Looking for Honest Opinions: Leaving Pentax for Wildlife?

wildman · 04-25-2017, 04:51 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by UserAccessDenied

I wouldn't even know where to start with the Q. I really know nothing about them...

Young fledgling House Sparrow at a distance of about 40 feet. Just out of the bird bath. Remember this bird is about 1/3 the size of a man's fist.
Also it's fair to say it takes some PP skill to get these results out of a Q. The Q-S1 at 560mm gives me a magnification of about 60x (too much really). Hint - I only shot with a tripod with the Q.

Model PENTAX Q-S1
Shutter Speed 1/320 s
F-Number f/0
ISO 1250
Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 560 mm
White Balance Details Auto
Date/Time Original 5/29/2015 2:21:52 PM

Last edited by wildman; 05-02-2017 at 02:27 PM.

reh321 · 04-25-2017, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by wildman

Young fledgling House Sparrow at a distance of about 40 feet. Just out of the bird bath. Remember this bird is about 1/3 the size of a man's fist.
Also it's fair to say it takes some PP skill to get these results out of a Q. The Q-S1 at 560mm gives me a magnification of about 60x (too much really). Hint - I only shot with a tripod with the Q.

Model PENTAX Q-S1
Shutter Speed 1/320 s
F-Number f/0
ISO 1250
Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 560 mm
White Balance Details Auto
Date/Time Original 5/29/2015 2:21:52 PM

Yes, the ISO setting is reported as 1250.
The OP needs to understand that the 1/1.7" sensor struggles above 400 ISO, which means serious PP is needed to get sharpness at that point.

Question: do you use a wood tripod?

wildman · 04-25-2017, 08:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

The OP needs to understand that the 1/1.7" sensor struggles above 400 ISO, which means serious PP is needed to get sharpness at that point.

You can go well beyond 400 if you are starting with well exposed RAW files and you know your way around Photoshop. Anyway starting with a Q and a K adapter and using the glass you got might be a good starting point - cheap and a good learning process. So far as my gear see pic.

Model PENTAX Q-S1
Shutter Speed 1/320 s
F-Number f/0
ISO ISO 3200
Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 475 mm
White Balance Details Auto
Date/Time Original 5/15/2015 12:52:24 PM

reh321 · 04-25-2017, 08:11 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by wildman

You can go well beyond 400 if you are starting with well exposed RAW files and you know your way around Photoshop. Anyway starting with a Q and a K adapter might be a good starting point - cheap and a good learning process. So far as my gear see pic.

Model PENTAX Q-S1
Shutter Speed 1/320 s
F-Number f/0
ISO ISO 3200
Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 475 mm
White Balance Details Auto
Date/Time Original 5/15/2015 12:52:24 PM

I was emphasizing the non-monetary costs of achieving the level of photography you reach.

My photography is integrated into the nature walks I take with my wife; for me to carry your tripod, I would look like a Good Friday re-enactment of Jesus carrying His cross on a wilderness trail.
I already spend a certain portion of each day nursing forty-year-old slides to a level acceptable to me, so I have only so many PP hours left.

Each person will have his/her own goals and limitations, and I just wanted to clarify that.

Last edited by reh321; 04-25-2017 at 08:16 PM.

Fenwoodian · 04-25-2017, 10:26 PM

If you are serious about fast action wildlife photography, forget getting a Pentax Q. Using a Pentax Q for wildlife is fun, with it's tiny size and huge magnification being a real novelty. However, a Pentax Q is not for the serious wildlife photographer!

I've got the Q7 and have used many of my Pentax lenses on it (with an adapter of course).

I've got decades of experience shooting BIF and fast action sports.

While my Q7 images look good when you see them initially, the quality of my Q7 images don't compare to those I take with my Nikon D7100 and Nikkor telephoto lenses. With the Nikon system, I get incredible detail of every feather on a bird and individual hairs on an elk. While with the Q7 (with any Pentax lens I put on it) I simply do not get any where near the level of detail that I get out of my Nikon rig.

I don't own a Nikon D500 or the highly rated Nikkor 200 - 500 lens, but I believe that they are even better than my current Nikon system and would make Pentax Q images look absolutely terrible in comparison.

UserAccessDenied · 04-26-2017, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

If you are serious about fast action wildlife photography, forget getting a Pentax Q. Using a Pentax Q for wildlife is fun, with it's tiny size and huge magnification being a real novelty. However, a Pentax Q is not for the serious wildlife photographer!

I've got the Q7 and have used many of my Pentax lenses on it (with an adapter of course).

I've got decades of experience shooting BIF and fast action sports.

