[grispie]

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.

i've learned a lot through youtube videos for enhancing wildlife pictures in photoshop the last couple of mnths. Covering "feather" brushes, local sharpening to locally darkening or lighting and how to address the eyes. It's a bit of work but i feel these kind of pictures are defintely worth it. Especially the second marter. Definitely a keeper..

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.

In the nikon world i should opt for at least a D7200. A D500 is too expensive..
There is also the AF capability of a lens to consider i guess. That nikon 300 f4 is said to be a fast focusser.

Hard to tell
The proof may be in the eating of the pudding :-)

[Stavri]

Here's some residual photos from my telephoto lens calibration over the weekend. All the pictures have been taken with the DA 1.4x attached, @ f8.0 on a tripod, MUP with remote shutter. The F 135 has remarkable IQ given for it's age...i love the little guy



Size comparison between the lenses, in case someone wants to compile an IQ/ size graph...


On a side note, once the lenses hood are taken in consideration, the size advantage of the F 135mm its all but negligible

[jddwoods]

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.

Nice shot! What kind of bird it it? Never seen anything like here in Delaware. Looks like it has tinges of blue-green in the wings and tail. The only bird I know of with that color is a young tree swallow, but it does not look like a tree swallow.

[normhead]

Nice shot! What kind of bird it it? Never seen anything like here in Delaware. Looks like it has tinges of blue-green in the wings and tail. The only bird I know of with that color is a young tree swallow, but it does not look like a tree swallow.

It's Gray Jay, Canada's national bird.

Meet our national bird: the gray jay | Canadian Geographic

[SSGGeezer]

It's Gray Jay, Canada's national bird.

Meet our national bird: the gray jay | Canadian Geographic

Cool article on them, But there is some near impoliteness in the comments section over the selection as National Bird. It makes sense based on the Article.

[grispie]

Looking at the below shots, can i do something here with a da300 and tc 1.4? No idea ..
These are all at 300mm with the 55 300. they are worthless but i wanted to get an idea of what 300mm (& tc..) means in this place..

[Des]

With those examples, I don't think the settings were ideal. 1/200th, 1/250th, 1/250th, 1/320th - a bit slow unless the bird is absolutely stationary. Apertures f6,3, f5.8, f14 and f8 - really the first two were too wide and the third unnecessarily narrow, in those conditions. I find it best to aim for f8 with that lens if at all possible. You had room to move on the shutter speed and aperture, because the ISO was 100, 100, 100 and 200. One reason the egret shot is the best of the four is that you had the best settings (and the overall exposure is better - the others are under-exposed). Even then you could have stayed at f8, gone for 1/640th or so, and bumped the ISO to 400 or 800 without any significant cost in quality.

What the prime alone would give you is one-two extra stops of aperture (very good at f4, excellent at f5.6). You could have used that on aperture or shutter or ISO. That would have improved the result; with the better resolution of the prime I think you would have got slightly better results than you could have got using the 55-300 with optimal settings.

If you had used the TC with the DA*300, that would have gained more reach but cost one stop. Whether the result would be better than the bare prime and cropping is a moot question. Much depends on distance to subject, and the lighting (that is, how much one stop matters). My feeling (based on my experience with the FA*300 + TC) is that for the second and fourth photos the distance to subject and degree of cropping required would have favoured using the TC; the others maybe not. The other factor is that for the birds in flight in photos 1 and 3, the slower AF response with the TC would have been a disadvantage.

[Alex645]

Looking at the below shots, can i do something here with a da300 and tc 1.4?

With those examples, I don't think the settings were ideal.

What the prime alone would give you is one-two extra stops of aperture (very good at f4, excellent at f5.6). You could have used that on aperture or shutter or ISO. That would have improved the result; with the better resolution of the prime I think you would have got slightly better results than you could have got using the 55-300 with optimal settings.

Agreed with Des. With your K3 with the 55-300mm, you'll want at least 1/500 or faster and f/8 or f/9.5. ISO 800-1200 is worth it to get the necessary shutter speed and aperture. With a 1.4x teleconverter, I'd use at least 1/750" but you're losing another stop or EV and wouldn't do it unless it was sunny.

