[Ducatigaz]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Possibly, but I would almost recommend leaving the 2X-L converter out of the mix next time as it seems to soften things and shooting at a minimum of f/16 diffraction starts making a mess too. The image looks a bit soft so I don't know if that is from the 2x converter or if the focus was ever so slightly missed so how did you get the infinity focus? For longer glass I like using a bahtinov mask as it makes getting perfect infinity focus super quick and easy and with big glass you can easily do it in live view. Also it makes it easy to check the focus as things shift from temp changes with astro shooting. If you want to create a Bahtinov Mask you can find some printable template ones that will likely work here.

Apart from that I would suggest starting with using setting equivalent to loony 11 so: F/11, ISO 100, 1/100s. With that 2400mm setup I wouldn't want to have a shutter speed slower than about 1/50s otherwise the movement of the moon across the sky will start to blur things. So running wide open at f/16 you could still shoot at ISO 100 and 1/50s and have a ballpark correct exposure but I find I typically will have to add another stop to 2 of exposure so you may be shooting at ISO 200 to 400 to get the most out of the image. Now to get a great shot you will just need to take a lot of them in the hopes of getting one with a really nice calm atmosphere.

Thank you for the info and links I will give it a try.
I think my main problem was taking pictures of the moon as it was rising. I bought the 2X-L just to try as the 1.4x-L works really well.

Would this work?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/High-Quality-Bahtinov-Mask-Focusing-Mask-for-Tele...AAAOSwGmlgBbuX

---

Last edited by Ducatigaz; 04-21-2021 at 04:01 AM.

[MossyRocks]

I think my main problem was taking pictures of the moon as it was rising.

Possiably there is more atmosphere in the way, thus more turbulance, when shooting more out than up but that usually shows up as distortion and local blurring. Also because you are shooting through more atmosphere you lose more light. I have both the 1.4X-L and 2X-L and find that the 1.4X-L is the better of the 2 but once I get a big equatorial I will shoot some astro things with the A* 400/2.8 and the 2X-L to get a tighter optical crop but will likely be running at f/8 or f/11.

Would this work?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/High-Quality-Bahtinov-Mask-Focusing-Mask-for-Tele...AAAOSwGmlgBbuX

Likely yes. There use to be an online generator that would create an optimal mask for a given focal length and open aperture but it has gone away. I generated masks for a couple of lenses and then got them 3d printed.

[Pentikonian]

This is great; to see the bird surrounded by the bokehed flowers makes this an amazing image.

Thank you!

[Pentikonian]

Male Gila Woodpecker off the patio this morning. K-1 + DA*300/4, slight crop.

[acoufap]

Europeans have the best squirrels.

Yes they are not that big, oft look very nice and show quite a variety in colours. It's not that often that I can catch them with the camera.

No squirrels in Minnesota?

[MossyRocks]

No squirrels in Minnesota?

We have big gray ones (and the black, white, and albino variations of them) that I find quite entertaining, some small red ones that just like to get up into the siding and insulation in your house and destroy things plus they are super territorial, small little striped ground squirrels (chipmunks) that are super greedy and tunnel under everything/

None of them are as fancy as the European ones that I have seen with the ear tufts.

[acoufap]

We have big gray ones (and the black, white, and albino variations of them) that I find quite entertaining, some small red ones that just like to get up into the siding and insulation in your house and destroy things plus they are super territorial, small little striped ground squirrels (chipmunks) that are super greedy and tunnel under everything/

None of them are as fancy as the European ones that I have seen with the ear tufts.

Ok, I see.

Some years ago I saw a documentation on TV. It was told that the grey ones are common in Great Britain and that they "eliminated" the smaller European ones. Hope this won't happen on the Continent.

[MossyRocks]

Some years ago I saw a documentation on TV. It was told that the grey ones are common in Great Britain and that they "eliminated" the smaller European ones. Hope this won't happen on the Continent.

Invasive species are a problem everywhere. With aggressive action most of the time they can be kept to nuisance level but it is really hard to eliminate them if they can survive the new environment.

