months ago, and after the initial rage and disappointment I decided to stick with the system rather than sell my 01 prime and wide zoom, and bought a nearly mint Q7 from Japan 180 including shipping axes and duties. The IQ is an improvement, the slightly wider field of view suits my style better than the original Q. I feel that as a take anywhere walk around camera it really does offer something no one else does. A real alternative to smart phones which today produce really good results. For traditionalists like me the availability of a standard prime is wonderful and I have a really wide lens that no one else offers. All jacket pocketable. No worries about a dusty sensor or zoom motors failing. ll not too expensive.The only decent alternative to a smart phone these days other than the Q for a take anywhere camera are the 1" sensor offerings from Sony Panasonic and Canon, and they all have their flaws. Sony, expensive and you can bet your model will be "obsolete" pretty quickly. Canon, woeful battery life in colder weather. Panasonic, too ambitious a zoom range for the size of body and hence poor max aperture. All have zooms which can fail and no accessible sensor for cleaning. I am not knocking these cameras as they are all clearly capable of good results and would suit many people, who do not worry about their short comings. In a perfect world someone would produce a 1"sensor ILC, like the Q, but no one does and I don't expect they will either. So the Q to me remains a valid choice.
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 07:01 AM. | 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