[WPRESTO]

Do you know of a good Chiropractor?

"Morning Neck" ....(maybe I'm projecting here......)


K3 and DFA 150-450

That is a HOOT!

---------- Post added 06-09-17 at 08:15 AM ----------

Thank you, if it is related to my pictures

Oh yes, I was praising and envying the images. Had I taken any one of them, it would have made me happy as a clam, assuming that molluscs experience joy.

[Ducatigaz]

Fox Cub K-3ii/FA*600mmF4ED[IF]/Eckla window mount.

[normhead]

Today in AF.s. The birds are done with the puddle, although it's amazing how much they excavated from that hole.

Tamron 300 ƒ2.8 and K-3.

Today I found barn swallows. 100 ISO, ƒ 10 0r 14, 3 at 1/320s.

[alfa75ts]

By coincidence, during a walk in the park yesterday.

Best friends? K3 with Bigma at full stretch.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[lukulele]

Tar River back waters, Pitt County, NC. K-3, A/400

[Greyser]

Guess the confusion is that you had included Sigma 500/4.5 among all APSC gear that you are selling
Good luck.

Thanks. I definitely need it

---------- Post added 06-09-17 at 08:15 PM ----------

Do you know of a good Chiropractor?

"Morning Neck" ....(maybe I'm projecting here......)


K3 and DFA 150-450

Love it! Would crop it differently, though.

---------- Post added 06-09-17 at 08:19 PM ----------

I just throw it on the camera and shoot. Sometimes it vignettes a bit, sometimes it doesn't. I almost always get at least 30 MP out of those files and often when cropping 9x16, 3x4, or 4x5 I get the same Image I would have using an FF TC.

My whole swallow series above is shot with the 1.4 TC on the K-1. Vignetting? What vignetting?

Although from what I understand it's worse on some lenses than others. maybe I just got lucky in my lens selections. Honestly, my 18-135 vignettes just as bad on my K-3 from time to time.

I wouldn't use it on a landscape, but with wildlife, I'm going to be cropping much of the time in any case.

Good point! I never used it actually since I purchased it together with DFA 150-450. For our SoCal bright weather it might work. Thank you.
BTW, Swallows are great. I observed similar activities a couple of times. They are not easy to shoot at all.

---------- Post added 06-09-17 at 08:21 PM ----------

Today in AF.s. The birds are done with the puddle, although it's amazing how much they excavated from that hole.

Tamron 300 ƒ2.8 and K-3.

Today I found barn swallows. 100 ISO, ƒ 10 0r 14, 3 at 1/320s.

Good job with manual AF!

---------- Post added 06-09-17 at 08:24 PM ----------

Fox Cub

Love all of them! Such a lovely creature! Recently bumped in one too.

[skierd]

Hey norm, do you use a polarizing filter or have you considered one? There's a harshness to the birds from the extremely bright highlights, at least on my screen(s), that one might help. They're also a bit over sharpened maybe? Could be jpeg web compression too. Dunno, just thinking out loud.

Today in AF.s. The birds are done with the puddle, although it's amazing how much they excavated from that hole.

Tamron 300 ƒ2.8 and K-3.

Today I found barn swallows. 100 ISO, ƒ 10 0r 14, 3 at 1/320s.

[Pentaxians]

Sharing the Niltava, was captured during my earlier trip in China, Yunnan province.

The Large Niltava:

Rufous-bellied Niltava (Male):

Rufous-bellied Niltava (Female):

[Sterby]

I prefer full 24MP of K-3 or at least 20-21MP of 7DII or D500. With K-1 crop I shoot only Sigma 8-16, because I don't have FF UW lens equivalent and do not crop much.

I think you are mistaking the technical MP resolution with the lens resolution, plus hanging up on a technicality "issue". The 24MP APS-C sensor has similar pixel pitch or resolution as the Canon 5Ds R 50MP FF sensor. There are very few lenses capable of resolving such a sensor.
APS-C 16MP is still more than you will ever need doing simple A4 prints or having images to display on the internet, not to mention most of the wildlife shots are cropped in to begin with.
Why not have the crop right away with APS-C crop mode and have the added reach of the 1.4x TC? You will still have the necessary information and details in the end result.
The lens resolution if different from the sensor, and most of the small details will cover more pixels, so even having a 24MP size image the contained information is much smaller. Not to mention the noise and resolution defects usually wash out in print, and on an A4 size print you will have less than 10MP information, depending on the paper and ink quality and the printers accuracy. Even less for an image meant to be displayed on a digital display and stored on the internet.
What I'm saying is, having the shot no matter what is more important than having to worry about a technicality number and not doing the shot because of it.

