Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-19-2016, 05:29 AM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: bev
Posts: 178
QuoteOriginally posted by galelegg Quote
Thanks for reply rawr. You are spot on with the problems I was having for sometime with using ISO 200-400, underexposed photos that were very noisy, I was having to increase the exposure by 1 1/2 f stops in after processing along with using a noise reduction program, many of these photos were dreadful and not worth keeping. I read a posting on this site to use ETTR and I found that by using ISO 1600 my pictures improved considerably. I also found on sunny days with the big Sigma I was able to use F8-11 which gave me capacity to have more than one player (cricket) in focus.
With a Pentax K3 you will have increased image quality at higher ISOs compared to your K20. The K3 has good image quality up to ISO 1600 (probably similar to the K20s ISO 400) and it is decent up to 6400. The full frame may be better but it is also significantly more money. The K20 is only good up to ISO 400 and I wouldn't use it past ISO 800.

As others have alluded to, the lenses you use will depend on the format. For most of us, APS is great for sports because we don't have a long lens. I shoot surfing with the 55-300 telephoto lens; my typical settings are ISO 400-800 with F/8-11 yielding shutter speeds around 1/2000. This gear wouldn't be quite long enough on a full frame camera. I'd need your Sigma 50-500 on a full frame camera for shooting surfing to get the reach I currently have on APS.

If you use your Sigma near 500mm often, the K3 is likely better to keep the same reach.

In my opinion, APS is better than full frame for sports because the lenses I would need to shoot sports on full frame are out of my budget. On the flip side, full frame is more economical for portraits/events because of the lenses available. Compare the Pentax 28-105 vs the 17-70s for example. Cheaper and with wider aperture.

04-19-2016, 05:52 AM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,856
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Pixel shifting is for stationary subjects only. If there's any motion in the scene, the benefit is negated entirely; the K-1 just ensures that there are no artifacts by reverting to the first frame instead of forcing you to do this in post.
If you have seen how keogh gets his grain free back grounds, you'll know this isn't entirely true. He shoots the background low ISO when the bird isn't there. When the bird arrives he shoots high ISO to freeze the action. He cuts and pastes the bird onto the grain free background, and the feather detail masks the grain in the bird image.

Pixel short has the ability to do the same type of thing. Pixel shift your background and paste your action in on top of the much cleaner background. How well this can work only time will tell.
04-19-2016, 10:20 AM   #18
Pentaxian
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by jk333 Quote
With a Pentax K3 you will have increased image quality at higher ISOs compared to your K20. The K3 has good image quality up to ISO 1600 (probably similar to the K20s ISO 400) and it is decent up to 6400. The full frame may be better but it is also significantly more money. The K20 is only good up to ISO 400 and I wouldn't use it past ISO 800.

As others have alluded to, the lenses you use will depend on the format. For most of us, APS is great for sports because we don't have a long lens. I shoot surfing with the 55-300 telephoto lens; my typical settings are ISO 400-800 with F/8-11 yielding shutter speeds around 1/2000. This gear wouldn't be quite long enough on a full frame camera. I'd need your Sigma 50-500 on a full frame camera for shooting surfing to get the reach I currently have on APS.

If you use your Sigma near 500mm often, the K3 is likely better to keep the same reach.

In my opinion, APS is better than full frame for sports because the lenses I would need to shoot sports on full frame are out of my budget. On the flip side, full frame is more economical for portraits/events because of the lenses available. Compare the Pentax 28-105 vs the 17-70s for example. Cheaper and with wider aperture.
Isn't the real point here, and question, exactly about this ' reach' you refer to. Surely the reach is exactly the same at the same focal length on the two different formats ... ? The real question is whether on the FF, which would show more 'space' around the subject, would yield better IQ if just cropped down in post to the aps-c size?

It seems that in resolution terms we can safely say 'yes' if compared to a K5, and 'no' compared to a K3. The other variables talked about (AF performance, High ISO. performance and dynamic range) seem very likely to me to swing it in the K1s favour, even against a K3 .....


