Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-06-2016, 06:33 AM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 267
QuoteOriginally posted by tduell Quote
I think it is 36 / 1.5**2 (i.e. 1.5 squared) which is ~16 MP.
You are 100% correct. Yes it is squared. Hhhmm, maybe K-3 with a battery grip sounds good. Both K-3 and K-1 are great cameras.

---------- Post added 07-06-16 at 06:43 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Yes, I am going to get the 150-450 sometime sooner than later...or the 300 f4 +TC. You might like this album too...all K1 shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129469263@N03/albums/72157668217340465
Nice shots. I really like the Blue Jay shots. I really can't wait to get my K-1 next month. I just bought a few days ago on E-Bay
Pentax SMC A 400m f/5.6 prime lens. It is a very sharp lens and can be handheld. My SMC 500mm f/4.5 is too heavy and with long throw focusing can be used only with tripod or some kind of support.
With SMC A 400mm f/5.6 I can leave tripod home. This lens should be nice combo with K-1, especially if I can get close enough to fill the frame.


Last edited by cleaverx; 07-06-2016 at 06:47 AM.
07-06-2016, 08:47 AM   #47
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
I am also a serious bird photographer with a Pentax (and Sony). When I can get close, I use a FF Sony or now the K1, but if I can carry only one body, it is the K3 with DA*300+TC. Putting 24mp in the crop area usually gives me more options.

If you want to talk about the most popular camera with serious birders (as opposed to photographers who like birds) it would be one of the small sensor super zoom P&S models like the Canon SX or Nikon P series. The Pentax XG1 is a real bargain for that use, but it lags in some features.

Last edited by GeneV; 07-06-2016 at 08:56 AM.
07-06-2016, 08:21 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,536
QuoteOriginally posted by cleaverx Quote
Nice shots. I really like the Blue Jay shots.
Thanks.....I know you are going to love the K1 and that new lens too...I look forward to seeing your shots soon!

Here are three I shot late today...I left them a little dark to reflect just how I saw them in the Woods of Otis when I shot them...the light played on them nicely!







Shot through my office windows, handheld, in low light they turned out better than I expected.

Regards!
07-06-2016, 08:41 PM   #49
Des
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,810
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
If you want to talk about the most popular camera with serious birders (as opposed to photographers who like birds) it would be one of the small sensor super zoom P&S models like the Canon SX or Nikon P series.
Good point Gene. Trying mainly to observe birds and trying mainly to photograph them are different things. A lot of really serious birders only seem to take a camera to get a record of a new tick on their bird lists. They seem to be more serious about binoculars and scopes than about cameras and lenses.

07-06-2016, 09:25 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,508
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
Good point Gene. Trying mainly to observe birds and trying mainly to photograph them are different things. A lot of really serious birders only seem to take a camera to get a record of a new tick on their bird lists. They seem to be more serious about binoculars and scopes than about cameras and lenses.

Yeah, those twitchers are only interested in IQ good enough to get an ID ... different purposes from us.
07-06-2016, 11:12 PM   #51
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 267
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Here are three I shot late today...I left them a little dark to reflect just how I saw them in the Woods of Otis when I shot them...the light played on them nicely!
I really like the top picture, light and shadows and the colors.
07-07-2016, 04:33 AM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,536
QuoteOriginally posted by cleaverx Quote
I really like the top picture, light and shadows and the colors.
Thanks!
07-07-2016, 06:11 AM - 1 Like   #53
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Yeah, those twitchers are only interested in IQ good enough to get an ID ... different purposes from us.
That being said, I am occasionally blown away with what they get in good light. The problem is that birds are often in these things called trees, surrounded by shade.

Still, a few months ago when I showed up at an owl nest with a 500mm lens + TC on a gimbal attached to an A7R, and a couple of other birders came by with a handheld superzoom with the same FOV. I did get their point asking if it is always worth it. After several outings, comparing the results of that rig and my K3 + DA*300 + TC with a monopod, I have made the judgment that the FF is not worth the extra weight more often than it is. They simply draw the line somewhere else.

Maybe my K1 will alter that line a little, but I am not expecting that to be its biggest strength.

