Pentax Q vs Digiscoping


dcweather

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 23:25
I've been a bit slow off the mark getting the way the Q works. Clearly with the K-adapter astronomic (literally!) focal lengths can be achieved. So for those birders that used to digiscope (not me) could this give comparable results to their sometimes very good old compacts/swarovski combos?

johnriley

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 00:11
I have been thinking about this as well. Pentax camera lenses should make better images than digiscopes, so it looks like a promising angle to pursue.

Current digiscope/compact camera combinations can deliver excellent quality, so the Q should be ahead of the game.
Best regards, John

Frogfish

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 03:35
dcweather wrote:
I've been a bit slow off the mark getting the way the Q works. Clearly with the K-adapter astronomic (literally!) focal lengths can be achieved. So for those birders that used to digiscope (not me) could this give comparable results to their sometimes very good old compacts/swarovski combos?

I bought a Q (but no Q lenses !) specifically for this purpose. I'm afraid as a birder it just doesn't work as the camera shake induced blur when hand-held just destroys the image. I tested it with a Zeiss 85/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 to give 467.5 / 495mm, amongst other lenses. Didn't even bother to try it on the DA*300mm (2,650mm) !

There is one poster in particular on the other forum who has some superb shots at very long range but steadying the combination is not easy and it has to be used on a solid tripod and with a x3 optical screen magnifier.

Not a viable option for birding but produces superb moon and macro shots.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 12/09/2012 - 03:42

felix

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 04:34
Frogfish wrote:
dcweather wrote:
I've been a bit slow off the mark getting the way the Q works. Clearly with the K-adapter astronomic (literally!) focal lengths can be achieved. So for those birders that used to digiscope (not me) could this give comparable results to their sometimes very good old compacts/swarovski combos?

I bought a Q (but no Q lenses !) specifically for this purpose. I'm afraid as a birder it just doesn't work as the camera shake induced blur when hand-held just destroys the image. I tested it with a Zeiss 85/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 to give 467.5 / 495mm, amongst other lenses. Didn't even bother to try it on the DA*300mm (2,650mm) !

There is one poster in particular on the other forum who has some superb shots at very long range but steadying the combination is not easy and it has to be used on a solid tripod and with a x3 optical screen magnifier.

Not a viable option for birding but produces superb moon and macro shots.

Pinholecam right? A Pentaxian from Singapore. Baronla fro USA has also done it with a 300mm lens too.
K1/K3, DA*16-50mm F2.8, FA 31mm F1.8, FA43mm F1.9 Limited, FA77mm F1.8 Limited, SMC Pentax K 85mm F1.8, DA18-135mm F3.5-5.6, FA*28-70mm F1.8, FA*200mm F1.8

johnriley

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 08:17
I wouldn't dream of using a high powered telephoto lens hand held.

Two things about the camera shake. First, I use a tripod, but I leave the head untightened. Thus I have a support for the camera but can pan and tilt at will. That seems to work quite well.

The blur induced by the electronic shutter is tackled with the Pentax Q Aadapter, which has a built in mechanicalo shutter.

Given that some birders get success with a digiscope and compact camera I can't see how the Q combination can be any more difficult than that?
Best regards, John

Frogfish

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 11:53
felix wrote:
Frogfish wrote:
Quote:
I've been a bit slow off the mark getting the way the Q works. Clearly with the K-adapter astronomic (literally!) focal lengths can be achieved. So for those birders that used to digiscope (not me) could this give comparable results to their sometimes very good old compacts/swarovski combos?

I bought a Q (but no Q lenses !) specifically for this purpose. I'm afraid as a birder it just doesn't work as the camera shake induced blur when hand-held just destroys the image. I tested it with a Zeiss 85/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 to give 467.5 / 495mm, amongst other lenses. Didn't even bother to try it on the DA*300mm (2,650mm) !

There is one poster in particular on the other forum who has some superb shots at very long range but steadying the combination is not easy and it has to be used on a solid tripod and with a x3 optical screen magnifier.

Not a viable option for birding but produces superb moon and macro shots.

Pinholecam right? A Pentaxian from Singapore. Baronla fro USA has also done it with a 300mm lens too.

Yes he's the one, the Q King ! In fact both of them as Baronla is good too.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

Frogfish

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 11:58
johnriley wrote:
I wouldn't dream of using a high powered telephoto lens hand held.

Two things about the camera shake. First, I use a tripod, but I leave the head untightened. Thus I have a support for the camera but can pan and tilt at will. That seems to work quite well.

