|
Forum: Pentax Q
09-01-2020, 11:05 AM
|
| |
Zoom 06 at 45mm ( 205mm )
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-31-2020, 06:54 PM
|
| |
Q-S1 with FA 77mm 1.8 Limited
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-12-2015, 06:07 PM
|
| |
Very nice photo!
Well, what a difference a lens change can make. The replacement lens seems to focus accurately , or I should say more consistently than the previous adjustment. It needed minor calibration that I was able to adjust quickly just like the FA77 and seems to be performing just fine now. I also checked for any decentering and the lens seems to be equal on both sides. It looks like I just got a bad copy, and I'm pretty sure I'll be the keeping the lens. I've been able to get more shots that are performing the way I'd expect.
I still stand by my earlier statement that if you are on a budget or want a FF lens, the DAL 2.4 is fantastic. However, if you want something with better build quality and are on APSC, the other newer 35mm limited's might suit someone better and offer macro. But if you want sharpness, low-light, and full frame, this lens seems to be performing well now. I still feel it's a wee bit expensive but , the money was not an issue for me now that is working well enough.
As for Pixie dust, I think that comes with that fact that the Pentax bodies I have tried this on, it is hard for it to be able to focus accurately wide open, alongside that shooting wide open at farther subjects creates a bit of softness and maybe those characteristics , along side it's rendering and color, create the magic. Now after extensively going through a testing process withe the previous lens, I think I have a good understanding of how to use it and can get some great photos.
Thanks for all the help and giving this lens another chance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-12-2015, 03:14 PM
|
| |
Well I'm sitting outside waiting for the delivery truck. A new 31mm is arriving and we'll see how it goes. Worst it goes back so just some time lost but glad I was able to get a chance with the lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-08-2015, 04:57 PM
|
| |
I've just sent the FA31 back for an exchange as I feel I got a bad copy. Despite correcting AF issues, which seemed to work erratically, I found the lens was decentered on the right. I hadn't noticed earlier as I as too focused on shooting at f1.8 and getting the focus nailed down. With all those uncertainties I felt is was best to exchange the lens at this point and hope the next copy works fine else just return it and live with the DA 2.4 which is fine.
The FA77 that arrived is perfect and after a quick calibration is shooting accurately at f1.8 and is as sharp as my FA43 wide open. No issues whatsoever and within an hour I had decided to keep the lens and sell my HD DA 70 limited.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-05-2015, 04:43 PM
|
| |
Oh well no worries, your photo is very beautiful and an amazing shot. I found that I have no wobble in my lens that I can see. I can just barely move the hood a smudge with pressure but that's it.
I got my lens dialed in at +3 to +4. Both values seemed to work and I ran a different calibration test that found I need +3.5 which of course doesn't exist. I've left it at +4 and am finally seeing the images this lens should make. Saying that, focus can be finicky and I feel the lens is a bit overpriced, $800 seems like the right price to be, but compared to other brands this lens is still cheaper so I can't complain too much.
I'm awaiting my FA77 that will arrive in the hour. It will be interesting to compare sharpness between the other two FA's and if I can fall in love easier with this lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-05-2015, 11:43 AM
|
| |
I'll double check and beautiful image! I'd be interested to know if you saw any softness at 1.8 at that subject distance.
I've been going back and forth , but now leaning on keeping the lens. I've been able to get it tuned in to give me sharp clear results so I am happier with it now.
Im going to do a few more shots but I now get good sharpness at f1.8 for farther subjects. Before I would get either good close or good far.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-05-2015, 09:40 AM
|
| |
I'm using only the built in. I haven't noticed any wobble in the front element? Is there a test for this?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-05-2015, 07:48 AM
|
| |
If I didn't have the 18-135 I would be looking hard at this lens, but I would probably buy the 18-135 again. After using it everyday to practice for my trip to Italy and learning where I can best maximize its potential, it's a fantastic lens.
