[Joetitch]

What I need is for you to prove the k3iii is a flop so I can quell the hunger for one😁
Great job and thank you for all this effort. It looks initially that Pentax has got AF under control and delivering the goods.👍

[Sandy Hancock]

Go, you good thing, Gatorguy!

Although I have no interest in investing in another system, I'll be be very interested to see how the the DFA150-450, HD55-300PLM and DA*16-50PLM stack up against the Nikon alternatives.

[Rondec]

I agree. That’s exactly the reason the d500 prices are falling and why some will go there for their sports/wildlife fix since the lenses are also discounted. The k3iii is a higher resolving modern dslr with a fantastic ovf. No argument here with the paper specs. I have no axe to grind I expect value wise the k3iii new is a better bet. Used for someone without Pentax or Nikon glass that’s a more difficult question and revolves around specific personal factors - it’s good to see a strong review of the two head to head.

Obviously I have plenty of K mount glass, hence the reason that I bought a K-3 III, but if I was launching new, I'm not sure that I would buy F mount gear. I question if the support will be there going forward. If I didn't need an OVF, I would probably look at Canon's mirrorless offerings which seem more interesting (particularly from a glass standpoint) than Nikon's/

[UncleVanya]

Obviously I have plenty of K mount glass, hence the reason that I bought a K-3 III, but if I was launching new, I'm not sure that I would buy F mount gear. I question if the support will be there going forward. If I didn't need an OVF, I would probably look at Canon's mirrorless offerings which seem more interesting (particularly from a glass standpoint) than Nikon's/

Reasonable indeed.

[Canada_Rockies]

Obviously I have plenty of K mount glass, hence the reason that I bought a K-3 III, but if I was launching new, I'm not sure that I would buy F mount gear. I question if the support will be there going forward. If I didn't need an OVF, I would probably look at Canon's mirrorless offerings which seem more interesting (particularly from a glass standpoint) than Nikon's/

The mirrorless cameras do not interest me in the slightest. Trying to compose on the equivalent of a phone screen is a losing proposition, not to mention that holding the camera "way out there" and keeping it steady is another problem. The K3 III is very interesting to me (K3 owner), but for the price of the K3 III is unfortunately for me about the same expense I need to replace the worn out tires on my Tundra before winter.

[Rondec]

The mirrorless cameras do not interest me in the slightest. Trying to compose on the equivalent of a phone screen is a losing proposition, not to mention that holding the camera "way out there" and keeping it steady is another problem. The K3 III is very interesting to me (K3 owner), but for the price of the K3 III is unfortunately for me about the same expense I need to replace the worn out tires on my Tundra before winter.

I was just at a family reunion. My brother has an A7 III and my sister a Nikon Z7. I tried both of them and found the EVFs to be really annoying. I don't know if it is lag or what, but it is nothing like shooting with a nice, bright OVF.

[StiffLegged]

… Trying to compose on the equivalent of a phone screen is a losing proposition, not to mention that holding the camera "way out there" and keeping it steady is another problem…

That’s a considerable misunderstanding of how these boxes of tricks are used. They have a display with an eyepiece in the same position as a DSLR and it’s intended for holding to your eye like a DSLR. The image you view through the viewfinder is of similar size to that viewed through your DSLR’s eyepiece. The screen on the back of the camera is used (or not used) same as with a DSLR.

Imagine for a moment using a 600mm lens by sighting the back screen hand-held … … hey, perhaps someone will develop Out Of Body Image Stabilisation!

---

Last edited by StiffLegged; 08-02-2022 at 11:04 AM.

[kayasaman]

I choose to go with the Tamron 150-600 rather than the Nikkor 200-500. Both lenses are praised by some while other owners express disappointment. It's a toss-up. As for impressive photos always take those for what they are. You're only seeing the best they got, not the several thousand not-so-impressive.

Interesting you went with the Tamron option. My review readings from various sources cite the Sigma 150-600mm a much better option in every respect bar weight were the Tamron is lighter. Of course I am talking about the Sports version and not the Contemporary.


To add to your initial post, I am also playing with the 3d tracking capability of the D500. What I can say is that my lens is wrong. As you already know, I'm using the 18-300mm at the far end which is far too short! My settings are using AFS-C with 25 point dynamic selected.

My subjects are smaller then the AF area which really challenges any system I guess.... probably the reason for most of my issues seen on my K1 ii and FA*300.


