| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:25 am Post subject: Pentax DA*300mm Viviar X2-22 and Pentax QS1 |
 |
|
KarelDH wrote:
Hello,
This week i needed to combine a setup so i could Photograph a ( rare ) bird near to me. there was no way to get closer.
(Pentax DA*300mm Viviar X2-22 and Pentax QS1)
I was pleasantly suprised with the sharpness hitting the tiny Q sensor after passing trough the Vivitar 2x-22.
So what do you do? point it at the moon of course 
Would the image be better with a higher grade tele converter ?
Thank you!
100% Crop
No Crop. ( actual sensor size )
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012
Posts: 1304
Location: Conwy N Wales
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
excellent result. 
IME the first thing that counts is the quality of the lens. Then the next is how well you stabilise everything. And thirdly (esp for eg moon shots) - atmospherics. I can suggest that the viv tc must be a pretty good one by vintage standards - is it one of the 7 element ones (these are usually either cheaper 4 element ones or better 7 element ones like the viv macro tc).
A more modern one like a kenko AF 2x might well have slightly better optics/better coatings, but whether that would actually show in results is more debatable.
_________________
pentax ME super (retired)
Pentax K3-ii; pentax K-S2; Samsung NX 20; Lumix G1 + adapters;
Adaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4.
Primes: takumar 55mm; smc 28mm, 50mm; kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro; Jupiter 11A; CZJ 135mm.
A classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 551
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Pentax DA*300mm Viviar X2-22 and Pentax QS1 |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
| KarelDH wrote: |
Would the image be better with a higher grade tele converter ?
[/url] |
Hardly, since only the central portion of the picture is interested by the the subject IMHO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
@ Ultrapix
interesting i honestly didn't think about it that way.
because of the small sensor ( of the Q ) it only takes the ( maybe ) better/good part from the projected image.
( i think this is what you mean )
yep this could be a valid point.
Thank you for your insight! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 551
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
| KarelDH wrote: |
@ Ultrapix
interesting i honestly didn't think about it that way.
because of the small sensor ( of the Q ) it only takes the ( maybe ) better/good part from the projected image.
( i think this is what you mean )
yep this could be a valid point.
Thank you for your insight! |
The two things go in the same direction: so, since the major improvement with the 7 lenses converter is about edges, and you cut them twice, I bet that there is little room for improvements, unless you go for a 600 prime of the same quality of your 300 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2918
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
How does the 2x image compare to the non-converter image? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
| How does the 2x image compare to the non-converter image? |
The same but smaller  . a tad sharper and les ghosting in the light area's
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 551
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
by the way, this is one of the best moon shot that I have seen among those took with amateur gear, and it's interesting that it comes from a small sensor coupled to solid glass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
invisible
Joined: 06 Jun 2013
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
invisible wrote:
| Ultrapix wrote: |
| by the way, this is one of the best moon shot that I have seen among those took with amateur gear, and it's interesting that it comes from a small sensor coupled to solid glass |
Agreed. Moon shots bore me to death, but this one has such degree of detail, almost 3D, that I can't stop looking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
invisible and Ultrapix, Thank you for your kind words ^^.
Now I'm curious if adding a extra 2x would give an acceptable result .
I should have a Tamron x2 somewhere, il post the results in the near future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
Hello,
With Saturn and Jupiter more visible this week it was time to test this setup.
I think the results are fair but i feel i'm reaching the limit of this setup.
#1
#2
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6008
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Outstanding results.
Well done
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2918
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
That's awesome! Amazing really! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knudsen
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 115
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knudsen wrote:
_________________
~Jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2491
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
You would be hard pressed to get a higher pixel density from an ILC (except for the original Q and Q10 which have a 1/2.3-inch sensor with the same pixel count). The DA* 300mm is an amazing lens.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
I've been experimenting with with a weird "Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L & multiple TC" setup last year. While the atmosphere was extraordinary clear, nevertheless the setup's resolution was limited by the atmosphere and not by its optical performance: When looking at the moon using live view one could easily see the never ending movements of the air ...
http://forum.mflenses.com/full-moon-with-canon-nfd-2-8-400-plus-multiple-converters-t81443.html
I'd guess that your combination is limited by the air turbulences as well, not by its optical performance.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
I'd guess that your combination is limited by the air turbulences as well, not by its optical performance.
S |
Of Course there are more factors, and turbulence/atmosphere is certainly one of them.
Also my tripod is not the most sturdy one
I mean that "i feel i'm reaching the limit of this setup" more that adding one more TC it becomes to dark and it the image becomes to soft
A higer densty sensor like D1N0 points out ( and stacking ) migt be the only way to get better result. But i don't think there are much options...
*Or going out of orbit but thats a bit out of budget |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knudsen
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 115
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knudsen wrote:
I've got that teleconverter and it's a good one: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-2x-macro-focusing-teleconvertor.html
_________________
~Jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
Found a second ( same ) teleconverter. this is the result. ( Pentax Q + vivitar x2 +vivitar x2 pentax 300mm
f4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 1782
Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
Not used to seeing back years photos of Saturn.
Saturn is far away!
Can’t wait for my q adaptor to arrive! 
Coop stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