The other positive mentioned here about having more space around the edges to anticipate and ' track' a moving subject into the AF area sounds to me very convincing and likely to be a powerful practical advantage.
04-19-2016, 11:31 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,529
QuoteOriginally posted by galelegg Quote
Full frame v APS for sports/action photography Full frame v APS for sports/action photography. Recently I was at a cricket match in Melbourne and had an interesting conversation with a part time pro photographer who was shooting the action with me from the boundary line. I asked him what camera he was using he replied a Canon 5D Mark III. I asked him if he used an APS camera which he replied he has a recent Canon 70D but after using this camera the older Canon full frame outperformed the APS. He said while the APS brought you closer to the action, (he was using a Canon F2.8 white coloured lens 400mm, distance from photographer to action around 70 metres) the FF could be cropped much more even greater magnification than what the APS did. The Canon 70D has gone back into his wardrobe rather disappointing. My question is : Has anybody else found this situation to be the case with their photography. PS I am considering an upgrade from my Pentax 20D and Canon 400D both APS cameras. Should I buy a FF camera?
In my little practical experience of photographying sports , the choice is very easy:
For sports, high shutter speed 1/500th gives a lot of opportunities to freeze action but require high ISO (around 2000 to 3200, up to 6400) if light is not good.
Outdoor light is generally several stops better than indoors. Indoor distances are generally shorter than outdoor distances.
- for outdoor sports for the amateur/expert, APSC give more reach and with good AF tracking performance, it is the right choice.
- for indoor sport, lower light pushes the camera beyond the ISO level of acceptable noise; the one stop noise advantage of a full frame sensor is the one to have.

Best lens for the job: 100-300mm f2.8, indoor with FF DSLR and outdoor with APSC DSLR.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-19-2016 at 11:39 AM.
04-19-2016, 12:09 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,726
I can understand your source's comments on a few levels. I've been shooting sports and birds over ten years. Some of this was for work while other assignments, more for personal pleasure. These days I'm a stringer for a local paper and also get some bird shots published in regional Audubon calendars, and sell some work too.
While I started out with a K20D (and I still love the ergonomics and form factor of that body), I moved to a Canon 7D, took on a K-3 for a while, and added a Canon 5DMK3 a few years ago. I mostly use the 5DMK3 for sports and sometimes the 7D when I know I'll need reach.

I don't agree totally with his rationale--the PPD (pixels per duck) of the 70D is greater for cropping. The reason I prefer the 5DMK3 is that the AF system, especially predictive AF, is a lot better than the 7D and the 70D. That said, the newer 7D MK2 has a slightly superior AF subsystem to the 5DMK3, but I expect that to change when the 5DMK4 arrives by October. Additionally, the 5D's files are just a lot easier to work in post processing software than the 7/70D's are. The older Canon APS-C sensors can be pretty noisy above ISO 800 and you need some skill to manage that. I really don't shoot above ISO 3200 with my 7D, whereas I can get by at ISO 12,500 with the 5DMK3 for sports under the lights. Of course the wonderful 400mm f2.8 lens would allow me to not need any of those extremes. I crop a lot of my sports shots to core action bits, but there are enough pixels that remain. It's not like these shots will be output at 60-inches printed.

For your situation and the question you posed, it depends on your requirements. If shooting sports is important to you then the most important tool is to procure a system that offers top-notch predictive AF along with a fast-enough frame-rate. And that is really either Nikon or Canon. Period. The K-3 in my experience wasn't up to snuff that way, and I don't expect the K-1 to be either. A related issue is that your lens choices are so much greater with a Nikon or Canon product, especially for sports. And cheaper.

That all said, if sports is not that important, then I would wait to hear about how the K-1 does. I've hung on to a few choice K-mount lenses and enjoy shooting landscapes and artsy stuff as much as anyone. If the K-1 is super good then I may just bite, but we'll see. It's good to have choices.

