[texandrews]

The 15-30 could be useful for focal length range not covered by the 28-45 on the Z. The latter is actually about 22-35 on FF. Then again, since most of the photography is from the vehicle, I don't know how much will I be able to use the 15-30.

I was earlier thinking of clicking multiple images with the 28-45 in vertical format and then stitching them to simulate the wider angle of view of a lens like the 15-30. I guess that should be possible.

Well, I have a Z and a K1upgraded, and I've got the 25 for the Z and the 15-30 for the K1. So, I'm aware of the differences. Nevertheless, you'd only have to stitch 2 images in landscape orientation to get a lot wider than the 28 end of the 28-45, which does not really seem onerous. After all, you are trying to cut down as I understand it, and the 15-30 is a chunk, as is the 28-45. A test at home would tell you how suitable it would be, and just what overlap you'd need. Not really sure you need to go with vertical unless you really wanted to.

Also, personally I find that everything I shoot with the Z seems wider than I expect. I shoot more "normal" FL ranges with the Z than I ever do with FF. One reason I really wish Pentax would re-do the 645 45. Very nice FL in 645, when the 35 is often just too wide. But this may just be me----a lot of my work these days professionally is in museum settings, and I have become very sensitive to stretching distortion in WA and UWA. So, now I see it in landscape situations much more.

[leonine]

Well, I have a Z and a K1upgraded, and I've got the 25 for the Z and the 15-30 for the K1. So, I'm aware of the differences. Nevertheless, you'd only have to stitch 2 images in landscape orientation to get a lot wider than the 28 end of the 28-45, which does not really seem onerous. After all, you are trying to cut down as I understand it, and the 15-30 is a chunk, as is the 28-45. A test at home would tell you how suitable it would be, and just what overlap you'd need. Not really sure you need to go with vertical unless you really wanted to.

Also, personally I find that everything I shoot with the Z seems wider than I expect. I shoot more "normal" FL ranges with the Z than I ever do with FF. One reason I really wish Pentax would re-do the 645 45. Very nice FL in 645, when the 35 is often just too wide. But this may just be me----a lot of my work these days professionally is in museum settings, and I have become very sensitive to stretching distortion in WA and UWA. So, now I see it in landscape situations much more.

Thank you @texandrews. This is a really useful tip about using two images of Z to stitch to get a wider view. Besides, using 28-45 also allows me to use my 82mm filters while the 15-30 would need a very different approach and investment in the Lee SW 150 type filter system. In any case, I can't leave the vehicle so trying to get that imposing ultrawide look by perhaps including an intetesting foreground tree at close range is ruled out.

So, I guess the 28-45 and the 90mm with the Z, and the 70-200 and the 150-450 with the K1 is now the ideal kit to carry. If space and weight permits, i will take the 1.4X rear converter.

This decision has evolved after much advice on the forum. I wish to thank all members who helped me arrive at this optimal solution.

[interested_observer]

Thank you @texandrews. This is a really useful tip about using two images of Z to stitch to get a wider view. Besides, using 28-45 also allows me to use my 82mm filters while the 15-30 would need a very different approach and investment in the Lee SW 150 type filter system. In any case, I can't leave the vehicle so trying to get that imposing ultrawide look by perhaps including an intetesting foreground tree at close range is ruled out.

So, I guess the 28-45 and the 90mm with the Z, and the 70-200 and the 150-450 with the K1 is now the ideal kit to carry. If space and weight permits, i will take the 1.4X rear converter.

This decision has evolved after much advice on the forum. I with to thank all members who helped me arrive at this optimal solution.

I came across this youtube channel for Ewan Dunsmuir, who is a Scottish photographer living down in New Zealand, who shoots stitched landscapes with the 645Z professionally. He also prints large and very large.

• Ewan Dunsmuir Images - YouTube

[leonine]

I came across this youtube channel for Ewan Dunsmuir, who is a Scottish photographer living down in New Zealand, who shoots stitched landscapes with the 645Z professionally. He also prints large and very large.

• Ewan Dunsmuir Images - YouTube

Hey thank you @interested_observer. The link is informative.

I have one question for using the big tele zooms: 70-200 and 150-450. Which type/ length of the arca swiss quick release plates would need to be attached to the respective lens collars? My Arca Swiss Monoball has a PU-60 bracket attached to it. Will it be adequate or I need a bigger bracket for attaching to the ball head also?

[interested_observer]

Hey thank you @interested_observer. The link is informative.

I have one question for using the big tele zooms: 70-200 and 150-450. Which type/ length of the arca swiss quick release plates would need to be attached to the respective lens collars? My Arca Swiss Monoball has a PU-60 bracket attached to it. Will it be adequate or I need a bigger bracket for attaching to the ball head also?