07-07-2016, 06:30 AM   #54
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,382
QuoteOriginally posted by christiandre Quote
according to you, is the use of K1 is relevant for this kind of practice ? with or without crop mode....
Does the loss of focus would be offset by other advantages, compared with an APS-C ?
I regularly take birding pictures with a 300mm F4 & K5IIs that I think are quite nice... maybe with a 150-450mm i could expect similar shots (~400/450mm) with a gain in terms of quality : light transitions ISO etc... ?
for me, and i have not read all the threads to know if this has been addressed or not, my view is that except for potential upgrades to the AF system, there is not much advantage over a K5 because the sensor resolution (pixels per mm) is about the same, and therefore the likely iso vs noise characteristic is similar. I am quite pleased with the high ISO capability of my K5 and since i am almost always cropping using a K5 (I really need to work on getting closer) the extra area of a K1 for me is just more to crop out of the frame.

for me, the K1 if i ever go for it, will be the wide angle to portrait area, NOT wild Life
07-07-2016, 07:15 AM   #55
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,895
I have a moment or two and I'm feeling bored so why not some ramblings on birding.

First of all, it's crazy saying the K-1 is better if you get closer. Every image is better if you get closer. If you can take an image with a 200mm lens, you'll have a better image than if taken with a 500mm further away. SO the idea that a birder is going to get better images with a K-1 if they move closer is a little warped. If they could have gotten closer they would have.

I am often out over 400mm for my birds, and mine are pretty tame. Since I'd be using essentially the same lenses, I get more bang per buck with a K-3, and a better frame rate. That can be really important.

This little guy was very suspicious of people sitting in blinds. A K-1 image would have been smaller.


This guy here is pretty tame, I can walk right up to him, a K-1 image would have been better, in terms of resolution theoretically. I say theoretically because I don't believe that there is subject detail there that is not captured by the K-3. The K-1 only makes sense if you are actually looking at the image and there are fuzzy areas where detail is blurred. There is none of that in these images. Same is a microscope, once you hit the level of magnification to show a certain thing, magnifying it more, doesn't show more, it just shows the same thing bigger.


Same with this guy


But with these guys, I'm never going to print these larger than 5x7. Who wants a huge picture of a small bird? I'd be wastingly money buying a K-1 for this type of image.

Here's a bird who's not accustomed to my presence.
It would be smaller taken, same lens and K-1 instead of K-3. Unlike the above birds, I have very few red wing black bird shots. And this to me is the big point. While I can get higher def images of the "easy" birds with a K-1, I'm going to get better images on the harder to find and photograph birds with a K-3.


So in a warped snese, an image like this taken at the extreme end of K-3 functionality would be even worse taken with a K-1 and the same lens, to the point that I might have tossed it instead of posting it. But it's one of my favourite images, because unless you know where they nest they are extremely hard to photograph. They used to nest on my porch, in one of my houses and I am really quite fond of them, and love to just watch them fly. And I remember seeing hundreds of them on the electric wires coming to my house. This is pretty much my only mage of one. Having it at k-1 size would not make me as happy, guaranteed.



The extra reach and frame rate does make a difference for birding.

For images like this it's all about the frame rate and tracking. This image is taken from a 16-20 shot burst. These birds move so fast, you can't react to a pose and catch them. You have to shoot burst and hope for the best. I simply cannot fathom a maximum burst rate of 4.4 FPS.




You'd have half the chance of success. I actually kept about 5 or 6 images from this series out of 200, and when the birds are gone they are gone. If you shoot 100 images instead of 200 you are putting yourself at a serious disadvantage. To me the K-1 is a huge gamble. Do I go for higher res.. which may or not be worth anything at all to me, and take a chance on not getting any acceptable images, or do I stay with the K-3 and give myself double the odds of getting a keeper, and better images of birds that are at a distance from me? Shooting with a K-1 you're talking maybe 2 or 3 images, instead of 5 or 6, with a 50/50 chance i don't get one of these above images, and a 25% chance I don't get either. So a 25% chance I'd have nothing to post here.

I've already decided the K-3 is for birds.

It's by far the fastest focusing best tracking, Pentax APS-c camera, it leaves everything that came before it in the dust.

The K-1 is a field camera. Pentax says so.
For birding the K-1 gives you more of what you don't want, and less of what you want.

