| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jesito
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5745
Location: Olivella, Catalonia, (Spain)
Expire: 2015-01-07
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:03 am Post subject: Moonshots with the Pentax-Q |
 |
|
Jesito wrote:
That was the initial purpose for this cam: Using the extreme crop factor to turn a 300mm and a 500mm into a big telescope.
The results are less good that I expected, even taking into account the strong wind there was blowing yesterday night. The tripod was noticeably shaked by the wind.
#1 Tokina 300mm f5.6. Processing done: Cropping the central area, some NR, slight contrast push.
#2 Tamron 500mm SP. Similar processing. No crop.
_________________
Jesito, Moderator 
Jesito's backsack:
Zooms Sigma 70-300, Tamron 35-135 and 70-210 short, 70-210 long, 28-70 CF Macro, 35-70, 35-80, Vivitar 70-210 KA, Tamron 70-250.
Fixed Industar-50, , Tamron 24mm, Tamron 135mm, Sands Hunter 135mm, Pancolar 50mm, Volna-3, many Exakta lenses
DSLR SIGMA SD9 & SD14, EOS 5D, Sony A700 and NEXF3, Oly E-330, E-400, E-450, E-1
TLR/6x6/645 YashicaMat, Petri 6x45, Nettar, Franka Solida, Brilliant
SLR Minolta X300, Fuji STX II, Praktica VLC3, Pentax P30t, EXA500, EXA 1A, Spotmatic(2), Chinon CM-4S, Ricoh, Contax, Konica TC-X , Minolta 5000, 7000i, 3Sxi, EOS 500 and CX
Rangefinders Chinon 35EE, Konica C35 auto, Canonet 28, Yashica Lynx, FED-2, Yashica electro 35, Argus C3 & C4, Regula Cita III, Voigtlander Vitoret (many), Welta Welti-I, Kodak Signette 35, Zorki-4, Bessa-R & L, Minolta Weathermatic, olympus XA2
Compact Film Konica C35V, Voigtlander Vitorets, Canon Prima Super 105, Olympus XA2 and XA3
Compact Digital Olympus C-5050, Aiptek Slim 3000, Canon Powershot A540, Nikon 5200, SIGMA DP1s, Polaroid X530, IXUS55, Kodak 6490, Powershot G9 and G10
CSCCanon EOS-M, Samsung NX100 and NX210, Lumix G5, NEX-F3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| Jes wrote: |
| The tripod was noticeably shaked by the wind |
not that bad for the Q with the tokina, I would expect worst
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Moonshots with the Pentax-Q |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
| Jesito wrote: |
That was the initial purpose for this cam: Using the extreme crop factor to turn a 300mm and a 500mm into a big telescope.
The results are less good that I expected, even taking into account the strong wind there was blowing yesterday night. The tripod was noticeably shaked by the wind. |
I can see why you're disappointed Jes. You'd get no worse results cropping a pic from a bigger sensor, probably a lot better.
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesito
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5745
Location: Olivella, Catalonia, (Spain)
Expire: 2015-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesito wrote:
| poilu wrote: |
| Jes wrote: |
| The tripod was noticeably shaked by the wind |
not that bad for the Q with the tokina, I would expect worst |
Thanks, Poilu. I think owning the Q for moon shots is not worthwhile, so I discard that way.
| peterqd wrote: |
| Jesito wrote: |
That was the initial purpose for this cam: Using the extreme crop factor to turn a 300mm and a 500mm into a big telescope.
The results are less good that I expected, even taking into account the strong wind there was blowing yesterday night. The tripod was noticeably shaked by the wind. |
I can see why you're disappointed Jes. You'd get no worse results cropping a pic from a bigger sensor, probably a lot better. |
You're right Peter. I've to find out which is the sweet point of the moonshot setups (balance between focal length and cropping factor). I've seen really nice pictures from a compact cam and a telescope. I got better results from the Olympus E-1 and the same Tokina 300mm. I have to repeat the same testing again and compare it with different crop size sensor cameras.
Thanks to both for commenting.
_________________
Jesito, Moderator
Jesito's backsack:
Zooms Sigma 70-300, Tamron 35-135 and 70-210 short, 70-210 long, 28-70 CF Macro, 35-70, 35-80, Vivitar 70-210 KA, Tamron 70-250.