The 31 ltd for me would fill in a niche of lowlight wide FOV versus the FA43. Now that it seems to be working fine on AF, I can really try to see its benefits. I am willing to pay for quality and sharpness, but not for a lens that doesn't work at all, which was my issue.
I still would be hesitant to recommend this lens to anyone that already has one of the other 35mm. For me this was for a very specific purpose for a very specific trip.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-05-2015, 07:27 AM
|
| |
As an update, whether the stars aligned or not, I wasn't able to return the lens online last night as the order number was not available. I would have to wait till the morning to start the process.
Since I still had it this morning I decided to give it one last shot to see if I could get the lens to AF correctly, thereby letting me get to actually use the benefits of this lens.
To baseline myself again, I set my micro adjustment to zero, shot at 62cm, and calibrated. I also checked against manually focusing as well to make sure I had a baseline of what was the sharpest/best image the lens could produce to compare. I had done quite a few tests before but in similar fashion but they were not adding up. Even after calibrating two of my indoor subjects focused fine, and another was very poor. Turns out that since this was a semi reflective surface, the AF was having an issue I think. Manually focusing and comparing another shot to a different contrast point verified it was working and producing similar images. This can happen with any lens but seemed odd.
Once set I went and retook some more real world test shots and things fell into place. The lens is now AF correctly at close to far distances and I verified these by also manually focusing on subjects to confirm what was the best image I could produce. Once I had these baselines it was a bit easier to curb expectations and verify AF.
Stating that, I feel this lens is best used at 2.2+ for close subects, 1.8 for medium to close distance), and f4 and above for landscape or distance.
Compared to the DAL 2.4, the range would be f2.4 all the way till far subjects where I would recommend f5.6+
You gain about a stop advantage in two ranges, medium to far for usability. While you can focus at 1.8 on close subjects, the accuracy and thin DOF make it very hard for the AF system to get right and for you as photographer to hold still. I was able to shoot at 1.8 at close objects but the DOF was always a bit thinner than what I actually needed for the photo. Nice to have when needed and can be done, but better to use it at slightly farther off subjects.
I will take more shots today to confirm my decision of keeping the lens, as the 35 ltd macro is an option but won't meet my lowlight requirements. I have the DFA 100 macro already. The 20-40 doesn't give me enough advantage in lowlight over the 18-135, though it may be optically better in its range.the two Sigmas are larger than what I want to carry for traveling, otherwise could be an option.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 08:02 PM
|
| |
Yes I've tried some of those distances as well. Once I feel I have it nailed down, it tends to fall apart in real world. Most of my other lenses are calibrated pretty well, but they are also have a smaller aperture as a base. I believe if I didn't have the FA43 or FA 50 1.4 to compare to I would be trying very hard. Since I have an option to return the lens, I think I'll make the safe bet at this time and wait to see what FF lenses Pentax will make for the new model if their is an update.
---------- Post added 06-04-15 at 08:03 PM ----------
And from what I have heard, the DAl 35mm 2.4 for is essentially the same lens, but with one of the elements changed I believe. And when calibrated, it's a fantastic lens for that focal length. On my two image samples above, I can't image many being able to distinguish between the two.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 07:51 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 07:45 PM
|
| |
I am also worried that it is jsut teh AF focusing issue ,and from my results, it seems so. I made sure to use only the center point because of the f2.8 sensitivity, I don't use liveview much at all, so for me it is not an option. I do have a different focusing screen designed for f1/4 lenses on my K-30 that I could switch out and the Pentax Magnified eyepiece. But if I have to use AF, and then manually adjust or only use manual focus, for me that wouldn't meet my needs or how I shoot. I tend to stay very still and only shoot in single fire mode after I have composed my shot. At times yes I will P&S things when testing, but I try to compose, focus on my subject, and then fire when steady. I have the lens all packed up but I did not try it on the K-30 with focusing screen, but I'm not sure if I really need to at this point.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 07:24 PM
|
| |
Well after much re-testing and calibration I've come to these observations:
1. The lens if focused properly on the right subject is very sharp, but it's very hard to get the lens to focus consistently from close to far focus.
