|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-21-2018, 08:30 AM
|
| |
Although I would prefer a solution with fast and accurate autofocus, manual focus for non-native lenses would not be a deal breaker for me.
But buying a Pentax fullframe without the option to mount non-native glass unfortunately is and I know others who say the same.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-20-2018, 09:00 AM
|
| |
I would love a mirrorless updated version of the K-1.
The only reason I have not bought the K-1 was the K-mount flange distance making it impossible to use glass from other manufacturers.
Pentax bodies have always provided good value for money and the option of using my canon class on a pentax with K-1-like features would make buying a no brainer.
I´would just have to wait for good adapters to arrive on the market.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-03-2014, 02:47 PM
|
| |
Great thread!
Any chance of a list of "recommended lenses" coming out of this?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-08-2014, 06:50 AM
|
| |
Too bad one is not skilled enough to have a shot at this.
A K-3 had been a great upgrade from my canon 600d in the APS-C class.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-03-2014, 07:04 AM
|
| |
Thank you for your reply jezza323. I appreciate it.
It is good that the info you and crewl1 provided has brought my attention to the concept of diffraction, as I was only vaguely familiar with it before your reply.
Its interesting with all the variables. Pixel density (pixels on target), pixel size (affect by f/stop diffraction) lens quality and so on.
This got me thinking, Does anyone know of a calculator or collection of charts showing the relation between these factors?
Because what you really want is some kind of standard of sharpness on a 100% crop. For example, using a Q7, it might turn out that it would be better to go for a 500mm f6.0 than a 900mm 7.5 if the former had a resolution that would allow cropping past the reach of the later (900 mm f 7.5) with details preserved. For what is 12 mega-pixels worth if resolution is basically 2 mp due to heavy diffraction.
Perhaps it is even worth to consider a mirror telescope given their longer reach and aperture relative to price.
There must be some way do find the where the sweet spot is, at last roughly.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-02-2014, 10:42 AM
|
| |
Hello everyone.
crewl1 recommended me too look into this thread given my plans to buy and combine a Q with a Apo ED telescope (Equinox-120 PRO OTA) for wildlife and astro photography.
I wounder. does anyone participating in this thread have any experience or knowledge regarding on how well the Qs (the Q10 and the Q7 respectively) performs with such a scope.
Crewl1 suggested that the Q7 might yield better results despite having less crop-factor, and his photos would seem to give his claim weight (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images-63.html#post2750571).
Anyone have any information or thought on the matter?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-21-2014, 10:55 AM
|
| |
Understood.
But I wounder, would you be willing to post a 100% crop comparison between the two photos above?
I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the Q7 being so superior given that the Q10 should have a lot more pixels on target.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-17-2014, 10:43 AM
|
| |
You mean one risk getting a rolling shutter effect faster than 1/13. Alright. Yeah, I will need the Pentax adapter.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-17-2014, 10:40 AM
|
| |
Thank you for your reply crewl1.
So I guess the q7 sensor has superior "micro contrast" or whatever one wants to call it. (in short makes better use of its pixels in terms of detail).
So now I am faced with a decision: Do I go for the 1) Q10 (cheaper I guess) or 2) the Q7, OR, 3) do I wait for another Q model to hit the market. Any guesses or rumors regarding that?
I am planning to use th Q with a 900mm Sky-watcher Apo ED like: Sky-Watcher Telescopes
Choices, choices..
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-16-2014, 07:13 AM
|
| |
An interesting thread.
It would seem that the Q7 is superior to the Q in terms of iq (expected) but are the Q and the Q10 identical in this regard?
Am I also correct to assume that the reason for the Q7 being ahead is partly because of its larger sensor being more forgiving on the glass?
Still I am somewhat surprised that it the Q7 was still better when cropped (I assume that both are cropped 100%?) as the have the same megapixel count but the Q7 has a crop factor of 4.7x whereas the Q10 has 5.6x. Or am I interpreting crewl1's post wrong?
I am planning to get a Q10 myself for maximum reach, but if the above mentioned reasoning is right, the Q7 might be the way to go...
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-16-2014, 06:42 AM
|
| |
Thank you for replying.
Hmmm... It seems the K mount adapter is quite necessary as 2 secs to 1/13 is quite limiting indeed, especially if you want to use it with a 900mm telescope like me. Things tend to move in nature.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-16-2014, 06:37 AM
|
| |
Thank you for the links, I will check them out.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
03-11-2014, 04:46 AM
|
| |
Hello everyone.
So, I have been thinking about getting a Pentax Q for some time now.
The reason is that I would like to have a solution for some extreme long range shooting on a budget.
I am talking about both Astro-photography (been interested in Astronomy for all my life basically) as well as shooting wildlife (There is a lot of Deer, Moose and other shy creatures that likes to feed on a meadow not far from my countryside house).
So I was thinking about getting a good APO telescope (like Skywatcher's 900mm Apo ED) and a Q10 (maximum pixels on target) and thus I would like to ask around here if anyone have any experiences with a similar setup, and can advice me on if it is a good idea or not. As far as I understand, the Q7 has slightly better iq, but lacks the range(pixel density) of the Q10.
I would be grateful for any informed comments on this matter.
/Expeditioneer
|
