(in Japanese)
As we all knew, there is nothing to be excited about and all the "new" Pentax products are indeed mediocre so that all the "live reports" at the Pentax booth by everyone are more or less the same and they are "concise" enough!
There is one new stuff there is uncommon, though, but it has no practical meaning at all for most of us. Look at this Dumb-Bell!
I just wonder, why Pentax needed to make this camera to be so large for its sides as the lens contained in each side is really so small and tiny?! :-o Did they really mean to create a dumb-bell for exercise rather than a camera? ;->
Besides, the Q-K adaptor and demonstration combo look rather ugly. Ironically, they used again a Full Frame FA lens mounted on the Q, which now becomes a 200mm lens effectively 135 wise. That must be "great"!
At the end of the day, I am afraid that my RH-01 and RH-02 do both look better, with far better IQ and much higher usability than that Q-K combo with adapted K-mount lenses. Indeed, that original-branded Q-K adaptor is no better than those Chinese made ones, which are far cheaper and provide the same function, i.e., it is just a dummy mechanical mount adaptor afterall. Look:-
Logging you in...
joejoe · 651 weeks ago
Why do you feel like you HAVE to say crap about pentax stuff...?
that's silly.
indeeed,
the Q may not be suitable to your needs, doesn't means its a total failure product.
Fact is that you're wrong about at least two points. The chinese adaptators k/q may be cheaper, they doesn't provide obturator, wich the pentax does. plus the pentax one seems to provide use of SR and flash syncro (better than 1/13).
Then i'm afraid that your statement about Rh-1 and Rh-2 can only be true about the look, considering its about your own preferences... and no one but you is concerned, but, the "far better IQ and usability", come on, controls on the Q are just exactly the same as on a true Dslr... wich is not the case about RH-1/2. Usability , or whatever you names this, is just sooo higher on the Q.
The next point is about the IQ. Do some search about the Q in real use by real photographers, you will see that the Q iq is kinda great.... i swear ^^
last thing, they could even put a FA77 on the pentax Q instead of the FA35... turning it into a 420mm f1.8, instead of the 200mm f2... (i do both on my Q + chinese adaptator...) even my 90mm macro lens becomes a 495mm f2.8 Macro... that's about the real advantage of Q/k converting.
the only thing i agree is about that weird dumb bell camera thing... really weird.. maybe it got a real usage , but, we just don't know yet ...? :D
you're becoming more and more agressive towards pentax that it's only about wrong informations ... they may have disapointed you really badly ...
RiceHigh 110p · 651 weeks ago
And, I have always been "aggressive" towards Pentax! You didn't know it? ;-)
Stephan · 651 weeks ago
The original Q/K adapter that you you call a dummy mechanical adapter has the following features
- Tripod mount
- Aperture
- Built in mechanical shutter
While you can find chinese adapters that have either the tripod mount or the aperture, none of them has the built in shutter.
RiceHigh 110p · 651 weeks ago
GTJ · 651 weeks ago
joejoe · 651 weeks ago
"that original-branded Q-K adaptor is no better than those Chinese made ones, which are far cheaper and provide the same function, i.e., it is just a dummy mechanical mount adaptor afterall."
the mecanical shutter is what you need to avoid rolling artefacts in video and several type of lights from electronical shutters.
rolling shutter artefacts are common, not only in the Q ...
that is wrong.
what else?
RiceHigh 110p · 651 weeks ago