[boriscleto]

My wife has a Nikon (5500) and a Nikon 200 - 500 f5.6. It's no faster than my combo - K3, 150-450, it may be slightly behind at times. You would have to buy top line bodies and lenses to get better I feel.

Try that lens on a D500 and you would probably feel differently about needing a top line lens...but a D500 costs almost as much in Australia as a Pentax 150-450 and then you would need a lens too...

I have a Facebook friend who uses the D500 with the Nikon 200-500. He used to use a D600 with the Sigma 500/4.5...

[Kevriano]

Try that lens on a D500 and you would probably feel differently about needing a top line lens...but a D500 costs almost as much in Australia as a Pentax 150-450 and then you would need a lens too...

I have a Facebook friend who uses the D500 with the Nikon 200-500. He used to use a D600 with the Sigma 500/4.5...

Very possibly so, though I know someone with that combo, and he still finds it a little slow on birds in flight.

[rkappleby]

I got this guy today, he appears to be a 1st year juvenile Sig 500

[normhead]

Try that lens on a D500 and you would probably feel differently about needing a top line lens...but a D500 costs almost as much in Australia as a Pentax 150-450 and then you would need a lens too...

I have a Facebook friend who uses the D500 with the Nikon 200-500. He used to use a D600 with the Sigma 500/4.5...

Do people still buy 20 MP cameras?

[RobG]

My wife has a Nikon (5500) and a Nikon 200 - 500 f5.6. It's no faster than my combo - K3, 150-450, it may be slightly behind at times. You would have to buy top line bodies and lenses to get better I feel.

If a top line DSLR is needed, it negates the cost advantage in changing vendor - other than providing access to lenses which aren't available for Pentax.

The Tamron was the original version, about $1100. I thought the designation "Sport" was for the more expensive of Sigma's two 150-600mm lenses (the less expensive being called the "contemporary" model). I used the Tamron either on a tripod or a car-window bag essentially 100% of the time.

Sorry, I missed that it was the Tamron rather than the Sigma.

Try that lens on a D500 and you would probably feel differently about needing a top line lens...but a D500 costs almost as much in Australia as a Pentax 150-450 and then you would need a lens too...
I have a Facebook friend who uses the D500 with the Nikon 200-500. He used to use a D600 with the Sigma 500/4.5...

See above. If I have to pay the price of a K1 to get better AF performance than the K3, I might as well get the DFA 150-450.

Very possibly so, though I know someone with that combo, and he still finds it a little slow on birds in flight.

Yet I haven't heard anyone claiming that any Pentax DSLR is good for BIF. Continuous AF on Pentax has been stated as poor compared to Canikon. I've tried CAF on my K5iis and K3 but end up turning it off. I've had more success using normal AF and repeatedly half depressing the shutter release - with aircraft and BIF.

---------- Post added 30-09-16 at 12:21 PM ----------

Do people still buy 20 MP cameras?

I still use my K5iis which is only 16MP. The number of megapixels isn't necessarily the point, and yes I saw the smiley.

[derekkite]

A family of Cormorants

[Kevriano]

If a top line DSLR is needed, it negates the cost advantage in changing vendor - other than providing access to lenses which aren't available for Pentax.



Sorry, I missed that it was the Tamron rather than the Sigma.



See above. If I have to pay the price of a K1 to get better AF performance than the K3, I might as well get the DFA 150-450.



Yet I haven't heard anyone claiming that any Pentax DSLR is good for BIF. Continuous AF on Pentax has been stated as poor compared to Canikon. I've tried CAF on my K5iis and K3 but end up turning it off. I've had more success using normal AF and repeatedly half depressing the shutter release - with aircraft and BIF.

---------- Post added 30-09-16 at 12:21 PM ----------



I still use my K5iis which is only 16MP. The number of megapixels isn't necessarily the point, and yes I saw the smiley.

