[stormtech]

Interesting thoughts. Probably works for a rifle as you are sending a projectile - capturing light is a bit different though I think.

[ramseybuckeye]

I agree with Lowell that the horizontal/vertical thing most likely happens because you are "better" at holding the camera vertically. I use TAv mode quite a bit, noise from high ISO can be troublesome when you have to crop quite a bit. But I normally use a DA55-300, your Sigma f4 should be able to get that higher speed and lower ISO. But really, until you get to Yellowstone you won't know what the lighting will be. I'm sure you'll do fine, there is just tons of wildlife there in many varying habitats. Have a great time!

I was there 3 years ago in June with my K20D and DA55-300 and got some pretty good photos, at least I'm happy with them. But if I was to go again I would rent a longer lens. I just rented a Sigma 50-500 a few weeks ago and it was a very good experience.

[asp1880]

i'll vary between single and continuous focusing. More single because it's tough to "compose" in continuous, if I want the eye in focus AND the whole body, using single point focus I have to adjust framing and AF-C changes it focus point with the recomposing.

Have you considered selecting an off-center focus point with AF-C?
That works for me when shooting bicycle races. I focus on the front wheel of an oncoming racer with an off-center focus point and shoot bursts in AF-C. I keep my off-center focus point on the front wheel while panning and get my desired framing for the whole burst.

Regards,
--Anders.

[Digitalis]

I too own the Sigma 100-300mmm f/4 APO EX DG lens with a Pentax K5IIs and with my copy of the lens ( S/N 5024927) it does not display any observable increase in AF accuracy with any particular orientation of the camera. However what is problematic is that the lens itself is not parfocal - which leads to a variability of the precise point of focus throughout the zoom range. Also mine flatly refuses to AF accurately at all if is there is flare - and flare is a pretty big issue with this lens.

I use my 100-300mm f/4 with the shutter half press AF disabled - I use the AF button on the back of the camera to enable and disable AF at a touch, I find that control arrangement to be much more effective at reducing camera shake with longer lenses. Also I prefer to use AF-S rather than AF-C with this lens as it does not possess a focus limiter - which for a telephoto zoom lens with a 1:3 zoom ratio is a rather egregious lens design blooper.

As for avoiding using the High Iso settings - all I can say is: f*ck it, getting the shot is better than not even trying in the first place. ISO 3200 on the K5IIs looks better than ISO 400 colour negative films ever did. I personally find myself using TAV mode with the ISO parameters set to ISO 80-6400, shutter speed fixed at 1/250th and the aperture set f/5.6~f/8 depending on focus distance. I also recommend using flash - or a monopod.



Pentax K5IIs- Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG @ 300mm 1/500th f/8 ISO 3200 - 100% crop with noise reduction applied.


Pentax K5IIs- Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG @ 300mm 1/250th f/8 ISO400


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG 1/250th f/5.6 ISO 80

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 05-23-2013 at 04:35 AM.

[Lowell Goudge]

As for avoiding using the High Iso settings - all I can say is: f*ck it, getting the shot is better than not even trying in the first place. ISO 3200 on the K5IIs looks better than ISO 400 colour negative films ever did.

Finally reality sinks in.

I have maintained this ever since the *istD came out that high ISO on digital was better than film. The problem is, many shooters today have no idea what film was, or its limitations, all they see is imperfection in the guise of noise and expect technology will solve all problems.

[Lowell Goudge]

snip..... noise from high ISO can be troublesome when you have to crop quite a bit.

here is another little snippet of truth.

cropping way in makes noise more apparent because the "specks" are bigger. this is where many people opt for longer cheap glass or teleconverters over cropping in, just to get a bigger image..

I often wonder if people forget that unlike analog, where in theory you can zoom in infinitely because the data is continuous, digital has a finite maximum resolution. you can only crop in so far, before the resolution limits all else.