Hope this helps,

M
04-19-2016, 02:48 PM   #21
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,533
If you want a true sports crop sensor body you should check out the new Nikon D500. Extra money but if you are doing sports it could be a good step up

Good luck

Randy
04-19-2016, 04:17 PM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 99
Original Poster
Thanks once again to all who responded. You have saved me about 2 months searching the web for answers like. In the end a decision to buy expensive verses cheap comes down to 4 considerations for me.
Person 1 Me, am I happy in what I am doing what am I getting from taking photographs. This I can control if I don’t like it I can always buy a fishing rod instead no one in Australia will stop me.
Person 2 My wife, she views on our 42 inch TV with me all my photographs while having a sandwich for lunch or a Baileys in the evening. Rons picture show if you like. I value her opinions greatly she’s my wife she would expect nothing less and she was an art teacher for 15 years. She does not care for all the jargon of photography (ISO, F Stop, Shutter Speed), her art background says its composition, lighting, capture of emotion, uniqueness of the end result. I have included a picture of one of my unusual photos taken with Sigma 150-500mm plus 2x teleconverter. Technically not the best but it captures emotion splendidly.
Persons 3 The Players, they can view these photos on a web site but I would say only a few would look at these pictures and if they do they will view on their mobile phones. Quality will be hardly an issue. One player suggested, just put them on Facebook. When I started taking cricket and sporting club photos this was my original objective, I was putting something back into the game that I enjoyed playing when I was younger.
Persons 4 General Public. Other than the site https://www.zonerama.com/RonsGaller/RonsGaller where they are available or forums The Cricket Season Starts thank you mohb I placed a photo as well just after your hoik over cow corner shot.
For the short term I will continue without cricket and move around the local sporting venues with what I have, just started using burst mode in the last week, which produces a lot of repetition to delete.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K20D  Photo 
04-20-2016, 11:37 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: bev
Posts: 178
If you're really using the 150-500 with a 2x converter, the Pentax K3 is a no-brainer versus the K1. Not even close.

I didn't realize that from earlier posts.

---------- Post added 04-20-2016 at 03:30 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mcgregni Quote
It seems that in resolution terms we can safely say 'yes' if compared to a K5, and 'no' compared to a K3. The other variables talked about (AF performance, High ISO. performance and dynamic range) seem very likely to me to swing it in the K1s favour, even against a K3 .....
I agree, yes on the K3 and no on the K5. I also agree that AF and high ISO performance should be better on the K1. Shouldn't they be? It's three times the price. On reach, yes, if he crops the K1, he will get the reach but at the expense of performance and at a bigger cost. As he mentions above, if he's using a 2x tele on his 150-500, he's better with the K3 and to keep the extra money in the bank, in my opinion.

QuoteOriginally posted by mcgregni Quote
The other positive mentioned here about having more space around the edges to anticipate and ' track' a moving subject into the AF area sounds to me very convincing and likely to be a powerful practical advantage.
I prefer to move in with my zoom as I compose the final shot. Even on APS, you can track with the lens zoomed out and then move in as necessary. To each his own, I also see your point.

04-21-2016, 12:31 AM   #24
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 99
Original Poster
A further consideration in choosing Pentax v Canon is that both Tamron and Sigma are not making the new 150-600mm zooms for Pentax. A service agent for Sigma said the demand for Pentax mounts in this category was too small and unprofitable. Its either Canon or Nikon mounts for these superzooms.
04-21-2016, 05:11 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,856
QuoteOriginally posted by galelegg Quote
A further consideration in choosing Pentax v Canon is that both Tamron and Sigma are not making the new 150-600mm zooms for Pentax. A service agent for Sigma said the demand for Pentax mounts in this category was too small and unprofitable. Its either Canon or Nikon mounts for these superzooms.
That's really only a consideration if you think you'd buy one of these lenses. If you prefer the Pentax 150-450, or 560, then it's a consideration for Pentax. The difference between the 500mm varieties available for Pentax and the 600 is 20%. If you need the extra reach, you can use the TC on the Pentax. There are Pentax solutions. While a few on the forum have obsessed about this lens, for others, like myself, all my broken lenses are Sigma lenses, and Sigma can't fix the de-centering on my 18-250. Plus I returned two copies of the 120-400. For people like myself they really aren't an option for big ticket purchases. As for their claim that their new lenses are better, my reaction, is first show me you can fix my 18-250. I'm already out $400, I'm not giving you any more money until that's looked after. At this point the 18-250 cost me more per year of use than any other lens I own. And yes, I sent it to Sigma for repair and they sent it back still de-centered. The lens was never dropped or banged. MY DA*60250, was dropped at least 5 times (it was still functional at the end, just a little stiff, was finally sent in for repair and came back good as new.