With a DA 300mm with it's constant f/4 max aperture, it would give you at least 1 EV or stop advantage and the improved resolution to crop. Is cropping a DA 300mm the equivalent of using the same lens with a 1.4x TC better or worse? I'd crop if I had mediocre light levels. I'd use the TC if I had direct sun.

[grispie]

With those examples, I don't think the settings were ideal. 1/200th, 1/250th, 1/250th, 1/320th - a bit slow unless the bird is absolutely stationary. Apertures f6,3, f5.8, f14 and f8 - really the first two were too wide and the third unnecessarily narrow, in those conditions. I find it best to aim for f8 with that lens if at all possible. You had room to move on the shutter speed and aperture, because the ISO was 100, 100, 100 and 200. One reason the egret shot is the best of the four is that you had the best settings (and the overall exposure is better - the others are under-exposed). Even then you could have stayed at f8, gone for 1/640th or so, and bumped the ISO to 400 or 800 without any significant cost in quality.

Well, to be honest, i didn't care much about the settings as i just wanted to find out what the 300mm would be like in that specific place. In terms of 'will 300 with a tc get enough reach in this watery place..'
However, your comment is very useful as bird photography is all new to me. I know i will have to get the technique under my thumb. i've never worked with user settings either. I think for this, a user setting is ideal.

this:

The other factor is that for the birds in flight in photos 1 and 3, the slower AF response with the TC would have been a disadvantage.

Is it significant slower? I've been reading all some contradictory things on the net..
I will say this: i was not dissappointed with the focus speed 'sometimes' with the k3 and da55 300. On other occasions it started hunting. But i'm pretty convinced the K3 with a fast focusing lens can handle it. It is me who needs to learn to handle it.

Is cropping a DA 300mm the equivalent of using the same lens with a 1.4x TC better or worse? I'd crop if I had mediocre light levels. I'd use the TC if I had direct sun.

yep, thus tc is no miracle solution :-)
thank you

---------- Post added 11-24-17 at 09:13 AM ----------

ISO 800-1200 is worth it to get the necessary shutter speed and aperture

higher is not really advisable with the K3 i think?

[Alex645]

higher is not really advisable with the K3 i think?

For photojournalism (news), it doesn't matter, get the shot at any ISO, and with black and white, you can get away with a lot under ISO 3200. But in color, you'll start seeing significant artifacts from the sensor at ISO 1600.

Here's a link to what DXOmark tested. Based on their assessment, ISO 1200 was the threshold for high ISO on the K3.

Pentax K-3 Sensor performance - DxOMark

Keep in mind that if you're shooting RAW, you're probably better off under exposing a shot at 800 ISO by -2 EV than correctly exposing it at 3200 ISO. It's a matter of either having good software and PP skills vs. letting the K3 processor boost the db gain. It'd be cool if someone actually posted that comparison.

[grispie]

Keep in mind that if you're shooting RAW, you're probably better off under exposing a shot at 800 ISO by -2 EV than correctly exposing it at 3200 ISO. It's a matter of either having good software and PP skills vs. letting the K3 processor boost the db gain. It'd be cool if someone actually posted that comparison.

To be honest, i'm really not that impressed with lifting underexposed shadows in a shot made with the K3.
Would be a nice comparison to make indeed..

[Des]

Well, to be honest, i didn't care much about the settings as i just wanted to find out what the 300mm would be like in that specific place. In terms of 'will 300 with a tc get enough reach in this watery place..' However, your comment is very useful as bird photography is all new to me. I know i will have to get the technique under my thumb. i've never worked with user settings either. I think for this, a user setting is ideal.

More reach is better at those kinds of distances. An effective 420 or 500 would be better. But I think you could still pull out reasonable crops from the size of the subjects in photos 1, 3 and 4. And you need to remember that the trade-offs for extra reach are that you need more steadiness in the camera (it gets progressively harder to shoot handheld without motion blur), you may need a higher shutter speed, and you lose more light.