Fixed Industar-50, , Tamron 24mm, Tamron 135mm, Sands Hunter 135mm, Pancolar 50mm, Volna-3, many Exakta lenses
DSLR SIGMA SD9 & SD14, EOS 5D, Sony A700 and NEXF3, Oly E-330, E-400, E-450, E-1
TLR/6x6/645 YashicaMat, Petri 6x45, Nettar, Franka Solida, Brilliant
SLR Minolta X300, Fuji STX II, Praktica VLC3, Pentax P30t, EXA500, EXA 1A, Spotmatic(2), Chinon CM-4S, Ricoh, Contax, Konica TC-X , Minolta 5000, 7000i, 3Sxi, EOS 500 and CX
Rangefinders Chinon 35EE, Konica C35 auto, Canonet 28, Yashica Lynx, FED-2, Yashica electro 35, Argus C3 & C4, Regula Cita III, Voigtlander Vitoret (many), Welta Welti-I, Kodak Signette 35, Zorki-4, Bessa-R & L, Minolta Weathermatic, olympus XA2
Compact Film Konica C35V, Voigtlander Vitorets, Canon Prima Super 105, Olympus XA2 and XA3
Compact Digital Olympus C-5050, Aiptek Slim 3000, Canon Powershot A540, Nikon 5200, SIGMA DP1s, Polaroid X530, IXUS55, Kodak 6490, Powershot G9 and G10
CSCCanon EOS-M, Samsung NX100 and NX210, Lumix G5, NEX-F3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Both the Tokina and the Tamron are not made for the high resolutios needed by the Q.
I had similar, maybe slightly better results with my Celestron 500mm F3.6 and the Q - very disappointing
But good samples can be found on the internet.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html
I have Pentax Q and Nikon 180/2.8 ED here waiting for clear skies - the Nikon is known to be very sharp, I hope it might be good enough for the Q!
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester 
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesito
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5745
Location: Olivella, Catalonia, (Spain)
Expire: 2015-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesito wrote:
| ForenSeil wrote: |
Both the Tokina and the Tamron are not made for the high resolutios needed by the Q.
I had similar, maybe slightly better results with my Celestron 500mm F3.6 and the Q
I have Pentax Q and Nikon 180/2.8 ED here waiting for clear skies - the Nikon is known to be very sharp, I hope it might be good enough for the Q! |
Look forward to see your samples with the Nikon.
I'm waiting for more adapters to come. Then I'll try my other (sharper) lenses.
Thanks for commenting
_________________
Jesito, Moderator
Jesito's backsack:
Zooms Sigma 70-300, Tamron 35-135 and 70-210 short, 70-210 long, 28-70 CF Macro, 35-70, 35-80, Vivitar 70-210 KA, Tamron 70-250.
Fixed Industar-50, , Tamron 24mm, Tamron 135mm, Sands Hunter 135mm, Pancolar 50mm, Volna-3, many Exakta lenses
DSLR SIGMA SD9 & SD14, EOS 5D, Sony A700 and NEXF3, Oly E-330, E-400, E-450, E-1
TLR/6x6/645 YashicaMat, Petri 6x45, Nettar, Franka Solida, Brilliant
SLR Minolta X300, Fuji STX II, Praktica VLC3, Pentax P30t, EXA500, EXA 1A, Spotmatic(2), Chinon CM-4S, Ricoh, Contax, Konica TC-X , Minolta 5000, 7000i, 3Sxi, EOS 500 and CX
Rangefinders Chinon 35EE, Konica C35 auto, Canonet 28, Yashica Lynx, FED-2, Yashica electro 35, Argus C3 & C4, Regula Cita III, Voigtlander Vitoret (many), Welta Welti-I, Kodak Signette 35, Zorki-4, Bessa-R & L, Minolta Weathermatic, olympus XA2
Compact Film Konica C35V, Voigtlander Vitorets, Canon Prima Super 105, Olympus XA2 and XA3
Compact Digital Olympus C-5050, Aiptek Slim 3000, Canon Powershot A540, Nikon 5200, SIGMA DP1s, Polaroid X530, IXUS55, Kodak 6490, Powershot G9 and G10
CSCCanon EOS-M, Samsung NX100 and NX210, Lumix G5, NEX-F3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Scroll down a little: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images-28.html
Direct link: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-q/155873d1358527190-reach-q-images-imgp0093.jpg
Made with a 560mm focal length telescope.