[normhead]

Hey norm, do you use a polarizing filter or have you considered one? There's a harshness to the birds from the extremely bright highlights, at least on my screen(s), that one might help. They're also a bit over sharpened maybe? Could be jpeg web compression too. Dunno, just thinking out loud.

Overhead sun in the middle of the day. The birds are so dark they were under exposed, leading to much higher contrast. There are very low levels of sharpening applied, certainly not over sharpened. I suspect the big issue here is the angle to the sun and the very clear day. You have bright highlights beside deep shadows on each feather shaft. At least that's my take. If your polarizing filter cleans up things like that, that's not what a polarizing filter is supposed to do.

The first element of photography is light. Harsh light, harsh image, softer light, softer image. This is harsh to the nth light. This is made worse by the fact I left my TCs at home, these images are cropped more than I usually crop, and the shadows are severely underexposed. But with this scene, correctly exposing the birds would have blown out the rail they are sitting one. It was definitely a 20,000:1 contrast kind of day. If I go back today, I'll probably bracket on a tripod. HDR may be in order. Today is the same. Unfortunately my chance to get out in morning light is gone already so I'll be struggling with the same conditions today. There is the ride for cancer in front of this park today so I don't even know if I'll be able to get there. They were blocking off all the roads with temporary fencing yesterday.

---------- Post added 06-10-17 at 09:05 AM ----------

I think you are mistaking the technical MP resolution with the lens resolution, plus hanging up on a technicality "issue". The 24MP APS-C sensor has similar pixel pitch or resolution as the Canon 5Ds R 50MP FF sensor. There are very few lenses capable of resolving such a sensor.

Any DA od DA* lens will resolve a 24 MP sensor. I can't speak for the 50 MP Canon but I've heard the problems are with moire in that system, not with resolution

Look at the Imagine Resources resolution tests on those cameras.

K-5 (approximate K-1 in crop) About 2100 lw/ph
K-3 2700 lw/ph

With the Canon "though some aliasing in the form of luminance moiré can be seen starting at about 3,300 to 3,400 lines per pixel height. Still, the aliasing is fairly minor and all lines in the pattern can be clearly distinguished at the 4,000 line limit of our chart. If memory serves me well, the K-3 was delayed for about a year while Pentax death with some of these issues on the first sensor Sony supplied. The issues cross talk and false colour. They eventually got it cleaned up. Looking at the results might imply Canon was a little more cavalier and just tossed the camera out there without cleaning up those issues.

SO essentially, using finer and finer pixels does create some issues but long story short, finer pixel array, more resolution. There is no indication the sensors out resolving modern lenses. Although I could make a case that my old VIvitar M135 2.8 is out resolved by my K-3.

A K-1 tests out about 3600 lw/ph. so you definitely gain resolution going from 36 MP FF to 50 MP FF. Whether or not you actually need that resolution for anything is a different issue. Personally where I want resolution is landscape. (But even here, you can't argue that a finer sensor creates more resolution, whether or not people actually prefer the higher resolution image is open t debate.) Simple fact, my cheap ($100) FA-J 18-35 gives me better images on my K-1 than my Sigma 8-16 gives me on my K-3, (but it only goes to an equivalence of 12mm.) . That being said, at this point I can't really point to one image where the Sigma 8-16 on APS_c didn't meet my needs. It's the angle of view I'm interested in, not the resolution, which has been more than adequate since the k-5. The 18-35 is the same field of view as a 12mm on FF. The only available lens that can replace my sigma 8-16 for FoV would be the Sigma 12-24, and you'd have to kill an owner and pry it out of his cold dead hands to get one. Even the Pentax 15-30 doesn't get there.

If your lens isn't long enough you can crop. If the field of filed of view isn't wide enough you're choices are things like stitching. That's way more work.

[Sterby]

Any DA od DA* lens will resolve a 24 MP sensor. I can't speak for...

