Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-16-2017, 02:38 PM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
jacamar's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,427
.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Although this one taken at 5.6 could just as easily have been taken with the DA*300 and 1.4 TC wide open, with a lot less weight.
I wouldn't shoot with my DA*300mm and TC wide open. This winter 2016 shot in fairly poor light was handheld at 1/640 sec (which I think should have been adequate in this situation) and ISO 800 - my shots of this critter were all disappointingly soft and when I asked about it on the forum the aperture was suggested as the problem.



11-16-2017, 02:59 PM - 1 Like   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,699
As always, the decision between portability and reach is key. I can walk the dogs with the 55-300 and get an occasional shot of anything not terrified of the dogs. Are my shots as good as the guys on tripods by the river? No. Are we both limited by opportunities present when we have the camera? Yes.

There's no ideal solution, it's all compromise.
11-16-2017, 03:07 PM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Yet on a 16 Mp sensor Photozone suggests the lens is sharpest at ƒ5.6. I guess the TC could change that.




Here's one taken with the DA* 60-250 and DA 1.4 TC. My guess is the 300 can be just as sharp.


OK, so it's sickeningly over sharpened, just saying.
11-16-2017, 04:28 PM   #34
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,403
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
[flame shields up]I don't understand the DA*60-250 as a birding lens. If it's a bird small enough that you need to get close, you may as well shoot with a 135mm prime. If the bird is miles away, 250mm is not nearly long enough.

It's a great option for landscapes and big game though.[/flame shields down]
Norm's the one to answer this, but as I understand it the only knock on 60-250 as a birding lens is the effective magnification, due to focus breathing.

---------- Post added 2017-11-17 at 10:39 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jacamar Quote
I wouldn't shoot with my DA*300mm and TC wide open.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Yet on a 16 Mp sensor Photozone suggests the lens is sharpest at ƒ5.6. I guess the TC could change that.
On the Photozone numbers, centre and border sharpness at f4 were only a whisker behind f5.6, and better than f8. No doubt there is copy variation, but you would think it should still be very good wide open with the TC. Before the DFA 150-450 came along, Pentax was promoting the DA*300 + 1.4x TC combination as the premium relatively affordable option for wildlife - something that only makes sense if the results were good at an effective 420mm f5.6 (ie not stopped down). I don't think the problem with Jacamar's shot is about the aperture (or the shutter speed, which as he says should have been adequate). I've had results like that in poor light too with the FA*300 f4.5 on the K-3 whether wide open or stopped down. Maybe the K-1 would be better in these conditions?


Last edited by Des; 11-17-2017 at 01:16 PM.
11-17-2017, 06:37 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,199
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Looking at this guys's 150-450, I was actually surprised how small it was.
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
But I think that for many people the constraints of using a 2kg+ lens in the field are too great.
there is this youtube video with a guy testing a 150 450 (cameraville). It doesn't seem too big imo. Probably the weight is the issue here..

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Look at the lens in the forground. I'm guessing it's a lot bigger if not heavier.
that is the nikon 200 500. About the same weight. Not that much bigger but 'fatter' it seems. Believe the filtersize is 95 or so..

---------- Post added 11-17-17 at 02:38 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
OK, so it's sickeningly over sharpened, just saying.
nice shot though...

---------- Post added 11-17-17 at 02:39 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
As always, the decision between portability and reach is key. I can walk the dogs with the 55-300 and get an occasional shot of anything not terrified of the dogs.
guess you felt it wasn't difficult enough yet to get a nice shot of a bird. So you brought two dogs?? :-)
11-17-2017, 06:44 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,699
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote

guess you felt it wasn't difficult enough yet to get a nice shot of a bird. So you brought two dogs?? :-)

Likely 3, at least for the past few years. Big ones. But that's when I'm outside walking along the river most often. If my wife is with me I can leave her with the dogs to get more sneaky shots, but that's problematic, since the Malamute thinks he's missing out on something and starts making a lot of noise. Usually I can get at least a few shots on the weekends during migration season or in winter when the diving ducks are here.
11-18-2017, 04:58 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,199
Original Poster
I'll rephrase the question.
i just walked by my usual camera store & they have a nikon 300 F4 + TC 1.4 for sale for only 600 euros, 6mnths garantee. Add a rebated nikon apsc with it & its a pretty sweet deal.

Assumption what the internet says is true, namely AF for this kind of thing being much better than pentax.. ??

11-18-2017, 06:55 AM   #38
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I have no idea if a 3300 or 5300 has better AF than Pentax. It could depend on the body, or maybe they re all better. I'm sure someone here knows. We hardly ever have shooters shooting less than a 7000 series camera here, so we know those are better, but I have no idea how low it goes.
11-18-2017, 07:51 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,581
QuoteOriginally posted by jacamar Quote
.

