Actually having a point of reference like that is a pretty good idea. Another use for the Q.

The biggest weakness of Pentax is autofocus. Pentax announced:

A new SAFOX X AF module for the top AF performance in its class

A pretty encouraging statement and a bold one. This is what the review said:

So, what's the bottom line? Pentax promised us an AF system that works when it's dark, and they delivered one. In low light under EV 0, the K-5 II outperforms its predecessor as well as its Canon and Nikon rivals, the 7D and D7000. However, overall, the autofocus in the K-5 II is not the big upgrade that Pentax K-5 users have been waiting for. We think that the next step for Pentax is to add more focus points and implement a more powerful motor (perhaps one that is brushless) in order to make their cameras more versatile in everyday shooting conditions, and for shooting fast moving subjects. The Canon and Nikon bodies excel in these areas compared to the Pentax K-5 II.

I hope Pentax don't actually believe their own marketing hype.

It seems unusual but I think what they might have done is effectively made available the Q10 firmware for Q users. And hats off if that is what they have done.

What I don't really get is if removing the AA filter adds only minimal moire in real world use and which in any case is easy to remove then why didn't camera manufacturers do it the other way round, ie: produce a special version camera with an AA filter for knitting catalogue photographers.

Really good images and the full flickr set is enjoyable viewing. The conversions are great, 2 is my pick the tones are sumptuous.

The K5iis may (may) be a worthwhile upgrade for someone who makes a living out of this game. For everyone else it looks like wait and see. But this was always going to be a bit of an underwhelming stopgap measure until Ricoh can really make their mark on products.

No surprises.

Ditto.

I have been playing a bit with adapted lenses and I am starting to formulate intitial conclusions. I think by far the best use of the Q is with the lenses designed for it. The new telephoto zoom will I suspect be by far the best option for that range 80-250 and f2.8 is pretty good. You could adapt a K mount 70-85 range f1.8 or similar get the extra speed at the long end but wide open the results with the Q aren't so good, you need to stop down a bit and that rather defeats the object. The DFA100 gets you more reach (360mm) and you gave greater sharpness wide open, The combination with the Q feels quite usable but another feature of adapted lenses seems to be that CA is significantly exaggerated and can become a real problem. Looking at longer options then a 500 or 600mm equivalent does seem enticing. I don't have 135mm prime to try here so I had a go with the 55-300. Things start to become difficult in that range. Handheld becomes very difficult, in fact probably nigh on impossible. A good tripod is required and remote shutter release. The lack of viewfinder makes it difficult to lock on to a subject and if conditions are bright as they often are then everything becomes even more difficult. The IQ of the 55-300 is not good enough either. I think a DA* and 1.7xTC is a much better option in this range. However, a 135 f2.5 for instance might produce ok results as a budget alternative. I don't have one so I will give the 50-135 a go at the long end to see what results can be achieved on a static subject. For moving subjects then I think the official adaptor would be essential as the rolling shutter effect comes in. Having said that a moving subject is exceptionally difficult on a rear screen in the light. Once we get to 300mm, which I did try, then I can see why the elaborate (and expensive) setups on the other forum are employed. I seem to be in a bit of a minority in being unimpressed with the results I've seen, the odd photo is OK but my thoughts are usually, why not just get closer and get the K5 out. I'll definitely change my mind when someone come up with a shot of Nessie. I tried with last night's Moon, not the ideal subject as it was approaching full and thereofore rather featurelss. The results weren't great. For photographing the Moon a perfectly adequate used scope would give much better results for less than the price of the official adapter. I have tried normal macro and the results are OKish but again much better with an slr, plus a Q macro lens is on the roadmap. More extreme macro is probably the best use I have seen yet for the Q, again nowhere near as good as something like a reversed 50 but definitely easier. To use flash then the official adaptor is really required here. I shall give this a go too. I shall report my further findings here if anyone is interested. I agree with Dave, I think the attraction is as much in trying the exotic combinations. Now to locate Kate Middleton, or Nessie.


P.S I know, way too large for a paragraph.

I would say about £30 is a reasonable expectation but I would consider a starting price of £15. For 'seems to be fine' then maybe a little less. You could always try waiting for a no listing fees offer if you want to try for a bit more.

To maximise price then describe the condition of both camera and lens fully.

Why doesn't the Q work for you?

Looking at other comments elsewhere it seems other folks get on really well with the focus peaking. I suppose I have always found it easy to focus anyway.