Reading mode: Light Dark

Tele Testing; Q, K01, K5, K5+kenko1.5x

Go to last post
ozdean

ozdean

Forum Pro
Messages
28,495
Solutions
9
Reaction score
7,401
Location
Toowoomba, AU
Jpeg OOC, all corrections off, tripod mounted, 2sec delay f8, iso100 (125 -Q) best of 3 chosen.

Focus point top centre of window.

Q image was uncropped - following images cropped to match.

Q image was uncropped - following images cropped to match.

8377af2cd77a4243a83d4aa159249569.jpg


60281fca258a48249755819467ad4e3f.jpg


dd24dc9eb58f4724a0d766daa419d170.jpg


5b7895db5df8459ea10ae8b87edb26d5.jpg




--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright
 
Dean, What are you doing !!

You'll let the cat out the bag !!

Don't you realize small sensor doesn't give increased reach just a different FoV !

Haven't our FF buddies told you this.?

Seriously though, you clearly show that a small sensor is a valid tool in the reach/resolution conundrum nice examples.

This is obviously due to pixel density but you need top class glass to realize that resolution capability.
 
Very interesting shoot out!

I would speculate that the Q/DA*300 output is something like K-5/K-01 crop would deliver when equipped with DA 55-300 at f/8, or even better.

However, I'm really impressed with K-01 sample. Was it CDAF or manual focus?
 
LOL - but Andrew the bigger the sensor the better a photographer I'll be!
 
Yep what they are getting out of these small sensors at base iso is pretty amazing.
 
Glad you appreciated it Greyser; cdaf focus on the K01.
 
Yes Don they just keep getting better.
 
Very interesting shootout Dean. Would you mind letting me know how many pixels there are in the cropped APS-C photos, with and without TC?
 
Dan posting here (originals) I down sampled to 1600x1200

The original crops are as follows;

Q 4000 x 3000

K01 1563 x 1041

K5 1533 x 1022

K5+ kenko 2231 x 1488
 
Thanks for posting Dean. I just got me a Q and I'm waiting for the K adapter to arrive (not the Pentax one tho) and will try mating it to my A*300.
 
Rod Herdman said:
Rod Herdman wrote:

Thanks for posting Dean. I just got me a Q and I'm waiting for the K adapter to arrive (not the Pentax one tho) and will try mating it to my A*300.
Click to expand...
What will you do about a tripod foot?
 
It would be nice to see a normal FOV 28mm shot as well, or Q with its normal lens, just for comparison purposes to demonstrate magnification.
 
ozdean said:
ozdean wrote:

The original crops are as follows;

Q 4000 x 3000
Click to expand...
12mp
ozdean said:
K01 1563 x 1041
Click to expand...
1.6mp
ozdean said:
K5 1533 x 1022
Click to expand...
1.6mp
ozdean said:
K5+ kenko 2231 x 1488
Click to expand...
3.3mp

Thanks very much for that Dean. Another piece of the puzzle filled in for me. Now I can calculate that my A 2X-S on a K-01, cropped to the same frame size as a Q, will be around 6.5mp.

Baron-nite posted an interesting comparison in the Pentax Forums Q board called "Q heresy: Q vs. TC smackdown", showing test shots using the DA*300 at f/5.6. "One is on the Q, ISO 125, 1/200s. The other is on the 1.4x-S and 2x-S Pentax Rear Converters on the K-5, ISO 1000, 1/250s" The smackdown refers to the superior results of the APS-C sensor, even through two decent teleconverters.

As a result of Baro-nite's test, I stopped obsessing over a Q for supertele. I can use the gear I already own (K-01, DA*300, Kenko & Pentax TC's), for equal or better results and no cash outlay. Realistically, I will probably just use the Pentax 2X and crop.

--
Dan
 
Last edited:
The detail in the 'Q' shot makes me sit up and take notice; especially the detail of the items showing through the window.

Is it just me or does the 'Q' shot have slightly less fringing?
 
audiobomber said:
audiobomber wrote:
audiobomber said:
Baron-nite posted an interesting comparison in the Pentax Forums Q board called "Q heresy: Q vs. TC smackdown", showing test shots using the DA*300 at f/5.6. "One is on the Q, ISO 125, 1/200s. The other is on the 1.4x-S and 2x-S Pentax Rear Converters on the K-5, ISO 1000, 1/250s" The smackdown refers to the superior results of the APS-C sensor, even through two decent teleconverters.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That would be me. I found superior handling, overall, from the K-5 plus stacked TC combo. IQ I found roughly equivalent, and that is as far as I can go based on the limited comparison I did.
 
baronite said:
baronite wrote:
baronite said:
audiobomber wrote:
baronite said:
Baron-nite posted an interesting comparison in the Pentax Forums Q board called "Q heresy: Q vs. TC smackdown", showing test shots using the DA*300 at f/5.6. "One is on the Q, ISO 125, 1/200s. The other is on the 1.4x-S and 2x-S Pentax Rear Converters on the K-5, ISO 1000, 1/250s" The smackdown refers to the superior results of the APS-C sensor, even through two decent teleconverters.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That would be me. I found superior handling, overall, from the K-5 plus stacked TC combo. IQ I found roughly equivalent, and that is as far as I can go based on the limited comparison I did.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should not have inferred that you found the IQ of the K-5 plus two TC's superior. That however, was my conclusion. The noise in the Q shot was disturbing.
 
audiobomber said:
audiobomber wrote:
audiobomber said:
Sorry, I should not have inferred that you found the IQ of the K-5 plus two TC's superior. That however, was my conclusion. The noise in the Q shot was disturbing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I agree the Q at ISO 125 is noisier than the K-5 at ISO 1000. Furthermore, I really should have used ISO 800 given that the Q's ISO 125 is really more like ISO 800 in terms of actual sensitivity. Personally I don't find the noise a problem at 50% crops or less.
 
Michael de Ruijter said:
Michael de Ruijter wrote:

Is it just me or does the 'Q' shot have slightly less fringing?
Click to expand...
One reason the DA*300 works so well on the Q is that it has exceptionally well-controlled CA. But testing with other lenses shows how CA is effectively magnified on the Q's tiny pixels. What is acceptable CA on APS-C can be comically bad on the Q.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top