Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-17-2018, 10:14 AM - 2 Likes   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,623
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
There's a fair chunk of my equipment that I would give up before I'd let my Q, Q7, 01, 02 and 06 lenses go.
Ya, the thing is, when we have done comparison shots, for 95% of what we shoot we could use a Q. The IQ for a small camera is amazing. We still use larger sensors hoping for the killer shot that makes us a million, but so far the faith that will ever happen is unjustified.

I do have a very small minority of images that benefit from the larger sensors, but without that misguided hope of getting the awesomest shot ever taken, I'm not sure a Q wouldn't be my only camera.

Viewed on a 4k monitor, Q images hold up, up there with the best and are indistinguishable from even my K-1 images. Many think you can print larger with a 24 MP or 36 MP camera, someone should take the time to prove that's true.

10-17-2018, 01:25 PM   #17
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,731
The Q is great, and I miss mine. I switched from Q7 to Nikon 1 strictly for the sake of the better autofocus (which is way oversold, but still better than the Q), a gps option (why is the O-gps1 not compatible with the Q series?) and the fact that even though the Q should on paper have a macro advantage, for real-world shooting of small living things in the field it's pretty ungainly. Adapted lenses became too long to be practical, and were hard to focus.The standard lens also has a much poorer reproduction ratio than even typical SLR kit lenses. The Nikon 1 standard lens shoots close without complaining, and my adapted M 50mm macro was still a good focal length, and the focusing assist is ok. In all other respects the Q 02 lens is a vastly superior image-maker. The BSI sensor really did make nice files, too.

If that macro lens had ever come out, I'd still have the Q. And probably the 08 lens too. The Nikon 1 series ultrawide is a lot pricier. I'd even compromise and jump through hoops to sync up metadata with some external geotagging device, and I hate that.
10-17-2018, 01:26 PM   #18
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,623
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
The Q is great, and I miss mine. I switched from Q7 to Nikon 1 strictly for the sake of the better autofocus (which is way oversold, but still better than the Q), a gps option (why is the O-gps1 not compatible with the Q series?) and the fact that even though the Q should on paper have a macro advantage, for real-world shooting of small living things in the field it's pretty ungainly. Adapted lenses became too long to be practical, and were hard to focus.The standard lens also has a much poorer reproduction ratio than even typical SLR kit lenses. The Nikon 1 standard lens shoots close without complaining, and my adapted M 50mm macro was still a good focal length, and the focusing assist is ok. In all other respects the Q 02 lens is a vastly superior image-maker. The BSI sensor really did make nice files, too.

If that macro lens had ever come out, I'd still have the Q. And probably the 08 lens too. The Nikon 1 series ultrawide is a lot pricier. I'd even compromise and jump through hoops to sync up metadata with some external geotagging device, and I hate that.
The lack of macro has been a great source of frustration for me as well. I almost always carry a macro lens. Not having one means there are a lot of outings i won't take it on. My experience with the adapter has been less than satisfactory.
10-17-2018, 01:41 PM   #19
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,543
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The lack of macro has been a great source of frustration for me as well. I almost always carry a macro lens. Not having one means there are a lot of outings i won't take it on. My experience with the adapter has been less than satisfactory.
I've often wondered whether these macro extension tubes would be useful for that. They have the necessary electrical contacts to use native Q-mount AF lenses (not for AF, but for aperture control):

Pentax Q Auto Extension Tube Set | SRB-Photographic.co.uk

I've been tempted to buy them a couple of times, but I don't do a great deal of macro...

10-17-2018, 02:49 PM - 3 Likes   #20
Pentaxian
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 474
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I've often wondered whether these macro extension tubes would be useful for that. They have the necessary electrical contacts to use native Q-mount AF lenses (not for AF, but for aperture control):

Pentax Q Auto Extension Tube Set | SRB-Photographic.co.uk

I've been tempted to buy them a couple of times, but I don't do a great deal of macro...
The 10mm extension tube will work with the 06, but won't have much working distance, the other tubes are too long to focus with a Q lens. There are threads here about this product.

I use Pentax 110 lenses, with their proper supplementary close-up lenses, to get you to a field of about 40mmx30mm at near focus and 75x50mm at infinity focus. Very compact and simple to use (fitted with a fixed stop at optimum resolution. Not as versatile as a dedicated macro of course, but about 90% of the performance and about 1/10th the size and weight and price of FF.


See example below, 18mm with Pentax W21 closeup lens @f4.5, 1/60, ISO 800, handheld (light falloff is from the room lighting, not the lens.)


Last edited by Cipher; 10-17-2018 at 02:51 PM. Reason: typo
10-17-2018, 09:14 PM   #21
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 37
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Think the Q series, excepting the S1, is now inexpensively priced. It should be possible to buy a Q and all the lenses for under $1000. How many other systems can duplicate that? The Q system is a great buy.
Thanks,
barondla
Err...dunno about you, but "under $1000" isn't exactly inexpensive by my standards. There are plenty new cameras for that kind of money. Any entry level DSLR + a bag of lenses in my neighbourhood. Plus that is a "think 3 times and then sleep on it and think again" kind of money.