I still use CAF, just with single point centre focus, and track my subject manually. BIF are tricky regardless, but I've had reasonable success without much practice. Planes are no issue at all. Dragonflies as well, I've done very well with them recently, so I think it may be more down to practice and technique, as much as the gear you have.

[RobG]

I still use CAF, just with single point centre focus, and track my subject manually. BIF are tricky regardless, but I've had reasonable success without much practice. Planes are no issue at all. Dragonflies as well, I've done very well with them recently, so I think it may be more down to practice and technique, as much as the gear you have.

OK, using which lens and camera may I ask?

[Kevriano]

K3, DA 150 - 450, often with the 1.4 TC.

[tduell]

If I have to pay the price of a K1 to get better AF performance than the K3, I might as well get the DFA 150-450.

I use both the K-3 II and K-1 with the DFA 150-450 shooting birds perched and flying.
The K-1 AF does seem to be better than the K-3 II.

Cheers,
Terry

[normhead]

Yet I haven't heard anyone claiming that any Pentax DSLR is good for BIF. Continuous AF on Pentax has been stated as poor compared to Canikon. I've tried CAF on my K5iis and K3 but end up turning it off. I've had more success using normal AF and repeatedly half depressing the shutter release - with aircraft and BIF.

This always makes me curious, it's possible to do BiFs with manual lenses...
A-400


And using tracking


But I rarely shoot BiFs and have little opportunity.

So what I'm wondering, is, for a guy like myself for whom BiFs are a small part of my shooting, what is the difference in BiF worth? I'm happy to accept that Cabikon is better, the question to be answered is why should I care? Whenever I've gone out for BiFs, I have some images to show for it. It's not like I'm getting skunked here.

Are there actually people who buy cameras for their BiF capability? Is this relevant to many folk's purchasing decision?

This issue has always seemed to me to be marketing hype.

It's amazing how often fast focusing for BiFs etc is mentioned as if it's part of everyone's purchasing decision.

[Pentaxians]

An adult White-bellied Sea-eagle catch for the dinner...taken some time back with my K-S1 + Sigma 150-500mm HSM.

[cleaverx]

This always makes me curious, it's possible to do BiFs with manual lenses...
A-400

Of course you can, just a little practice. These are with SMC A 400mm f/5.6

K-3 and SMC A 400mm f/5.6

Ring-billed Gull



K-1 and SMC A 400mm f/5.6

Barn Owl



K-1 and SMC A 400mm f/5.6

Osprey

[normhead]

Which leads one to ask... to those who say " I have to have really fast AF for BiFs...." "What's wrong with you? "
The biggest issue with BiFs is my skill win tracking them in the viewfinder. The AF of the camera comes into play at times, but is not the critical element.

Met a guy from Ontario Outdoors shooting an owl in AP a few years ago. He was using high end Canon gear. I saw his published pictures, and I saw one of his prints sell in the Visitors centre, but in the magazine and and as 16x20 print, no one cared that it was bit soft. Sometimes the best gear doesn't get you a clean shot. I have no doubt a Pentax would have been worse. But I also have no doubt, if I'd been in the same location and nailed the shot with my K-1 and A-400, my images would have been a lot better. I guess I'm just a gambler at heart.

I'm willing to gamble that the resolution limitations of fast AF cameras will work in my favour, more than slower AF will mean I don't get images. The one thing that never gets mentioned discussing fast AF, is the price you pay in resolution to get it. I want the image, and the best possible resolution. In going for a fast AF camera, you've already conceded the resolution part.

[derekkite]

Funny story. I was shooting with a Tamron 400 f4 manual focus lens on the K5 iirc. A friend had a very nice Nikon 300 2.8 on the D7000 or whatever was out at the time. We came across a short eared owl, who hunt by sitting in the grass. The bird was flushed and flew around. I got the best shot, not a great one, but one in focus and clear enough to identify the bird.

Shooting low contrast moving things against changing backgrounds is very tough no matter what you have.

The cormorant in flight was far away, 500mm on the K1. I'm still fighting my gear, but so far am able to get shots that the K3 would not produce.