[Basie]

Shot handheld in bright daylight with k5 and DA*300. Just a great lens. Autofocus centre point and cropped a bit The colors are not,enhanced. This lilac breasted roller really looks like this. Locally it is called a troupant ( Afrikaans for wedding ring ).

[zzeitg]

You can't really conclude much from comparing with zzeitg's sun illuminated finches.

Sure. If there's not enough light, you can't expect any perfect shot.

but I'm convinced I'm getting much clearer and sharper pictures with D FA 24-70mm and D FA* 70-200mm lenses

That's correct. In bad light condition it's easier to deliver some light to the sensor through shorter lenses than through the long DA560 body tube.

[Weevil]

Harfang des neiges / Snowy Owl [Bubo scandiacus]
Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur, Québec, CANADA
Pentax K-3 II + SMC Pentax-FA* 250-600mm f5.6 ED [IF]
1/1000s, ƒ/6.3, ISO 160


Harfang des neiges / Snowy Owl [Bubo scandiacus]

[stihlmania]

I just took 100 test photos on everyones favorite subject, does a long telephoto need the drop in filter? It needs the filter holder [or tape over the hole] but with my K3-II and SMC A ☆ 400 F2.8 ED[IF] with Pentax F 1.7 AF adaptor the lens will focus just fine with or without a drop in filter. Others have mentioned that FF might have some issues..... These 2 shots do show a slightly better color saturation with the filter in place, both were downloaded to my computer, then copied to jpeg with no PP. The results are the almost exactly same with the 98 other test shots, operator error being the number 1 cause of image issues. IMG4602 is with the drop in filter [Pentax 49mm UV], IMG 4622 is without the filter.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Tigs]

Taken with Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 OS on a Pentax k-70

@luftfluss, @zzeitg, @mstahulak, & @marcusBMG:

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. Here's a couple more I did today, testing out in the yard. The neighbor's fence is about 46 yards from the camera, the dog about 28. ISO=800, f/9.0 (I wanted more depth of field to ensure the problem isn't a wider aperture softening the picture), 1/1250".

I experimented with and without the circular polarizer and a 112mm UV filter I had on the front, as well as with ttl and "live view". The CP filter made the shot darker, but had no other effect (in particular, rotating it appears to do nothing at all), and the presence or absence of the UV filter had no effect that I could perceive.

The tripod/head combination is rated for 38lbs. of video equipment, and appears to be stable. In the picture I took of the bird at the beach, the wind was definitely a factor. Today, here, it was mostly calm with gusts up to about five mph. In both cases I was using a wired remote shutter control with a three second (mirror up) delay.

Autofocus used in each case (by the way, there is a difference between TTL and LV, but it's in the exposure not the focus - LV makes it lighter by about half a stop - probably some setting I got wrong in the menu system).

The neighbor's siding is about 76 yards away, and the little flowers about 10 or 12 (settings changed from above, see exif).

These are also unprocessed, developed from DNG (silkypix) and uncropped. I do normally underexpose my shots by one or two stops, figuring I'm making sure I'm getting all the data I can, and that I can lighten things up in software later. I didn't do that on any of these in order to preserve the originals as closely as possible for analysis.

No question, the faster shutter speed makes an enormous difference.

Haven't experimented with the APS-C camera yet.

[Canada_Rockies]

@luftfluss, @zzeitg, @mstahulak, & @marcusBMG:

No question, the faster shutter speed makes an enormous difference.

Haven't experimented with the APS-C camera yet.

An old rule of thumb suggests the shutter speed should be faster than the reciprocal of the focal length. In your case, that would be about 1/560 ~ call it 1/800 ~ to "freeze" any movement. I tend to try for 1/800 with my 400 and I haven't used it hand held for decades. I must admit to using slower shutter speeds on occasion due to lighting conditions, but I notice the difference. As Luftfluss notes, it makes a huge difference when the shutter speed is increased. ISO 400 is about the minimum I use with the longer lenses, and I am not particularly fussy about anything under 1/1000 with the K-3. With APS-C, as I am using, it is better to go up another level because of the additional magnification of the movement on the sensor/film.

[Mike L]

A spiky neighbour, note the serious claws on this guy for ripping into ant and termite nests.