2. It's slightly softer at 1.8 versus f2 and beyond. By 2.4+ it's very sharp up the range
3. By f5.6 and up, the image sharpness and quality is very much similar and the same to the DAL 35mm 2.4 ( sharpness and even bokeh are close enough, didn't notice any color changes much )
To me, this lens is very strange. It should be very good, and shows that to be the case at certain times, but otherwise it's no different than other basic lenses for certain apertures and above. Again, the lens is absolutely sharper then the DAL 35mm 2.4 until f5.6. But here's the problem, that extra sharpness and clarity only matter if the lens is focused correctly. When viewing farther off subjects in landscape after calibrating the lens for close - mid subjects, the focus is off. After many attempts fixing and re-calbirating, I was still unable to get consistent accuracy. Aiming the lens at a subject 2-3 feet away and then another only 6 inches farther out, the focus was a blur. It was very frustrating and I think that's where I come to terms with this lens. Maybe I have a bad copy, but from what I can see, the lens itself is very good, but has a problem giving consistent and accurate focusing through it's wide open aperture.
My FA43 does not exhibit this problem anywhere near as much, though that lens at 1.9 can also be tricky, but it is much more consistent. And in the end, if I can have a lens that will be accurate and focus correctly consistently to give me a very high quality image, it is more valuable. If I was to shoot this lens manual only or through liveview / CDAF, I think I would have no problem keeping this lens and using it all the time. I thought maybe it was my K3 that was the problem, but then I remembered that I shoot with my other lenses at 1.4 and 1.9 with no problem getting mostly accurate focus 90% of the time. Maybe I am also being more critical, but when I see comparison images which I will upload in my next post, it's hard to justify $1000 vs $140 the DA L goes for these days.
In the end, I'm glad I got to try the lens, and maybe I will re-visit when the FF Pentax comes out, but I will be returning it for something else. I am considering a 35mm limited macro, or I think what I should have kept with, the 20-40 LTD. I can now see how some users are reporting that the image quality from that lens can equal the FA ltd's and DA ltd's as at higher apertures they are very accurate and equally sharp.
Tomorrow I will get to go through this one more time with the FA 77, but I am hoping it will be a keeper. If it is no better than the HD DA 70, back it will go till next time.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 01:38 PM
|
| |
I'm using the K-3 which seems to be working fine and is consistent with my other lenses. I think i will need to do more tripod and real world tests again today to compare both, as if the 31 is sharper and more consistent I will keep it. I think the mis-focus point is what is bugging me, though in manual mode it's all of course perfectly fine. I 'm able to get it to AF on close subjects fine, but as the distance expands it gets worse. I may need to check my calibration again as I'll move from -6 to -2 depending on subject distance.
I've taken many portrait shots of my dog, and this is where the FA 31 has been failing me unless I shoot at 2.2+ my DA 70 and FA 43 are just fantastic here, but at 1.8 this lens just misses focus to easily I think without some further calibration. I will keep trying again as I feel that it should be fine, and I a mover analyzing, but since I have an option to return it and get something else I and scrutinizing it more. I will have to find someone other than my dog to pose for me. I have a husky and his hair is very fine and many cameras and lenses will easily blend his fur into a white blob instead of the fine -grained hairs which is why I like to photograph him. I'll post some samples later.
---------- Post added 06-04-15 at 01:40 PM ----------
I agree, it might be ok but I feel the 20 mm is too wide for me a bit. I just don't shoot at that FL as often but can if I need to. Honestly, the lens is having a AF motor issue and I would get it fixed but I don't think I can get the lens repaired before m trip. I'm going to shoot it in manual mode or use the AF if I can, works half the time.