What i can add to this is that aircraft are nailed! Atmospheric conditions aside, they are in focus and sharp. Actually, now my Pentax friends are really surprised that my shots are all in focus lol


What I notice with the D500 is even at ISO 100 there is some noise. Yep I can recover it but the imaging train is no where near the Pentax (I only have the K1 ii to compare with, but I'm sure the K3 iii is going to be equally good in it's imaging as that's one thing that Pentax do really well I believe!)

There is really something to be said about Sony sensors!! Even dedicated astro cams from QHY and Moravian Instruments use them, and astro is a subject that really pushes each component of the camera system to it's limits!

That was my experience last night when trying to run a few test shots with the D500 and 18-300mm @18mm (27-28mm in 35mm FF). The magnification on the D500 is only around 10x compared to 16x on the Pentax. It means that it's harder to get round stars by zooming in LV mode on the D500.
Overall, sure I caught Andromeda (M31) galaxy, but compared to my K1 ii / Samyang 24mm combination, it was no where near it. The K1 just simply beats the D500 hands down with the tested combination. Yep it's an unfair test I know but I am working with what I have.....


I will be trying out my Sigma 105mm macro soon. I can compare that to the Irix 150mm and my K1. Now Irix are some of the best lenses ever made along with Samyang. You can't get any better for any price unless you try using a Takahashi or $500k scrope.
Sure most people would probably think I'm nuts and get quite offended with my statement but I stand by it as it's what I am seeing from my own setup and use.

Here is a great article regarding the 150-600mm Sigma: https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2022/astrophotography-with-the-sigma-150-600mm-d...s-sports-lens/


Bottom line, my interests are different and what I see and want to see is extremely different. I would totally suck as a pro photographer because I am not interested in the art side of things. I prefer to have a contrasty popping clinically razor sharp image that makes the eyes bleed with saturation and detail. Therefor I'm probably the worst person to give their ideas and views on things which don't coincide with what anyone lese is thinking....


Gatorguy, this little gem of a topic if fantastic!! I'm glad you started it Thank you so much :-)

Please have fun doing your tests and can't wait to read more to see what you are unlocking out of both systems.


Unfortunately it is a truth that there is no one system or brand that is perfect. I am not saying anything against anyone (as in particular brand or group which is true for OpenSource projects) but design decisions have to be made and can take the subject in one direction or another. It's always good to be neutral and not biased. It's something I need to understand myself sometimes as I get pretty cheesed off at many things for going one way instead of another (not photography equipment), and in some cases I find it's better to build things my self if I can.

---------- Post added 08-03-22 at 07:03 AM ----------

I don't know. I'm way more familiar with the menus than I was a week ago after reading just the manual. Lots of YouTube advice and some of it seems more reliable than others ( of course), but I don't recall anything about that specifically. I'll check it out.

As far as I understand, there is no subject recognition. You get Face recognition, but that's it. Mirrorless cameras have that advantage as it's a software thing like CCTV systems have.

You can obviously put the Nikon into manual focus mode or use one of the AFS-C modes.... perhaps the correct answer would be to say that the 3D tracking mode can be switched to something else??

---------- Post added 08-03-22 at 07:23 AM ----------

Obviously I have plenty of K mount glass, hence the reason that I bought a K-3 III, but if I was launching new, I'm not sure that I would buy F mount gear. I question if the support will be there going forward. If I didn't need an OVF, I would probably look at Canon's mirrorless offerings which seem more interesting (particularly from a glass standpoint) than Nikon's/

I'm gonna agree with UncleVanya. Though I've just invested in the D500 myself and probably many of my posts triggered the curiosity about the D500 in the first place.

Nikon, I'm pretty sure are switching over to Z mount mirrorless format lenses.


Maybe now is the time manufacturers are all starting to look at mirrorless options and ditch the mechanical options. My guess is that fabrication is cheaper and also everything can be done in software now instead of using dedicated hardware like the Pro bodies from CaNikon. No more AF sensors and special processors in the circuitry chain.

Instead with the mirrorless options, you get two or more multi functional imaging processors like computer CPU's or DSP's in audio that can perform multiple tasks according to their programming.This of course sparks a separate debate about dedicated hardware efficiency over generic hardware use of software. Think audio plugins run on a computer DAW system in contrast to a rack filled with analog audio processing equipment. No way you can get the same performance from a CPU or DSP as you could from a transistor or valve based dedicated hardware system. The variables are too much to compute in any form and since they're not the same all the time (eg. harmonics) and get affected by things like heat, voltage and current changes etc... basically using software with generic hardware you get a good approximation.


