All Forum Comments
Haha Peter - I was going to link to it. It's an article from Lens Rental in the USA. Produces amazing flare
Comment by Frogfish posted on Scratches on front glass - an issue? at 04/08/2012 - 07:08
johnriley wrote:
The Q does have sensor-shift SR, but the 5.5x crop factor means a 300mm lens would be a huge 1650mm-equivalent. I'm not sure I'd be using a lens anywhere near that long.
I envisaged more of a 100mm lens, giving a 550mm-equivalent. Do you think that would be more manageable?
Sorry my bad re. stabilised sensor - it's just I don't notice it at these FLs !The Q does have sensor-shift SR, but the 5.5x crop factor means a 300mm lens would be a huge 1650mm-equivalent. I'm not sure I'd be using a lens anywhere near that long.
I envisaged more of a 100mm lens, giving a 550mm-equivalent. Do you think that would be more manageable?
More manageable but no advantage over my current K5 + DA*300 + AFA x1.7 = 510mm (765mm @35mm equiv.) especially when I can crop that really close. No comparison in IQ.
To be of value the Q has to give me at least 900-1,000mm equivalent because otherwise cropping with the K5 combination will beat it easily every time ... to say nothing of the stabilisation being far more noticeable on the K5 combination and the f6.7 allowing faster shutter speeds in less than perfect light.
I think the Q is a fantastic astronomer's camera though, the moon shots I've seen are superb !
Comment by Frogfish posted on My Latest Toy at 03/08/2012 - 22:36
johnriley wrote:
I'm interested in what sort of hassle you experienced?
The Q has no SR John so at those super long teles (the 85/1.4 is the shortest lens I've put on it, with the 300mm/2.8 it's insane) where the slightest of movements has it jumping all over the place, you need to put it on a tripod (not even a mono will do) and 2 sec delay. Quote:
decided it is not worth the hassle for birding
In terms of quality, I would have thought that a Q + good lens would be much better than the kits that are sold with a compact camera on a spotting scope.decided it is not worth the hassle for birding
I'm interested in what sort of hassle you experienced?
I just don't have time for that (neither do the birds !) - OK if you were sitting in one place for a while perhaps and with large slow moving birds, but I rove, sit, rove, sit and typically shoot small passerines.
Comment by Frogfish posted on My Latest Toy at 03/08/2012 - 18:43
I bought one, body only, ..... tried it for ultra long range with a variety of long lenses, decided it is not worth the hassle for birding and it's been in the box with less than 100 shots on it ever since. Will sell it and put the cash towards the Sigma 500mm. Very cute and beautifully built camera though.
Comment by Frogfish posted on My Latest Toy at 03/08/2012 - 16:51
This is one weird thread
Comment by Frogfish posted on Draconian new Olympic camera rules at 03/08/2012 - 16:45
My wife saw one of these shows with friends on their trip to Yunnan (fabulous place - probably China's richest province both culturally and for biodiversity).
Next time I go back there it won't be to play golf !
#2 is quite superb.
Next time I go back there it won't be to play golf !
#2 is quite superb.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Dynamic Yunnan at 31/07/2012 - 16:39
Lovely shots Adrian - #1 & 7 for me.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Beddgelert to Llyn Dinas at 29/07/2012 - 11:07
Kilo - for handling heavy lens setups I use a Black Rapid copy and have the lens setup on a monopod (I also have a gimbal on that too) which makes it far easier to carry and the gimbal/mono ensures shooting with it is as light as feather.
If you don't find a way of handling the lens easily you'll end up reverting to your 75-300 too often, which you seem to plan to do already
If you don't find a way of handling the lens easily you'll end up reverting to your 75-300 too often, which you seem to plan to do already
Comment by Frogfish posted on Looking for the right telephoto at 29/07/2012 - 05:54
