[UncleVanya]

Invest in a blind.

[Digitalis]

Invest in a blind.

Or a ghillie suit. Which is basically how I got this:


Pentax K10D - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG - FYI, this blue wren female is about the size of a golf ball.

[bertwert]

Or a ghillie suit. Which is basically how I got this:

I suppose the beard helps your face blend into the grass/trees too...

[SSGGeezer]

here is a Painted Turtle who is about 10 inches long from about 10 meters away, (or less,) K-1 with D-FA 150-450 at 450mm. As the turtle is about 10 inches long, with this image full size is 4395px on the long side after cropping, and he still takes up about a third of the frame. It just proves that for little critters, you need to get close.

[normhead]

Just going to throw this out there...
I know a lot of people who get pretty impressive shots with bridge cameras.
Something like the Canon SX70 HS or the Nikon Coolpix P1000.
To get the equivlent focal length in 35mm format would be incredibly cost prohibitive.
They can shoot in RAW too. Not bad for birding at all..
Too bad Pentax stopped R&D in the XG1 series..

MY buddy shoots with a similar camera. And I have my ZS100. The problem with the small sensor cameras is with the smaller pixels sites, diffraction sets in a lot sooner. ƒ4 gives you a chance at a decent image but ƒ2.8 to be safe. SO as you zoom out, and what usually happens is the aperture becomes smaller and after about 150mm equivalent of even before), the image is diffraction limited.

Another is these small cameras are so unsteady in my hands it takes a tripod to steady them, at least in my experience. even new models with huge lenses on the like the Panasonic Lumix FZ2000 / FZ2500 are 2.8-4.5, which will be somewhat diffraction limited by the end of it's reach. And it's 480 mm equivalent, I regularly shoot shoot the 510 on APS-c with is over 750mm equivalent.

My buddy with this type of camera gets amazing images when close to the subject. Further away, not so much.
So it's not so much that I didn't give it a try, because I did with my ZS100, it's that once you're spoiled by a larger sensor camera, the limitations of the smaller sensors are painfully obvious.

3 or 4 years ago I took a picture of a woodpecker with my Optio W90 on a hike at full reach. Trust me, if you like feather detail a 1:2.3 sensor is not the answer. The diffraction limit is brutal.

[Digitalis]

Pentax K7 - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG.

I suppose the beard helps your face blend into the grass/trees too...

Unfortunately the ginger colour of my beard stands out though, I just dunk my face in some mud, it does wonders for the complexion and the upshot is it makes me practically invisible.

[RICHARD L.]

Not to surmise but the Canon G3X I use gives me awesome pictures. It has a 1 inch sensor and an 8.8 to 220.0 mm superzoom. I leave it at f/5.6 all the time. Here are a few examples :

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 06-02-2020 at 09:15 AM.

[normhead]

Those would be typical of my ZS100 images. At times they look seriously over sharpened there is way too much cooking in camera. The distance shot with the arch is diffraction limited but when I like that look, I've applied the Photoshop water colour filter to achieve that look.It still produces pleasing images. I find the problem with the 1 inch sensor is it can be seriously awesome or seriously flawed depending on circumstances.

To me the last two are the ones where that format shines. Not too close to he camera like the pie, where there are some sharpening artifacts, not too far away like the arch, where diffraction has affected image quality, but out standing medium range quality, up there with anything.

You might be surprised by setting your Aperture to 2.8 for as long as possible. At that setting and close to medium range it's equal to a DSLR.



The DoF at ƒ2.8 on a 1 inch sensor is still to die for, and the images are DSLR quality. But you do have to be more aware of the limitations of the camera. There are a lot more ways you can mess up.

[RICHARD L.]

This Canon 8.8 to 220.0 mm superzoom is the most complex lens I ever owned. It has 22 lens elements and still you can shoot with the sun head-on without seeing any flare. I will try f/4 next time ... lol ! Thanks !