For me, why the D500?? I love my K1 ii but it's slow and the AF is there like video mode but not really usable for me at least. I needed an APS-C camera for reach and long lenses. 300mm is the prime limit for Pentax and it's way too short for my wildlife needs. After searching high and low, I made the choice based around the Sigma 60-600mm lens as it's teleconvertor compatible if needed and the fact that the AF in the D500 is taken directly from the D5.

I guess you can say lens choice was a big motivating factor. The Sigma 105mm macro has USM motors so no more screwdrive, and unlike my Irix 150mm on the Pentax, I can finally focus on insects which don't sit still. The Sigma 60-600mm will mean that I can get small birds and mammals like squirrels to fill my frame. Currently at 450mm (300mm -35mm) they are smaller then the 25 point dynamic AF area. If you get any closer then they run away.
The 18-300mm is really what the DFA28-105mm should have been. A long range lightweight travel lens that has a useful scope of throw. Optically they are about the same, but reach reach reach....

---------- Post added 08-03-22 at 07:32 AM ----------

To be fair... OP, may I ask for a test of the D500's built-in "Astrotracer Type 3" feature, as well?

Respectfully... M

AstroTracer is Pentax only!!

The D500 does not have AT....

I use it extensively with the K1 ii. Actually it's the reason I bought the K1 to start with and I've done over 10K AT shots later stacked in Sequator then processed with PixInsight.

To get any type of astro done with the D500, you need a tracking mount. Check the Rainbow Astro RST135 or Pegasus Astro Nyx for good portable harmonic drive systems or 10micron for one of the best mounts under $20k. Otherwise look at a cheap iOptron, Skywatcher or other made-in-China brand for sub $1k pricing.

[biz-engineer]

The D500 may fail to find and focus on a subject, but when it does it's also more likely to hold focus as well

The K3 III failed to focus on the first two shots, because the camera should focus on the closest element it finds, the D500 focused on foliage instead of the bird, and technically it is right. The K3 III focused on the bird at the back , and technically that's not where the K3 III should have focused.

[kayasaman]

I mentioned earlier that I got out at daybreak today after all, but like yesterday out of the field by 9am.

The findings from yesterday were supported by today's events. In low contrast situations and/or very small subjects the Nikkor 55-300/D500 combo has been likely to fail. The Pentax 55-300/K3III pairing is very likely to succeed. Not a major point, but it does support indications that the new Pentax AF is another step up from the best Nikon offers in DSLR's. Where there's still room for improvement is in tracking. The D500 may fail to find and focus on a subject, but when it does it's also more likely to hold focus as well. My Pentax K3III actually performed great at tracking. At times the past two days I've run off bursts of a dozen BiF shots all 100% in focus. But there's been other times it's one day one follow3ed by a half dozen great focus images, but then another boner thrown in, The D500 is more consistent. I rarely had every long burst all in focus, but as a rule they were 90% there or better. Fortunately it's still early in life for the K3III and firmware further improving focus/tracking performance is expected.
That's not to say tracking on the K3III is not up to par. On the contrary it's SOOO much better than any Pentax to date, and at most times equals the D500. But tracking specifically still goes to the D500 in this round. There's more to it though.Wwhen it comes to AFS I'm finding just the opposite, at least with these lens pairings. In this weekend's wildlife shoots the Pentax kit has been more consistent at locking focus on the intended subject rather than the bush in front or the tall grass just behind as the D500 did a bit too often for me.

Anyway, I still have yesterdays mish-mash to go through and ribs ready to come off the grill. The following shots are from today's adventures. Why not yesterday? Those are still coming, but with a better idea of what I wanted to accomplish and a very cooperative set of subjects today, I was able to do more accurate side-by-side comparisons with images taken just a few seconds apart. I have more, just not tonight.

EDIT, Important mention:
On the resting dragonfly below I did manually focus to get the Nikkor 55-300 in range, something it was not able to do in Group AF. No sooner had I put it back on autofocus to take the shot it immediately went right back to the background instead. I rechecked both cameras and the K3III repeatedly located and focused on the dragonfly, perhaps failing once in several attempts, but where the D500 continued to fail. This could be down to the Nikkor 55-300 or the camera AF system itself. Too early to know.

I also see this with the Nikon! I find that these budget Nikon lenses aren't the best for wildlife, at least my 18-300mm. That's why I'm looking toward the Sigma.

The FA*300mm probably is the best performing lens that I've got currently for wildlife in terms of sharpness but it's too short and screwdrive too slow. I'm comparing Squirrels, Robins and Bluetits.