While my Q7 images look good when you see them initially, the quality of my Q7 images don't compare to those I take with my Nikon D7100 and Nikkor telephoto lenses. With the Nikon system, I get incredible detail of every feather on a bird and individual hairs on an elk. While with the Q7 (with any Pentax lens I put on it) I simply do not get any where near the level of detail that I get out of my Nikon rig.

I don't own a Nikon D500 or the highly rated Nikkor 200 - 500 lens, but I believe that they are even better than my current Nikon system and would make Pentax Q images look absolutely terrible in comparison.

Can you post some examples taken from your Nikon rig to compare to the Q7 setup?

reh321 · 04-26-2017, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

If you are serious about fast action wildlife photography, forget getting a Pentax Q.

Yes, for moving targets, "Q'" won't be as good. Much better to get a camera with more pixels so you can crop some of them away.

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

Using a Pentax Q for wildlife is fun, with it's tiny size and huge magnification being a real novelty. However, a Pentax Q is not for the serious wildlife photographer! .

If I were a "serious wildlife photographer", I would be willing to buy a $$$$ camera and at least one $$$$ lens.

The places where a "Q" is better than a $$$$ Canikon with a $$$$ lens is in near darkness or at extreme distance. Last autumn, our daughters were home, so we spent a day at a local county park. At the end of the day, my wife thought she saw a bird out on the lake, but her binoculars were insufficient to identify it. I had to increase the ISO setting on my Q-7 to 1600. The image was noisier than I would prefer, and even at 300mm {I compounded my issues by setting the camera to 400mm, so SR was working against me}, it was a relatively small portion of the frame, but I could locate and photograph the bird to provide an image she could send to a friend, who identified it as a Cormorant - which apparently was visiting from Lake Michigan {perhaps thirty mile flight away}. I have always viewed my Q-7 birding kit as an alternative to a Canon SX-50 or a Nikon P900, rather than to a $$$$ Canikon kit.

Last edited by reh321; 04-26-2017 at 06:59 AM. Reason: added last {summary} sentence

Franc · 04-26-2017, 07:28 AM

i'm happy with my *300 and the dfa 150-450 using them both on the k3 and k1. no problems what so ever even if the *300 hasn't been used in nearly a year. For wildlife i never found it necessary to switch to canikon as pentax will deliver, always

UserAccessDenied · 04-26-2017, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Franc

i'm happy with my *300 and the dfa 150-450 using them both on the k3 and k1. no problems what so ever even if the *300 hasn't been used in nearly a year. For wildlife i never found it necessary to switch to canikon as pentax will deliver, always

Right, don't get me wrong here - I LOVE my DA*300 and the 1.4xTC.

I'm looking at the 150-450 as a replacement/supplement, but I'm reading more and more users experiencing the zoom locking issue around 180mm.
This seems like a design flaw. As with the SDM motor.

I just wish expensive gear like this didn't have such issues...

Franc · 04-26-2017, 08:00 AM

no problem what so ever with it.

UserAccessDenied · 04-26-2017, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Franc

no problem what so ever with it.

Did you purchase the lens new at first production or at a later time?

I wish there was a database here with serial #'s associated with the known issue.
Maybe Ricoh fixed it, but it's not published anywhere...

Franc · 04-26-2017, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by UserAccessDenied

Did you purchase the lens new at first production or at a later time?
..

as far as i can tell it was the first production. It came out and i bought it.

normhead · 04-26-2017, 08:33 AM

I've seen one, this guy didn't have any complaints about his.

**boriscleto** · 04-26-2017, 09:09 AM

I've also read here that the zoom lock issue seems to develop if you zoom the lens too forcefully or quickly...thus causing the seals to become dislodged and jam the zoom...B&H has it for $2200 (limited stock)...

Pioneer · 04-26-2017, 10:00 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UserAccessDenied

Right, don't get me wrong here - I LOVE my DA*300 and the 1.4xTC.

I'm looking at the 150-450 as a replacement/supplement, but I'm reading more and more users experiencing the zoom locking issue around 180mm.
This seems like a design flaw. As with the SDM motor.

I just wish expensive gear like this didn't have such issues...

Anything designed and made by man will develop problems at some point. A small percentage will develop them right away.

You pay the money and take your chances to some degree. You should be aware that forums seem to magnify the apparent occurrence of lens or camera problems as the majority who have no problem rarely report on them. They just use them.

