Originally posted by maxfield_photo WOW, it's SO compact!! Now I can fit it in my pocket and take it anywhere.
(If you haven't guessed, I still fail to see the point of the Q)
Originally posted by Christopher M.W.T Hahha thats hilarious.
Originally posted by rparmar
Yep, this is just about the stupidest thing Pentax has ever done.
You're all so funny!!!
I suppose that shooting long tele is a bit beyond you. . .
Here's how it would work -- The Q + K-Q adapter could be used as a virtual 3.6x TC without the 3.6x stop loss of light that rear converter TCs normally cost. This means that a $600 100mm f2.8 which can be carried in a jacket pocket and weighs only 13 oz (add the Q body and the total is @ 20 oz) can be shot as as if it were a 361mm f2.8 lens on an APS-C or a 553mm f2.8 lens on a 36x24 sensored body. If your not aware of the size, weight, and cost of these lenses, the FA* 300 f2.8 uses a 112mm front filter (that's about 4.4 inches in diameter) and weighs in at @ 6 lbs 10 oz ready to shoot (and note that it offers 61mm less reach) -- and it would probably cost in the neighborhood of at least $5000 USD if available new now (figure @ $3000+ used). A lower cost alternative would be the Sigma EX 300 f2.8 APO which is maybe a lb lighter and costs a bit over $3000, but it's not quite as good as the FA*.
Compared to the closest thing for a 36x24 sensored body, the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 zoom weighs in at 35 lbs and costs @ $26,000 USD, and is big enough that you'd need something like a golf bag and cart to protect/transport it . The Sigma EX 500 f4 is a slower option, but still costs @ $4000 USD and weighs over 7 lbs.
The 300/2.8 class of lens is heavy enough that it's not really easily handholdable (take a gallon jug of water and hold it up to your eye like a camera to get an idea of what it's like), so good tripod support is necessary for any extended shooting. To do the job right, add a heavy duty CF tripod and a gimbal head @ something like $1000 if you get one of the cheaper tripods (plus it's about 10-12 lbs more gear to carry). For the Q, you could get comparable support with a CF tripod and quality ballhead in the 3-5 lb range total and probably a cost of $300-400.
Before you go back to the "but IQ would be better with APS-C" argument, I'll concede that you would be correct, I'll counter that by saying that saving about 13 lbs of system carrying weight (camera body, lens, and tripod/head) and about $5000 can be worth more of a tradeoff in IQ than the Q presents vs APS-C. For me, an investment of @ $1000 for the Q kit and K-Q adapter is really not a whole lot for the potential benefit it might bring. I can get out to 1020mm (1530mm EQ) with stacked TCs on a 300/2.8 (2 ea 1.4x TCs and a 1.7x AFA), but I have a max aperture of f9.3. With the Q + adapter and a 300/2.8, I'd have a 1659mm EQ lens that I can shoot at f2.8. Over three and a half stops advantage is nothing to sneeze at when shooting extreme tele (and the inevitable camera shake) at living creatures that don't listen when you ask them to stand still. Shooting at 1/1000 instead of something around 1/100 will make a bigger difference in final IQ than the IQ differences between the sensors, and that doesn't even take into account the optical resolution lost with the stacked TCs (which is actually not as extreme as most people think, but it's noticeable)
Even if it doesn't work as well as I hope --though zxaar's assessment of the IQ potential is pretty positive -- I'd still have a compact camera that seems to be at the top of the class for IQ, handling, and build quality for a compact. I've played around with the high ISO sample images that have been posted, and they are more than acceptable to me for the class of camera -- and I'd still have my K-5 for more serious work.
And then there are the potential benefits for macro shooting. . . I won't waste my time.
Laugh all you want. The Q has some serious potential as a photographic tool for me regardless if you can see the possibilities or not. It's possible that it can get me images that I wouldn't get with my present gear, and that's really what this is all about, isn't it?
Scott