You can get really good results with the Q!
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 8979
Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
Thanks for posting these Jes,you never know until you try something new.  I hope your other lenses make this Q shine. 
_________________
Moira, Moderator 
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Yes, I've got better results with E-PL1 + Tair-3S handheld. But at least now we know that Q won't give super moonshots with our glass.
Though the shot that ForenSeil linked to makes me pause:
My understanding is that 560mm telescope is not that different from 500mm Mirror lens (or is it?) and Tamron is one of the better mirrors. So what gives? Does anyone have an explanation? Perhaps, it's the result of the wind and shaky tripod after all...
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesito
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5745
Location: Olivella, Catalonia, (Spain)
Expire: 2015-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesito wrote:
Impressive. Thanks for the pointer. The answer is the "stacking" inside, that opens new paths for investigation
| mo wrote: |
| Thanks for posting these Jes,you never know until you try something new. I hope your other lenses make this Q shine. |
Thanks, Mo. For closeups is much easier 
I'll keep trying the moonshots by now, (until I fix the NEX or get a replacement)...
| fermy wrote: |
Yes, I've got better results with E-PL1 + Tair-3S handheld. But at least now we know that Q won't give super moonshots with our glass.
Though the shot that ForenSeil linked to makes me pause:
...
My understanding is that 560mm telescope is not that different from 500mm Mirror lens (or is it?) and Tamron is one of the better mirrors. So what gives? Does anyone have an explanation? Perhaps, it's the result of the wind and shaky tripod after all... |
Thanks for the comment, Fermy. The secret behind seems to be taking 5 sequential shots and stacking them together with an specialized program. This is very common on macro shots, a sample of a spider done by an spanish colleague (Fardels) who stacks 128 shots together:
_________________
Jesito, Moderator
Jesito's backsack:
Zooms Sigma 70-300, Tamron 35-135 and 70-210 short, 70-210 long, 28-70 CF Macro, 35-70, 35-80, Vivitar 70-210 KA, Tamron 70-250.
Fixed Industar-50, , Tamron 24mm, Tamron 135mm, Sands Hunter 135mm, Pancolar 50mm, Volna-3, many Exakta lenses
DSLR SIGMA SD9 & SD14, EOS 5D, Sony A700 and NEXF3, Oly E-330, E-400, E-450, E-1
TLR/6x6/645 YashicaMat, Petri 6x45, Nettar, Franka Solida, Brilliant
SLR Minolta X300, Fuji STX II, Praktica VLC3, Pentax P30t, EXA500, EXA 1A, Spotmatic(2), Chinon CM-4S, Ricoh, Contax, Konica TC-X , Minolta 5000, 7000i, 3Sxi, EOS 500 and CX
Rangefinders Chinon 35EE, Konica C35 auto, Canonet 28, Yashica Lynx, FED-2, Yashica electro 35, Argus C3 & C4, Regula Cita III, Voigtlander Vitoret (many), Welta Welti-I, Kodak Signette 35, Zorki-4, Bessa-R & L, Minolta Weathermatic, olympus XA2
Compact Film Konica C35V, Voigtlander Vitorets, Canon Prima Super 105, Olympus XA2 and XA3
Compact Digital Olympus C-5050, Aiptek Slim 3000, Canon Powershot A540, Nikon 5200, SIGMA DP1s, Polaroid X530, IXUS55, Kodak 6490, Powershot G9 and G10
CSCCanon EOS-M, Samsung NX100 and NX210, Lumix G5, NEX-F3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesito
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5745
Location: Olivella, Catalonia, (Spain)
Expire: 2015-01-07
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesito wrote:
The results are much poorer compared to the ones I got from the GF1 + Tokina 300 f/5.6 + 2x Teleconverter (that were no good...)
I have to try the same setup with the Q.
_________________
Jesito, Moderator
Jesito's backsack:
Zooms Sigma 70-300, Tamron 35-135 and 70-210 short, 70-210 long, 28-70 CF Macro, 35-70, 35-80, Vivitar 70-210 KA, Tamron 70-250.