The blur induced by the electronic shutter is tackled with the Pentax Q Aadapter, which has a built in mechanicalo shutter.

Given that some birders get success with a digiscope and compact camera I can't see how the Q combination can be any more difficult than that?

Since I haven't sold the Q (not easy when I have no Q lenses for people to try it with !) then it may be worth giving that adapter a shot !

I don't think it's any more difficult at all than digiscoping John. But then digiscoping is also not that brilliant for birding unless the birds are nailed to the branch I wsa looking into buying a Celestron for a while, and have seen some great shots from digiscopes TBH, but everyone seems to say the same - not easy and you need excellent stability.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

dcweather

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 12:25
I tend to agree with John. Like Frogfish I've avoided digiscoping but my fairly non photographer twitcher friend has some excellent results using an expensive Swarovski scope with a cheap NV4 Samsung compact but it always has to be on a tripod and is really for the record shots of those fairly static waders that are 50 metres away. Fun to try I reckon.
How would the magnifications compare between the two, say, a 60mm scope at 20x eyepiece and say 2x zoom on the compact against a 300mm on the Q. (35mm equivs)?

beakynet

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 13:40
I don't have a Q but I do have an adapter that can turn any of my lenses into a scope, this works very well, turing a 50mm f.14 lens into a 5x scope and a 120-400zoom into a 12-40x scope.

The stabilisation is very important on the hight magnification and atmospheric distortion is more of a problem also. the DA*50-135 makes a super 5-13.5x scope!
Bodies: K5IIs, K7, MZ5n, LX, MV
Lenses: DA*16-50, DA18-55WR, DA18-135, DAL35, M50 F2, A50 f1.4, FA50 f1.4, DA*50-135, DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DFA 100 WR Macro, M135 f3.5, Sigma 120-400 APO DG HSM, Tokina 500 f8.0
Flash: Metz 58, Metz 48
Accessories: BG4, Pentax right angle finder, Pentax mirror adaptor lens, O-ME53 Viewfinder Loupe
Auto 110 System: Auto 110, Winder, 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 70mm, 20-40mm, AF100P, 1.7x telecon

Darkmunk

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 14:26
Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between mounting a 300 on a small sensor, and just cropping the image on a conventional shot with that lens? I appear to be missing something here. Pixel density ?
All I know is cropping is a very poor way to 'zoom in'.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

johnriley

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 15:27
There are 12 MP on that small sensor to make up the image.

If you crop an APS-C image there will be far fewer pixels to make up the image. On the K-30 it might be 2.2MP and on the K-5 3MP, give or take a few.

Mount the lens on a small sensor and you use the whole sensor.
Best regards, John

beakynet

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 15:35
Would you get better IQ out of the Q on a K mount lens, verses cropping on a K5 and using Photoshop/Genuine-Fractals to enlarge the pixel count in the image?
Bodies: K5IIs, K7, MZ5n, LX, MV
Lenses: DA*16-50, DA18-55WR, DA18-135, DAL35, M50 F2, A50 f1.4, FA50 f1.4, DA*50-135, DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DFA 100 WR Macro, M135 f3.5, Sigma 120-400 APO DG HSM, Tokina 500 f8.0
Flash: Metz 58, Metz 48
Accessories: BG4, Pentax right angle finder, Pentax mirror adaptor lens, O-ME53 Viewfinder Loupe
Auto 110 System: Auto 110, Winder, 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 70mm, 20-40mm, AF100P, 1.7x telecon

Darkmunk

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 15:38
I see. Pixel density it is then.
So if I can mount my lens in front of one of those Nokia 40 MP sensors it would be awesome?
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

Darkmunk

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 15:48
Just flicked through some examples and the noise seems to be quite a problem, especially on moon shots where you need to get right in.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

dcweather

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 23:29
Darkmunk wrote:
I see. Pixel density it is then.
So if I can mount my lens in front of one of those Nokia 40 MP sensors it would be awesome?

-------------------------------
Possibly if you could actually match it accurately to a scope that has already produced "an awesome" image. I see digiscoping as a picture of a picture.
Is there an alternative way? I don't know.
I don't think we are looking for awesome. Out of interest are you a birder? Sticking a cheap compact in front of a high quality scope can give ultra telephoto quality that cannot be matched by cropping, say a 300mm DA* with a 1.7x TC on a K5. As an image it might not be considered that good.
We are talking about trying to find an easier way to get a recognizable image of e.g a medium sized wader 100 metres away.
Perhaps not, it is just conjecture at this stage but worth wondering about.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.