---------- Post added 06-04-15 at 01:45 PM ----------
If the lens was $600, I would keep it without thought and it would justify the higher price. Maybe even $800 at the most. I paid $996 over the weekend sale and it's around that price at some retailer still. I've heard very good things about the 20-40, and I'm tempted to purchase it as well. It would fit well where I want a flexible prime but not the full 18-135 range and need a little better low light performance. Otherwise the 18-135 is a marvelous lens. I never used it much before but once I really started to use it and see how it should be used, it's truly a amazing lens and has made compromises where they make the most sense.
---------- Post added 06-04-15 at 01:47 PM ----------
Oh don't give me more lens choices! I may end up with the FA 31, FA 77, 20-40, and keep the HD 70 and 35 DAL. I guess it's only money in the end....
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 01:23 PM
|
| |
I have used it indoors in what would be considered low light conditions and it is acceptable to certain ISO levels. It's actually not bad at all, but, there may be cases where I want a wide FOV with shallow depth of field or need that extra low light. Of course these are just assumptions but you are right, shooting at a table with 1.8 might be too shallow regardless and I may not be able to take advantage of it. I will shoot some more today as I have a sometime to decide before I have to return the lens. I don't use the 35mm FL much thought I found it wide enough to use instead of the 43 or say a 21mm. I think it's the FL I need, just not sure it's worth the price difference. I could afford to keep all the lenses, but I feel I could divert money into a more applicable lens. If the 20-40 was full frame compatible through ti's entire range, I'd probably switch it for that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-04-2015, 12:45 PM
|
| |
I'm in a bit of a dilemma and I am not sure if I made the right decision. I am heading off on a trip to Italy and have decided to take my Sigma 10-20, Pentax 18-135, and needed a indoor low-light lens. My two options were my 50 1.4 and my FA 43 1.9. Both the 50 and the 43 were too long to be useful indoors when needing to take group photos, sitting at a table on a restaurant, close focus shots etc... Otherwise, the FA43 is what I always use.
I was originally planning to get the 20-40 LTD as I have been very interested in it and it seemed like it would give me the "flexible prime" I would need and some low light performance. I had added the lens to my cart and at the last minute asked for it to be changed to the 31 mm limited as it checked all the boxes. Close focusing, larger aperture for low light, wider field of view and so on and it seemed perfect.
After receiving the lens, I'm a bit underwhelmed. It's beautiful, build quality is excellent, and images are very sharp from f 2.2 and above. But, at 1.8 it's very quirky. Sometimes it's very sharp and others, it's just barely ok. I know about AF focusing issues and have all my lenses calibrated and have been comparing it to CDAF to verify.
After getting all of it calibrated in, now the comparisons come in. I have the 35mm DAL 2.4, which is an excellent lens and is very similar to the 31 in focal length, close focusing, and sharp. What I have found is that while the FA 31 is sharper at the same apertures, it's hard to justify. The biggest reason is that I am able to get sharp clear photos at open apertures on my FA 43 but with the FA 31 it's a hit or miss at 1.8. Oddly enough, when I stop down to 2.2 or 2.4, I get that same wow factor i'm used to in really great and beautiful sharpness on the image. But if I have to stop down to 2.4, the low-light performance and IQ benefits start to wear thin as I could just use the 35 DAL 2.4. Again, the both lenses at 2.4 are sharp but the 31 is slightly sharper. I'm just not sure it's worth the $800 in cost over the 35mm DAL that I already have.
The 20-40 I had originally wanted may not be the best in lowlight either as it is usually at f4 for most of the range, but it may be more viable? I've found the 18-135 to be so good when shot appropriately at the right aperture that other than indoor lighting, I am happy with that lens.
Saying all that, I have a FA 77 coming tomorrow and will be going through this exercise again with my HD DA 70 ltd haha. There is something about the FA's that make you fall in love with them and while hard to justify, I just "feel" like I am getting better photos with a better quality lens usually. Just wish I could understand why at 1.8 it seems to be very sharp but when I shoot at a little longer distance ( 1 foot versus 2-3 feet ). it just doesn't sharpen up. I have read most users here feel that it is sharp but soft at 1.8 but after stopping down it is great and I have seen that for sure.