Fixed Industar-50, , Tamron 24mm, Tamron 135mm, Sands Hunter 135mm, Pancolar 50mm, Volna-3, many Exakta lenses
DSLR SIGMA SD9 & SD14, EOS 5D, Sony A700 and NEXF3, Oly E-330, E-400, E-450, E-1
TLR/6x6/645 YashicaMat, Petri 6x45, Nettar, Franka Solida, Brilliant
SLR Minolta X300, Fuji STX II, Praktica VLC3, Pentax P30t, EXA500, EXA 1A, Spotmatic(2), Chinon CM-4S, Ricoh, Contax, Konica TC-X , Minolta 5000, 7000i, 3Sxi, EOS 500 and CX
Rangefinders Chinon 35EE, Konica C35 auto, Canonet 28, Yashica Lynx, FED-2, Yashica electro 35, Argus C3 & C4, Regula Cita III, Voigtlander Vitoret (many), Welta Welti-I, Kodak Signette 35, Zorki-4, Bessa-R & L, Minolta Weathermatic, olympus XA2
Compact Film Konica C35V, Voigtlander Vitorets, Canon Prima Super 105, Olympus XA2 and XA3
Compact Digital Olympus C-5050, Aiptek Slim 3000, Canon Powershot A540, Nikon 5200, SIGMA DP1s, Polaroid X530, IXUS55, Kodak 6490, Powershot G9 and G10
CSCCanon EOS-M, Samsung NX100 and NX210, Lumix G5, NEX-F3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
I still think the major problem of all these lenses is the low resolution.
Stacking only removes "heat-flickering" in this case.
I think processing lenses might be a really good chance - but not all of them are nice at infinity.
Good telescopes (no matter if ot's an refractor or mirror-telescope) are only limited by diffraction in center, while those catadioptric mirror lenses and cheaper tele lenses are far away from that.
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Moonshots with the Pentax-Q |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| peterqd wrote: |
| Jesito wrote: |
That was the initial purpose for this cam: Using the extreme crop factor to turn a 300mm and a 500mm into a big telescope.
The results are less good that I expected, even taking into account the strong wind there was blowing yesterday night. The tripod was noticeably shaked by the wind. |
I can see why you're disappointed Jes. You'd get no worse results cropping a pic from a bigger sensor, probably a lot better. |
+1 surely will lot better I remember for many good moon shoots on this forum.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
| ForenSeil wrote: |
Good telescopes (no matter if ot's an refractor or mirror-telescope) are only limited by diffraction in center, while those catadioptric mirror lenses and cheaper tele lenses are far away from that. |
That's a pretty bold and sweeping statement. "Good" is not a very well defined term. What sort of prices are we talking here? And why do you think they are diffraction limited? Are there any resolution tests on these scopes?
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Forenseil did a shocking result with cheap telescope, I remember for that it was faster, better than most old lens in long focal length what I seen.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
That's why I am asking since I want to learn. It could be that "cheap" telescope is pretty expensive in lens terms, or it could be that the result is due to superior mount for this kinds of shot or it could be that telescopes are optimized for real infinity, while taking lenses are not. There is a lot of questions to discuss here....
Here's moonshot with Panasonic 100-300 on G2 (not mine):
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
| Quote: |
That's why I am asking since I want to learn. It could be that "cheap" telescope is pretty expensive in lens terms, or it could be that the result is due to superior mount for this kinds of shot or it could be that telescopes are optimized for real infinity, while taking lenses are not. There is a lot of questions to discuss here....
|
Telescopes a generally much cheaper than comparable (focal length and speed) photographic lenses in my experience. They are cheaper because
-Most of them are made in China
-They are less compact
-Most of them don't need field flattener, coma reducer, floating- or similar correcting elements
-Noone cares about bokeh and color balance etc.
-Helicoids are much cheaper, because they don't need to hold the whole lens etc.
And yes telescope mounts are also generally better than photographic tripods, but also much more heavy.