[tclausen]

here is another little snippet of truth.

cropping way in makes noise more apparent because the "specks" are bigger. this is where many people opt for longer cheap glass or teleconverters over cropping in, just to get a bigger image..

I often wonder if people forget that unlike analog, where in theory you can zoom in infinitely because the data is continuous, digital has a finite maximum resolution. you can only crop in so far, before the resolution limits all else.

Well, film certainly also has a "finite maximum resolution" and doesn't allow (in theory and in the real world, both) to zoom in infinitely.

Back in the film days, making large enlargements from a 36 DIN film certainly showed grains and a very much finite resolution (& very much finite dynamic range, also).

Granted, the discretization of signal was very much different in the film-days, but neither resolution nor dynamic range of film can be said (theoretically or in practice) to be infinite...

[halfspin]

It depends on what you individually consider acceptable. Also whether or not you're going for acceptable or exceptional. Cranking up the ISO is fine if you're not fond of using a tripod correctly (read all the time).

[Digitalis]

neither resolution nor dynamic range of film can be said (theoretically or in practice) to be infinite

though one thing we can agree upon is that it was infinitely temperamental, even on a good day even Ansel Adams had to resort to intensifying sections of his negatives to fit the zone system, larger 8X10 and 4X5 negatives make that process much easier.

[tclausen]

though one thing we can agree upon is that it was infinitely temperamental, even on a good day even Ansel Adams had to resort to intensifying sections of his negatives to fit the zone system, larger 8X10 and 4X5 negatives make that process much easier.

I agree, negatives had a certain "charm" to the post-processing...

[Lowell Goudge]

Well, film certainly also has a "finite maximum resolution" and doesn't allow (in theory and in the real world, both) to zoom in infinitely.

I was not referring specifically to film with the analog analogy here. People i think, tend to believe some how that they can continually enlarge the image and still get a clear sharp image. After all, they show this all the time on TV and in the movies don;'t they. The CIA and NSA capabilities have been shown this way for at least 30 years now, so it must be true

Back in the film days, making large enlargements from a 36 DIN film certainly showed grains and a very much finite resolution (& very much finite dynamic range, also).

Granted, the discretization of signal was very much different in the film-days, but neither resolution nor dynamic range of film can be said (theoretically or in practice) to be infinite...

agreed, my impression with film, especially when looking for grain at high ISO, was that edges seemed to go through the grain where in digital, the noise is on both sides, causing loss of definition of the edge, I am not sure my explanation is really correct on this, it is an impression more than anything else.

[Lowell Goudge]

It depends on what you individually consider acceptable. Also whether or not you're going for acceptable or exceptional. Cranking up the ISO is fine if you're not fond of using a tripod correctly (read all the time).

when using a tripod, note that you still need shutter speed because you simply cannot force many subjects to remain still. while large birds like herons, hawks and a few others, when perched, or standing can be very very still, smaller birds just do not cooperate and remain still, as a result, you need a high shutter speed just to get a sharp image because they move.

Tripods and IS are fine for removing observer based movements, but do nothing for subject movement, the only solution for subject movement is shutter speed or strobe lighting (i.e. flash)

[nomadkng]

Digatalis,

I have a specific question for you then-

Based on your moniker as a Pentaxian, it is my understanding that is reserved for the elite, that designates you as a Professional Photographer who makes a living through his work, correct?
With that being the case, would you market that image of the blue bird used as an example of iso 3200?

Here's why I ask, I am not a professional photographer, but I have and do market my images through a couple on-line sites.
I have sold around 20 or so photos in the 7 years I've been doing this, so I consider myself semi-pro or advanced amateur, or whatever term someone wants to apply.
Therefore, every image I post for sale goes through my, "Would I buy this and hang it on my wall?" test.

Now the caveat, my definition of a "good & saleable" image has definitely been defined by the many many critiques I've received over the years, particularly early on when I was a member of a couple websites that invited member comments.

