Yes, these were K lenses on the Q. It was the simple £40 adapter, not being able to afford the Pentax one yet. The Pentax one has extra functionality so it will be the target if the simple adapter proves that using such lenses will be viable and useful.

I'll be doing much more testing in the new year, but for the moment just dipping a toe in the water....

I don't see why, if someone can appreciate why they would want a IIs or anything else, that we should discourage them, unless of course there seems to be a major pitfall for them.

So far, the negativity seems to have come from those of us who have not actually tried hand on, but are judging from on-screen viewing of test images done by others. It will therefore depend on their viewpoint, their monitor screen, their visual acuity, etc.

I'd much rather wait for some hands-on experience before coming to any conclusions.

Mission accomplished then, have fun with it and ask away!

Just to add to that, the 35-mm equivalent values would be:
35mm = 192.5mm
43mm = 236.5mm
100mm = 550mm
200mm = 1100mm
400mm = 2200mm

I've had a preliminary and brief go at a few lenses, just to start testing the waters, so to speak. All ISO200 and on a firm tripod. Photoshop processing as per my standard approach has been identical in all cases.

The 35mm f/2.4 has no aperture ring, so was at minmum aperture. As might be expented, a poor result:


The 43mm f/1'9 Limited at f/4 looks much better:


The 100mm f/2.8 Macro at f/4 did not shine quite as much at this distance:


The Tokina 80-400mm at 200mm and f/16 was a bit of a star, but had to be on a different subject due to lack of close enough focusing:


The Tokina 80-400mm again at f/16 but now at 400mm wavered all over the place, so brighter light and shorter shutter speeds would be good, but pretty good anyway:


Conclusion so far is that good images may well be possible, but outdoors with higher shutter speeds will be needed to get a little more practice. Focusing is actually easy enough, but very precise indeed, so care is definitely needed!

It can't, but what I meant was that the K-7 problems will have been left way behind by now. A warranty repair at the time might have been the best solution, but now it's way out of warranty, so a chargeable repair seems the only likely option I'm afraid.

It is explained there, althoug it seems a bit over-convoluted to me as explanations go. One day I'll look into it.

I have always assumed that aperture value meant the maximum aperture available at that particular zoom setting (most zooms have variable apertures) and that f stop was the stop actually set by the user. It would be easy enough to test out this theory and I may do so when I get a moment.

It won't refer to transmission values (T stops) because a variation such as that indicated would be very excessive indeed and rather unlikely given modern multi-coating techniques.

I've modified the very long title to something more manageable.

The removal of the AA filter will result in increased/sharper definition of detail, so not really for portrait photographers. I'm sure most people don't want to see every pore and defect delineated with crisp, cruel definition!

More for landscape and architecture really, where fine detail may well be required.