I'm not sure if I should return the FA 31 and just use my 35mm 2.4 or if I am expecting to much from the lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-01-2015, 04:41 PM
|
| |
Actually.....they didn't have any info :( Lots of people love the Q but she said the 645Z line is what is making them money and keeping them afloat so I hope they aren't discontinuing it. They are having a big Pentax get together next month, since the rep is actually local to my city, and has invited to have me and another Q person demonstrate and showcase the Q. The camera is plenty capable as all of you know. The system has more capabilities and higher IQ than cameras 5 years ago and could have been considered a very cutting edge and high quality DSLR. It produces better images than my K100dSuper I used to have and the K-x I feel and all those were very much able to produce high quality images.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-01-2015, 02:47 PM
|
| |
Actually over the weekend I went to my local camera store and they were having a camera event with reps from different brands there. Ricoh was there and they had many lenses out, new k3II, 645z and lenses, etc...
I had my k3 with me and started talking to the rep and staff. We ended up talking about the Q and how great it is and I showed some of the photos to the rep. They asked if they could get a few as they were the best Q photos they had seen. I recommended they check the Q thread here for amazing photos by many people haha.
Sure enough they sent them to Ricoh and they posted them today.
I'm just happy I got to test out a 645z and also "forced" me into buying a FA 31 ltd lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-01-2015, 02:18 PM
|
| |
Just thought I'd post that a few of my Pentax Q images I took in New Zealand are posted up on Ricoh's Facebook page.
There are three and are under my photography name, Okami Photography.
https://www.facebook.com/RicohImaging |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
01-21-2015, 07:02 PM
|
| |
Thank you for the comments on the photos.
To answer your question, the 08 wide zoom lens is excellent, and produces very sharp and high quality images, as good as the 01 prime for the Q or better. It is a really great lens. I also did not want to buy the lens because of the cost and that the 02 lens can go very wide as well. But, the 08 is very useful, has very good image quality, and is a great lens for travel or landscape use.
I think the original Q's image quality is probably not as good as your G3, but I am not as familiar with that camera. The Q-7/ Q-S1 IQ is much improved over the original Q and what I found acceptable to take instead of my K-3 for traveling. The fuji x100 series will give you the IQ if you need it, but you lose flexibility in focal lengths.
Since you have a 9mm in MFT which gives a 18mm 35mm equivalent, matching the 08, I would most likely take the G3 and the x100S. If I had a q7 or above then I would buy the 08 to make a more compact and easy to use kit. As you can see from my images, with some good post processing work the images can really shine. If post processing is not something you can do easily or want to do, then the MFT may still be the better choice if it provides images you prefer and less noise. The other question, to make this harder, is do you plan to stay with the Q cameras? $400-500 is a lot to spend on 1 lens for a camera you don't use. I believe the Q will keep getting better, because sensors will get better and cheaper so everything will keep improving to where IQ will be less of a concern.
My recommendation is to do this. Take some shots with your MFT at the equivalent focal length of your 02 lens at it's widest setting. Then compare both images from the cameras and see which you like best. Make sure to try low light, sunny days, and higher dynamic range shots. If you like the G3 better, save your money and wait for this year's Q update and use it to buy that which will most likely have a new and better sensor. If you like the Q images better, buy a new or used Q7 instead of the lens and use your 02. It's a 20% difference, but I think you will be happier with an IQ upgrade then a lens upgrade. With going to the Q7 you get both, better IQ and wider focal length. Then save your money for holiday pricing on an 08 lens.