But hey, some people will be happy with that, because there are other things they love about the camera. It's not that you can't use it, it's just that if you're serious about the birding thing, and you spend serious time on it, you probably won't, in the most exciting circumstances. In your back yard with tame birds and animals, or a zoo, I'm sure a K-1 will do great,

Last edited by normhead; 07-07-2016 at 07:46 AM.
07-07-2016, 08:35 AM   #56
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,311
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I have a moment or two and I'm feeling bored so why not some ramblings on birding.

First of all, it's crazy saying the K-1 is better if you get closer. Every image is better if you get closer. If you can take an image with a 200mm lens, you'll have a better image than if taken with a 500mm further away. SO the idea that a birder is going to get better images with a K-1 if they move closer is a little warped. If they could have gotten closer they would have.

I am often out over 400mm for my birds, and mine are pretty tame. Since I'd be using essentially the same lenses, I get more bang per buck with a K-3, and a better frame rate. That can be really important.

This little guy was very suspicious of people sitting in blinds. A K-1 image would have been smaller.


This guy here is pretty tame, I can walk right up to him, a K-1 image would have been better, in terms of resolution theoretically. I say theoretically because I don't believe that there is subject detail there that is not captured by the K-3. The K-1 only makes sense if you are actually looking at the image and there are fuzzy areas where detail is blurred. There is none of that in these images. Same is a microscope, once you hit the level of magnification to show a certain thing, magnifying it more, doesn't show more, it just shows the same thing bigger.


Same with this guy


But with these guys, I'm never going to print these larger than 5x7. Who wants a huge picture of a small bird? I'd be wastingly money buying a K-1 for this type of image.

Here's a bird who's not accustomed to my presence.
It would be smaller taken, same lens and K-1 instead of K-3. Unlike the above birds, I have very few red wing black bird shots. And this to me is the big point. While I can get higher def images of the "easy" birds with a K-1, I'm going to get better images on the harder to find and photograph birds with a K-3.


So in a warped snese, an image like this taken at the extreme end of K-3 functionality would be even worse taken with a K-1 and the same lens, to the point that I might have tossed it instead of posting it. But it's one of my favourite images, because unless you know where they nest they are extremely hard to photograph. They used to nest on my porch, in one of my houses and I am really quite fond of them, and love to just watch them fly. And I remember seeing hundreds of them on the electric wires coming to my house. This is pretty much my only mage of one. Having it at k-1 size would not make me as happy, guaranteed.



The extra reach and frame rate does make a difference for birding.

For images like this it's all about the frame rate and tracking. This image is taken from a 16-20 shot burst. These birds move so fast, you can't react to a pose and catch them. You have to shoot burst and hope for the best. I simply cannot fathom a maximum burst rate of 4.4 FPS.




You'd have half the chance of success. I actually kept about 5 or 6 images from this series out of 200, and when the birds are gone they are gone. If you shoot 100 images instead of 200 you are putting yourself at a serious disadvantage. To me the K-1 is a huge gamble. Do I go for higher res.. which may or not be worth anything at all to me, and take a chance on not getting any acceptable images, or do I stay with the K-3 and give myself double the odds of getting a keeper, and better images of birds that are at a distance from me? Shooting with a K-1 you're talking maybe 2 or 3 images, instead of 5 or 6, with a 50/50 chance i don't get one of these above images, and a 25% chance I don't get either. So a 25% chance I'd have nothing to post here.

I've already decided the K-3 is for birds.

It's by far the fastest focusing best tracking, Pentax APS-c camera, it leaves everything that came before it in the dust.

The K-1 is a field camera. Pentax says so.
For birding the K-1 gives you more of what you don't want, and less of what you want.