[luftfluss]

Thanks! I wouldn't normally even bother taking a shot at that range, but I'm glad I did with them standing out in front of the mountain like that.


Whenever I go out, I'm still surprised how hard it can be to nail focus, and I think the extra depth-of-field I gain stopped down a bit slightly counters my inaccuracy without even mentioning the added sharpness of the sweet spot.

I find with the A400 that when I think I've attained focus, I have to go just a little bit further to really nail it.

And to the contrary, when I think I've attained focus with the Tamron SP 200-500/5.6, I need to back off a smidgen. What a world!

[HoutHans]

I find with the A400 that when I think I've attained focus, I have to go just a little bit further to really nail it.

And to the contrary, when I think I've attained focus with the Tamron SP 200-500/5.6, I need to back off a smidgen. What a world!

Wouldn't AF fine adjust in combination with catch in focus help in this regard? I really don't know, but it's just a thought.

[blankmampf]

Thanks!

I went out again in the evening light, got a more environmental shot of some whitetail dear. Being roughly 300m away, sneaking up skills were not required



K-50 and A 400/5.6, right on f/9.5 where it seems to perform its best.

Very interesting. I photographed some deer recently, and would've guessed that they were around 300m away as well. Must've been a fair bit more, then, since they appear smaller in my image than they do in yours, and I had 600mm effective focal range



Congratulations on the nice shot. Sadly we have no fancy whitetails here in old Germany

---------- Post added 04-21-21 at 10:14 PM ----------

I like the bird in the flowers there - nicely done.

I think you'll find you'll have better images cropping from just the 300 rather than using the teleconverter. Generally TCs will degrade the image quality a great deal, especially cheaper 2x ones, and the effect is even more so noticeable without a stellar lens in the first place.

And yes, manually focusing with little songbirds jumping all over the place is a real challenge, and takes a lot of practice!

I know. I'd like to get a decent 1.4x or 1.7x Teleconverter, but they're fairly expensive, even used, and my Gear Acquisition Syndrome had already been acting up enough this week
Getting one of those AF teleconverters that turn manual into autofocus lenses (at least for some part of the focus range) would be a dream for me. Maybe after saving up for a few months.

Cropping would be better, however, I simply don't have the resolution to do so. My K10D only has 10 megapixels at its most, and I can't crop much without the pictures becoming mushy. So as long as there's enough light, even a bad teleconverter is better than cropping, in my experience with this camera.

When stopping down to F/8, chromatic aberrations from the lens are fairly well controlled, and the teleconverter doesn't seem to add too much.

[marcusBMG]

I know. I'd like to get a decent 1.4x or 1.7x Teleconverter, but they're fairly expensive, even used, and my Gear Acquisition Syndrome had already been acting up enough this weekGetting one of those AF teleconverters that turn manual into autofocus lenses (at least for some part of the focus range) would be a dream for me. Maybe after saving up for a few months.Cropping would be better, however, I simply don't have the resolution to do so. My K10D only has 10 megapixels at its most, and I can't crop much without the pictures becoming mushy. So as long as there's enough light, even a bad teleconverter is better than cropping, in my experience with this camera.When stopping down to F/8, chromatic aberrations from the lens are fairly well controlled, and the teleconverter doesn't seem to add too much.

I would certainly argue that more MPx tends to be a better way to go than a tc. However the main arguement for upgrading to eg a K5 or K30, besides 16Mpx vs 10MPx, is... Live View. With magnification. An essential tool IMO to have with MF lenses. It also needs to be noted that many, or even most, vitage MF lenses don't have the resolution for a high MPx camera. What you do gain is more latitude (because more pixels/info) when processing the images. The bigger the resize, the more the image can sharpen up!
The novoflex 400mm (is it the 3 element T-noflexar you have) is one of the better/best vintage 400's imo (and see Stevemarks test pics here on mflenses). I have posted quite a bit here in the past with this lens. I mainly used my mirrorless on it (samsung NX20) the reason being that it otherwise needs three hands to operate lens, lens aperture, camera. The mirrorless evf maintains its brightness and has one button magnification so i am able to leave the lens on f8 - its definitely better iq on f8. It is a fun lens to see if you can get good using the trigger focus, but I have to say my best results tended to be using one with the macro rail add on, which provides an alternative "fine focus" mechanism. Have you seen the info and links here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/novoflex-noflexar-modular-pigriff-s...00mm-64cm.html


I have been using the 1.7x pentax tc with my tamron 300mm f2.8's. Results, I have to say, are mixed. It sounds good, the tc adding Af capability, but focus at 510mm f4.7 is so ticklish that missing it, for what ever reasons, is only too easy.

