[Rondec]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Pentax Q7 with K adapter versus 1.4TC - same price
Just interested in your thoughts about getting a Pentax Q7 with the K adapter instead of the 1.4TC
You can get a Q7 from Japan for $299 Pentax Q Series Q7 12 4 MP Digital Camera Black Body Only | eBay add the K adapter for $250 and you have about the same $$ as the 1.4TC
BUT now you have a 5.6 crop factor
DA*300 is 1680 on Q7 versus 675 on a K 5 or K 3 camera
So with a Q7 with the adapter I would get roughly 2 1/2 the reach of a lens versus the same lens on the K-3 with the 1.4 TC
I would be interested in comments from Q owners shooting long K mount lenses with the adapter
Thanks

I think the problem is that it is really hard to get good pixel level image quality with the Q/DA *300 and adapter. You will have to manual focus such a combo and the pixels are a lot smaller. But certainly it would be an option. I think I would prefer to have, in my case, a TC and the DA *200 in my bag and then, I have two lenses a DA *200 and a DA *300 f4 -- probably not as good quality, but pretty good.

[normhead]

I think the problem is that it is really hard to get good pixel level image quality with the Q/DA *300 and adapter. You will have to manual focus such a combo and the pixels are a lot smaller. But certainly it would be an option. I think I would prefer to have, in my case, a TC and the DA *200 in my bag and then, I have two lenses a DA *200 and a DA *300 f4 -- probably not as good quality, but pretty good.

I agree with that, the images I've seen at the pixel level from even a Q7 don't really measure up. That being said, my buddy has one of those Canon point and shoots with an 850mm equivalent lens,( his camera cost less than my A-400, and I had a $1000 body and $400 TC attached to that lens.) and his images were better than my images on a young merlin in a tree maybe 25 meters away from us. I was shooting with my A-400 and 1.7 TC. There are instances where the smaller sensor and more equivalent reach can work in your favour. It's one of the instances where, 90% of the time my images are better than his, but in some circumstances, his equipment performs better. (This is the conundrum FF guys seem to really have trouble wrapping their heads around.) The system capable of producing the best image isn't necessarily capable of producing the best image in every circumstance.

IN this instance, if you are going to be cropping heavily, squeezing more pixels into the subject area gives you more resolution. That's the real TC/ small pixel advantage.

I would certainly consider carrying a Q7 and adapter for those circumstances that warrant it's use, after all, it's not that much to carry. Only cost has prevented me from doing so to date.

But that has nothing to do with buying the TC. I'll want the TC whatever the case may be. They are independent decisions.

What I'm interested in would be the results of the 300 ƒ4 with TC on a Q7 with adapter, now there's a concept worth exploring.

[ElJamoquio]

Pentax Q7 with K adapter versus 1.4TC - same price
Just interested in your thoughts about getting a Pentax Q7 with the K adapter instead of the 1.4TC
You can get a Q7 from Japan for $299 Pentax Q Series Q7 12 4 MP Digital Camera Black Body Only | eBay add the K adapter for $250 and you have about the same $$ as the 1.4TC
BUT now you have a 5.6 crop factor
DA*300 is 1680 on Q7 versus 675 on a K 5 or K 3 camera
So with a Q7 with the adapter I would get roughly 2 1/2 the reach of a lens versus the same lens on the K-3 with the 1.4 TC
I would be interested in comments from Q owners shooting long K mount lenses with the adapter
Thanks

I didn't/don't like the Q + anything K mount. Maybe it's just my el-cheapo adapter but the IQ has always been poor-er than just using the K-mount and cropping.

[monochrome]

I think the problem is that it is really hard to get good pixel level image quality with the Q/DA *300 and adapter. You will have to manual focus such a combo and the pixels are a lot smaller. But certainly it would be an option. I think I would prefer to have, in my case, a TC and the DA *200 in my bag and then, I have two lenses a DA *200 and a DA *300 f4 -- probably not as good quality, but pretty good.

I agree with that, the images I've seen at the pixel level from even a Q7 don't really measure up. N this instance, if you are going to be cropping heavily, squeezing more pixels into the subject area gives you more resolution. That's the real TC/ small pixel advantage.

I would certainly consider carrying a Q7 and adapter for those circumstances that warrant it's use, after all, it's not that much to carry. Only cost has prevented me from doing so to date.

But that has nothing to do with buying the TC. I'll want the TC whatever the case may be. They are independent decisions.

What I'm interested in would be the results of the 300 ƒ4 with TC on a Q7 with adapter, now there's a concept worth exploring.

