Originally posted by normhead I wonder why people keep posting picture, claiming they prove the K-1 is better than my K-3 for small birds, and posting pictures i wouldn't post. I know they think they are doing otherwise but they are just proving my point.
My hope with the K-1 for birding rests entirely with the K-1 being able to accurately focus with my A-400 and F1.7x AF adapter, which my K-3 won't do. 300mm and a 1.4 seems to be the basic K-3 birding set up. You'd need 450 with a 1.4 to get the same reach on a K-1. The you'd have something. You'd have a lot of weight.
Anything I can do with my DA*250 with no TC's, I will be able to do with my A-400, but honestly, in birding, that isn't very much. For birds I almost never take my 60-250 out without at least the HD DA 1.4 on it. It is getting quite annoying K-1 users, saying "ignore the math, ignore the images look how much I love my K-1." Be cool if you post there, don't post an image and tell us how great it is, post an image and see if people like act. At like you've been around a while.
Listen guys, if you think you have proof you've got some images that prove how great the K-1 is for birding, there is the[URL="https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club-discuss-your-long-lenses-1453.html"]
Look at what's posted see if what you've got measures up. So far the guys posting with K-1 are shooting in crop mode for the additional frame rate, the importance of which is seriously undervalued by non-birding shooters, and personally, I'm still waiting for some image in crop mode. I know it physically possible for the K-1 to blow the K-3 images away. I'd expect an A-400 image where I nailed the focus, taken at the same range I'd use the 60-250, would produce better images. I'm just not sure that's practical. And once you get to 400 plus the 1.4 on my K-3, I know 600mm and a 1.4 on the K-1 isn't going to be as practical. it's going to be, a portable system I can walk around with, compared to a huge heavy lens with a gimble head.
Pinhilecam has posted an amazing pixel shift image that shows the strength of the K-1 in landscape and cityscapes. It has a place, I'm not sold that it's a one step solution for wildlife and landscape though.
Just want to offer some criticism, mainly because I like to play advocate...
disclaimer:
I do not own a K-1.
I do own a K-3ii and the DA*300.
I love my K-3ii and I do not think a K-1 is in my foreseeable future...
criticism:
Norm, I agree that the people ignoring the math are quite frustrating, however you have to agree the low-light performance of the K-3/K-3ii is not great... At least when comparing to the K-1. I think most people are raving about the K-1 because the AF is superb and the ISO performance is top notch. It handles well for a FF and it's overall just something to rave about...
Don't get me wrong, I love the K-3ii - It well surpasses my skills as a photographer at this point in my life. One day I see the FF K-1 being a nice rounded addition to my kit.
Don't take it personally, but I tend to dislike your style of post processing. It's all personal preference, perhaps you dislike my style of shoot and that's perfectly fine with me.
The only reason I say that thought is with the curiosity of whether the K-1 would achieve something in rendering your images that you want from the K-3 but can only get in PP.
It looks like you want more contrast and deeper highlights from your birds images. I see heavy saturation and sharpening in your images.
Perhaps the K-1 would provide this rendering by default, or closer to it at least?
All I'm saying is I wouldn't bag it until you try it.
Again, I do not own a K-1, haven't even handled one in person...
But I'd love to give it a shot, even if I lose a few degrees of FOV with my DA*300.
Cheers!
Logan
---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 08:32 AM ----------
Originally posted by Driline I'm not sure what your'e seeing but this image pales in comparison with Norms K-3 bird photo's he just posted in this thread.
Honestly, I'd like to see a raw image of both to compare.
No cropping and no post processing...
I tend to like this shot better than all of Norm's solely due to PP technique.
to each their own.