[mtkeller]

That's interesting. I'm not in the long range shooting, but wouldn't the DA 1.4 teleconverter make quite a usable "200-600" out of that lens?

You lose a stop of light with the TC, so it winds up slower than the Tamron. I don't have anything that long, so maybe that's not a huge deal, especially with the high ISO performance of the K-3 iii. (I think it was the Kerrick James video where 12,800 on the K-3 iii was compared to 3200 on the K-1 ii. Multiple of the ambassador videos mention and include totally usable images at ISO 51,200.)

[Mike.P®]

That's interesting. I'm not in the long range shooting, but wouldn't the DA 1.4 teleconverter make quite a usable "200-600" out of that lens?

I have the 1.4x and the IQ degrades too much on the 150-450mm, you may as well crop harder but then you lose resolution. IThe converter is fine on the 70-200mm f/2.8 though because you still have room to stop down. Also (as has been said many many times) the AF/tracking is slow enough on Pentax bodies anyway without putting more obsticles in the way. It will be interesting to see how they perform on the K-3 (3) though, looking forward to seeing that.

[Zygonyx]

I can't wait to test it on my HD DA 560mm

[MMVIII]

You lose a stop of light with the TC, so it winds up slower than the Tamron. I don't have anything that long, so maybe that's not a huge deal, especially with the high ISO performance of the K-3 iii. (I think it was the Kerrick James video where 12,800 on the K-3 iii was compared to 3200 on the K-1 ii. Multiple of the ambassador videos mention and include totally usable images at ISO 51,200.)

Right, the higher ISO capabilities might play a role here, and the lens is not so slow with f4,0-5,6. Though f8 might be a challenge for the AF and maybe limit it to the central points. But don't know that.

---------- Post added 03-31-21 at 04:15 PM ----------

I have the 1.4x and the IQ degrades too much on the 150-450mm, you may as well crop harder but then you lose resolution. IThe converter is fine on the 70-200mm f/2.8 though because you still have room to stop down. Also (as has been said many many times) the AF/tracking is slow enough on Pentax bodies anyway without putting more obsticles in the way. It will be interesting to see how they perform on the K-3 (3) though, looking forward to seeing that.

Thanks Mike for this first hand info!

[Mike.P®]

I can't wait to test it on my HD DA 560mm

Up until now I have put off buying the 560mm because we didn't have a body that (IMO) take full advantage of the lens, I even sold my FA* 250-600mm f/5.6 because of it. Sort of regretting that now

[reh321]

Right, the higher ISO capabilities might play a role here, and the lens is not so slow with f4,0-5,6. Though f8 might be a challenge for the AF and maybe limit it to the central points. But don't know that.

I use my 55-300mm PLM on my KP with a 1.4xTC and don’t notice any AF problems.

[mee]

Excuse me, this might be your opinion, but I largely disagree.

The D500 can't even compete with the KP in most areas of the IQ. It has no IBIS and is left with a large lens portfolio, that will very likely be frozen at what it is.

Why on earth would I now consider a D500 if I wasn't in the need of it until now, while the K-3III opens an additional asset to a system that is strong in many aspects but had some room for improvement in regard to action shooting and moving subjects.

On the contrary, the situation seems much more comparable to the time when everyone in Nikon land was waiting for the successor of the Nikon D300 line but they wanted to lure everyone into the new hype FF DSLR, while Pentax brought the K-3 which many, also Nikon users, considered as a worthwhile continuation of the neglected Nikon line.
Same might be happening to the D500, it's an abandoned line, and there might be some who actually liked it...

You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine.

IQ is highly subjective. Requirement of stabilization is of less value with sports shooting, where you're usually at a very high shutter speed.

The Nikon has a much much deeper buffer and a better AF system (on paper for now). Those features may or may not be of use to you.

The lens system can be 'frozen' for a decade and still be more robust and fresher than what Ricoh is offering in K. Some of those long lenses are only a couple years old. There is still F mount on the roadmap though.


I also remember that time when a few people came over from Nikon for the K-3. Their reason wasn't because the K-3 was just that good, it was simply that Nikon was just that slow in launching the D500. I also remember most went right back to Nikon because the K-3 wasn't close to a D500 replacement.


Pentax lacks a lot of long lenses too. The K-3 III is a nice step in the right direction, but it isn't the only step they need to take if they want to capture the DSLR sport and wildlife community. Right now many are on a honeymoon phase with this new camera.

[repaap]

You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine.

IQ is highly subjective. Requirement of stabilization is of less value with sports shooting, where you're usually at a very high shutter speed.

The Nikon has a much much deeper buffer and a better AF system (on paper for now). Those features may or may not be of use to you.

The lens system can be 'frozen' for a decade and still be more robust and fresher than what Ricoh is offering in K. Some of those long lenses are only a couple years old. There is still F mount on the roadmap though.


I also remember that time when a few people came over from Nikon for the K-3. Their reason wasn't because the K-3 was just that good, it was simply that Nikon was just that slow in launching the D500. I also remember most went right back to Nikon because the K-3 wasn't close to a D500 replacement.


Pentax lacks a lot of long lenses too. The K-3 III is a nice step in the right direction, but it isn't the only step they need to take if they want to capture the DSLR sport and wildlife community. Right now many are on a honeymoon phase with this new camera.

For many reasons I do believe that Pentax might have something longer in their mind, but the main thing for K-3 III is not that. It is to show that Pentax is still dedicating them selves to DSLR and want to make it as a real option for mirrorless cameras. High performance, small but very well made body with great UI. Image quality to rival even FF cameras. And company high quality lenses compared to even their own FF.

So there might be new 560 mm or so lens to serve both, FF and crop crowd, even a zoom? But that is propably a goal Number 5? First they have to complete DA* line for more used focal lenghts. And primes for FF, and then there is this 645 line.