Q7 prices are a bit better, and I could certainly live with that, but still...
Oh well, I guess I will keep hunting then. I guess people who want it really, really want it and are willing to pay top dollar! Kind of makes me want one more now to see what the fuss is... :-)
10-17-2018, 09:36 PM - 1 Like   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,906
QuoteOriginally posted by EFats Quote
Err...dunno about you, but "under $1000" isn't exactly inexpensive by my standards. There are plenty new cameras for that kind of money. Any entry level DSLR + a bag of lenses in my neighbourhood. Plus that is a "think 3 times and then sleep on it and think again" kind of money.


Q7 prices are a bit better, and I could certainly live with that, but still...
Oh well, I guess I will keep hunting then. I guess people who want it really, really want it and are willing to pay top dollar! Kind of makes me want one more now to see what the fuss is... :-)
Agree $1000 isn't chump change. What I am saying is a Q body and all 8 lenses can be bought for under $1000. One lens is a fisheye, another is an 80-200 equivalent lens with a f2.8 constant aperture, a third is an ultrawide zoom, the fourth is a fast normal lens, and the 5th is a 24-70 equivalent zoom. No other entry level dslr system will be even close to $1000 with equivalent lenses.

No one said all 8 lenses have to be purchased.
thanks,
barondla
10-18-2018, 01:29 AM   #23
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,543
QuoteOriginally posted by Cipher Quote
The 10mm extension tube will work with the 06, but won't have much working distance, the other tubes are too long to focus with a Q lens. There are threads here about this product.
Thank you... That's saved me the trouble and cost of finding that out the hard way!

QuoteOriginally posted by Cipher Quote
I use Pentax 110 lenses, with their proper supplementary close-up lenses, to get you to a field of about 40mmx30mm at near focus and 75x50mm at infinity focus. Very compact and simple to use (fitted with a fixed stop at optimum resolution. Not as versatile as a dedicated macro of course, but about 90% of the performance and about 1/10th the size and weight and price of FF.


See example below, 18mm with Pentax W21 closeup lens @f4.5, 1/60, ISO 800, handheld (light falloff is from the room lighting, not the lens.)
That's a very impressive result. It also shows what a lens-specific close-up lens can be capable of. On that note, I wonder how good (or bad) decent quality generic +1 and +2 close up lenses would work on the 06? Obviously they'd be more prone to aberrations, and the edge performance likely wouldn't be great... But I wonder?

10-18-2018, 07:01 AM - 2 Likes   #24
Pentaxian
Cipher's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 474
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
On that note, I wonder how good (or bad) decent quality generic +1 and +2 close up lenses would work on the 06? Obviously they'd be more prone to aberrations, and the edge performance likely wouldn't be great... But I wonder?
Kenko made multi-coated 40.5mm close-up lenses, I don't know if they would be any better than the cheap ones. One advantage in using the Pentax 110 lenses on the Q is that you are only using the center part of their field of view—the usual edge softness of close-up lenses is cropped out.

Here is a list of the 110 lenses followed by filter size, supplimentary close-up lens #, focusing range and magnification:
18/2.8 30.5 W21 16-26 cm 1/5.7-1/11.3
24/2.8 25.5 S31 20-36 cm 1/6.1-1/12.7
24/2.8 25.5 S16 15-20 cm 1/4.1-1/6.4
50/2.8 37.5 T26 48-92 cm 1/8.0-1/17.1
50/2.8 37.5 T43 34-50 cm 1/5.4-1/8.6

70/2.8 49 (no dedicated close-up lenses, use regular ones)

The S31 and S16 as well as the T26 and T43 can be stacked, but edge performance takes a hit.

The "complete" 110 kits had all the lenses plus UV filters (and worthless rubber lens hoods.) To make a properly deep lens hood scrounge up a tube of the proper size, blacken the inside and then glue it to the old hood ring (so it can be removable.) The kits are available on ebay from time to time for $100-200 USD, sometimes in a nifty aluminum case.The individual close-up lenses show up from time to time for $10-20 USD.

I find the 18mm+W21 to be the most usable (DOF, Working distance, handling) combination, but the 24mm and 50mm work well too. The 70mm is pretty big, negating any of the Q's size advantage.

Last edited by Cipher; 10-18-2018 at 07:56 AM. Reason: more info
10-18-2018, 08:46 PM - 3 Likes   #25
kwb
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pacific North West
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 440
Hi BigMackCam, Cipher,

I use Kenko AC+5 close up lens with 06 lens and Q7. "AC" for two-element achromat and "+5" for 5.0 diopter (i.e. focal length of this lens alone is 1/5 meters = 200mm).