Yes, I probably oversimplified things. The problem here is we are already sinking more into technicalities than we should. Regardless of lens resolution and sensors, what we want in an image is the contained information, the subject and the small details.
I can safely say most of us in this wildlife parts of the forums are doing this for the fun of it rather than for a living. Two main ways to go for the end result, the processed image, are either posting them online in an HD resolution image max., or printing them out for ourselves, mostly not bigger than A4, on home "photo" office printers and shiny photo papers. Saying that getting only 16MP in crop mode is pointless because the information we can extract in those two kind of end result is less than the 16MP sensor resolution.
I mean, you can have just as good a result in your home print from a 24MP or a 16MP photo. Putting on that crop TC on the K-1 will give the opportunity of the added reach and getting the shot.
Yes, it is lower resolution than all the "pro" gear can give or from an ideal FF 2xTC on the Sigma 500/4.5 but it gets you the image, and in your end result the difference is negligible, especially looking at it from a couple steps away.
Just look at the images I posted here, all of them on the soft side of the 50-500 Bigma or the bee-eater sequence on my 50-200 kit zoom, slightly missing focus in half of them.
Just today I got told by my dad that I'm too harsh on myself, judging what photos to put into print and what to discard, because for anyone else all the photos look superb. That tells me the information is there, people can still see it, so it makes no sense worrying about botching image quality with a TC or slightly missed focus but otherwise well timed and framed shots.

There is a lecture with Arthur Morris on teleconverters and long lenses, even stacking TCs or using softer lenses with TCs and still getting the shots. What he is telling there, at least how I understood it, is getting the framing, getting the subject closer is more important than crystal clear per-pixel sharpness. Yes, a clear image is nice, but a well composed image is good without being crystal clear. You don't have to shy away from getting a shot just because your current gear is not an ideal set of compromises.

To summerize my great wall of text: Greyser immediately responded to my suggestion of putting on the TC regardless it being a crop TC with a complaint on not enough MP. I think it is bullcrap and he is denying himself the potential shots.
Plus some rambling about technicality bullcrap.

[normhead]

Yes, I probably oversimplified things. The problem here is we are already sinking more into technicalities than we should. Regardless of lens resolution and sensors, what we want in an image is the contained information, the subject and the small details.
I can safely say most of us in this wildlife parts of the forums are doing this for the fun of it rather than for a living. Two main ways to go for the end result, the processed image, are either posting them online in an HD resolution image max., or printing them out for ourselves, mostly not bigger than A4, on home "photo" office printers and shiny photo papers. Saying that getting only 16MP in crop mode is pointless because the information we can extract in those two kind of end result is less than the 16MP sensor resolution.
I mean, you can have just as good a result in your home print from a 24MP or a 16MP photo. Putting on that crop TC on the K-1 will give the opportunity of the added reach and getting the shot.
Yes, it is lower resolution than all the "pro" gear can give or from an ideal FF 2xTC on the Sigma 500/4.5 but it gets you the image, and in your end result the difference is negligible, especially looking at it from a couple steps away.
Just look at the images I posted here, all of them on the soft side of the 50-500 Bigma or the bee-eater sequence on my 50-200 kit zoom, slightly missing focus in half of them.
Just today I got told by my dad that I'm too harsh on myself, judging what photos to put into print and what to discard, because for anyone else all the photos look superb. That tells me the information is there, people can still see it, so it makes no sense worrying about botching image quality with a TC or slightly missed focus but otherwise well timed and framed shots.

There is a lecture with Arthur Morris on teleconverters and long lenses, even stacking TCs or using softer lenses with TCs and still getting the shots. What he is telling there, at least how I understood it, is getting the framing, getting the subject closer is more important than crystal clear per-pixel sharpness. Yes, a clear image is nice, but a well composed image is good without being crystal clear. You don't have to shy away from getting a shot just because your current gear is not an ideal set of compromises.

To summerize my great wall of text: Greyser immediately responded to my suggestion of putting on the TC regardless it being a crop TC with a complaint on not enough MP. I think it is bullcrap and he is denying himself the potential shots.
Plus some rambling about technicality bullcrap.

One of my favrouite stories...
Tess and I were selling in our craft show booth, a man came over to her and asked if he gets a special deal for buying two 20x30 canvases. So we settle on $500 for two instead of $300 each. He says "I want that one and that one." One of the images he selected was a K20D that would have been different with more dynamic range, and the slightly higher resolution. Tess launched into this long spiel about, better camera more dynamic range more resolution , you don't really want that one, blah blah blah. At one point the guy put up his hand to stop here and said " I want that one and that one, indicating the one she'd tried to talk him out of. I swear, sometimes photographers are their own worst enemies.

Wish I had it on video.

I think it is quite common for beginning photographers to start adhering to technical standards that are not important to the general public.

