[aslyfox]

floating

[ cropped, no pp ]

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[biz-engineer]

The beaver pond.

no wonder why the trees around are very thin.

---------- Post added 25-04-18 at 07:50 ----------

Imaginative wildlife photography: This is the branch where the bird was before the photographer came.

[WPRESTO]

Tree swallows, Pana GX8* + 100~400mm Pana/Leica, cropped considerably (they were a long way out there). The 100~400mm is good, but not outstanding. It is definitely versatile and extremely convenient, being smaller/lighter that my Tamron 70~200mm f2.8. For posting on line, totally adequate, for poster-size prints, not a chance.

* My error (=my failing brain) posted the wrong camera body at first. Correction made.

[marcusBMG]

Your Oly 10 (exif says GX8?) looks a LOT less noisy than my old G1 WPRESTO - did you need to do much noise reduction?

[normhead]

So how do you arrive at 476mm?

With just the 2x converter the focal length would be 600mm (2x300=600).

With the 1.4x it would be 420mm (1.4x300=420).

I use the stacked 1.4 and 1.7 on the DA*200 2.8. Personally, I don't recommend using TCs on less than 2.8 glass, but, it's personal preference.

[str8talk83]

I use the stacked 1.4 and 1.7 on the DA*200 2.8. Personally, I don't recommend using TCs on less than 2.8 glass, but, it's personal preference.

Is this for AF reasons or image quality? My DA 300 takes the tc well. I wouldn’t bother using one on a slower lens f/5.6 or above myself. It’s hard to get enough light at this point and AF takes a major hit.

[WPRESTO]

Your Oly 10 (exif says GX8?) looks a LOT less noisy than my old G1 WPRESTO - did you need to do much noise reduction?

OOPS, my error. I sometimes bring both bodies and I forgot which one was on the 100~400mm. Thanks, I'll correct the post immediately.

[normhead]

Is this for AF reasons or image quality? My DA 300 takes the tc well. I wouldn’t bother using one on a slower lens f/5.6 or above myself.

AF reasons. My old A-400 F5.6 with the 1.7 won't even confirm focus accurately. Just set it to manual and turn off focus confirmation, you can do a better job by eye. AF is always bit snappier with wider apertures. I believe the Pentax AF system is designed to be used with 2.8 lenses, and it's all downhill from there.

[str8talk83]

AF reasons. My old A-400 F5.6 with the 1.7 won't even confirm focus accurately. Just set it to manual and turn off focus confirmation, you can do a better job by eye. AF is always bit snappier with wider apertures. I believe the Pentax AF system is designed to be used with 2.8 lenses, and it's all downhill from there.

That makes sense. The AF with the TC is a little bit "hit or miss" on the DA 300. I would try my 50-135 as a comparison, but it's a slow focusing lens so it probably wouldn't make for a valid comparison.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 04-25-2018 at 08:10 AM ----------

[zzeitg]

DA560

[repaap]

AF reasons. My old A-400 F5.6 with the 1.7 won't even confirm focus accurately. Just set it to manual and turn off focus confirmation, you can do a better job by eye. AF is always bit snappier with wider apertures. I believe the Pentax AF system is designed to be used with 2.8 lenses, and it's all downhill from there.

Well there is only 3 focus points at the middle which has competence of using 2.8 sensitivity and f4. Rest of them are f4. ...K-3 upwards has this. At least it says so at manual.

[str8talk83]

DA560

Great series!

[Racer X 69]

K5IIs, Sigma 300mm f2.8 EX APO DG, Sigma 2.0x EX APO DG Tele Converter and Sigma 1.4x EX APO DG Tele Converter

[siva.ss.kumar]

DA560

Lovely shots. Enjoyed all your posts.
Could you please let know how far were these birds? Thanks

[WPRESTO]

Lovely shots. Enjoyed all your posts.

+1 on that. Zzeitg always seems to set a high bar for the rest of us.