[Shanti]

Question..
for this type of shot I need to use ISO3200 F5.6 1000sec (only used 500) to get the deer sharp while it is running full speed away from me.
This is with the K5II. DA*300 + HD DA 1.4 TC handheld
since I have to crop would I get a better image with the K3? as it seems the K5II has better high ISO, but of course the K3 has more MP
I am trying to find the best solution for this type of shot,which was also handheld. ISO 6400 or greater would give me a faster shutter speed but noise would make it look unsharp

any help is appreciated

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Parallax]

When faced with a decision like this I always look at it as an excuse legitimate reason to get new equipment.
Seriously, from the examples I've seen, the high ISO advantage of the K-5 over the K-3 is minimal. Because you need to crop so heavily I think the K-3 would have and advantage over the K-5.

[Adam]

Because you need to crop so heavily I think the K-3 would have and advantage over the K-5.

Right!

[normhead]

A K-3 would be a little sharper and have a little more resolution, as long as you realize the noise is going to be the same... my guess, is shooting at 3200 ISO, you're not going to be able to improve much on that image. By the time you have the noise under control, your image is going to be virtually identical... which is why I'm hoping for a K-3s with a super sensitive sensor that maintains it's dynamic range and is low noise up until 2500 ISO, at maybe 14 Mp.

That's my guess.

[OregonJim]

I say, embrace the grain!

A great image does NOT have to be noiseless!

[DSims]

Not only will it give you more MP, it will make the deer run toward you!

[narual]

I don't have anything meaningful to add. I just wanted to say -- Hehe, the deer looks like a hovering thanksgiving turkey (ignoring the head, anyway) in that pose

[carrrlangas]

I don´t know about the camera, but if you need to crop so much with a 600mm equivalent for an animal that size, there are other things that need more attention than MP count. Perhaps getting closer? A monopod?

[Shanti]

I don´t know about the camera, but if you need to crop so much with a 600mm equivalent for an animal that size, there are other things that need more attention than MP count. Perhaps getting closer? A monopod?

for this shot I had 5 sec to get my camera out-- focus & shoot..no time for tripod/monopod & deer was 500m away running full trot,
I asked him to slow down a bit but must not of heard me
my question was whether the end result in this case would be better with the K3...

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 04:31 AM ----------

When faced with a decision like this I always look at it as an excuse legitimate reason to get new equipment.
Seriously, from the examples I've seen, the high ISO advantage of the K-5 over the K-3 is minimal. Because you need to crop so heavily I think the K-3 would have and advantage over the K-5.

would the K3 lock on focus faster than the K5II with the 300mm & TC? out of 7 shots only 3 locked on, AF-S setting, I know Pentax AF is not the best but have read K3 is a bit faster?

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 04:31 AM ----------

[rawr]

For this shot, I would have been using centre-weighted metering. By giving metering priority to a smaller area of the scene, the camera may have been able to hold down the ISO, or you may have been able to obtain a higher shutter.

would the K3 lock on focus faster than the K5II with the 300mm & TC? ...

Possibly. The K-3 has three sensitive f2.8 luminance flux linear sensors in the centre, the K-5 II only has one. These would help improve focus performance when using lenses like the DA*300 with a teleconverter. Plus the K-3's focus point density is higher than the K-5II, which would help improve movement detection.

K-5 II AF points distribution and type of point:


K-3 AF points distribution and type of point:

[DSims]

The K-3 would likely help a little with the AF. And it should help a little with the lack of an AA filter (plus more MP). Not so much help with noise, though - but I'm not sure that should be the highest priority either.

[sadatoni]

I say, embrace the grain!

A great image does NOT have to be noiseless!

Sometimes I miss the days of tri-x pan 400 grain.

[Parallax]

Sometimes I miss the days of tri-x pan 400 grain

I used to shoot Tri-x almost exclusively. I never had a photo that I thought was hurt by the grain, and in some cases it can actually ad to the mood of the picture. Digital noise, to me, is different though. It can be very distracting. I think part of the reason is that film grain is what it is. Nothing can be done in post, and we've just always accepted that.
Digital noise can be mitigated, so my mind says "If moving this slider this way, and that slider that way reduces it, and moving them a little more or less reduces it still more, then why can't I find the right combination to eliminate it?"
As technology progresses we become less tolerant of imperfection. Polaroids took GREAT pictures. In the Sixties.

[Shanti]

I used to shoot Tri-x almost exclusively. I never had a photo that I thought was hurt by the grain, and in some cases it can actually ad to the mood of the picture. Digital noise, to me, is different though. It can be very distracting. I think part of the reason is that film grain is what it is. Nothing can be done in post, and we've just always accepted that.
Digital noise can be mitigated, so my mind says "If moving this slider this way, and that slider that way reduces it, and moving them a little more or less reduces it still more, then why can't I find the right combination to eliminate it?"
As technology progresses we become less tolerant of imperfection. Polaroids took GREAT pictures. In the Sixties.

I agree--did B&W for 35yrs,mostly Ilford FP4 pushed to 800 & borderline reticulation to get the effect I wanted,& grain was a big plus back then, but when doing color the grain is not the same,OLY E1 was close I thought, but as you say we are more into perfection these days--for better or worse!!

[Serpiente]

buy buy buy