[bertwert]

I find with the A400 that when I think I've attained focus, I have to go just a little bit further to really nail it.

And to the contrary, when I think I've attained focus with the Tamron SP 200-500/5.6, I need to back off a smidgen. What a world!

I was going to ask, are you going off the AF indicator or your eyes for focus? If the former I'd guess it's a front/back focus issue...

Generally I just go off my eyes these days, but more the range that things are in focus is pretty small, confined with the long throw gives me lots of second guessing too...

Wouldn't AF fine adjust in combination with catch in focus help in this regard? I really don't know, but it's just a thought.

I've never got the hang of using catch in focus, I don't like the shutter not firing when I hit it... maybe I should give it another go

The problem however is the AF fine adjust, for manual lenses you'd have to set the global setting, and change it every time you change lenses... a fair bit of work...

[dadipentak]

I was going to ask, are you going off the AF indicator or your eyes for focus? If the former I'd guess it's a front/back focus issue...

Generally I just go off my eyes these days, but more the range that things are in focus is pretty small, confined with the long throw gives me lots of second guessing too...




I've never got the hang of using catch in focus, I don't like the shutter not firing when I hit it... maybe I should give it another go

The problem however is the AF fine adjust, for manual lenses you'd have to set the global setting, and change it every time you change lenses... a fair bit of work...

I've never got the hang of using catch in focus, I don't like the shutter not firing when I hit it... maybe I should give it another go

I'd recommend it--I find CIF very useful when using MF lenses.

[bertwert]

Very interesting. I photographed some deer recently, and would've guessed that they were around 300m away as well. Must've been a fair bit more, then, since they appear smaller in my image than they do in yours, and I had 600mm effective focal range

I may have cropped a wee bit, and the deer may not be the same size...

I know. I'd like to get a decent 1.4x or 1.7x Teleconverter, but they're fairly expensive, even used, and my Gear Acquisition Syndrome had already been acting up enough this week
Getting one of those AF teleconverters that turn manual into autofocus lenses (at least for some part of the focus range) would be a dream for me. Maybe after saving up for a few months.

Cropping would be better, however, I simply don't have the resolution to do so. My K10D only has 10 megapixels at its most, and I can't crop much without the pictures becoming mushy. So as long as there's enough light, even a bad teleconverter is better than cropping, in my experience with this camera.

When stopping down to F/8, chromatic aberrations from the lens are fairly well controlled, and the teleconverter doesn't seem to add too much.

The problem with the TC is also your loss of light... you're using an older 300/5.6 which you're saying you need to stop down to f/8 to get better performance (as expected). So you're looking at f/11 with a 1.4x or even f/16 with the 2x! You need a lot, like a lot, of light to shoot at that.

To compensate for that, you're then shooting at a lower shutter speed, looking at your flickr bird shots, they're mostly between 1/60s and 1/125s. At that speed, your images will be turning out softer from motion blur. To put it in comparison, I'm generally (though not always), shooting at at least 1/500s for birds. Another point to mention is the detail lost when cranking up the ISO to compensate for lower light levels reaching the sensor...

Anyways, all that to say, I'd recommend you upgrade for a newer body (such as a used K-50 or K-5 can be had relatively cheaply) giving you more cropping 'room' and slightly better mid-higher ISOs rather than buying another TC. It's often mentioned that TCs are only worth it if you have a near perfect lens in the first place, which you don't really. Also, getting a newer body would be beneficial to your other shooting too

Of course, another good option is to save up a wee bit and upgrade to a better lens...