[Klaus]

If you ask me ... THIS one is REALLY ridiculous.

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc49...rs/007.jpg

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1315211763' post='11310']

If you ask me ... THIS one is REALLY ridiculous.

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc49...rs/007.jpg

[/quote]

Well, mount some Sigma 150-500mm on it and you'll have 3000mm super ultra tele <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[Yakim]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1315213977' post='11312']

Well, mount some Sigma 150-500mm on it and you'll have 3000mm super ultra tele <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]



ROTFL. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[netrex]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1315213977' post='11312']

Well, mount some Sigma 150-500mm on it and you'll have 3000mm super ultra tele <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]

500mm? That's nothing <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Pentax 1000mm f/8: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1.../0#9872117

[froeschle]

Ridiculous? Extreme telephotography with the Q:



http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog...-8516.html

http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog...-8459.html

http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog...-8462.html

http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog...-8504.html



http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/cat6/cat-256/

[Klaus]

[quote name='froeschle' timestamp='1316602808' post='11698']

Ridiculous? Extreme telephotography with the Q:



[url="http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/assets_c/2011/09/IMGP0909st-8516.html"]http://www.tomytec.c...909st-8516.html[/url]

[url="http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/assets_c/2011/09/IMGP0442s-8459.html"]http://www.tomytec.c...0442s-8459.html[/url]

[url="http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/assets_c/2011/09/IMGP0650st-8462.html"]http://www.tomytec.c...650st-8462.html[/url]

[url="http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/assets_c/2011/09/IMGP0839s-8504.html"]http://www.tomytec.c...0839s-8504.html[/url]



[url="http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/cat6/cat-256/"]http://www.tomytec.c...g/cat6/cat-256/[/url]

[/quote]



Feel free to impress me by providing images from adapted lenses at full resolution.

Decent 1.5mp images can also produced by phone cameras.



The point is that normal full format lenses are not designed (optimized) to perform on this level.

Reads: lenses for smaller sensors must be sharper due to the higher pixel density.

[froeschle]

Feel free to impress me by providing images from adapted lenses at full resolution.

Decent 1.5mp images can also produced by phone cameras.

Full resolution is not always necessary (like in birding).

The question rather is which pictures (or HD movies) are possible and at which cost.

How can I e.g. get a comparable (single) shot of the moon (with a phone camera)?

lenses for smaller sensors must be sharper due to the higher pixel density

The FA/DA* tele lenses could be a viable option - however without AF.



Maybe, I just cite falconeye from pentaxforums:

[...] Actually, I personally consider the tele converter effect to be the most interesting option offered by the Q. [...]

See also e.g.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16280...t1044.html

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16281...t1048.html

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1642662-post77.html



So "REALLY ridiculous" is a bit too harsh, imho. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Klaus]

[quote name='froeschle' timestamp='1316622183' post='11723']

So "REALLY ridiculous" is a bit too harsh, imho. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]





Let me rephrase it:

Pentax Q sensor: 28.07 sqmm

Pentax K5 sensor: 370.52 sqmm



So if you mount Pentax DA lenses to the Pentax Q you will exploit 7.5% of the image field theses lenses are designed to cover.

It's your personal take, of course, how to call this.



If 2mp super tele images are your goal you could as well simply crop a K5-based image taken with the same 50mm lens accordingly.

[Brightcolours]

Well, due to the on/off nature of pixels, lenses do not have to resolve crazy amounts to still get some resolution advantage at smaller pixels... So even with cropping the K5 the Q combination will still have a resolution advantage.



Of course I agree that it is not the most suitable tool for serious photography.