My Sigma macro blows everything out of the water when abstractly comparing the detail and sharpness of the subjects along with consistent results.


It's probably the reason why some of Nikons lenses are in the $10k-20k range in the first place. I don't know though.... I have around 1600 plane shots with the K1 and 300mm combo and all are a little soft if not out of focus. The Nikon is nailing the just taken-off planes or passing choppers to great levels consistently. Can't wait to try with the Sigma in addition. Maybe I'll start a new thread on that one too with my findings, once I buy one.


PS. Sorry for so many responses today.... this thread got me so excited today that I couldn't control myself and just really wanted to join in! it's not very often I get to talk photography or equipment with people so I guess I feel like a kid in a sandbox

[gatorguy]

The K3 III failed to focus on the first two shots, because the camera should focus on the closest element it finds, the D500 focused on foliage instead of the bird, and technically it is right. The K3 III focused on the bird at the back , and technically that's not where the K3 III should have focused.

Have you really done much wildlife photography? It would not seem so. You made a fine guess if you haven't, but you're incorrect on all counts Biz. I don't think you have an understanding of how either camera is intended to work and why one would want either of them for BiF or general wildlife over any other camera.

I was focusing on the bird's eye, but using essentially the same set of zoned focus points on both cameras, and with subject recognition on. The K3III nailed it perfectly in all three different shutter activations (the right-side image sample). The D500 insisted the foliage should really be the focal point in both shutter activations (the left-side image). The same tendency showed itself on the resting dragonfly image further down where the K3III recognized the subject while the D500 did not. You missed noting the consistency.

I will assume D-500 spot-focus would have fixed it, but I didn't specifically test that. I will. That said it's very advantageous to leave your focus point settings alone for the most part when shooting wildlife. AF-S and AF-C is all I want to worry about besides shutter and aperture. You never know when the opportunity for a great photo will arise and I wouldn't want a delay in order to modify focus points. For the most part I can leave the K3III on Zone Select small and the D500 on Group. So far it seems the D500 might require a bit more fiddling with focus zones than the K3III which would give the Pentax an advantage.

I haven't yet posted whether I'm seeing this as consistent across different lens pairings or it's simply the Pentax 55-300/K3III being a better combo than the Nikkor equivalent/D500 pair. Patience grasshopper. There's a couple lenses to go.

[biz-engineer]

Have you really done much wildlife photography? It would not seem so.

Yes many years of wildlife photography and my comment is unrelated to wildlife photography. And I am correct: in multi-point auto select mode, the camera AF should normally focus on the closest element being covered by AF points, unless there is some subject recognition being performed.

[kayasaman]

Yes many years of wildlife photography and my comment is unrelated to wildlife photography. And I am correct: in multi-point auto select mode, the camera AF should normally focus on the closest element being covered by AF points, unless there is some subject recognition being performed.

I think there's a cross-communication error here! Just saying it because it happens to me pretty much *all* the time and either I don't understand or the other person doesn't understand causing frustration on both sides.

biz~ you're referring to multi point Auto mode while gatorguy is talking about spot mode.

Multi point auto mode I think is correct that it will find the closest subject and lock on to it.

Gatorguy though is on Spot mode or near enough (I think) which should actually home in on wherever the point has been placed.

I'm sure it's just a matter of cross-wires here....

At least that's what I'm understanding from both of you.

[gatorguy]

...I am correct: in multi-point auto select mode, the camera AF should normally focus on the closest element being covered by AF points, unless there is some subject recognition being performed.

No, you were wrong, but now you're realizing why you were wrong.

You failed to consider the cameras involved and the settings used. You failed to read (or chose to ignore) that the focus points were grouped around the eyes and not the middle of the bush.

These two shots were taken with the intent to compare the two, The entire two-hour session was shot with plans to make side-by-side photo comparisons using hopefully cooperative birds and other subjects, but taking this one I had expected it to be comparing image detail and not focus. The D500 subject recognition failed in this specific case and focused on the wrong subject. Missed the shot. The K3III was successful. Nice clean and focused, did not miss the shot.
EDIT: Eye-focus? I'm thinking very possible. Thanks Rondec

Regardless, you are wrong claiming the K3III should have focused on the bush.

[Rondec]

Yes many years of wildlife photography and my comment is unrelated to wildlife photography. And I am correct: in multi-point auto select mode, the camera AF should normally focus on the closest element being covered by AF points, unless there is some subject recognition being performed.

I think the point is the K-3 III does have some eye recognition and if you are shooting zone auto focus, it works quite well.