I never post images here and I often post a bunch of opinion that seems to stir people up - but I can offer something here.

For my use, anyway, with a Q or Q7 and Pentax adapter, on a tripod, I can actually fill the frame of a distant subject with qood enough image qiality for my own use. I don't have a 600mm lens or even a 400mm lens but my K200/2.5, which is a very good lens, will give me a decent image at roughly 800mm equivalent.

It certainly won't be fit for printing large and won't pass the 100% crop test, especially if what I process is itself cropped, The quality will never equal a * lens output (that's reserved for Larry and the DA*300) but it is very good. If we make a scale with fun factor on one end and absolute competence on the other a Q7 is somewhere on the competent side of the middle.

The bigger issue is, whatever are my issues of long lens technique are magnified 4.5 - 5.5 times by the Q cameras, whereas an unconverted lens on a larger sensor might be more forgiving. I'll confess I sold my Takumar 500/4.5 because I'm just not good enough for the lens.

By contrast, I'm going to assert here (without any foreknowledge) that the 1.4x TC and a long * lens will likely produce * lens output, given good long lens technique. Combined with the K3 AF there likely isn't a good comparison possible between that setup and a converted shorter lens manually focused on a Q7.

The Reach of the Q - Post Your Images

[Rondec]

I never post images here and I often post a bunch of opinion that seems to stir people up - but I can offer something here.

For my use, anyway, with a Q or Q7 and Pentax adapter, on a tripod, I can actually fill the frame of a distant subject with qood enough image qiality for my own use. I don't have a 600mm lens or even a 400mm lens but my K200/2.5, which is a very good lens, will give me a decent image at roughly 800mm equivalent.

It certainly won't be fit for printing large and won't pass the 100% crop test, especially if what I process is itself cropped, The quality will never equal a * lens output (that's reserved for Larry and the DA*300) but it is very good. If we make a scale with fun factor on one end and absolute competence on the other a Q7 is somewhere on the competent side of the middle.

The bigger issue is, whatever are my issues of long lens technique are magnified 4.5 - 5.5 times by the Q cameras, whereas an unconverted lens on a larger sensor might be more forgiving. I'll confess I sold my Takumar 500/4.5 because I'm just not good enough for the lens.

By contrast, I'm going to assert here (without any foreknowledge) that the 1.4x TC and a long * lens will likely produce * lens output, given good long lens technique. Combined with the K3 AF there likely isn't a good comparison possible between that setup and a converted shorter lens manually focused on a Q7.

I just don't really know what the equivalent magnifications are. 300mm plus 1.4x TC is what -- a 420 f 5.6? 200mm f2.8 on the Q7 is a 1100mm f11 lens? And then the differences in pixel density muddy the waters. To me, a D800 has exactly the same reach as a K5, regardless of the constricting of field of view, because pixel density is the same. The K3 has a little more reach than the D800 (more digital zoom) because it has smaller pixels. This the way that the Q7 has more "reach" than a K3 (not because of more narrow field of view) and not totally clear how much this gives.

What I do know is that this is a really tough way to get more reach.

[ElJamoquio]

In terms of 'either/or', personally I'd get the TC rather than the Q because of the A/F alone. I'd probably get the K-3 before either, or put the $500 towards that camera.


Likely Best for me
K-3 (extra pixel density over K-5, improved AF)
TC (spread light over more pixels)
Q/Q7 (fun camera but poor results in my experience)
Likely Worst for me

[crewl1]

Pentax Q7 with K adapter versus 1.4TC - same price Just interested in your thoughts about getting a Pentax Q7 with the K adapter instead of the 1.4TC You can get a Q7 from Japan for $299 Pentax Q Series Q7 12 4 MP Digital Camera Black Body Only | eBay add the K adapter for $250 and you have about the same $$ as the 1.4TC BUT now you have a 5.6 crop factor DA*300 is 1680 on Q7 versus 675 on a K 5 or K 3 camera So with a Q7 with the adapter I would get roughly 2 1/2 the reach of a lens versus the same lens on the K-3 with the 1.4 TC I would be interested in comments from Q owners shooting long K mount lenses with the adapter Thanks

Hi Bob,
I have done extensive testing with the Q/Q7 DA*300 combo.

As far as image quality I disagree with those that say that the IQ of the combo is lacking, as long as you keep ISO low and focus accurately.

Most folks that come to this conclusion have tried using other lenses that may work great on APS-C but the Q/Q7 are brutal on lenses and anything less than the quality of the DA*300 (or similar) will give unsatisfactory results.