But hey, some people will be happy with that, because there are other things they love about the camera. It's not that you can't use it, it's just that if you're serious about the birding thing, and you spend serious time on it, you probably won't, in the most exciting circumstances. In your back yard with tame birds and animals, or a zoo, I'm sure a K-1 will do great,
I have been comparing photos of birds I have taken with my K-3+DA*300 to similar images taken with the K-1+150-450 and I have found that the K-1 combo images are sharper and more detailed, even if the K-1 has used a higher ISO. I also get more in focus when shooting BIFs with the K-1 combo. So comparing these two real world combinations gives me the exact same framing with the two cameras. Therefor I get more pixels using my K-1 combo than the K-3 combo, I get more DR and the only downside is the frame rate which is in reality not an issue since I pretty much never use the camera as a machine gun. I take a couple of frames, wait, take a couple more. Now one can argue that I now can put my 150-450 on the K-3. Well, yes I can but I only bought the 150-450 when I desided to buy the K-1 so no K-1 no 150-450. Well now I have it so If I put the 150-450 on the K-3 the hitrate for BIFs are not as good as with the K-1 but with slow moving birds I do get more resolution with the K-3 IF the light gives me ISO100. If the light is not giving me ISO100 the IQ drops alot faster with the K-3 than the K-1. Also images taken where the subject has gotten to dark the K-1 gives me more lattitude to save and this happens quite often.
07-07-2016, 04:55 PM   #57
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 39
The K1 isn't ideal for wildlife, but it is definitely doable. While I was in Greece I shot some swallows in flight using the crop mode and my 100mm 2.8 macro lens. Putting it in crop mode helped because it increased the FPS, and the autofocus points filled the frame more. However I did not get a stellar hit rate. Granted using a screw drive 100mm lens isn't ideal in any way for birds (especially with them being so small) BUT I did get a few keepers out of it, I'd say 35% in focus out of around 70 shots. I would have much rather had a K3 with a long lens, I'd get that extra reach plus a higher MP count. Though if you have a long full frame lens for the K1 I think you could definitely get some good shots. Being able to use ISO 12800 could really make a difference so that you could both have a fast shutter speed and be relatively stopped down for a more reliable hit rate.
07-07-2016, 07:06 PM   #58
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
Both tools can be right for the right conditions. Yes, any wildlife photo is better if you are closer, but if I can get close enough to use my FF 200mm on a 36mp sensor with better high ISO and DR, than with my 24mp K3, then I am probably going to get a better photo on some level. However, most of the time, I am better off with the extra reach of the DA*300 + TC, which I can hand hold or use a monopod, rather than trying to put together the equivalent 630mm rig for the K1. I seldom seem to have the problem of being too close to the birds. Even with the 150-450, getting to that length will require a TC and a loss of speed and a little sharpness, and it will add a lot of weight and a big expense. I'd love to have the big zoom and/or the DA560 some day, but the cost of the K1 is about all my budget will bear.
07-07-2016, 07:13 PM   #59
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 903
No problem using K1 + Da300 or DFA 150-450 have shot over 4000 frames,mostly birds since i got it..love the 36MP..only problem is the bloody buffer for me is only 11-12 shots RAW,so have missed quite a few because of this..in FF mode.crop is fine of course.
ISO 3200 is useable at times which helps alot ,as K3II over 1200-1600 was too noisy for what I want
AF may be a bit better than K3II but still miles away from Nikon I'm afraid. Maybe a FW update will fix the buffer blues???
07-08-2016, 01:58 AM   #60
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Greater area of Frankfurt/Main
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
No problem using K1 + Da300 or DFA 150-450 have shot over 4000 frames,mostly birds since i got it..love the 36MP..only problem is the bloody buffer for me is only 11-12 shots RAW,so have missed quite a few because of this..in FF mode.crop is fine of course.
ISO 3200 is useable at times which helps alot ,as K3II over 1200-1600 was too noisy for what I want
AF may be a bit better than K3II but still miles away from Nikon I'm afraid. Maybe a FW update will fix the buffer blues???
Hi, would like to see some of your shots made with the K-1...are you on flickr? Thanks in advance. Frank
My flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/avifuzzi/albums

Last edited by PentxOrni; 07-08-2016 at 02:05 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
album, bird, birders, birds, camera, canon, da300, dslr, film, full frame, full-frame, glass, hope, k-1, k-1 for wildlife, k1, legacy, lens, love, nikon, pentax, pentax k-1, shots, tc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flash options for Birding/Wildlife UserAccessDenied Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 15 02-06-2016 05:33 AM
Will Pentax K-1 good for sports/wildlife? or Just a studio camera? enyceckk Pentax Full Frame 58 12-31-2015 05:16 PM
Hi all..is K5 a good choice for wildlife/birding work Shanti Welcomes and Introductions 22 07-20-2012 01:16 AM
Recommended Lens For Birding & Wildlife? seachunk2 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 55 07-22-2011 05:35 AM
Lens for birding/wildlife OrenMc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 111 06-01-2008 07:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top