An old rule of thumb suggests the shutter speed should be faster than the reciprocal of the focal length. In your case, that would be about 1/560 ~ call it 1/800 ~ to "freeze" any movement. I tend to try for 1/800 with my 400 and I haven't used it hand held for decades. I must admit to using slower shutter speeds on occasion due to lighting conditions, but I notice the difference. As Luftfluss notes, it makes a huge difference when the shutter speed is increased. ISO 400 is about the minimum I use with the longer lenses, and I am not particularly fussy about anything under 1/1000 with the K-3. With APS-C, as I am using, it is better to go up another level because of the additional magnification of the movement on the sensor/film.

Good point, thanks!

I spent years (like, 20 some odd) with no lens other than a Canon 50mm f/1.4 (AE-1), and that was a step up from an Olympus fixed-lens point and shoot. So my habits are somewhat conditioned by that limitation. I became acquainted with Pentax when in college, my "work-study program" job was "photo-lab technician" serving the art school students' photography curricula. Later, as a software engineer sharing "inside jokes", my friends and I made up improbable error messages. My experience with this super-telephoto lens is beginning to remind me of one such: "IEX09554 - Probable User Error: Meditate and Resubmit".

[Canada_Rockies]

Good point, thanks!

I spent years (like, 20 some odd) with no lens other than a Canon 50mm f/1.4 (AE-1), and that was a step up from an Olympus fixed-lens point and shoot. So my habits are somewhat conditioned by that limitation. I became acquainted with Pentax when in college, my "work-study program" job was "photo-lab technician" serving the art school students' photography curricula. Later, as a software engineer sharing "inside jokes", my friends and I made up improbable error messages. My experience with this super-telephoto lens is beginning to remind me of one such: "IEX09554 - Probable User Error: Meditate and Resubmit".

I know the feeling. My career ended up with DBMS and users who don't even notice minor errors. "IEXomygod - You are submitting a price list for 05/13/5013?" A client just spent quite a few hours of my time and their money to put traps in for this very error. It was the most egregious of 40+ miskeyed dates.

SET RED_FACE BRIGHT
I won't mention my own errors.
SET RED_FACE OFF

... "IEX09554 - Probable User Error: Meditate and Resubmit".

Probably not user error. I've experimented with this lens on both the K-1 and the K-50, with filters on and off, at all sorts of combinations of different shutter speeds, ISO values, and aperture settings with exactly the same results. This particular implementation of this lens cannot take sharp pictures. I called Ricoh, they're supposed to get back to me with an RMA.

Whattapain. It's taken a lot of time and effort to figure out that the thing just don't work right.

[sutherland]

[Mike L]

That's a cracking set of photos!

---------- Post added 12th Mar 2019 at 09:50 AM ----------

Great cormorants looking for a hand out from fishermen cleaning fish are an easy target

[mstahulak]

Probably not user error. I've experimented with this lens on both the K-1 and the K-50, with filters on and off, at all sorts of combinations of different shutter speeds, ISO values, and aperture settings with exactly the same results. This particular implementation of this lens cannot take sharp pictures. I called Ricoh, they're supposed to get back to me with an RMA.

Whattapain. It's taken a lot of time and effort to figure out that the thing just don't work right.

It seemed like your last set were better. Without being able to pixel peep, the dog seems fine, there were sharp things in the ground cover image, etc. The thing is, I think you have to shoot at something with detail in it to actually see detail.

[sutherland]

If the EXIF is correct...
- ISO800
- f/10
- 1/500s

I'd suggest to set f5.6 or f/6.3 and higher ISO, which would lead to faster shutter speed.

Agreed.

f/5.6 to f/6.3 is plenty.

With a stationary subject like a perched Cormorant, I would still like to strive for a shutter speed that matches the effective focal length of the camera. If the exif is correct, 1/1000s would have been easy to achieve without any introduction of noise.

Also important to note that some AF systems struggle after f/8.

---------- Post added 03-11-19 at 06:21 PM ----------

That's a cracking set of photos!

---------- Post added 12th Mar 2019 at 09:50 AM ----------

Great cormorants looking for a hand out from fishermen cleaning fish are an easy target

Thanks! Likewise on the Cormorants. They are very misunderstood in the Pacific Northwest. Unfairly blamed for the decrease in the salmon population when a large Army Corps of Engineer managed dam is the culprit.