Pentax Q vs Digiscoping

I used a cheap Tasco scope (1000-4000mm equivalent on 35mm) with my K100d & usually got better pictures (used around 1000mm) than I could by cropping either a 300mm telephoto or 500mm mirror lens.

Since getting the K7 cropping works better & the scope hasn't been on a camera since.

A* 300/2.8 + Q + tripod + RDS:

That looks pretty good to me, in the context of this application, at least. Do you have any more details, e.g. Distance involved etc. Sorry, but what is RDS short for? Is it remote shutter release? Thanks.

A very crude estimate would be 10m.
Red Dot Sight (for aiming at the object): http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?p=1194613#1194613
More examples: http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=93575

Thank you froeschle. I was hoping it was more. I must admit I think I could get that from 10m with my 150-500mm Sigma with cropping or possibly a superzoom bridge camera..

Possessing e.g. a 135-400, a 50-500, several 300/2.8 etc., I rather would disagree ...

There is a very interesting article in the latest version of Digital Photo Pro about interchangeable lens CSC's in which using the Q with legacy lenses is mentioned. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the smaller the sensor, the more likely it will out-resolve the lens, as it is taking the same (or similar) sized image from a much smaller part of the lens, thus effectively magnifying the optical flaws of the lens. Therefore the quality of the lens becomes more critical the smaller the sensor, which also helps explain why some legacy glass appears to work better with film cameras than APS-c digital slr's

--------------------------
You may be right and I hope you are because that would be good news! Perhaps you could take a shot of an object (preferably a medium sized bird)at about 50 metres with the Q and 300 DA* and then repeat the shot with your DSLR and the same lens. Then produce the best image with pp of the same size from each and compare.I apologise in that I'm not asking you to go out and do that, rather just musing that the results from that would be most fascinating

Here's a good combination:

Pentax Q, DA*300, 1.7x teleconverter, tree in the South of France, Duchess Of Cambridge.

Tut tut tut, dr!

Well since I said hand-held and that was taken on a tripod .....

It can be done, imtheguy just posted a stunning shot with the Q & 500mm on the other site - but it's just not worth the effort. As he said - you need a bird that stands still for 10 secs (LOL) so a LOT of patience is required as the failure rate is sky high !!

ROFL !

----------------------------------
So was that more effort or less effort than a digiscoped image and how would it have compared?
What I have managed to glean, despite the scepticism, is that the Nikon 1 system cameras (albeit with a larger sensor and only 2.7 X crop)are producing excellent results with a 300mm lens and are apparently totally versatile, hand held and extremely fast focus. Perhaps that's the option for the ultra telephoto, lightweight on a budget.

Perhaps it could serve a purpose looking at these:
http://tinyurl.com/8jkjagt

Some remarks: I own some pretty good lenses with f < = 4.5, which imho is a prerequisite for acceptable extreme telephoto shots with the Q (due to: diffraction, demanding sensor - small pixel size). There also is no SR with the cheap Q-K-adapters and you have to be aware of the equivalent focal length (crop factor of about 5.5). It is not easy to get a sharp (hand-held) image with e.g. a 100mm (-> 550mm) or a 300mm (-> 1650mm) lens. Even if you put the combination on a tripod, you have to guarantee rigidity. Next, there is no autofocus. Additionally, the focus assist function of the Q is rather mediocre and it is thus hard to find optimal sharpness. This problem is even worsened by the usually small adjustment travel of the focus rings ("optimized" for fast autofocus).

Something like this? http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/177309-pentax-q-da300mm.html

Maybe, I will take some photos for comparison, if I find some time in the near or not so near future.