04-25-2017, 05:23 PM	#32
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,181	Originally posted by wildman Young fledgling House Sparrow at a distance of about 40 feet. Just out of the bird bath. Remember this bird is about 1/3 the size of a man's fist. Also it's fair to say it takes some PP skill to get these results out of a Q. The Q-S1 at 560mm gives me a magnification of about 60x (too much really). Hint - I only shot with a tripod with the Q. Model PENTAX Q-S1 Shutter Speed 1/320 s F-Number f/0 ISO 1250 Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Off, Did not fire Focal Length 560 mm White Balance Details Auto Date/Time Original 5/29/2015 2:21:52 PM Yes, the ISO setting is reported as 1250. The OP needs to understand that the 1/1.7" sensor struggles above 400 ISO, which means serious PP is needed to get sharpness at that point. Question: do you use a wood tripod? Last edited by reh321; 04-25-2017 at 05:25 PM. Reason: added question

04-25-2017, 08:03 PM - 1 Like	#33
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by reh321 The OP needs to understand that the 1/1.7" sensor struggles above 400 ISO, which means serious PP is needed to get sharpness at that point. You can go well beyond 400 if you are starting with well exposed RAW files and you know your way around Photoshop. Anyway starting with a Q and a K adapter and using the glass you got might be a good starting point - cheap and a good learning process. So far as my gear see pic. Model PENTAX Q-S1 Shutter Speed 1/320 s F-Number f/0 ISO ISO 3200 Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Off, Did not fire Focal Length 475 mm White Balance Details Auto Date/Time Original 5/15/2015 12:52:24 PM Last edited by wildman; 05-02-2017 at 02:27 PM.

04-25-2017, 10:26 PM	#35
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,875	If you are serious about fast action wildlife photography, forget getting a Pentax Q. Using a Pentax Q for wildlife is fun, with it's tiny size and huge magnification being a real novelty. However, a Pentax Q is not for the serious wildlife photographer! I've got the Q7 and have used many of my Pentax lenses on it (with an adapter of course). I've got decades of experience shooting BIF and fast action sports. While my Q7 images look good when you see them initially, the quality of my Q7 images don't compare to those I take with my Nikon D7100 and Nikkor telephoto lenses. With the Nikon system, I get incredible detail of every feather on a bird and individual hairs on an elk. While with the Q7 (with any Pentax lens I put on it) I simply do not get any where near the level of detail that I get out of my Nikon rig. I don't own a Nikon D500 or the highly rated Nikkor 200 - 500 lens, but I believe that they are even better than my current Nikon system and would make Pentax Q images look absolutely terrible in comparison. Last edited by Fenwoodian; 04-25-2017 at 10:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Honest reactions to the DA* 60-250.	Annabelle	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	09-11-2015 08:57 AM
Misc Looking for some honest critique	shaX 07	Photo Critique	6	10-30-2013 12:51 PM
Honest opinions of the M40-2.8	DaveHolmes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	04-05-2012 07:54 PM
Misc Honest opinions on technical aspects	Pentexan	Photo Critique	12	01-02-2011 07:12 PM
Need some honest opinions...(5 pics)	TYOsborn	Post Your Photos!	14	03-21-2009 11:17 AM

04-25-2017, 04:51 PM - 3 Likes	#31
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by UserAccessDenied I wouldn't even know where to start with the Q. I really know nothing about them... Young fledgling House Sparrow at a distance of about 40 feet. Just out of the bird bath. Remember this bird is about 1/3 the size of a man's fist. Also it's fair to say it takes some PP skill to get these results out of a Q. The Q-S1 at 560mm gives me a magnification of about 60x (too much really). Hint - I only shot with a tripod with the Q. Model PENTAX Q-S1 Shutter Speed 1/320 s F-Number f/0 ISO 1250 Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Off, Did not fire Focal Length 560 mm White Balance Details Auto Date/Time Original 5/29/2015 2:21:52 PM Last edited by wildman; 05-02-2017 at 02:27 PM.

04-25-2017, 08:11 PM - 1 Like	#34
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,181	Originally posted by wildman You can go well beyond 400 if you are starting with well exposed RAW files and you know your way around Photoshop. Anyway starting with a Q and a K adapter might be a good starting point - cheap and a good learning process. So far as my gear see pic. Model PENTAX Q-S1 Shutter Speed 1/320 s F-Number f/0 ISO ISO 3200 Exposure Bias Value 0.00 eV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Off, Did not fire Focal Length 475 mm White Balance Details Auto Date/Time Original 5/15/2015 12:52:24 PM I was emphasizing the non-monetary costs of achieving the level of photography you reach. My photography is integrated into the nature walks I take with my wife; for me to carry your tripod, I would look like a Good Friday re-enactment of Jesus carrying His cross on a wilderness trail. I already spend a certain portion of each day nursing forty-year-old slides to a level acceptable to me, so I have only so many PP hours left. Each person will have his/her own goals and limitations, and I just wanted to clarify that. Last edited by reh321; 04-25-2017 at 08:16 PM.