And yes all telescopes are optimized to work at infnity, but most of them also work nice up to a few meters.
| fermy wrote: |
| ForenSeil wrote: |
Good telescopes (no matter if it's an refractor or mirror-telescope) are only limited by diffraction in center, while those catadioptric mirror lenses and cheaper tele lenses are far away from that. |
That's a pretty bold and sweeping statement. "Good" is not a very well defined term. What sort of prices are we talking here? And why do you think they are diffraction limited? Are there any resolution tests on these scopes? |
"Good" for an "small" astronomical telescope means that they are (nearly) able to outresolve their physical limits imo.
| Attila wrote: |
| Forenseil did a shocking result with cheap telescope, I remember for that it was faster, better than most old lens in long focal length what I seen. |
Yup, I bought an "Meade Astronomical Telescope 291" 900mm F14.75 locally for a few bucks and it was suprisingly good - I guess limited only by diffraction.
http://forum.mflenses.com/meade-astronomical-telescope-291-f900mm-f114-75-on-nex-t54263,highlight,%2Bmeade.html
Infected by the good IQ for a low price I also bought an Celestron C130 (~2000mm F15,4) Maksutov locally
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1279425.html#1279425 , an SkyWatcher 1000mm F7,? Refractor (no thread here, it was a bit disappoiting) and an Celestron 500mm F3.6 Schmidt-Newton http://forum.mflenses.com/celestron-500mm-f3-6-comet-catcher-t55297,highlight,%2Bcelestron.html but not one of them was reached the cheap Meade telescope in resolution (they all should have a lot more physically)!
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 8979
Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
Good to hear you are not giving up on the Q and the Moon. I hope you have a non windy night for your next tests. I am almost tempted to take the Tamron mirror to NZ with me and try a moonshot over there 
_________________
Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
| mo wrote: |
| Good to hear you are not giving up on the Q and the Moon. I hope you have a non windy night for your next tests. I am almost tempted to take the Tamron mirror to NZ with me and try a moonshot over there |
That will be even more upside down than in Aus!
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Here a proove that the Pentax Q sensor is not the limiting factor for moon shooting.
Nikon 180/2.8 ED @ F4 + Pentax Q
Single exposure through a dirty window, made with self-timer. Seeing was crappy due strong heat flickering (watch in HD!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPLRRDclcEw&feature=youtu.be
I whish I had a ~500mm lens with such a high resolution like the 180/2.8 - that would be a powerhouse combo!
If seeing was better I would have tried my 900mm F14,75 Meade Fraunhofer on the Q
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr.volkan
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 436
Location: Turkey_istanbul
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:49 pm Post subject: Pentax q 10 mto 550 f 8.5 m39 |
|
|
dr.volkan wrote:
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20171/big_915_PSX_20170104_222911_1.jpg]
Last edited by dr.volkan on Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr.volkan
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 436
Location: Turkey_istanbul
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Pentax q 10 mto 550 f 8.5 m39 |
|
|
dr.volkan wrote:
| dr.volkan wrote: |
 |
Second photo beroflex 500mm f:8 normal tele lens+PentaxQ 10
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 9096
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Were the last two using the Tamron mirror? The first one isn't too bad, but the second one looks overprocessed.
Using APS-C digitals, I have been able to get more detail with the Tamron mirror than you're showing. It's an excellent lens, rivaling a very sharp 500mm refractor I own. This one was taken with a NEX 7, ISO 100, 1/125 sec. This is also a full-color photo -- you can see some slight colorations in the moon surface.
_________________
Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr.volkan
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 436
Location: Turkey_istanbul
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dr.volkan wrote:
| cooltouch wrote: |
Were the last two using the Tamron mirror? The first one isn't too bad, but the second one looks overprocessed.
Using APS-C digitals, I have been able to get more detail with the Tamron mirror than you're showing. It's an excellent lens, rivaling a very sharp 500mm refractor I own. This one was taken with a NEX 7, ISO 100, 1/125 sec. This is also a full-color photo -- you can see some slight colorations in the moon surface.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KarelDH
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
KarelDH wrote:
| fermy wrote: |
| Yes, I've got better results with E-PL1 + Tair-3S handheld. But at least now we know that Q won't give super moonshots with our glass. . |
going to disagree here
Shot yesterday with the - Pentax DA*300mm Viviar X2-22 and Pentax QS1 -
And I'm pretty happy with it ^^
100% Crop
The actual image
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