[mee]

For many reasons I do believe that Pentax might have something longer in their mind, but the main thing for K-3 III is not that. It is to show that Pentax is still dedicating them selves to DSLR and want to make it as a real option for mirrorless cameras. High performance, small but very well made body with great UI. Image quality to rival even FF cameras. And company high quality lenses compared to even their own FF.

So there might be new 560 mm or so lens to serve both, FF and crop crowd, even a zoom? But that is propably a goal Number 5? First they have to complete DA* line for more used focal lenghts. And primes for FF, and then there is this 645 line.

A 500 or 600mm or a 150-600mm would go a long way (no pun intended).


Nikon has several long primes (that are designed to be relatively small and light -- PF series) and zooms. Many of which are stabilized should one desire that. Plus many 3rd party options. So it's pretty saturated on F mount (and EF mount for that matter).


But as you know lens releases are also very slow over here. So point being it's going to be awhile, if it ever gets there.

[Mike.P®]

The trouble with the D500 is that it lacks soul. By that I guess I mean that while the Nikon is technically far superior it lacks that certain Pentax magic that has kept me shooting with the K10D/K20D/K-7/K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs/K-3/K-3II and presently the K-1 all these years. Despite using the D500 as a second system I nearly always picked up the Pentax camera even when I knew I have a much better chance of getting the shot I am after with the Nikon. I still do it with the 7D MKII.

Enjoying my photography is just as important to me as "getting the shot" I guess and when the K-1 does get it right (or should that be me) the image quality is much better than the Nikon or Canon (In my opinion as always).

[gatorguy]

A 500 or 600mm or a 150-600mm would go a long way (no pun intended).


Nikon has several long primes (that are designed to be relatively small and light -- PF series) and zooms. Many of which are stabilized should one desire that.

Why would you NOT want stabilization on a long lens? I can understand certain scenarios for a relatively wide lens.

The 5.5 stops of SR and the -4EV low-light focusing performance on the K3III should also help match or improve on the Nikon's long-lens performance, correct?

[repaap]

A 500 or 600mm or a 150-600mm would go a long way (no pun intended).


Nikon has several long primes (that are designed to be relatively small and light -- PF series) and zooms. Many of which are stabilized should one desire that. Plus many 3rd party options. So it's pretty saturated on F mount (and EF mount for that matter).


But as you know lens releases are also very slow over here. So point being it's going to be awhile, if it ever gets there.

Yes, they must recognice it, most simply thing would be a rebadge. I’m sure that there will be something. Who knows what they have up their sleeve. 70-210 did come quite fast out of nowhere.

---------- Post added 03-31-21 at 18:45 ----------

The trouble with the D500 is that it lacks soul. By that I guess I mean that while the Nikon is technically far superior it lacks that certain Pentax magic that has kept me shooting with the K10D/K20D/K-7/K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs/K-3/K-3II and presently the K-1 all these years. Despite using the D500 as a second system I nearly always picked up the Pentax camera even when I knew I have a much better chance of getting the shot I am after with the Nikon. I still do it with the 7D MKII.

Enjoying my photography is just as important to me as "getting the shot" I guess and when the K-1 does get it right (or should that be me) the image quality is much better than the Nikon or Canon (In my opinion as always).

This is one of the reasons I’m so happy now. And those new true like colours are true Pentax, but better! Have you looked at the samples.

[mee]

The trouble with the D500 is that it lacks soul.

Haha all cameras are a collection of hardware. Not a living being. But, yes, pick the camera and system that fits absolutely.


I think the IQ improvements, especially at high ISO, are largely due to using a more modern BSI sensor. But Sony and Nikon are also using those now too, so the IQ tweaks are a bit less obvious these days. That's always been the safe place for Pentax shooters to tout when the rest of the specs didn't compete though.


That wasn't the point though. The point was most people don't consider their camera system like a mate, so they're going to look for specs and lens selection. If Pentax wants that pool of shooters, there is still more work to be done on their part. This is a solid piece of the puzzle though.

[mee]

Why would you NOT want stabilization on a long lens? I can understand certain scenarios for a relatively wide lens.

The 5.5 stops of SR and the -4EV low-light focusing performance on the K3III should also help match or improve on the Nikon's long-lens performance, correct?

If you're shooting at really fast shutter speeds, it negates the need. So you shouldn't need it depending on just how fast you're shooting. But most of the long Nikkor have VR built into the lenses, where it is supposedly more functional than in body for longer lenses.

The 5+ stops of SR Pentax have touted are usually rated at 50mm. It's less as the focal length increases.

[Mike.P®]

Haha all cameras are a collection of hardware. Not a living being. But, yes, pick the camera and system that fits absolutely.


I think the IQ improvements, especially at high ISO, are largely due to using a more modern BSI sensor. But Sony and Nikon are also using those now too, so the IQ tweaks are a bit less obvious these days. That's always been the safe place for Pentax shooters to tout when the rest of the specs didn't compete though.

Umm, I think you missed the part where I said I shot with the D500 (for a good 6 months along with a Sigma 500mm f/4 sport and converters/150-600mm) and currently also use the 7D MKII with a Sigma 150-600mm sport. I am under no illusion that Pentax need to up their game and have complained many times about their AF system and long lens selection but at the end of the day people will choose their system based on what they are comfortable with.

---------- Post added 03-31-2021 at 05:15 PM ----------

If you're shooting at really fast shutter speeds, it negates the need. So you shouldn't need it depending on just how fast you're shooting. But most of the long Nikkor have VR built into the lenses, where it is supposedly more functional than in body for longer lenses.

VR in long lenses apparently works better than in body SR, it also helps with framing and tracking due to the VF not jumping around so much.