04-26-2017, 05:10 AM	#36
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fenwoodian If you are serious about fast action wildlife photography, forget getting a Pentax Q. Using a Pentax Q for wildlife is fun, with it's tiny size and huge magnification being a real novelty. However, a Pentax Q is not for the serious wildlife photographer! I've got the Q7 and have used many of my Pentax lenses on it (with an adapter of course). I've got decades of experience shooting BIF and fast action sports. While my Q7 images look good when you see them initially, the quality of my Q7 images don't compare to those I take with my Nikon D7100 and Nikkor telephoto lenses. With the Nikon system, I get incredible detail of every feather on a bird and individual hairs on an elk. While with the Q7 (with any Pentax lens I put on it) I simply do not get any where near the level of detail that I get out of my Nikon rig. I don't own a Nikon D500 or the highly rated Nikkor 200 - 500 lens, but I believe that they are even better than my current Nikon system and would make Pentax Q images look absolutely terrible in comparison. Can you post some examples taken from your Nikon rig to compare to the Q7 setup?

04-26-2017, 06:56 AM	#37
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,181	Originally posted by Fenwoodian If you are serious about fast action wildlife photography, forget getting a Pentax Q. Yes, for moving targets, "Q'" won't be as good. Much better to get a camera with more pixels so you can crop some of them away. Originally posted by Fenwoodian Using a Pentax Q for wildlife is fun, with it's tiny size and huge magnification being a real novelty. However, a Pentax Q is not for the serious wildlife photographer! . If I were a "serious wildlife photographer", I would be willing to buy a $$$$ camera and at least one $$$$ lens. The places where a "Q" is better than a $$$$ Canikon with a $$$$ lens is in near darkness or at extreme distance. Last autumn, our daughters were home, so we spent a day at a local county park. At the end of the day, my wife thought she saw a bird out on the lake, but her binoculars were insufficient to identify it. I had to increase the ISO setting on my Q-7 to 1600. The image was noisier than I would prefer, and even at 300mm {I compounded my issues by setting the camera to 400mm, so SR was working against me}, it was a relatively small portion of the frame, but I could locate and photograph the bird to provide an image she could send to a friend, who identified it as a Cormorant - which apparently was visiting from Lake Michigan {perhaps thirty mile flight away}. I have always viewed my Q-7 birding kit as an alternative to a Canon SX-50 or a Nikon P900, rather than to a $$$$ Canikon kit. Last edited by reh321; 04-26-2017 at 06:59 AM. Reason: added last {summary} sentence

04-26-2017, 07:28 AM	#38
Franc Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hoevelaken Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,213	i'm happy with my 300 and the dfa 150-450 using them both on the k3 and k1. no problems what so ever even if the 300 hasn't been used in nearly a year. For wildlife i never found it necessary to switch to canikon as pentax will deliver, always

04-26-2017, 07:52 AM	#39
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by Franc i'm happy with my 300 and the dfa 150-450 using them both on the k3 and k1. no problems what so ever even if the 300 hasn't been used in nearly a year. For wildlife i never found it necessary to switch to canikon as pentax will deliver, always Right, don't get me wrong here - I LOVE my DA*300 and the 1.4xTC. I'm looking at the 150-450 as a replacement/supplement, but I'm reading more and more users experiencing the zoom locking issue around 180mm. This seems like a design flaw. As with the SDM motor. I just wish expensive gear like this didn't have such issues...

04-26-2017, 08:00 AM	#40
Franc Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hoevelaken Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,213	no problem what so ever with it.

04-26-2017, 08:03 AM	#41
UserAccessDenied Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,677 Original Poster	Originally posted by Franc no problem what so ever with it. Did you purchase the lens new at first production or at a later time? I wish there was a database here with serial #'s associated with the known issue. Maybe Ricoh fixed it, but it's not published anywhere...

04-26-2017, 08:28 AM	#42
Franc Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hoevelaken Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,213	Originally posted by UserAccessDenied Did you purchase the lens new at first production or at a later time? .. as far as i can tell it was the first production. It came out and i bought it.

04-26-2017, 08:33 AM	#43
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I've seen one, this guy didn't have any complaints about his.

04-26-2017, 09:09 AM	#44
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	I've also read here that the zoom lock issue seems to develop if you zoom the lens too forcefully or quickly...thus causing the seals to become dislodged and jam the zoom...B&H has it for $2200 (limited stock)...

04-26-2017, 10:00 AM - 1 Like	#45
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by UserAccessDenied Right, don't get me wrong here - I LOVE my DA*300 and the 1.4xTC. I'm looking at the 150-450 as a replacement/supplement, but I'm reading more and more users experiencing the zoom locking issue around 180mm. This seems like a design flaw. As with the SDM motor. I just wish expensive gear like this didn't have such issues... Anything designed and made by man will develop problems at some point. A small percentage will develop them right away. You pay the money and take your chances to some degree. You should be aware that forums seem to magnify the apparent occurrence of lens or camera problems as the majority who have no problem rarely report on them. They just use them.