I'd say before laying out a lot of money for more reach, try to work on the settings and technique at 300 first. A few solid practice sessions at 300, in different lighting and with subjects at different distances, trying different settings and concentrating on technique, will give you a better framework for going longer. Maybe even experiment with the difference between under-exposing at lower ISO and correctly exposing at higher ISO to see what works better. (FWIW, I've tried both and I don't think there is a single right answer.)

Is it significant slower? I've been reading all some contradictory things on the net.. I will say this: i was not dissappointed with the focus speed 'sometimes' with the k3 and da55 300. On other occasions it started hunting. But i'm pretty convinced the K3 with a fast focusing lens can handle it. It is me who needs to learn to handle it.

Any TC is going to affect AF performance to some extent, if only because less light is reaching the camera. I can't comment on the DA*300 + DA 1.4x TC combination.

[normhead]

AF can be used until about ƒ9.3. I can't get AF to work at all with the the 1.7x AF adapter an A-400 ƒ5.6, but F5.6 works fine and as far as I know f-8 works pretty good as well. It seriously depends on the bird in flight. I've practiced on seagulls with the MF A-400 and managed to nail a few shots, so the AF has to be pretty much inoperable before it's useless. There's not AF system anywhere slower than me cranking that A-400. Find if the widest aperture of the lens is 9.3, the lens simply won't focus.

With regards to underexposing, that also increases noise. Less light, more noise, it doesn't really matter whether you do it with the EV dial, or the ISO setting.

For the images posted above, the 1.4 TC will make huge difference used on a DA*300. Not necessarily on a 55-300. You are already well beyond the range at which you are going to much detail in your photos because your subject is so small. There is going to be a 37% increase in resolution on your subject, with the 1.4 TC and that will be visible. But at the distance, it's still not going to be a great image. maybe a 1200mm lens would be better. A 300 with TC really isn't getting you into the ball park if the subject is the bird.

For BiFs, I never go under 1/1000s. You don't know what your lens is capable of shooting under that.

Is cropping a DA 300mm the equivalent of using the same lens with a 1.4x TC better or worse?

Worse. The TC gives you a 37% increase in subject resolution. Cropping to the same size reduces resolution 40% As long as you have good lens that is out resolving your sensor the TC is going to give you a better image, unless you are right on the edge of your ISO limit, and it still may. YOu have to take a really big his in resolution from noise reduction etc to equal a 40% resolution drop.

I have a few lenses that are not sharp enough to take advantage of a TC, my F 70-210, my VIvitat M 135 are examples, old film lenses that were consumer lenses not DA*s. Most long lenses are fine with a TC and our Sigma 70, Tamron 90 and Pentax 100 macros all work great with he TC. For the lenses I bought the TC for, the Tamron 300 2.8, the DA*200 2.8 and the DA*6-250 ƒ4, there is no noticeable penalty using the TC. I suspect any difference is so small as to be difficult to measure.

Here are 7 images taken with the DA*60-250 and F 1.7x AF adapter. I would be pretty hard to argue you'd get better taking the TC off, and cropping the image.These images are on an overcast day except for the woodpecker at the end. Low light isn't as much of a problem as people often make it out to be, as longs you are under your ISO limit (for me on a K-3 that's 640 ISO, and 1/1000 of faster.

http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...-7%20TC?sort=3

[grispie]

I'd say before laying out a lot of money for more reach, try to work on the settings and technique at 300 first. A few solid practice sessions at 300, in different lighting and with subjects at different distances, trying different settings and concentrating on technique, will give you a better framework for going longer. Maybe even experiment with the difference between under-exposing at lower ISO and correctly exposing at higher ISO to see what works better. (FWIW, I've tried both and I don't think there is a single right answer.)

For the images posted above, the 1.4 TC will make huge difference used on a DA*300.

For these reasons & more, i just purchased a black friday ,substantially rebated, da300 + TC 1.4. One has to start somewhere.
When i look at all the lovely pics in this thread, if anything is holding back making nice bird shots, it will be myself..

Time to go out & practice.. well, in a couple of days i guess ;-) & we'll take it from there.

Thank you all very much for your precious advice!!

[csa]

Congratulations! I certainly envy you, and wish you great success with that combo. Please post some photos for us to enjoy!