[normhead]

This Canon 8.8 to 220.0 mm superzoom is the most complex lens I ever owned. It has 22 lens elements and still you can shoot with the sun head-on without seeing any flare. I will try f/4 next time ... lol ! Thanks !

You definitely need lenses finished to higher tolerances and more corrections with smaller sensors. Hence the cost of these systems compared to their APS-c counterparts. There's just no free lunch. I still see my ZS100 as a valuable addition, and for days when I take it, it's the size of one lens in my camera bag.

I can use it like an interchangeable lens, and just get it out when circumstances will take advantage of it's strengths. I was kind of hoping it would replace my 55-300 PLM on APS-c as an everyday kind of walk around, but the PLM /K-3 combo didn't lose their job.

[bertwert]

This thread came to mind while shooting this morning.

Here's an average size small songbird shot with a 400mm - I measured the distance as 30m from me to the subject. This image is cropped to half (quarter?) the size (half the pixels on the long edge), so I think this is the same FoV as an 800mm lens. With all that, it's still a much more 'environmental' shot of the bird. Goes to show how small they really are...

[automorphism]

I have birded extensively with both 300mm and 500mm on Pentax and Nikon respectively. Even with 500mm, I don't expect outstanding shots of small songbirds at greater than 20m. Upgrading to a better 300mm prime will help with that beautiful fine detail for closer shots and allow you a slight amount of additional cropping at longer-range shots. Upgrading your focal length will be the only thing that allows you to get those greater distance shots. To get better shots of certain species, spend time in the field and wait till they come closer.

[basrietkerk]

Hello pentaxians,
thanks for all your great feedback, recommendations and discussions both inside and outside the scope of my questions.
Since this afternoon I am the proud owner of a Sigma 100-300mm EX DG. And I am happy with it!
A fellow pentax lover decided to sell his lens, We had a great chat in his workshop and finished with a great deal.

Some of the first pics will be posted in my albums:
basrietkerk's Album: Sigma 100-300mm F4 EX DG - PentaxForums.com

Thanks again and I will try to blast you away with some excelent tele-photography over the coming months.

regards,
Bas

[Des]

Thanks again and I will try to blast you away with some excelent tele-photography over the coming months.

Congratulations Bas. I hope you will share your images and experiences in the long lenses thread: 300mm plus Lens Club: discuss your long lenses - PentaxForums.com

One word about the Sigma long lenses: they are known to be fussy about which teleconverters will work on which lens. I suggest you do some research about this.

As a post script to this discussion, I would add that I have been through the rounds of xx-300 consumer zoom (DA-L 55-300, DA 55-300 PLM), 300mm prime (FA*300 f4.5), xx-500mm zoom (Sigma 170-500) and long prime (Sigma 400mm f5.6 tele macro), and have tried a teleconverter with each. There is no perfect solution; everything is a compromise. The more so in K-mount, because the telephoto lens options (particularly for fast-focusing long lenses) are limited compared to other mounts. On the plus side, though, there are good affordable options - and a wealth of help and experience available here.

Of the lenses I have used the best optical quality comes from the FA*300 (although it is slow to focus, so not great for birds in flight). My most-used lens is the DA 55-300 PLM, for its very good image quality, light weight, versatility and fast AF. 300mm gets you reasonable coverage of small-medium sized birds within say 10m and heavily cropped images of anything beyond that. The bigger gun of a 400mm prime adds a lot of weight and bulk (about 1.3kg); the xx-500 even more so (about 2kg). As the distances to subject increase, so does the degree of difficulty - by the time I get to, say, wading birds at 40m, atmospheric conditions and subject size in the frame (even with the 400mm prime or 420mm of 300 + TC) will usually limit the shot to just a record of the observation. And long lenses eat light. I agree with what others have said, that the key to improving bird photography is to try to get closer to the birds and to observe and understand their behaviour.

The other thing I would add is that a flash with an extender can be a valuable addition, bringing out more colour and detail and allowing for some lower ISO/faster shutter/narrower aperture. Just limit the fill to one stop or so. And consider a cheap gel to ensure a more suitable colour temperature for the flash beam.