With the Q/Q7 DA*300 combo the following is required for me to get good captures:
- Use of low ISO, means good light conditions needed
- a solid support with smooth position capability to put the 1600mm where you need it and hold it there, this means usually a heavy tripod and gimbal
- focus assistance such as LCD loupe and magnification of the screen for accurate focus that is critical
- targeting assistance such as a red dot sight otherwise you waste time trying to find your distant subject
- a slow or stationary subject, even with the Pentax adapter's leaf shutter, flying birds and running wildlife are pretty much not going to be in your field of view or focused

You can see that there are lots of limitations, and when I go out with the combo I am mentally prepared and enjoy the more patient and methodical zen-like shooting experience.

But if I want to walk an unfamiliar environment with a lightweight kit that is WR there is no beating the DA*300 on a K-3/K-5 and be ready for anything that flies, walks or runs into view.
This is why I will buy the TC if it supports AF properly.

I will continue to shoot with my Q/Q7 DA*300 combo as well.

In monochrome's post he directed to the 'Reach' thread, on the last page is a comparison I did of the Q/Q7/K-3 with the DA*300 and how much crop advantage you get with each if you want to check it out.

[Giklab]

We're a long way from getting anywhere close to Q reach. To match the Q or Q10 you'd need a ~380MP full frame sensor. Currently, the largest MP count is still less than one tenth of that.

[VisualDarkness]

I would say that TC vs Q is comparing apples to oranges. The TC actually changes the focal length of the lens optically while the Q with an adapter is simply equal to cropping.

[ElJamoquio]

I would say that TC vs Q is comparing apples to oranges. The TC actually changes the focal length of the lens optically while the Q with an adapter is simply equal to cropping.

Sure, but so what?

A person has a few different options and is trying to optimize their purchases. Sometimes that means buying an apple, sometimes it means buying an orange.

[baro-nite]

So with a Q7 with the adapter I would get roughly 2 1/2 the reach of a lens versus the same lens on the K-3 with the 1.4 TC

K-3 pixel pitch is about 3.9µm. Q7 about 1.86µm. So as the Q system's pixels have grown a bit, the K system's have shrunk, and now there's only about a 2x difference between the two, vs. the roughly 3x difference between the original Q or Q10 and the K-5. I'm a fan of the Q system and have enjoyed using and will continue to enjoy using the Q with adapted K-mount lenses, especially the DA*300. But the Q + DA*300 is difficult to handle, and a good-quality AF TC on the K-3 is likely to produce better results. Handling will be much better, and IQ should be at least a bit better in most cases. I wonder if, if the 1.4x is a success, we will see a new 2x?

[VisualDarkness]

One thing that the Q combo is and will be much better at is super-tele video as cropping is way harder to achieve there.

[ElJamoquio]

K-3 pixel pitch is about 3.9µm. Q7 about 1.86µm. So as the Q system's pixels have grown a bit, the K system's have shrunk, and now there's only about a 2x difference between the two, vs. the roughly 3x difference between the original Q or Q10 and the K-5. I'm a fan of the Q system and have enjoyed using and will continue to enjoy using the Q with adapted K-mount lenses, especially the DA*300. But the Q + DA*300 is difficult to handle, and a good-quality AF TC on the K-3 is likely to produce better results. Handling will be much better, and IQ should be at least a bit better in most cases. I wonder if, if the 1.4x is a success, we will see a new 2x?

3.9/1.4 (T/C) = 2.8

Just me reiterating my opinion/experience, but I wouldn't go for the Q if the only purpose is telephoto.

[RockvilleBob]

K-3 pixel pitch is about 3.9µm. Q7 about 1.86µm. So as the Q system's pixels have grown a bit, the K system's have shrunk, and now there's only about a 2x difference between the two, vs. the roughly 3x difference between the original Q or Q10 and the K-5. I'm a fan of the Q system and have enjoyed using and will continue to enjoy using the Q with adapted K-mount lenses, especially the DA*300. But the Q + DA*300 is difficult to handle, and a good-quality AF TC on the K-3 is likely to produce better results. Handling will be much better, and IQ should be at least a bit better in most cases. I wonder if, if the 1.4x is a success, we will see a new 2x?

Thanks for taking the time to reply - I will be saving for the 1.4TC provided it will work on the Sigma 500 as well as the DA*300

[normhead]

K-3 pixel pitch is about 3.9µm. Q7 about 1.86µm. So as the Q system's pixels have grown a bit, the K system's have shrunk, and now there's only about a 2x difference between the two

4 Q pixels will fit into the space of one K-3 pixel at those sizes.