My final word on the "Adapters....don't work" thread (click through for exif and enlarged view):

[6BQ5]

Bro ... that's mean ...

[reh321]

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}

[kwb]

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?

[Abbazz]

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

[reh321]

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

[CWRailman]

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.

[henryC]

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.

[reh321]

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".

[surfar]

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!

[reh321]

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.

[surfar]

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.

[Abbazz]

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

[reh321]

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.

[richard0170]

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.