I'm an unforgiving kind of guy. And there's a Sigma 18-250 on my shelf to look at if I ever get a soft spot of them.

Last edited by normhead; 04-21-2016 at 03:57 PM.
04-21-2016, 03:01 PM   #26
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 99
Original Poster
In this modern day of equipment replacement after a specified period of time many manufactured products have short life spans. How long do you expect lenses to last at 90-100% efficiency? Every 2nd hand lens I have bought which is about all, have at least dust inside. Pentax HD PENTAX D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 DC AW Lens $1949 USD


Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 Lens for Canon EF Cameras $856 USD

Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD AutoFocus Zoom Lens for Canon EF Cameras$ $829 USD


Buy both Sigma and Tamron and still be in front $ and have extra 150mm focal length.




Last edited by galelegg; 04-21-2016 at 04:17 PM. Reason: Required additions
04-21-2016, 03:04 PM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Newcastle
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,551
QuoteOriginally posted by galelegg Quote
Every 2nd hand lens I have bought which is about all, have at least dust inside
Yes this is true. Cleaning on the old taks, K and M lenses are generally very easy. The A's too if you don't have to meddle with the mount.
04-21-2016, 07:30 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,726
QuoteOriginally posted by galelegg Quote
In this modern day of equipment replacement after a specified period of time many manufactured products have short life spans. How long do you expect lenses to last at 90-100% efficiency? Every 2nd hand lens I have bought which is about all, have at least dust inside. Pentax HD PENTAX D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 DC AW Lens $1949 USD


Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 Lens for Canon EF Cameras $856 USD

Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD AutoFocus Zoom Lens for Canon EF Cameras$ $829 USD


Buy both Sigma and Tamron and still be in front $ and have extra 150mm focal length.
I've owned the Tamron since it came out at $1069US and it was a bargain then. I'm almost shocked at the lower prices for both of these lenses. I have the Sigma Contemporary model scheduled to be rented in a week from today as I've heard that it is sharper at 600mm than the Tamron, as well as having more accurate AF--partially due to the USB-based dock and all the capabilities that brings. I may also rent the Sigma Sport model which is about double the cost. What is hindering me from just buying the thing is the added two pounds. I can hand hold the Tamron for a few hours straight (I prefer not to use a monopod for moving subjects), but my decades of hoisting heavy lenses is starting to degrade my joints as I enter my 60s.

It is a damn shame that none of these lenses are available in K-mount. The build qualities and especially optical differences between these newer generation superzooms and what preceded them (which are available on K-mount) is significant and obvious.

To me it seems like dumb product management to have Tamron make the set of standard zooms for the forthcoming K-1 while not contracting them to make a contemporary cheap superzoom while at the same time committing Ricoh resources to producing their own more expensive superzoom with only a 450mm long end. That's relatively short these days. Even Nikon recently released a very good, affordable 200-500mm superzoom. Rumors have it that Canon is coming out with their own superzoom that hits 600mm very soon, even though the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 Mark II is only a year old. This is the emerging market.

M
04-21-2016, 07:48 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,843
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
Rumors have it that Canon is coming out with their own superzoom that hits 600mm very soon, even though the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 Mark II is only a year old. This is the emerging market.
Seems that way. Tamron's cheap but good 150-600 has sold very, very well, forcing Sigma to follow with 2 Tamron clone lenses of it's own, then Nikon had to follow with an affordable 200-500 to compete, since their 80-400 was about 3 times the price of the Tamron. If Canon goes down that path (affordable but decent long zoom's) it will hardly be a surprise. It's a welcome trend.
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!
70d, action, af, aps, camera, canon, ff, frame, iso, k1, k3, k5, move, pentax help, performance, photography, reach, track, troubleshooting
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has aps c caught up to full frame? neostyles Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 10-19-2015 05:49 PM
Comparing the image of APS-C to Full Frame. Newtophotos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-01-2015 12:29 PM
Full frame/APS-C conversion chart for dummies jonhock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 07-03-2014 08:08 AM
APS-C v Full Frame 305? nomadkng Photographic Industry and Professionals 3 05-10-2013 11:56 AM
Auxiliary Telephoto Lens for Sports Action Photography? E-Ray Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 08-23-2010 07:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 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