Well, I think I have a couple of answers for you....

• In terms of mechanical/structural engineering, there are two points of view to consider. 1) the length of the plate to provide enough bite by the clamp (on the monoball) so that you do not introduce any "wiggle". 2) Probably at least as long as the a) lens foot; and/or b) the length of the clamp; 3) essentially the longest of the two. The rail would need to be able to hold the combined weight of the camera body and lens with out flexing.

• If you are asking based on the length of the rail that Ewan Dunsmuir is using - as seen in his videos, he - I believe, is using a longer rail so as to get the front of the element over the nodal point on his tripod. In this way he is reducing / eliminating the occurrence of parallax in his images, so that when he goes to stitch, close objects that appear in both frames will stitch properly. Since he is shooting professionally, he really does not want to shoot frame that he is going to have to toss since they will not stitch well. This tends to be more of a concern with wide angle lenses with objects in the near foreground, but that does not eliminate the problem from the use of telephoto lenses, as items can also stick up into the two adjoining frames that might make stitching more difficult - but you will have more distance, and that will help reduce the problem.

[leonine]

Thank you.

I just wanted to know from those who are using these lenses the monoball head bracket size and the arca swiss QR plate sizes they are using in the field. I have the original Arca Swiss PU-60 bracket on the Arca Swiss Monoball. Will it hold longer QR plates like PU-100 or PU-150 if the latter are recommended to be fitted on the lens collars?

And which brand is good enough? In India, it is difficult to get Arca Swiss or RRS or Wimberly original plates or brackets at a short notice. Perhaps Neewer or Sirui may be available in local shops.

[texandrews]

Thank you.

I just wanted to know from those who are using these lenses the monoball head bracket size and the arca swiss QR plate sizes they are using in the field. I have the original Arca Swiss PU-60 bracket on the Arca Swiss Monoball. Will it hold longer QR plates like PU-100 or PU-150 if the latter are recommended to be fitted on the lens collars?

And which brand is good enough? In India, it is difficult to get Arca Swiss or RRS or Wimberly original plates or brackets at a short notice. Perhaps Neewer or Sirui may be available in local shops.

Neewer is hit or miss. Sirui is consistently good.

[leonine]

I got the Benro P-40 for the 150-450. Hope the PU-60 on the ball head will be OK with it.

I also plan to live with the PU-60 on the 70-200 because I would, in all probability, be shooting the 70-200 hand held on the K1.

I hope the combination works eventually.

My first try with the 150-450 - hand held shots of the Indian Koel Male :-) cropped but no sharpening done

[Kerrowdown]

K1 or Canon 5D Mark IV

Another vote for the K1, I wouldn't get too bogged down about AF speeds.

There are many legendary wildlife shots taken before AF was even invented, let alone not being the fastest available in the industry.

Lets be honest... most of the wildlife in Africa is fairly sedentary in their pace, as it's too damned hot to do anything else. Unless of course your spending your time, chasing Cheetahs or stuff about to be eaten, which can then get a fair lick on. Much like you would yourself I guess in that situation.

[SSGGeezer]

I got the Benro P-40 for the 150-450. Hope the PU-60 on the ball head will be OK with it.

I also plan to live with the PU-60 on the 70-200 because I would, in all probability, be shooting the 70-200 hand held on the K1.

I hope the combination works eventually.

My first try with the 150-450 - hand held shots of the Indian Koel Male :-) cropped but no sharpening done

Great beginnings! Looks like you shouldn't need much in the way of micro adjustments between your lens and body. How do these look , not downscaled and cropped in very tight to see feather detail?

I just picked up a used K-1 but can't afford the 150-450 yet! Have a good trip!

[leonine]

Hello all,

I had a once in a lifetime kind of time in Masai Mara. It is a beautiful world out there which could only be experienced and not really described in words.

I think I have got some decent shots. Hope to share with the forum within the next few days.

My preliminary findings/ experience:-

(a) The Canon 5D Mk IV and Nikon D4/D850 etc flagships seemed to have an edge on the K-1 or K-3 when it came to faster autofocus and the frame rate & buffer, and in certain situations were more likely to make images which were keepers. However, this was my first experience shooting wildlife with heavy telephoto lenses like 70-200 and 150-450, and the limitations were perhaps more due to my lack of adequate skills than the inherent camera and lens technology limitations of the Pentax.

(b) I saw some photographers shooting away the D4/ D5, practically without a care in the world about reaching the buffer limit. It was simple - just arrive at the scene, focus and fire away. One of the many hundreds should be a decent picture. Well, being essentially the landscape photographer who used to love the Velvia 50 and the slow and methodical approach to photography, I really did not know what you would call this automated firing of shutter to click hundreds of images in a few minutes. Anyway, I slowly learnt important aspects about what to shoot, to shoot or not, how to shoot, how to not reach the buffer limit, to bracket or not to bracket, how many images of the same subject or scene are good enough etc. Also, playing around with the crop mode of the K-1, I learnt to get better frame rate and buffer.