[Greyser]

Yes, I probably oversimplified things. The problem here is we are already sinking more into technicalities than we should. Regardless of lens resolution and sensors, what we want in an image is the contained information, the subject and the small details.
I can safely say most of us in this wildlife parts of the forums are doing this for the fun of it rather than for a living. Two main ways to go for the end result, the processed image, are either posting them online in an HD resolution image max., or printing them out for ourselves, mostly not bigger than A4, on home "photo" office printers and shiny photo papers. Saying that getting only 16MP in crop mode is pointless because the information we can extract in those two kind of end result is less than the 16MP sensor resolution.
I mean, you can have just as good a result in your home print from a 24MP or a 16MP photo. Putting on that crop TC on the K-1 will give the opportunity of the added reach and getting the shot.
Yes, it is lower resolution than all the "pro" gear can give or from an ideal FF 2xTC on the Sigma 500/4.5 but it gets you the image, and in your end result the difference is negligible, especially looking at it from a couple steps away.
Just look at the images I posted here, all of them on the soft side of the 50-500 Bigma or the bee-eater sequence on my 50-200 kit zoom, slightly missing focus in half of them.
Just today I got told by my dad that I'm too harsh on myself, judging what photos to put into print and what to discard, because for anyone else all the photos look superb. That tells me the information is there, people can still see it, so it makes no sense worrying about botching image quality with a TC or slightly missed focus but otherwise well timed and framed shots.

There is a lecture with Arthur Morris on teleconverters and long lenses, even stacking TCs or using softer lenses with TCs and still getting the shots. What he is telling there, at least how I understood it, is getting the framing, getting the subject closer is more important than crystal clear per-pixel sharpness. Yes, a clear image is nice, but a well composed image is good without being crystal clear. You don't have to shy away from getting a shot just because your current gear is not an ideal set of compromises.

To summerize my great wall of text: Greyser immediately responded to my suggestion of putting on the TC regardless it being a crop TC with a complaint on not enough MP. I think it is bullcrap and he is denying himself the potential shots.
Plus some rambling about technicality bullcrap.

I have shot wildlife with K-x, K-5, K-5IIs, K-3, and K-1. And I can tell you that K-3 produces more details (unfortunately more initial noise too) than all 16MP alternatives. Regardless what your own experience with Bigma tells you AF accuracy and image details matter a lot in wildlife shooting. For example I always try to focus on the eye. I simply don't keep images with soft eye appearance.







Second of all. K-1 is the great camera. It looks to me that AF of K-1 is slightly better then all of preceeding APS-C models. However, K-1 provides a 4.4fps vs. 8.3fps of K-3 (10fps of 7D Mark II and D500). Once I shot a fight of two humming birds with K-5 and FA*300/4.5. Humming birds are very territorial and fight a lot over their common places. In total I got 8 frames which means that with 7fps shooting range of K-5 the whole fight duration was slightly over 1 sec. Below is frame #7. Please don't judge it harshly. The shot was taken in deep shadow against the sun and the image was cleaned up extensively at PP. Anyway, I doubt that I could get such lucky shot with 4.4fps.



Regarding TCs. Following your logic that average wildlife photographer should be happy with A4 or Internet size images, why not just crop from highly resolving sensor? But, I paid my dues here too. Long time ago I even did a short study evaluating five best TCs available in Pentax mount at that time. I purchased FA*300/4.5 over DA*300/4 to shoot it with AF 1.4x TC. Then I switched back to pure 300mm when 1.4x AF Pz Tamron equipped lens was unable to AF steady on simple slowly flying osprey. To make it short. TC robs one stop or more from your lens. it prompts you to shoot at slower shutter speeds. If someone have a beautiful (but heavy by default) 300-400/2.8 lens it is probably OK. If someone shoots DA 55-300 or Bigma with 1.4X TC it is there own choice. Regardless how people praise "perfectness" of TC, there is no magic. It is a simple physics. TC adds an extra glass elements in optical path, that always affect final output. I'm not a snob. I understand that people shoot what they can afford or at least justify money wise. However, pro glass is simply PRO GLASS.
There are a few excuses when shooting an action. Dynamics of the bodies and appearance of the scenery may compensate for not good lens or technique. The wings on the next image are a bit soft. But I like it as a whole.




However, if someone shoots, let say, bird portrait, cleanness of details matter.





And now regarding your statement: You don't have to shy away from getting a shot just because your current gear is not an ideal set of compromises.
I don't. Sometimes I simply unable to get a shot due to well known Pentax cameras limitations. It is that simple.

Have fun,

SG

[wtlwdwgn]

Good post, great shots!

[Greyser]

Good post, great shots!

Thanks.