FYI Kenko makes two lines of closeup lenses, "AC" line and cheaper single element ones, both are multi coated. Mine cost me less than 20 bucks when I bought it in Japan. Acromats should be better than single element ones as far as chromatic aberrations are concerned but I can still see some in out of focus area. Both are multi-coated.

I posted the following pictures to MaQro thread, this one is at about the closest.

Hoverfly by k kwb, on Flickr

And this is at about the widest.

Flower by k kwb, on Flickr

At the closest focus at the tele end, a 24mm wide subject (a tad smaller than an inch) just fits the full width of Q7 sensor, so the maximum magnification is something like 7.44:24 or 1:3.2. Working distance at the maximum magnification is probably 7 inches or so from the lens.

Auto focus works but you have to move the camera first so the focus is not totally off, then half-press the shutter button. That's just the nature of adding something like these on a native lens.

I used to use a C-mount fixed focus lens with a spacer for super compact go-anywhere macro, but these days that duty is shifted to Kenko and 06 lens simply because it's more convenient without increasing the bulk. C mount thing gave me larger magnification but I'm trading that with zoom, (auto) focus and mechanical shutter.
10-18-2018, 10:05 PM - 1 Like   #26
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,906
My Dad got his Q7 brand new with 07 for about 200 2 years ago. The system is really fun to use, I hope to get my own at some point.
10-26-2018, 07:28 PM - 1 Like   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Heinrich Lohmann's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Airdrie, Alberta Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,303
Just found a new 01 lens for under $ 100 Cnd.here: Amazon.ca: Buying Choices: Pentax-01 Standard Prime for Pentax Q Mount (japan import)
01-31-2019, 07:05 AM - 1 Like   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Perfessor5646's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Louisville, KY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 279
Pentax q7

If anyone is still reading this. I bought a yellow Q7 with the Standard Zoom from KEH for $218 earlier this month. Since then I’ve acquired the Pentax K/Q Adapter for $199, the 01 Prime for about $150, the 06 tele-zoom for $115 and the 08 wide zoom for les than $300. Because I’m an addict, I could not quit looking for more. I decided to pass on the Toy Lens but I just ordered the lens shield. Last week I found 3 certified refurbished Q7s at KEH, a silver one(body only) for $499, a black one with the standard zoom for $269 and another yellow body for $154. So now I have 2 yellow Q7s.

That’s the rule in the TO&E isn’t it. If you have two lenses you only need one body, If 4 or more lenses then you need two bodies. With 3 lenses the 2nd body is optional.

Last edited by Perfessor5646; 02-01-2019 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Correction: It was 6th Ave, not KEH
01-31-2019, 07:30 AM - 1 Like   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,906
QuoteOriginally posted by Perfessor5646 Quote
If anyone is still reading this. I bought a yellow Q7 with the Standard Zoom from KEH for $218 earlier this month. Since then I’ve acquired the Pentax K/Q Adapter for $199, the 01 Prime for about $150, the 06 tele-zoom for $115 and the 08 wide zoom for les than $300. Because I’m an addict, I could not quit looking for more. I decided to pass on the Toy Lens but I just ordered the lens shield. Last week I found 3 certified refurbished Q7s at KEH, a silver one(body only) for $499, a black one with the standard zoom for $269 and another yellow body for $154. So now I have 2 yellow Q7s.

That’s the rule in the TO&E isn’t it. If you have two lenses you only need one body, If 4 or more lenses then you need two bodies. With 3 lenses the 2nd body is optional.
From $499 to $154 is a big price gap just for color! The 03 fisheye is highly recommended.
Thanks,
barondla

Last edited by barondla; 01-31-2019 at 12:18 PM.
01-31-2019, 08:07 AM - 2 Likes   #30
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,655
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
From $499 to $154 is a big price gap just for color! The 03 fisheye is highlt recommended.
Thanks,
barondla
I would have preferred a silver one {looks so much like the range finder cameras I used in the 1970s} when I was looking in 2014, but an Amazon seller was offering a used-like-new {shutter count = 50} yellow kit Q-7 + 02 + 06 for $250. I found myself using it as much as my elderly Canon Rebel, which is why I purchased a K-30 when the Rebel died six months later. Now I have a KP, the first camera I had that was clearly superior to the Q-7, but I still use the Q-7 a few times each month .... usually when size is an issue.
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!
camera, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why is the 28-45mm lens so expensive? John Trammell Pentax Medium Format 32 05-29-2018 12:09 PM
So, why are new pentax lenses so expensive? texandrews Pentax Medium Format 63 08-20-2014 03:13 AM
This is why your used gear is so expensive scratchpaddy Photographic Industry and Professionals 21 06-27-2013 12:47 PM
Pentax - Why so expensive? userage Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 18 12-22-2011 06:53 PM
Why is the FA*28-70 so expensive? Clinton Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 56 08-25-2011 11:31 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 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