If I could only have taken one camera, I would have taken the Q-S1 over the x100T knowing what I know now. I used it the entire time almost and it gave me the most flexibility. It's a great travel or compact camera kit.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
01-19-2015, 04:51 PM
|
| |
Haha, no worries. I understand the tilted horizons can be quite alarming. To be honest It's an old habit I am trying to break but in some cases it is done purposely like the image above. I did notice though seeing some of these images in this thread on my phone some of the others that are slightly titled where they should have been straight. A bit harder to see when looking at the full resolution images on a large monitor then shrunk down where the image as the whole can be looked at. I've made some adjustments locally but probably won't be updating the original postings unless someone begs me too. You're welcome to un-tilt them as Docrwm did.
---------- Post added 01-19-15 at 05:55 PM ----------
So close on one of them.
First tilted Beach shot is from Cathedral Cove in Hahei, North Island. Second is from Abel Tasman, South Island. Hiking shots, first large waterfall is from Tongorio? National Park in North Island. Rest are from the Routeburn track in Milford Sound, South Island. Glacier... Franz Joseph Glacier from a helicopter window, quite a bit of editing to remove reflection and glare.
---------- Post added 01-19-15 at 05:59 PM ----------
Yes that is correct, Q-S1 which uses the same sensor and quality as basically the Q-7 which was a pretty cheap bargain this holiday season I heard. The camera is quite capable with the lenses it has, and some of these shots I would not have been able to get had it not been for the Q's small size, and ability to hold a wide range for focal lengths in two hands and switch them out quickly enough. For example, the glacier shot we were only allowed to carry a small sack that was full of ice climbing gear and were told to carry camera's around our neck. Most people had DSLR's of course and large zoom lens. I had a nice lightweight package =] Only wish there was a 350-400mm equivalent native lens for the Q series, I could have used it for animal shots. I have the Pentax K-Q adapter but my FA 100mm WR lens is too large to carry while traveling compact.
---------- Post added 01-19-15 at 06:02 PM ----------
Your welcome, it's quite an amazing country and I had a great time there. Spent about 16+ days but was not enough to see everything. I did take some HDR shots with the Q which came out well and helped with the whites, but to be honest, the whites on the mountains are really really white on a bight clear sunny day like mine was. There wouldn't have been much to recover and I don't mind the photos as they are. If I really wanted to I can digitally paint back in some darker grays but I don't see the need. I'm happy with them as they are for now.
The Q's HDR mode is very good by the way, one of the better implementations and better than my K-3 / K-30.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
01-19-2015, 08:15 AM
|
| |
As promised in my previous review of the Q-S1 I am posting some shots I took on my recent trip to New Zealand where my main camera during a hike and around town was the Q-S1 and a my new X100T. I ended up using my Q-S1 95% of the time and took the 01, 02, 06, 08, and fish eye. Most used lens was the 08 followed by the 06.
I'll post additional later, but enjoy! I believe these photos show as always, the photographer is always more important than the equipment, and knowing how to leverage a tool's strengths can create some amazing possibilities. All photos have been re-touched, as that is what I consider the final product.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
12-24-2014, 09:13 AM
|
| |
No, the card just acts as a wireless hard drive. You should be able to see your files with their updated app or hitting the cards webpage at 192.168.1.1 I believe.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
12-16-2014, 08:38 PM
|
| |
Hi, I am using the 32GB Class10 FlashAir Card. The class 10's are slightly different. You can transfer almost anything with the flash card , videos , RAW, etc. it's a lot more useful tgan the eye-go cards.
Also, about the battery issue, by default the card turns on the wireless as soon as the camera is turned on and will turn it off after a set amount that you can specify , default is 5 minutes.
However, that doesn't work well as I have turn the Q on and off all the time or I may be shooting for a while but don't need to transfer anything by wireless just yet.
What you can do is use Toshiba's software for the card that you can download or connect to the cards admin page, and set it to turn the wireless only when you "protect" a specific image file. By defult there is a image included on the card that is there that it is set to, though you can use any image.
This works great as now it works as a regular SD card but you can turn the wifi in as needed and not worry about battery or it being using power every time you use the camera.
|