(c) I shot the K1 mostly with the 70-200 and the K3 with 150-450. When one camera would reach its buffer while photographing evolving scene or action, I could simply drop it aside and pick up another body to continue shooting. These occasions were very few.

(d) The Pentax 645Z was stand-by always. The 28-45 was not of much use because the whole trip was about chasing the big 5. However, in other times too, the ultra-wide angle lens is not of much use in the wide open plains of the Mara, particularly because you cannot come out of the vehicle under any circumstances. (I don't know how David Yarrow and Nick Brandt manage to do that...perhaps special privileges). So I mostly shot the 645Z on a few occasions with the 90mm f/2.8 (which has FOV of about 72mm in FF). Whenever I could use this combination, I found that the resultant images surpassed anything that the K-1, K-3, Canon 5D or the Nikon D4 produced. There was a certain 3-D look to the 645Z images, compared to which the other cameras produced images which could be called "flatter".

I could have come back with more keepers than what I seem to so far. I should have practiced more, learnt to use the back focus button, the four focus selection buttons on the 150-450, set the camera to more optimal settings etc. I almost always shot at spot metering and spot focus settings, but that ruined shots at times in the thick foliage or at times I completely missed the opportunity. I should have changed settings based on scene requirements more regularly. I should have also learnt to make better use of the Third Dial on the K-1. The whole activity was conducted at a frenetic pace. Anyway, the limitations were all due to me and my less than adequate skills. The Pentax camera and lenses are more than adequate for wildlife including action.

A lot of lessons learnt and need to be put into practice by shooting more often. For now, I am just happy to have been initiated into a new genre of photography, which is perhaps to the other extreme of the slow and deliberate landscape photography. Far quicker thinking, reflexes, and dexterity with camera and lens controls is required which can only come through many hundreds of hours of actual practice in the field.

Once I was back home, I tried out the Pentax 645Z with the 400mm f/5.6 and 300mm f/4 lenses to shoot some long distance shots as well as birds. To my delight, I found that these combinations work. The 400mm was lightening fast in latching on to focus as long as you knew what menu settings to use and how to focus. At 240mm and 320 FOV in FF, I do not see why I should not use these two telephoto lenses with the Pentax 645Z as the main combination for the next outing for wildlife photography. Practice will be crucial of course, but I feel confident and inspired that the 645Z with its telephoto lenses can shoot wildlife very well with excellent results, as long as you are not into the "automatic machine gun kind of shooting" and wish to make images in a more thoughtful and deliberate manner.

Now a question for the esteemed members:- the 400mm on the 645Z has effective FOV of 320mm in FF. That is at 50MP resolution. Now, if I crop an image from the 645Z to a size equivalent to the FOV rendered by an APSC sensor like that of K3 (at 24/25 MP), would that FOV be equivalent to almost 400*1.5 = 600mm? If that be so, would it not be akin to shooting the same image using the K3 and a 600mm prime lens at f/5.6, and utilising the sharpest centre part of the original 645Z image to get best of both the worlds? Am I thinking correctly? If the answer to this is in the affirmative, perhaps I would just carry the three telephoto lenses (90mm, 300mm and 400mm) with two bodies of 645Z the next time I go for wildlife photography. In any case, I wish to shoot mostly "animals in habitat" rather than birds in flight. And techniques like panning can always yield good images even for high speed action. I may not perhaps get all shots but I would get most of them with these three lenses with FOV equivalent to approx 72mm, 240mm and 320mm in FF.

I wish to thank all forum members who advised me on various aspects of my trip. I became a better photographer due to this guidance. Thank you.

[builttospill]

Thanks for following-up with your experience. It does sound like the experience of a lifetime.

Yes, you are correct in cropping a 50MP images to produce a different field of view. Keep in mind you may not want to crop some of your images, as a 50MP 645Z large print of a safari animal would look incredible.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of your images.

[leonine]

Thank you @builttospill.

Here is one image from the Mara trip.

Pentax 645Z, 90mm f/2.8, 1/800s, f/8, ISO 1250. I kept the shutter speed high in anticipation of the subjects indulging in some action like a sprint or a jump. But nothing eventually happened.

[leonine]

Here is another one.

Pentax 645Z, 90mm f/2.8 lens, 1/250s, f/9, ISO 160.

[leonine]

One more image. Pentax 645Z, 90mm f/2.8 lens, 1/250s, f/9, ISO 100.