I wouldn't shoot with my DA*300mm and TC wide open. This winter 2016 shot in fairly poor light was handheld at 1/640 sec (which I think should have been adequate in this situation) and ISO 800 - my shots of this critter were all disappointingly soft and when I asked about it on the forum the aperture was suggested as the problem.

That's actually a really cute photo.

I see what looks like a decent amount of usable detail in your photo, so unless it's a heavy crop, I think with different processing you could increase the perception of sharpness and tease out more detail.
11-18-2017, 08:06 AM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,581
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote
I'll rephrase the question.
i just walked by my usual camera store & they have a nikon 300 F4 + TC 1.4 for sale for only 600 euros, 6mnths garantee. Add a rebated nikon apsc with it & its a pretty sweet deal.

Assumption what the internet says is true, namely AF for this kind of thing being much better than pentax.. ??
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I have no idea if a 3300 or 5300 has better AF than Pentax. It could depend on the body, or maybe they re all better. I'm sure someone here knows. We hardly ever have shooters shooting less than a 7000 series camera here, so we know those are better, but I have no idea how low it goes.
The Nikon 3x00 series has a comparatively rudimentary AF system, similar to the original Pentax K-5. The Nikon 5x00 is significantly better in that regard. Both lines have small RAW buffers, about 1/3rd of what the K-5 offers.
11-18-2017, 10:06 AM - 2 Likes   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
jacamar's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,427
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
That's actually a really cute photo.
Thanks Luftluss. It's cropped to about 50% 0f the original frame, and I recall I did do my best with sharpening in Photoshop Elements at the time (a touch of "mid tone contrast" seems to help as well). There are some artifacts starting to appear when I enlarge it to 1:1. That was one of the last occasions when I shot in JPEG only - with RAW a touch if the "clarity" slider would probably have helped as well. I looked through the shots I took at the time and some are actually a bit better than that.

11-18-2017, 11:25 AM   #42
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 10,133
That photo is a real keeper, with just a little more sharpening!
11-18-2017, 11:48 AM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,581
QuoteOriginally posted by jacamar Quote
Thanks Luftluss. It's cropped to about 50% 0f the original frame, and I recall I did do my best with sharpening in Photoshop Elements at the time (a touch of "mid tone contrast" seems to help as well). There are some artifacts starting to appear when I enlarge it to 1:1. That was one of the last occasions when I shot in JPEG only - with RAW a touch if the "clarity" slider would probably have helped as well. I looked through the shots I took at the time and some are actually a bit better than that.

I think your slightly "lo-fi" photos of the marten make them look soft and cuddly

And really, they are simply nice photos to look at (especially for those of us who don't get to see martens in the wild), which is what counts the most, IMO.
11-18-2017, 02:01 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
jacamar's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,427
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
(especially for those of us who don't get to see martens in the wild)
Thanks Lufluss. The shots were taken on a trail along an old rail embankment in Algonquin Park. I had left a handful of sunflower seeds on the ground in the hope of attracting a few finches for the return walk. I looked around and there was the Marten, helping itself. Most Marten shots in the Park are taken around garbage disposal/recycling depots so it was very special to get one on the open trail like that. It's just that those opportunities are so rare you want to make the most of them.
11-18-2017, 02:08 PM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,524
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote
I'll rephrase the question.
Assumption what the internet says is true, namely AF for this kind of thing being much better than pentax.. ??
The Nikon D7200 and D7500 has more AF points but less cross-type than the Pentax K3ii or KP, so I'd say it's a wash; not better.
The Nikon D500 significantly outperforms any Canon or Pentax APS-C at this time and if it's in your budget, easy decision.

I would not bother considering any Nikon D3000 or D5000 series; I'd take the K-70 before either of those.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bird, converter, da300, dogs, f8, guitar, iso, k-mount, lens, lot, nikon, option, options, pentax lens, photozone, pm, post, settings, shields, shot, shutter, slr lens, tc, time, user, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Contemplating the sky in the desert amrocha Monthly Photo Contests 23 11-12-2017 07:14 PM
645D ...645Z purchase or not to purchase ??? VSTAR Pentax Medium Format 20 03-09-2017 12:37 AM
$200 DA300 box, seller too lazy to put a rock in it Pedroax General Talk 17 02-08-2017 10:28 AM
Contemplating change from PC to Mac, need guidance. monochrome Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 97 07-19-2016 08:10 AM
contemplating 6x7 purchase skunktail Pentax Medium Format 16 06-25-2013 03:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top