Yes, yes, I know, half the people who claim to "know" photography, don't really know diddly, and as I garnered more positive than negative reviews, I learned to weed out a lot of the bulls**t. Plus half the time you can look at someone's work and dismiss them as a fraud, straightaway.

So my long winded second question is, have I been corrupted by pixel-peepers into over critiquing my work? I have dozens of images similar to that bird image in regard to distance obscuring the finite details or having used higher iso because of lighting conditions. These images, at best, sit on my hard drive as "fond memories but unusable", but at least half have long ago been "recycled" as trash.

I apologize if this comes across wrong, but ultimately my goal is to sell images. I know I'll never be able to quit my day job, but I endeavor to challenge myself and compare myself to some of the better photographers out there, because afterall isn't being a better photographer what this is all about?

So am I being too harsh on myself and my images? I know we are our own worst critics, but have I internalized some poor thought processes and made things even worse on myself?

[nomadkng]

Finally reality sinks in.

I have maintained this ever since the *istD came out that high ISO on digital was better than film. The problem is, many shooters today have no idea what film was, or its limitations, all they see is imperfection in the guise of noise and expect technology will solve all problems.

Lowell,

Refer to my post to Digitalis as well, but I want to add, for me it's not about knowing what film was. I started shooting 35mm slide and negatives in 1979, so I grew up on a K1000 which is what ultimately led me to choose Pentax as my DSLR system. It was when I started to market my work in 2005 when I went digital, that all this input flooded my mind with thoughts of "no noise is good noise" etc etc. Perhaps it's totally faulty programming as a result of faulty critiques, but when a person (me) has wide-eyed ambitions of turning a hobby he loves into a possible career, one tries to absorb everything and learn everything in hopes that he figures out the magic formula and he can call himself a professional photographer.

Maybe I have it all wrong, but what I do know is I haven't sold as many photos as I would have liked, so I'm not "there" yet. On the other hand, I have sold enough and received enough positive feedback to know I'm on the right track.

So where does reality really kick in in terms of image critique for one's own pictures? How does one separate the faulty well intentioned advice from the ill-spirited advice from the seasoned pro mentorship that most of us desperately crave?

It's not like I live next door to David Muench or Jack Dykinga and I can just follow them everywhere holding their tripod and mind melding as they do their thing. This forum and some other websites are about as close to an "apprenticeship" as most of us will ever get.

[Lowell Goudge]

Nomadkng

You indicate you have sold some images. Are you selling actual prints, or the electronic images. The reason I ask is that nois is much more obvious when viewing electronic files than when printed.

As for being pentaxians, this is not a question of being a pro or not, only a function of how much you post and forum feedback.

I am a pentaxian but not a pro. I would consider myself a serious armature, nothing more. I print some of my wild life shots, display some, but mostly I shoot for me. That does not make me more demanding or less demanding, but I can appreciate the limits of technology.

I also can comment that many shots I see are over sharpened, over saturated, over noise reduced etc. it if that is what sells, i am ok with it. I also note that when you really look at magazine shots, the print resolution is such that you can actually get away with a lot that you would reject when viewing on a monitor.

To me, what is more important than the purist view of absolutely clear sharp shots, with perfect specimens, and zero noise, is what the bird (since we started this thread by discussing wildlife) is doing. Those are the shots that sell, if I have to up the ISO to capture this, I will gladly do it every time.

As for advice, as far as I am concerned, when you consider anything in this forum, or any other criticism, there is one thing which you need to remember. In many cases there is always more than one approach, each one has its own merits and flaws. Each approach also has its proponents and opponents. You can see that even in this thread.

Therefore do not forget, there is no right or wrong, just different. Each persons own background and experience shapes their opinion. It is up to you to think about what each person offers as advise, consider the impacts, and file the advise away for future reference and use.

The advise that I believe should be most ignored, is where someone comes out and says you should always do this, but offers no explanation. Offering rules without explaining the limits is completely useless, therefore I tend to judge the value of such advise the same way.